The Anti-War Right

theCL 2010-01-06 Foreign Policy, Radical Islam

This post is a response to Anti-War Right: Conservative or Libertarian?

Who is the Old Right?

Anti-war is not conservative heritage, it is a purely libertarian approach. The early 20th century Libertarian thinker and social critic, Albert Jay Nock, epitomizes this point ... However, Nock differs from conservatives on at least two points; the first is Nock was a self-proclaimed “philosophical anarchist” or celebrated as a “radical individualist” who believed that American republicanism as obviously superior but “not the ideal system.”

Old Right conservatism should never be confused with European conservatism, because the Old Right was steeped in the classical liberal tradition of America's founding. The Old Right was composed of a group of intellectuals, writers, journalists, and populist constituents who boldly opposed the New Deal and U.S. involvement in WWII.

In those days too, anarchy was properly understood and welcomed by those on the right, making Nock one of the most important thinkers in conservative philosophy.

If we were to pick a “leader” of the Old Right, it would have to be “Mr. Republican” Robert A. Taft. It is well documented that the Republican Party fought hard against “Mr. Republican,” but to the people, Taft remained the titular leader of the party.

Taft was a fierce opponent to U.S. involvement in WWII. He thought America should focus on its domestic problems instead of getting tangled in a foreign war. With our strong military and borders along two great oceans, the reality is that it would have been impossible for the Nazi's to invade and occupy the United States.

After Pearl Harbor however, Taft supported the declaration of war on Japan, but remained suspicious of military alliances with other nations.

Nockian thought prescribes to the tenet that war, as a tool of foreign policy, serves no other purpose than to expand the powers and totalitarianism of the State ...

His opposition to World War II was the most puzzling to me. While he gripes about the evils being committed by States against innocents, whether they are communist, fascist, of democratic, he offers nothing except a blind eye towards these injustices. Nock also never speaks about what a people are supposed to do when these injustices are directed at them while they have the capacity to defend themselves.

That's easy to answer. The Nazi's hadn't directed their injustices towards Americans. It was Europe they were trying to conquer. Now I know the old saying that “we've got to help our friends,” but what gives Europeans the inalienable right to American taxpayer dollars and American blood?

And without question, Nock was right when he said war "expand[s] the powers and totalitarianism of the State." Congress didn't even bother declaring war on Iraq. It was done in dictatorial fashion by the president. Let's remember too, that our current war efforts are based on Wilson's progressive policy. It was progressives who gave birth to the idea of "policing the world" and "spreading democracy."

There's nothing "conservative" about policing the world, and for jiminee crickets ... The United States is NOT a democracy, so why would we want to spread it?

I'd say the New World Order has a lot to do with it (a topic no longer belonging to the black-helicopter crowd).

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that FDR lied to get us into WWII. We know he had advanced intelligence about the pending attack on Pearl Harbor. The responsibility for that horrific attack falls squarely on the shoulders of the progressive president FDR. If you have to lie to go to war, it's a unjust war.

What if we are dealing with an ideology which is bent on conquest, as were the Soviets, or an ideology which abhors capitalism, like radical Islam, which isn’t even a nation but a non-tangible movement.

We never went to war against China. We opened up trade with them instead. Today, China is considerably more free than they were under Mao's tyrannical regime. Same with the Soviets, who were unquestionably the most capable adversary the United States has ever witnessed. But since communism is an economic impossibility, the U.S.S.R. no longer exists.

Radical Islam is a danger to us all, there is no doubt about that. But how can a military fight a “non-tangible” enemy? We've been at it for 8 years, twice as long as it took to defeat the fascists in WWII. How are we doing?

Maybe it's because I've spent my entire professional career in finance, but it's hard for me to believe we can defeat radical Islam by going broke. It's estimated that our current wars have cost American taxpayers over $5 trillion. That's not chump change either. But then again, maybe I'm the only American left who believes we're abusively taxed.

Americans fork over 5-times to the god-State, than they do to God Himself! In my book, that's blasphemy!

Osama bin Laden stated clearly that he wants to bankrupt the United States. Based on this alone, he's winning by a landslide! No magic exists that can take the United States off the path to financial ruin. The only way to stop it is to quit spending money, and guess what? That ain't gonna happen until the 2 monopoly parties are overthrown. Which means the American people will have to wake-up out of their slumber and stop believing in the “safety” of the god-State.

I won't hold my breath.

For better or worse, mostly worse, we exist in a world of globalization. Even if we were to remove the concept from our lexicon and suddenly choose to no longer participate, the fact is it is still there in the form of telecommunications, the internet, modes of transportation, etc. There is no true escape or evasion. If we were to withdraw to our shores is in all facets except economic what do you think would be the outcome?

Globalization is a word with different meanings to different people. But for purposes of this post, let's assume it's things like “telecommunications, the Internet, modes of transportation, etc.” Personally, I use all of those things on a regular basis. Thanks to the Internet, I've talked with people all over the globe. Funny thing is though, I never had to pull out a gun or threaten anyone to do so.

If “we were to withdraw to our shores in all facets except economic,” we'd be an incredibly wealthier country today. War destroys capital. If you believe otherwise, please read the Broken Window. And the idea that somehow the United States would have been overthrown is ludicrous. Think about it, the most powerful and advanced military in the world can't even keep Iraq under control. Does anyone really believe the United States could be invaded and lose?

Radical Islam

Radical Islam isn't going to invade in a military fashion anyway, they're already doing a great job invading our culture. If we're going to take the threat of radical Islam seriously, we're going to have to accept what they are – a religion, not a State.

We've blown the other side of the planet to smithereens, yet there's more Sharia in America than ever before. So I ask, “what has the war accomplished?”

American taxpayers have been squeezed dry building a socialist nation in Iraq, but for what? Has it put more food on the American family table? Is our society more abundant thanks to war? As an American citizen, are you more free?

The answers of course are no, no, and NO. Yet Americans keep putting their faith in the god-State to “save” them (even though it's individuals who have come to the rescue each time).

The real difference between the Old Right and today's conservatism boils down to one thing - faith in the State. Personally, I cannot find a reason to have faith in the State. In fact, quite the opposite. History proves all governments are evil. Yes, including our own. And far from "saving" us from anything, the god-State has instead slaughtered thousands of my American brothers and sisters over the last 8 years.