The Dissident Frogman's Epistle to the Libertarians, and Political Culture

[jordan179]

The Dissident Frogman has broken a long silence to comment on the results of our election, and this article, "The Frogman's Prophecies," should be read in full.  Because of the strong logic and utter beauty of its last few paragraphs, and its relevance to many I know who want to be purist libertarians (or even anarcho-capitalists) I think the

Comments

[x_eleven]

I've said as much myself. Yes, I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and this year. I voted for Sarah Palin and her running mate last time, and for Romney/Ryan this time. I didn't expect much from Romney, and held my nose to cast that vote.

That's what I said: Romney would have some incentive to move our way to one extent or another, whereas the Big O would have none. I told these Fundievangelicals™ so what if Romney is involved with a goofy, "un-Xian cult" -- that's between him and God. What would he do to bring on the Mormon theocracy? Make us all marry more than one wife? Of those people involved in flying airliners into skyscrapers, not a one was a Mormon. Even if worst came to worst, and Romney really did prove to be just like the O-ster, how would we be any worse off? Obama is identical to Obama, and that's a certainty. Romney's being just like Obama was not

[marycatelli]

For that matter, is Obama involved in a goofy, "un-Xian cult"? Such evidence as we get out of Wright's church was-- not promising.

[jordan179]

Both Black Liberation Theology and Mormonism are to varying degrees Christian heresies. The former holds that blacks, owing to their historic persecution, are inherently holier than whites; the latter -- well it's basically Joseph Smith's Biblical fanfic, as if I were to base a religion on Paradise Lost and (for example) deem cannon diabolical because Satan's Legions first invented them.

I think we should be more concerned with what Obama is doing than the religion of his challengers -- unless said religion is clearly anti-American (as in the case of the Muslim fundamentalists).

[marycatelli]

That's one stripe of black liberation theology. I have read with my own eyes a black liberation theologian declaring that "we" reject any God who is not behind their demands.

Talk about tail wagging the dog.

But -- what stripe is Wright's church?

If we had a press and not a Democrat PR machine, we might know.

[prester_scott]

Well said, although it's questionable whether there is still a realistic chance to turn things around.

[jordan179]

There most definitely still is a realistic chance to turn things around. Obama can't do much if he faces active Congressional opposition, especially if the Republicans can gain a majority in both houses after 2014. And Obama can't run at all in 2016 -- so it will be challenger vs. challenger that year.

It's really important to turn things around in 2014 and 2016, though. If we lose in 2016, then there might be a Democrat in the White House through 2024, owing to the advantages of incumbency in the election of 2020. Given four full terms of socialism in power, Obama's "hope and change" might be as irreversible as was the New Deal by 1948.

The biggest advantages we have now are unpleasant ones. The diplomatic and economic situations are both about to crash, probably in Obama's second term -- we have to be prepared to exploit this if we want to win in 2016. And we must not be shy of attacking Obama.

[belvarius]

Obama not being able to run for a third term (thank goodness for the 22nd amendment) is about the best thing that can be said about him winning his second term.

You are absolutely right though that republicans now need to do everything they can to make sure that Obama and the dems OWN every single thing bad that happens during his second term. Simultaneously they also need to clearly communicate to the american people that "we have solutions, good ones, but there's not much we can do to implement them when we only control the house."

[jordan179]

The worst thing we can do is to abandon hope. The next worst thing we can do is assume that our victory is so assured that we waste so much energy bickering about the exact shape of that victory that we destroy our own coalition.

[redxcrosse]

Libertarians who opted to let Obama squat in the Oval Office unopposed

Wait, so why is this my fault (yes, I voted for Gary Johnson, and I'll fucking well do it again, every time) and not the Republicans' fault for, you know, not running Gary Johnson?

[jordan179]

Because the Republicans were the only party with any realistic chance of defeating Obama in 2012, and there was no way that they were going to run an outright Libertarian in 2012. For that matter, an outright Libertarian would have lost -- the electorate does not generally support hard-Libertarian principles.

Keep on voting Libertarian, and if a lot of other libetarian-Republicans vote with you, we'll sink right into democratic socialism, followed after a time by some sort of fascist reaction. And by that time, the fascist reaction will be the better of the two alternatives, as the other one will be total national collapse.

If the Democrats win the elections of 2014 and 2016, I give it about 10-25 more years after 2016 (2026-2041) before we get the first President who makes himself President-for-Life and backs it up with troops. And you know what? By then, nobody will even remember or care how the system used to work, because the political culture will have changed. They'll view their options not as "democracy vs. dictatorship

[jordan179]

Oh, and by the way, this isn't just the fault of the Libertarian Republicans, who jumped ship in 2008 and 2012 to strike moral poses in defiance of the consequences. This is also the fault of the Religious Republicans, who refused to let the gays on board the ship in order to strike their own moral poses in defiance of the consequences.

If both these factions don't wake up, soon you're going to be living in an America which is long-term democratic-socialist (until the next Generational Crisis), in which the State will intrude both on economic-lifestyle and on religious freedoms. And your only way out will be to back whichever Man on Horseback (or, by then, Man in an Airjeep) who you think is likliest to allow at least some of the liberties you value.

And it will be "allow," by then (probably around 2030-2040), because after decades of democratic socialism, the Constitution will be worth about as much as the same quantity of toilet paper. The Republic will be broken, and you'll be able to beg the new Commander for whichever

[redxcrosse]

soon you're going to be living in an America which is long-term democratic-socialist (until the next Generational Crisis), in which the State will intrude both on economic-lifestyle and on religious freedoms. And your only way out will be to back whichever Man on Horseback (or, by then, Man in an Airjeep) who you think is likliest to allow at least some of the liberties you value.

the Constitution will be worth about as much as the same quantity of toilet paper. The Republic will be broken

I agree with this, actually, only it's my assessment of the current situation. And, accordingly, I do vote for those most likely to maximize the freedoms I value. I don't think there is a substantial difference between Obama and Bush's foreign policies, and certainly no difference between their economic policies. It comes down to social policies, and I'm not going to go with the social conservatives, who appear to be utterly detached from the rest of reality. I also will not directly vote for anybody who opposed the DADT repeal or who would

[pasquin]

I wonder whether libertarianism will ever gain an electoral majority or whether freedom will only be found in the stymied battle between GOP big governmentism and Dem big governmentism.

In other words, are we to be the proto-mammals living between the mighty legs of dinosaurs? Hoping to not get squashed.

Limitations of Liberty in the Early Republic

[jordan179]

Libertarianism in the modern sense never had an electoral majority. The regime of the Early Republic (before the Civil War) simply oppressed differently than ours does today. Most obviously, the extreme liberty enjoyed by people in early 19th-century America was enjoyed only by adult white males, with "adult" meaning "21 and over" (in a population averaging much younger than today due to more primitive medicine) and "white" often meaning "Protestant Northern European" (with Catholic Irish, Spanish, and Italians in particular facing severe de facto discrimination).

Additionally, though the laws were better-chosen than ours (you were theoretically much freer), law enforcement in the Early Republic was very spotty. This had the most obvious effect of increasing the power of the competently-violent over those less violent or less competent at it (consider the social role of duelling in early 19th-century America, or in the South all the way through the Civil War, or of rough-and-tumble fighting and eventually gun-fighting in the Old

[princejvstin]

Hmm.

I do think that this is the fear that drives many to oppose Obamacare. Once people have it, they will come to expect it and will be upset when it is taken away. Had Romney won...

Even so, various states are dragging their feet on implementation, although I think for much less on principles such as you espouse, and more simple political opposition and hatred.

[jordan179]

I do think that this is the fear that drives many to oppose Obamacare. Once people have it, they will come to expect it and will be upset when it is taken away.

Note that as written, Obamacare is very likely to sink all low-cost forms of private health insurance, creating a situation in which everyone below the upper middle-class will wind up depending on it. This will make Obamacare tricky to abolish: its abolition will then have to be done in stages, to avoid a situation in which people are literally dying because Obamacare's been abolished and the private system which formerly provided such care has not yet revived. "Have to be done in stages" means that it will require more than one Presidential Administration to accomplish.

Obama's an idiot when it comes to economic and foreign policy, but he does socialist subversion very well. That is, in fact, the skill one would expect of a "community organizer."

Mmm-mmm-mmm.