Opinion
Realignment coming with Young Americans for Liberty
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Eric Schmidt:
- 'Hook-up generation' immoral; AXE not helping (October 13, 2009)
- Love 'em or hate 'em, SLAC spot-on about UW apparel (October 6, 2009)
- Alcoholics at UW need support, AA (September 30, 2009)
- Realignment coming with Young Americans for Liberty (September 23, 2009)
- Football commitment to carbon neutrality laudable (September 16, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The great fallacy of the 1960s asserts that young people emerged from that decade with one singular, sustainable, collective voice — a leftist voice, espousing the doctrine of “make love, not war.” As many historians have pointed out, notably Rick Perlstein in the breathtaking “Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus,” a lot was happening on the Right during the ’60s as well. And while the hippies congregated from coast to coast, doing their own thing, William F. Buckley was founding National Review magazine, Barry Goldwater became the patron saint of young counterrevolutionaries everywhere, and the Republican Party was evolving into what would eventually become the party of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Most importantly for campusgoers, chapters of Young Americans for Freedom — an anticommunist, pro-Goldwater organization — emerged across the country.
Apologies to the flower children who came and went, but most post-1960s ideological change within the Democratic Party was entirely due to intra-party reform that democratized delegate selection, accompanied by the institutionalization of direct primaries as more democratic ways of nominating candidates. (The University of Wisconsin’s own professor Byron Shafer has written the definitive account of these reformist efforts, dubbing them a “quiet revolution.”) The Republicans are a different matter entirely. It was the Right, not the Left, whose evolving extremism was successfully spearheaded by the collective voices of individual activists across the country. Barry Goldwater could not have been nominated without YAF, or its adult contemporary, the John Birch Society. Forget Woodstock and anti-Vietnam protests. If you want the best example of an effective, no-nonsense political uprising, look no further than the up-and-coming business-suit-wearing political novices of 1964, manning YAF tables at their local universities, copies of Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative” tucked under their arms no less fervently than Mao’s red book.
I’m no conservative (though one antagonist on the Madison blogosphere insists I am an “anti-leftist leftist,” whatever that means). But having studied the real history of the 1960s, I had to smile several days ago when I saw a booth on Library Mall advertising a UW chapter of Young Americans for Liberty. Those manning the booth were obviously having fun, asking passersby, “Do you like money?” among other facetious challenges. The lead figure was wearing a beige tweed jacket straight out of 1964. And people were indeed stopping at this booth, most as antagonists, but some perhaps turned on by the message of fiscal conservatism to counteract what can only be described — even by honest proponents like myself — as the socialization of the American banking and health care systems. Political scientists are notorious for always being on the lookout for partisan realignments, for, in Yeats’ words, “rough beasts, their hour come round at last.” As I watched these young gentlemen, whose extremism would make even the College Republicans blush, I asked myself if I was perhaps seeing the first wisps of a sea change. And I believe I am.
A little research reveals Young Americans for Liberty is an offshoot of Students for Ron Paul, the Texas congressman whose anti-war Republican presidential candidacy annoyed mainstream Republicans while enrapturing — in equal numbers — far-right Pat Buchanan-style conservatives and far-left anti-war activists looking for an original voice. YAL’s creed, according to its blog, reads: “As Americans we recognize the God-given natural rights of life, liberty and property set forth by our Founding Fathers. Our country was created to protect the freedoms of the individual and directed by we the people.” A YouTube video for YAL explains democracy was never the intention of the Constitutional Convention, which recognized the injustice of pure majority rule.
Over the past 40 years, the trend among young political activists has been the same: The young Left has fought the older generations of the Right (perhaps because it’s simply more fun), with no thought to their emerging antagonists, focusing attention instead on people whose influence and power will naturally wax and wane (i.e., they’ll die soon.) The young Right, oppositely — since the days of Goldwater onward — has insisted on confronting the young Left in a no-holds-barred battle for future generations of influence. This strategic difference goes far toward explaining the inevitability of the Reagan Revolution and, to a lesser extent, the success of George W. Bush.
Young Americans for Liberty is, as of now, a fledging organization (though I counted 168 campus chapters nationwide on their website). But it has my vote for the right-wing student organization likeliest to effect genuine realignment within the Republican Party as we enter the era of bank takeovers and public option health care reform. Now economic issues, not foreign policy matters, have taken center stage in American politics. Many conservative young people, who will be responsible for whatever realignment takes place, seem utterly uninterested in obsessing about terrorism and foreign policy matters; the Ron Paul line works just fine for them. Ron Paul is, at least from my calculations, a rambling reactionary. But there is a modest chance he — and not Mssrs. Obama and McCain — will emerge as the transcendent figure from the 2008 presidential race.
How does this matter to UW, you ask? Well, take a look around. We are a liberal paradise. I spoke with one professor who confessed to me that in a seminar of 15 students, the lone McCain voter in 2008 felt legitimately ostracized and humiliated. Hell, as a Nader voter I even felt humiliated by some of my Kool-Aid-drinking brethren. The mythology of UW sometimes obscures what’s happening beneath the surface. But if you’re looking for realignments, look at the periphery. Look at the folks who aren’t chalking, but who know people who know people and know how to talk about their ideology in a new and attractive way. Look at the Young Americans for Liberty, reflect on how a very similarly named group practically took over the Republican Party in 1964 (albeit under very different ideological pretenses), reflect on how even at your liberal paradise of a university, a right-wing partisan realignment seems to be underway. (Even the new UW College Republicans leaders are insisting that fiscal positions are the central point of their outreach for 2009-10.) And then reflect on the paradox of all American activism: when it comes to making headway within their own partisan structures, the Right gets things done while the Left simply marches. Message to all groups right, left, and center: Expect this trend to continue for the foreseeable future and modify your strategies accordingly. If you have them, that is.
Eric Schmidt (eschmidt@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science.
44 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
IP hash: cb4fceaf
Thanks, Eric, for telling it like it really is. Honestly, I’ve never looked to Republicans for effective leadership and ideas. They have Nixon to blame for that. Recently, I have sworn off voting for Democrats as well. I’m now a proud Libertarian. It only goes to show just how disenchanted Americans are becoming with mainstream politics. But it’s change that was bound to happen. I’m pretty confident that in the next few years, the social-political paradigm we and our parents and grandparents grew up with will quietly disappear and give way to a more equitable and fairer scheme in which politicians will no longer be able to lie, cheat and steal from the American people. Capitalism will still exist, but the CEOs and execs who padded their offshore bank accounts with outrageous bonuses will have to get by on their base salaries. They will still live more comfortably than most of us.
Population growth will be managed through immigration quotas. The US will bring all its military installations and personnel back within its own borders. Sound environmental policy will be in place and enforced diligently. Alternative energy sources will finally replace fossil fuels altogether. And so on.
How will all this come about? Simple. Americans will finally take back their country and push back against the greedy corporate swine and the left-wing extremists who have tried and failed for decades to force socialist ideology down their throats. It’s coming. It’s happening. The Republican Party played its last hand with Bush. The Democratic Party is now playing its last hand with Obama. We’re living in the 21st century now. It’s time to move forward.
IP hash: c5c908b2
Great piece, Eric. In my opinion, your finest work that I have read.
Excellent comment, also, 3:42am.
IP hash: 6e424d20
Nice article, buddy. I particularly enjoyed a few quotes, one with which I agree, and another with which I disagree.
“Hell, as a Nader voter I even felt humiliated by some of my Kool-Aid-drinking brethren.” I feel the same way as you. It’s a crying shame hwo many people drank that “Change”-flavored Kool-Aid. A lot of good it’s gotten them, huh?
“Ron Paul is, at least from my calculations, a rambling reactionary.” I’m going to have to totally disagree with that one. Ron Paul takes the lead on many issues and because he is his own man, is usually ostracized, both by the media, and by his own party. One of the smartest, most thoughtful members of the House, Paul gets a bad rap. We need more members like him, who are beyond partisan politicking.
IP hash: 870fe2fb
Let me mention a few things. First, I’ll start by saying I am a Republican and a graduate of the UW. Second, this was a really good article and probably one of the best that I have ever read in the Herald (yes, UW grads still read the Herald). Third, while you do mention how the Campus CR’s have moved to more fiscal issues the reason behind it, which corroborate your article, is because the people behind the CR coupe (bringing down the old CR regime) were more aligned with the YAL ideology and more partial to Ron Paul. Heck, I’m sure if you interviewed the current CR president you would have almost night and day contrast to the old CR president. Fourth, I like how you mentioned Rick Perlstein’s book on Barry Goldwater. I picked it up a few weeks ago and have read a few pages so far, but to end, I want to quote a passage from it that brought a smile to my face. Speaking about the formation of Young Americans for Freedom, he writes, “YAF soon reported 24,000 members at 115 schools. ‘You walk around with your Goldwater button on and you feel the thrill of treason,’ a University of Wisconsin student told Time. Madison was one of the few places in American besides Berkely where one could actually find living, breathing Marxist…Capital Times, the left-leaning sheet Bill Buckley labeled Prairie Pravda.” That was 1961 and not much has changed. Again, good article.
IP hash: cd8454b8
Your affinity for grand generalization is tiring. One of many examples in this piece:
“when it comes to making headway within their own partisan structures, the Right gets things done while the Left simply marches.”
Who is marching now, and who is about to get things done?
“And people were indeed stopping at this booth, most as antagonists, but some perhaps turned on by the message of fiscal conservatism to counteract what can only be described — even by honest proponents like myself — as the socialization of the American banking and health care systems.”
Keynesian economics is now considered socialism?
IP hash: ef8e8b7e
“Keynesian economics is now considered socialism?”
Yes. Always has been.
IP hash: 3d3c3458
Keynes was a socialist. One of the key planks in the communist manifesto is a central bank. Keynes and socialists in general believe in central economic planning. This is nothing new…
All I have to say is End the Fed!
IP hash: 34f51f46
I think it’s ironic when people who hate government want to be elected to the government. How can we expect an elected saboteur to produce anything functional? There are a lot of right wingers with Federalist ideas right now, but the United States functions better as one unit rather than 50 sub-units. I get the state’s rights argument, but Alabama and Mississippi would be economically equal to Honduras without the charity of New York and California. It just seems that there’s not a lot of productive thought on the Right these days.
IP hash: 870fe2fb
To 12:23 pm:
Keynesian economics has always been socialism.
IP hash: 6c806803
Yes, let’s list all the things that are socialism that you’re taking advantage of:
Yeah, socialism is evil. You really ought to cut all socialist things out of your life.
IP hash: fd1b35e3
@4:45
Yes, because without those necessary things being provided by government, they would not exist.
P can be provided by Q.
We need PTherefore, we need Q
See any problem there?
IP hash: c388e7e0
Your assuming that most people inclined to join YAL support these sorts of things. I can assure you they do not.
And as to cutting them out of my life, I will be happy to do so as soon as you stop taking my tax dollars to fund them and stop giving the police authority over my private property. You can’t really ever “stop” using the police. They will come “protect” you whether you want them to or not.
IP hash: 00953fc4
You assume too much socialism…All these avenues are driven by Capitalism & NEED they had nothing to do with socialism untill socialism took them over..They were origianlly created for Capitalists’ infrastructure to get a common goal accomplished.. Every INDIVIDUAL has access to all these where socialists limit the use to their terms…That is what is unique about Capitalism ..It is there for the taking & use of..It is not limited to/or by gov’t authority or regulation.
IP hash: 034a94cc
The vast majority of the “socialist” examples you mentioned, 4:45, take place on the state or local level, which is entirely appropriate Constitutionally. The rest are sanctioned directly by the Constitution. Look at Massachusetts. They have a state-run health care system, and that’s their right as a state. State’s rights are different than expressed powers of the national government.
Now, nationalizing GM, or giving taxpayer money to insurance giants to keep their failing businesses in operation, or nationalizing healthcare - that takes place at the federal level, and as such, is unconstitutional as it steps outside of the boundaries of federal power handed down by the Constitution.
IP hash: fd1b35e3
@5:57
I see. So if a coercive government is done on a smaller level, then it’s completely different and completely legitimizing.
When government services are provided by the national government, they are evil, inefficient, and corrupt. Yet when done on a smaller scale, those problems magically disappear.
The Constitution is piece of paper. Would you be defending it if it sanctioned slavery? Since the constitution says (insert your interpretation here), that is how things should be.
Oh naturalistic fallacy, I thought I had seen the last of you in high school.
IP hash: 68fea900
Who said anything about a ‘smaller coercive government?’
Ron Paul stands for smaller federal government, which would increase the power of the people. He wants to get rid of the IRS, end the Fed, end the war on drugs and terrorism, bring our troops home, and give people back their privacy and allow people to be responsible for themselves again.
How is keeping the fruits of your labor, making healthcare and other personal decisions for your family, and enjoying your freedoms and liberties with privacy, in any way ‘coercive?’ Unless you want that type of cradle-to-grave, big brother involvement in your life…?
IP hash: 85ae2de9
Although not ideal, the “nationalization” of GM was an emergency. If we let GM fail, the auto industry would affect Ford, parts suppliers, and an entire region of the United States.
I’m glad that GM was bailed out, jobs were saved, and that the American auto industry has one more shot at becoming globally competitive. It’s tax payer money, you argue. So what? What’s our money really worth… it’s worth whatever China pays for it, and they’re still buying.
If something is “unconstitutional,” we have a Supreme Court to weigh in on that. It’s not for some gun-nut, or some radio talk show host to decide. Thank goodness for social order.
IP hash: 71a98a8c
Last I checked, China wasn’t still buying our debt, and GM, far from using our money to save jobs, was using it to send jobs to China and Mexico.
IP hash: fd1b35e3
(sigh)
Even though my fellow YAL members love this piece (the ends always justify the means when it comes to getting publicity), I’m quite disappointed. It’s obvious that the author is a political science major because of his linear view of political philosophies (Left vs. Right).
To call YAL a right-leaning organization either stems from dishonesty or uninformed.
Our group wants:
-End all military occupation over the globe, including the mideast -Legalize drugs -Legalize prostitution -End the Federal Reserve -Legalize gay marriage -Get rid of the PATRIOT ACT -End corporate welfare (something the Republicans started with Lincoln) -Get rid of social security -End the act of registering for a draft -End The Department of Homeland Security -End The Department of Education -End all forms of welfare -Abolish the income tax -Abolish property taxes -Abolish the capital gains tax
In addition, the group is split on following issues, but many in YAL want:
-Full legalization of all abortion -Completely open borders -Privatized roads
Does this really seem like a right wing organization? This group is based on classsical liberal, not Republican ideas.
IP hash: 5db1b670
Eric this was a great article! I really enjoyed reading it, I think you had a lot of insight into the changes that are taking place among people who believe in fiscal conservatism! This Young Americans for Liberty group is alive and active, I want to hear more!
IP hash: c77a325b
Hey Eric. I’m a blogger for YAL’s website, and think this was a very compelling story. I hope you keep doing research on YAL and the ideology we subscribe to. (Murray Rothbard’s “War Peace and the State” is a particularily compelling piece describing a libertarian perspective on war)
Good to see that free thought is alive at Madison,
Matt Cockerill
IP hash: 1913a343
Hey Eric-
Nice article. I’m a member of Young Americans for Liberty UW-Madison. I was one of the guys manning the booth in the morning, fedora hat.
Though we obviously don’t agree ideologically, I felt this was a fair, and mostly objective article. Generally the press I read about YAL is not so nice, usually mocking us for our “extremism.”
It’s sad to me that a strict Constitutional viewpoint is considered extremism. Though, I can’t say its unexpected. I worked for the Ron Paul campaign and all that, so honestly I’m used to being called “extremist.”
The UW-Madison chapter of YAL is much more focused this year. You can definitely count on seeing us around campus. We’ll also likely be screening some movies in the Union in the near future.
If anyone’s interested in the YAL UW-Madison Chapter, you can find us on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=87748360463 or on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/yalmadison
IP hash: ef3d06cb
Great answer anonymous 5:57 and great article Eric. As more and more people hear about Ron Paul and read his reasons why he believes the way he does, the message of freedom just keeps on growing because FREEDOM IS POPULAR. And to the earlier commenter, yes keynesian economics is socialism, just a really bad kind of socialism. All governments can do is redistribute wealth from one sector of the economy to another, they can’t create it. And they reallocate resources and capital much less efficiently than the market does, so the country is a net loser. A government economic stimulus is like a person giving themselves a blood transplant from their right arm to their left arm and spilling half the blood on the floor. Unfortunately, bush and obama (who is bush on steroids) have both endorsed this approach.
IP hash: 37264b40
Keynesian economics is now considered a failure.
IP hash: 9be9a870
“The lead figure was wearing a beige tweed jacket straight out of 1964”“, that’s me! In all honesty this is a decent representation of YAL, but I have to agree with 6:31PM. We really aren’t conservatives in the modern sense of the word. We strongly believe in a lot of liberties that are typically only found on the far left, including complete drug decriminalization, legalizing marriage for any two parties, ending the draft forever, and abolishing the patriot act. A lot of these things even the center-left doesn’t agree with.
IP hash: 5d7e0f93
UW ‘09:
There are probably just as many things the former and new CR president can agree upon as the would disagree on.
The new focus on economic issues in the CR’s is meant to rally more people around the republican brand in light of recent socialist, big money government policy.
We still back the republican platform, but we are also willing to invite all who lean right to join our ranks. Many of us agree with the social and cultural conservatism that the CRs focused on in the past, and many of us don’t, but at the end of the day, we are all conservative overall regardless of individual policy view deviations.
As a group CR’s, are focusing on fiscal policy to rally as many conservative under our tent as possible, but I can assure you that we are not the YAL, though I am sure many of us appreciate their love for the constitution, strict constructivism, liberty, freedom, and scaled down government.
At the same time, don’t expect the CRs to embrace anarchy or Ron Paul for that matter (who speaking strictly for myself and not the CRs as a whole, I consider the intermitent step to anarchy). Libertarianism is great, but the ranting Ron Paul takes it to the point of anarchy when it comes to such issues as war and property rights. Theoretically, anarchy should foster the most freedom and liberty, but in actuality, violence and chaos would constantly threaten any chance that freedom liberty has to come full flower.
Nice article Eric!!
You hit the nail on the head!!
IP hash: 6d4ff725
Sure glad we don’t have violence and chaos now!
IP hash: 1913a343
Jerad-
You sure you know YAL? None of us are anarchists.
IP hash: b68dcfbd
Eric Schmidt,
Well, I think some of these terms are lost in translation.
First off, Ron Paul never cared for the National Review from what I can tell. Bill Buckley famously set out to destroy the John Birch Society and also destroy Murray Rothard.
Rand Paul used to get driven to school by Rothbard and LRC when he was young so these people go way back. Ron Paul used to talk about his dinners with Friedrich Hayek when he was alive.
I’m sorry, but I see little if not connection between Ron Paul and something like the National Review, which was founded by a CIA agent and had deep connections to the U.S. government.
National Review was essentially a socialist magazine aimed at promoting National Unity, which is the opposite of what Ron Paul wants.
imho of course.
IP hash: b68dcfbd
Rothbard and Bill Buckley were mortal enemies.
Comparing Ron Paul to the National Review or the Goldwater movement is apples to oranges.
Although, Goldwater’s son loves Ron Paul, which is awesome.
IP hash: b68dcfbd
Eric-
“Let’s erase the twentieth century!!!” -Murray Rothbard, The Enemy of the State, at the 1988 Libertarian convention (from what I recall I can’t find the exact quote.)
IP hash: a9cea466
Nice article. I was really turned on to this message of freedom, peace, end the war on drugs, and sound money. Two years ago I never thought I would have voted for a Republican but Paul popped my cherry. Now I’m spreading the liberty message and I hope it will become something big.
IP hash: ef3d06cb
To Jerad: As a member of YAL I admire your love for the Constitution too, and I hope you guys over there at CR have a successful year, and in light of what’s happening I believe the GOP and CR will gain some ground.
Now to address some of your points and other points made above and these are not meant be personal attacks: I don’t understand why you think opposing war is equivalent to anarchy, especially w/the current wars being as unpopular and unwinnable as they are. YAL isn’t antiwar, we are just for wars only justified in self-defense and wars that are declared by congress the way the constitution says they should be. War is the biggest big government program there is and that’s hwy YAL opposes needless wars. Also, I’m surprised as a member of CR you aren’t defending property rights. Property rights are a natural right entitled to people by their creator, and governments have absolutely no right to take them away.
It would also be prudent to point out YAL doesn’t have a rigid platform other than liberty and the Constitution. So there is considerable disagreement among members on the issues. Some of use believe in strong borders, others of us don’t. Some are pro-choice, some are pro-life. Some of us are religious, some are atheists. As far as gay marriage I personally think the government should just get out of marriage since marriage is a religious matter not concerning the state, and just be in the business of civil unions, but others in the group are for and against gay marriage. The point is depending on who you talk to about YAL you will get a different answer about what it is. But on the major issues such as spending, economic freedom, wars, and personal freedom the answers are clear and that’s what unites us all.
IP hash: b68dcfbd
What’s wrong with anarchy?
I saw a MotorHome Diaries interview with Ron Paul about it, and he said he didn’t have any problem with people promoting anarchy\voluntarism.
Competing governments and competing currencies like the Medieval Ireland is a pretty good system really.
I don’t like it how these supposed small government constitutionalist take shots at the anarchists. Ron Paul doesn’t so why do you?
IP hash: 91210598
Most of actually valuable things mentioned by 4:45PM as “socialist” provided are and/or should be handled by state and local government. What does the Federal Government do so well that anyone sane would want them given any more money or power?
Listen to Tom!
I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy. - Thomas Jefferson
IP hash: b33d9ff9
Great article!! beg to differ on your Ron Paul statement. Do some more research my friend, Ron Paul is fighting for you
IP hash: 9ebb89c4
Yes, the last death knell for Keynesian Economics is here. Thank goodness, and take the FED with it. I’m very excited seeing Hayek and Rothbard mentioned, and multiple times! Let’s now bring the Mises Institute into the mainstream, and sound money. The greatest minds of the 19th and 20th Century are going to make the biggest impact on the 21st Century I suspect. (Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Bohm-Bewark, Henry Hazlitt, Frederic Bastiat, Menger, Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, etc.)
It’s quickly becoming the age of Austrian Economics! Liberty, Freedom, and Self-Determination! A return to our Constitutional Republic, to non-interventionism, to Laissez-Faire.
YAL is Classical Liberalism, not the false left-right paradigm the author is trying to foist on the readers. YAL positions encompass both traditional right-left. To be quite frank, there is a negligible difference if any in today’s political spectrum. The Left and the Right are both Big-Government parasitic entitities draining the life force out of our beleaguered economy.
Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, RJ Harris, Adam Kokesh (Check Youtube he has an AMAZING SPEECH), Rand Paul, and many other Libertarian-GOP are going to storm 2010 and 2012. We are the Sons of Liberty. The rEVOLution is just begun.
PS: Molly, the Goldwater message was before it was hi-jacked, the Old Right message the likes of Robert Taft. That is why Karl Hess worked for Goldwater and still promoted him even after he drifted away in the 1970s. Personally, I wish Ron Paul would have won the Presidential nomination and then the General. He would have been a great President like Grover Cleveland.
IP hash: 49ba1521
Ron Paul 2012
IP hash: 47327c46
When will this left-right/Democrat-Republican nonsense end? Today’s issues have nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the issue of freedom. Let’s take the Christian umbrella, for example. If Christians of all denominations could only stop arguing about the differences of opinion, there could actually be harmonious co-existence with the belief that God is supreme and the center of their faith and lives. It is the silly differences of opinion that distract us from what is truth.
The truth is this: We are losing our freedom. This is caused by people on both contrasting sides of the political and ideological spectrum. It is the fool who cannot think freely for him/herself that engages in such finger pointing and blaming of sides. This is precisely what is wanted and encouraged by those wanting to strip our freedoms away. The best way to live is with the rights and privileges given to all of us by our Constitution. It’s what allows us be who we are: Christians, Atheists, Pagans, Liberals, Conservatives, etc. If we do not collectively fight for the rights that our Constitution provides us, NONE of us will be allowed to pursue our dreams in this great country. We will all be silenced and shackled. If we cannot agree and act upon this fact quickly, embracing the truth of our dire situation, we are lost…and soon the fall cometh.
MIDIhead www.midihead.com
IP hash: 9c64da51
Great article, it’s always refreshing to read a frank and even-handed account of an issue like this that’s so divisive. Of course, as a YAL supporter I also appreciated your generous portrayal of the organization.
On the Ron Paul issue: I can see how he comes across as a “rambling reactionary” to many people, but if you really examine his policies and positions you’ll find that he’s one of the very few politicians who are logically consistent with their stated principles. One of the reasons he seems so extreme and outrageous to many people is that he simply does not compromise even when following his principles leads to overwhelming popular opposition (e.g. his stated intention to abolish the dept. of education).
IP hash: e6235417
YAL - the future of the U.S. looks promising now!! You’re keeping the Great Experiment in Liberty alive, when it was ready to cave into facism (merging of big corporations with their handmaidens in Congress).
You’re so impressive, I’m going over to the YAL website and make a donation!
Keep up the great work for Liberty and Freedom!
IP hash: fd1b35e3
Well TJ, actually, some of us are anarchists :)
IP hash: c0083a54
Great job on the article. Except for the Ron Paul is “a rambling reactionary” comment, your article is well written. Thanks for the exposure for Young Americans For Liberty.
IP hash: 707318f7
Dear Eric:
Interesting article. But, libertarians are no more right than they are left. Rather, they are equidistant from both. Libertarians are sort of rightish on economics (we favor laissez faire capitalism, conservatives veer more toward fascism), but very much leftish on personal liberties (legalizing drugs, sex between consenting adults), much more so than liberals and socialists. We libertarians disagree with BOTH Bush and Obama imperialism, equally.
Yours truly,
Walter E. Block, Ph.D. Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans 6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934 fax: (504) 864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
IP hash: e6235417
YAL - the future of the U.S. looks promising now!! You’re keeping the Great Experiment in Liberty alive, when it was ready to cave into facism (merging of big corporations with their handmaidens in Congress).
You’re so impressive, I’m going over to the YAL website and make a donation!
Keep up the great work for Liberty and Freedom!