I’m not a Liberal by any measure, but I think many of my American Conservative and libertarian friends are missing the point about Nelson Mandela. Would any self-respecting American have failed to take up arms against the Apartheid regime in South Africa? Would Washington or Jefferson have tolerated the subjugation of his people by a criminal gang that controlled the majority of its citizens through state-sponsored violence and torture, restricted them to living in detestable ghettos, required them to show “passes” to move within their own nation and restricted the futures of their children and grandchildren. Let me make this clear…had I been a Black living under Apartheid I would have taken up arms and fought to free my people, much as Mandela did, and as our Founders did.
One complaint I’m hearing about Mandela is that during his time as a revolutionary fighting against the Apartheid Regime, he consorted with Communists and non-democratic regimes. What seems forgotten in these comments is that for a long time the Western democracies supported the Boer Apartheid government, leaving Mandela and the ANC no choice but to embrace those willing to make cause with them, much as the 13-colonies ultimately only obtained freedom from England through the help of the French…imagine that? I have long embraced the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least temporarily.
What made Mr. Mandela a leader for the ages, though, is not that he fought a rogue regime that conducted one of the most reprehensible internal policies in human history, ever. Any human being with a soul that yearns for freedom and that possesses love and concern for his or her grandchildren’s futures would have done everything in his power to destroy the Apartheid regime and the people who imposed it upon South Africa’s Black citizens. Mr. Mandela spent 27-years under daily physical and psychological torture at the hands of experts who qualified as demonic, whose job it was to destroy Mr. Mandela as a human being. He emerged from prison to guide South Africa to a new era as a multi-racial society, with the rule of law and private property present in that nation to a degree that they had never existed before. And Mr. Mandela accomplished this transition without the bloodshed and wholescale theft that occurred in every other post colonial nation, including Algeria, Rhodesia and many others. It was Mandela, who by his strength of character and sheer will brought South Africa through that painful time and into an unprecedented and imperfect but recognizable democratic government and mixed economic system not found anywhere else on the African continent. His “Truth Commissions” provided a cleansing of past sins that has never been attempted anywhere else, and they worked to heal incredibly ugly wounds experienced by both Blacks and Whites over decades.
Did Nelson Mandela begin his political life as a Marxist? Yes, as did I and many other people around the world. Did Mandela abandon his Marxist beliefs as he matured? It appears he did based on his actions as South Africa’s President. So do most adolescent proto-Marxists, for as Churchill stated, “If one is not a Liberal at 20, he has no heart. If one is not a Conservative at 40, he has no brain.” Was Nelson Mandela viewed as a “terrorist” by the Apartheid Regime and did that regime work to portray Mandela as a terrorist to the world during the 27-years he remained in solitary confinement in South Africa’s torture chambers? Yes to both questions, but Nelson Mandela was viewed as a patriot and a freedom fighter by the majority of South Africans, just as America’s Founders fought against the British Empire, who viewed them as traitors and terrorists. Is Mandela viewed today as South Africa’s “George Washington” by both Blacks and Whites in that nation today? So it appears, based on interviews I have seen in the last 3-days, including with Pik Botha, one of the leaders of both the Apartheid Regime and also Mr. Mandela’s post-Apartheid, multi-racial Cabinet.
Many religions around the world, including Christianity, include a maxim to the effect that “You will know a tree by its fruit.” Mr. Mandela’s “fruit,” among other things is a democratic South Africa that is the economic giant of sub-Saharan Africa and one of the world’s most advanced economies. At a time when so many world leaders, including our own, are frauds, ideologues and worse, Nelson Mandela was an authentic human being and a giant among 20th century political leaders. Conservatives and libertarians need to drop our fault-finding and embrace Mandela as a real post-racial leader and a person of uncommon strength and character. We all make our own choices on issues like this one, but that is mine. CDE
The Rio Norte Line 
Loved your analogy of us turning to the French…………. I dug Lafayette.
Kells: Thanks for acknowledging the Frenchie reference. You realize that based on your comment from last night, you will constantly be asked whether the post got you agitated? Not that I’m asking. Just saying. CDE
I’m very happy to hear you’re not asking. because I won’t be saying.
CDE — I cannot dispute the good that Mandela brought to modern South Africa, but I also cannot use that as a vehicle to excuse his earlier history as well. Like Kells, I can appreciate the analogy, as well as the professionalism of your writing.
Well done.
side bar: I’ll fix the formatting to that your picture isn’t chopping up your paragraph.
augger: Thanks for your comments and the formatting fix, which I don’t yet know how to do. My unwillingness to sit in judgment of Mr. Mandela’s early career as an anti-Apartheid revolutionary has three sources. First, my reading of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s admonition that one cannot simultaneously sit in judgment and love other human beings, and Jesus of Nazareth commands us explicitly to love and not judge unless we ourselves are without blame. Second is Jesus himself, who issued the command against condemning another, which constitutes talking on the role of God, a role for which I am singularly underqualified. Finally, given my propensity for very human foibles and my Irish blood, I could no more have withheld my anger and hatred for the Apartheid Regime than did Mandela. And I am convinced that had Americans understood what was actually happening in South Africa, we would have supported Mandela’s cause much sooner. Call it what you will, my simple values are individual freedom, free markets and limited government and the Apartheid Regime violated all three on a daily basis. Good thing I wasn’t there or I know I wouldn’t be here today. And I like being here! CDE
CDE – as always, I love the exchange as you are most certainly more cerebral than I am. Now maybe I have misunderstood you’re writing, so I will go back and read again, but admittedly I am stuck on what I may have mistaken as the main point. If you would humor me, I would like to ask a couple of questions for the sake of clarification …
Could you likewise forgive those who decapitated Daniel Pearl with a steak knife, if that lead them to some later benevolent action? Can we excuse the actions of Adolf Hitler simply because he gave us the Autobahn, the Volkswagon, and the technology which lead to putting man on the moon?
So yes, while I acknowledge the good things that have happened in South Africa, I remain hung up on the atrocities accredited to Mandela. This is not to excuse the Apartheid Regime’s actions which are clearly documented, however I get sick in the stomach when I try to rationalize terrorist activities as “freedom fighting”.
Broaden my horizons, my friend. I am all eyes.
Well worded CDE as always.
But Sorry….you are parroting the Main Stream Media and Acadamia in your message.
And there’s certainly enough of that. The point many are making is not MERELY that he “Started” as a Marxist but later worked with De Klerk to forge an alliance to end Apartheid. Further Not a SINGLE TRUE Contrarian view ( that being an assessment of Madela’s continued Marxism even after his release )….not a single one I have read or Heard has said they didn’t agree with Mandela’s contribution to ending apartheid. Muself included.
I thought Joel Pollack’s treatment of Mandela was the Best of the Mainstrem Opinions. Balance but clear acknowledgement of the deep failures endemic to post-Apartheid South Africa. He also mentioned, and I have seen many other South African’s say as well. that the situation is actually getting Worse there.
Mandela’s Diplomacy wrt to Israel is laudable….especially comiong from a violent Marxist. But unfortunately his Deep freindship with Aarfat relegated Mandela’s Pro-Israel statements to lip-service. Because there was no concomittant condemnation of Palisinian violence. Just as there was no substantive condemnation from him of South African violence. Rush said Mandela eschewded vindictiveness …. even though Mandela admitted to NOT being tortured. But what he did was the same Lip-service Diplomacy with words and a virtual wink and a Nod to those who carried out and continue to carry out vindictiveness for him and the ANC by Proxy. A Truely Great Man knows clearly what is being done…..either he wasn’t as “great” as many claim…..or he “turned the other way “. Many in South Africa itself feel the later.
Helping to end Apartheid ( remember the Adminisration of de Klerk ALSO was involved in this )….Giving Verbal support to Israel’s right to exist are great acts. But The Real and enduring legacy of the man is the Condition that Soth Africa is in and has been since his release. Economically and Human Rights . Many in South Africa would say they don’t in fact feel “Free” today…..another type of oppression has merely REPLACED apartheid. And that is just the Stark Truth.
Don: My title was a bit ironic, or at least intended to be so. My reasons for how I view Mandela are not what I’ve seen in the MSM, but they are certainly contrarian compared to what I’ve been seeing here. That’s fine and I understand the case that fails to forgive Mandela’s revolutionary beginnings. My take is that is a matter of perspective, and my perspective coincides with the overwhelming majority of South Africans, White and Black, who credit Mandela with the fall of Apartheid and the creation of a multi-racial democracy and mixed market economy in its ashes. In both of those characteristics, South Africa stands alone on the African continent. My position on judging others is that it is way above my pay-grade, but I am willing to observe and share my conclusions. Some (Many?) would suggest I am too willing to share my views, and it is certainly their right to their opinions. After all, we aren’t living under a coercive, totalitarian regime…at this time. Warm regards, CDE
Some of what you are seeing HERE is the Contrarian View…..Yours is the Main Stream Media Concensus.
You claim to be below pay-grade for judging others …. yet your post is Positive Judgement of Mandela ( and a not so Subtle rebuke to those who do not )….. which, given your Pedigree I’m sure you are of course aware.
Best, Don…. : – )) .
Don…Not to put too fine a point on it, but I take much greater interest and pleasure from our discussions on RNL than I do from listening to the blow-dried intellectual lightweights that read their TelePrompTers nightly for the Ministry of Truth. And I do not ever intend to rebuke anyone for differing with me on anything. Your views are certainly as valid as anything I have to say, and I respect them for the thought you’ve given them. I am frequently wrong and often misguided, but never lacking in confidence…its part of my Anglo-Irish charm. ;>)) Regards, CDE
I was impressed with CDE’s post to Fred, but puzzled with his current opinion on Mandela. Thanks, Don, for clearing up my doubts wether to rethink CDE as the “Conservative” I granted him status as being, or in the Media/Academia camp that I now place him.
I could put a great many words in this post on my visit to RSA in the “Apartheid” period, but just want to express my opinion that unless you spent any time in RSA at that time, it’s hard for me to look back at that visit as anything but very educational,
entertaining and pleasant. The people, Africans and Blacks welcomed and treated me graciously as I expected any Frenchman, Englishman or American.
EdwardS
Edward: Sorry to disappoint with my Mandela observations, but I am not a Conservative in the American Conservative sense, for reasons I will refer to Fredrich Hayek to impart in his great essay, “Why I Am Not A Conservative,” which is readily available online. I am a Classical Anglo American Liberal, in the tradition of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and the other Founders, and my core values are simple: individual freedom, free markets and limited government. From my observation, everything else flows from those key points. I detest Collectivism in all its forms, view Our Dear Leader as the Bernie Madoff of American politics and the Liberal/Progressives as the American branch of the Marxist tree.
I follow Washington’s and Jefferson’s warnings about political factions and parties, since I’ve seen both major US parties as primarily concerned with the maintenance of their own power. i identify my beliefs with libertarianism, the movement, but not the party. I read extensively, but take full responsibility for the positions I form and articulate based on my continuous research into things that interest me. I am a recovering academic, but I left that world long ago after teaching Marketing Strategy, Risk Management and International Business to MBA students and business executives for 25+ years. Since then I’ve started, built and usually sold six of my own companies, and found I am best when driving my own bus. So yes, I have major problems with authority, but I’m sneaky and generally valuable when working inside a corporate context, so I generally get left alone…usually. Great to get your comments, but you’re correct that I am not to be trusted, generally speaking. ;>)) CDE
“Thanks, Don, for clearing up my doubts wether to rethink CDE as the “Conservative” I granted him status as being, or in the Media/Academia camp that I now place him.”
I don’t think CDE’s opine on Nelson Mandela can be juxtapositioned with American politics as it relates to our views of Conservatism versus Progressivism. I would be careful to avoid labeling him, or recanting said label based upon this discussion.
Except he has said himself…”I am not a Conservative in the American Conservative sense,”. So yes Edward is correct in rethinking CDE as a Conservative.
Edward,
You are correct in your assessment if for no other reason than the source “hisself” has so declared. But there are other reasons to support your (and My) view of CDE as no Conservative. And it’s OK for him not to be …. he certainly has oodles of company in America ( esp on the East Coast).
And Augger……….Of Course this Opine can be related to American Politics, especially as it relates to Conservatism vs Progressivism/Communism……. The Post was essentially about that very Political Divide. With claims as to the Success of Progressivism.
And ( based on your comments here ) I think you know….there is VERY little actual democracy within SA….except of the Big D kind……( the affair wrt AIDS treament as just one of Many many examples ). AND ….. SA is an economic Basket case…esp when compared to pre-Mandela times. ( and this in no way gives creedence to apartheid ).
Also someone SAYING they believe in the Basic tenents of Life ,Liberty and the Free Pursuit of one’s Goals while at the same time claiming a “democracy” in a country where racial murder goes unchecked and mostly unpunished is …..well, is the very Height of Modern Liberal Hyperbole today.
The Strongest thing Conservatives and Conservatism can do today is to speak Truthfully and clearly when confronted with Obvious Challenges to true Political Freedom.
CDE, augger,
I hate it when I get caught up in this “Party/Label” game that has flummoxed so many of us in this identification ideology.
I have ranted on others who misidentify my position on issues and am recanting my judgement on your single post on Mandela, (I have a bias against him for his early years), CDE. I also admire and respect the Founders, have a hard time digesting Friedrich Hayek (The Road To Serfdom), but after again reading your posts, understand your position in a more positive way.
EdwardS
I thought Mandela resisted communism until it was his last resort? Am I wrong?
Yes. You are not correct in that thought.
He started as a Marxist (the ANC was and IS Marxist).
You are maybe thinking of his eventual turn to Moscow for arms after he was unable to obtain them elsewhere. And event which BTW turned Reagan and Thatcher away from him while before they had been VERY sympathetic to his cause.
I’m saying that I thought he at first resisted the party because he was opposed to communism. I thought his Christian upbringing deterred him from their ideology, initially.
Did you look at my link on the other Mandela post below. If not look at the Video within it. Esp the 2nd Video.
Mandela didn’t appear to be very much of a Christian when asked to pray….. I’m not sure he was.
meant to say I’m not sure he was a Strong Christian practioner.
I will go to your link, but you answer me this pal Joey: What the hello would you have done? Please be sincere.
I thought ‘Pal Joey’ was your honoraium for “Joe the Bakanovic” …. ; – )) ..?
What would I have done with respect to what exactly. Being a Christian and embracing Marxism, using violence and death to push mu agenda to end apartheid ? Coming out of Jail and giving a blind eye to the 20+ year racisl violence that is basically a Vendetta ?
At which point do you mean?
And I guess I would also ask…..why do you seem to so readily accept his leaving his supposed non-violent Christian beliefs for what has turned out to be a virtual Life-time of Marxist Violence…..Before, during and after his imprisoment. ( He WAS ALLOWED to help run the ANC from inside prison….did you know that ? It seems the SA Afrikanner Gov’t wasn’t so oppresive as it would semm with respect to this particular issue. They could have kept him completely incommunicado while he was in prison….but they didn’t.
I am always sincere Kells.
Don: On a fairly important issue, the nature of Mr. Mandela’s 27-year imprisonment, I must question your information. Mandela was held in solitary confinement for the full 27-years. He was permitted one redacted letter per month, no outgoing mail, and one supervised visit per year. I regard this aspect of his treatment as “cruel and unusual punishment,” although of course the concept is an American Constitutional prohibition that applies only to US citizens, and as a combatant with no state affiliation, Mr. Mandela would also not have been subject to protection under the Geneva Conventions. Nonetheless, the likelihood that Mandela could have run the ANC revolt against Apartheid from behind bars is an impossible idea. Like Lech Walesa, Mandela was completely isolated and at the mercy of the Apartheid Regime, whose goal, like Communist Poland’s for Walesa and Big Brother for Winston Smith, was to break Mandela’s will, and then his spirit, and then to return him to South African society as a living example of their absolute power over South Africa’s Black citizens. The Apartheid totalitarians failed utterly, as Mandela emerged from prison a stronger and wiser leader. But during their 27-year effort to crush Mandela as a human being, his isolation was virtually complete. CDE
Joel Pollack differs with you on that…..himself a South African….and a Journalist opperating in SA at the time. Amnesty International never protested his trial nor Imprisoment. Mandela is on Video many time stating clearly he was never tortured.
Don: I’m happy to differ with Mr. Pollock, as my sources are South African as well. I don’t care for or trust Amnesty International, which I have for decades as a highly politicized organization. We may need to differ in our assessments of Mr. Mandel’s place in South Africa’s history. I did find it ironic that Our Dear Leader, who has enjoyed a life of privilege and a profound lack of accomplishment, should have permitted a prominent role in eulogizing Mr. Mandela, with whom he shared nothing in common. Of course, Obama made that clear by inserting petty, domestically focused non sequiturs into his TelePrompTer assisted remarks. That we differ on this issue is fine by me, as I respect but do not agree with your position and have, as always, thoroughly enjoyed our exchange. Warmly, CDE
augger/Don/kells/Edward et al: One of my favorite quotes from General George Patton, and he was a profoundly quotable character, is, “When everybody’s thinking the same thing, somebody isn’t thinking.” I am delighted, but not at all surprised, that my heartfelt paean to Nelson Mandela has evoked such interesting and diverse discussion. A variety of issues have been raised and I will try to answer or explain my positions in this post, rather than addressing them piecemeal. Mr. Mandela’s place in the world will long remain subject to complex and varied interpretations, as it should. Many complicated issues came together in Nelson Mandela and in his legacy that is the post-Apartheid South Africa.
First, a word on where I “fit” in the firmament of US electoral politics. In short, I don’t. I characterize my economic and political views as being in the tradition of “Classical Anglo American Liberalism,” and the thinkers I identify most closely with are Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, Hayek, Mises, Friedman, Murray, Sowell and Epstein. The closest I get to a current school of economic and political thought is the modern libertarian movement, although not the ridiculous Libertarian Party. My core values are individual freedom, free markets and limited government…the driving principles behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I think Washington and Jefferson were correct in their warnings that Americans should avoid political “factions” or parties, since 200+ years of the American experiment has shown us that political parties primarily seek to preserve their own power, rather than to adhere to a set of consistent principles or to further the well-being of our citizens. Until the last 30-years I found it impossible to distinguish between establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans. That changed with Ronald Reagan’s election as President of the US.
President Reagan came as close to implementing libertarian principles as I expect to see in my lifetime. Mr. Reagan appointed Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and other libertarian economists and charged them with repairing the damage done by 40-years of Progressive Democrat and Republican policies that had robbed the American economy of its unique dynamism and replaced it with price-controls (Nixon), stimulus programs (multiple Progressive Presidents), and rationing (Nixon, Ford & Carter). Friedman’s team got the American economy turned around and moving within 24-months. Reagan fixed many self-inflicted wounds, but his greatest contribution was the launching of the longest economic expansion, from 1982 – 2008, in the history of our nation. During the Reagan Expansion there were several small cyclical recessions, but competent libertarian economists handled them with proven free market oriented solutions and the good times rolled on. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill are my only heroes among 20th century political figures.
My core value is the freedom of individual Americans to live their lives without interference by the coercive and corrosive forces of centralized government power. In my view free markets and limited government are essential conditions that allow individual freedom to survive and thrive. While all are important and essential, the first is paramount but individual freedom cannot exist without the other two elements. That is why, as Don correctly state, I am not nor have I ever been a Conservative. Neither were Friedrich von Hayek nor Milton Friedman. Hayek explains why in his famous essay, “Why I Am Not a Conservative,” which can be found here…http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf . In my experience, American conservatives, who I vote with consistently, are inconsistent in their support of individual freedom.
Burke, Adams and other Conservative thinkers insist that the state must play the role of the ancient priests who tended the temple in Jerusalem or the rabbis whose monumental judgments on every aspect of life and how it should be lived were gathered into the TALMUD. Individual freedom does not mean the freedom to follow an intricate set of laws and rules constructed by other human beings, regardless of good intentions. Government’s role should be limited to the protection of its citizen from coercion by others, protection of private property, the security of America’s borders, and the enforcement of contracts entered into by private citizens. Not income redistribution. Not foreign adventurism. Not progressive taxation. Most human interactions should take place between free citizens, and be the province of local or state governments where the individuals are not willing to respect the freedoms of their fellow citizens. If my actions do not harm another human being, the government has no place dictating or proscribing my actions. As Our Dear Leader would say…Period. Both Jesus of Nazareth and Rabbi Hillel stated the guiding principle for libertarians…”Do not unto another as you would not have him do unto you.”
Progressives, who have taken over the Democrat Party, do not believe in individual freedom, free markets or limited government. Progressives, like all Marxists, believe in the subordination of the individual to the centralized coercive power of the government and in the superiority of governmental “experts” or “technocrats” to dictate the life decisions of individual American citizens. Hence Obamacare. Hence Common Core. Hence “Green Energy” projects that cripple the American economy. Hence Dodd-Frank and the auto industry bailouts, and the list goes on and on. Libertarians are the sworn enemies of Collectivism in all its forms, and we make common cause with American Conservatives against the demonic common enemy that is Barack Hussein Obama’s Neo-Progressive Movement. That is where I stand on economic and political issues at this point in my life’s journey.
Back to Nelson Mandela and the dilemma he poses for his admirers and his detractors. It is my personal view that the Apartheid Regime in South Africa represented a diabolically evil government that effectively enslaved the great majority of its citizens, imprisoning them in filthy ghettos, demeaning their humanity at every turn and employing the coercive power of the state to cow them through state-sponsored murder, theft and rape. Against such a government, no human being can be faulted for revolting and for utilizing the tools at his or her disposal to break the yoke of government oppression and free his or her people from a tyranny not unlike the Israelites suffered in their Egyptian captivity. And the tools Adonai provided to Moses and Aron were terrible…the Plagues, the death of Egypt’s firstborn and the destruction of the Egyptian army did not involve ongoing negotiations or diplomatic missions. Egypt’s captivity and enslavement of the Israelites was pure evil and evil must be dealt with on its own terms. That may be a bit Old Testament for many, but I think that had Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and the rest of America’s Founders, including my ancestors, been confronted by the evil of the Apartheid Regime, they would have taken up arms, as they did against the British. So I cannot fault Nelson Mandela for his efforts to free his people by whatever means necessary.
The issue of Mandela’s Marxist affiliations is to me a mute point, since Mandela never ruled South Africa as a Commissar or the Head of a Communist Central Committee. When Mandela ascended to the leadership of the South African government, he did so as the President of a multi-ethnic democracy, the only one on the African continent. And Mandela shaped the South Africa economy as a mixed system, employing elements of both free market capitalism and socialism, which I view as a mistaken approach, but it was his to make. And I must differ with my friend Don on the issue of the South African economy today…although it may be damning with faint praise, it is the strongest and most diversified in Africa and RSA is the economic hegemon of the continent. Under Mandela, RSA avoided the wanton murder, rape and pillaging that characterized the transition of its neighbor to the north, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Was Mandela a Communist at some point? Maybe, but as Kells suggested, his turn toward the Marxist World may have reflected the continuing support of the West for the Boer Apartheid government. I’ve seen nothing definitive on this issue, and as I’ve said above, RSA never became a Communist country under Mandela.
To address augger’s interesting thought experiment, the murderers of Daniel Pearl were religious extremists whose actions were intended as pure evil. There was no purpose served in the beheading of the WSJ reporter, and in fact no claim was even made that Pearl’s murder served a higher end. Hence the Islamic extremists who denied Daniel Pearl the freedom to live his life were guilty of the murder of an innocent human being and should be subject to the loss of their own lives. I would prefer that be carried out in a painful and public manner, but I am sensitive to the general cowardice of bullies and tyrants and I believe such action would have a deterrent effect on the remaining cowards who might choose to modify their barbarism by at least a bit. Likewise, Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party did not seek freedom for themselves or anyone else. Hitler sought world dominance and the destruction of the world’s Jews and other “inferior” peoples. When Hitler gained control of Germany and later the rest of Europe, his program represented pure, unadulterated evil, to a degree that can only be described behaviorally, if not clinically, as pathological. And I disagree with Hanna Arendt in her characterization of the “banality of evil,” a phrase she used to describe Adolf Eichmann at his trial in Jerusalem. While evil, like goodness, can at times appear to be boring or banal, the evils of the Nazis and the Apartheid Regime in SA both represented a level of evil that all good people must resist to the last. That was the decision of another of my heroes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and I believe it to be true.
To conclude, while I regard Nelson Mandela’s revolutionary activities as justified and not unlike those taken by Moses in Exodus or by America’s Founders against the British Empire, I recognize that reasonable people may differ with me and account his war against the Boer Apartheid Regime as unwarranted. We will need to agree to disagree on that point. In the total accounting of Mr. Mandela’s life and his work, I regard his emergence from 27-years of solitary confinement to found and lead the successful transition of South Africa from a racist, totalitarian nation to a mixed economy, multi-racial democracy, the only on the African continent, to have been the work of a leader comparable only to Washington, Lincoln, Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan. Mr. Mandela took the opportunity afforded him to change the Marxist views of his early adulthood to build a new South Africa on the ruins of its racist past. I view Mandela as a hero, and his accomplishments as truly exceptional.
I hope these responses clarify my ideas on these issues, even if they do not change anyone’s opinions, and I hope they get kells at least a bit hot. ;>)) It is the least I can do for a friend. CDE
It has been a fulfilling discussion.
Kells: Service with a smile. Always happy to help a lady in need. ;>}}. CDE
CDE: Nice response post. You defended your position well, and I will have to cede that Hitler was likely a bad reference—though I hope the point was not lost on you.
“I recognize that reasonable people may differ with me and account his war against the Boer Apartheid Regime as unwarranted.”
Enough responses have passed in this thread now that I cannot remember with certainty, but I do not recall anyone here at least, stating that the revolution was unwarranted (and I am thankful for that). The Apartheid was every bit as evil as you have described it. That is not open for dispute, well … rational dispute anyway.
But don’t you just imagine that at some point, a personal line has to be drawn for the sake of our own humanity? How would your views of let’s say Washing, or Lincoln have changed if they were connected to the very same actions found in Mandela’s history. Sometimes the end does not justify the ways, or the means. Not criticism, just food for thought sir.Edit note: Strike the above. Already addressed below, which I did not see prior to writing this. Thanks for the clarification CDE. — Well said, and what I was looking for.
Amazing topic … thanks for allowing me to be a part of it.
augger: In the end how we view Mandela turns on the very issue you’ve identified…is there a point where one’s actions in attacking evil move beyond what can be sanctioned by civilized society (if such a thing actually exist at this point) regardless of the goodness of one’s goals? I will argue that point exists, but that I have insufficient information to be able to assess whether the Apartheid Regime’s horrific actions justified Mandela’s activities to overthrow it. I cannot sort out the facts from the propaganda coming from both sides on this one. Mandela’s accomplishments post his imprisonment certainly support the contention that he was a great leader as no one anywhere else in Africa has brought a nation of South Africa’s size and diversity through a transition as he did. If forced to choose between the strategies of Ghandi or King and Mandela, I personally would favor Mandela, because I do not think that passively “waiting out” evil is a viable approach. “Never again” is a statement Jews around the world understand completely, and so do I. I also understand those that believe violence is never an option. I am not among that group, although I respect their choice. Should someone, internal or external, seek to remove Americans’ individual freedoms, I could not remain passive in the face of that evil, which is why our ancestors fought and won an impossible revolution. Great discussion. Regards, CDE
Yes sir, I am (or was) certainly no admirer of Ghandi, or King … though I do not begrudge them their efforts. Each has taken on more than I would ever be willing to take on, and for that, each will have my respect. No argument from your Jewish state analogy, but I would carefully remind you that there is no video evidence support they’re torching the opposition.
In the end, you have brought us to one indisputable fact … we each have our own standards, and who be it for me to stand in judgement. Though I may not agree with your position entirely, I do admire, and respect the thought(s) that have brought you to your opinion … and that is enough for me. ::: hand shake :::
augger: Last time we had one of these great extended, multi-party exchanges, I was promised a hand-shake, but also comfort food and a single malt. My, how recognition has diminished on the RNL. I’ve got another post going on Obama’s attempt to change the national discussion to “income inequality,” but little uptake thus far. I think it’s an interesting topic, but economics doesn’t seem to attract the same audience as politics. What a great blog this is…thanks Michael!!!
By the way, I respect Gandhi, King and their followers, I’m just not built to be passive in the face of evil people or institutions. Some of it is genetic (how many Irishmen do you know who will willingly back down from a good fight?), some of it’s experience growing up in a fairly tough and highly competitive environment and some of it is a result of observation…bad guys will always take what they want until someone stops them. That applied to Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin , Mao and the tyrants who built and maintained Apartheid. So I understand Mr. Mandel’s decision to resist the state-sponsored violence of the Apartheid Regime with countering violence. I also understand those who find it impossible to accept his decision and who make the old “violence in a righteous cause is still violence” argument. I just think that history has shown them to be unrealistic in their assessment.
And I’ll buy the Armagnac and the Dominicans if we ever actually get to break bread. CDE
You have a deal. Scotch/Irish here, but I cannot play the bag pipes. We’ll leave that to you. 🙂
augger: Not surprisingly, I prefer Irish over Scotch and Jamison’s is a personal favorite. I also like an aged Armagnac and a good Dominican cigar with a big ring-gage. I always feel somewhat Churchillian at those moments. As a doc, I suspect you don’t engage in the pleasure of a real good smoke, but there are moments when a good stogie can clear one’s mind very pleasantly. And the Dominicans overtook the Cubans some time ago, further evidence that Communists can screw-up a wet dream. Regards, CDE
At the Top CDE’s first sentence he proclaims himself to not be a Liberal by any measure……
then there is this sentence…** “..To conclude, while I regard Nelson Mandela’s revolutionary activities as justified and not unlike those taken by Moses in Exodus or by America’s Founders against the British Empire,…” **
This is the very encapsulation of the Liberal Academic position today….indeed it is what is being taught in our Universities today, including the “elite” schools in the NorthEast….I know I have two enrolled there now. The only thing missing is the usual added statement about the islamofascists being the muslim “George Washintons”
In another place CDE says clearly he is NOT a Conservative….. And I ( and Others here ) Believe him 100 %.
You have done more than a Journeyman’s job in expressing yourself eloquently. All here know that. But in the course of doing so you have basically expressed (1) the Mainstrem Consensus of the Marxist terrorist Mandela a “GreatMan” hero and (2) have equated Terrorist activity with our Founders……a rhetorical device which has been used to both Delegitimize The Founders, The United States and the Constitution and used to LEGITIMIZE Marxist/Facist terrorism today.
This further cements your own statement and claim that you are not a Conservative . It also lends strong support to those who have said there is more than a little vein of Modern LIBERALISM hidden within those who Claim to be “Libertarian”.
Don: I’m glad we have established the fact that I’m not a Conservative, which by the way I have stated multiple times in multiple posts and comments on this site. I’ve also provided my reasoning, which is essentially that I regard the Conservative approach to the role of government to be a violation of our Founders’ clear intention that central government should not intrude into the lives of American citizens. My many Conservative friends and colleagues attack Liberals and Progressives for putting too much power into the hands of government, but when Conservatives gain power themselves, they are often quick to violate the freedoms of individual Americans by dictating decisions that are rightfully the province of individuals and families. Hence, my disagreement with Conservatives is that they do not actually govern in the spirit of individual freedom cherished by our Founders, but they have absorbed far too much of the Collectivist ethos that has pervaded much of the world for the last 150-years. If Conservatives understood and acted on the ideas the Founders memorialized in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I would be quite comfortable within Conservative ranks, but Conservatives tend to be selective in their recognition of individual freedoms and free markets. So I will be content to make common cause with my Conservative brethren, to vote with them most of the time and to agree with them on 98% of the issues I regard as important.
I must take exception however, with your observation that my views align with anything you would find on an American university campus at any time in the last 25-years. I say that with confidence, since I spent 25-years teaching MBA students at a variety of universities in the US and overseas, and my libertarian views are completely out-of-step with the prevailing Progressive and Marxist philosophies that dominate the faculties, especially in economics and the social sciences. I challenge you, Don, to support the view that Mandela’s actions taken to topple the demonic Apartheid Regime in South Africa were less humane than the Regime’s state-sponsored terrorism against its own citizens. And my admiration for Mandela is based on the fact that although Mandela turned to Communist Regimes for help due to the Western democracies’ decisions to support the Boers, Mandela emerged from his imprisonment to govern as a democrat committed to free elections and a free market economy, at least by African standards. And by his actions less people died in the transition to a multi-racial society than in any other post-colonial nation.
As for my own position vis a vis the modern political scene in the US, I assume no responsibility for others who claim the banner of libertarianism. We libertarians are not generally herd animals and we are each responsible for our own beliefs and perspectives. That’s part of our charm. Working with a group of libertarians is a lot like herding cats, only cats are less argumentative. But what libertarians generally do share is an abhorrence for Collectivism in all its forms…Progressivism, Modern American Liberalism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Nazism and all the various sub-genres of Marxism are completely rejected by real libertarians and certainly by myself. I will appreciate your recognition of that definitive and clear statement, as I am frequently attacked by people who follow one or other of those assorted Collectivist sub-groups, but I find that you and I are generally in agreement on most issues and certainly on our rejection of Collectivism in all its forms. As I suggested before in this thread, let’s agree to disagree on this one and retire from the field with each of our honor intact. I also suggest that you look a bit deeper at some of my points, since simple, categorical answers to complex questions may sometimes feel good because many people repeat them. But that doesn’t make them right. Warm regards, CDE
No CDE…..Your not being a Conservative was not what was revealed…..it was more of a re-statement.
Rather what was establish was in my last Sentence……. That there is More of LIBERAL to your “Libertariansism” than is openly admitted to.
May the blessings of the Season be with you,…… Don…. :- )).
Don: Although there is no rush, I will likely benefit from your pointing out to me where my positions or beliefs have anything in common with Modern American Liberalism, Progressivism or any other variety of Collectivism. I’m not aware of what you could be seeing that I don’t, but I’m interesting in hearing your impressions. By the way, I am not in the habit of concealing my ideas or beliefs anywhere I blog or contribute, and you’ll note that I am one of the few (along with my friend, Joe) who blogs here, and elsewhere, under his or her own name. That’s consistent with my belief that dissembling is usually way too complicated, so what you hear from me is what I actually think. Some folks may think they discern occasional inconsistencies in my positions, but that is largely because I long ago rejected any need to align my thinking with a specific political party, since I regard that as requiring one to trim his or her beliefs to fit other people’s opinions. My opinions, right or wrong, are always my own, and they are always in accord with my understanding of America’s Founders’ positions as expressed in our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, and with libertarian principles, but not with any “Libertarian Party.” So, no rush, but let’s pick up your theory at your convenience.
Thanks for your warm seasons greetings, which I return to you enthusiastically. May you and your family have a very Merry Christmas, or enjoy God’s rich blessings in whatever holiday you celebrate. I’m hoping for a big Kwanzaa party here, but I’m not sure what one is supposed to bring to such a celebration. ;>)) CDE
I don’t always have the time to invest in discussion here, as my daily schedule is highly demanding. However, I have found myself somewhat of a fan of CDE’s writings. While it’s not that I necessarily disagree with the content of this post, I personally don’t see the difference between Mandela or any other leader who has been responsible for great suffering. Yeah, Mandela did some good things. One could make an argument for the good that Hitler did for the German people prior to the WW2, yet why is discussion about Hitler only confined to the evils of Nazism and Discussion of Mandela only confined to post-prison Mandela? The fact that the public refuses to discuss Mandela’s brutality kind of baffles me. The message that I’m getting in general (not necessarily from one particular person) over the last couple of days is that we are drawing a line with brutality and savagery; that we are watering it down by saying that the sins of torture and murder can be balanced out with a little benevolence. Let me raise this question: exactly how much violence is too much violence? If we can justify Mandela’s actions in his youth with the actions in the latter part of his life, then what does it take to qualify Hitler’s actions? Maybe in my youth I’m too ignorant to speak competently on this issue, but I do know this: I don’t see much of a difference between Nelson Mandela and the ANC, the Inquisition, or the Third Reich. If Nelson Mandela today, then who tomorrow?
Just my two cents on the issue.
Hi Fascisti: Your questions are great questions, and my consideration of Nelson Mandela’s legacy was not offered lightly or without examination of your concerns. The issues that led to my conclusion that Mr. Mandela was a great man and an exceptional leader were several. First, my examination of the horrors wrought by the Boer Apartheid Regime in South Africa led me to conclude that it represented a level (or depth) of evil that has rarely been seen in human history. For a small authoritarian group to having enslaved the majority of the nation’s citizens in squalid conditions and without hope for decent lives even within their own nation places the Boers’ violent coercion in a class with the Nazis in Germany, the Bolsheviks (Russian Communists, for the most part) under Lenin and Stalin, Mao in China and Pol Pot in Cambodia. The depravity of the Apartheid Regime, again in my opinion, required Mandela, who was a natural leader, to act to prevent the complete annihilation of the Black race in South Africa. If you’ve read the history of the period before Mandela’s imprisonment, you know that the Boers employed state-sponsored terrorist tactics against their own citizens. Nothing that Mandela did approached the mass murders and repression that the Apartheid government routinely employed. So, faced with evil incarnate, what should a good person do?
I have considered closely what I would have done in Mandela’s position, and it has been a question I have pondered at length for a long time. I am not by nature a non-violent person, although I have never been the initiator of violence. My childhood established for me that bullies on all levels do not respond well to passivity in the face of aggression, and that there will always be people and groups in every society who will seek to dominate others out of some twisted need that exist within themselves. The only viable approach to such evil people is to make the price they pay for their own aggression too costly for them to endure. In the words of my Irish mother, “Never start a fight, but never run from one or you will encourage future bad behavior,” and “Brutal people by their nature only understand a more brutal response.” That may explain 300-years of conflict in Ireland, but it also contains a deep truth is sometimes alludes good-hearted people. At this point I have rejected the idea that passivity is an appropriate response in the face of evil. I have rejected the teachings of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and even Jesus of Nazareth, all of whom I have studied and respect, because I believe that evil must be confronted and defeated or innocent people will inevitably perished. The Jews of Europe, the Ukrainians in the USSR, tens of millions in Mao’s China and half of Cambodia’s population all perished because no one stood up and confronted the evil men who murdered them. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who would have been the greatest Christian theologian of the 20th century had he survived, understood this reality when he chose to join the plot to murder Hitler and his inner circle of Nazi monsters. Bonhoeffer was executed for his decision, but it was the right decision. I believe Mandela’s decision to fight the murderous Apartheid Regime was not only right, but was the only moral decision he could have made, given the atrocities that Regime had visited on the Black and Mixed Race peoples of South Africa. I like to think I would have had the strength to do the same!!!
My calculus of this complex situation also acknowledges that there are many parallels between Mandela’s actions and those of our American Founders, except that the Founders’ case against the British Empire was less clear and compelling than was Mandela’s against the Boer Apartheid Regime. My Quaker and Puritan ancestors were part of the American battle for freedom, and that was despite the Quakers’ intense rejection of violence and aggression of any kind. I am proud of what they and the great leaders of the American Revolution accomplished, but it was achieved through blood and violence against a tyrant. In Mandela’s case, for those who still remain unconvinced that his revolt against the Boers was justified, I hold up his refusal to seek revenge on his jailers and oppressors, and his success in guiding South Africa to become the only multi-racial democracy in Africa, and the most successful economic model on the continent. Even if I did not think Mandela’s actions against the Apartheid regime were warranted, I would regard his post-imprisonment achievements as Herculean in their scope.
To conclude, Fascisti, I understand your inability to embrace my analysis of these issues. They are complex and each of us is shaped by our own experiences. I hope my further explanation of my reasoning is helpful, if not convincing. I hope we find common ground on other issues. CDE
Fascisti,
Good Post. Having read many of your posts here I know for a fact that You are not too young nor are you ignorant in any way concerning historical lessons. And I trust you are aware of Rhetorical Condescension when you read it. Having a Clear and strong Moral underpinning is often attacked in the press as “intellectual inability”. Saul Alinsky ‘s tactics are clear on marginalisation techniques.
For another Historical analogy…..we today should also beware of Trojan Horses. The Virginia Governor’s race tells us that. And as with all things Time reveals to us the Truth. We just need to stand back and look. Which I think you have done.
CDE, I understand your perspective on this issue. As a fan of your writing, this is why I respectfully disagree with some points, rather than just flat out disagreeing all together as I would with Commie Karl or Melfamy.
Ultimately, I agree that we should acknowledge one’s stand against tyranny and racism. However, I can’t find any substantial grounds to justify terrorism and torture. A life time of benevolence cannot erase this. It would appear to me that if we are going to justify these means for Mandela, then what kind of discussions should we be having about every other kind of revolutionary that had claimed to be fighting the power of oppression, using the same tactics?
That is EXACTLY what they are trying to achieve Fascisti ! You hit the Nail squarely on the Head.
The Liberal….The Communist/Socialist….the Islamofacist ( mohameddans in general really ) are all waging a battle of Words and Confusing Concepts…… once again using the Dumbed down Low-info Types to sell the Notion that Marxism = American Constitutional Republicanism…..They say because George Washington was fighting for his country’s freedom he was the same as the muslims who butcher and torture people in African malls are…..just as Mandela was, so therefore because we aren’t supposed to Judge anyone or anything ( except what those in “Acacdemia” tell us is OK to judge )….. we aren’t supposed to distinguish between Marxists terrorists like Mandela and the Founders struggles with British Tyranny.
You will see versions of this rationale all over the Press and in Academic circles.
fascisti: As always, good and difficult questions. We may differ in this area for a good reason. I am convinced that evil must be confronted and destroyed, because like a cancerous growth it will ultimately destroy the entire organism it inhabits. I view the Apartheid Regime in South Africa as having been evil incarnate and would equate the world the Boers forced the Black South Africans to live under as equivalent to what slavery was in the US during the first half of the 19th century. During that time, my ancestors in my father’s family decided that slavery was contrary to both God’s will and to the principles that America was founded upon. Although they were Quakers who abhorred violence and the taking of human life under any circumstance, they decided the elimination of the evil of slavery warranted the abandonment of their own principles in order to bring about the elimination of a great evil. They became involved in the Anti-Slavery Movement, some of them became involved in the Underground Railroad in Pennsylvania and family legend is that in at least some cases they killed some of the bounty hunters sent to kidnap and return African Americans to their “masters” in the South. These were difficult decisions for my family, just as when they decided to fight under Washington to free the colonies from King George.
While I will fully understand and respect your opinion if we disagree, I think both my ancestors and Nelson Mandela made the right decisions in choosing to fight against the evils of the tyrannies of slavery and Apartheid. And had I been a Black South African during the Apartheid era, I would have joined Mandela and fought to free my countrymen, my family and ultimately my country. Since those are my beliefs, I cannot fault Nelson Mandela for having made the same choice. Many of my Christian friends believe, like most Quakers even today, that passivism is called for by Jesus in the New Testament. There are passages where the writers of the gospels record words to that effect, but they also record Jesus rebuking Satan during his temptation in the wilderness, and chasing the money-changers out of the temple. I disagree with my friends in that I do not think passivism is the right approach when one is committed with a massive evil like slavery or Apartheid, but that is my belief and I understand those who disagree. For me this comes down to a personal decision, rather than one driven by ideology. Good people can differ on this difficult issue, and hopefully still remain friends. Warm regards, CDE
CDE, forgive my untimely reply. For the most part, I think we share the same opinion on the subject of evil fir the most part. However, we respectfully disagree on the means of eradicating it. I’m willing to leave it at that.
On the contrary, (not to change the subject) I’m interested in your Libertarian ideas. Mainly because I haven’t really explored the Libertarian platform. I’m still rather new to the subject of political science. I have always considered myself “conservative”, but never really understood why, nor the principles that bring one to consider themselves “conservative”. My justification was always “because it’s the American way”, which upon my own self-education, have found that reasoning to be very FDR progressive, new deal man thinking. So I say all of that to say that my exposure to libertarianism has been that of the ideas that young libertarians in my generation adhere to. What seems to be problematic to me is that this appears to be nothing more than the right-wing of the progressive movement. Many young libertarians were active in the dealings of the Occupy movement. Many are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and anti-religion. The difference being the support of the 2nd Amendment. The only reason I bring those specific issues up is because they are the hot seat issues of today. In my opinion, I don’t really care what they believe in. All I’m interested in is the coherent consistency of their ideas. Are we getting repackaged progressivism here, or are these libertarians a different brand of thinker altogether? I would be interested in the input of a seasoned libertarian thinker such as yourself.
fascisti: What we view as the appropriate response to evil is in my view secondary to the fact that we agree on the reality of evil. The modern Progressive view of “evil” is basically to deny its reality and to suppress recognition of evil acts wherever possible. The Obama Administration’s and major American media’s denial of the existence and the widespread nature of the racist phenomenon of the “Knock-out Game” is Exhibit A of this approach. As a growing number of people have been finding out through the alternative media and Fox, for at least five years Black-on-White violence, including racially motivated murders, have been growing rapidly. The Knock-out Game, in which gangs of Black teenagers and young adults attack non-Blacks and attempt to knock them unconscious has been systematically hidden from American citizens by news reports consistently suppressing the race of the almost exclusively African American attackers. No condemnations of this nationwide pattern of racially focused violence have been issued by Attorney General Holder or President Obama, despite the fact that both became directly involved in a single incident of violence that occurred between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, a case in which Holder deployed DOJ investigators in an attempt to inflame racial violence and influence the jury’s verdict. This selective prosecution and recognition of evil is central to the Progressive worldview. So we agree that evil is real and must be confronted, but you do not agree with my position that evil must be actively opposed. I honor your right to your opinion on this, but agree we are likely to disagree.
On the issue of libertarian beliefs and values, I will be delighted to address your questions, since it appears that like many American Conservatives, there are some very basic misunderstandings embedded in the concerns you raise. First, a word on why such issues often arise. Libertarians subscribe to very basis set of values, with which most American Conservatives agree. To be an actual libertarian, rather than someone who thinks it’s a cool thing to be, one must embrace individual freedom, free markets and limited government. A fourth core belief is that one should not do unto another citizen something that one would not wish another to do to him or her self, or phrased another way, an individual’s personal freedom may not impinge on the freedom of another. Those are the basic tenets of libertarianism, which we view as the essence of what America’s Founders codified in the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Laws drafted in America must meet the framework formed by those basic libertarian beliefs in order to be construed as “Constitutional” and as consistent with the libertarian movement. Beyond that basic framework, libertarians believe the individual should be free of government interference in his or her economic and personal decisions.
In our view, we libertarians see the role of government to be limited to the security of the nation, the protection of each individual American citizen from aggression by another citizen or from the government itself, the protection of private property rights, and the enforcement of privately executed contracts. We think the government is prohibited by the Constitution’s “Takings Clause” from redistributing private property from one citizen to another or from any citizen to the Federal government itself, without the provision of just compensation. Dr. Richard Epstein, now of NYU Law School, is the preeminent interpreter of the “Takings clause” and of “eminent domain,” which is a related issue. The “Progressive Income Tax,” which was put in place by the Progressive government of Woodrow Wilson, is a violation of the clear Constitutional intent in this area, and although the Progressives managed to pass a Constitutional amendment that theoretically rendered the otherwise un-Constitutional Progressive Income Tax legal, it is a basic violation of the Founders’ clear intent. Libertarians reject the tremendous expansion of the Federal government and Federal power since the first Progressive Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and we believe the majority of Americans agree with our view that government intrusion into the lives of American citizens, and its coercion in programs like Obamacare, is un-Constitutional. In my view this explosion in the size and power of the US government represents a slow-moving coup, an attempt by Progressives/Marxists like Barack Obama to alter the nature of American citizens’ relationship with the Federal government without the approval of Congress or the required Constitutional amendments. We libertarians completely reject these developments, and we think the Constitution supports our position.
A brief word on who is a libertarian before I address your questions about the relationship of libertarians and Progressives. Libertarianism is a movement of ideas derived from the Classical Anglo American Liberalism of America’s Founders and other thinkers like Adam Smith, Alexis De Tocqueville, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Charles Murray, Thomas Sowell, Richard Epstein, Robert Nozick and many others. Had the Progressives not stolen the original name of our tradition, “Liberalism,” to conceal their early policy failures by “rebranding” away from Progressivism, we would likely still sail under the “Liberal” flag, but the Progressives under Wilson, FDR and others appropriated the “Liberal” name, despite sharing no common ground with the Classical Anglo American Liberals who founded our nation. Libertarianism is not a movement that seeks political power for itself, ever. Those who have sought to establish a “Libertarian Party” that seeks office in America are either ignorant of our movement’s ideas, or are intentionally attempting to reduce libertarianism’s influence within the broader Conservative Movement, with whom we agree on most issues. This could permit Progressives, who now control the Democrat Party, to retain control of our nation’s government. The Progressives’ financing of a bogus “Libertarian Party” candidate in the recent Virginia governor’s race is a perfect example of this perverse and dishonest strategy. Real libertarians reject this cynical Progressive deception, and we are warning our Conservative and GOP allies to watch for its reprise in 2014 and 2016.
I’ll address briefly the differences between libertarians and American Conservatives, as libertarians see them. We believe that no government has the right to dictate individual moral decisions, unless those decisions impinge on the freedom of another citizen. Hence, most libertarians believe the decision to partake of alcohol or recreational drugs is a personal rather than a government decision, as long as that decision does not injure another citizen in a personal or property-related manner. This can lead some libertarians to falsely support the pro-abortion cause, since they fail to recognize that science has now proven that an embryonic human, a baby, possesses all the attributes and requirements to develop into a full human being. Given what we now know, an unborn baby must be afforded all the rights of any other human being, with the first and most important right being the right to his or her own life. But Libertarians do not support any government’s authority to enforce a prescriptive morality upon its citizens by utilizing the coercive power of the state. On this point we differ with Conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke, John Adams and Russell Kirk, who we respect but disagree with on this issue. Otherwise, we are generally in agreement with most Conservative principles and policies.
To address your most important question, libertarians oppose every position and policy that Progressives espouse. We stress and support individual freedom, free markets and limited government, while Progressives, as the American version of Marxist Collectivism, require that individual American citizens surrender all of our God-given and constitutionally protected freedoms and rights in the name of some poorly defined “collective” good, which in fact does not exist. What this seizure of our freedoms is all about is the transfer of all power to the Federal government, which will actually mean that a small group of government bureaucrats and their crony (phony) capitalist allies, who call themselves “experts,” will have control over every aspect of our lives. Obamacare is just the latest power grab by the Progressives, but it is critical since if implemented it will give the Federal government control over our most intimate and personal decisions, and effective control of who lives and who dies. The other freedoms already under attack by the Democrat Progressives include our freedoms of religion, assembly, ideas, communication, the press, the right to keep and bear arms, to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure and the list goes on. Libertarians, at least real libertarians, reject these Progressive policies utterly and categorically. One cannot be a movement libertarian and support Progressive values or policies. The libertarian and Progressive movements are completely and totally incompatible.
I hope this comment helps explain a bit about the libertarian perspective that shape my views on most important issues. Libertarianism is often distorted by both Progressives and American Conservatives, since our radical positions on individual freedom, free markets and limited government do not change regardless of who holds power in Washington. We do not generally trust Establishment Republicans any more than Progressive Democrats, since we view both groups as primarily concerned with the preservation of their own power and privileges. We often make common cause with the TEA Party Movement within the GOP, because our beliefs and values probably align most closely with those groups. But everyone who calls him or herself a “Libertarian,” particularly with a capital “L,” may not in fact be one of us, since we are defined by our libertarian principles, not by what we call ourselves. Warm regards, CDE
CDE, what an informative explanation! Thanks for providing the insight and clarity into the question of “what is Libertarianism?” It sounds like I have heard a lot of those principles discussed at some point or another, in some shape or form, and I agree with them for the most part. Ultimately, I’m not saying that I’m a libertarian, but this definitely broadens my perspective on who is all for the cause liberty these days, and who is not; and I welcome these allies. While I don’t see these principles played out among the libertarians of my generation (sounds like some of that libertarian in name only, that you discussed), I definitely appreciate these ideas among the authentic libertarian crowd. I’ll have to read the works of those influences in order to become more well rounded on the subjects of individual freedom, liberty, and free markets.
fascisti: Glad my piece helped a bit. Not sure exactly where you are generationally, but many younger people have decided they are essentially “one-issue libertarians,” and then issue seems to be the freedom to use recreational drugs, which is now permitted in Colorado and Washington State. Having talked to a few of these people, my conclusion has been that they really don’t understand what libertarianism is about, but they think the movement provides intellectual legitimation for something they want to do anyway. Maybe some will eventually explore and accept libertarian principles but right now they are looking to smoke pot in public and that’s about it. the best place to start on understanding libertarianism is Charles Murray’s book WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A LIBERTARIAN, which is well written, comparatively short and really explains libertarian principles well. I view Dr. Murray as the preeminent social scientist since Alexis De Tocqueville, and he is friend who often posts on my Facebook page, which you welcome to connect to under my name, Charles David Edinger. If you find Murray’s book helpful I can suggest many more excellent sources. Regards, CDE
Ah, forgive my ambiguity, CDE. I’m 24. Near middle Generation Y. In light of that, the marijuana issue was another issue I was initially going to mention in my original inquiry of libertarianism. In fact, it was the main issue I was going to bring up. It simply slipped my mind. As a college student in the Seattle area, quite a few of my peers (the one’s that were fortunate enough to not inherit their parent’s progressivism) are self-proclaimed libertarians, and even larger advocates marijuana. Although I cannot competently critique their understanding of libertarian ideas, I would agree with the assertion “but they think the movement provides intellectual legitimation for something they want to do anyway. Maybe some will eventually explore and accept libertarian principles but right now they are looking to smoke pot in public and that’s about it.” I will have to take your recommendation and read this book. Thanks for your helpful insights!
Therefore, a lot of are created obtainable around the world.
Often people are gripped by intense feelings like anger, hatred, depression, stress, boredom, loneliness,
etc. No wonder that new memberships in gyms spike in January.