Tom, the whole “pro-Confederate” thing is just laughable. They obviously know we’re not “pro-Confederate” in any sense — what is there to support in a government that (like the U.S. government at the time) condoned slavery, imposed a fiat currency, and engaged in military conscription?
Yet I am routinely described by the smearbund, including Kirchik the genius, as “pro-Confederate.” What can that possibly mean? I guess that’s what you get called if you stray from what your fourth-grade teacher taught you about the Civil War, and don’t think the statesmanlike approach to secession was to launch a war that led to 1.5 million people dead, wounded, or missing. But that doesn’t mean I “support the Confederacy” — any more than my belief that suspects shouldn’t be confined forever without trial means I “support terrorism.”
The smear artists aren’t stupid, and obviously know these things. They say what they do knowing full well it’s false, but also knowing that the general public, as ignorant as can be when it comes to issues like this, might fall for this kind of moronic accusation. (I love the claim that our wing of libertarianism contends that “support for the Confederacy” is part of libertarianism. Interesting that they do not quote a single person in support of this ridiculous assertion.)
The funny thing, though, is this: none of it has done me a bit of harm. Not a bit. Thankfully, people know b.s. when they see it. I still get published by major publishers, I won a major book prize last year, I speak at universities all over the country, I have a TV series coming out this year on EWTN, and heck, I even spoke at Cato last year (text, audio, Real Video). (If they really believed their propaganda about me, they would never have permitted me to walk through their doors, and their people would never have appeared on the same program with me.)
Bottom line: no one cares what they think — no one, that is, except D.C. bootlickers who crave respectability in official quarters.
Oh, and when the dust clears, their collusion in the attack on Ron Paul is going to hurt, a lot. People will stand back and ask: you mean, here we had the best chance ever to elect a libertarian to office, and you people colluded in an attack on him about some old newsletters (discussed by Justin Raimondo here and elsewhere) that you yourselves admit do not really represent his views (David Boaz made this concession)? Just because he happens not to be owned by Koch, and just so you could pursue some petty institutional rivalry?
How do you think that’s going to go over?
12:26 am on February 5, 2008
