Triumph of the Red-State Fascists
by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
DIGG THIS
Every Republican
I've spoken to is mystified that John McCain has sewn up the Republican
nomination. For his entire career, he has been more statist on both
domestic and foreign policy than even the typical Republican. He
has been considered a "liberal," and not in a good sense. He
doesn't share any of the values that are said to make up the Republican
consensus on economics or culture or religion. His personal baggage
is heavy and a mile long. He had no dedicated constituency within
the party.
Of course I'm
not talking to the run-of-the-mill Republican. There are vast hordes
of these people who have never read a book and vote only by the
most sordid political instinct known to man. McCain is their candidate.
It comes down to one thing only: the simple-minded, unthinking impression
that he is a war hero and, more than anyone else, has what it takes
to smash the evil foreign peoples who want to kill us. In short,
he appeals to the militaristic, nationalistic impulses of the base
Republican base.
The real question
is why that one issue would trump every other concern alive among
Republicans. How is it that imperialist nationalism has come to
trump every other issue?
Murray Rothbard
used to tell the story of speaking to conservative and Republican
audiences in the late 1950s and early 1960s. There would be large
groups gathered for various talks on economics and politics. He
would give a lecture on the problem of price controls, or protectionism,
or high taxes. People really liked what he had to say. They would
clap, and learn from his lecture.
Then he would
sit down. At some point in the course of the conference, the appointed
anti-communist speaker would rise to the podium. He would decry
the evil of Russia and its atheistic system of government. He would
call for beefing up nuclear weapons and hint darkly of the necessity
of war. He would end with an apocalyptic statement about the need
for everyone to completely dedicate themselves to eradicating the
communists by any means necessary. No talk of limiting or cutting
government; quite the opposite.
So how would
these people, who clapped for Murray, respond to the warmonger?
Insanely, wildly, uncontrollably. They would stand and scream and
yell and cheer, getting up on their chairs and putting their hands
together high in the air. The applause would go on for five minutes
and more, and the speaker would be later mauled for autographs.
His books would sell wildly.
Meanwhile,
poor Murray would stand there in alarm. How could these same people
cheer both a call for liberty and a call for empire, and, most notably,
give their hearts over to the maniacal nationalist while being merely
polite to a call for the same liberty that had led this party to
oppose FDR's domestic and foreign-policy? It was experiences like
these that led him to write the most important dissection of the
Republican party ever to appear: The
Betrayal of the American Right. It is here that Murray engages
in a deep, soul-searching look at his own role in red-baiting in
the 1950s. He had hoped to use the anti-communist movement to educate
people about the need for freedom.
"It is clear
that libertarians and Old Rightists, including myself, had made
a great mistake in endorsing domestic red-baiting, a red-baiting
that proved to be the major entering wedge for the complete transformation
of the original right wing," writes Murray. Instead of supporting
freedom, the anti-communist movement ended up acculturating Republicans
to the imperial mindset. The moral priority of crushing a foreign
government trumped every other issue.
At the same
time, the libertarianism of the GOP's domestic agenda was supplanted
by a belief that "big government and domestic statism were perfectly
acceptable, provided that they were steeped in some sort of Burkean
tradition and enjoyed a Christian framework." Fiery individualism
and radicalism were replaced by a longing for a static, controlling
elite of the European sort. Liberty was washed away.
That was fifty
years ago. Today the same priorities abound on the right: first,
nationalism and empire, and, second, longing for order in the domestic
area. The switch from anti-communist militarism to anti-Islamic
imperialism was not difficult. They took a chapter out of Orwell,
and merely changed the name of the enemy.
All of this
laid the groundwork for McCain. Each Republican presidential contender
has been worse than the last: Nixon and Reagan felt the need to
endorse some libertarian themes in their campaigns, and even the
two Bushes used limited government and anti-big government rhetoric.
But that has evaporated, replaced now by the most virulent jingoism
combined with domestic statism.
Many of my
Republican friends criticize McCain as a leftist. I can see the
point. But we ought not be too quick to believe that all forms of
anti-libertarian ideology are leftist. We need to recognize that
there is a form of non-leftist statism of a very distinct kind.
It is not socialist in the traditional sense. It believes in a corporate
state, combined with protectionism and belligerence in foreign policy.
The right-wing predecessors here are Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler,
and the name of the ideology is fascism.
For
more on this, see John T. Flynn's As
We Go Marching. He listed some points of the fascist program.
It is a form of social organization "in which the government acknowledges
no restraint upon its powers," is managed by the "leadership principle,"
and in which "the government is organized to operate the capitalist
system and enable it to function under an immense bureaucracy."
In fascism, "militarism is used as a conscious mechanism of government
spending," and "imperialism is included as a policy inevitably
flowing from militarism." "Wherever you find a nation using all
of these devices," he wrote, "you will know that this is a fascist
nation."
Republicans
are prepared to push this agenda, altered to fit the American political
context, in this election. Their number one tactic to retain power
is impugning the patriotism of Barack Obama. It seems like a puzzle,
but an opinion piece by William Kristol in the New York Times
offers
a clue into the basis of the Republican campaign. He first makes
a big deal out of the fact that Obama used to wear an American flag
pin on his coat, but now no longer does so. He drags this up as
if to accuse him of disloyalty to the American cause.
It is hard
to imagine a more brainless and low-level tactic than to harp on
such things. It compares only to the periodic campaigns by Republicans
on the issue of flag burning, as if whether a person burns a privately
owned flag has any bearing at all on the well-being of the country.
But then Kristol goes further into the depths of depravity by attempting
to paint Obama's wife as guilty of treason for saying that she is
proud of America "for the first time in my adult lifetime." By citing
these words, he is implying that she is an America hater.
Now, what buttons
is Kristol trying to push here? It is the now familiar fascist theme:
loyalty to the nation state and its wars must be the first and only
test of worthiness to serve in public office. Folks, this is a cloud
no bigger than a man's hand that is very likely to mutate into a
full storm. Sad to say, the Republican faithful, the same people
that were stupid enough to vote for McCain, will probably go for
it.
How I recall
those heady days of the 1970s, when everyone said that the move
of the neoconservatives into the Republican party portended a raising
of the intellectual level. Quite the reverse. These people are taking
things straight into the gutter, where they had already been tending
since the late 1950s.
February
26, 2008
Llewellyn
H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him
mail] is founder and president of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com,
and author of Speaking
of Liberty.
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
Lew
Rockwell Archives
|