Rand Paul, Eugene McCarthy, and the ‘Values of the Hills and Hollows’
Kentucky Democrat demagogues defense cuts
What does it take for a dyed-in-the-wool progressive to transform himself into such a warmongering Dick Cheney look-alike that he even harkens back to the Vietnam war era, darkly implying that we were stabbed in the back by Eugene McCarthy and a bunch of crazy college kids?
I’ll tell you just what it takes: the election of Rand Paul to the US Senate.
That’s all it took for David Hawpe, the Grand Old Man of Kentucky progressives, recently retired after a century or so at the helm of the Louisville Courier-Journal‘s editorial page. As an "adviser" to Paul’s opponent, former state Attorney General Jack Conway, Hawpe never let such journalistic niceties as the pretense of objectivity get in the way of his openly partisan agenda. He proudly wore two hats. As one Kentucky blogger reports, Hawpe "performed his job at the C-J with a rooster — the symbol of the Kentucky Democratic Party — on his desk."
What moved him to come out of retirement with such alarming swiftness was the swearing in of the freshly elected libertarian US Senator and Paul’s recent comments that the military budget is "on the table." In a screed of such alarming hypocrisy that it must forever serve as the exemplar of turn-on-a-dime partisanship, Hawpe – who vigorously denounced the Iraq war, and the Bush administration for launching it – denounces Rand Paul for advocating cuts in military spending. Yet why wouldn’t a withdrawal from Iraq – a real withdrawal, not the fake one we’re engaged in now – make military cuts possible, or even inevitable?
One really has to read Hawpe’s polemic in full to appreciate the depths to which this hack has sunk. He starts out with a paean to the military virtues, as embodied in the "hills and hollows" of Kentucky:
"It was a living moment.
"The winter graduation crowd rose spontaneously. Applause filled the Morehead Academic-Athletic Center.
"Two clean-cut, stiff-backed young men embraced. The crowd cheered with an honest fervor seldom heard at non-athletic events.
"This was a mountain audience, unabashedly revealing itself and the values of the hills and hollows.
"When university President Wayne Andrews presented diplomas to this winter’s graduates, there was polite applause. Families of honorees produced the predictable outbursts, provoking embarrassed grins from the objects of their relatives’ enthusiasm. …But it was only when ROTC Cadets Zachary Shawver and Zachariah Sutte marched to the stage that a great wave of sound rose and beat against the auditorium walls. Maj. Robert Mason, chairman of the Department of Military Science, administered the oath of office to the new second lieutenants. They grinned as wide as an Appalachian valley and hugged each other. When they marched briskly off the platform, an affectionate roar followed them."
This cinematic valorization of "stiff-backed" young men embracing, and military virtue on parade, is but a précis to the political agenda Hawpe is peddling, for midway through his turgid prose we read that Morehead ROTC is not just a great educational resource in a region where, Hawpe notes, such attainments are "a challenge." No, it’s also a political statement, an ideological call to arms, as Hawpe reminds his readers what a bastion of pro-war sentiment Morehead was during the 1960s:
"In January of 1968, as the Tet Offensive was nearing in Vietnam and other universities were under pressure to shove ROTC off campus, Morehead enthusiastically embraced the program. MSU officials knew that the Appalachian region their institution serves is a great reservoir of patriotism — where service in, and respect for, the military is expected
"In a year when New England college students trudged the snow to campaign for Gene McCarthy and repudiate the Vietnam War, Morehead honored Appalachia’s military and patriotic traditions. That spring, while Morehead was welcoming its new Eagle ROTC Battalion, the national media covered anti-war riots on the Berkeley campus. Since that historic spring, Morehead has commissioned more than 600 officers."
Apparently "the values of the hills and the hollows" don’t allow for protesting an immoral and utterly futile war in a faraway land whose people don’t want us there. For this alleged progressive to wave the bloody shirt of Vietnam, and imply that those who opposed that war were somehow less than patriotic – well, you can’t get any lower than that.
But you can try, and Hawpe does just that as he segues into the real point of his screed:
"It’s a shame that those would-be congressional budget-cutters who represent Kentucky in Congress weren’t at this year’s MSU winter graduation. That includes Senator-elect Rand Paul, who last October co-authored a letter complaining, ‘The Department of Defense currently takes up almost 56 percent of all discretionary federal spending, and accounts for nearly 65 percent of the increase in national discretionary spending levels since 2001.’ Dr. Paul said on his campaign website, ‘I believe that large cuts in defense spending are indispensable …’"
So it’s Hawpe and those straight-backed cleancut ROTCers, with their patriotic fervor and their history of support for US intervention in a tiny Southeast Asian nation that suffered over a million casualties, versus Rand Paul, Eugene McCarthy, and those unwashed hippies relentlessly covered by the national media. That’s the dichotomy Hawpe wants to draw for his readers: stiff-backed patriots versus media-driven Benedict Arnolds. A better rendition of the neoconservative "stab-in-the-back" myth could hardly be expected in the pages of the Weekly Standard, or National Review – and yet here it is, staring us in the face, in the Courier-Journal, mouthpiece of Kentucky’s progressive community, and appearing under Hawpe’s byline instead of, say, Bill Kristol‘s or Victor Davis Hanson‘s.
This is all very weird, but not very surprising. Indeed, it’s just what one would expect from those who put party above principle and power above morality. There is, furthermore, every reason to expect, with Democrats now in charge of waging our endless "war on terrorism," that even the most "progressive" among them will reject spending cuts of all kinds – including reductions in military spending. For them, spending is in and of itself a high principle, a practice that must be maintained no matter what – because it’s all "stimulus," meant to "re-start" the slumping economy.
Except it isn’t, and it won’t – because only private business generates real production, real values, and real wealth. Government spending – especially military spending – is simply a drain on the productive sector. The jobs that didn’t materialize this year were, instead, exported overseas to Afghanistan, where we’re paying Afghan border guards to smoke dope and sodomize young boys.
As an "adviser" to Conway during the Senate race, perhaps it was Hawpe who suggested the Democratic candidate take out after Paul for being "weak" on defense. He should have taken a lesson from Paul’s Republican primary opponent, who tried that – even citing an interview Rand Paul did with Scott Horton on Antiwar Radio – and was crushed at the polls. Just like Conway was crushed.
The movement started by the elder Paul, and effectively championed by Paul the younger, is not just the Tea Party plain and simple, concerned solely with economic issues – although the core appeal is to those who are fed up with government in general, and want to fiercely limit it on the home front. This is also a movement that consistently applies its first principles – less government, more individual liberty – all across the board, extending their critique of the welfare state to also include the warfare state. When the typical Republican is interrogated by, say, some Democratic party hack on MSNBC as to what, exactly, the "tea party Republicans" intend to cut, reductions in military spending are nearly always excluded right off the bat. Yet as Ron Paul says, if we cut back on our overseas commitments – our empire, as he rightly calls it – we’d have enough left over to fund all the social programs liberal Democrats don’t want to cut.
The Establishment, as represented in both major parties, is terrified. They see that their system cannot last much longer, and are desperately trying to hold off those peasants with pitchforks at the pass. They’ve tried every sort of smear and calumny to destroy the Paulian movement, defaming both father and son – to no avail. Rudy Giuliani, Trey Greyson, Jack Conway – all of these characters are history, and have found their places in the Graveyard of Failed Politicians, while the Paul family is still running strong.
A specter is haunting Obama’s America – the specter of libertarianism. New York magazine reassures its readers that libertarians are just harmless utopians, doomed to fail. Rachel Maddow implies that they’re racists, and pawns of some billionaire in Kansas. The whole machinery of ideological orthodoxy whirrs into action and churns out rhetorical boilerplate: libertarians, we are told, are "extremists," and also "impractical" idealists who nevertheless represent a real "danger" to the precious bodily fluids of anyone who comes into contact with them. And the complaints are rising: from social conservatives, who claim they’re taking over CPAC, as well as from the born-again "moderate" David Frum and progressives of Hawpe’s stripe.
This chorus of whining at the success of the freedom movement is a good sign – indeed, it is the most encouraging news I’ve heard in my 40 years as an activist. The David Hawpes of this world are right to be in a panic, because libertarianism does indeed threaten his warped version of "the values of the hills and hollows," which are entirely a product of his hollowed-out brain. Those values – embodied in a highly centralized, highly militarized overweening federal government – are on their way out. And if Hawpe wants a clue as to what will replace them, he should look to the principles of the movement that so handily defeated him and his dwindling band of supporters in the Bluegrass State.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- Up Against the FBI – May 23rd, 2013
- Antiwar.com vs. the FBI – May 21st, 2013
- Two Cheers for ‘Isolationism’ – May 19th, 2013
- Our Civil Liberties, RIP – May 16th, 2013
- Raping the World – May 14th, 2013





Johnny in Wi.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
The Paul's have made an impact and won elections for 2 reasons. They get support from libertarians and social conservatives. Rand Paul would have won nothing without massive support from social conservatives. Now the trick is to get at least some of these people to support the antiwar movement. By 2012 the wars will be in such bad oder that it may be possible to do so.
AngelaTC
January 7th, 2011 at 12:28 am
Johnny, I agree with you to a point, but by 2012 we might possibly be in a new war. North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Africa….the possibilities are endless. Getting people to oppose the war is seemingly an exercise in futility. There are still far too many people out there that insist that Iraq really did have WMDs, and they won't ever face the truth. IN 2006 and to a smaller extent, in 2008 the people sent the GOP a pretty clear message on foreign policy. Washington has no interest on our opinion on the issue.
I don't want to abandon the anti-war agenda, but we have to be able to work on alternative ways of getting our candidates elected. One way requires a tremendous leap of faith – to believe in our candidates – let them stop beating the anti war drums and operate in a stealth mode. Libertarians have never been able to put the unpopular portions of their message on a back burner for the sake of appealing to the masses, and their purity, while certainly understandable, comes at a steep cost.
wadosy
January 7th, 2011 at 12:51 am
"…alternative ways…"
you could start by hammering the boomers with truth…
for instance, you could tell them, "you're gonna have to make a choice between your social security/medicare or wars to defend israel."
even boomers should be able to understand that… and if that doesnt work… well… i guess we just got to hunker down and wait for the monster to destroy itself.
AngelaTC
January 7th, 2011 at 12:56 am
Hammering them with truth doesn't work. That's why we're in the position we're in.
Having the country collapse might not mean that liberty will be restored. Russia didn't turn into an economic powerhouse after their meltdown. These days, everything is pretty much run by the Russian Mafia there. THere's nothing to keep that from happening here.
wadosy
January 7th, 2011 at 1:03 am
i mean, i got very little faith in turning over the social security and medicare funds to the looters, who, by their actions, are demonstrating what they believe in.
why do you think the israeli american press is so outraged by putin's treatment of the oligarchs?
russia at least has a chance, now that putin cleaned house, seeing as how russia's got so much oil… too bad the neocon russian oily oligarchs got banished… they seem to have been an important piece of the 9-11/war on terror/PNAC operation.
how you gonna achieve "benevolent global hegemony" if you dont control the country that produces the most oil?
so the options remaining, to the big israeli american boys, are: nuke first strikes on russia and china (nuclear primacy) or looting.
the nuke option would seriously screw up your opportunities to loot, probably.
*shrug*
wadosy
January 7th, 2011 at 1:14 am
"…Hammering them with truth doesn't work…"
when's the last time you saw a new york times article detailing the genesis of the "war on terror", the role of israel and israeli americans in promoting the original war, and the role of israel and israeli americans in promoting the subsequent wars?
when's the last time you saw a report in any major US media of israel's plight: israel must be secured from sea level rise caused by global warming before israel's american protection collapses from oil shortages and looters?
you are not seriously trying to tell us that people who get their news from faux are being told the truth, are you?
bob35983
January 7th, 2011 at 1:39 am
Mr. Raimondo; re: Values of the Hills & Hollows"
I always remember that scene in Sgt York when the traveling salesman stops in the general store (in TN) and mentions "the war" … and the locals grow surly and ask "What war?" and "Hey, mister, you lookin' for trouble?"
Sans Flag Pins
January 7th, 2011 at 3:27 am
This is the fight!!! As Rand Paul, has pointed out, Obama as a member of congress voted against raising the debt ceiling, so its hypocritical to think now that he is in charge of the executive that the sky will fall. The Palin wing, who is losing her luster in the polls, (really, she was interventionist Extrordanaire's McCain's VP choice) will bend to keep influence. We need Patrick J Buchanan to enter the fight. We don't need a Yellow Peril (Gingrich) fight like Mr Raimondo has predicted , because we are asking the CCP communist Chinese to buy our debt ceiling. We need to get our fiscal act together, that scares the rest of the GOP and its scares the Democrats, but the YOUTH KNOW IT!!!! (even with the propaganda blitz, they know it). The Smart Youth know it, they know the bankers where bailed out by both parties, and they know how election money buys the GOP and Obama.
GradyWilson
January 7th, 2011 at 4:08 am
Justin Raimondo is a liar. "The most progressive" do NOT oppose military cuts – they advocate them just as much as his beloved Paul's do. A mainstream Democrat writing for an establishment newspaper in Kentucky does NOT speak for "progressive" America. Justin is a deceitful hack who again, does exactly the opposite which he pretends – instead of building bridges with the anti-war left he blows bridges up. Go f'ing work for Rand Paul you hyper partisan Tea Bagger and leave this site for people truly committed to uniting the antiwar left and right.
Bring back Jeff Huber and give Justin the boot. I bet donations will soar.
Johnny in Wi.
January 7th, 2011 at 4:49 am
Grady with all due respect: All the worst warmongers have been liberal icons. Lincoln, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy Johnson, Clinton and now Obama. To me the greatest President was Warren Harding. in two and a half years he slashed the budget 60%, got us through a serious recession, had a great peace conferance which massivly reduced the world's navies, lowered taxes 60%, and freed all the political prisoners in Wilson's jails.
Johnny in Wi.
January 7th, 2011 at 4:50 am
Dang: Grady I forgot the worst of them all FDR.
GradyWilson
January 7th, 2011 at 4:56 am
But the Paul's haven't made any real impact at all.
They are part of the dominant warmongering party which celebrates the military and military aggression itself. They are tolerated, as you correctly said, because of their social conservatism. They get votes because of their hatred of the left, fetus hugging, anti-immigration, anti-global warming, stances – not because they oppose imperialism.
When it comes to military intervention – they have no impact. None. You might even call them frauds for being alleged antiwar members of a viciously warmongering GOP. The same at this point could be said for anti-war Dems.
GradyWilson
January 7th, 2011 at 5:40 am
Right. The Democrat Party is not, and has never been, anti-war I agree. So why does Raimondo continue to pretend that a Democrat, like the one in his crosshairs of this article, represents anti-war "progressives"? They are not the same and Justin knows this but he deceitfully pretends otherwise.
And lets not ignore the fact that the modern Republican Party is THE Party of imperial aggression. Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes were/are celebrated by their war loving followers for their warmongering ways. Remember McCain singing "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"? Ever seen a military flyover before a Nascar race? The conservative good ole' boys and girls go crazy! It reminds me of Soviet Russia or N Korea celebration of the military.
Republicans leaders and voters love the military and war. Democrat leaders support war against the wishes of their voters who some day might wake up.
GradyWilson
January 7th, 2011 at 5:54 am
Are you pretending that the Republicans were against entering the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam? Are you pretending that the Republicans opposed the CIA coup in Iran and coups throughout Latin America to this day? Are you pretending that Democrat Party controls US foreign policy against Republican opposition?
Why can't you acknowledge that US military aggression is a bi-partisan endeavor? Seems like you are a Republican apologist – ignoring the actions of Ike, Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes and exclusively focusing on Democrat military aggression. And if you want to divide everything by parties – Lincoln was a Republican btw.
Regardless of Party – all US wars of aggression were/are fought for capitalist profit. A fact you, and all libertarians, fail to acknowledge.
Herman King
January 7th, 2011 at 5:57 am
fetus-hugging, anti-immigration? Well, you have certainly made clear what leftwing sewer you crawled out of.
wadosy
January 7th, 2011 at 6:16 am
"…all US wars of aggression were/are fought for capitalist profit…"
…aka "benevolent global hegemony", dreamed up by israeli americans who, in the process of achieving their "benevolent global hegemony", will also secure their refuge of last resort, israel… israel's function as "refuge of last resort" having been demonstrated to us by the israeli russian oligarchs.
wadosy
January 7th, 2011 at 6:18 am
…unless, of course, the big money looters and the AEI/PNAC israeli americans are only using jews' exemption from criticism (achieved by laboring over a hot holocaust oven for, lo, these many years) as cover for the most massive looting operation in history.
after all, who in their right mind would seek refuge in israel (given israel's problems –past present and future) when the gulfstream is loaded up with gold and you can buy refuge in the garden spot of your choice?
AngelaTC
January 7th, 2011 at 6:33 am
Of course not. But the media isn't suddenly going to wake up and start telling truths, and I'd be surprised if you haven't seen the hostile reactions that common truths get.
The MSM media did report that Iraq didn't have WMDs. President Bush, as well as several other members of his administration made statements affirming that assertion. The CIA admitted it. The Pentagon admitted it. Ditto with the Iraq / Al Qaeda connection. But the people in the GOP who vote for war resort go so far as to insisting all those people were wrong.
Education isn't the answer. If we were a nation of intellectuals, that might work. But we're not. As a nation we make decisions based on emotion, then seek out facts that support our position.
Libertarians are very good at accepting the world as is, as opposed to seeking to change it. I don't understand why they can't view politics through that same lens. Education ought to work, but it doesn't. We need a plan B.
wadosy
January 7th, 2011 at 6:42 am
one question remaining is, i guess, how much of the loot is finding its way to israel?
if israel is protected by america, and america's decline is being accelerated by jewish looters, what does that say about the looters' loyalty to israel, unless the loot is going to israel, to be used to buy or install by force muslim governments friendly to israel?
will israel be able to conceal its control of muslim governments once israel is no longer protected by america, or will arab and other muslim populations knuckle under to israel's puppet governments without a fight?
wadosy
January 7th, 2011 at 6:50 am
you say the media isnt going to wake up and tell the truth, then the next paragraph you say the media did tell the truth.
meanwhile, once boomers start living from 50 lb bags of friskies kibble, they're likely to experience a certain amount of emotion…
in fact, even thinking about the possibility of living on cat food might cause boomers to think… a long shot, admittedly.
and then there's the health care… everybody's heard those horror stories about how much it costs to die, havent they? …paper millionaires dying penniless after a long stay in intensive care, etc etc…
the rational solution would be to give everybody a lethal dose of heroin (from our very successful opium farms in afghanistan) upon retirement, plus a bus ticket to a boomer graveyard out in the sticks someplace where boomers can off themselves without scaring the horses.
bozh
January 7th, 2011 at 7:02 am
justin:
'Apparently "the values of the hills and the hollows" don’t allow for protesting an immoral and utterly futile war in a faraway land whose people don’t want us there.'
immoral war?? if we want to pigeonhole it, i prefer label "crime against humanity".
had it been moral [and only in us. minds] it wld have been ok??
futile war. yeah, tell it it to iraqi refugees and possibly 200k + dead people there.
establishing perm bases in iraq and keeping it puppetized and dismembered may be viewed as success and useful to the empire.
meanwhile people are getting richer than ever. for such people, god bless us more with such wars wld be music to their ears!
and doesn't god bless america; thus all it does, including destruction of palestina; and all its bases, congress, cia, army echelons, disinformation by media, justin [not me--devil forbid!], several occupations, bailouts, torture, etcetc! tnx
emsnews
January 7th, 2011 at 7:06 am
Justin's war against antiwar leftists continues and this shows us that the economic realities are the true battlefield as always. The US has decisively lost the international trade wars. We surrendered not just to rivals like China but to all of our 'allies'. We disarmed our own nation by passively destroying our own industrial base. Many of our cities look like Dresden in 1945 and now more cities will end up looking like Hiroshima after the nuke destroyed it. That is, not even ruins left behind.
This gross economic destruction was caused by free trade and the floating fiat currency regime. Justin, like many libertarians, is against the floating fiat currency but not against free trade. Most liberals are for a floating fiat currency and against free trade. I see points of unity here but they are in opposition in a dangerous way. The idea that we must have protectionism AND a gold standard-type of currency creation restriction regime is the key to fixing the mess we are in.
AngelaTC
January 7th, 2011 at 7:17 am
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. The media reported only the "truth" that the government told them in the form of press releases. They certainly didn't jump all over the Downing Street memo, the Wikileaks revelations, Sibel Edmunds' story…the list goes on, and you probably have more examples in your arsenal than I do.
Not sure how old you are, but the stories of old people eating cat food only served to increase government dependence, not free us from it. There's no good reason to think that people will react differently when it happens again.
wadosy
January 7th, 2011 at 7:28 am
when the propaganda arm of the goverment –aka the american media– has cooperated with industry and its need for a mobile labor force, and in the process has destroyed our family support mechanisms, then it's a good thing that we get heroin overdoses instead of gold watches, dont you think?
i'm sure most boomers will be pleased to give up their social security and medicare, and overdose on government-supplied heroin rather than jeopardize our heroic little brother democracy in the middle east, which was founded in lies, terrorism and injustice, and has preserved itself by lies, terror and injustice, and was a bad idea in the first place.
yup, the boomers are gonna be tickled pink to give up their stuff to support israel.
wadosy
January 7th, 2011 at 7:37 am
i guess we could start from scratch…
do you believe that social security and medicare should be turned over to the wall street looters?
do you believe that the war expenses, largely to defend israel –because we're still buying oil, and if anything, the wars are making oil more expensive– are more important than social security and medicare?
are you buying into the neocons' PNAC project of achieving "benevolent global hegemony", and do you believe that the key to that project is regaining control of russian energy while depriving china of access to energy?
do you believe that we should spend our money on building infrastructure that's in line with expectations of lower energy consumption, more localized economies, and consequent reestablishment of family support structures that will eventually replace government aid?
wadosy
January 7th, 2011 at 7:41 am
are you willing to admit that global oil production apparently peaked in 2005 (according to the EIA, table 4.1d) or 2006, according to the IEA?
Johnny in Wi.
January 7th, 2011 at 8:09 am
The Republican Robert LaFollette led the oposition to WW1. The Republican leader of the Senate, Robert Taft was against the Korean War. Republicans like Herbert Hoover, and William Borah, were against entering in WW2 until Pearl Harbor. The Republican Dwight Eisenhower ended the Korean war, stopped Israel in it's war with Egypt, and warned against the military industrail complex. Nixon for all his faults ended the Vietnam war and the Draft. Reagan was President for 8 years and didn't get us into any real fights. Ron Paul and Pat buchanan have both been the most effective spokesmen for ending our empire and ending aid to Israel.
Bianca
January 7th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
And all about Russia we learn from …. our "free" media! And the diplomats that report what their bosses at State want to hear. As for Democrats, they never had any other role but to be the bodyguards. They are to hold back the peasants, writers, intellectuals, or anybody else who took patriotism to mean much more then fireworks and hot dogs. What EVERYONE can agree to, from small business owners to ultra-left, from retirees to workers is the following: our goverment is controlled by FOREIGN corporations. These pretend to be American, but no longer contribute anything, while taking our taxpayers money and moving it outside of US. Once we classify them as foreign corporations, our economy, competition, inventiveness and savings will go through the roof. They kill any domestic production, their products control our store shelves, pay no taxes, employ mostly overseas — and rig our political process. They hate us, as our social security, education and health care are WASTEFUL spending, better spent on wars that they make money in. And americans they employ, they take life insurance on, being more valuable dead then alive. Getting them off the US corporation status should be the job for our Congress.
Bianca
January 7th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
I am starting to see the light. I did not notice before how libertarianism tends to dump progressives in with Democratic party.
I really wish we could avoid being MANIPULATED by the terminology imposed on us. Opposite from globalism is not protectionism. Opposite from empire is not isolationism. And why even talk in opposites, when in fact, there are many ways to be "globalized", just as there are many ways to practice "free trade". What on earth we expect from corporations that can exercise all the political muscle in this country, while being foreign corporations in everything but name? Why do they care if people walk through New York with tuberculosis? Their workforce is outside of this country, and they do not have to care about them one bit! Pay no taxes, get government contracts, especially military and "security" related, and have their families somewhere in France. Their jets do not even have to be registered in US, as they hop in and out! Does anyone doubt that an American is not capable inventing new soft drinks, reinvent manufacturing and urban design? There will be no more need for their wars, and fancy geopolitical games. We can take care of ourselves.
Bianca
January 7th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
I am confused by your reasoning. The law does not allow for collective ownership of resources? Excuse me, but the law and the constitution does NO SUCH THING. Today, WE collectively, are the owners of millions of acres of public lands, drilling, logging, grazing and mining rights. We are the OWNERS of every dollar in the budget. We are also responsible for payments of debt, and other international obligations that are financially committed on our behalf. The PROBLEM is, american public has been conditioned to view all this as NOBODY's, as if it is really in the ownership of politicians that can then spend it or give it away as they wish.
The problem with the western "capitalism" is that it got stuck partially in the time of lords and dukes. Then, royals could "grant" lands and other priviledges to the nobility, and mint new nobilities as they pleased. The money collected as taxes was THEIRS to dispose of. We now do the same, except that the corporations are the new lords and dukes, and gift the money to them.
LeftistsAreRetarded
January 7th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
To a libertarian, leftists are little better than neocons in that they LOVE using govt force to order people around.
Leftists are completely ignorant when it comes to economics.
Leftists are for taxes w/o which govts can't wage war.
Wars don't just happen…first a tax-base must be est…leftists just don't understand this.
Leftists are fine w/govt warfare against the citizenry, and then act surprised that this same govt then turns its eyes to the wider world to wage war.
LeftistsAreStupid
January 7th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Don't forget the great "progressive" Woodrow Wilson who embarked on the great global crusade for democracy!
GradyWilson
January 8th, 2011 at 5:09 am
The truth hurts to you Raimondo sycophants doesn't it? Its rather obvious that Justin is lying – all of the left does not support any spending (including military spending) as Justin deceitfully lies. We hate the Pentagon and its murderers – a hell of a lot more than the Pauls do.
GradyWilson
January 8th, 2011 at 5:25 am
LaFollette ran for Pres as a f'ing "Progressive". Isn't that a title you, Raimondo and the Beck/Birchers abhor? Ike was first to put US soldiers in Vietnam – and he (despite his impotent rhetoric about the MIC) had probably the most aggressive imperialist in US history in his administration – John Foster Dulles. Ike carried out the illegal, immoral CIA coup in Iran – assassinating a freely elected leader for the profit of western capitalists' oil interests. Nixon as a citizen candidate treasonously sabotaged LBJ's Paris Peace negotiations – extending the war and creating tens of thousands of more deaths for his own political gain. Nixon illegally and immorally carpet bombed Laos and Cambodia resulting in untold amounts of innocent deaths. Reagan, like Nixon, as candidate treasonously sabotaged Carter's negotiations to free the hostages – promising, illegally, to supply Iran with weapons upon his inauguration if the hostages were freed. Reagan did negotiate and sell weapons to Iranian terrorists. He was a complete liar and a despicable human being. He illegally funded right wing death squad in El Salvador against a freely elected gov.
You can make excuses for these POS human beings but doing so exposes again the hypocrisy of libertarians – they, like you, are simply crazy assed Republicans.
GradyWilson
January 8th, 2011 at 5:31 am
Wilson put leftists in jail for opposing conscription and the war you idiot. He was no 'leftist". He was a rich confederate conservative racist. You know the Democrats then were the party of the Klan don't you?
GradyWilson
January 8th, 2011 at 5:38 am
This is what I am talking about when I say look out when the Revolution happens. Libertarians like the one above will be siding with the state and hunting those who they consider 'leftists'.
Johnny in Wi.
January 8th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Eisenhower refused to help the French in Indo-China. LaFollette was a Republican when he led the opposition to WW1. Reagan ended the cold war, met with the Soviets and concluded a great arms reductuion, and condemned nuclear weapons. He truely wanted world peace. Even old man Bush was the last president to stand up to the Israeli Lobby.
Sure there are plenty of prowar Republicans in history, but I don't forget the other side as well. I Remember when the Republicans used to regularly attack the Democrats as the party of war.
Bianca
January 8th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Aren't you mixing up "leftists" with the Democratic Party? Read Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class. As for "leftists are retarded", there is something to it. Endless intellectualizing, impotent schemas, no desire to reach out of their own comfortable intelectual cacoon.
emsnews
January 8th, 2011 at 11:50 am
The death of the revolutionary left has left a void in politics. So the right attacks what is best characterized as the liberal middle. This middle ground is all about 'feel good' stuff. Not the nitty gritty organizing of labor. Labor has been abandoned. Labor historically is 'protectionist'. But in US politics, both the left and right that remains (neither of which are truly left or right) hate protectionism and want open borders, either for trade in the case of the right wing today or aliens in the case of liberals.
So the US labor class has no dynamic people telling them how to regain jobs and protect their jobs. They then blame minorities for the dearth of jobs or government taxes or other idiotic things that are not the cause at all.
Meanwhile, we try to prime the pump to create more service jobs and the older, honorable, sweat of the brow-type jobs continue to vanish overseas! And the libertarians have no fix for this since the creed is very anti-protectionist. Only a government can enforce tariffs or erect barriers! Without these, workers here are doomed.
bozh
January 8th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
bianca,
a hobo, houseperson, et al do not own american wealth equally. nor do such people have any influence on the governmental monopoly. i repeat, in u.s. u have a monopolic system of rule.
in other words, what i see in washington is ONE WILL, not two.
however, if u include dissident voices and sites in u.s with their plaints about u.s being governed by a two-headed body, while in fact or as seen with naked eyes, being unipolic; i.e., of one wish or will, we only then cld call, u.s governance duopolic.
clearly, what u have in u.s is a governing party and unelected opposition. opposition being 'dissident' sites and an overwhelming number of 'dissidents'.
dissident role being mostly about propagating that there are two wills in u.s. constitution or washington.
these facts shed light on why nader only got 700k votes. duopoly had caused it! tnx
LeftistsSuck
January 8th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Libertarians of MY ilk aren't insane enough (like libs and cons) to think we CAN use govt force to "fix" what you perceive to be the problem of jobs going overseas.
GradyIsAmoron
January 8th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
This libertarian is an anarcho-capitalist, or voluntaryist.
Unlike lefties and righties, libertarians don't worship the state.
LeftistsAreDumb
January 8th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
But he made the world safe for democracy!
LeftistsSuck
January 8th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
I use the terms "leftist", "liberal", "progressive", and "Democrat" interchangeably…it might be a tad unfair to REALLY extreme fascists/socialists, but I see little difference.
Same for "rightist", "conservative" and "Republican"…
I really don't see much difference between liberals and conservatives either–they're mostly on the same end of the political spectrum which SHOULD be thought of as running from freedom to slavery, not "left" to "right".
GradSuckIt!
January 8th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Its funny that a leftist turd like yourself would express anger at people being thrown in jail for opposing conscription/war…but I REALLY doubt that you'd do the same if someone were thrown in jail for refusing to pay taxes to support a govt that does immoral things…
Leftists…are…idiots…
Justin is 100% on calling them out.
Hacklheber
January 8th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Three words: STOP. BELIEVING. MARX.
>However only because the law does not allow collective ownership of resources,
Ever heard about "shareholders?". Yes, that's the "collective ownership" part sorted.
I don't know about the constitution but we do have "collective responsibility". Btw, it is used by slimy megacorps boss to weasel out along the lines of "the company is responsible, not me…"
>i do not think that spendings on military is a drain on private sector
Then you don't understand how the economy works. Here's how it is a drain:
DRAIN SITUATION:
1) State decides warcrap is needed.
2) State orders warcrap at private companies for X USD.
3) State taxes population for X+y USD (the y goes into salaries for state employees pushing the paper, wearing medals, driving tanks and holding speeches.)
3a) The population will NOT spend X+y on useful goods like washing machines (consumption) nor will it put the money in the bank for savings and so it won't be invested in useful machinery, services and companies.
4) Warcrap is delivered. X+y USD goes back into the circuit and ends up in the population.
5) Warcrap is destroyed. Real resources are lost!! (material, time and generally specialized machine plant), the skill of the people who built the warcrap are useless. Veterans are generated and usless "soldiers" with no skills swamp the marketplace. Nation is poorer off
GOOD SITUATION
1) State decides no warcrap is needed.
2) State does not tax population.
3) Population spends X on useful goods like washing machines (consumption) or puts the money in the bank from where it can be invested in useful machinery, services and companies.
4) X USD goes back into the circuit and ends up in the population.
5) There are more people with washing machines, the infrastructure is better, useful skills abound, and useless state employees do not exist!
Note that in the drain situation, the "investment" part must be replaced by officially sanctioned people putting pretty pictures on cheap paper, then saying "we have money".
Hacklheber
January 8th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Free trade has never been a problem. And why should it? The problem is that the self-regulation of trade Input/Output is broken as there is no fixed dollar mass. We want to import more, hell we just print some more….
Johnny in Wi.
January 8th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Grady: Wilson was considered a great progressive and is a liberal icon. Sure he put put people who opposed the war or conscription in prison, but they were from both sides of the spectrum. Don't forget the America first Commitee had people fromn the far right and far left. It is not so easy to classify people on every issue. The conservative Hardng freed both left and right from Wilson's jails.
emsnews
January 9th, 2011 at 6:50 am
Free trade isn't about the money supply. It is the search for cheaper labor by the corporations. If someone hires workers in the home country at $20 an hour and is competing in the domestic market with goods produced by workers toiling at $2 an hour, the ones at home get fired and the jobs move to the cheaper labor venue. The libertarian fix for this is to have all people work for starvation wages. There is no way of catching up with inflation this way since corporations can and do move jobs all over the planet each time workers start making a living wage.
Governments must control population flows, too. Workers flooded into the US in the 19th century only because the expansionist imperialism which invaded Indian territories needed Europeans to hold them down. Also, the industrial elites needed cheap labor in the cities. There was great debate about this and a political party rose after the Civil War to stop the flood of European immigrants, for example.
By the end of WWI, European immigration was curbed greatly. This is why few could flee the Nazis two decades later.
Hacklheber
January 9th, 2011 at 7:27 am
You are wrong.
"If someone hires workers in the home country at $20 an hour and is competing in the domestic market with goods produced by workers toiling at $2 an hour, the ones at home get fired and the jobs move to the cheaper labor venue."
No. The ones at home can move to more productive jobs at $20 an hour. This is why today there are people putting together automobiles on CAD software instead of just peasants digging for potatoes.
"The libertarian fix for this is to have all people work for starvation wages."
No. A "libertarian fix" does not exist. The idea is that you get off your lazy arse and get a new job if the current one folds.
"Workers flooded into the US in the 19th century only because the expansionist imperialism which invaded Indian territories needed Europeans to hold them down."
Nope. Migration is not controlled by "Imperialists". People came to the US because the economic outlook was better in the New Lands than in economically crippled closed-shop Europe. There were similar migrations within Europe. In Russia, land population went massively to town (this indirectly made the "russian revolution" possible, btw).
"Also, the industrial elites needed cheap labor in the cities."
See above. People go to cities because the economic outlook there is better than in the countryside, not because they are under elite control.
For critics of free trade, we find this:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/01/10-problems-w…
Bianca
January 9th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Amen.
Libertarians, progressives, leftists, democrats or republicans DO NOT have the answers. The "angry" right continues bashing the poweless people whose jobs have been taken out of the country. They call them "labor"! They have enlisted small business in their virtuous bashing, even though small business is just as much a victim of the de-industrialization of America as are the people seeking work! The labor unions' management is just as much part of this foreign elite consensus, as is the republican or democratic establishment! The small business owners and small farms will learn the HARD WAY, how they have been duped. Foreign corporations HATE the self-sufficient small businesses/farms. They want to control our food supply. So, go for it Tea Party! Let the FOREIGN owned FOXX tells you how to be an American! We have all become seduced by the FAKE american corporations to whom we, the American citizens, do not matter any more then the workers in Indian sweatshops. So, when Paul family demands that IRS take away American corporation status to those that employ mostly outside of US, make most money outside US, and do not pay US income taxes in America — I will pay attention.
Bianca
January 9th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Free trade IS the problem when foreign corporations control your government. Until we get this, we will just regurgitate the slogans of the past. Our institutions cannot work if they are coopted by the foreign interests. Those companies need US only as a source of government contracts money, government grants, government research subsidies, free marketing by our Embassies of THEIR products, and the ability to avoid paying income taxes. And and the top of it, they have coopted the Supreme Court, giving themselves — the foreigners — the right of putting money into our political process. They need our military to do their bidding world wide, as a source of protection for their assets, or as a source of neverending conflicts with neverending fat taxpayer funded "contracts". We need to open our eyes, not just recite the old mantras.
Bianca
January 9th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
No, you are wrong. You have WRONG historic references. Today, if foreign corporations have no sway over our economy, there would be more INNOVATION, more COMPETITION, more ENTREPRENEURSHIP. Large foreign corporations (including all fake "US" corporations like Coke, GM, GE and dozens of others) only concentrate the capital in their hands, and use most of it outside the country. Such small group of corporations — no matter how good — cannot possess all the virtue. We would be idiots to assume that only THEY can generate jobs, invent new things, and ignite the small enterprise. They are TOXIC to american free entreprise. They are welcome to go anywhere in the world for lower wages, but in US they need to pay taxes and have no subsidies, governmental contracts or influence our political process. But when the price of oil puts a brake on transocean shipping of consumer goods, it will be too late to do something about it. You see, domestic production REDUCES imports, and this strategy is BETTER for foreign debt control then trying to EXPORT our way into prosperity. Unfortunately, we are inundated with the garbage that passes for good economics. Poor deluded people.
Bianca
January 9th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Bozh,
We still have one person one vote. We do not use it as we should, as we have become complacent. In US the corporations tell the politicians what they want accomplished, and if that does not work, they fund "popular movements" to peddle their wares. Our Tea Parties, "the rebels", end up supporting whatever foreign corporations tell them! With foreign owned FOX being the cheerleader. The big foreign corporation GM loaded all their losses into their US subsidiary. US taxpayer had to bail out this "american" car company! At the same time, GM was in the process of starting a huge car plant in Russia! We need to tell politicians that we want IRS to take away status of US corporation all those whose majority of workforce and job creation is outside US, are registered in various tax havens, produce most capital outside of US, and as a result pay little or no US income tax. Once IRS clears up their status, status of their subsidiaries and fake fronts, we should no longer care where they go to hire cheap labor. Good luck to them! We cannot pretend that we are NOT a real country, but some global commons available for anyone to use and abuse.
Norwegian Guy
January 11th, 2011 at 9:11 am
This historical partisanship is silly. Bob LaFollette was a prominent left-progressive. The US party system was different back in those days. In the Midwest, the Republicans were often the more left-wing party. It was only after the New Deal that the Democrats became the (mostly) left-of-centre party and the Republicans the right-wing. Though this development wasn't finalized until after the civil rights struggle.
Norwegian Guy
January 11th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Who considered Wilson "a great progressive and is a liberal icon"? LaFollette? Debs? Wilson was a centrist, just like Obama. The left, still fairly strong in the US those days, didn't support Wilson's wars. And don't forget: He won the 1916 election as the man who had "kept America out of the war"!