Some advice for him and other Republican squishes.
Face it, Brown just isn’t that smart. He saw his “Most moderate Senator EVAR!” riff and his ‘close personal freindship’ with John Kerry fail to win his reelection against a fake Indian, so what does he do? Push more RINO BS.
Given that Tea Party favorites like Sharon Angle left the Republican Party in the 1980′s because they felt President Reagan was too liberal I would say, yes, if he was running today he would be called a “Rhino” by the Tea Party Republicans. Its only because he is not around they are trying to claim him as one of their own, just like they claim Ayn Rand as a follow traveler although she would be aghast at their lack of ideological rigor. But then her views of Libertarians are well documented even if the Tea Party ignores them.
” But then her [Rand's] views of Libertarians are well documented even if the Tea Party ignores them.”
And what, pray tell, should the “Tea Party” (Moby Matula’s catch-all phrase for any group of Republicans who actually value liberty) do with those views? “Ooh, Rand didn’t like libertarians. We should all become statists then!” ? Or if not statists, collaborationist RINO, “Uncle Tom” type moderates (moderate statists that is) who pose no threat to the Plantation?
Thanks! You just proved what she really hated about Libertarians
Thom, I’ve read Ayn’s essays on libertarians more than once, and I don’t have the foggiest why you say Bilwick’s comment is an example of what she argued against.
The Tea Party is a confederacy of multiple intellectual movements, with a common cause of bringing fiscal responsibility to our government. It certainly isn’t all libertarian, or objectivist, but it does contain many people (and/or has many sympathizers) that identify themselves as such.
Here is an example.
[[[Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) [“What Can One Do?” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7]]]
Really, is there any better description of the candidates the Tea Party endorses?
I got nothing so here’s a happy face instead so I can pretend I won this little exchange.
Thanks for the translation, “Momas.” When dealing with a loon, about all you can do (if you have a streak of sadism, as I do, but don’t want to channel it into statism) is mock them.
And once again, thanks for showing why Ayn Rand hated Libertarians.
[[[I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.]]]
I don’t have to make sense because Ayn Rand! Ayn Rand!
So I guess, Momas (and you can be our in-house resident on translating from Looney Tunes into plain English), to the extent that we can make any coherent sense out of what he’s saying that because Rand disliked libertarians, we on the pro-freedom side should all become statists? That makes as about as much sense as saying that because Rand liked cigarettes (not just liked to smoke, mind you, but actually thought smoking cigarettes was a GOOD thing), all non-smoking pro-freedom people should take up smoking. This guy may sound like a gibberish-spouting loon . . . but don’t you forget it.
(By the way, why on Earth is he bringing anarchism? Is he saying the Tea Party is anarchistic? I guess in Matula’s weird wild world “anarchy” is defined as “opposition to higher taxes,” the kind of thing you would hear on the Left. For a guy who always likes to claim he’s not a “liberal” State-shtupper, Matula can always be counted on to parrot the latest Hive party line.)
Actually, what I suspect he means is that “Rand disliked libertarians, so all Tea Partiers who won’t hand their lives and property totally over to the State should become statists, but statists who pretend not to be statists and vote for RINOs when they’re unable to vote for Harry Reid.
Well, here’s what the Ayn Rand Institute has to say about Republican squishes.
And here’s the Ayn Rand Institute’s general reaction to the Tea Party movement.
Constructively critical, but generally sympathetic. If Thomas Matula is trying to play the game of argument by authority, it looks like he picked the wrong authority.
Comments are closed.