Op-Ed
An Evolution in Thought
Email: 
Share: 
Behind Liberal Lines
February 7, 2005 - 8:00pmContinuing this month's series on conservative black authors, today I review Larry Elder's indelicately titled Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests That Divide America (2002). While it's more a reasoned explication of philosophy than a fire-breathing rant, Elder does fire off some priceless jabs. The author is a syndicated columnist, a popular radio talk show host in Los Angeles and also the author of The Ten Things You Can't Say in America (2000). Like many ex-libertarians, including myself, Sept. 11 forced his thinking to evolve. Since then, many liberals and libertarians have been alienated from their respective parties by the heated anti-war, anti-American rhetoric of their leaders, including Elder. The last chapter, "My Long Journey Home," is also the most interesting in this regard, chronicling his transition from libertarian to Republican. Elder's movement toward Republican principles is rooted in his blistering critique of both Libertarians and Democrats. By refusing to consider that American meddling may not be the sole cause of every global conflict, the Libertarian party "shoots itself in the foot regarding foreign policy." He rejects Democrats' faith in income redistribution because entitlement programs reward, encourage and perpetuate irresponsible behavior. But the five primary reasons he's now a Republican relate to defense: "1) September 11, 2) the War on Terror, 3) the war in Afghanistan, 4) the war in Iraq, and 5) President George W. Bush." Prior to Sept. 11, many socially liberal fiscal conservatives were drawn to the Libertarian party. There was a shared view that the government's primary role is to defend its citizenry and otherwise stay out of the way. "The Founding Fathers," Elder writes, "envisioned a federal government that trusts its people with their money and freedom, and outlined this limited, nonintrusive federal government in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution." But, as Elder describes, there are many varieties of libertarians, and the last few years have seen "zero-government libertarians" -- anarchists -- redefine the Libertarian platform. In contrast, he recognizes that the freedoms we demand depend first on the preservation of the republic that allows us to enjoy them. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the Clinton legacy, Elder writes, is that President Clinton regarded the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 "as a law enforcement matter, rather than as a declaration of war." Clinton approached it as a smooth-talking lawyer, not as a defense-minded commander-in-chief. Yet "a state of war exists between America and Islamic extremists," something terrorists themselves tell us all the time. But libertarian leaders, such as former presidential candidate Harry Browne and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), can only bluster about how Islamic terrorism is all America's fault. Elder responds: "Even if one were to accept this argument -- and I don't -- now is now, and the question remains, "What shall we do?" Liberals' fanciful reliance on rhetoric, diplomacy and foreign aid -- welfare essentially -- is unrealistic and even bizarre. Mocking Richard Gere's view of terrorists as desperately sick relatives who need love, Elder writes, "Why bother dropping daisy-cutters when we can just drop love bombs?" He properly points out that no superpower "throughout all of human history, [has] exercised more restraint, more humility and more concern for the downtrodden than the United States." Or, as my Army husband once observed, "the best thing a crappy country can do for itself is to go to war against the United States and lose." But underscoring the distorted universe they inhabit, Elder notes that liberals are more skeptical of America than they are of our enemies. No country comes to the table with clean hands, not even ours. But perseverating on America's faults leads to only one solution: permitting its destruction. Yet slow surrender is the inevitable consequence of libertarian and liberal defense policy. That, at the risk of stating the obvious, is not acceptable. Elder also devotes a good deal of discussion to the proper size and role of government. When it comes to entitlement programs, liberals "apparently believe in the existence of something called 'the government' as a source of funds separate and apart from the taxpayers." It's the fundamental flaw in all Marxist-driven thinking: the emphasis is on how wealth should be divided up, with no consideration at all for how wealth is created in the first place. Furthermore, there is no excuse for laws that give special preferences to "protected classes" like women, minorities and the disabled. Besides insinuating that such individuals lack free will, Elder asks, "What greater way to ensure dependency than to pass a law that says you can't cope?" In all of these matters, he argues, liberals refuse to heed the law of unintended consequences. Cornell makes an appearance twice in the book, though not in a way Cornellians can take any pride in. There are, of course, the routine thefts and occasional burnings of the conservative Cornell Review, and the administration's equally routine defense of these acts as free speech. And then there's our infamous professor Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), who wrote an oozing letter to a Saudi prince shortly after Sept. 11, in which she commiserated about American injustices. Elder dryly remarks, "complaining to a Saudi Arabian royal about a lack of civil rights is like taking an anger management course from Charlie Manson." In the end, Elder retains his libertarian origins, asserting that "one can be both a capital "R" Republican, and a small "l" libertarian." But his bottom-line is delightfully blunt. "Why then belong to the Republican Party? Answer: Reality." Sara Townsley is a graduate student in BMCB. Behind Liberal Lines apppears Tuesdays. Archived article by Sarah Townsley