Letters From MoveOn: The Angry Mob

As a member of the angry mob and a card carrying Right Wing Extremist, I may be overreacting. However, that seems to be what we do, so bear with me. As with most things Liberal lately, there are some absurd accusations and reactions making their way through the news. This article is in regard to my August 7 email from MoveOn.org.
"It's getting ugly out there.
All across the country, right wing extremists are disrupting congressional town-hall meetings with venomous attacks on President Obama's plans for health care and clean energy...
If the shouts of the right-wing mobs are the only voices our representatives hear over the recess, we'll have a hard time passing health care and clean energy legislation..."
These emails always come with articles that are meant to validate whatever point is being made in the email. Typically, they come from outside sources. This week, two of the four links were to MoveOn articles. I don't know if there's any etiquette to this sort of thing, but it seems unprofessional to quote yourself as proof of your own argument. Maybe I've just been giving too much credit to the opposition in the past.
The larger point I am making is this: When Liberals protest or disrupt meetings, it is considered their right to assembly and freedom of speech. When Conservatives do so, they are labeled extremists by media and politicians. When Liberals tout the virtues of Democracy, which is essentially mob rule, no one bats an eye. Never mind that America is a Constitutional Republic. The mere use of the term qualifies me as a home-grown terrorist. When Conservatives demand the attention of their representatives, they are berated as an angry mob.
I only pulled a couple of lines from the MoveOn email this week because most of it was fund raising. The only thing of consequence they had to say was that Conservatives are violent and dishonest. They did site several instances of Conservative violence and threats via effigy. I guess we aren't supposed to know that some SEIU members attacked some of the Conservative protesters. Or, remember all those 'nonviolent' instances of Bush being hanged in effigy. Or Sarah Palin. It seems to me there's enough guilt going around on all sides.
So, on to my final point. Powerful people, be they politicians, judges, journalists, actors - whoever. Power comes in many forms, and the power to influence the masses is an exhilarating power indeed. Fear is the easiest way to exert that power. And make no mistake, this kind of thing is intentional.
I was recently watching an episode of Criminal Minds. A mediocre show, I admit, but I needed a break. Needless to say, I ended up scribbling notes for this post in my notebook. The writers of the show decided, in this episode, to spread a little ant-Libertarian propaganda. Misrepresentation actually. We are, after all, the worst of the right wing extremists.
One of the characters commented: "You know how those Libertarians are, they don't like to pay taxes." I can't speak for all Libertarians, but most of us are not anarchists. We understand the need for government, and the cost of the responsibilities delegated to the government by the Constitution. The courts and the military; the Congress and the office of the President; you know, that stuff the old guys wrote down a long time ago. We also understand that individual liberty comes with responsibility. We don't just go around doing whatever.
Now, the 'Libertarians' in question, are religious fundamentalists - a cult. These are not two belief systems that are mutually exclusive but they tend not to go hand in hand. The second quote I took issue with was: "These guys are Libertarians and the little girls they are abusing are teenagers." I'm sorry, but I have to be a stickler for definitions here. People who think you should be able to do anything you want, to anyone you want, any time with no consequence are called LIBERTINES (Sorry to shout, but it's a huge difference) As I said before, individual liberty comes with tremendous personal responsibility. Everyone has equal rights under the law, and one individual may not take action that infringes on the rights of another. Period.
This is all a convenient tool used to discredit the opposition before they gain support. Fear. If they make you believe, while you are zoned off watching TV, that Libertarians will take advantage of you, you will continue to buy into the broken two-party system. If they equate the words freedom and liberty with anarchy, you will continue to seek 'security' in the arms of the government.
This didn't start in November. It isn't an exclusively Liberal tactic. They just happen to be better at it, and the ones currently wielding power.
To those of you out there making your voices heard - congratulations and thank you. Keep it up. If we don't demand representation from our elected officials, they will continue to do what is best for them. Not us. This is a hard battle we are fighting, but it must be fought.
This article is cross posted at Modern Conservative.

Support from Afar

I'll keep this one short since it's personal. I have a fan in Thailand who owns one of my Liberty drawings. He recently got it framed and sent me the photo and a short blog post. I just wanted to say thanks, and give a link to his blog which I find interesting. Last October, we did an interview, which you can find here.

I'm glad to know there are still people out there who understand what Liberty means and are helping spread the word. Thanks Gary Dale and good luck.

Know Yourself and Stand Firm

I feel in my heart that our nation is at an epoch of epic proportions. We are on the verge of surrendering every aspect of our existence to our government. We are being led by politicians whose main goal is the accumulation of power. Most of them are wealthy by the standards of the average American, but they berate us about paying our 'fair share'. They have a superior health and benefits package while strangling the 'private' insurance and health care industries with regulation. They fly around in jets and ride to events in limousines while berating us for our fuel consumption. They speak of corruption while pandering to lobbyists. The list goes on. Need I say more? Will you spend the rest of you life merely complaining, or will you finally take action?

Conservatives complain about the Liberal majority in Washington, Hollywood, the arts, and education, but do nothing to change it. They bemoan the Liberal stranglehold on political discussion, but do nothing to fight back. They belly ache about the Liberal majority in Congress and our Socialist President, but bear the responsibility of having put them there. They complain about political art depicting Bush as the devil in an SS uniform, but produce nothing to counteract the propaganda. They complain about a government that does not represent the people, is rife with corruption, and continue to vote for the same 'Republican' turncoats and fence-riders. They complain about the Liberal propaganda in film and music, but do nothing to produce or support Conservative values. They complain about the Liberal dogma in our public school and universities, but sit idly by when a professor begins a speech by saying "I wrote this to piss off all the Conservatives in the crowd". Merely being angry is not enough and is, in fact, a reward to the Left. It is their intention to make us angry. They revel in and applaud themselves for it.

Most Republicans have been brainwashed and intimidated by the PC Squad. Is this how you exercise your freedom of speech? Do you have so little faith in your own principles that you will not fight for them? Do you have so little confidence in your own opinions that you will allow them to be stifled? Does your self-esteem mean so little to you that it is maintained by the approval and acceptance of those who would have you censored?

Liberals in power and those who are celebrities have no intention of paying us the level of respect we deserve. Why do we extend them our blessings and our tolerance in return? There is a huge chasm between being a good person and rolling over for the enemy. Why do you fling yourselves into the abyss?

I have found that it is impossible to discuss differing political points of view with the average person. For some reason, most people, regardless of perspective cannot have a discussion based on reason and facts. They are always reduced to emotions. Republicans think Libertarians are pot smoking anarchists, when in fact, most are people who simply want a Constitutional Republic instead of a theocracy or a democracy. Liberals think anyone who opposes big government is a fascist, although this does nothing but indicate ignorance. There are varying degrees of irrationality on all sides and the lack of interaction has led to factionalism and intolerance. Now we have reduced ourselves to single issue voters and purveyors of political correctness or victims of hate crimes. When did Americans become so pathetic?

I do not pretend to be either a source of news or wisdom. I am often guilty of intolerance. However, I do not force people to accept my point of view. I am a propagandist, and proud of it. I have an opinion and lack the fear to state it openly. I live by my principles and expect others to do the same. You have the ability and the right to be a Socialist if you choose. However, do not pretend that you are concerned for others unless you redistribute your own wealth. Do not pretend that your system can work without infringing on the rights of others. Do not condescend to tell me that you know what is best for society. Do the rest of us a favor and remove yourself from our company. Contribute all you have to your Utopian dream and encourage others to join you if they choose. I wish you the best of luck, and good riddance to you as well.

I am not always eloquent, and therefore, endure criticism that I am ignorant. I am an artist, not a scholar, and I pretend to be nothing else. However, I am confident of the knowledge I have acquired and will not be discouraged by insults from people who can not tolerate a difference of opinion. At the end of the day, much of what we encounter in politics, media, and education is boiled down to an opinion. We should respect each other for having the conviction to state them openly in the face of opposition. Freedom of speech does not protect you from the things you don't want to hear. It gives you the right to present your own views in contrast.

One of the hardest things to do is stand up for yourself when you are in the minority. You should neither fear reprisal, nor stifle opposition. Stand firm in your principles and accept no compromise. If you are not willing to fight for them, they are not worth having.

This article is cross posted at Modern Conservative

Formula For Hate

My friend Alvaro has a new post at Big Hollywood. He is a very talented, and often misunderstood artist. Please show him support by reading the article, and commenting on his work. He works very hard.

Ayn Rand on Libertarianism

Yesterday, I read this great article that addresses some of the issues I have with my personal philosophy. I consider myself to be both a Libertarian and an Objectivist. For those of you who are familiar with Rand's writings and speeches, you know she had a low opinion of Libertarians. As this article from Organized Exploitation points out, the Libertarian Party has come a long way, and Miss Rand could be a little rigid in her ideas. Here is the full article:

Friday, February 27, 2009

Debating Ayn Rand

I received quite a lot of flack, particularly at FreeRepublic, for my post last week where I proffered my opinion on what I perceive to be the possible death of the GOP. One of the most intriguing responses I received was attacking Libertarianism, and doing so by throwing an assembly of interview questions with Ayn Rand discussing with her, her disdain for the Libertarian Party.

I found this to be quite interesting, in that Rand has defined the philosophy by which I have come to attempt to live my life. In that the Libertarian movement has not died, as I am sure she wished it would have, I decided to respond to her thoughts on the movement. While obviously she cannot possibly respond, I hope you will be kind enough to respond to some of my thoughts on the matter with your own. If anyone else reading is a blogger as well, I would also be interested in doing some cross-posting on the matter.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is 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.

My immediate response to this particular line of thought is that Rand provided this answer in 1971. Thirty-seven years later, I don't believe that there exists in the Libertarian movement, any semblance of a grouping of anarchists that have any kind of voice in any matter. I agree with her thoughts on anarchists in general, that they are simply another style of collectivist, and that they are the scum of the intellectual world. I can't say of the intellectual world of the left, since I think that nearly four decades later, there is no home left anywhere politically for an anarchist. Perhaps some anarchists would feel like calling themselves Libertarians, but I do not believe that at this point in time, Libertarians would accept being associated with anarchists, much less believe that Libertarianism's makeup is heavily laden with anarchists.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

This statement on her part, I think, had so much more to do with her pure absolutism more than anything. I think to Rand it was much more relevant to teach people something through honest discourse, and she therefore loathed the idea that anybody would stain her ideas by grandstanding with them politically. There is such an element of propagandizing and dishonesty that pervades political discourse, that I don't believe she felt it possible for people to learn anything via a political campaign. So she ultimately seems to have taken the approach that I see many disheartened conservatives take, in that they vote grudgingly for the Republican candidate, despite not thinking he is the right choice.

This is an argument that I hear a lot of. That being that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. It is not an argument that, for me, falls on deaf ears. It makes all the sense in the world. Every election is a battle, and particularly this last election. I voted for John McCain, despite hating myself for it, because I felt a deeper need to see Barack Obama not step foot into the White House. I couldn't stand John McCain. If he was conservative enough, and principled enough, to lead the party, he would have beaten Bush in the first place eight years ago, and also wouldn't have needed to make back-room deals with Huckabee to sabotage Romney in the South during the primaries this time around. So in that respect, I fully understand her position that it would be a "moral crime" to vote otherwise. However, it should be known that it was a personal crime against my own morality to have supported someone like John McCain, who, to be perfectly honest, would have simply wound up being a watered-down version of Obama anyway.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR: They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

This exchange follows the previous one nicely I think, in that it is an extension of Rand's thoughts on the men pursuing politics through the Libertarian Party. If you're educated in Objectivism, you'll understand immediately that it's really the "collection of misfits" here that she's disgusted with. The "men of every persuasion" she discusses, I think, made her hate the party. She very much wanted people to view Objectivism as a new way live their lives and I don't think she could stand that so many people she felt belonged in a different classification would gather into a group simply to be "anti" whatever elese there was. She believed people should live for things, not against them, and that people needed to be taught to live for themselves as their own highest purpose. With such an assemblage of different people grouping together to be against other principles, she felt that they were not making choices for their own benefit, but rather against the benefits of others.

It's interesting to me that someone who wrote for a living felt that the people considered the leaders of the Libertarian Party at the time were nothing more than publicity hounds. I personally find myself in a position to want to write and put forth ideas that I feel can help. I find it hard to believe that other writers or speakers discussing Liberty and Freedom and Capitalism at the time felt like they would just talk about such concepts out of self-promotion. Rand seemed particularly upset that they would steal her ideas and not credit her, as she should have been. I'm admittedly ignorant of who took what ideas from her, but it seems to me she wouldn't have been so upset had these same people been able to convey her ideas and teach people with such ruthless competence as herself and Peikoff were capable.

As to her point that it is impossible to educate through a political campaign, it is difficult to disagree. One learns nothing by listening to different people spouting different canned talking points. But I have to disagree that the political campaign is useless in spreading education. We see it now more than ever. Freedom and Liberty are, I think, more on the table now than ever before in my entire lifetime due primarily to Ron Paul's recent political campaign. Without that political campaign, it is impossible for me to believe that we would now have people again discussing F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman and yes, Ayn Rand as heroes of economy and philosophy as vehemently as we are. We also would not see movements like the Campaign for Liberty or Young Americans for Liberty. It's doubtful that educational reading by authors like Tom Woods would be so popular as it is now. Making important ideas highly visible to inspire people to educate themselves cannot be considered a bad thing.

Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: “?” 1976]

AR: My answer should be, “I haven’t.” There’s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

This quote, I think best sums up Rand's issues with the Libertarian Party. Her belief that "the trouble in the world today is philosophical" is never moreso evident than it is today. Every person needs a philosophy to guide them, and Rand could not see a consistent philosophy that drove the Libertarian Party, and was angered that she became so associated with it.

I cannot speak to the beginnings of the Libertarian Party and whether or not it had a true guiding philosophy. But I can speak to where it is now. Libertarians believe in small government, true free-market capitalism, liberty and freedom as inherent for all, not given or granted, and respect of that freedom by all and for all.

Liberty, Freedom and Respect are ideas that sure seem like good philosophy to me.

For more from Organized Exploitation: http://organizedexploitation.blogspot.com This is a great site, that I just found through friends at Digg. I look forward to more articles from them. This piece has inspired me to do some writing about Rand, as well as the current project I am working on with her quotes. I will try to post both here shortly.

An Artist's Perspective on Being a Modern Conservative

New article at Modern Conservative

Artist Statement

My work is about a variety of people and subjects that affect our lives. It is meant to engage the viewer and make them think about the world in which we live. These paintings are not being completed in an order that is relative to one another. Sometimes I just get really angry about some thing or a person or event becomes a big news story and I get inspired to work on that subject. My work is mostly meant to point out the role we allow others to play in our lives. I am most interested in the role lobbyists, unions, activists, media and celebrities play in controlling or influencing our lives through our government and their views. And, of course, there are the politicians and judges who have the most direct control over our lives.
My work is also a response to the overwhelming tendency of the art community to be a bunch of raging Liberals. There seems to be very little political art dedicated to any other point of view. I hope that one day there will be a greater variety of opinion in the art community. I would also like to see our government break out of the nearly rigid two-party system we currently have. Our government has begun to stagnate, and the politicians, regardless of party, are predominantly concerned with pandering to their constituents and making a buck, rather than doing the job they are elected to do. In the future, I have plans to do some work highlighting people I think have had a positive impact on history as well as people I admire or consider to be heroes.
My work is my personal outlet for my political opinions. I have found that it is not a constructive use of my time to discuss politics with most people and only causes stress to those involved. I am not out to change anyone else's point of view. I believe in the strength and beauty of the human spirit and in an individual's ability to govern their own life. Life and freedom are not given to us by our government. We are born with them and are responsible for maintaining them. We are responsible for our own health, morality and support. We need to realize that the decisions we make affect our lives and are our own responsibility. It is not the government's place to care for us or help us when we make the wrong decisions and harm ourselves. Nor does the government have the right to punish us for doing better than those around us and redistribute our wealth or property for the "public good".
It is the government's job to perform the duties outlined in the Constitution: provide for the national defense, maintain the courts defend the rule of law, and coin money. Everything else should be left up to private enterprise. The government should not be our nanny, or allow special interests to influence the actions of our Representatives. And, God forbid, world opinion should ever be taken into consideration. There are too many people who consider themselves to be morally or intellectually superior to the "masses". Whether or not that is reality is debatable, but they don't have the right to interfere with anyone's life but their own. I hope my work will make you more aware of these issues and influence you to do what you can to change the system.
E-Mail: frances@machinepolitick.com WEB SITE: www.machinepolitick.com