Konstitutionalisme ctr. libertarianisme

Via Andrew Sullivans blog kom jeg til et rigtigt godt indlæg af en gut der kalder sig selv “Postmodern Conservative”; i sig selv en titel, som jeg tror mange fanatiske konservative her til lands vil se noget skævt til.

Indlæget, The Tragedy of Ron Paul, er en art reaktion pÃ¥ de beskyldninger mod Paul, som den semisocialistiske sprøjte, The New Republic, fyrede af i den forgangne uge, og som har holdt dele af det libertære USA vÃ¥gne. (Paul er iøvrigt pÃ¥ CNN i aften for at forklare hvordan hele misæren — efter hans mening — hænger sammen… so stay tuned to YouTube).

OPDATERING: CNN går i dybten med historien her. Videoen kommer op senere.

OPDATERING 2: Jeg har lagt videoen hvor Paul forsøger at forsvare sig selv her i et nyt indlæg. 

The New Republic har efter den oprindelige artikel kom frem været ude med riven – denne gang i et forsøg pÃ¥ at rode ud i de libertære række:

Rather, it is always satisfying to see a libertarian candidate crash and burn–something which forces libertarians to face the reality that their philosophy has almost no appeal.

Bevares, kritikken er skrevet af betondinosaur med et evangelisk kors sÃ¥ langt oppe i r….n, at det kunne bruges som en tandstik, men han har mÃ¥ske alligevel ret i noget… eller har han virkelig?

Det er her The Postmodern Conservative kommer ind i billedet. For hvad nu, hvis det slet ikke er det libertære amerika der er “pÃ¥ røven”, men derimod det “konstitutionelle”? AltsÃ¥, at dem der mener at det der stÃ¥r i forfantingen faktisk ogsÃ¥ er det der stÃ¥r i forfatningen? At A = A osv.

Her et uddrag fra indlægets slutning:

What really is happening is that constitutionalism, not libertarianism, is running out of steam, which is to say, people nowadays are increasingly libertarian only insofar as they are not constitutionalists. Libertarians win when politics is not part of the conversation. When it is they lose, they lose because the libertarian political argument can’t help but be at least partially constitutional without flying on high in Nozickian blue tomorrows.

The constitutionalist candidates, Paul and Thompson, are not getting it done, and I regret to point out that this is because most people don’t really give a damn about adhering to the Constitution, the Constitution is an impediment to maximizing the odds of partisan victory, the Constitution is deemed morally quaint on both sides, and constitutionalism a brittle and impractical doctrine.

Perhaps this will change if Romney or Clinton implodes, but probably not regardless, and the conventional wisdom will continue to pride itself on its breezy capacity to act as if people who care about liberty are libertarians first and not constitutionalists. This is quite repugnant, and the great moral repugnance for their man now felt by Paul’s cultural libertarian supporters is tragic because it seals the deal on an issue that only he successfully dragged out from the dungeon in which everyone would rather it be kept: the progressive irrelevance of the Constitution to the governing principles and administrative practice of American politics.

So true.

– og det er iøvrigt en af grunden til, at jeg altid har syntes sÃ¥ godt om Hayek.

Sociale bogmærker: