The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Conor Friedersdorf Sticking Up for Rand Paul?

Posted on | May 26, 2010 | 16 Comments

There must be some explanation, but Friedersdorf has written a column for Newsweek that isn’t half-bad:

Will the dismissive treatment of libertarians nevertheless persist? Will reporters covering a 2012 Gary Johnson candidacy zero in on his opposition to the war on drugs, and ask him questions like “Will sex offenders who’ve served their time in jail be able to buy ecstasy on their way to a Miley Cyrus concert?” Quite possibly. The press loves to ask questions premised on the most absurd applications of libertarian theory. But Obama won’t face incredulous questions from the establishment press about asserting powers that, if abused, would theoretically enable him to declare a political opponent an enemy combatant, deport him, and murder him using the power of the state. . . .

Read the whole thing. Obviously, one clever column isn’t enough to redeem Friedersdorf, but you have to give the boy credit for that one indelible mental image: Miley Cyrus taking the stage in Albuquerque, N.M., and discovering the conert arena is jammed to the rafters with 10,000 drug-crazed perverts paroled by Gary Johnson.

Category: Blogging, Kentucky

Comments

16 Responses to “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Conor Friedersdorf Sticking Up for Rand Paul?”

  1. Roman Polanski
    May 26th, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

    Does anyone know if Miley Cyrus is planning a tour of Switzerland anytime soon?

  2. Roman Polanski
    May 26th, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

    Does anyone know if Miley Cyrus is planning a tour of Switzerland anytime soon?

  3. Ran / Si Vis Pacem
    May 26th, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

    No, thanks. The snark pull-quote is sufficient. One half-fast column doesn’t purchase enough credibility for me to invest precious time. There are far more informative and interesting (and less egotistical) writers who deserve attention in…

    [pukes]…“the crucible of public discourse.” [/pukes]

  4. Ran / Si Vis Pacem
    May 26th, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

    No, thanks. The snark pull-quote is sufficient. One half-fast column doesn’t purchase enough credibility for me to invest precious time. There are far more informative and interesting (and less egotistical) writers who deserve attention in…

    [pukes]…“the crucible of public discourse.” [/pukes]

  5. Joe
    May 26th, 2010 @ 7:55 pm

    Dan Collins found a gem that goes along with this Miley Cyrus concert hypothetical question.

  6. Joe
    May 26th, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

    Dan Collins found a gem that goes along with this Miley Cyrus concert hypothetical question.

  7. Joe
    May 26th, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

    I don’t totally agree, but funny.

  8. Joe
    May 26th, 2010 @ 3:21 pm

    I don’t totally agree, but funny.

  9. Estragon
    May 26th, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

    If you leave out the weird aspects and applications of Libertarian philosophy, what is left?

    I think you are taking the wrong message from Conor being on Rand’s side. Wait until Paul is in office – let’s see you cheering his votes against our national security.

  10. Estragon
    May 26th, 2010 @ 3:43 pm

    If you leave out the weird aspects and applications of Libertarian philosophy, what is left?

    I think you are taking the wrong message from Conor being on Rand’s side. Wait until Paul is in office – let’s see you cheering his votes against our national security.

  11. Thrasymachus
    May 27th, 2010 @ 12:32 am

    One, Andrew Sullivan made a highly qualified defense of Rand Paul- which amounted to “I see his intellectual point but he’s naive and wrong.” Sullivan used to be a libertarian and has pretentions of being an intellectual so this was probably just for old time’s sake. Two, Rand Paul is anti-war, and the left just loves the anti-war far “right” for their perceived rebuke to “neoconservatives.”

  12. Thrasymachus
    May 26th, 2010 @ 7:32 pm

    One, Andrew Sullivan made a highly qualified defense of Rand Paul- which amounted to “I see his intellectual point but he’s naive and wrong.” Sullivan used to be a libertarian and has pretentions of being an intellectual so this was probably just for old time’s sake. Two, Rand Paul is anti-war, and the left just loves the anti-war far “right” for their perceived rebuke to “neoconservatives.”

  13. Lipton T. Bagg
    May 27th, 2010 @ 4:07 am

    Not a bad column. My gut tells me Coner had a bad day, and thusly wrote a thoughtful column.
    Now let Coner have a long string of “bad days”, and I might climb on board.

    In any case, the snark quote is both amusing and disturbing. Kind of like the White House these days…

    -LTB

  14. Lipton T. Bagg
    May 26th, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

    Not a bad column. My gut tells me Coner had a bad day, and thusly wrote a thoughtful column.
    Now let Coner have a long string of “bad days”, and I might climb on board.

    In any case, the snark quote is both amusing and disturbing. Kind of like the White House these days…

    -LTB

  15. Ron Jones
    May 27th, 2010 @ 5:28 am

    Estragon, are you a liberal/progressive mouthbreather? or are you just an ignorant statist (aka “Gingrich republican”)?

    “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

    Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.” ~Ronald Reagan 1975

  16. Ron Jones
    May 27th, 2010 @ 12:28 am

    Estragon, are you a liberal/progressive mouthbreather? or are you just an ignorant statist (aka “Gingrich republican”)?

    “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

    Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.” ~Ronald Reagan 1975