Peace, Liberty, and the Tea Party

A couple of very good articles have surfaced recently taking on the hypocrisy in the Tea Party movement regarding war and its attendant attacks on domestic liberty, which the Tea Party activists supposedly hold dear. The first, by James Bovard, appeared in the Christian Science Monitor under the title "Tea Party Movement: Pro-War, Pro-Torture, Pro-Freedom?" The second, by Ivan Eland, "To the Tea Party: War and Liberty Aren't Fellow Travelers," was posted on Antiwar.com.

Both articles do a fine job of highlighting the consternating intellectual disconnect among many of the tea partiers in their simultaneous support for smaller government and the warfare state. I highly encourage you to read both articles.

Eland lays out a particularly clear historical case that growth in domestic government, which the tea partiers apparently so detest, has to a very large degree been the direct result of wartime policies. He goes so far as to say that "of all the causes of big government in human history, warfare is the most important."

Bovard recounts his experience at a recent tea party, where establishment Republican partisans spent more breath bashing Obama as a closet Muslim and fearmongering over Iran's nuclear program than espousing any principled defense of political and economic liberty. Bovard also points out recent poll results "showed that two-thirds of tea party members have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, and 57 percent have a favorable opinion of George W. Bush."

If warfare is the most important cause of big government, then G.W. Bush's boundless "war on terror" surely stands as one of the grossest excuses for the the expansion of government in American history. And yet a majority of small-government-supporting tea partiers still have a favorable view of him? What's going on here?

Now, I think it's important to point out that not all tea partiers are warmongers. After all, 43% don't view Bush favorably. We would do well to remember that the modern tea party movement began in late 2007 during the presidential campaign of Ron Paul, a true advocate of small government and peace. According to recent poll results the tea party movement is evenly divided between the originalist libertarian-leaning Ron Paul wing, and the usurping conservative-Republican-partisan Sarah Palin wing.

Since at least the Cold War, unquestioning support for the military and all its misadventures has been a core conservative doctrine. And with the election of a "liberal" Democrat president and Congress, conservatives have flocked to join libertarians in the tea party protests, bringing with them all of their Cold War baggage. Conservatives have been so inculcated for decades in their unflagging reverence for militarism, that it simply never occurs to them to reassess things in the light of their new found love of liberty. And now, with the popularity of the tea party movement attracting the vultures of the Republican establishment, the anti-Democrat message has become the loudest voice at most rallies.

If conservatives truly value freedom and limited government, then they must learn to recognize the ways in which the warfare state undermines and violates those ideals. I've heard and read conservatives say things like, "Thank God for the military, the one part of our government that works really well." I hate to break it to ya'll, but the military is just another bureaucracy, with all the attendant inefficiencies and perverse incentive structures as the DMV, the Post Office, or the IRS. In fact, it's not unreasonable to claim that the military is responsible for more pork and cost overruns than any other government department.

War profiteers...um...merchants of death...I mean...defense contractors bilk billions in profits from taxpayers to build unnecessary and notoriously unreliable weaponry. And the sole purpose of that weaponry: to destroy valuable resources, i.e. homes, buildings, roads, cars, sewage systems, schools. We may as well all have a giant money-burning orgy. At least then the purchasing power of the dollar might rise for once.

Conservatives still carry the Cold War fear of reductions in military spending. Do they know that the U.S. spends as much on it's military as the rest of the world combined? That we spend at least 7 times more than the second-highest country, China? Keep in mind that these figures only include the official Pentagon budget. Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute recently published a full accounting of military spending, which turned out to be 65% greater than the Pentagon budget alone. If conservatives want to shrink government, spending cuts must be made, and military spending should be the first candidate on the cutting table.

This is a rare time when libertarians and conservatives find themselves in common cause against government expansion. The pro-peace voices among us must speak out while this short window of opportunity remains. I'm sure it's quite tempting to hold back and concentrate on the issues held in common with conservatives. But this is a unique time in our history when conservatives are vulnerable to libertarian principles they would normally brush aside or not ever hear in the first place.

We must take advantage of this time to advocate for the cause of peace and liberty. We must expose and educate conservatives on the crucial link between peace and liberty, and the one that also joins war and tyranny. I'm sure there are many tea partiers who won't appreciate the message, and many who will refuse to see the light. But many will. How will they hear unless we tell them? This may be the one and only time in many conservatives' lives that they will ever be exposed to such ideas. We must rise to the challenge and boldly speak out for peace. Now.

Ron Paul Warns that Iran Sanctions Will Lead to War

News came today that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a measure to being talks with the Senate on drafting final Iran sanctions legislation.

The vote on the bill was 403-11. Antiwar.com news editor Jason Ditz writes that the final sanction vote will likely see a similar tally. The heroic 11 Representatives who took a stand for humanitarianism and peace included 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans, including of course Ron Paul.

In his speech on the House floor opposing the bill, Dr. Paul urged Congress to turn back from their senseless and baseless "push for war on Iran." Indeed, Dr. Paul went so far as to say that "a vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war against Iran."

According to Ditz, "The measure would attempt to block companies across the world from doing business with Iran in importing gasoline and other vital goods Iran does not produce domestically, a move with has been designed to “cripple” Iran’s economy in retaliation for refusing to abandon its civilian nuclear program."

Dr. Paul pointed out that, "The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war according to international law."

Is this really what Congress wants, what the American people want? A war with Iran? Another war in the Middle East? In his speech, Dr. Paul talked about the eerie parallels between this current bill and the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. Severe sanctions have many times been precursors to war. The UN securities council ratcheted up sanctions on Iraq in the years and months leading up to the 2003 invasion, and FDR cut off gasoline imports to Japan in 1941 in an attempt to provoke an attack.

What good could possibly result from such a barbaric blockade? How would we expect the U.S. government to react should some foreign power cut off our oil supply? It doesn't take much imagination to foresee the swift and violent retribution that would be visited upon such a maneuver.

In the midst of all the war propaganda, Ron Paul reminds that, "Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of that treaty. Iran is not capable of enriching uranium to the necessary level to manufacture nuclear weapons. According to the entire US Intelligence Community, Iran is not currently working on a nuclear weapons program."

Dr. Paul leaves us with a grim warning: "This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to war on Iran."

Ron Paul has played the role of prophet more than once. I pray that Congress and the American people will heed him this time before it is too late.

UPDATE: here is a video of Dr. Paul's speech on the floor of the House: