Reason piece on Putin's anti-libertarian agenda

Discussion
1

For a different point of view, the always articulate Justin Raimondo of the venerable Anti-War.com counters the entire position. The bottom line. Look at Reason's funders. The Koch family.

Love his closing statement

The truth is, however, that the "small contingent" Palmer spoke of is a description of him and his fellow cold warriors, who represent nothing and no one but themselves and their wealthy donors. Our movement, the libertarian movement, was born in the midst of the cold war: we learned early on that the War Party is the greatest enemy of liberty, the adversary that must be defeated before we can get our old republic back. The crazed anti-Russian campaign now being waged by both the "left" and "right" wings of the War Party can only lead to a military conflict - a war that could annihilate us all. Somehow, I doubt that "Libertarians for World War III" is going to get much traction - but, hey, they're trying!

Mike

2

Personally, I’m taking the “anti-McCain” position….which just happens to be Raimondo’s position.

Speaking of overthrowing governments and getting away with it...<http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/speaking-of-overthrowing-governments-and-getting-away-with-it>
7/10/2017

By Liberty Report Staff
[Picture]
No one should be surprised that neocons are unhappy with a ceasefire in Syria.

America working with Russia is a cardinal sin according to the neocon bible.

Senator John McCain is very unhappy that Putin is "getting away" with this:
CBS<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mccain-putin-got-away-with-election-interference/> reports:
"If you were Vladimir Putin, who I've gotten to know over the years, you're sitting there and you got away with literally trying to change the outcome not just of our election. French election. Tried to overthrow the government of Montenegro, a beautiful little country," McCain said.

"And there has been no penalty whatsoever,"
Speaking of getting away with things, and overthrowing governments, we know for sure that the U.S. overthrew the government of Iraq.

Was John McCain trying to stand in the way of what would become one of the biggest (if not the biggest) disgrace in American history?

​Or was John McCain saying stuff like this:
- "I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult." [Link<http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/12/se.06.html>]

- "I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." [Link<http://mediamatters.org/items/200704300011>]

-"I think most Iraqis would greet the removal of Saddam Hussein with relief and pleasure." [Link<http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/11/15/369142/mccain-if-you-were-ever-wrong-on-iraq-that-effects-the-credibility-of-your-current-judgements/>]

-"There's no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there's no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators." [Link<http://mediamatters.org/items/200704300011>]

- "I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks." [Link<http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/25/mccain-war-over/>]

- "...the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate. [Link<http://mediamatters.org/items/200704300011>]
That's just Iraq.

We can move around the world, from one U.S. military debacle to another, and reflect on all of McCain's war-hungry prognostications.

The "penalty" for McCain?

He's still Senator from Arizona 14 years later, and is regularly sought out by the American mainstream media for his opinions.

Mike

(Attachment image001.png is missing)

3

Cathy Young of Reason has an insightful piece online titled "Russia's Global Anti-Libertarian Crusade: How Vladimir Putin's desire for domination and acceptance is scrambling American politics":

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/07/russias-global-anti-libertaria

  A couple excerpts:

"Earlier this year, prosecutors in Montenegro charged that a thwarted violent coup in the fall of 2016 had been engineered by two Russian military intelligence officers with the help of paramilitary Russian and Serbian nationalists. The plot, they said, included a plan to assassinate the prime minister and was intended to keep the country from joining NATO. While the charges remain unproven so far, there is little doubt that Russia is extensively involved in the Balkans with the goal of undermining pro-Western forces.

"In Macedonia, that involvement is on the side of the conservative populist supporters of former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, who have refused to accept a liberal and multi-ethnic parliamentary coalition following the results of last December's elections. Russian media outlets, such as Sputnik News, have been stoking the Slav majority's fears of empowering the country's Albanian minority by flogging conspiracy theories about NATO plans for "Greater Albania" and for Macedonia's dismemberment. The conflict turned bloody after the election of an Albanian speaker in late April, when about 200 right-wing protesters stormed the parliament; about 100 people, including nine lawmakers, were injured in the melee.

"Less dramatic but baneful effects of Russian influence can be seen in Hungary, where the Kremlin has cultivated both the far-right Jobbik and the more moderately right-wing ruling party, Fidesz. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has an amicable relationship with Putin and is openly skeptical of the post-Crimea sanctions, says he favors an "illiberal democracy" in which the collective good takes precedence over individual rights.

"In practice, this has meant reforms that weaken the separation of powers and strengthen state controls over the media. In April, Hungary passed a law requiring non-E.U. universities that issue diplomas in Hungary to have an active campus in their home country, a measure likely to force the closure of the country's top private school..."

  And

"...pro-Russian (or at least anti-anti-Russian) arguments have become fairly common not just among conservatives but among a contingent of libertarians, such as former Rep. Ron Paul and Antiwar.com Editorial Director Justin Raimondo. The new Republican affection for Russia is largely a matter of political polarization: Since Putin is the Democrats' boogeyman du jour, he can't be all bad. But quite a few conservatives also genuinely see Putin's Russia as a Christian ally against Islam, a perspective recently endorsed by Ann Coulter in a March column trollishly titled 'Let's Make Russia Our Sister Country.'

"That view manages to ignore not only Russia's coziness with Iran but the fact that one of Putin's staunchest domestic allies, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, runs a de facto sharia state within the Russian Federation. This spring, Kadyrov was in the news for throwing gay men in prison camps and threatening a fatwa on Russian journalists who exposed the persecution.

"Joanna AndreassonMeanwhile, Ron Paul–style libertarians are inclined to see Russia as a check on U.S. foreign adventurism and Russia hawks as hardcore proponents of the American imperial leviathan. 'Unfortunately, there is a small contingent who fall victim to the fallacy that 'the enemy of the enemy is my friend,' and if the Kremlin is the enemy of my enemy, then it must be my friend,' Palmer says."

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

4

OK….glad we can agree on McCain. Maybe it is just statesmanship and nothing but BS, but I find Putin’s statements to be refreshing. Sort of like I found some of Trump’s campaign statements refreshing. Only to have them ignored post-election.

Mike

5

Yes, Raimondo is mentioned by Cathy Young in the article as one of the libertarians taking the pro-Putin (or at least anti-anti-Putin) line.

  FWIW, I am not funded by the Koch family, and I find Putin and his agenda scary and anti-liberty! Perhaps that is because I consciously try not to look at the world through the lens of American nationalism, reverse nationalism, or U.S. politics, generally, and thus am less susceptible to the recalibration that, as reported by Young, has apparently affected many Republicans' views of Putin:

"A CNN/ORC poll in late April found that 56 percent of Republicans see Russia as either 'friendly' or 'an ally,' up from 14 percent in 2014. Over the same period, Putin's favorable rating from Republicans in the Economist/YouGov poll went from 10 percent to a startling 37 percent."

  I believe this massive change is overwhelmingly due to the changing role of Russia in recent U.S. political discourse, primarily in relation to the 2016 election, and not to any improvement in the Putin regime's behavior.

  The Libertarian Party of Russia is, I think, more clear-eyed about that regime:

http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/08/libertarian-party-of-russia-an-appeal-to-western-libertarians-about-the-war-in-ukraine/

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

6

I can't stand John McCain either. But that does not seem to me a good reason to wear rose-colored glasses when looking at Vladimir Putin.

  Incidentally (per one of the Liberty Report quotes below), I don't think McCain was wrong to predict that most Iraqis would be relieved and pleased by the removal of Saddam Hussein. Polling of Iraqis after the invasion suggest that a majority did feel that way, and initially supported coalition troops' presence in the country. I think that support evaporated over time as the aftermath of the invasion was bungled and troops from the U.S. and allied governments overstayed their welcome and engaged in abusive tactics:

"DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.
The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein's regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18.

The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a 'surge' of more than 20,000 extra troops.

The poll highlights the impact the sectarian violence has had. Some 26% of Iraqis - 15% of Sunnis and 34% of Shiites - have suffered the murder of a family member. Kidnapping has also played a terrifying role: 14% have had a relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33% in Baghdad.

Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam's era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in statistics – Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Baathist regime (51%) while the Shiites (66%) preferred the Maliki government..."

From http://www.brussellstribunal.org/Polls260307.htm

  I do think McCain is a warmonger and largely statist member of the establishment, and tends to be wrong about most things.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

7

I've found some of Donald Trump's statements refreshing too Mike, both before and after the election, and even some of his actions as president. On the whole he seems to me to be broadly sticking to the agenda he campaigned on as much as most presidents have – that is to say, with far from consistent adherence, but at least taking approaches that are recognizably related (i.e. pleasing to his "base"). On the other hand, the Trump of the 2016 campaign hasn't shown himself to be any different in the Oval office than he was on the campaign trail in terms of personality, temperament either. His behavior still reflects boorishness, egotism, pettiness, vindictiveness, and alarmingly authoritarian tendencies.

  While I'm thinking of it, a few good B.S.-detector question to use when evaluating an officeholder's honesty/integrity:

• Is this what the politician's base wants and expects?
• If a politician previously took a different position on something, does s/he have a convincing explanation for changing his or her mind? (Any significant and politically convenient change should face a high hurdle of skepticism.)
• To what extent do a politician's positions and actions add up to some kind of mostly consistent worldview?

  Vladimir Putin's challenging the U.S. government's power in the world could also be refreshing – if he had a moral leg to stand on or anything better to offer in place of the policies he attacks. Perhaps the best that can be said about Putin's political career is that he is merely the latest tyrant in a jurisdiction famous for producing and tolerating tyrants. But of course justice shouldn't work that way, or should it? If someone is convicted of a crime like robbery or murder, should their sentence be lower if they have a family or community background in which such behavior is common?

  I would love to see a chart comparing the primary leaders* of every country in the world, rating their views, actions in office, and how much less (or in rare cases, more) libertarian they are on the whole than the population of the areas they claim to represent. On an expanded version of the Nolan Chart covering more different issues, how would they score in terms of their rhetoric? Their actions?

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

*By which I mean the one individual in each government or regime who holds the most power in that government/regime. The terms "heads of state" or "president" are problematic, because in some countries the individuals holding these titles are relatively powerless – constitutional monarchs for instance.

8

Starchild,

Another BS-detection question when personally interviewing a political candidate or office holder: ask yourself whether it’s possible or even likely his responses are geared to what he believes you want to hear. (Successful politicians are particularly skilled at reading people and crafting their messages accordingly.) Unfortunately, libertarians interviewing politicians too often fall for this.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
htttp://ThreeMinuteTherapy.com <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>

Author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks and addiction

  I've found some of Donald Trump's statements refreshing too Mike, both before and after the election, and even some of his actions as president. On the whole he seems to me to be broadly sticking to the agenda he campaigned on as much as most presidents have – that is to say, with far from consistent adherence, but at least taking approaches that are recognizably related (i.e. pleasing to his "base"). On the other hand, the Trump of the 2016 campaign hasn't shown himself to be any different in the Oval office than he was on the campaign trail in terms of personality, temperament either. His behavior still reflects boorishness, egotism, pettiness, vindictiveness, and alarmingly authoritarian tendencies.

  While I'm thinking of it, a few good B.S.-detector question to use when evaluating an officeholder's honesty/integrity:

• Is this what the politician's base wants and expects?
• If a politician previously took a different position on something, does s/he have a convincing explanation for changing his or her mind? (Any significant and politically convenient change should face a high hurdle of skepticism.)
• To what extent do a politician's positions and actions add up to some kind of mostly consistent worldview?

  Vladimir Putin's challenging the U.S. government's power in the world could also be refreshing – if he had a moral leg to stand on or anything better to offer in place of the policies he attacks. Perhaps the best that can be said about Putin's political career is that he is merely the latest tyrant in a jurisdiction famous for producing and tolerating tyrants. But of course justice shouldn't work that way, or should it? If someone is convicted of a crime like robbery or murder, should their sentence be lower if they have a family or community background in which such behavior is common?

  I would love to see a chart comparing the primary leaders* of every country in the world, rating their views, actions in office, and how much less (or in rare cases, more) libertarian they are on the whole than the population of the areas they claim to represent. On an expanded version of the Nolan Chart covering more different issues, how would they score in terms of their rhetoric? Their actions?

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

*By which I mean the one individual in each government or regime who holds the most power in that government/regime. The terms "heads of state" or "president" are problematic, because in some countries the individuals holding these titles are relatively powerless – constitutional monarchs for instance.