Going Hugh Akston #001: Come to the Table

Posted by Paul J. Amore on 04.15.2009

A new addition to the 411 Politics Crew establishes who's right and who's wrong.

Throughout online political discussions, you'll see one person use a label like "liberal" or "conservative" to argue a point, and someone else will invariably defend with, "Actually, I'm not a [insert label here], so your argument fails." Well, I think there are political positions that are wrong, and I need a word for them, and I can't afford to waste time arguing semantics.

Welcome to my column. I'm geared more toward the philosophical side of politics than the hard news or the popular sentiment. I am a libertarian and an idealist, but I don't shirk from labels, and if you want to call me a libertarian, I won't mind, and if you want to call me a liberal, I'll agree if you use it in the classical sense, and if you want to call me a conservative, I will agree that I certainly want to conserve what is right. But, none of those tell you what my positions are, or which positions I tolerate, or which ones I don't.

So here's what we're going to do. Let's pretend I'm having a dinner party at my house, and we're going to talk politics. But, we're not going to argue, we're going to talk about things we agree on, and enjoy the us-versus-them self-righteousness. People who can do this are welcome at my table, and people whose positions are inimical to it are not. So when I refer to someone as "untabled," you won't be able to say that the label doesn't apply to you. You don't decide; I do. I could, and will, explain exactly what the criterion seperating the one from the other is, but for now, let's just see who's in and who's out.



Obviously, other libertarians are welcome at my table. Larry Elder, John Stossel, Drew Carey and the rest of the crew at reason.org are the closest to what I actually think, though if I read long enough, I'll find something to disagree with in each of them.

Economic conservatives and free-marketers are welcome. Even if you happen to think that government should be in our bedrooms or you're off-base on foreign policy, if you want to complain about high taxes and bad regulation, pull up a seat.

Objectivists are also welcome. Even though I enjoy poking holes in Ayn Rand's premises, they get to the right political conclusions. (Aside: the title of my column comes from Objectivism's magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged. It's becoming popular to speak of "going John Galt," meaning to cease giving economic benefits to those who are wrong politically. Hugh Akston was another character from the novel, who was a philosopher and did little other than talk.)

The religious? Well, I'm agnostic and atheistic (ask me to explain that one some time), but I do worship free thought. A lot of religious people I know are good enough to leave it at home or in church. But even if you wear an icon around your neck, you're not disqualified. Put it this way: the pope is welcome; Pat Robertson is not.

Social liberals? Sit down and start eating. I'm all for free sex and legal drugs and unfettered speech. Just be honest about it.

Now for the people who are not welcome:

Socialists and followers of ideologies that are isomorphic to socialism are unwelcome. Any kind of economic "planning" is no good. Not merely because it doesn't work, but because it's not good.

I'm also against people who are anti-war as a reflex. War, like everything else, is subject to a cost-benefit analysis. I happen to think both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars had more benefits than costs.

There's no room for those who place party above position. If you supported Howard Dean, don't compromise and support John Kerry. On the other side, the Republicans who are backlashing against the grass roots, wanting to stick with John McCain's policies just to stay electable are equally bad.

In a similar vein, I have a problem with "moderates." People who compromise for the sake of compromising are just people with no principles. Sit down, think, and come back when you decide what you want.

Businesspeople and their supporters who use government to help their business: unwelcome. I'm not buying an American car until the bailout money gets paid back.

And finally, there's no place at my table for "inertia values." I'm talking about the right-winger who wants prayer back in the public schools and smut shops closed down because that's the way it was 100 years ago.

As I said, this is all a metaphor used to find a blanket label that works for positions I agree or disagree with. Ideas are more important than people. But in the weeks and months to come, I'm going to attack what I'm against and support what I'm for, and what I want to avoid is the mentality of, "I can't find a flaw in your logic, but I'm still not going to agree to your point." Hopefully this will remove the avenue of, "The point doesn't apply to me."