Why Posts on Individual Freedom?

I have been posting on individual freedom, individualism, etc., because this is a basic value upon which virtually all Americans from left to right agree, at least as an abstract principle. It is only when one looks into the details of political opinions that one finds that 'individual freedom' in the abstract does not translate into the same concrete set of political and social recommendations. For example, it seems to me that if one truly values individual freedom then one must endorse a pretty strong policy of civil liberties as defined in the bill of rights. In the abstract pseudo-conservatives like William F. Buckley endorse civil liberties; however, in God and Man at Yale he advocated an end to academic freedom as we know it and endorsed a policy of indoctrination for undergraduates in the 'truths' of morality and political economy as he viewed them as a Catholic and an Adam Smith lover (see documentation of this in John Judis' biography of Buckley). Moreover, Buckley's support for McCarthy and McCarthyism also demonstrated his lack of a robust view of civil liberties. Indeed, Buckley's views regarding both academic freedom and McCarthyism demonstrated that he does not at all support the free exchange of ideas in freedom of speech when it comes to matters where he believes his views are 'right', and thus indoctrination is the policy he supports in many cases. I'm not sure how this differentiates him from Stalinists who also endorsed indoctrination of the 'party line.'

Pseudo-Conservative Contradictions, Part 2

This is a continuation of my earlier Pseudo-Conservative Contradictions. One of the best ways to see that pseudo-conservatives are not advocates of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ as they constantly claim is by noting how they handle debate with opponents. Most pseudo-conservatives I hear use authoritarian tactics in debate which show they don’t foster ‘freedom of expression’. Prime among debating tools for pseudo-conservatives is the personal attack, the ad hominem tactic: attack the person and not the substance of the disagreement. Thus, you’ll hear those on the right, who otherwise maintain they are the arch defenders of liberty and freedom, use dismissive attacks on opponents like “cut and run”, “hate America first”, “unpatriotic”, etc. The goal is to encourage audiences to emotionally dismiss the opponent and not even listen to what they have to say. In other words, these defenders of liberty aim to squelch debate and the free exchange of ideas.

In an excellent book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, political scientist Karen Stenner gave a brief description of the predisposition to be authoritarian; she wrote (p. 16) that the stances taken by the authoritarian “have the effect of glorifying, encouraging, and rewarding uniformity and of disparaging, suppressing, and punishing difference.” Ad hominem attacks are attempts to glorify uniformity and suppress difference. On the other end of the continuum from authoritarianism is libertarianism. The true and consistent libertarian can reasonably make a claim that they are defenders of liberty. The pseudo-conservative is a sham defender of liberty, an authoritarian masquerading as a true lover of freedom. How long are Americans going to allow the pseudo-conservative, authoritarian right to get away with this scam? They pump themselves up as guardians of liberty but consistently behave in ways that undermine it.