Brad R. Schlesinger

Brad R. Schlesinger

23p

4 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0

10 years ago @ The Humble Libertarian - How You Know Rand Paul... · 0 replies · +2 points

Thanks, Wes. And keep it up -- good and engaging content is few and far between!

10 years ago @ The Humble Libertarian - How You Know Rand Paul... · 2 replies · +2 points

I know, right? It's cool. Well, here's what I can remember of my initial rejoinder...

Lots of good points. I’m sort of looking at this whole thing through the lens of someone on the center left who I try to relentlessly convince to support classical liberalism.

Now, I certainly did not mean to imply that Hunter or you, or anyone who holds divergent views in the past should be shamed forever or banished. That was not my intent, nor did I say as much. But he should be shamed nonetheless. Not forever, just to make clear that those kinds of associations are not acceptable or tolerated within classical liberalism, then we should move on.

The thing about Hunter that I think differentiates from your past positions is that Hunter was a leader at the League which explicitly advocates and hopes to return us to a time "structured upon the Biblical notion of hierarchy [...with] a recognition of the natural societal order of superiors and subordinates." They actively pine for a return to the antebellum south. Maybe it is just me, but there is just something different about pining for this and wanting to go back to a time where humans held other humans in bondage as chattel, that I find particularly disturbing. IIRC, Hunter was not a teenager, rather, he was well into his 20’s during his leadership post at the League.

I think you are right about yourself, those positions can be chalked up, reasonably so, to youth or naiveté. But a crucial difference exists. Yes you were younger, but nothing you said indicates that your beliefs were rooted in white supremacy and a desire to return to the antebellum south, a la the League. There is a significant difference from a passive belief (e.g. “gays are sinful and are going to burn hell”) as compared to actively trying to bring about your belief (e.g., being part of or a leader of an organization that actively seeks to burn/murder gays or enslave/subordinate them to the dominant race/sexual orientation). It is the degree to which my particular critique of Hunter is rooted in his previous and active support to return us to the time of white supremacy.

If Hunter has truly repented and no longer holds these beliefs, then I commend him, but I cannot know whether he truly does, which isn’t even really the point. He should continue to write and speak out and I will commend him if he does so on issues I care about. Hell, I’ll link and cite approvingly to him when it warrants it. But just because he fancies himself a libertarian, does not mean he is immune from criticism. I do not take Hunter or anyone else as a whole. I can praise Hunter on the one hand and condemn him on the other. As individualists we shouldn’t be in a position of having to defend someone on the entirety of what they have said and believed. I mean, take Hayek. He said some things praising Pinochet that I find repellent, but I don’t choose to anathematize him. Hunter, Hayek, you and me, we are all humans, who make mistakes; we have to take the good with the bad, but should not seek to cover up the bad. Lets acknowledge when ourselves and those we our allied with make mistakes, point them out and move on. By doing so we can help win converts by proving that we aren’t the same as other movements who seek to blindly defend each other regardless of the subject matter. By showing nuance and a commitment to principle that allows for strong condemnation of fellow libertarians, the movement is showing it is what we all purport it to be: A movement dedicated to principles and ideas, not people or ‘teams’.

And you are right, the Beacon piece is a smear, designed to impugn Paul due to his perceived position in the 2016 Republican presidential field. But I have no real affinity for Paul or any other politician so I don’t feel like I have any real interest in defending either of them. I’ll defend Hunter and the like from smears and criticism that is not genuine and warranted. But this matter of Hunter’s leadership in the League is worthy of and warrants criticism and condemnation in the strongest terms. We should attack our own when our own deserve it, and on this matter, Hunter deserves it. But I am not trying to whitewash him out of anything or silence him or you. I only hope that those who like him and his work are able to acknowledge that he has held some views in the past that are strongly at odds with classical liberalism/libertarianism and that it is not something to just shrug off or pretend that it never happened. To me, that is how to not build a vibrant libertarian movement.

As an aside: glad you are back blogging.

10 years ago @ The Humble Libertarian - How You Know Rand Paul... · 1 reply · +1 points

Dude, I just wrote a reply that your comment thing ate up and unfortunately it is now gone, Thousand words down the tube.

10 years ago @ The Humble Libertarian - How You Know Rand Paul... · 3 replies · +3 points

I don't know how close you are to Hunter, since I know he is deeply involved with YAL, but It's not just what Hunter wrote, noxious as much of that stuff is. He was also a member and chapter leader of the League of the South, whose own website provides the self-description that they're a southern Christian-nationalist secessionist organization devoted to protecting the "Anglo-Celtic" "core population and culture" of the south, "structured upon the Biblical notion of hierarchy [...with] a recognition of the natural societal order of superiors and subordinates." It self identifies as being named after a proslavery group. It doesn't get any more neo-confederate than that.

Now, Hunter is more than welcome to distance himself from his ties to that rancid group and claim his association with the League was a mistake, but like Byrd as you rightly point out, he still was a part of it, not just a part but a leader. A simple wave of the hand about youth or naiveté, for me at least, doesn't really do much to wash away the stain of being a leader of the League (or Byrd's KKK affiliation). I must say I find plausible, the argument that his supposed changes seem more calculated to gain legitimacy and influence within tea party/conservative circles than an authentic refutation of the unseemliness of the neo-confederate crowd. But I do not know and cannot say for sure. What I do know is that the League of the South is antithetical to classical liberal values and ideals and anyone who is a leader of an organization that self-identifies with the aforementioned description should not be forgiven just because of an apology that cites youth or naiveté. He should be sufficiently shamed for that association and rightly so.