The Unbearable Lightness Of Libertarian Thought - Part VI

Today Matt Welch has a mea culpa post up entitled Farewell to Warblogging: I used to think blogs would transform ideologues into nonpartisan truth-seekers. Man, was I wrong.. As they say, read the whole thing, but what I thought was hilarious is that the whole thing is kind of a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with Libertarian thought.

First, let's point out the fact that Matt's blog's title was rather odd: Warblog. Here's his first post on that aptly named blog

Welcome to War. Sounds like a strange and unpleasant thing to say, but these are strange and unpleasant times, requiring unusual responses. Like many of you, I am reading and hearing and watching too much about the wicked horror of Sept. 11, and finding it a challenge to keep track of how it is already changing our lives. The biggest question facing Americans and other decent people is how the civilized world and its strongest country should respond to this mass murder. I, for one, advocate a Global War to abolish terrorism. Many of you probably disagree. There are -- largely thanks to the values championed by the United States -- many forums to argue over the many issues that are already cropping up, from concerns over reduced civil liberties to an amazing increase in government secrecy. This will be mine ... and yours too, should you want to e-mail me, and agree to let me share it with the others. There aren't many who can think and write clearly in the wake of this terrible sadness, and I don't claim to be one of them, but I will try. This site will also be a press review, allowing you and me both to monitor and react to coverage and opinion as it happens. I had always hoped to conduct my affairs without resorting to the blog, but new times call for new media. Let's roll.

Emphasis, mine

One of the things that always struck me as more than a bit strange about the Libertarians was this overwhelming tendency to jump up and start shooting at the drop of a hat. Now, granted, there are a few prominent Libertarians who don't think war should be a first resort, and who aren't first and foremost a gun owner (and an American citizen second). But, quite frankly, this brand of Libertarian is so few and far between that I think you have to count them as noise on the pure and undeniable signal of Libertarianism that pulsates from Matt's first post: Let's Roll.

If you continue to read Matt's further posts, you'll see why I don't think the man has much to be proud of regarding the war in Iraq. It's pretty clear from the get go that his blood thirst was awakened on September 11th, and from the get-go he was using his podium as a propaganda tool for the war. Bashing democrats, slamming peace protesters, hyping WMDs - you name it.

So now he's all "boo hoo" about the demise of war blogging and the fact that it didn't, after all, lead to an enlightened age of reason. Funny how that works. You spend all your time degrading discourse in a single minded attempt to work out your fear issues by beating up the left and what is the result?

Michelle Malkin, to name one writer revered by warbloggers (her site recently won Best Blog in an annual poll organized by Right- WingNews.com), is to critical thinking what Ralph Nader is to libertarianism—a very good example of the opposite. The basic scholarship of her 2004 book In Defense of Internment was cut to ribbons by Japanese-internment historian Eric L. Muller (see “Indefensible Internment,” December 2004), yet many of the same people who once trumpeted bloggers’ ability to “fact-check your ass” simply shrugged, continued treating Malkin as a trustworthy source, and saved their real journalism criticism for those partisan hacks at CBS News and The New York Times.

Yes, Matt. You were wrong. But you weren't just wrong in your predictions of an enlightened age of reason.

I'm always bemused by the "washing of the hands" post. I suppose it's traditional when one leaves one job for another (Matt is leaving to take a job the LA Times). But in reading Matt's blog, it's pretty clear that he was part and parcel of the very thing he's reviling. In his Pontius Pilot post, he produces the usual "Pox On Both Their Houses" example of Glennocide Reynolds and Oliver Willis

Glenn Reynolds and Oliver Willis—to pick two bloggers who were often in agreement with one another in the fall of 2001—have for the last three years almost always been on the opposite side of every major political controversy, from the administration’s reasoning for invading Iraq to the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame down to the relevance of this or that public opinion poll.

Willis is now apt to give posts about Reynolds titles like “Flip Flopping Glenn” and “More Cowardice from Glenn Reynolds”; the Instapundit, meanwhile, has taken to calling Willis (who now works for the progressive watchdog Media Matters) a “paid flack.”

What's creepy in this is Matt's transition to the dark side is that Matt doesn't see his own hand in this political split. For example, just look at the second post off of his aptly named Warblog

We need to think very clearly, from here on out. Part of that process is assessing, with as much accuracy as possible, whether the suicide attackers' general complaint against America is valid. Are we an Evil Empire? I say we are not, and those who argue that we are, either believe that Henry Kissinger still runs our foreign policy, or that all armies should be dismantled, or that the Cold War never ended. For years, such delusional ideas were quaint little debate points, fodder for writing centrist columns for a Leftist audience. Now, they are the very foundation of the life-and-death struggles to come next. I'm willing to admit, and have always been willing to admit, that America has done some dastardly things in the name of democracy. Are you willing to admit that it also the primary source for geopolitical good?

Myself, I find it pretty scary that this, in a nutshell, is still the primary argument used by this Administration and their supporters to bash anyone and everyone who is against the madness. Of course, the argument has taken off from its humble beginnings, but the form remains the same. The whole issue with Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson is framed as a defensive act by those who just want to show the United State's "good" side in the struggle against Those Who Would Destroy Us With Facts^tm.

So, glad you're waving it all goodbye, Matt. Wash those hands and be sure to scrub with soap.

Myself, I don't think the mess you enthusiastically helped create will wash off quite that easily. I think the peasants with their pitchforks and torches will be wanted a word with you regarding your creation.