Tag: unity

The Case for Right-wing Unity

By Jack Parkos | United States

The liberty movement is struggling – it has not fought off tyranny or shrunk the size and scope of the government. The movement needs allies, but the question is, with who? Contrary to popular belief, allying with other right-wingers may just be the best chance it has.

The Libertarian Party is run by watered down libertarians who often only care about a few issues, such as marijuana. Even at the idea of right-wing unity they will scoff and start throwing out words like “statist” and “conservative sympathizer”. This mentality has only hurt us. Libertarians are a small minority; we need allies. Allies that can agree with certain values we have but may have certain differences. Just because someone may have one minor issue that may not be 100% libertarian doesn’t mean we should call him a statist and kick him out. So when we look at groups of political ideology we need to ask who is the better ally. The answer is the right wing.

Politics, Not Party

Again here we see most libertarians saying that the left and right are exactly the same and both are equally as bad. This belief comes from the 2 party system, people believing that establishment Republicans represent all right wingers and establishment Democrats embody the left. Politics is more than just Party affiliation.

Populism

Populists and libertarians have more in common than you may think-both are angry with the establishment, are tired of politicians selling out to corporations and global organizations. Neither side wants to be ruled by the elite. The movements may disagree on some issues, but differences must be put aside if we want anything to get done.  Of course, certain groups in the populist movement may be a no-go, such as ethno-nationalists. However, ones who respect certain values- such as property rights, capitalism, and non-intervention, would be a good ally in the fight to defeat the elites. Murray Rothbard was a supporter of this idea but unfortunately did extend it to white supremacists. If we can vet these people out, the populist movement would be a great ally to the liberty movement.

The Left’s Threat To Social Order

People may think that the left is not a threat, or is just as big of one as other right-wingers, but this is a false assumption. Of course, not all right-wingers are perfect, but left-wing ideologies pose a greater threat to liberty. Groups like Antifa use violence to suppress free speech, all in the name of “political correctness”. Other groups who fight for “social justice” actually harm society. The further left you get, the more you get into Marxism. Even what we may consider “moderate left-wingers” are starting to turn to socialism.

A further issue with the left is they tend to crave chaos in the name of “equality”. Right-wing ideologies tend to favor social order. Libertarians favor order mainly through property rights, while right-wingers want order mainly through law. The libertarians goal should be to ally with groups who want social order and convince them of how property rights (and a possible minimal state) can maintain the order without using government violence. It is easier to convince people of a new way of keeping social order rather than convincing people that there should be none.

A Moral Society?

Right-wing ideologies tend to favor a more moral society, namely with family values and traditionalism. In a libertarian society, these would be essential to the survival of the libertarian social order. Obviously, we do not need to use government force to establish and maintain a moral society.

In such a society, people would have the freedom to make bad decisions, such as drug usage, free sexuality, etc. These behaviors can lead to high unemployment. Increased sex out of marriage will lead to fatherless children which will increase poverty and higher crime rates. Social conservatives tend to believe in family values, which could help decrease poverty. The compromise would be to encourage these values while simultaneously decreasing government. While it may not be ideal to some, the necessity for maintaining social order and defeating the left is enough for right-wing unity.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

Obama, Freedom and Identity Politics

By K. Tymon Zhou | South Africa

As identity politics grow more popular to the american left, an unlikely individual may be able to help our racial divisions.

How can societies reconcile multicultural harmony with unity? At times, it seems impossible to achieve both of these noble aims.  The progressive left seeks to prioritize “inclusion” and “diversity”, but creates only a restless frenzy. This frenzy takes the form of identity politics, a corrosive influence in American life.  Recently, an unlikely source challenged this scourge: former president Barrack Obama. On Tuesday, President Obama delivered a speech in Johannesburg, South Africa at the Nelson Mandela Lecture. This speech expressed a fundamental optimism that diversity can exist with unity. Conservatives and libertarians should adopt this approach as they seek to restrain identity politics.

Firstly, Obama acknowledged historic injustices describing the colonialism that was prevalent in Mandela’s youth :

such a view of the world – that certain races, certain nations, certain groups were inherently superior, and that violence and coercion is the primary basis for governance, that the strong necessarily exploit the weak, that wealth is determined primarily by conquest – that view of the world was hardly confined to relations between Europe and Africa, or relations between whites and blacks. Whites were happy to exploit other whites when they could. And by the way, blacks were often willing to exploit other blacks.

It is surprising that Obama refers to oppression within the same racial groups. In the particular narrative, imperialism and oppression are not exclusively European sins. Instead, they are presented as universal. This runs to contrary to liberal identity politics which states that to be an oppressor, all one must do is to simply belong to an “advantaged” group.  Thus, liberal identity politics ignores the oppression that can occur within minority groups ( i.e blacks exploiting other blacks). Such a view is a horrific over-simplification. Moreover, it ignores the situational diversity within “advantaged” groups. This only fuels animosity between groups. Instead of seeing oppression in terms of identity, one must see it in terms of action. Obama’s more nuanced perspective recognizes this.

Secondly, Obama argues that democracy can resolve such injustices:

I believe in a vision of equality and justice and freedom and multi-racial democracy, built on the premise that all people are created equal, and they’re endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. And I believe that a world governed by such principles is possible and that it can achieve more peace and more cooperation in pursuit of a common good.

Despite its liberal source, libertarians and conservatives have readily embraced this message. Their primary focus is securing greater freedom and to protect inalienable rights. Such a goal inherently works towards a common good. In a magnificently miraculous manner, freedom created unity.  The same protection that grants Sikhs a right to self-expression grants Christian bakers that same right. In democracies, all groups can pursue these freedoms.

Ironically, Obama’s fellow liberals have forgotten this fundamental truth. They doubt that there is a common good. Consider the contemplation of two Harvard Crimson opinion writers,  Salma Abdelrahman and Nicholas P. Whittaker, devout progressive liberals:

My guiding light in the fight for justice is a vision for a world in which Black liberation does not have to ride on the coattails of white self-interest, a world in which the cries of Black and Brown folk are more than enough to change it…

If our battle against oppression must seek the permission of our masters, then are we not simply running in circles?

To these progressive liberals, the “common good” is a mere rhetorical device designed by the “oppressor”  to prevent progress. There is a certain demented logic to their reasoning. In their view, minorities are surrounded by oppressors. Consequently, there is no “we” between the oppressors and the oppressed. Therefore, the oppressed should not seek a compromise with their overlords, they should simply gain power for themselves.  At its core, this may sound appealing.  It offers an opportunity to create utopia without the hard work of building a democratic consensus.  Perhaps these bold visionaries should abandon the premise of believing in democracy.  There are alternative systems in which a minority can pursue its own goals without compromising with a majority: aristocracies, monarchies, and dictatorships of all stripes obey this principle. To avoid compromises, they brutally suppress freedom. Such is the dark road that toxic identity politics can lead.

Thankfully, such a road is not inevitable. As Obama recognized, there are brighter and more beautiful paths ahead if we embrace the unifying force of freedom. Through freedom, societies can reconcile multicultural harmony with unity.

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.