Brink Lindsey, Will Wilkinson

It’s hilarious when people attempt to frame an outrageous guess as a “conservative estimate”. See Eric’s post.

Carl,

Fair enough. I’m utterly shocked everytime I read about “liberaltarianism” and overreacted. I am convinced, though, that Obamacare will have a noticeable negative effect on my life and that of many other Americans. The mosque might (or might not) have a noticeable negative effect on a significantly smaller number of Americans. I can’t see the two being remotely equivalent in voting strategy, even if 15% is an number inflated in an overreacting moment.

I would be most interested to know whether the Ground Zero Mosque* controversy has finally shaken Kling’s previously-stated belief that the tea-party movement is really about pushing for smaller government instead of about refighting the culture war.

*which is neither a mosque, nor at Ground Zero, but whatever.

David,

The Park51 project contains a mosque:

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_081910b.html

The discussion over at Volokh is interesting.

Ilya Somin notes that in Lindsey’s last column he seemed to give up on a libertarian alliance with the left, and says this suggests he wasn’t purged for liberal sympathies: “If Cato objected to Lindsey’s advocacy of an alliance with the left, one would think they would have purged him back when he was actually advocating it, not after he has repudiated it.”

But the problem with Lindsey is not his advocacy of alliances with the left — everyone can support looking for and finding opportunities to cooperate for mutual gain, conservatives as well as libertarians favor cooperating with the left when good can be achieved — but the extraordinary bile he has been spewing at the right. He titled his last column “Right is Wrong” and included every slander of conservatives that the left has pushed in the last 10 years. Not to mention leftist critiques of America (“[America’s] founding principles included the enslavement of blacks, subjugation of women, and expropriation of Indian lands”). He seems to despise conservatives, especially Christians.

His attitude toward the left is far more friendly. He disagrees with some of the left’s policies, but likes them and still sees them as desirable allies on half his issues.

If the Cato Institute hopes to wield influence in Washington, it needs goodwill. Slanders and bile will not achieve that. They probably don’t help fundraising either.

I don’t know why Lindsey and Wilkinson are leaving, but I suspect Cato is better for it.

Also, don’t forget that the Ayn Rand objectivist crowd has condemned the building of this cultural center because they feel that the US is at war with Islam. It’s not a position that I myself hold, but it is one that I am open minded about.

I’m not opened minded on this because I think it’s just talking nonsense. A nation cannot be at war with a religion in any meaningful sense.

@Dan
If Osama Bin Laden came to us and wanted to build a recruitment center in the US, I think it is obvious that allowing him to do that would be a mistake. If he recruits even 1 person to perform a terrorist attack against the US then any benefit from money he put into the economy in the process would certainly be nullified. The proposition that it is beneficial for a country to allow its enemies to setup strongholds within its borders is demonstrably wrong. If you could take ONLY their money, you would, but with their money inevitably comes their influence.

@Andy
There are some pretty meaningful ways in which a nation can be said to be at war with a religion or an ideology. Generally, when two countries are at war, they are engaging in armed conflict with the goal of forcibly securing some benefit (land, resources, lives). This is easily generalizable to the situation of one country and a religion/ideology/ethnicity. Is it not fair to say that Nazi Germany was at war with Judaism? Certainly Germany engaged in armed conflict against Jews to secure a perceived benefit (ethnic purity?). You might say, ‘Well, Judiasm as a religion cannot physically do anything, only Jews can.” But this is really no objection at all because Germany as a country cannot physically do anything, only Germans can. The actions of Germans supervene on the actions of Germany, if Germans do nothing then Germany also does nothing, by definition. Usually we think of countries as actors and religions as non-actors but this is really an illusion. If the Objectivists are right, then it is meaningful to say that the US is at war with Islam in that Islam advocates the destruction of the US and Muslims and Americans engage in armed conflict.

You might say, ‘Well, Judiasm as a religion cannot physically do anything, only Jews can.” But this is really no objection at all because Germany as a country cannot physically do anything, only Germans can. The actions of Germans supervene on the actions of Germany, if Germans do nothing then Germany also does nothing, by definition.

You point out that both a “nation” and a “religion” are abstractions that refer to groups of individuals. However, it is well known that when we say the US is at war with, say, Spain, what we mean is the governments of the respective countries are at war, and not necessarily that every American wants to kill every Spaniard, or vice versa. Religions do not command armies in the way that nations do so I don’t think they can be included in this linguistic tradition.

To say the US is at war with Islam is stretching the “war” metaphor much too far. A nation can surrender to end a war, or sign a peace treaty or armistice. It can draft its citizens to fight on its behalf. Can a religion do any of that? To say we can wage war on Islam makes as much sense to me as saying we can wage war on the color purple.

“What they are saying is that they are either unwilling or unable to distinguish peaceful Muslims from terrorists”

Really? Andy, I think they are saying something different. I think they are saying that YOU are either unwilling or unable to distinguish between the two.

I think “the conservatives” are saying that the specific Muslims that are pushing the mosque at WTC site are not peaceful. And I think it’s YOU who suggest they are.

And that, I think, is the disagreement. It seems to me a real stretch to imagine this is about freedom of religion or the first amendment.

Kevin: If Osama Bin Laden came to us and wanted to build a recruitment center in the US, I think it is obvious that allowing him to do that would be a mistake. If he recruits even 1 person to perform a terrorist attack against the US then any benefit from money he put into the economy in the process would certainly be nullified.

Unless of course, in the process he managed to alienate people so much that two potential terrorists were deferred.

The proposition that it is beneficial for a country to allow its enemies to setup strongholds within its borders is demonstrably wrong.

I’m not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic of mosques. If I was a terorist, I think I’d try to use better hidden places to plan my terrorist attacks.

If you could take ONLY their money, you would, but with their money inevitably comes their influence.

You have such little faith in your own culture as that?
Christainity survived and prospered despite the Romans martyring its adherents. The Americans revolted against their own king, successfully. Western civilisation analysed slavery as wrong, and, eventually, eliminated it. Feminism too sprung forth from within Western culture, where women realised they were as entitled to the natural rights as men. And yet, you think we are so weak that we need fear influence from Muslim churches?

“I think “the conservatives” are saying that the specific Muslims that are pushing the mosque at WTC site are not peaceful. And I think it’s YOU who suggest they are.

And that, I think, is the disagreement. It seems to me a real stretch to imagine this is about freedom of religion or the first amendment.”

Wow. I sure hope you are alone among conservatives in this view. What evidence is there that the property owner attempting to build this mosque & cultural center is not peaceful? If you assume they are dangerous because some on your “side” of politics don’t mind denying them their rights you are truly willing to blindly obey your heroes.

“unable to distinguish peaceful Muslims from terrorists, or at least that the first group is enough like the second that it should receive strict supervision and be treated differently from the rest of society.”

The US government is currently killing Muslims in at least four countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Our ally Israel is killing Muslims in Gaza and Lebanon. Bush and Obama say we are at war only against a few terrorists but how do you know that Muslims believe this? When Muslims see the US and Israel killing Muslims on a regular basis in an “long war” that has no clearly defined endpoint I don’t think it is crazy of them to think that we are at war with Islam.

Hallman in the words I quoted thinks that the US can continue killing Muslims in several countries and not worry about offending most of the Muslim population. I think this is naive. I think that our actions in the Mideast is outraging most of the Muslim population and that is stupid for the US to be killing Muslims in several countries and at the same time letting Muslims immigrate to the US. When we were bombing Germany and Japan in WWII we did not let them immigrate to the US.

I don’t have much of an opinion on the NY mosque because I don’t live there. I do think it is strange of people to think that Muslims around the world would be outraged at not being allowed to build there but would not be bothered by the US and Israel killing Muslims in several countries.

I’m unconcerned about making alliances with the culture warriors. Even when they win elections they lose the war. Obama did more for fiscal liberalism in 12 months than Dubya did for social conservatism in eight years.

My only concern is whether Hannity, Palin et. al. are chasing away too many center-left voters concerned about fiscal issues. Given that opposition to the mosque is running 60-70% in national polls, this doesn’t worry me too much.

“a nation can not be at war with a religion”
Tell that to the Byzantine Empire.

“There is no evidence of bad intent, and I am looking! ”

liberty, once again you make my point. Thanks.