Buchanan and Barr

Do any of you find it frightening that two Neo-Mercantilists are getting positive attention on Lewrockwell.com? What is going on? Protectionists are the most disgusting force on the planet, and yet are recieving endless praise for what!? For opposing war? Ha, only if that war is "not constitutional" or not a threat to "US Economic nationalism".

The Libertarians nominated a protectionist, what would Mises think?

Telpeurion:

The Libertarians nominated a protectionist, what would Mises think?

I agree wholeheartedly on the Barr and Buchanan thing, but the 'what would Mises think?'' part made me think of WWJD. Just saying... :)

 

Libertas est Veritas:

Telpeurion:

The Libertarians nominated a protectionist, what would Mises think?

I agree wholeheartedly on the Barr and Buchanan thing, but the 'what would Mises think?'' part made me think of WWJD. Just saying... :)

My thoughts exactly. =p

 

Telpeurion:

Do any of you find it frightening that two Neo-Mercantilists are getting positive attention on Lewrockwell.com? What is going on? Protectionists are the most disgusting force on the planet, and yet are recieving endless praise for what!? For opposing war? Ha, only if that war is "not constitutional" or not a threat to "US Economic nationalism".

The Libertarians nominated a protectionist, what would Mises think?

 

Welcome to the paleoconservative infiltration of the libertarian movement, directly enabled and aided by the LewRockwell crowd. The idea is that if we pander to right-wing populists we can "take back the right" (as if we ever really had it in the first place). It's a silly idea.

Brainpolice:

...the LewRockwell crowd. The idea is that if we pander to right-wing populists we can "take back the right" (as if we ever really had it in the first place).

I believe my brain just emitted an audible "click".  Thanks.

 

 

histhasthai:

Brainpolice:

...the LewRockwell crowd. The idea is that if we pander to right-wing populists we can "take back the right" (as if we ever really had it in the first place).

I believe my brain just emitted an audible "click".  Thanks.

 

 

 

Come again? :)

I don't think so.  We shouldn't automatically write off people outside of libertarianism when they have good ideas or do good work.  Pat Buchanan has vehemently denied any connection to libertarianism.  Someone actually accused him of being one on the McLaughlin Group once and he said outright that he wasn't one.  Lew has posted articles by Gore Vidal recently, too.  As well as throwing some limited support behind Kucinich's few good ideas at times.  Gravel has been given some support where he has been correct in his opinions.  You could say the same with Chalmers Johnson and many others.   He's also made sure to post to lots of outside articles on various things -- mostly unrelated to politics. 

I actually very much like Pat Buchanan and think he is a fascinating writer and speaker.  He's probably one of the most intelligent people on TV today.  Though that isn't saying much, I think he is witty and smart enough to go toe to toe with really anyone.  What he says about race and immigration may not be thought out economically, but I think that he has always been in the "politics before economics" mode that he thinks the people's popular support should always trump what the economist says.  Fine, he is wrong.  But I don't think it takes anything away from his ability to think or his ability as a writer and historian.  He's certainly not slowing down libertarianism or depurifying it.  My biggest concerns re: fake libertarians have been people like Glenn Beck, Larry Elder, Neal Boortz, et al that always come out and call themselves "practically libertarians" or whatever and are really not.  They are the so-called conservatives to look out for.  Pat is good people, in my opinion.

 The Libertarian Party is a Political party, not a church. If we want to spread the Ideas of liberty we need to water down the message for the masses to swallow, that is why I am supporting Bob Barr.

ChaseCola:

 The Libertarian Party is a Political party, not a church. If we want to spread the Ideas of liberty we need to water down the message for the masses to swallow, that is why I am supporting Bob Barr.

...

Libertarianism needn't be watered down. The "L"P needs to be atoned in blood (figuratively) - along with the rest of the political system.

 

 

JohnSchreimann:

I don't think so.  We shouldn't automatically write off people outside of libertarianism when they have good ideas or do good work.  Pat Buchanan has vehemently denied any connection to libertarianism.  Someone actually accused him of being one on the McLaughlin Group once and he said outright that he wasn't one.  Lew has posted articles by Gore Vidal recently, too.  As well as throwing some limited support behind Kucinich's few good ideas at times.  Gravel has been given some support where he has been correct in his opinions.  You could say the same with Chalmers Johnson and many others.   He's also made sure to post to lots of outside articles on various things -- mostly unrelated to politics. 

I actually very much like Pat Buchanan and think he is a fascinating writer and speaker.  He's probably one of the most intelligent people on TV today.  Though that isn't saying much, I think he is witty and smart enough to go toe to toe with really anyone.  What he says about race and immigration may not be thought out economically, but I think that he has always been in the "politics before economics" mode that he thinks the people's popular support should always trump what the economist says.  Fine, he is wrong.  But I don't think it takes anything away from his ability to think or his ability as a writer and historian.  He's certainly not slowing down libertarianism or depurifying it.  My biggest concerns re: fake libertarians have been people like Glenn Beck, Larry Elder, Neal Boortz, et al that always come out and call themselves "practically libertarians" or whatever and are really not.  They are the so-called conservatives to look out for.  Pat is good people, in my opinion.

 

Well, I do like watching and reading Patrick Buchanan - but I agree with almost nothing he says, I just, like you, think he has some wit and is pretty entertaining. Bob Barr, however, is the classic, blue-eyed peckerwood.

 Libertarianism needn't, but the Libertarian Party must, I am afraid. Because the masses cannot swallow Anarcho-Capitalism in one bite. One bite at a time. As for Agorism there is no way in hell that without an educated public people would not look for a government after the states inevitable collapse. I just dont see how a counter economy could stop the state, unless the people are educated. That comes from involvement in the media and poliical system. 

Buchanan and Barr.  One's fear mongering to sell dumbed down drivel while the other lives his own delusion while perverting a political philosophy...they sound like two typical politician/swindlers.

ChaseCola:

 Libertarianism needn't, but the Libertarian Party must, I am afraid. Because the masses cannot swallow Anarcho-Capitalism in one bite. One bite at a time. As for Agorism there is no way in hell that without an educated public people would not look for a government after the states inevitable collapse. I just dont see how a counter economy could stop the state, unless the people are educated. That comes from involvement in the media and poliical system. 

 

To begin, I hate when people say "masses" or "vast majority," you're not VI Lenin, most people, majority, or the general populous will do fine. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

 

Second, mass conversion DOES NOT OCCUR. People cannot be converted en masse. Yes, some people will happen to be converted at the same time and even because of the same event, but the implication of an individual renders the concept of mass conversion illiterate.

Third, education does NOT come through the political system, it comes through personal relationships. Yes, some have been influenced by public policies, but their influence is just one very small variable in what changes the minds of people. For the most part, focusing on individuals and emphasizing the message in practice and speech is what converts people. It is hard for a group to be convinced by one person, but it is easy for one person to be convinced by a message. The effectiveness of politics is far outweighed by the costs that go into it. The efficiency of politics is lacking.

 

Fourth, it seems that your emphasis on political pseudo-action comes from a kind of laziness. As Voltairine de Cleyre,

But the evil of pinning faith to indirect action is far greater than any such minor results. The main evil is that it destroys initiative, quenches the individual rebellious spirit, teaches people to rely on someone else to do for them what they should do for themselves; finally renders organic the anomalous idea that by massing supineness together until a majority is acquired, then through the peculiar magic of that majority, this supineness is to be transformed into energy. That is, people who have lost the habit of striking for themselves as individuals, who have submitted to every injustice while waiting for the majority to grow, are going to become metamorphosed into human high-explosives by a mere process of packing!

Fifth the idea that politics can be an educational tool seems directly contradicted by the message of "watering it down." If the purpose is to educate, and not in fact to actually win, then it's a contradiction to advoate "watering it down." After all, what are you trying to educate them about? Something watered down? If it's educational then you're just calling X, Y. What does that surve to do? Confuse? Yes.

 

Sixth, that point alone is enough to disuade people away from participating in politics. What more does political pseudo-action do than confuse libertarians? Libertarianism is the antithesis to politics. Yet, you're using it and calling it libertarian? Then radical libertarians begin to do things outside of the system, challenging the law as inane, arbtirary, and inconsequential; only to have your beloved politicians make more of them or advocate "the rule of law." It doesn't make sense and it serves as a great manner of confusion, I have personally found, for many.

 

Seventh, education is something done by individuals. You can much more effectivelly - at least I have - communicate the message of liberty through the Agorist route, printing a multitude of free and accessible Left-Libertarian pamphlets and posting them in opportune places. I myself have about sixteen people in my area interested in Left-Libertarianism, conversing with eachother and myself often, at this time. How about you?

Eigth, do you even know the system of Agorism or are you going off of a rumor? Agorism is a system based on phases. What do you think phase one is?

 

JohnSchreimann:

We shouldn't automatically write off people outside of libertarianism

Exactly. If we are to have any influence in this world, we have to interact. Just going "well, his libertarianism isn't X enough, thus I will shun him" will get us nowhere.

Libertas est Veritas:

JohnSchreimann:

We shouldn't automatically write off people outside of libertarianism

Exactly. If we are to have any influence in this world, we have to interact. Just going "well, his libertarianism isn't X enough, thus I will shun him" will get us nowhere.

Hey, if it worked for the Randians, why shouldn't it work for us?

 

 

Stranger:

Hey, if it worked for the Randians, why shouldn't it work for us?

Granted, interpreting nuances from text is difficult and leads to misunderstandings, but I detect sarcasm in your response. It also includes insider information which I, not being an aficionado of US libertarian internal pickerings, am not aware of. So in other words, what did the Randroids do now?

Well, promoting Pat Buchanan's book and his views on the current war on terror (is there anything really to disagree about what he says about either?) is different than the libertarian party voting in Bob Barr.  This is two separate things. I'm as confused anyone why anyone chose him.

From what I've read, they are not receiving endless praise on LewRockwell.com. One post last week made the point that Buchanan is wrong on economics, but has something worth listening to on war and empire. Regarding Barr, one blog post on LRC made the point that while the Libertarian Party rejected radical libertarianism at the convention by nominating Barr, some good may still come of Barr's candidacy, since it might make life more complicated for McCain. I wouldn't call this endless praise.

Think of it like the animal food chain. Buchanan feeds on the general right-wing to recruit supporters. Barr and the LP feeds on the paleocons. We feed on the LP. Whatever grows our supply of potential supporters is good.

Brainpolice:

Welcome to the paleoconservative infiltration of the libertarian movement, directly enabled and aided by the LewRockwell crowd. The idea is that if we pander to right-wing populists we can "take back the right" (as if we ever really had it in the first place). It's a silly idea.

It's a silly idea gaining momentum. Not unlike all of the so-called leftists of the libertarian movement, united around SEK3 and Rothbard's notion that the left was ripe for conversion and infiltration.

I'm slowly becoming comfortable with reading the arrogance on this forum, how as long as a single individual is ideologically pure, then they don't have to engage people, or strive for larger goals.  Agorism is like the Messiah, until he arrives, we're blessed for waiting in God's foyer.  The longer we wait, we never have to face up to the possibility that there is no Messiah.

There is a point where no matter how good the idea is, the population holding it is not only too small to be effectual, but possibly at risk of instinction.

I come to liberty from the right, not the left.  Youi'd be wise to pander to populists with motivation, money and a thirst for knowledge and activity.

Or like mushrooms, you can sit in the dark, convinced that is the way to grow and advance liberty.

I like Buchanan. Anyone who writes revisionist history on World War II is okay in my book.

JonBostwick:

I like Buchanan. Anyone who writes revisionist history on World War II is okay in my book.

That's what I was thinking. Did anyone else see him on the Colbert Report?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021405.html

It's a silly idea gaining momentum. Not unlike all of the so-called leftists of the libertarian movement, united around SEK3 and Rothbard's notion that the left was ripe for conversion and infiltration.

Incorrect or watered down ideas gaining momentum is counterproductive to libertarian education.

I'm slowly becoming comfortable with reading the arrogance on this forum, how as long as a single individual is ideologically pure, then they don't have to engage people, or strive for larger goals.

This is a reoccuring mischaracterization. Noone is advocating non-engagement of people or not striving for larger goals. Indeed, half of the complaint is precisely that the larger and higher goals or values are being sacrificed to lesser ones.

Agorism is like the Messiah, until he arrives, we're blessed for waiting in God's foyer.  The longer we wait, we never have to face up to the possibility that there is no Messiah.

Actually this is how electoral politics works. Politicians are viewed as messiahs, and each one is a false prophet each time. We are encouraged to place faith in a single man or small group to do that which we can be doing for ourselves already.

Or like mushrooms, you can sit in the dark, convinced that is the way to grow and advance liberty.

Again, the analogy doesn't hold because you're making the false assumption that there is a total "void" in the absence of your particular methods, as if no meaningful alternatives exist. You act as if nothingness is the only alternative.

If Pat Buchannan is a good ally, I see no reason why Mike Gravel or Ralph Nader should not be regaurded likewise. Personally, I consider neither of them to be good allies, at least in any broad sense. If they happen to be correct on an individual issue, sure, I will ideologically align with them but this would only be conditional. It would not constitute any sort of broad or meaningful alliance.

Brainpolice:

Incorrect or watered down ideas gaining momentum is counterproductive to libertarian education.

No it isn't.  I got here through watered down ideas, and now I'm seriously considering anarchism, in ways I never would have done before.

The mischaracterization is that watering down ideas can't work as a means of making things more palatable to the uninitiated.

Brainpolice:

This is a reoccuring mischaracterization. Noone is advocating non-engagement of people or not striving for larger goals. Indeed, half of the complaint is precisely that the larger and higher goals or values are being sacrificed to lesser ones.

On the contrary, non-engagement with those who are not ideologically pure is the reoccurring theme.  If one is not ideologically pure, like Ron Paul, or Pat Buchanan, then they are an enemy.

Brainpolice:

Actually this is how electoral politics works. Politicians are viewed as messiahs, and each one is a false prophet each time. We are encouraged to place faith in a single man or small group to do that which we can be doing for ourselves already.

I wasn't using Messiah as a human leader, but rather the anarchy event that will set the people free.

Brainpolice:

Again, the analogy doesn't hold because you're making the false assumption that there is a total "void" in the absence of your particular methods, as if no meaningful alternatives exist. You act as if nothingness s the only alternative.

Nope.  Counterproductivity is the other alternative.  Actually hardening statism.

 I think most of us are just weary of watching our so-called allies backstab us. Look up the history of the Deustch National Liberal Party and see what happens when you compromise.

No it isn't.  I got here through watered down ideas, and now I'm seriously considering anarchism, in ways I never would have done before.

The mischaracterization is that watering down ideas can't work as a means of making things more palatable to the uninitiated.

So you see absolutely zero danger in presenting a watered down message to people? Surely you can see the problem.

On the contrary, non-engagement with those who are not ideologically pure is the reoccurring theme.  If one is not ideologically pure, like Ron Paul, or Pat Buchanan, then they are an enemy.

No, personal empowerment and taking the initiative for oneself is the reoccuring them of apolitical libertarians. What is being advocated is precisely engagement - among society itself and through economic organization in defiance of the state. This is what is repeatedly overlooked.

Nope.  Counterproductivity is the other alternative.  Actually hardening statism.

Again, the argument is made with the erroneous assumption that there is absolutely nothing productive to be done outside of electoral politics. That is nonsense, especially when one is taking market economics into consideration and realizes the productivity of private interaction. Our point is precisely that electoral politics is what is counterproductive to the ultimate end and that interaction on the market itself is what is most productive. There is nothing counterproductive about it - the entire point here is the self-empowerment of the individual as to render the political power obsolete. You don't do that by brushing off all alternatives to the political process or acting as if there is a total void of productive options in its absence.

That's why I like Ron, because he is bringing libertarianism into conservative groups, instead of Bob "Drug Czar" Barr bringing conservatism into libertarian groups.

The Libertarian Party, The Party of Principal's( except for drug warin', soldiers overseain', Patriot Act supportin'  Flag Burning Amendment supportin' ) candidate for president.

Seems like everyone is supporting protectionism except JOHN MCCAIN. Nevermind, he's protecting OUR oil in Iraq, and our precious environment by advocating cape and trade policy. 

At least Barrack Obama supports failed ideas with conviction, instead of failing to convict failed ideas for political expediency.

Long Live Barrcain McBama " Change we can believe won't allow us to smoke crack because it causes Co2 "

anyone else have a better slogan for our wonderful trough of candidates?

Andrew:

 and our precious environment by advocating cape and trade policy. 

 yes McCain is trading capes.... for statist vampires

liberty student:

No it isn't.  I got here through watered down ideas, and now I'm seriously considering anarchism, in ways I never would have done before.

The mischaracterization is that watering down ideas can't work as a means of making things more palatable to the uninitiated.

Do you want a medal for being the exception to the rule then?

The logic is clear. Education means educating. If you're educating people about Y and calling it X then you are not educating people about X, you are serving to confuse them.

 

Many people calling themselves libertarians now believe that borders should be closed, women ought not have the right to choose, and the state is necessary and fixable.

 

Is that what you want to educate them?

If you want to comrpomise your action, then it's pseudo-action at best and counterproductive at worst.

If you want to waterdown your speech and confuse conservativism with libertarianism, you're just incorrect.

Niccolò:

Do you want a medal for being the exception to the rule then?

 

 

 I am an exception to the Rule as well give me a medal too. Did you wake up one morning and become an Anarchist? Or was it a long process? I think it is evolution for 99% of Anarcho Capitalists, ussualy starting with Rand, and now Paul, and in the future Barr.

ChaseCola:

Niccolò:

Do you want a medal for being the exception to the rule then?

 

 

 I am an exception to the Rule as well give me a medal too. Did you wake up one morning and become an Anarchist? Or was it a long process? I think it is evolution for 99% of Anarcho Capitalists, ussualy starting with Rand, and now Paul, and in the future Barr.

The exception to the exception is how open-minded a person is, if a proper debate & challenge is presented to the person, if that person even bother's to regonize said challenge to their thinking, if said person has time to devote resources into researching needed information & topics, etc. 

So no, getting people interested in Ron Paul & Rand (imo, an "an-cap" rationalization of Barr is comical) will not automatically make them into 'anarcho-capitalists'.  Saying that is like saying asexual reproduction renders sexual reproduction obsolete, or that liking chocolate automatically means you hate vanilla.

 

Brainpolice:

histhasthai:

Brainpolice:

...the LewRockwell crowd. The idea is that if we pander to right-wing populists we can "take back the right" (as if we ever really had it in the first place).

I believe my brain just emitted an audible "click".  Thanks,

 

 

Come again? :)

What you said made somthing click, sharply... as in put together things I hadn't previously made a connection between.

 

 

 I am not saying listening to Barr will automatically make you an-cap. But it takes people from  "how will the government solve this problem to "get the hell out of the way." It get's a person interested in liberty to further their research and perhaps becom an-cap. A debate will be extremely hard to present to a person if it is not in the media. That is why we need to send a watered it down version as well,  so people can at least see an arguement that is liberty leaning. At best they will continue down the road to an-cap, at worst they will question the government just that much more. I am not saying we do not educate people about an-cap, but I am saying that if we want a large amount of people moving in our direction we will have to spread a watered down version as well.

Brainpolice:

So you see absolutely zero danger in presenting a watered down message to people? Surely you can see the problem.

No.  I do not see absolutely zero danger.  Merely existing presents a better than zero chance of danger.

Not doing enough presents danger.  Doing too much presents danger.  A stateless society, will still have danger.

You're looking at a watered down message only as a negative.  I'm looking for an upside for the risk, and whether the potential for damage is containable.

actics can be disposable, in the sense that what we need to accomplish today, is not what we need to accomplish tomorrow.  In this regard, folks like Ron Paul and Bob Barr can be vehicles from point A to point B.

After all, the state already is in control.  The state already possesses the imagination of the masses.  How much damage can we do flirting with statists?  I suppose only if you feel the liberty movement (1) has something to lose, and (2) has advanced far enough that it can be set back.

But even then, no risk, no reward.  I don't believe the dream that a small number of us are going to collapse the state by conducting agorist activity and then one day, everyone will buy our tax free tomatoes, and we will supplant a massively complex economy with barter, while a decaying state fights it out with our private defense forces.  Almost sounds like something outta Star Wars.

Brainpolice:

Again, the argument is made with the erroneous assumption that there is absolutely nothing productive to be done outside of electoral politics.

Think about what you wrote.  Do you think anyone with a modicum of intelligence would propose such a thing?

Brainpolice:

Our point is precisely that electoral politics is what is counterproductive to the ultimate end and that interaction on the market itself is what is most productive. There is nothing counterproductive about it - the entire point here is the self-empowerment of the individual as to render the political power obsolete.

The point is that eschewing all allies or potential allies, particularly as it is done on this forum, is counterproductive.  I read complaint after complaint about Ron Paul, and yet there are easily a half dozen people here that I know of, who are interested in learning more about Liberty because of him.

And while he has opened up a lot more people to the idea of affecting political change, he has also inspired the intellectual and philosophical curiousity of many as well.

Most of all, he's inspiring activism on a scale unprecedented for liberty oriented folks.  Something IMHO that is badly needed.

Brainpolice:

You don't do that by brushing off all alternatives to the political process or acting as if there is a total void of productive options in its absence.

Now you are attempting to turn the argument around.  I have never suggested that all alternatives to the political process should be brushed off.  That is what you do.  You suggest all ideological differences are impossible to cross, and this shrug off any notions of a big tent.

ChaseCola:

 

 I am an exception to the Rule as well give me a medal too. Did you wake up one morning and become an Anarchist? Or was it a long process? I think it is evolution for 99% of Anarcho Capitalists, ussualy starting with Rand, and now Paul, and in the future Barr.

 

First, I'm an Anarchist, not an "anarcho-capitalist" - which I take to be an oxymoron.

Second, I never started in that line of thought. I came from a syndicalist standpoint and moved further to Individualist Anarchism from there.

 

Third, Barr is the farthest thing from an Anarchist (i.e. a libertarian).

How much damage can we do flirting with statists?

A lot. A hell of a lot. Just look at the historical failure of classical liberalism - and the conservative corruption of libertarianism that already has taken place in more recent years. It seems nonsensical to try the exact same thing over and over again (I.E. engage in the politics of compromise and the game of smoke and mirrors) when it has quite obviously failed. There is a danger of literally becoming one's own enemy, of becoming precisely what one originally set out to oppose.

Brainpolice:

No it isn't.  I got here through watered down ideas, and now I'm seriously considering anarchism, in ways I never would have done before.

The mischaracterization is that watering down ideas can't work as a means of making things more palatable to the uninitiated.

So you see absolutely zero danger in presenting a watered down message to people? Surely you can see the problem.

On the contrary, non-engagement with those who are not ideologically pure is the reoccurring theme.  If one is not ideologically pure, like Ron Paul, or Pat Buchanan, then they are an enemy.

No, personal empowerment and taking the initiative for oneself is the reoccuring them of apolitical libertarians. What is being advocated is precisely engagement - among society itself and through economic organization in defiance of the state. This is what is repeatedly overlooked.

Nope.  Counterproductivity is the other alternative.  Actually hardening statism.

Again, the argument is made with the erroneous assumption that there is absolutely nothing productive to be done outside of electoral politics. That is nonsense, especially when one is taking market economics into consideration and realizes the productivity of private interaction. Our point is precisely that electoral politics is what is counterproductive to the ultimate end and that interaction on the market itself is what is most productive. There is nothing counterproductive about it - the entire point here is the self-empowerment of the individual as to render the political power obsolete. You don't do that by brushing off all alternatives to the political process or acting as if there is a total void of productive options in its absence.

 

Again. It seems to be a situation of what is seen and what is unseen for these people.

 

For every person that has been turned onto the libertarian message by Ron Paul, I'm sure I could count at least two immigrants, a feminist, and a lblack guy that have been turned off to it only to now associate the antithetical of authoritarian with the blood suckers that would destroy their livelihoods thinking of them as routine "law" breakers and as no good for society.

I honestly know next to nothing about Bob Barr.  The libertarian party has always been a bore to me.  You'd think since they know they'll never win that they'd at least run someone more ballsy or at least use the platform to mock politics in general.   I've always liked Ralph Nader for doing that (I think even he giggles if he imagines himself being president).

ChaseCola:

 I am not saying listening to Barr will automatically make you an-cap. But it takes people from  "how will the government solve this problem to "get the hell out of the way." It get's a person interested in liberty to further their research and perhaps becom an-cap. A debate will be extremely hard to present to a person if it is not in the media. That is why we need to send a watered it down version as well,  so people can at least see an arguement that is liberty leaning. At best they will continue down the road to an-cap, at worst they will question the government just that much more. I am not saying we do not educate people about an-cap, but I am saying that if we want a large amount of people moving in our direction we will have to spread a watered down version as well.

 

Except Robert 'Peckerwood' Barr doesn't question government.

He supports it fully.