The dream of every young filmmaker is to have one of their cinematic idols watch their work and respond positively. Nothing would make me happier than to get that praising phone call from Steven Spielberg (pre-“Munich” Spielberg of course). So imagine the slow creeping disappointment at the nether regions of my soul when I clicked on Andrew Klavan’s blog to see an article in which he disagrees with me.
Not merely a disagreement on the issues mind you. No, the article is specifically a response to my review of the film “Kick Ass.” Andrew Klavan disagrees with ME.
I admire and respect Andrew Klavan. He’s one of the writers who inspired me to not only push for a spot at Big Hollywood, but to out myself as the “dangerous right-wing nut job” that I am. After all, I figured, if he could brave the backlash from the industry, I too could certainly afford to lose a few gigs and a few dates.
I never expected the heat I would get from that article. My definition of “libertarians as party boys” appears to have resonated not only with Christian conservatives but with other libertarians. The left has widely ignored the post, which indicates to me that I was spot on in my analysis of the film and its critics. But, I fear, I did myself a disservice but cutting my views of libertarianism short in my attempt to keep the article brief.
I’ve noticed that the amount of comments and the number of times my articles are linked to other sites is inversely proportional to their length. Over 1200 words and people don’t pay attention. In this case, I should have included the couple of paragraphs that I deleted from my initial draft. Or perhaps, I should have deleted the rather trite definition of my philosophical and political beliefs.
Libertarians may be the “party boys and party girls” of conservatism, but the key here is if we choose to be. The central tenet of libertarianism is personal responsibility and personal liberty. There is no conflict between libertarian ideals and religious beliefs. The conflict exists only when religion is forced upon someone. So, being a libertarian Christian makes total sense to me. Being forced to respect the prophet Muhammad under penalty of death does not.
What I find a bit disturbing, however, is that people instantly associate libertarianism with a lack of moral foundation. They seem to confuse libertarians with anarchists, satanists or worse. It is possible and philosophically consistent to have morals without organized religion. Religious people do not have a monopoly on morals, doing what is right, or being good.
Remember, while we may not want rules and regulations over our personal property and bodies, we all acknowledge that we must live with other people. When you base your moral and political code around the individual you end up, by default, being a good person to others. It is just as offensive to me to infringe upon the rights of others as it is to have my liberties encroached upon. So, Mr. Klavan’s suicide bomber analogy as well as the Big Hollywood commenters talking about drunk driving or going to work high are missing the point. Those things are just as offensive and morally wrong to the libertarian as they are the Christian.
For the record, I’m not an Atheist. I actually think Atheism is the most insane belief system in the bunch. The notion that the universe happened by accident just doesn’t fly. I simply do not believe that it is within the capability of mankind, with our tiny brains, to grasp the forces of creation. I don’t think a bunch of guys 2000 years ago, or Tom Cruise, have figured it out either. Hence, I do not belong to a specific religion and would describe myself as Agnostic. As a libertarian, I don’t hold it against you if you disagree and believe something else. On the flip side, I don’t concede the moral high ground to someone just because they go to church on Sundays.
But here’s the problem guys, and it’s a problem that’s been around for awhile. In the discussion of politics there are two major philosophies: one which preaches the power of the state, the other that embraces personal responsibility and liberty. By tying personal liberty and responsibility to religious beliefs, we allow our opponents to effectively change the subject. The debate becomes one of reason and facts vs. faith and mysticism. Yet, facts and reason are clearly on our side. We can’t afford to muddy the debate and give them any advantage. There needs to be a separation between church and state not because the Constitution mandates it, but because it is our essential to marketing our position.
I think all of us on the right sense blood in the water (calm down Media Matters, that’s not some sort of threat). The left has tried to run the table and they’ve managed to tarnish their brand for generations. Ironically, they did this by being honest and sticking to their principles. Unfortunately for them, the American people don’t want any part of it. We have an opportunity to really reclaim and restore the spirit and structure of our country. You know, all the things that make us great. Let’s not commit an unforced error and engage in some sort of conservative civil war. Once we dispose of the statist weasels we can sit down and sort out our differences.
I think we will end up agreeing more than you may think.