Mike Church is off XM, go sign up for his new online radio channel

Just listened to the King Dude’s final broadcast on Sirius XM, the company has parted ways with the longest-running host on satellite radio, and given the morning show on the Patriot network to Breitbart’s Steve Bannon, who wants to be a mouthpiece for a “nationalist” movement. Breitbart’s Falange has outmaneuvered the Carlist King Dude (Mike being, as a good Louisianan, affectionate toward the Bourbons).

Over the last two years, his show has become more Catholic and less what you might call a typical conservative talk show. And this morning he made no apologies for that, saying,

“What began two years ago and culminates today is the future of Western civilization, and the future of Western civilization as it expresses itself in broadcast media and in civil government. What’s being denied now, and I will continue to carry this on, and will not change one solitary iota, is the order of our discussion in political and civil affairs is backwards. The order that we have placed it in in the last two years is correct.”

“It has been my great pleasure and eternal joy to reverse that order … The order you’ve heard it here on this show is correct. It’s not my order. … The order everyone else has put them in is incorrect. Putting them in order is the proper thing to do, it’s the humble thing to do. For those who say [we] should have stuck with the Constitution talk, we never stopped.”

You can listen to the whole final show here.

Mike posted a note to his fan page from a listener that reads:

Before Mike Church:
Was a Republican
Listened to Rush
Listened to Levin
Read Fiction Primarily
Voted for and Loved W
Chanted USA, USA, USA
Did not listen to Mike Church

After Listening to Mike Church:
Read and follow Dr. Kevin Gutzman
Read and follow Tom Woods
Read and follow Brad Birzer
Follow The Paul’s
Am now a Libertarian
Little [r]epublican
Don’t listen to Rush
Don’t listen to Levin
Don’t watch, listen to or read the news
Read History and about our Founders
Anti War
Don’t chant USA
Am more of a gentleman
More Informed

This is why Mike and his show are important, and why you should support his new venture. Read the comments here too. I don’t think it’s putting it too strongly to say he’s the only talk radio host who cares about the souls of his listeners. If you don’t know his whole story, read Michael Brendan Dougherty’s 2011 profile, and his recent interview with David Simpson at the Saint Benedict Center.

Also, I should mention my gratitude to Paul DeMilio, Mike’s producer, for being tireless, encouraging, and flexible during the times I’ve been in studio as a guest or filling in. Sirius is lucky to have him.

Mike’s new Internet-based channel launches November 11, stay tuned and see details here. In order for this to work, he needs more subscribers, so I encourage you to sign up for a Founders Pass.

I’ll continue to do Our Man in Mordor biweekly on Wednesdays at 11 on the new network, and look for some of Mike’s columns, both at OnePeterFive and the Daily Caller. Onward!

21636814690_98095de2f6_b

A response to Leon Wolf re: Donald Trump

Ever since Donald Trump decided to upend the Republican Establishment with his presidential run, the pusillanimous underbelly of the political elites has been on full display.

Acela Corridor talking heads despise the Donald. Liberals hate his courting of the poor working class. Conservative intellectuals dismiss him as a showman hypocrite without principle.

It’s all great fun to watch. Donald Trump had topped the Republican primary polls for three months straight, and show no signs of slowing down. Political know-it-alls are baffled by his success. Trump is everything they resent: rich, white, successful, straight-talkin’, and politically-incorrect.

Even professional right-leaning commentators are beginning to wonder how the Reign of Trump ends. Leon Wolf, the newly-annointed editor of RedState.com, is no Trump acolyte. He doesn’t believe the Donald is “a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word” and questions whether the businessman “believes literally anything.” Like most Republican faithful, he’s getting tired of The Apprentice: White House Edition, and wants GOP primary voters to settle on a “serious” candidate.

He poses this question to readers: “Is there anything Trump might do or say that would cause you to stop supporting him?”

(more…)

Jim Webb, Tulsi Gabbard and the Future of the Democratic Party

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb speaks at an event at the public library in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Thursday, April 9, 2015. Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley are both in Iowa, trying to establish themselves as the alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

There has been for a long time a problem for identity in the Democratic Party since the days that George McGovern, the liberalism that he promote was found repulsive but a lot of people in Middle America. Jimmy Carter southern populism was consider weak on foreign policy. Bill Clinton won on a neoliberal platform of corporativism and hawkish foreign policy. The Bush years made some liberals consider an alliance with libertarians against neoconservative republicans in that years the name of Brian Schweitzer sound strongly as an antiwar, anti-tax, pro-gun rights ans pro-privacy kind of candidate but when the 2008 primaries come both Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson who were somehow close to that ideal do very badly in the elections. Civil libertarians like Russ Feingold and Mark Udall had lost their seats and the Democratic Party has embraced identity politics as their main credo. The party hasn’t completely rejected neoliberalism or liberal interventionism but their main issues are cultural not economical.

Jim Webb has supposed to change that. Having been a Vietnam War veteran and Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. He became the antiwar hero of 2006 becoming a Democratic senator from Virginia. He’s by no standard a pacifist, even some neocon publications respect his positions on foreign policy. But he is still the most thoughtful democrat when it comes to international relations. He wants American foreign policy to focus more on China than the Middle East but at the same time he understands the that the current conflicts are product of the implicit alliance between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. On economics he is a populist who wants more government intervention but I don’t think to the level of the dreams of Bernie Sanders. On gun rights he is closer to the position of Bernie Sanders that is shared both by people in rural areas and military families. He has issues with affirmative action and while is not for open borders with the time has been more supportive of immigration reform. He’s not a environmentalist and supports coal.

The reactions to his performance at the debate had been mixed from some praising to some criticism. I don’t think really that debates were the reason why is doing so badly. He is after all is one of the few democrats which focus on the possibility for the party to regain white voters from rural areas that had been abandoned  by the party for their insensitivity toward cultural issues while the majority of the party is focusing on identity politics for only relying on minorities. Jim Antle argue that if Jim Webb left the Democratic Party for McGovern then he leave the Republican Party for Bush, now he is man without party. I disagree, I think that actually one of recent figures of the Democratic Party, a young congresswoman that in a lot of positions is closer to Webb than any of the old rural democrats. Tulsi Gabbard is a rising star congresswoman representing Hawaii, she is of Samoan descent and is the only Hindu American in Congress. One would think than in the party of identity politics she would be a progressive queen but like Webb she is a former veteran who on foreign policy sounds very independent even questioned the Iran Deal. Webb was saying that debates were rigged while Gabbard was calling for more debates. Webb had been praised from National Review, Gabbard too. A devout Hare Krishna and a surfer, the socially conservative positions of his relatives get her in problems in democratic primaries. Jim Webb wants to run as an independent but maybe he could work with democrats while a fresh face like Tulsi Gabbard would advance the cause of realism and independence inside the Democratic Party. I’m a non-interventionist but I think the realist challenge in foreign policy of people like Jim Webb on hawks like Hillary Clinton still could help define the future of the Democratic Party. Webb is a warrior which is still could have a last fight against a totalitarian leader.

(Image source)

putin_obama

Will America lose the upcoming Cold War?

World War III is coming.

If you think I kid, just read Max Fisher’s write-up about the approaching U.S. confrontation with Russia. It’s enough to make you soil yourself.

Here’s the rationale: Not yet deterred from the collapse of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Putin is actively restoring Russia’s sphere of influence. He has made a point of invading Ukraine to access his country’s port in Sevastopol. Now he’s openly defying the U.S. by aiding the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Now, I’m no wide-eyed Bill Kristol disciple. I don’t think America needs to keep its empire status. But at the same time, I see a need for order in an uncertain world. There will always be a domineering force on our planet. And, like it or not, that global bully is America. So it’s better to err on the side of caution and to, in the words of Michael Oakeshott, “prefer the familiar to the unknown,” and root for the home team.

The question is: with Barack Obama soon to leave the White House, what presidential candidate is best fit to stand up to aspiring leaders like Vladimir Putin? Who will put the ex-KGB spy and Russian leader in his place?

(more…)

Canadian conservatism, present and past

Canada’s general election is less than a week away, although if you live south of the 49th parallel you could be forgiven for not knowing this. When politicos here tear their gaze away from the spectacle of 2016, they prefer something a little more exotic, especially given Canada’s (not entirely undeserved) reputation for being the political equivalent of vanilla pudding.

This election is more interesting than most, however, for a number of reasons. Canada’s three major parties are running more or less neck and neck, so it’s still anyone’s game five days out. In keeping with the outsider insurgency apparently sweeping the English-speaking political world, one of those parties – the New Democratic Party (NDP) – is a social-democratic outfit that has never governed the country before. Most intriguing to me, though, is the status quo under contention – this center-left country has been governed for the past nine years by the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper is the last of the neocon-types that ran the Anglosphere in the aughts. You remember these guys: we had Bush, of course; the British had Blair; and the man down under was John Howard. There was some flexibility among the cabal, but the ideological glue that bound them was free marketeering at home and aggressive interventionism abroad. Harper was the most junior member of this class and is the only one still around (within two years of his election, Bush, Blair, and Howard would all be out of office). In a larger sense, he represents a kind of globalization of conservatism within the English-speaking world, the supplanting of national political traditions by a fundamentally internationalist ideology.

For, to the conservatives of Canada’s past, Harper would be an almost unrecognizable figure. From John A. Macdonald, the first Conservative PM, to John Diefenbaker, the last before the neoconservative ascendancy, Canadian conservatism was consistently opposed to Harper’s twin idols of interventionism and the free market. Economically, protectionism, robust government investment in society, and welfare spending underpinned conservative policies. Inasmuch as foreign military adventures were considered, it was reluctantly (though not necessarily intelligently) in the service of Britain and the empire for which the conservatives felt so passionately. And in what will always be Canada’s dominant foreign policy issue – relations with the United States – the old Canadian Right took an entirely different tack.

In 1911, for instance, the Conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden won largely on the basis of his opposition to lower trade barriers between Canada and the United States. Fifty-two years later, in a sign of the changing times, John Diefenbaker fell from the premiership largely for resisting American pressure to deploy nuclear missiles within Canada. Though the Conservatives maintained friendly relations with their neighbor to the south, they feared that America’s liberal culture, supported by its vast economic and military strength, could swamp their country and unmoor it from its traditional foundations. To conservatives like George Grant, “to be Canadian was to build a more ordered and stable society than the liberal experiment in the United States.” Such an endeavor would always be jeopardized by threats from without; challenged from within, its failure was inevitable.

For better or worse, the pessimists on the Right were not proved wrong. After the fall of Diefenbaker, the Conservative Party was banished to the political wilderness for over two decades (excepting a 9-month stint in power between 1979 and 1980). It was during this period that Canada shook off almost all of its remaining British trappings, changing the flag, the constitution, and the culture (this process, by which the old Anglo-Canadian identity was swapped for a culturally neutral, civic nationalism is well-documented in the excellent The Other Quiet Revolution). When the Conservatives retook Ottawa in 1984, they were a changed party governing a changed country. They had become more or less what they are today: champions of free markets and free trade at home  (NAFTA was a Conservative priority), and reliably deferential to American foreign policy abroad.

But in the age of Trump, Sanders, and Corbyn, it’s clear that the game is changing, and the political arrangements of the recent past are under threat. In such a systemic crisis, the idea that formerly obscure or moldering ideologies – like Canada’s traditional conservatism – might make a comeback is increasingly plausible. At the very least, I suspect this will be the last race the Harper-types run for some time.