Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn — Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse — Liberty and Equality: The Challenge of Our Times — Videos

Posted on June 23, 2018. Filed under: Agriculture, Articles, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, conservatives, Constitution, Diet, Economics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Environment, Ethic Cleansing, Exercise, Faith, Family, Farming, Fiscal Policy, Friends, government spending, Health, Non-Fiction, Reviews, Science, Sociology, Spying, State, Strategy, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Tutorials, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

See the source image

See the source imageImage result for leftism book eric von

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

The Mises and Hayek Critiques of the Modern Political State | Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn – Liberty or Equality Ch. 01-02

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn – Liberty or Equality Ch. 03-04

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn – Liberty or Equality Ch. 05-08

Political Ideology: Crash Course Government and Politics #35

The History of Classical Liberalism – Learn Liberty

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) – Learn Liberty

Classical Liberalism: The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) – Learn Liberty

Brexit, Immigration, and Identity Politics (Steve Davies Part 1)

The Difference Between Classical Liberals and Libertarians (Steve Davies Part 2)

Kuehnelt-Leddihn and American Conservatism

Let us begin with what is most excellent and lasting in the work of the late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn—his profound understanding of, and unyielding opposition to, the Left.  According to the Austrian-born polymath, the Left has its roots planted firmly in democracy.  In its modern form, that object of near worship owed its birth to the French Revolution, but once loosed upon the world it soon transformed itself into socialism—international and national.  Contrary to received opinion, that is, Kuehnelt-Leddihn regarded communism, fascism, and nazism as rivals rather than enemies, brothers under the skin; like their progenitor, democracy, they were all ideologies of the Left.  That is why the Hitler-Stalin Pact should have occasioned no surprise.

The Left, then, comprises a number of ideologies, all of them, in Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s view, toxic.  But although he insisted that the French Revolution was a primal act of rebellion not only against monarchical order, but against God, he failed to draw the logical conclusion—that ideologies are substitute (or secular) religions.  Man, Edmund Burke wrote, “is a religious animal,” and he warned that if Christianity be suppressed or rejected “some uncouth, pernicious, and degrading superstition might take place of it.”

In contemporary America, the reigning superstition goes by the name of Political Correctness (PC).  This ideology possesses neither the intellectual sophistication nor the internal order one finds in at least some varieties of Marxism.  It is a coalition of mini-ideologies that often appear to be contradictory:  feminism, “gay rights,” “civil rights” (preferential treatment of Black Americans), unrestricted abortion, open immigration for those from south of the border, and environmentalism.  It shows sympathy for Islam and a relentless hostility to Christianity.  It combines secularism (sometimes extending to atheism) with egalitarianism.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn died in 1999 and therefore did not live to witness the full flowering, if that is the word, of the PC ideology.  We know, however, that he would have fought against it.  He was, he insisted, a “man of the Right,” “conservative” being too foggy a label.  In fact, he styled himself a “liberal” in the tradition of Tocqueville, Montalembert, and Lord Acton.  Born in 1909 in what was then the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, he maintained a lifelong preference for monarchical, Catholic, and multi-ethnic societies.  (He himself spoke eight languages fluently and had a reading knowledge of 11 others.)  Never could he forgive Woodrow Wilson for the pivotal role the American president played in the Great War victors’ decision to break up the Habsburg Monarchy.

What political form a postwar European Right should take he did not, for some time, specify in detail, though he always insisted that it should base itself on an ideology that could mount a challenge to leftist ideologies.  That “ideology” was a misleading choice of words becomes obvious when one considers his definition of it:  “It is a coherent set of ideas about God, Man and the world without inner contradictions and well-rooted in eternal principles.”  This is a Weltanschauung, not an ideology.

Whether or not political parties should base themselves upon a Weltanschauungdepends largely upon circumstances.  One thing is certain however: Rightist governments are never of the masses.  They are elitist and authoritarian, but notideological (in the sense of a secular religion) or tyrannical.  “All free nations,” Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote, “are by definition ‘authoritarian’ in their political as well as in their social and even in their family life.  We obey out of love, out of respect (for the greater knowledge and wisdom of those to whom we owe obedience), or because we realize that obedience is in the interest of the Common Good, which…includes our own interest.”

Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s mind was European through and through, and as a result he criticized what he called the Anglo-American mind because of its belief that “a genuine conservative contemplates nature, favors age-old traditions, time-honored institutions, the wisdom of his forbearers, and so on.”  The trouble with Burke was that he stood for common sense, which “creates no dynamism whatsoever,” and that he eschewed political ideologies.  Did he not, in his classic Reflections on the Revolution in France,write that he reprobated “no form of government merely upon abstract principles?”

No one would deny that, their common hostility to the French Revolution notwithstanding, there is an immediately recognizable difference between the Anglo-Irish Burke and, say, the French-Savoyard Joseph de Maistre.  American conservatism, however, is not Burkean, Russell Kirk being a somewhat isolated figure.  Nevertheless, Kuehnelt-Leddihn believed that America was in dire need of an ideology if it were to have any chance of winning the struggle for men’s minds.  In a 1990 letter to me (in Hungarian, one of the languages he mastered), he wrote that “among my writings the Portland Declaration is very important.”  That declaration constituted his proposal for an American “ideology.”

The Portland Declaration (1981) grew out of a conference held in Portland, Oregon, and sponsored by the Western Humanities Institute.  Kuehnelt-Leddihn “compiled” the 26 principles it proclaimed, and they breathe his spirit.  The final paragraph of his brief introduction to the published text of the proposal is worthy of note.  “We must have before us a guiding vision of what our state and society could be like, to prevent us from becoming victims of false gods.  The answer to false gods is not godlessness but the Living God.  Hence our ideology must be based on the Living God, but it should appeal also to men of good will who, while not believers, derive their concepts of a well-ordered life, whether they realize it or not, ultimately from the same sources we do.”

Among other things, the Portland Declaration took its stand on diversity (the Left had not yet hijacked the word) rather than uniformity, the spiritual equality (but distinct social roles) of men and women, opposition to the centralization of power, minimal government of the highest quality, an independent supreme court, the teaching of religion in schools, and patriotism rather than nationalism.

Whether or not these principles, taken together, constitute an ideology may be doubted.  And so may Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s belief that the Portland Declaration is a “utopia,” a possible definition of which, he argued, was a state/society “that can reasonably be established by sober reflection and honest effort.”  This was another choice of words that muddied the waters of understanding.  “Utopia” (“no place”) is rightly understood to be some idea of a perfect society, but one that the less starry-eyed know to be unrealizable, and probably undesirable.  To be sure, Karl Mannheim, in his influential Ideologie und Utopie (1929), maintained that utopias, even if unrealizable, are necessary because they give direction to historical change.  Kuehnelt-Leddihn knew Mannheim’s book well and was undoubtedly influenced by it.  He once maintained that “a cure for cancer” was a “utopian” directive, even though it is neither unrealizable in principle nor a re-imagination of an entire society.

As Kuehnelt-Leddihn recognized, his notion of an ideology—if not as a “utopia”—would be welcomed by America’s neoconservatives.  In the excerpt from Leftism Revisited here presented, he pointed out that Irving Kristol, the “godfather” of neoconservatism, had once stated “that the Right needed an ideology if it hoped to win the battle against the Left.”  In that spirit, neoconservatives have insisted that America is a “propositional,” or “creedal,” nation.  That, they claim, is what makes the country “exceptional”—that, and the assumption “that the United   States is somehow exempt from the past and present fate, as well as from many of the necessities, of other nations.  Ours is a special creation, endowed with special immunities” (Richard M. Weaver).

Very well, but what is the proposition or creed?  The answer seems to be that which is proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  To Kuehnelt-Leddihn these “truths” were anything but “self evident.”  He did not believe that all men were equal—not even, as he once told me, before God.  “We are all granted sufficient grace,” he said, “but remember, Christ Himself had a favorite disciple.”  Nor would he have accepted the notion of God-given rights, as opposed to responsibilities.  As for the “pursuit of Happiness,” only an American could imagine this to be an “unalienable right.”

The so-called paleoconservatives reject the notion of an ideological nation.  For the best of them, America is, or once was, bound together not by a “proposition,” but by “the bonds of history and memory, tradition and custom, language and literature, birth and faith, blood and soil” (Patrick J. Buchanan).  On the other hand, they share Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s aversion to reckless foreign interventions—unlike neoconservatives, they oppose crusades for “global democracy.”  We know that the Austrian admired George F. Kennan, the political “realist” who warned against an interventionist foreign policy and identified himself as a “European conservative,” one who was to the right of the paleoconservatives.   For his part, Kennan regarded Kuehnelt-Leddihn as “a kindred spirit in political philosophy.”

While most paleoconservatives are “realists” in their approach to foreign policy, they are not all traditionalists with respect to domestic affairs; some, especially the young, sympathize with libertarianism—a sympathy that Kuehnelt-Leddihn sometimes seemed to share, witness his insistence that he was a rightist and an anarchist.  The French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s “numerous books are,” he wrote in Leftism Revisited, “full of notions and ideas that any true lover of liberty or any true conservative could underwrite, concepts that are part and parcel of the ‘arsenal’ of rightist thought.”

It is true that Proudhon detested democracy, but the doctrine of anarchism must ignore man’s fallen nature and assume that we are capable of living together without an authority outside of ourselves.  To be sure, libertarianism is not quite anarchism, but neither is it the disciplined liberty defended by Tocqueville.  John Stuart Mill’s libertarianism, as set forth in On Liberty, would, as James Fitzjames Stephen pointed out, undermine the world’s great moral traditions, all of which expect far more of men than that they not harm another.

Perhaps, after all, Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s writings could have its most salutary influence on contemporary cultural, rather than political, thought.  As the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci argued persuasively, the real war between Left and Right is waged at the level of culture.  Those who establish “cultural hegemony” will ultimately control political life because they are able to form public opinion.  That is precisely what PC propagandists have succeeded in doing, thanks to their takeover of the media, universities, popular culture, and many churches.  It is in the realm of culture, too, that Weltanschauung matters most.  Not all rightists are Christians or believing Jews, but if they do not look to the Judeo-Christian moral tradition for guidance, one wonders where they will find it.  That tradition and the culture it informed have been dealt what appear to be mortal blows in recent years.  If the culture war has indeed been lost, America will never again be the land some still remember.

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/kuehnelt-leddihn-and-american-conservatism

 

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

WORKS PUBLISHED INThe Journal of Libertarian Studies

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1909-1999) was an Austrian nobleman and socio-political theorist who described himself as and enemy of all forms of totalitarianism and as an “extreme conservative arch-liberal” or “liberal of the extreme right.” Described as “A Walking Book of Knowledge”, Kuehnelt-Leddihn had an encyclopedic knowledge of the humanities and was a polyglot, able to speak eight languages and read seventeen others.

ALL WORKS

Monarchy and War

War and Foreign PolicyWorld HistoryPolitical Theory

05/10/2018THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES
It is important to understand the relationship between monarchy and war, and between monarchy and warfare.

FORMATS

PDF 

READ MORE

The Cultural Background of Ludwig von Mises — New Formats Available

Austrian Economics OverviewHistory of the Austrian School of Economics

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s timeless essay “The Cultural Background of Ludwig von Mises” is now easier to read.

READ MORE

The Mises and Hayek Critiques of Modern Political State

BiographiesPolitical Theory

02/02/2005AUDIO/VIDEO
Presented as part of the Austrian Workshop seminar series. Recorded on 17 November 1997.

READ MORE

The Cultural Background of Ludwig von Mises

BiographiesWar and Foreign PolicyWorld HistoryHistory of the Austrian School of Economics

04/05/1997ESSAYS IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
Writing about the cultural background of Ludwig von Mises, an eminent former compatriot of mine, poses some difficulties: how to present you with a world radically different from yours, a world far away, which in many ways no longer exists.

FORMATS

Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse

World HistoryPolitical Theory

07/15/1974BOOKS
A comprehensive study of the major trends in leftist thought from the era of the French Revolution.
FORMATS

Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time

World HistoryPolitical Theory

03/02/1952BOOKS
In this treatise, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn argues that “democratic equality” is not based upon liberty — as is commonly believed — but the total state.

FORMATS

PDF 

READ MORE

The Menace of the Herd, or Procrustes at Large

Legal SystemWorld HistoryPolitical Theory

06/15/1943BOOKS
A relentless attack on the idea of mass government based on the egalitarian ethic, and its tendency toward the total state of Stalin and Hitler.

https://mises.org/profile/erik-von-kuehnelt-leddihn

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.jpg

Photo portrait of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Born July 31, 1909
Tobelbad (now Haselsdorf-Tobelbad), Austria-Hungary
Died May 26, 1999 (aged 89)
Lans, Austria

Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (born July 31, 1909 in TobelbadStyriaAustria-Hungary; died May 26, 1999, in LansTyrol) was an Austrian political scientist and journalist. Describing himself as an “extreme conservative arch-liberal” or “liberal of the extreme right”, Kuehnelt-Leddihn often argued that majority rule in democracies is a threat to individual liberties, and declared himself a monarchist and an enemy of all forms of totalitarianism, although he also supported what he defined as “non-democratic republics,” such as Switzerland and the United States.[1][not in citation given]

Described as “A Walking Book of Knowledge”, Kuehnelt-Leddihn had an encyclopedic knowledge of the humanities and was a polyglot, able to speak eight languages and read seventeen others.[2] His early books The Menace of the Herd and Liberty or Equality were influential within the American conservative movement. An associate of William F. Buckley Jr., his best-known writings appeared in National Review, where he was a columnist for 35 years.

Life

At 16, he became the Vienna correspondent of The Spectator. From then on, he wrote for the rest of his life. He studied civil and canon law at the University of Vienna at 18. Then, he went to the University of Budapest, from which he received an M.A. in economicsand his doctorate in political science. Moving back to Vienna, he took up studies in theology. In 1935, Kuehnelt-Leddihn travelled to England to become a schoolmaster at Beaumont College, a Jesuit public school. Subsequently, he moved to the United States, where he taught at Georgetown University (1937–1938), Saint Peter’s College, New Jersey (head of the History and Sociology Department, 1938–1943), Fordham University (Japanese, 1942–1943), and Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia (1943–1947).

In a 1939 letter to the editor of The New York Times, Kuehnelt-Leddihn critiqued the design of every American coin then in circulation except for the Washington quarter, which he allowed was “so far the most satisfactory coin” and judged the Mercury dime to be “the most deplorable.”[3]

After publishing books like Jesuiten, Spießer und Bolschewiken in 1933 (published in German by Pustet, Salzburg) and The Menace of the Herd in 1943, in which he criticised the National Socialists as well as the Socialists directly OE indirectly, as he could not return to the Austria that had been incorporated into the Third Reich.

After the Second World War, he resettled in Lans, where he lived until his death.[4] He was an avid traveler: he had visited the Soviet Union in 1930–1931, and he eventually visited each of the United States.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote for a variety of publications, including ChroniclesThought, the Rothbard-Rockwell ReportCatholic World, and the Norwegian business magazine Farmand. He also worked with the Acton Institute, which declared him after his death “a great friend and supporter.”[5] He was an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.[6] For much of his life, Kuehnelt was also a painter; he illustrated some of his own books.

According to his friend William F. Buckley, Dr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn was “the world’s most fascinating man.”[7]

Work

His socio-political writings dealt with the origins and the philosophical and cultural currents that formed Nazism. He endeavored to explain the intricacies of monarchist concepts and the systems of Europe, cultural movements such as Hussitism and Protestantism, and the disastrous effects of an American policy derived from antimonarchical feelings and ignorance of European culture and history.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn directed some of his most significant critiques towards Wilsonian foreign policy activism. Traces of Wilsonianism could be detected in the foreign policies of Franklin Roosevelt; specifically, the assumption that democracy is the ideal political system in any context. Kuehnelt-Leddihn believed that Americans misunderstood much of Central European culture such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire,[8] which Kuehnelt-Leddihn claimed as one of the contributing factors to the rise of Nazism. He also highlighted characteristics of the German society and culture (especially the influences of both Protestant and Catholic mentalities) and attempted to explain the sociological undercurrents of Nazism. Thus, he concludes that sound Catholicism, sound Protestantism, or even, probably, sound popular sovereignty (German-Austrian unification in 1919) all three would have prevented National Socialism although Kuehnelt-Leddihn rather dislikes the latter two.

Contrary to the prevailing view that the Nazi Party was a radical right-wing movement with only superficial and minimal leftist elements, Kuehnelt-Leddihn asserted that Nazism (National Socialism) was a strongly leftist, democratic movement ultimately rooted in the French Revolution that unleashed forces of egalitarianismconformitymaterialism and centralization.[9] He argued that Nazismfascismradical-liberalism, and communismwere essentially democratic movements, based upon inciting the masses to revolution and intent upon destroying the old forms of society. Furthermore, Kuehnelt-Leddihn claimed that all democracy is basically totalitarianand that all democracies eventually degenerate into dictatorships. He said that it was not the case for “republics” (the word, for Kuehnelt-Leddihn, has the meaning of what Aristotle calls πολιτεία), such as Switzerland, or the United States as it was originally intended in its constitution. However, he considered the United States to have been to a certain extent subject to a silent democratic revolution in the late 1820s.

In Liberty or Equality, his magnum opus, Kuehnelt-Leddihn contrasted monarchy with democracy and presented his arguments for the superiority of monarchy: diversity is upheld better in monarchical countries than in democracies. Monarchism is not based on party rule and “fits organically into the ecclesiastic and familistic pattern of Christian society.” After insisting that the demand for liberty is about how to govern and by no means by whom to govern a given country, he draws arguments for his view that monarchical government is genuinely more liberal in this sense, but democracy naturally advocates for equality, even by enforcement, and thus becomes anti-liberal.[10] As modern life becomes increasingly complicated across many different sociopolitical levels, Kuehnelt-Leddihn submits that the Scita (the political, economic, technological, scientific, military, geographical, psychological knowledge of the masses and of their representatives) and the Scienda (the knowledge in these matters that is necessary to reach logical-rational-moral conclusions) are separated by an incessantly and cruelly widening gap and that democratic governments are totally inadequate for such undertakings.

In February 1969, Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote an article arguing against seeking a peace deal to end the Vietnam War.[11] Instead, he argued that the two options proposed, a reunification scheme and the creation of a coalition Vietnamese government, were unacceptable concessions to the Marxist North Vietnam.[11] Kuehnelt-Leddihn urged the US to continue the war.[11] until the Marxists were defeated.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn also denounced the US Bishops’ 1982 pastoral The Challenge of Peace[12] “The Bishops’ letter breathes idealism… moral imperialism, the attempt to inject theology into politics, ought to be avoided except in extreme cases, of which abolition and slavery are examples.”[12]

Writings

Novels[edit]

  • The Gates of Hell: An Historical Novel of the Present Day. London: Sheed & Ward, 1933.
  • Night Over the East. London: Sheed & Ward, 1936.
  • Moscow 1979. London: Sheed & Ward, 1940 (with Christiane von Kuehnelt-Leddihn).
  • Black Banners. Aldington, Kent: Forty-Five Press & Hand and Flower Press, 1952.

Socio-political works

  • The Menace of the Herd. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1943 (under the pseudonym of “Francis S. Campell” to protect relatives in wartime Austria).
  • Liberty or Equality. Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, 1952; 1993.
  • The Timeless Christian. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1969.
  • Leftism, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1974.[13]
  • The Intelligent American’s Guide to Europe. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1979.
  • Leftism Revisited, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1990.[14]

Collaborations

  • “Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.” In: F.J. Sheed (Ed.), Born Catholics. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1954, pp. 220–238.
  • “Pollyanna Catholicism.” In: Dan Herr & Clem Lane (Ed.), Realities. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1958, pp. 1–12.
  • “The Age of the Guillotine.” In: Stephen Tonsor (Ed.), Reflections on the French Revolution: A Hillsdale Symposium. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1990.

Articles

Notes and references

  1. Jump up^ Campbell, William F. “Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: A Remembrance,”First Principles, September 2008.
  2. Jump up^ William F. Buckley, Jr. (1985-12-31). “A Walking Book of Knowledge”. National Review. p. 104.
  3. Jump up^ Erik v. Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Letter to the Editor, “Our Coins Criticized: Visitor Finds Artistic Faults in All Except the Quarter”, The New York Times, Nov. 26, 1939, p. 75.
  4. Jump up^ Rutler, George W. “Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,”Crisis Magazine, November 19, 2007.
  5. Jump up^ “Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1909–1999)”Acton Institute. Archived from the original on 2009-06-26. Retrieved 2009-04-16.
  6. Jump up^ Rockwell, Lew. “Remembering Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn“. LewRockwell.com Blog, July 31, 2008.
  7. Jump up^ “Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddih (1909–1999),”Archived2013-07-02 at the Wayback MachineReligion & Liberty9 (5), 1999, p. 3.
  8. Jump up^ Baltzersen, Jorn K. “The Last Knight of the Habsburg Empire,”Lew Rockwell, July 31, 2009.
  9. Jump up^ Congdon, Lee. “Kuehnelt-Leddihn and American Conservatism,”Crisis Magazine, March 26, 2012.
  10. Jump up^ Lukacs, John. “Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: A Memoir,”The Intercollegiate Review35 (1), Fall 1999.
  11. Jump up to:abc Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn “No Quick Peace In Vietnam”, National Review, February 11, 1969.
  12. Jump up to:ab Camilla J. Kari, Public Witness: The Pastoral Letters of the American Catholic Bishops: Liturgical Press, 2004. ISBN0814658334 (p. 86).
  13. Jump up^ Brownfeld, Allan C. “Leftism, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,”The Freeman, July 1974.
  14. Jump up^ Chamberlain, John. “Leftism Revisited,”The Freeman41(7), July 1991.

Regarding personal names: Ritter is a title, translated approximately as Sir (denoting a Knight), not a first or middle name. There is no equivalent female form.

See also

Further reading

  • Nash, George H. (2006). The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945. ISI Books ISBN 9781933859125
  • Frohnen, Bruce; Jeremy Beer & Jeffrey O. Nelson (2006). American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia. ISI Books ISBN 9781932236439

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Classical liberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste SayThomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism[6] and progress.[7] The term “classical liberalism” was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[8]

Evolution of core beliefs

Core beliefs of classical liberals included new ideas—which departed from both the older conservative idea of society as a family and from the later sociological concept of society as complex set of social networks. Classical liberals believe that individuals are “egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic”[9] and that society is no more than the sum of its individual members.[10]

Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from each other and that the purpose of government should be to minimize conflict between individuals that would otherwise arise in a state of nature. These beliefs were complemented by a belief that laborers could be best motivated by financial incentive. This belief led to the passage of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance, based on the idea that markets are the mechanism that most efficiently leads to wealth. Adopting Thomas Robert Malthus‘s population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, they believed population growth would outstrip food production and they regarded that consequence desirable because starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.[11]

Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest. They were critical of what would come to be the idea of the welfare state as interfering in a free market.[12]Despite Smith’s resolute recognition of the importance and value of labor and of laborers, they selectively criticized labour’s group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights[13] while accepting corporations’ rights, which led to inequality of bargaining power.[14][15][16]

Classical liberals argued that individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labor and capital would receive the greatest possible reward while production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand.[17]

Classical liberals argued for what they called a minimal state, limited to the following functions:

  • A government to protect individual rights and to provide services that cannot be provided in a free market.
  • A common national defense to provide protection against foreign invaders.[18]
  • Laws to provide protection for citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which included protection of private property, enforcement of contracts and common law.
  • Building and maintaining public institutions.
  • Public works that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures and building and upkeep of roads, canals, harbors, railways, communications and postal services.[18]

They asserted that rights are of a negative nature, which require other individuals (and governments) to refrain from interfering with the free market, opposing social liberals who assert that individuals have positive rights, such as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care and the right to a living wage. For society to guarantee positive rights, it requires taxation over and above the minimum needed to enforce negative rights.[19][20]

Core beliefs of classical liberals did not necessarily include democracy or government by a majority vote by citizens because “there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law”.[21]For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that in a pure democracy a “common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole…and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party”.[22]

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, neo-classical liberalism advocated Social Darwinism.[23]Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[23]

Friedrich Hayek’s typology of beliefs

Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the “British tradition” and the “French tradition”. Hayek saw the British philosophers Bernard MandevilleDavid HumeAdam SmithAdam FergusonJosiah Tucker and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Jean-Jacques RousseauMarquis de Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen MontesquieuBenjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville as belonging to the “British tradition” and the British Thomas HobbesJoseph PriestleyRichard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the “French tradition”.[24][25] Hayek also rejected the label laissez-faireas originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume and Smith.

Guido De Ruggiero also identified differences between “Montesquieu and Rousseau, the English and the democratic types of liberalism”[26] and argued that there was a “profound contrast between the two Liberal systems”.[27] He claimed that the spirit of “authentic English Liberalism” had “built up its work piece by piece without ever destroying what had once been built, but basing upon it every new departure”. This liberalism had “insensibly adapted ancient institutions to modern needs” and “instinctively recoiled from all abstract proclamations of principles and rights”.[27] Ruggiero claimed that this liberalism was challenged by what he called the “new Liberalism of France” that was characterised by egalitarianism and a “rationalistic consciousness”.[28]

In 1848, Francis Lieber distinguished between what he called “Anglican and Gallican Liberty”. Lieber asserted that “independence in the highest degree, compatible with safety and broad national guarantees of liberty, is the great aim of Anglican liberty, and self-reliance is the chief source from which it draws its strength”.[29] On the other hand, Gallican liberty “is sought in government…the French look for the highest degree of political civilization in organizational, that is, in the highest degree of interference by public power”.[30]

History

Great Britain

Classical liberalism in Britain developed from Whiggery and radicalism, was also heavily influenced by French physiocracy and represented a new political ideology. Whiggery had become a dominant ideology following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and was associated with the defence of the British Parliament, upholding the rule of law and defending landed property. The origins of rights were seen as being in an ancient constitution, which had existed from time immemorial. These rights, which some Whigs considered to include freedom of the press and freedom of speech, were justified by custom rather than by natural rights. They believed that the power of the executive had to be constrained. While they supported limited suffrage, they saw voting as a privilege rather than as a right. However, there was no consistency in Whig ideology and diverse writers including John LockeDavid HumeAdam Smith and Edmund Burke were all influential among Whigs, although none of them was universally accepted.[31]

From the 1790s to the 1820s, British radicals concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasising natural rights and popular sovereignty. Richard Price and Joseph Priestley adapted the language of Locke to the ideology of radicalism.[31] The radicals saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment of Protestant Dissenters, the slave trade, high prices and high taxes.[32]

There was greater unity to classical liberalism ideology than there had been with Whiggery. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. They believed that required a free economy with minimal government interference. Writers such as John Bright and Richard Cobden opposed both aristocratic privilege and property, which they saw as an impediment to the development of a class of yeoman farmers. Some elements of Whiggery opposed this new thinking and were uncomfortable with the commercial nature of classical liberalism. These elements became associated with conservatism.[33]

A meeting of the Anti-Corn Law League in Exeter Hall in 1846

Classical liberalism was the dominant political theory in Britain from the early 19th century until the First World War. Its notable victories were the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, the Reform Act of 1832 and the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The Anti-Corn Law League brought together a coalition of liberal and radical groups in support of free trade under the leadership of Richard Cobden and John Bright, who opposed militarism and public expenditure. Their policies of low public expenditure and low taxation were adopted by William Ewart Gladstone when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer and later Prime Minister. Classical liberalism was often associated with religious dissent and nonconformism.[34]

Although classical liberals aspired to a minimum of state activity, they accepted the principle of government intervention in the economy from the early 19th century with passage of the Factory Acts. From around 1840 to 1860, laissez-faire advocates of the Manchester School and writers in The Economist were confident that their early victories would lead to a period of expanding economic and personal liberty and world peace, but would face reversals as government intervention and activity continued to expand from the 1850s. Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, although advocates of laissez-faire, non-intervention in foreign affairs and individual liberty, believed that social institutions could be rationally redesigned through the principles of utilitarianism. The Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli rejected classical liberalism altogether and advocated Tory democracy. By the 1870s, Herbert Spencer and other classical liberals concluded that historical development was turning against them.[35] By the First World War, the Liberal Party had largely abandoned classical liberal principles.[36]

The changing economic and social conditions of the 19th century led to a division between neo-classical and social (or welfare) liberals, who while agreeing on the importance of individual liberty differed on the role of the state. Neo-classical liberals, who called themselves “true liberals”, saw Locke’s Second Treatise as the best guide and emphasised “limited government” while social liberals supported government regulation and the welfare state. Herbert Spencer in Britain and William Graham Sumner were the leading neo-classical liberal theorists of the 19th century.[37] Neo-classical liberalism has continued into the contemporary era, with writers such as John Rawls.[38] The evolution from classical to social/welfare liberalism is for example reflected in Britain in the evolution of the thought of John Maynard Keynes.[39]

United States

In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary or feudal interests such as the nobility, the aristocracy, the landed gentry, the established church and the aristocratic army officers.[40]

Thomas Jefferson adopted many of the ideals of liberalism, but in the Declaration of Independence changed Locke’s “life, liberty and property” to the more socially liberal “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness“.[4] As the United States grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and during the term of its first populist PresidentAndrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism.[41] Freedom was maximised when the government took a “hands off” attitude toward the economy.[42]

Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues:

[A]t the center of classical liberal theory [in Europe] was the idea of laissez-faire. To the vast majority of American classical liberals, however, laissez-faire did not mean no government intervention at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers. What they condemned was intervention in behalf of consumers.[43]

Leading magazine The Nation espoused liberalism every week starting in 1865 under the influential editor Edwin Lawrence. Godkin (1831–1902).[44]

The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief. In the words of William Jennings Bryan, “You shall not crucify the American farmer on a cross of gold“. Classical liberalism remained the orthodox belief among American businessmen until the Great Depression.[45]

The Great Depression of the 1930s saw a sea change in liberalism, with priority shifting from the producers to consumers. Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s New Deal represented the dominance of modern liberalism in politics for decades. In the words of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.:[46]

When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state. […] There emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labour, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.

Alan Wolfe summarizes the viewpoint that there is a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes:[47]

The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy… When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. […] For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.

The view that modern liberalism is a continuation of classical liberalism is not universally shared.[48] James KurthRobert E. LernerJohn MicklethwaitAdrian Wooldridge and several other political scholars have argued that classical liberalism still exists today, but in the form of American conservatism.[49] According to Deepak Lal, only in the United States does classical liberalism—through American conservatives—continue to be a significant political force.[50]

Intellectual sources

John Locke[edit]

Central to classical liberal ideology was their interpretation of John Locke‘s Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, which had been written as a defence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although these writings were considered too radical at the time for Britain’s new rulers, they later came to be cited by Whigs, radicals and supporters of the American Revolution.[51] However, much of later liberal thought was absent in Locke’s writings or scarcely mentioned and his writings have been subject to various interpretations. For example, there is little mention of constitutionalism, the separation of powers and limited government.[52]

James L. Richardson identified five central themes in Locke’s writing: individualism, consent, the concepts of the rule of law and government as trustee, the significance of property and religious toleration. Although Locke did not develop a theory of natural rights, he envisioned individuals in the state of nature as being free and equal. The individual, rather than the community or institutions, was the point of reference. Locke believed that individuals had given consent to government and therefore authority derived from the people rather than from above. This belief would influence later revolutionary movements.[53]

As a trustee, government was expected to serve the interests of the people, not the rulers; and rulers were expected to follow the laws enacted by legislatures. Locke also held that the main purpose of men uniting into commonwealths and governments was for the preservation of their property. Despite the ambiguity of Locke’s definition of property, which limited property to “as much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of”, this principle held great appeal to individuals possessed of great wealth.[54]

Locke held that the individual had the right to follow his own religious beliefs and that the state should not impose a religion against Dissenters, but there were limitations. No tolerance should be shown for atheists, who were seen as amoral, or to Catholics, who were seen as owing allegiance to the Pope over their own national government.[55]

Adam Smith

Adam Smith‘s The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of economics, at least until the publication of John Stuart Mill‘s Principles of Political Economy in 1848.[56] Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and the distribution of wealth and the policies the state should follow to maximise wealth.[57]

Smith wrote that as long as supply, demand, prices and competition were left free of government regulation, the pursuit of material self-interest, rather than altruism, would maximise the wealth of a society[58] through profit-driven production of goods and services. An “invisible hand” directed individuals and firms to work toward the public good as an unintended consequence of efforts to maximise their own gain. This provided a moral justification for the accumulation of wealth, which had previously been viewed by some as sinful.[57]

He assumed that workers could be paid wages as low as was necessary for their survival, which was later transformed by David Ricardo and Thomas Robert Malthus into the “iron law of wages“.[59] His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and international trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialisation in production.[60] He also opposed restrictive trade preferences, state grants of monopolies and employers’ organisations and trade unions.[61] Government should be limited to defence, public works and the administration of justice, financed by taxes based on income.[62]

Smith’s economics was carried into practice in the nineteenth century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of the Poor Relief Act that had restricted the mobility of labour in 1834 and the end of the rule of the East India Company over India in 1858.[63]

Classical economics

In addition to Smith’s legacy, Say’s lawThomas Robert Malthus‘ theories of population and David Ricardo‘s iron law of wages became central doctrines of classical economics. The pessimistic nature of these theories provided a basis for criticism of capitalism by its opponents and helped perpetuate the tradition of calling economics the “dismal science“.[64]

Jean-Baptiste Say was a French economist who introduced Smith’s economic theories into France and whose commentaries on Smith were read in both France and Britain.[63] Say challenged Smith’s labour theory of value, believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasised the critical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However, neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. His most important contribution to economic thinking was Say’s law, which was interpreted by classical economists that there could be no overproduction in a market and that there would always be a balance between supply and demand.[65] This general belief influenced government policies until the 1930s. Following this law, since the economic cycle was seen as self-correcting, government did not intervene during periods of economic hardship because it was seen as futile.[66]

Malthus wrote two books, An Essay on the Principle of Population (published in 1798) and Principles of Political Economy (published in 1820). The second book which was a rebuttal of Say’s law had little influence on contemporary economists.[67] However, his first book became a major influence on classical liberalism. In that book, Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production because population grew geometrically while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were in fact responsible for their own problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.[68]

Ricardo, who was an admirer of Smith, covered many of the same topics, but while Smith drew conclusions from broadly empirical observations he used deduction, drawing conclusions by reasoning from basic assumptions [69] While Ricardo accepted Smith’s labour theory of value, he acknowledged that utility could influence the price of some rare items. Rents on agricultural land were seen as the production that was surplus to the subsistence required by the tenants. Wages were seen as the amount required for workers’ subsistence and to maintain current population levels.[70] According to his iron law of wages, wages could never rise beyond subsistence levels. Ricardo explained profits as a return on capital, which itself was the product of labour, but a conclusion many drew from his theory was that profit was a surplus appropriated by capitalists to which they were not entitled.[71]

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism provided the political justification for implementation of economic liberalism by British governments, which was to dominate economic policy from the 1830s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform and John Stuart Mill‘s later writings on the subject foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a justification for laissez-faire.[72]

The central concept of utilitarianism, which was developed by Jeremy Bentham, was that public policy should seek to provide “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher.[64]

Political economy

Classical liberals saw utility as the foundation for public policies. This broke both with conservative “tradition” and Lockean “natural rights”, which were seen as irrational. Utility, which emphasises the happiness of individuals, became the central ethical value of all liberalism.[73] Although utilitarianism inspired wide-ranging reforms, it became primarily a justification for laissez-faire economics. However, classical liberals rejected Smith’s belief that the “invisible hand” would lead to general benefits and embraced Malthus’ view that population expansion would prevent any general benefit and Ricardo’s view of the inevitability of class conflict. Laissez-faire was seen as the only possible economic approach and any government intervention was seen as useless and harmful. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 was defended on “scientific or economic principles” while the authors of the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 were seen as not having had the benefit of reading Malthus.[74]

However, commitment to laissez-faire was not uniform and some economists advocated state support of public works and education. Classical liberals were also divided on free trade as Ricardo expressed doubt that the removal of grain tariffs advocated by Richard Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League would have any general benefits. Most classical liberals also supported legislation to regulate the number of hours that children were allowed to work and usually did not oppose factory reform legislation.[74]

Despite the pragmatism of classical economists, their views were expressed in dogmatic terms by such popular writers as Jane Marcet and Harriet Martineau.[74] The strongest defender of laissez-faire was The Economist founded by James Wilson in 1843. The Economist criticised Ricardo for his lack of support for free trade and expressed hostility to welfare, believing that the lower orders were responsible for their economic circumstances. The Economist took the position that regulation of factory hours was harmful to workers and also strongly opposed state support for education, health, the provision of water and granting of patents and copyrights.[75]

The Economist also campaigned against the Corn Laws that protected landlords in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland against competition from less expensive foreign imports of cereal products. A rigid belief in laissez-faire guided the government response in 1846–1849 to the Great Famine in Ireland, during which an estimated 1.5 million people died. The minister responsible for economic and financial affairs, Charles Wood, expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine.[75] The Corn Laws were finally repealed in 1846 by the removal of tariffs on grain which kept the price of bread artificially high,[76] but it came too late to stop the Irish famine, partly because it was done in stages over three years.[77][78]

Free trade and world peace

Several liberals, including Smith and Cobden, argued that the free exchange of goods between nations could lead to world peace. Erik Gartzke states: “Scholars like Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Richard Cobden, Norman Angell, and Richard Rosecrance have long speculated that free markets have the potential to free states from the looming prospect of recurrent warfare”.[79] American political scientists John R. Oneal and Bruce M. Russett, well known for their work on the democratic peace theory, state:[80]

The classical liberals advocated policies to increase liberty and prosperity. They sought to empower the commercial class politically and to abolish royal charters, monopolies, and the protectionist policies of mercantilism so as to encourage entrepreneurship and increase productive efficiency. They also expected democracy and laissez-faire economics to diminish the frequency of war.

In The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued that as societies progressed from hunter gatherers to industrial societies the spoils of war would rise, but that the costs of war would rise further and thus making war difficult and costly for industrialised nations:[81]

[T]he honours, the fame, the emoluments of war, belong not to [the middle and industrial classes]; the battle-plain is the harvest field of the aristocracy, watered with the blood of the people…Whilst our trade rested upon our foreign dependencies, as was the case in the middle of the last century…force and violence, were necessary to command our customers for our manufacturers…But war, although the greatest of consumers, not only produces nothing in return, but, by abstracting labour from productive employment and interrupting the course of trade, it impedes, in a variety of indirect ways, the creation of wealth; and, should hostilities be continued for a series of years, each successive war-loan will be felt in our commercial and manufacturing districts with an augmented pressure

[B]y virtue of their mutual interest does nature unite people against violence and war, for the concept of concept of cosmopolitan right does not protect them from it. The spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers (or means) that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peace (though not from moral motives); and wherever in the world war threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through mediation, just as if they were permanently leagued for this purpose.

Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the welfare of the state and benefited a small, but concentrated elite minority, summing up British imperialism, which he believed was the result of the economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace must also advocate free markets. The belief that free trade would promote peace was widely shared by English liberals of the 19th and early 20th century, leading the economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946), who was a classical liberal in his early life, to say that this was a doctrine on which he was “brought up” and which he held unquestioned only until the 1920s.[84] In his review of a book on Keynes, Michael S. Lawlor argues that it may be in large part due to Keynes’ contributions in economics and politics, as in the implementation of the Marshall Plan and the way economies have been managed since his work, “that we have the luxury of not facing his unpalatable choice between free trade and full employment”.[85] A related manifestation of this idea was the argument of Norman Angell (1872–1967), most famously before World War I in The Great Illusion (1909), that the interdependence of the economies of the major powers was now so great that war between them was futile and irrational; and therefore unlikely.

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Classical Liberalism — Videos

Posted on April 17, 2016. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Documentary, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Trade, Video, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 ClassicalLiberalismvsPostmodernismliberalism-definition-then-and-now StateFunctionsNigel-Ashford-on-Classical-Liberalism-02j s mills Mises-liberty

Classical Liberalism: The History of Classical Liberalism – Learn Liberty

Classical Liberalism: The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) – Learn Liberty

Classical Liberalism: The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) – Learn Liberty

Liberal Party: 10 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal – Learn Liberty

Dr Tibor Machan Ayn Rand and the Right to Liberty

Ayn Rand: A Leading Lady of the Classical Liberal Tradition

Libertarian Philosophy: Do you want to live in the world of Atlas Shrugged?

Classical Liberalism: A Primer – Economics, History, Law, Limited Government (2002)

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 1: Introduction

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 2: Milton Friedman and the Chicago School

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 3: Public Choice

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 4: The Austrian School

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 6: Anarcho-Capitalism

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 7: Conclusion: What’s Your View?

Milton Friedman on Classical Liberalism

Milton Friedman on the Role of Government

Milton Friedman on Limiting the Role of Government

Milton Friedman – Should Higher Education Be Subsidized?

Milton Friedman – The role of government in a free society

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Yaron Brook: Free Market Revolution

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Trump Is Not A Conservative Nor A Liberal, But He Is An American Speaking And Advocating What The American People Are Demanding A New Direction For The Country and Make America Great Again Starting with Enforcing Immigration Law — Deal with It Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs) of Democratic and Republican Parties — Trump is Going To Win! — President Trump You Are Hired! — Videos

Posted on September 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, British History, Business, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Education, Elections, Employment, Entertainment, Faith, Family, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, Movies, Non-Fiction, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Television, Television, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Story 1: Trump Is Not A Conservative Nor A Liberal, But He Is An American Speaking And Advocating What The American People Are Demanding A New Direction For The Country and Make America Great Again Starting with Enforcing Immigration Law — Deal with It Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs) of Democratic and Republican Parties — Trump is Going To Win! — President Trump You Are Hired! — Videos

trump-cover-finaltimecovertrumppresident2012

trump cover 2

make america great again

 embroidered-donald-trump-hat-make-america-great-again-1

Donald Trump Gives Wildly Entertaining Speech in Nashville, TN (8-29-15)

Highlights of Donald Trump’s wildly entertaining speech in Nashville, TN at the 2015 NFRA Presidential Preference Convention, which took place on August 29, 2015.

Donald Trump: I was a Democrat

Donald Trump: Simplify the Tax Code

Donald Trump on Taxes – I Believe the Rich Should Pay More – Fox News – Hannity

Is Donald Trump serious about tax reform?

Is Donald Trump Serious About Tax Reform?

Would Trump’s tax plan jump start the US economy?

fair_tax_bookthe_truth_fairtaxgood_evil_taxes

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

The FairTax: It’s Time

Congressman Woodall Discusses the FairTax

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

What is the FairTax legislation?

How does the FairTax affect the economy?

Is the FairTax truly progressive?

How does the “prebate” work?

Is it fair for rich people to get the same prebate as poor people?

How does the FairTax impact the middle class?

How does the FairTax impact savings?

What is the impact of the FairTax on business?

Will the FairTax lead to a massive underground economy?

Are any significant economies funded by a sales tax?

How is the FairTax collected?

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

How does the FairTax affect compliance costs?

How does the FairTax rate compare to today’s?

Will the FairTax hurt home ownership with no mortgage interest deduction?

How does the FairTax impact charitable giving?

Isn’t it a stretch to say the IRS will go away?

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

Donald Trump and Ann Coulter Hold Rally in Iowa (FULL)

Mr. Trump’s 757

Hitler reacts to Donald Trump’s presidential bid

Ann Coulter Flips Out on Hannity Over Immigration: You’re ‘Like A Liberal Making A Silly Argument!’

Ann Coulter Introduces Donald Trump at Iowa Speech, 2016 Presidential Campaign Rally 8 25

Victor Davis Hanson: War in the Post Modern World – why the new laws of conflict are surreal

What Makes Donald Run?

by VICTOR DAVIS HANSON September 1, 2015

He’s giving fed-up Republicans something other candidates are not.

Donald Trump has at least three things going for him. One, the mood of the country remains foul and fed-up — and volatile to the point that conventional wisdom is hardly reliable. Two, Trump has turned invective and narcissism into an art form, and his simplistic putdowns seem to garner ever more attention even as they become more monotonous and banal — largely because they are directed at a despised media elite. Three, the Democratic party is in worse shape than the Republican party. Apparently Trump’s attacks can still safely be savored as long as the Democrats are imploding.

Trump’s successes have come about not because of a brilliant new Contract with America or because he is reassuringly conservative on the issues. His diehard supporters — and even those who would never confess that they derive a perverse and stealthy delight from watching him put down the New York/Washington political and journalistic elite — don’t care that just in the last decade he has flipped on all the issues. They apparently ignore the fact that Trump is often self-contradictory, as he wings his way through endless interviews and blustery press conferences.

What fuels his candidacy is attitude — in particular, disdain for those who undeservedly believe they warrant deference. Behind the bombast and the waving hands, he gives the impression of having contempt for the ruling class, of which he is so intimately a part. He winks at us as if to say, “I hang out with these people, and, trust me, they are even worse than you suspect.” His voice has the brash accents of the New York sidewalk, rather than a passive-aggressive Ivy League modulation. His narcissism is unlike Barack Obama’s serious sort (e.g., “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director”). Indeed, Trump’s egotism is a caricature of narcissism itself, in which the only adjectives are superlatives and the only measure of being “great” and “a winner” is net worth or celebrity. Yet somehow TRUMP plastered over everything does not bother people as much as Barack Obama’s faux-Greek columns, Latinate mottos, and promises to cool the cosmos.

After nearly seven years of Obama, the public is worn out by sanctimoniousness — by all the Professor Gates/Trayvon Martin/Ferguson lectures on race by an abject racialist, by all the sermons on climate change by a global jet-setter, by all the community-organizing banality by one who always has preferred the private school and the tony neighborhood, by all the us-versus-the-1-percent warfare by one who feels at home on the golf course only with celebrities and stock hounds. Given all that, the Republican base, at least for a few more weeks, wants someone to be unapologetically unacceptable — both to the liberal establishment that Obama ushered in, and to the wink-and-nod elite Republican opposition.

It is said that Trump appeals most to the pissed-off white man of yesteryear. Perhaps. But in the age of a multiracial United States it is more proper to say than he appeals to the infuriated targets of elite disdain, people who are tired of Democratic slurs about “tired old white men” — as the exempt white and (most of them) old Sanders, Biden, O’Malley, and Webb wait for a mature white woman to fade, while hoping that other old white men like Kerry, Gore, and Brown don’t wade in.

Trumpers are tired of a Republican establishment warning them — even if presciently so — that enforcement of federal immigration law is impossible because of the Latino vote, that even demanding a simple ID at the polling place may alienate the black vote, that stopping federal funding to the grotesque Planned Parenthood will lose the female vote, and that not rushing in to sanctify gay marriage will turn off gay voters. Rank-and-file Republicans are worn out from being lectured that no one can win without the Latino vote (10 percent of the electorate), the black vote (12 percent), and the Asian vote (5 percent ) — all on the premise that to speak in similar terms about getting a large chunk of the white vote (70 percent ) would be somehow racist. There is something Ajaxian, then — something of the Charge of the Light Brigade or the last scene in Breaker Morant — inherent in the Trump call to make America great again.

Telejournalists recycle the trite wisdom that with today’s electorate Trump must lose because he will not garner x percentages of y racial-block voters. They don’t have a clue that the Democratic party — in its worst shape since the 1920s — is in danger of nullifying such racial calculations by creating a white voting block not seen in the modern era. If it is true that Trump probably cannot win unless he takes somewhere around 62 percent of the white vote (depending on the particular state), it is also true that the next Democrat probably cannot win without 40 percent of it. Any of the Democrats is just as much in danger of not reaching 40 percent as Trump is of not reaching 62 percent.

Trump’s trademark is venom directed against the “elite.” But is not Trump a member of the elite himself? Yes, but that is the point. The public has less problem with the brash, take-no-prisoners plutocrat than with the current feuding Hatfields and McCoys of the Ivy League–trained stable, the Medici-like intermarriages between D.C./New York politicians and journalists, and the hip world of the metrosexual that serves up our entertainment and news.

So a public far larger than just the Tea Party was ready for a populist grandstander. And Trump so far has managed to make real outliers — non-establishment political mavericks like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie, who were the choices of the Tea Party movements just a fortnight ago — look like Eric Cantor/Mitch McConnell company men. That such gifted conservative politicos are considered functionaries is abjectly unfair, but it is nonetheless the jaded perception so far of much of the Republican electorate.

Trump sized up a favorable landscape in 2015–16, and he grasped that the dissatisfaction arose from more than Obama’s profligate borrowing, amnesties, no-growth economic policies, lead-from-behind and reset foreign policies, and hands-up-don’t-shoot racial posturing. The populist furor was also fueled by style. Voters are tired of the DNA of professional politicians, the 24/7 politically correct equivocation, the “I take full responsibility” media pseudo-apology, and the Pajama Boy nasal snarkiness.

Trump has had the skills to turn the primary campaign so far into a war of raw emotion. He channels General George S. Patton — who practiced his facial expressions in front of the mirror and whose line about preferring to kill rather than die for your country Trump recalibrated in his tasteless attack on John McCain. Trump understands that an army really does not march just on its stomach, but is fueled by its emotions.

Recently I asked three quite different Americans — who, on ordinary calculations, should not like Trump — what they thought of him. The first s a local Mexican-American barber. He could offer no logical rationale for his enjoyment of the Trump candidacy other than that Trump is a “jefe” — a big man who gets things done by any means necessary, a crew boss to the world. I sensed that there was also an embarrassed weariness with illegal immigration.

We talk of Latino voters as hating Trump, and some may. But some Latinos are at Ground Zero of illegal immigration. Whereas their elite leaders see profit in millions of Mexicans trekking into the United States, the less well connected see only their local emergency rooms overwhelmed, their jails full, their social services breaking under the influx, and their schools turned into remediation in both English and Spanish.

Another person I quizzed about Trump is a seasoned, though cynical, PhD. His take? Trump is Maximus, and the primary campaign is his arena: We are all thumbs-up/thumbs-down spectators who enjoy the blood sport.

This man plans to jump ship, but not until Trump’s ship is capsizing and there is a nice raft alongside.

The third is a middle-aged professional woman, nominally a Democrat, whose attitude can be summed up as “touché.” The reactive Trump is quite savvy in his selected feuds with supposed untouchables, whom the public occasionally would like to see touched. John McCain started that attacks on Trump, and previously had waved the bloody shirt a bit too much; Megyn Kelly is a bit more than a fine professional journalist and capable legal scholar, at least in the way she dresses and preps for the camera; and Jorge Ramos is a hipper version of an obnoxious Howard Dean, snickering and bloviating ad nauseam. Trump, then, is leveling the playing field for the exhausted TV viewer. His welcome attacks turn our attention away from his own considerable liabilities — as long as he can continue to select objects and methodologies of attack that entertain.

All the above is no reason to become enthusiastic about Trump, but no reason to turn him off quite yet either.

Then there is Trump himself. Any businessman who can become or even remain a billionaire in today’s climate in any field other than banking, trading, or insuring is necessarily talented. Most stars cannot sustain a TV reality show for more than a year or two, much less 14 — proof that Trump has both acting talent and entertainment savvy. It is easy to mock Trump’s hair and sprayed-on tan, but at 69 he seems healthier and more robust to the eye than many who are ten years younger. We forget his age: If he were elected in 2016, he would be the oldest president to be inaugurated and the first since Dwight Eisenhower (whose prior politics likewise were murky) to be elected to the presidency without having held political office before. The supposedly far more seasoned, and slightly younger, Hillary Clinton in comparison comes across as inept, crabby, sarcastic, and a decade older. In other words, in terms of the political assets of our wired age — money, media savvy, celebrity, showmanship, looks, and vigor — Trump is a fit for the times.

For a few weeks longer, Republicans can safely enjoy Trump even as pundits and politicos gnash their teeth in terror that his no-brakes locomotive has too much momentum to be sidetracked. But remember that, so far, the front-running Trump is not fearing an indictment, avoiding reporters, calling his political rivals terrorists, or evoking the Holocaust through references to boxcars — and the alternatives, like Rubio, Walker, Carson, Fiorina, and Kasich, are not socialists unregistered in the Republican party. Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Bob Dole are not waiting in the wings. So Trump can snort and rampage through the china shop, because much of the merchandise is still tottering on the shelf. In the Democrats’ case, the shards are already on the floor.

If Trump brings catharsis for the smoldering anger of the base, if the other candidates appropriate some of Trump’s slash-and-burn style but accompany it with a coherent agenda, if Trump gratuitously slurs yet another race/class/gender icon and confirms he is more a bully than a truth-teller, and if Hillary’s legal problems disappear, then Trump may go back to The Apprentice. But for a while longer that still seems a lot of ifs.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423325/what-makes-donald-run

GOP circulates loyalty pledge to box Trump in

The move is viewed as an attempt to force the front-runner’s hand after his refusal to rule out a third-party bid.

The GOP is taking its most aggressive step yet to force Donald Trump’s hand.

The Republican National Committee on Wednesday privately reached out to GOP presidential candidates to ask whether they’d be willing to sign a pledge stating they would not run as an independent candidate in the event they fail to win the Republican nomination in 2016.

The move is an implicit challenge to Trump, who pointedly refused to rule out a third-party run during the first GOP debate. He was the only candidate who declined.

The language of the draft pledge speaks directly to the issue vexing Republicans – the possibility that the billionaire could choose to wage a third party bid if he fails to win the GOP nomination, a prospect that could seriously damage the GOP’s prospects of reclaiming the White House. Tapping into deep anti-establishment animosity among the conservative grassroots, Trump has surged to the lead of the deepest presidential field in recent memory. If Trump were to pull just a fraction of the vote as an independent, write-in or third party candidate, it could be enough to sink the eventual Republican nominee.

“I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is,” the pledge reads. “I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.”

At least two campaigns reported Wednesday that they received a call from Katie Walsh, RNC chief of staff, asking if they would be willing to sign such a pledge.

An RNC spokeswoman, Allison Moore, declined to comment. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump and RNC chairman Reince Priebus are slated to meet in New York City on Thursday, a Trump spokeswoman confirmed. The two are also expected to appear at a press conference.

The relationship between the RNC and Trump has been fraught with tension since Trump joined the race this summer. Trump’s incendiary remarks about Mexicans and immigration have alarmed top Republicans who fear it will further alienate the fast-growing demographic and embarrass the party, leading Priebus to reach out to the billionaire in an attempt to convince him to tone down his rhetoric. But Trump turned the tables on Priebus and gave a contradictory account, insisting that the RNC chairman merely acknowledged that he had “hit a nerve” with the electorate.

Since then, with the billionaire mogul dominating the race for the party’s nomination, Republicans have taken a wary approach. Priebus virtually went dark on Trump following the real estate mogul’s pushback, declining to further fuel the discussion with public remarks. (Scheduled to make a post-debate appearance on CBS Face the Nation, Priebus abruptly pulled out after it became clear that the story of the weekend was Trump’s diatribe against Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.)

At first, the only candidates willing to confront Trump in a concerted fashion were those who did so out of a desperate need to remain relevant – the class of Trump antagonists largely consisted of the candidates struggling to make it into the Aug. 6 primetime debate. Since then, though, as rival campaigns became more convinced that Trump’s candidacy was more than a passing comet and destined to last through the early-voting states, more candidates have shown a willingness to criticize him.

In recent days, Jeb Bush has tangled frequently with Trump, responding to the businessman’s harsh attacks on him.

Other elements of the Republican Party have reckoned with Trump’s candidacy through ballot access requirements also designed to force Trump to play by party rules. GOP leaders in Virginia and North Carolina discussed implementing a new requirement for candidates to qualify for their primary ballots: that they pledge to support the Republican presidential nominee — and not run as a third-party candidate — in the general election.

Last week, the South Carolina Republican Party announced that candidates who want to qualify for the state’s primary ballot must sign a loyalty oath by Sept. 30. Candidates were asked to state that they “generally believe in and intend to support the nominees and platform of the Republican Party in the November 8, 2016 general election.”

Trump has said that he is still weighing whether to agree to the South Carolina pledge.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/republican-national-committee-2016-campaign-pledge-213283#ixzz3kdM7bWo2

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Murray Rothbard — Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Friends, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Video, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

murray_boardStrictly Confidential

Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard

Murray Rothbard is widely known for his vast literary output, but a great deal of his work has never been published until now. During the late 1950s and early 60s he worked for the William Volker Fund, one of the few organizations willing to fund classical liberal scholars at the time. In that capacity, he wrote memos and reviews that offer insights on history, economics, foreign policy, and political theory.

Rothbard’s view and understanding of world events was unique and prescient. Strictly Confidential is an illuminating commentary on the feisty early years of the libertarian movement, and the fledgling intellectual base that became the root of today’s libertarianism.

No one tells it like it is better than Rothbard.

http://mises.org/library/strictly-confidential-private-volker-fund-memos-murray-n-rothbardmurray rothbard keynesian

rothbardMurray_Rothbard

How Murray Rothbard Became a Libertarian

A prolific author and Austrian economist, Murray Rothbard promoted a form of free market anarchism he called “anarcho-capitalism.”

In this talk, given at the 1981 National Libertarian Party Convention, Rothbard tells the story of how he came to learn about economics and libertarianism as he grew up in the Bronx and attended Columbia University in the 1930s and 40s. He reminisces about meeting Frank Chodorov, Baldy Harper, George Stigler and Ludwig von Mises, and takes a number of audience questions.

The Future of Austrian Economics | Murray N. Rothbard

This is the famous speech by Murray Rothbard given in the days following the collapse of the Soviet empire. His exuberance is palpable has he explains the meaning of it all for the place of liberty in the history of civilization.
A brilliant scholar and passionate defender of Liberty, Professor Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) was dean of the Austrian School of economics, holder of the S.J. Hall Chair at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and Academic Vice President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

The author of 17 books and thousands of articles, the foremost Misesian economist, the father of modern freedom theory, and the most delightful personality in the profession, this great teacher here spellbinds an audience of students, faculty, and business leaders in the “Future of Austrian Economics,” at the 1990 Mises University at Stanford.

Only Austrian economics, Rothbard shows, can explain the collapse of socialism/communism and tell us what should replace it: laissez-faire capitalism. There is a lesson here as well, he shows, for dealing with the Leviathan in Washington, D.C.

The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard

Libertarianism | Murray N. Rothbard

Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement

Murray Rothbard – The Government Is Not Us

The Gold Standard Before the Civil War | Murray N. Rothbard

Rothbard on the ‘best’ US president

Keynes the Man: Hero or Villain? | Murray N. Rothbard

415. Murray Rothbard: Who He Was and Why He’s Important

Gene Epstein: Murray Rothbard’s Mixed Legacy

How Murray Rothbard Changed my Mind on War | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Murray Rothbard as Academic Role Model | Gary North

The Worldview of Murray Rothbard | Gerard Casey

Two Roads, One Truth | Gerard Casey

inflation

 

For A New Liberty For A New Liberty 2America's Great DepressionLThe Case Against The FedRothbard-MESstateMurray_Rothbard (1)

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul Must Once Again Make A Definitive Statement and Condemnation About 20 Year Old Newsletters–The Neoconservatives and Progressives Are Using Them As A Race Card Smear Attack On Paul–Videos

Posted on December 15, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

What Happens When Ron Paul Wins Iowa?

Ron Paul’s Secret Weapon: Us! Let’s Do This!

New polls show Ron Paul surging

The Rise of Ron Paul

Ron Paul’s Iowa Lead Downplayed

Black Man Breaks Down The Ron Paul Racist Smear

Salon Attack on Ron Paul Refuted

Ron Paul is in The Fight of His Life, We Must Stand With Him!-

“Ron Paul Leads in Iowa. How Can We Bring Him Down?”

What Ron Paul Thinks Of America

Ron Paul Walks out on CNN Interview (12-21-11)

Ron Paul on Old Newsletter Controversy (Part 1)

Ron Paul on Old Newsletter Controversy (Part 2)

“The Torpedoes Are Now in the Water for Ron Paul”

Is the GOP Establishment Scared of Ron Paul?

Is Ron Paul a Racist? 

Mark Levin – Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters In The 1990’s They’re Full Of Racist Statements

Did Sean Hannity Use The Race Card Or Report The News On Ron Paul During Interview With Karl Rove

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Judge Napolitano and Michael Scheuer Talk Popularity of Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy

RON PAUL AND TALK SHOW HISTORY

NAACP Austin branch pres talks about Ron Paul. info in about

Ron Paul Revealed – Tucker – Updated (see about section) 

Ron Paul’s Racist Quotes

Rants in Ron Paul newsletters

Lew Rockwell at Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic (part 1)

Lew Rockwell at Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic (part 2) 

Tom Woods (1 of 2) Ron Paul Rally For The Republic

Tom Woods (2 of 2) Ron Paul Rally For The Republic

New Ron Paul Ad Staying on the Right Path 

The Story Behind Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters

“…So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul’s Political Report, Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

        “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
        “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”
        After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”
        One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and who “seduced underage girls and boys.”

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as “Barbara Morondon,” the “archetypical half-educated victimologist.”

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It’s hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)

When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign, Paul explained that he didn’t actually write the newsletters but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Further, he didn’t know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn’t represent his views.

But it is still a serious issue. Jamie Kirchick reported in The New Republic that Paul made nearly one million dollars in just one year from publishing the newsletters. Could Paul really not understand the working of such a profitable operation? Reporters at the libertarian-leaning Reason magazine wrote that the author was likely longtime Paul-friend and combative polemicist Lew Rockwell.

Even though many of the newsletters are written in a first person, conversational style, many observers don’t believe that Ron Paul actually wrote them.

There aren’t any videos on YouTube with Paul speaking in incendiary terms about minorities. The newsletters don’t “sound” like Ron Paul — he doesn’t do wordplay like “Morondon” or use prefixes like “semi-criminal” or “half-educated” in his speech or his recent writings. Further, most newsletter and direct-mail operations in politics employ ghostwriters.


So why were Ron Paul or his ghostwriters engaged in racism and conspiracy theories? And why did Ron Paul allow this?

The Ron Paul Newsletters

By Jeffrey  Lord

“…o refresh, Reason magazine came out with a detailed piece on the Paul newsletters back in 2008. The piece was written by reporters Julian Sanchez and David Weigel.

The article was as disturbing as it was alarming.

Here, according to Reason, was a potential Republican nominee for president who had for whatever rationale acquiesced to having a newsletter sent out under his name that used the most vile of racist language. To wit, this from the May 22nd Dallas Morning News in 1996:

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

And this, from the Houston Chronicle on May 23, 1996:

…we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

And this from the Austin American-Statesman, also on May 23, 1996:

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.

Look.

One can, unfortunately, go on and on and on here with this story and various appalling quotes.

But since we are busy doing political proctology exams on all these candidates, and Congressman Paul has mostly escaped the examination, it’s past time for discussion and explanations. Were Ron Paul the GOP nominee the liberal media would pounce within micro seconds, so better that the questions come here and from Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and others on the conservative side. …”

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/15/the-ron-paul-newsletters

Get a clue. The New Republic is the progressive/liberal media.

Looks like another well timed attack from the progressive Democrats and Republicans and their neoconservative allies.

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Leave It To Beaver–Newt Gingrich–The Beaver Puppet of The Republican Washington D.C. Establishment Political Class With It Social Engineered Warfare and Welfare Economy with A $3,500 Billion Unbalanced Budget For Fiscal Year 2012 with Nearly $1,000 Billion In Deficit Spending!–Videos

Newt Gingrich Running For President As A Big Govenment Interventionist Republican Progressive aka Green “Compassionate” Conservative?–Favors Individual Health Care Mandates While Attacking Paul Ryan As A Right Wing Radical Social Engineer For Proposing A Premium Support or $15,000 Voucher System To Save Medicare From Bankruptcy!–Videos

Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Limited Government Libertarians vs.Big Government Conservative vs. Liberals of Democratic and Republican Parties–Videos

Posted on April 25, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Judge Napolitano on Freedom Watch Libertarians vs. “Big Government Party” Republicans, Democrats

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Is Bill Bennett A Classical Liberal, a.k.a. A Libertarian or A Neoconservative? His Listeners Would Like To Know.

Posted on July 14, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Revised and Updated December 23, 2014

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

~President Ronald Reagan

On Wednesday, July 14, I was listening to Bill Bennett’s talk show Morning In America, currently my favorite talk radio show.

http://www.billbennett.com/pages/meetourteam/

A caller was making a comment when Bill responded that he is a “classical liberal”  and had been one for a very long time.

This surprised me for I thought he and his executive producer, Seth Leibsohn, were neoconservatives.

The conservative movement has two major wings the traditionalists and the libertarians.

I would call or label my political philosophy or views traditionalist libertarian or classical liberal or conservative.

However like Hayek, my own preference is classical liberal.

This is especially the case when I am playing with American progressives and liberals who do not have a clue as to what I am talking about.

Both wings of the conservative movement may on occasion agree with the neoconservatives and even admire and respect their writings,  however many conservatives do not consider neoconservatives to be  either new or conservative and are insulted if you call them a neocon.

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

I fully supported President Bush’s response to the  Islamic religious fanatics’ terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, President Bush was simply too slow in changing the leadership and strategy of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars when they were not working.

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace

Barack Hussein Obama: Cavalier Commander-in-Chief vs. Thomas P.M. Barnett: Prescient Planner

The neoconservatives were largely responsible for the strategy for both the Afganistan and Iraq wars.

Many of Bill’s interviews with authors and experts  in the foreign policy area are identified or called, rightly or in some cases wrongly, a neoconservatives.

While I accept Bill’s answer, I still suspect he is closet neoconservative.

Your loyal audience would appreciate some amplification and clarity as to the category of your political philosophy.

UPDATE:

 Bill on July 18, 2010 in commenting upon a caller’s remark stated he was not a libertarian.

Most classical liberals and libertarians in America would equate the two.

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Apparently Bill is a neoconservative after all.

 I am not surprised.

Newsmakers Interview: Bill Bennett

William J. Bennett Promotes Conservative Principles

Who are the NeoConservatives?

Ron Paul Calls Out Neoconservatives By Name

The Neoconservative Agenda | John F. McManus

LewRockwell.com Podcast #28 – What is Neoconservatism?

Israeli Lobby corrupts congress and drags USA into wars

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt – The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby – John Mearsheimer

Pat Buchanan: “Bush and the neocons” to blame for Iraq crisis, not Obama

Neoconservatists – Who They Are and Their Powers in the Government ( Documentary )

The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 1 of 5

The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 2 of 5

The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 3 of 5

The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 4 of 5

The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 5 of 5

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative

SA@Takimag – Mark Levin Avoids the “Empire” Question

SA@Takimag – Axis of the Expendable: Frum vs. Limbaugh

SA@Takimag – Why Mark Levin Hates Glenn Beck

Victor Gold Speech pt1

Victor Gold Speech pt2

Victor Gold Speech pt3

Neo-cons: Invasion of the Party Snatchers Part 1

Neo-cons: Invasion of the Party Snatchers Part 2

Irving Kristol 1/6 – Father of Neoconservatism

Irving Kristol 2/6 – Father of Neoconservatism

Irving Kristol 3/6 – Father of Neoconservatism

Irving Kristol 4/6 – Father of Neoconservatism

Irving Kristol 5/6 – Father of Neoconservatism

Irving Kristol 6/6 – Father of Neoconservatism

Douglas Murray – Neoconservatism (1/3)

Douglas Murray – Neoconservatism (2/3)

Douglas Murray – Neoconservatism (3/3)

Rothbard on Neoconservatives

Rothbard on the Drug War

Rothbard on the ‘best’ US president

Rothbard on Ron Paul

 

The Current State of World Affairs | Murray N. Rothbard

 

“Neoconservatives are the boat people of the McGovern revolution.”

~Patrick J. Buchanan, Where the Right Went Wrong
 

Background Articles and Videos

The Repellent Neoconservatives

by Murray N. Rothbard

“…Once upon a time in America, there was a left and a right and a center, and within these clearly discernible segments of the ideological spectrum there were distinctly calibrated gradations. Everyone could find an ideological niche without much trouble, and knew pretty well where everyone else stood too. Everyone knew who were the good guys and bad guys, and the varying degrees of rectitude of the guys in between.

By now it is almost a cliché that the old ideological points of reference are no more; that left, right, and center cannot be identified even with a scorecard. One way of describing these changes is to say that left and right have been collapsing toward the center, that is, toward the locus of power. Interests of state have increasingly taken over, leading the “responsible” elements within each ideological group more and more to resemble one another.

We have reached the final pages of Orwell’s Animal Farm, in which the pigs, who had previously been the vanguard of the successful animal revolution against man, now walk erect and even live in the farmhouse, and “the creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from Pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” Specifically, it has become almost impossible to distinguish “responsible” National Review conservatism from right-wing social democracy or from neoconservatism, and even, in some respects, from left-liberalism or the democratic socialism of the Robert Heilbroner variety. …”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard231.html

A STRATEGY FOR THE RIGHT

By Murray N. Rothbard

“…So, to sum up: the problem is that the bad guys, the ruling classes, have gathered unto themselves the intellectual and media elites, who are able to bamboozle the masses into consenting to their rule, to indoctrinate them, as the Marxists would say, with “false consciousness.” What can we, the right-wing opposition, do about it?

One strategy, endemic to libertarians and classical liberals, is what we can call the “Hayekian” model, after F.A. Hayek, or what I have called “educationism.” Ideas, the model declares, are crucial, and ideas filter down a hierarchy, beginning with top philosophers, then seeping down to lesser philosophers, then academics, and finally to journalists and politicians, and then to the masses. The thing to do is to convert the top philosophers to the correct ideas, they will convert the lesser, and so on, in a kind of “trickle-down effect,” until, at last, the masses are converted and liberty has been achieved.

First, it should be noted that this trickle-down strategy is a very gentle and genteel one, relying on quiet mediation and persuasion in the austere corridors of intellectual cerebration. This strategy fits, by the way, with Hayek’s personality, for Hayek is not exactly known as an intellectual gut-fighter.

Of course, ideas and persuasion are important, but there are several fatal flaws in the Hayekian strategy. First, of course, the strategy at best will take several hundred years, and some of us are a bit more impatient than that. But time is by no means the only problem. Many people have noted, for example, mysterious blockages of the trickle. Thus, most real scientists have a very different view of such environmental questions as Alar than that of a few left-wing hysterics, and yet somehow it is always the same few hysterics that are exclusively quoted by the media. The same applies to the vexed problem of inheritance and IQ testing. So how come the media invariably skew the result, and pick and choose the few leftists in the field? Clearly, because the media, especially the respectable and influential media, begin, and continue, with a strong left-liberal bias.

More generally, the Hayekian trickle-down model overlooks a crucial point: that, and I hate to break this to you, intellectuals, academics and the media are not all motivated by truth alone. As we have seen, the intellectual classes may be part of the solution, but also they are a big part of the problem. For, as we have seen, the intellectuals are part of the ruling class, and their economic interests, as well as their interests in prestige, power and admiration, are wrapped up in the present welfare-warfare state system.

Therefore, in addition to converting intellectuals to the cause, the proper course for the right-wing opposition must necessarily be a strategy of boldness and confrontation, of dynamism and excitement, a strategy, in short, of rousing the masses from their slumber and exposing the arrogant elites that are ruling them, controlling them, taxing them, and ripping them off. …”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch1.html

 

The Irrepressible Rothbard

 

 

 
 
 
 

INVADE THE WORLD

 By  Murray Rothbard

“…When Communism and the Soviet Union collapsed several years ago, it seemed evident that a massive reevaluation of American foreign policy had to get under way. For the duration of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was simply a bipartisan interventionist crusade against the Soviet Union, and the only differences were precisely how far the global intervention should go.

But when the Soviet Union fell apart, a rethinking seemed absolutely necessary, since what could form the basis of U.S. policy now? But among the intellectual pundits and elites, the molders of U.S. and even world opinion, virtually no rethinking has occurred at all. Except for Pat Buchanan and us paleos, U.S. foreign policy had proceeded as usual, as if the Cold War collapse never happened. How? Buchanan and the “neo-isolationists” urged that American intervention be guided strictly by American national interest. But the liberal/neocon alliance, now tighter than ever before (now that Soviet Communism, which the neocons were harder on, has disappeared), pretended to agree, and then simply and cunningly redefined “national interest” to cover every ill, every grievance, under the sun. Is someone starving somewhere, however remote from our borders? That’s a problem for our national interest. Is someone or some group killing some other group anywhere in the world? That’s our national interest. Is some government not a “democracy” as defined by our liberal-neocon elites? That challenges our national interest. Is someone committing Hate Thought anywhere on the globe? That has to be solved in our national interest.

And so every grievance everywhere constitutes our national interest, and it becomes the obligation of good old Uncle Sam, as the Only Remaining Superpower and the world’s designated Mr. Fixit, to solve each and every one of these problems. For “we cannot stand idly by” while anyone anywhere starves, hits someone over the head, is undemocratic, or commits a Hate Crime.

It should be clear that there is now virtually no foreign policy distinction between the liberals and the neocons, the Tony Lewises and Bill Safires, Commentary and the Washington Post. Wherever the problem is, the liberal-neocon pundits and laptop bombardiers are all invariably whooping it up for U.S. intervention, for outright war, or for the slippery-slope favorite of “sanctions.” Sanctions, the step-by-step escalation of intervention, is a favorite policy of the warmongers. Calling for immediate bombing or invading of Country X as soon as a grievance starts would seem excessive and even nutty to most Americans, who don’t feel the same sense of deep commitment to the U.S.A. as Global Problem-Solver as do the pundits and elites. And sanctions can temporarily slake the thirst for belligerence. And so it’s sanctions: starving the villains, cutting off transportation, trade, confiscating their property in terms of financial assets, and finally, when that doesn’t work, bombing, sending troops, etc. Troops are usually sent first as purely “humanitarian” missionaries, to safeguard the “humane” aid of the UN “peacekeepers.” But in short order, the benighted natives, irrationally turning against all this help and altruism, begin shooting at their beloved helpers, and the fat is in the fire, and the U.S. must face the prospects of sending troops who are ordered to shoot to kill. …”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch34.html

Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism

by Justin Raimondo, April 29, 2004

“…The editors of National Review led a smear campaign against conservatives and libertarians who opposed the war, deeming them “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” and yet now these same people are repeating the arguments of Patrick J. Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, myself, adopting the paleoconservatives critique of “democratic” imperialism. Like Brooks, the National Review editorial makes some minor criticisms of the Bush policy as imperialism “on the cheap,” but the main problem, as far as they are concerned, is:

“An intellectual mistake made prior to the occupation: an underestimation in general of the difficulty of implanting democracy in alien soil, and an overestimation in particular of the sophistication of what is fundamentally still a tribal society and one devastated by decades of tyranny. This was largely, if not entirely, a Wilsonian mistake. The Wilsonian tendency has grown stronger in conservative foreign-policy thought in recent years, with both benefits (idealism should occupy an important place in American foreign policy, and almost always has) and drawbacks (as we have seen in Iraq, the world isn’t as malleable as some Wilsonians would have it).”

One can hardly find anything in this with which to disagree – except to note that one of the biggest and most energetic promoters of this mistaken Wilsonian tendency has been none other than National Review. What else is one to make of Michael Ledeen’s constant paeans to the glories of what he calls “creative destruction” in the Middle East, and countless articles in that magazine urging the extension of the war into Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and beyond? Wasn’t it Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, who infamously suggested the nuking of Mecca as a prelude to the occupation of Saudi Arabia. I suppose one could claim that the mindset of Lowry and his co-thinkers and fellow editors owes more to Dr. Strangelove than to Woodrow Wilson, but this hardly exculpatory. Second only to The Weekly Standard, none have been louder or more consistent in calling for war in the Middle East than National Review.

What is appalling is the utter dishonesty of their arguments: yesterday, Pat Buchanan was an “unpatriotic conservative” for making the very same arguments against the neoconservative’s democracy fetish as National Review now borrows and claims as its own. It was Buchanan, after all, who recently wrote:

“Bush’s world democratic revolution is Wilsonian imperialism, which contains an inherent and perhaps fatal contradiction. Imperialism means we decide the government a nation will have and how its foreign policy shall be oriented. Democracy means they decide. What do we do if we impose democracy on Iraq, and the Iraqis use their freedom to vote to throw us out and confront Israel and claim Kuwait as their long-lost province?”

Buchanan wrote that in the beginning of April, but he had been saying it long before the wisdom of the principle ever dawned on the editors of National Review. In 1999, he outlined what he called a “New Americanism”:

“We need a new foreign policy rooted neither in the Wilsonian Utopianism of the Democrat Party nor the Pax Americana of the Republican think tanks and little magazines, a policy that reflects the goodness and greatness of this Republic, but also an awareness that we were not put on this earth to lord it over other nations. The true third way is a New Americanism that puts America first, but ‘goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,’ that defends America’s freedom, frontiers, citizens, security, and vital interests, but harbors no desire to impose our vision on any other people.” …”

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2004/04/28/neoconservatism-versus-libertarianism/

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

Progressivism America’s Cancer–Videos

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Richard Ebeling–America’s New Road to Serfdom and the Continuing Relevance of Austrian Economics –Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Videos

Robert Higgs–Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Paul Krugman–Videos

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Government Stimulus: Repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr–How Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray N. Rothbard–Introduction to Economics: A Private Seminar–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Econ Talk With Thomas Sowell–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Market Economy–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Paul Krugman–Videos

Posted on November 23, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Homes, Immigration, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

 

The Return of Depression Economics

 

Paul Krugman on “The Return of Depression Economics?”

 

Authors@Google: Paul Krugman

Krugman: Fixing Long-Term Deficits Not Hard Economically, But Politically Impossible

 

Inside Look – How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong? – Bloomberg

Krugman & Matalin Go Head-to-Head on AC360 Over Right-Wing Hate

Paul Krugman – Lecture Swedish kvalitetsmässan och politikerdagarna – Video 1

Paul Krugman – Lecture Swedish kvalitetsmässan och politikerdagarna – Video 2

Paul Krugman: $300B Job summit -Fresh Dialogues interview

Paul Krugman says “I’d blame Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm”

Paul Krugman LRA Awards ’09 Pt 1

Paul Krugman LRA Awards ’09 Pt 2

All Your Decisions Are Belong to Us

News Hour – Dr. Paul Krugman & Diane Casey-Landry on new financial regulation

Paul Krugman Income Inequality and the Middle Class

News Hour – Paul Krugman & Donald Marron discuss Geithner’s plan, Part 1 of 2

News Hour – Paul Krugman & Donald Marron discuss Geithner’s plan, Part 2 of 2

Economic Expectations – New Toxic Asset Plan “Won’t Work” – Bloomberg

Krugman saddened by Obama economic moves-1/2

Clip of Tim Russert – Paul Krugman vs O’reilly

Paul Krugman: Getting out of the Financial Crisis

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Paul Krugman

“…Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /ˈkruːɡmən/;[3] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, liberal columnist and author. He is Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. He was voted sixth in Prospect Magazine’s 2005 global poll of the world’s top 100 intellectuals.[6]

The Nobel Prize Committee stated that Krugman’s main contribution had been to explain patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[7] Krugman’s work on international economics, including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance[8][9] has established him as one of the most influential economists in the world according to IDEAS/RePEc.[10] Krugman is also known in academia for his work on liquidity traps and on currency crises.

As of 2006, Krugman had written or edited more than 25 books, 40 scholarly articles and 750 columns at The New York Times dealing with current economic and political issues.[11] Krugman’s International Economics: Theory and Policy, co-authored with Maurice Obstfeld is a standard introductory textbook on international economics. He also writes on political and economic topics for the general public, as well as on topics ranging from income distribution to international economics. Krugman considers himself a liberal, calling one of his books and his New York Times blog: “The Conscience of a Liberal”.[12] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Krugman: ‘Right-wing billionaires…manufactured’ tea parties

Paul Krugman Part 1

Paul Krugman Part 2

Krugman on the US housing bubble

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920

A Recipe for the Next Great Depression

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Investors

Peter Schiff–Videos

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

 

Banking And The Federal Reserve System

The Coming Inflation and A New Money Supply Backed By Real Estate?–Free Enterprise To The Rescue?

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Banking–Videos

Creature from Jekyll Island: The Federal Reserve System–Videos

The Monopoly Men: The Federal Reserve Bank Cartel–Videos 

M3 Money Meteorite Moves–Deep Impact–The Coming Inflation Tidal Wave–Wage and Price Controls Will Signal Radical Socialist Obama’s Failure!

Bailouts and Deficit Spending

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Job Creating Businesses and CIT–Videos

The 12 Trillion–$12,000,000,000,000 Crime of The Century: The Decline and Fall of United States of America By Radical Socialist Spending–Look Before You Leap!

The Financial Crime of The Century: William K. Black On Massive Mortgage Fraud –Videos

Bailed Out Bank Trillion Dollar Derivative Exposure

The Mother of All Bailouts–2 to 3 Trillion Dollars–$2,000,000,000–$3,000,000,000!–Rewarding Greed, Arrogance and Stupidity–Pay for Play!

Federal Government Extortion Of Sound Banks–You Decide?–Take This TARP and Shove It!

Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

The Sovereign Wealth Fund Threat: Are Chinese Communists Behind Rush In Passing Bailout Bill?

Pelosi’s Porky Pigout Poison Package–Economy Wrecker and Job Destroyer–Have A Blue Christmas 2009!

Depressions and Recessions

Official Unemployment Rate Hits 10.2%–15,700,000 Unemployed American Citizens–Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.5%– 26,950,000 Americans Seeking Full Time Jobs–Obama Depression Worse Than Great Depression

The Great Depression–Videos

The Obama Depression Continues–Official Unemployment Hits Rate 9.8% (15,142,000 Seek Full Time Job) and Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.0% (26,181,000 Seek Full Time Job)!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

The Big Economic Picture–Some Perspectives–Videos

United States Economic Depressions–The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly–Obama’s Depression–Over 15,000,000 Americans Seek Full Time Job!

The Triumph of Capitalism and The Power of Consumer Sovereignty Over Massive Government Failure–Bankruptcy of General Motors–Now Government Motors! 

BO’s Raw Deal: Obama’s Two Year Recession and Two Year Hyperinflation–Hopeless & Small Change!

It Is Official–The U.S. Economy Has Been In A Recession for 11 Months and Continuing!

Recession–Recession–Recession–Scaring People–Have A Hot Dog!

Rush Limbaugh: Obama is Destroying the Economy!–Videos

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Limousine Liberal Lobbyist–Tom Daschle–Reaching Out to Take Money Out Of Your Wallet–Not His!

Posted on February 3, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Comedy, Economics, Employment, Investments, Links, Music, People, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

President Obama Stands Behind His Man--Tom Daschle--Limousine Liberal Lobbyist

President Obama Stands Behind His Man--Tom Daschle--Limousine Liberal Lobbyist

Limousine Liberal

 

Tom Daschle’s Tax Problem

 

 

Obama’s Goon Squad Glen Beck 2.2.09

Will President Obama be changing his tune for the Limousine Liberal Lobbyist, Tom Daschle, from Stand By Your Man to D-I-V-O-R-C-E?

Stay tuned.

 

STAND BY YOUR MAN TAMMY WYNETTE

 

Tammy Wynette – D-I-V-O-R-C-E

 

 

Looks like the theme song for this ethically challenged administration should be either:

Bad Boys 2 Song!

 

Barbra Streisand – People

Given former Senator Daschle’s past record of opposing President Bush’s qualified nominees with no issues, the Republican Senators should oppose Senator Daschle’s confirmation for his questionable integrity on taxes alone as well as his past record.

If the Republican Party and Senators fail to do so they will lose again the support of the conservative movement base.

Remember the Chicago way:

The Chicago Way

The conservative base is wathcing this one.

We want Senator Daschle confirmation opposed on Party lines.

We are watching.

Time for some steel.

Join the second American Revolution:

American People’s Plan = 3 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Wednesday, April 15, 2009!

 

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Senator Tom Daschle telling jokes

 

Tom Daschle

Thomas Andrew Daschle (born December 9, 1947) is a former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from South Dakota. He is a member of the Democratic Party. He is President Barack Obama‘s nominee to serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Obama’s Cabinet.[1]

On January 30, 2009, while his nomination for the position of HHS Secretary was still awaiting Senate confirmation, tax issues came to light involving income and the use of a limousine and chauffeur that Daschle failed to properly disclose on his income-tax statements for the years 2005 through 2007, as well as charitable contributions he improperly claimed as deductions.[2][3][4] Daschle reportedly paid back taxes and interest in the amount of $140,167 as a result.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daschle 

 

Tom Daschle’s Golden Rule

By Emily Yoffe

“…There was the day job at the law firm Alston & Bird that must have been blessedly free of the kind of dull legal minutiae that makes up many a billable hour, since Daschle is not a lawyer. That paid $2.1 million over the past two years. The consulting position at InterMedia Advisors, a private equity firm, paid him $1 million a year. A senior partner there told The Post that Daschle did “a lot of helpful work,” which he declined to enumerate. A stream of speeches to businesses that had business with the government earned Daschle $500,000 during the past two years. There were directorships on several boards — BP Corp. alone paid him $250,000. As practitioners of Bokononism, the religion created by Kurt Vonnegut in the book “Cat’s Cradle,” like to say when contemplating the complicated machinery of life: “Busy, busy, busy.”

So busy must Daschle have been dashing from one job to another — understandable to anyone who has to moonlight after the day shift ends — it must have merely seemed like a sensible efficiency to say yes when the founder of InterMedia put a Cadillac and a driver at his disposal. It’s easy to understand how natural such a gift must have seemed. At a farewell party in his honor after he left the Senate, The Post reports, Daschle told a joke about how on the way to the party both he and his wife got into the car and sat and sat until she said to him, “If this car is going to get us there, you better get in the driver’s seat.” Of the InterMedia-funded car and driver, Daschle’s spokeswoman told The Post that Daschle “naively” believed “it was nothing more than a generous offer from a friend.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/02/AR2009020201979.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 

 

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ”

By Michelle Malkin 

 

“…Who said it? Tom Daschle.

Who cares about Daschle’s tax-cheating hypocrisy?

Well, he’s “apologized.” So all can be forgiven now. Right?

Thomas A. Daschle, fighting to defend his nomination to be secretary of health and human services, released a letter early today apologizing to the top lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee for mistakes on his personal income tax returns that resulted in $146,000 in back payments.

“I am deeply embarrassed and disappointed by the errors that required me to amend my tax returns,” he wrote to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). “I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them.”

Well, hey, it worked for Geithner and it looks like it’s going to work for Holder. Screw up, say sorry, move up. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/02/%e2%80%9cmake-no-mistake-tax-cheaters-cheat-us-all-and-the-irs-should-enforce-our-laws-to-the-letter-%e2%80%9d/

 

Limousine Liberal

Limousine liberal (also latte liberal, limousine leftist, learjet liberal, lakefront liberal, Lexus liberal, MasterCard Marxist, parlor pink, white wine socialist or champagne socialist) is a pejorative North American political term used to illustrate perceived hypocrisy by a political liberal of upper class or upper middle class status, such as calling for the use of mass transit while frequently using private jets (ergo ‘learjet liberal’) [1] or claiming to be highly environmentally conscious but driving a gas-hungry SUV.

Democratic New York City mayoral hopeful Mario Procaccino coined the term to describe Republican Mayor John Lindsay and his wealthy Manhattan backers during a heated 1969 campaign. It was a populist epithet, carrying an implicit accusation that the people it described were insulated from all negative consequences of their programs intended to benefit the poor, and that the costs and consequences of such programs would be borne in the main by working class or lower middle class people who were not so poor as to be beneficiaries themselves. In particular, Procaccino criticized Lindsay for favoring unemployed blacks over working-class whites.[2]

One Procaccino campaign memo attacked “rich super-assimilated people who live on Fifth Avenue and maintain some choice mansions outside the city and have no feeling for the small middle class shopkeeper, home owner, etc. They preach the politics of confrontation and condone violent upheaval in society because they are not touched by it and are protected by their courtiers“.[3] The Independent later stated that “Lindsay came across as all style and no substance, a ‘limousine liberal’ who knew nothing of the concerns of the same ‘Silent Majority‘ that was carrying Richard Nixon to the White House at the very same time.”[4] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal
 

 

Lobbying

Lobbying is the practice of influencing decisions made by government. It includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents or organized groups.[1][2] A lobbyist is a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest or a member of a lobby.[3] Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying.[4][5][6] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

 

Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy

BY Charles Krauthammer

“…Leo and Al then portentously announced that for the first time ever, the Academy Awards ceremony had gone green. What did that mean? Solar panels in the designer gowns? It turns out that the Academy neutralized the evening’s “carbon footprint” by buying carbon credits. That means it sent money to a “carbon broker,” who promised, after taking his cut, to reduce carbon emissions somewhere on the planet equivalent to what the stars spewed into the atmosphere while flying in on their private planes.

In other words, the rich reduce their carbon output by not one ounce. But drawing on the hundreds of millions of net worth in the Kodak Theatre, they pull out lunch money to buy ecological indulgences. The last time the selling of pardons was prevalent–in a predecessor religion to environmentalism called Christianity–Martin Luther lost his temper and launched the Reformation. …”

 

“…The other form of carbon trading is to get Third World companies to cut their emissions to offset Western pollution. The reason this doesn’t work–and why the carbon racket is a farce–is that you need a cap for cap-and-trade to work. Sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S. were capped, and the trading system succeeded in reducing acid rain by half. But even the Kyoto treaty doesn’t put any cap on greenhouse gases in China and India, where billions of these carbon credits are traded. Sure, you can pretend you’re offsetting Western greenhouse pollution by supposedly cleaning up a dirty coal plant in China. But China is adding a new coal plant every week. You could build a particularly dirty “uncapped” power plant, then sell hundreds of millions in carbon credits to reduce it to a normal rate of pollution. The result? The polluter gets very rich. The planet continues to cook. And the Gores of the world can feel virtuous as they burn up the local power grid.

If Gore really wants to save the planet, he can try this: Turn off the lights. Ditch the heated pool. Ride the subway. And spare us the carbon-trading piety. ” 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599714,00.html 

 

Daschle Delayed Revealing Tax Glitch

“…Thomas A. Daschle waited nearly a month after being nominated to be secretary of health and human services before informing Barack Obama that he had not paid years of back taxes for the use of a car and driver provided by a wealthy New York investor.

Daschle, one of Obama’s earliest and most ardent campaign supporters, paid $140,000 to the U.S. Treasury on Jan. 2 and about two days later informed the White House and the Senate Finance Committee, according to an account provided by his spokeswoman and confirmed by the Obama administration.

Although Daschle had known since June 2008 that he needed to correct his tax returns, he never expected the amount to be such a “jaw-dropping” sum and “thought it was being taken care of” by his accountant, spokeswoman Jenny Backus said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said last night that Obama stands behind his friend and confidant. “The president believes nobody’s perfect but that nobody’s hiding anything,” Gibbs said.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013102021.html?hpid=topnews  

 

Senators Question Daschle’s Late $128K Tax Payment

“…Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he was surprised that Daschle had not paid his taxes properly but would not say whether he thought the nomination was in trouble. He said the committee will make a recommendation to the full Senate. “I think I’m going to just wait until they give me their opinion,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the problem could disqualify Daschle but that he wanted to learn more about the matter.

“It’s disheartening, obviously. People are struggling to pay taxes on a very small amount of income and he’s got this huge amount,” DeMint said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, also said the tax problem was a concern and needed more explaining, telling CNN’s “State of the Union” that it involved “an awful lot of money” but that she had not decided to vote against confirmation.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska called it “a tough issue” and said he was waiting to hear the results of the meeting between Daschle and the Finance Committee. …”

http://kdka.com/national/Jon.Kyl.Tom.2.923720.html

 

Obama stands by his man Daschle
By Michelle Malkin

“…Cue Tammy Wynette. President Obama is standing by his man, Tom Daschle. And why not? The Senate Republicans aren’t going to demand that he throw one of their dear old chums under the bus over a silly little “glitch.” Senatorial privilege has its perks. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/02/obama-stands-by-his-man-daschle/

 

Questions to Tom Daschle (#1)

 

Obama Selects Daschle for Cabinet Post

 

Daschle urges Americans to join grassroots reform

 

Charlie Rose Interview with Tom Daschle

 

Joe Biden: Wealthy Paying Higher Taxes Patriotic Thing To Do

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

A Common Honest Mistake: –Give Me A Break

American People’s Plan = 3 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Wednesday, April 15, 2009!

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...