Chris Matthew Sciabarra
I am way behind in my reading but finally had the opportunity to read Barry Gewen's interesting review essay from the NY Times Book Review (5 June 2005),"Forget the Founding Fathers." Gewen's focus is on"the constantly change narrative of American history" and the move toward"a globalized history of the United States." He discusses, among other books, Margaret MacMillan's Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, which I have not read. Though I don't agree with Gewen on many points, his comments on how"American idealism can go wrong" are worth repeating:
MacMillan's focus is on Woodrow Wilson at the end of World War I. A visionary, an evangelist, an inspiration, an earth-shaker, a holy fool, Wilson went to Paris in 1919 with grand ambitions: to hammer out a peace settlement and confront a wretched world with virtue, to reconfigure international relations and reform mankind itself. Freedom and democracy were ''American principles,'' he proclaimed. ''And they are also the principles and policies of forward-looking men and women everywhere, of every modern nation, of every enlightened community. They are the principles of mankind and they must prevail.'' Other leaders were less sure. David Lloyd George, the British prime minister, liked Wilson's sincerity and straightforwardness, but also found him obstinate and vain. France's prime minister, the acerbic and unsentimental Georges Clemenceau, said that talking to him was ''something like talking to Jesus Christ.'' (He didn't mean that as a compliment.)
As a committed American democrat, Wilson affirmed his belief in the principle of self-determination for all peoples, but in Paris his convictions collided with reality. Eastern Europe was ''an ethnic jumble,'' the Middle East a ''myriad of tribes,'' with peoples and animosities so intermingled they could never be untangled into coherent polities. In the Balkans, leaders were all for self-determination, except when it applied to others. The conflicting parties couldn't even agree on basic facts, making neutral mediation impossible. Ultimately, the unbending Wilson compromised—on Germany, China, Africa and the South Pacific. He yielded to the force majeure of Turks and Italians. In the end, he left behind him a volcano of dashed expectations and festering resentments. MacMillan's book is a detailed and painful record of his failure, and of how we continue to live with his troublesome legacy in the Balkans, the Middle East and elsewhere.
Yet the idealists—nationalists and internationalists alike—do not lack for responses. Wilsonianism, they might point out, has not been discredited. It always arises from its own ashes; it has even become the guiding philosophy of the present administration. Give George W. Bush key passages from Wilson's speeches to read, and few would recognize that almost a century had passed. Nor should this surprise us. For while the skeptics can provide realism, they can't provide hope. As MacMillan says, the Treaty of Versailles, particularly the League of Nations, was ''a bet placed on the future.'' Who, looking back over the rubble, would have wanted to bet on the past?
Little has changed in our new century. Without the dreams of the idealists, all that is on offer is more of the same—more hatred, more bloodshed, more war, and eventually, now, nuclear war. Anti-Wilsonian skeptics tend to be pessimistic about the wisdom of embarking on moral crusades but, paradoxically, it is the idealists, the hopeful ones, who, in fact, should be painting in Stygian black. They are the ones who should be reminding us that for most of the world, history is not the benign story of inexorable progress Americans like to believe in. Rather, it's a record of unjustified suffering, irreparable loss, tragedy without catharsis. It's a gorgon: stare at it too long and it turns you to stone.
Take a look at the whole review essay here.
Cross-posted to Notablog.
Mark Brady
If true, is this a good or bad thing? And would the world now be a better or worse place if Iraq had had enough nuclear bombs to defend against a US attack in March 2003?
William Marina
Harvard Magazine, June, 354th Anniversary Phi Beta Kappa Oration, June 7, 2005
“Iraq,” by John Deutch, Institute Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and former Director of Central Intelligence (1995-1996) and Deputy Secretary of Defense (1994-1995)
I am pleased to have been asked to be this year’s Harvard Phi Beta Kappa Orator. Let me begin by saluting the new members of Phi Beta Kappa. Achievement in scholarship is important for its own sake and because of its value to an individual’s future professional development and personal enjoyment. I envy your energy and especially your youth. Your education enables you to make a significant contribution to our society; do not fail to do so.
I have chosen to discuss Iraq in part because there are over 150,000 Americans serving there in the military, as well as U.S. civilians: government officials, and supporting contractors. Every week between one and two dozen of these individuals are killed or gravely injured and our presence is costing taxpayers about $1 billion per week. It is far from clear that we are making significant progress on our political and security objectives in Iraq, or that our continued presence is serving our country’s interests in the region or in the rest of the world, or that our presences is helping the people of Iraq. But there is no indication of a timetable for withdrawal. How did we get into this mess and what should we do now? I bring to this discussion my experience as a policymaker in the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the intelligence community.
In the decade following the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein remained a source of instability in the region, was judged to possess usable chemical and biological weapons, and continued to oppress the Iraqi people. Despite recent efforts to rewrite history, Saddam was not an active sponsor of terrorist groups around the world, but he did not hesitate to have his enemies assassinated overseas.
In Clinton’s second term, the replacement of Saddam became declared U.S. policy, but with no agreed path to achieve this end. It was only after the attacks of 9-11, in the first George W. Bush administration, that the United States decided that the time had come to go to war to replace Saddam. While there was justification for seeking to replace the Saddam regime, the reasons why the Bush administration chose March 2003 for armed intervention remain somewhat obscure. At the time, the compelling reason that garnered much public and overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate was Saddam’s capability for the “imminent use of weapons of mass destruction.” It turned out that Saddam did not possess stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons that the CIA and the intelligence services of other governments believed to be present.
It may be that the Bush administration was only using an argument, as all administrations do, to convince Congress to approve a desired and already decided action. I accept that the Bush administration believed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, but I do not believe this was the moving reason for the timing of the administration’s decision to intervene. I believe the deeper reason is the one I take issue with today: the administration conviction that U.S. military intervention to topple Saddam would result in a near spontaneous conversion of Iraq, and with luck, the entire Middle East, to a democratic society.
There was never any doubt that the United States, because of its military strength, would rapidly defeat the Iraqi army, but it was completely predictable that, under the circumstances prevailing on the ground, a rapid transition to a stable and secure coalition government would not occur. First, there were no credible individuals or a nascent government in exile with the necessary stature or legitimacy to effect a smooth transition. Second, once the decision was taken to disband the Iraqi army, an impossible security situation was created: a combination of hostile ethnic factions, demobilized armed military and security units, and surrounding nations actively supporting warring factions. An aggressive insurgency against both U.S. occupation forces and any provisional government was inevitable. Third, the nations surrounding Iraq – Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran – which have vital stakes in the region, have no common understanding of how a successor government would share power among Kurds, Shiites, and Sunni. This uncertainty motivates the neighboring states to meddle in the internal affairs of Iraq. Such a security situation cannot be overcome easily by either U.S. military forces or immature Iraqi security forces.
It is folly to engage in a distant part of the world without first building significant support in the affected region. In this regard, consider the difference in the way President George H.W. Bush entered Iraq in 1991 and the way President George W. Bush intervened in Iraq in 1993. Bush “41” entered with the support of a substantial local coalition including Kuwaiti, Saudi, and others paying the greater part of the cost, while Bush “43” entered in 2003 with little support in the region. There was much wisdom behind the still often maligned decision of President George H.W. Bush in first Gulf War not to proceed to Baghdad to topple Saddam: the countries in the neighborhood had no common view about a successor regime, although they all despised Saddam; there was no credible Iraqi leader or group ready to assist in a transition; and, most importantly, there was no way of knowing how or when American troops would get out of Baghdad.
It is always preferable for the United States to have the support of the United Nations and our European allies before intervening somewhere in the world. But, in the case of Iraq, the absence of international support was much less important than the absence of support of the countries in the region. On this separate matter, there is debate about whether United States intervention in a foreign country is legitimate without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council. A U.N. process that sanctions intervention by no means assures that the chance of error will be avoided or even significantly reduced. So I do not believe the Iraq experience is evidence that the United States should forgo its sovereign discretion to decide on when to intervene until it has the approval of the United Nations or any other international body.
***********
The intelligence community mistake in predicting that Iraq still possessed a chemical and biological weapons inventory after the destruction of stock and weapons that occurred at the end of the 1991 Gulf War and through the actions of U.N. weapons inspections deserves comment. The estimate of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction inventory was a major reason for congressional support of the intervention, especially among Senate Democrats. The mistaken estimate has caused widespread cynicism about the administration’s willingness to misuse intelligence information to achieve a desired political outcome. The failure creates doubt that U.S. leaders have accurate information on which to base their decisions. Both inside and outside the United States, official statements about our estimates of North Korean and Iranian nuclear capability will understandably be viewed more skeptically, indeed rightfully so.
The combination of this mistaken estimate of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction capability with the failure to predict the 9-11 al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington led to an understandable public and congressional call for a reorganization of the intelligence community. No one should imagine that the deficiencies in intelligence responsible for these two failures could be remedied entirely, or even primarily, by reorganization. A good deal of the responsibility for the mistakes should be placed on poor professional performance, especially with regard to intelligence analysis and sharing of information between agencies.
After several commissions and much debate, Congress passed the 2004 intelligence-reform legislation intended to remedy the deficiencies that led to the intelligence failures of 9-11 and the estimates of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. However the legislation contains many ambiguities that will take considerable time to work out. The situation is reminiscent of the history of the creation of a strong secretary of defense. The 1947 legislation created a defense establishment, but the position of secretary of defense was not created until 1949, and the secretary’s authority was not clearly defined until 1958. It took 10 years before authority and responsibility were relatively clearly defined. I fear that during the lengthy period of time that may be required to resolve the ambiguities in responsibility and authority, many critical intelligence functions will suffer. Worse yet, there is no assurance that the new system will perform any better than the old.
***********
Beyond the current situation in Iraq and the deficiencies of U.S. intelligence, I want to address a more fundamental question: What does our involvement in Iraq say about how the United States forms its goals for its foreign policy and the criteria for use of military force?
It seems evident to me that our foreign policy should be guided by two principles: first, to advance our country’s security and political interests, and second to encourage prosperity and responsive government for people around the world. It may be that with our encouragement and example, other nations will choose to adopt democracy and a market economy, presumably adapted to their local culture and society. Clearly, at the end of the Cold War, every Eastern European nation made this choice. But, it may be that some nations will follow a vastly different road for some period of time, perhaps indefinitely. China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea come to mind as examples.
It may be that ethnic differences, poverty, and historical and religious traditions make a reasoned choice not a realistic possibility, at least for some years. Our nation embarks on a especially perilous course when it proactively engages in some region of the world with the intention of achieving an outcome of establishing a government based on our values. It is one matter to adopt a foreign policy that encourages democratic values and institutions in other parts of the world; it is quite another matter to believe it just or practical to achieve such results on the ground with U.S. military forces. This is true whether our involvement is alone, as is largely the case in Iraq, or as part of an international coalition.
The notion of intervening in foreign countries with the purpose of building a society that conforms to our preference is not exclusively a Republican or conservative failing. The corresponding Democratic or liberal failing is the view that this nation has a duty to intervene in foreign countries that egregiously violate human rights and a responsibility to oppose and, where possible, remove totalitarian heads of state. This Democratic rhetoric quickly moves from “peacekeeping” in a country torn by strife to “peacemaking” and “nation building.”
The Clinton administration’s intervention in Bosnia is an example of just such a failing: from an initial laudable objective of stopping the Serbian “ethnic cleansing” of Bosnians to a fantastical goal of creating a “multi-ethnic” society with peaceful coexistence among three groups – Bosnian Muslims, Croats, and Serbs – that have a history of enmity.
Whether the offered justification is “democratization” or “humanitarian,” our country has become willing to embark on foreign involvements that go beyond the traditional foreign policy goals of encouraging peace and advancing our interests to a much more ambitious purpose of intervention to change the societies of other countries. I believe this is a major mistake for U.S. foreign policy, and I believe Iraq is a vivid example of why.
Let me be clear that I am not opposed to intervention for the purpose of saving lives that are in immediate danger. For example, the decision of the United States not to intervene early to prevent mass murder in Rwanda certainly marks a major failure of American foreign policy. I am opposed to intervention that has as its driving purpose replacing despotic regimes with systems of government that resemble our own. It is not that I believe the purpose is unworthy, but rather that I believe it is naïve and impractical. Basic values can differ and we should respect and tolerate these differences rather than seek, by force, to change them to conform to our own.
***********
The policy instruments that we have and are willing to deploy to achieve nation building are not up to the task. Broadly speaking, we have three types of instruments: diplomacy, trade and economic assistance, and military force. Diplomacy is useful for aligning interests and creating circumstances that encourage evolutionary change toward common ends. Trade and economic assistance are powerful incentives for nations to adapt their ways in order to enjoy better economic benefits. Even the dark North Korean state saw the advantages, for a period of time, of constraining their nuclear weapons activities for the economic benefits that accompanied the 1994 “framework agreement.” Libya, more recently, retreated from its policy of secret pursuit of weapons of mass destruction apparently based on the sole expectation of economic benefit. The change in the apartheid regime in South Africa shows what sometimes can be done by collective economic action through an embargo. We should be more willing to use our considerable economic strength, combined with diplomatic efforts, to proffer carrots as well as sticks to nations whose behavior we seek to influence. This means spending more on foreign aid and other forms of economic assistance.
What about using the military as an instrument of change? Well, the answer to this question is simple, but many people don’t seem to like it: The U.S. military, which is the best in the world, is built to fight and win wars, not to police, build civic infrastructure, or reshape governments. We can ask the marines to defeat Republican Guard divisions or destroy Fallujah, but, as now constituted, it is not part of their mission, capability, or training to maintain local security, broker political alliances, and run local water systems, hospitals, power plants, and schools.
When asked to do civic action, marines and Army Special Forces Units do admirably – Haiti and Afghanistan are examples – at working constructively with the local community, as an occupation or peacekeeping force. But, in general, we train and equip our military forces to fight, not to occupy. It is a mistake to ask the Department of Defense and joint military commands to perform the nation-building functions that are required to carry out our political objectives in Iraq or Bosnia.
We can imagine reshaping our military to have more capability for the activities that the Pentagon euphemistically calls “stability and security” operations. But such a reshaping will come at a cost — both in potentially compromising the war-fighting capability of our military forces and in resources needed to support the civic action that underlies nation building. If political change is unlikely to work, it seems both expensive and foolhardy to reshape our military in a major way for this purpose.
**********
This leaves the question of what should be done today. There is a widespread view that we have a responsibility to stay in Iraq until certain minimum conditions are achieved: some degree of security for the Iraqi people, a reasonable start on stable and representative self-government, and partial reconstruction of the civilian infrastructure. Any thought of prompt withdrawal is considered unthinkable by most Republicans and Democrats, because it is difficult to envision an early withdrawal that leaves a peaceful Iraq in its wake. A withdrawal followed by a violent collapse of the nascent Iraqi regime would signal failure of our Iraqi policy and possibly invite further unrest in the region. So the expectation is that the United States will be in Iraq for several years, perhaps in a somewhat reduced presence, spending considerable money and lives, working to achieve the minimum objectives mentioned above.
The reasonableness of this approach depends on a judgment on how much progress is being made on achieving the conditions required for withdrawal. However, there are two additional important factors to consider: first, how much are United States interests in the region and in the Arab world generally being harmed by our continued presence in Iraq; and second, how much does the United States presence in Iraq reduce our ability to deal with other important security challenges, notably North Korea, Iran, and combating international terrorism? Those who argue that we should “stay the course” and believe that early withdrawal will affect our credibility in the region must consider the possibility that the United States will fail in its objectives in Iraq and suffer even greater loss of credibility at the time of a later withdrawal.
I believe that we are not making progress on our key objectives in Iraq. There may be days when security seems somewhat improved and when the Iraqi government appears to be functioning better, but the underlying destabilizing forces of a robust insurgency and warring factions supported by outside governments are undiminished.
So my judgment is that the United States should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible, say by the end of the year. In January, Senator Edward M. Kennedy suggested five measures that I believe are a sensible start to achieving a successful withdrawal: (1) progressive political disengagement by the United States, with Iraqis making more of their own decisions; (2) adoption of a clear exit strategy and a timetable for withdrawal; (3) beginning to withdraw military forces; (4) conducting regional diplomacy with Iraq’s neighbors and the Arab League to discourage external intervention in Iraq; and (5) continued training of Iraqi security forces.
Such measures cannot guarantee a secure and democratic Iraq free of external domination. But they are first steps toward adopting a posture that will permit the United States to pursue successfully its long-term interests in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.
John Quincy Adams, a former Harvard Phi Beta Kappa orator, said it well in 1821:
“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.…The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.…She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
Keith Halderman
However, money is not Dr. Friedman's most important concern. The piece quotes him as saying, "Look at the factual consequences: The harm done and the corruption created by these laws...the costs are one of the lesser evils." Yesterday, when the Supreme Court handed down it decision in Gonzales v. Raich we found out exactly what Milton Friedman was talking about, As Justice Thomas put it in his dissent, If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy Orin Kerr has a post in which he argues that the decision giving the federal government the power to imprison medical marijuana users in jurisdictions where they are protected by state law will have little real world impact. Whether he is correct or not remains to be seen, but, what about the millions of people who will lose opportunity or have their lives disrupted, sometimes severely, by an ever intrusive Federal Government greatly encouraged by this ruling?
And, if anyone does not believe that Gonzales v. Raich is part of the price we pay for our war on people who use certain kinds of drugs, then ask yourself this if the issue had been anything other than marijuana would a Supreme Court trending towards a restoration of state's rights have acted in the same manner?
Aeon J. Skoble
David T. Beito
John Watson, who teaches journalism ethics and communications law at American, has noticed another phenomenon: Many students, he says, believe that simply working hard -- though not necessarily doing excellent work -- entitles them to an A."I can't tell you how many times I've heard a student dispute a grade, not on the basis of in-class performance," says Watson,"but on the basis of how hard they tried. I appreciate the effort, and it always produces positive results, but not always the exact results the student wants. We all have different levels of talent." I too have encountered students of this type, more times than I can count. I share Shepard's anger about the popular"labor theory of value" used to justify higher grades. Let's always remember, however, that the root of the problem lies elsewhere. The administrators have repeatedly proven to the main force behind grade inflation on campus. Their motivations are far more insidious than those of the students. The students just want good grades but the administrators want to dumb down standards as a means to increase their power and budgets, via a higher student body count.
The worst offenders are faculty members who, instead of fighting the good fight to uphold standards, shrug their shoulders and let the administrators get away with it.
Mark Brady
Even if you don’t find the question of same-sex unions in Christian history interesting, you may be surprised how fascinating you find Davidson’s account of Bray’s scholarship. And if you’re aware of the work of John Boswell but rather skeptical of some of his conclusions, you may decide that Bray’s approach is more persuasive than Boswell’s.
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
In any event, I decided to say a bit more about this topic at Notablog. In part, I write:
I have long held that there is a distinction between"intended" and"unintended" consequences, not only in a social context, but in a textual sense as well. (The study of the unintended consequences of a text has long been a focus of those trained in the methodology of"hermeneutics," which began in the realm of Biblical interpretation and scholarship.) No author can possibly know all the interpretations and misinterpretations, applications and implications, that might result from his/her writing—given that the context of knowledge changes and that different people coming from different perspectives will engage that writing differently. This does not mean that"objectivity" is impossible in the assessment of a given work. It just means that as analysts, we need to be very careful to distinguish between original intent and unintended consequences (be they good or bad). It also means that we are probably doomed to argue eternally about the legacy of any given writer.
Readers are invited to take a look at the whole post here. Comments welcome.
David T. Beito
As the Liberty and Power/Cliopatria debate rages about the ten most harmful books in the twentieth century, it might be a good opportunity to consider the ten most harmful presidents.
Few presidents in American history better deserve that title than Franklin D. Roosevelt. His record in undermining civil liberties and economic well-being was unparalleled. His NRA threw people in jail for charging lower prices during a time of economic deprivation, and his AAA drove thousands of poor blacks from their land. He tried to pack the Supreme Court because it dared to question his policies. He did nothing to stop, and much to institutionalize, Jim Crow, lynching, and disfranchisement, interned tens of thousands of law-abiding American citizens merely because of race, and unleashed a "Brown Scare" against his critics.
Today marks the anniversary on of the one of the darkest episodes in Roosevelt's administration. On June 6, 1939, the S.S. St. Louis , carrying over 900 Jewish refugees, set sail back
for Europe after Roosevelt not only turned down their pleas for sanctuary (he could have granted it with an executive order) but his underlings ordered the Coast Guard to prevent the ship from landing. It returned to Europe where many of the passengers eventually perished in the Holocaust.
Steven Horwitz
What struck me in this piece was the wisdom of a local pastor:
"It wasn't until creationism was ousted from public schools that intelligent design was brought in," said Mark Jennings, a Gull Lake Community Schools parent and pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Richland."I've always thought the school should leave teaching about God to the church and we'll leave science to the schools."Indeed. At the risk of invoking a libertarian cliche, it remains worth noting that controversies like this are the near-inevitable result of taxpayer-funded school systems. Often times the separation of Church and State can be accomplished quite effectively by the separation of School and State.
Radley Balko
It's on the DEA's relentless pursuit of physicians who prescribe opioid painkillers -- OxyContin, for example.
The DEA's aggressive tactics have essentially condemned millions of Americans to suffer, despite the fact that we know there are treatments for them that work.
A couple of months ago, I wrote an op-ed about this issue. My piece provoked a response from DEA director Karen Tandy. Tandy's response was so fraught with duplicity and misdirection, I took it apart line by line on my website. The exchange is a fine example of just how manipulative this agency can be.
The Raich decision could come down today, too. And though the length of time it's taken the Supreme Court to reach a decision offers a small bit of promise (meaning there's at least been some debate on the case), the tone and direction of the questioning from the justices as the case was being argued doesn't bode well for liberty.
The breadth and depth of America's anti-drug hysteria is difficult to fathom sometimes. We have cops and politicians dictating medical treatment. And we're fully prepared to force people in pain to suffer, and sick people to die, if it means we can stop a small number of people from using certain drugs for non-medical reasons.
It's a pretty shameful reflection on our values and priorities.
Aeon J. Skoble
UPDATE: dissenting Justice Thomas sums it up pretty well thus:"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." His dissent is here, and Solum has links to everything as well as good analysis.
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Cliopatria HNN'er, Ralph E. Luker, gives us a list of the"Ten Most Harmful Books." I have to admit that I've got a real problem with the whole category of"harmful books," not because I believe that no book can do harm, but more because I think"harmful" comes with a stigma attached to it ... that perhaps such books should not be read. But it is the books that are most"harmful" that often require the most study.
Some of Luker's books are predictable: Hitler's Mein Kampf, Lenin's What Is To Be Done?, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and so forth. But on that list, Luker mentions Ayn Rand's two mega-novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Jonathan Rees chimes in and thanks Luker for including Rand on that list, since her books offer"a philosophical excuse for extraordinary selfishness."
Rand's work has been an inspiration to people of all different walks of life, including individualist feminists, libertarians, conservatives, and even a few liberals, those who see in architect Howard Roark, protagonist of The Fountainhead, an exemplary model of artistic integrity, self-esteem, and authenticity. These same liberals may not like Rand's advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism, but not even they would suggest that those who have emulated Roark will be predisposed to go out and blow up public housing projects.
To be fair, I personally know a few people who were deeply harmed by some of the more" cult-like" aspects of the Objectivist movement, and by some of the brutal comments that Rand made on such subjects as homosexuality. I'm not in any way belittling the real hurt and damage that some have experienced in that context.
But all this is a far cry from the mass murder of the Nazis, Soviets, and Maoists. If the most significant policy-maker to come out of the Randian movement is Alan Greenspan---who, himself, has departed fundamentally from his earlier Randian views in favor of the abolition of the Fed ... can't we have a sense of proportion here?
Even poor Herbert Spencer, whose Evolution of Society [ed: I was wondering about that title] also makes Luker's list, wasn't the"Social Darwinist" his critics make him out to be. Roderick Long, where are you?
Mr. Luker, at the very least, couldn't you provide us with the reasoning behind your list? Right now, I find it unreasonable. For this Rand-influenced libertarian scholar, I find it obscene, quite frankly.
Cross-posted to Notablog.
David T. Beito
Samuel B. Fuller’s name is not likely to ring a bell either for readers of Liberty and Power or scholars of black history. This is unfortunate on both counts. Fuller’s life was a remarkable illustration of business success and self-help. His company gave inspiration and training to countless aspiring entrepreneurs and other future leaders. His all-out philosophical defense of free markets would have pleased, the hard to please, Ayn Rand.
Fuller was born into rural poverty in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana in 1905. From an early age, he gained a reputation for reliability and resourcefulness. After coming to Chicago in 1920, he worked in a wide range of menial jobs, eventually rising up to become manager of a coal yard. Although he had a secure job during the depression, he struck out on his own preferring “freedom” to “security.” Starting with twenty-five dollars, he founded Fuller Products in 1934. Eventually, it manufactured and sold such diverse commodities as deodorant, hair care, hosiery, and men’s suits. He also published several newspapers including The New York Age and The Pittsburgh Courier.
Fuller was a leading black Republican although he always had an independent streak. He promoted civil rights and briefly headed the Chicago South Side NAACP. Along with black Birmingham businessman, A.G. Gaston, he tried to organize a cooperative effort to purchase the segregated bus company during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. He told Martin Luther King Jr., “The bus company is losing money and willing to sell. We should buy it.” King was skeptical of the idea, and not enough blacks came forward to raise the money. Despite his belief in civil rights, however, Fuller’s emphasis was always on the need for blacks to go into business. In 1958, he blasted the federal government for undermining free enterprise and fostering socialism. He feared that it was “doing the same thing today as was done in the days of Caesar--destroying incentive and initiative.” He argued that wherever “there is capitalism there is freedom.”
By the 1950s, he was probably the richest black man in the United States. His cosmetics company had $18 million in sales and a sales force of five thousand (one third of them white). It gave training to many future entrepreneurs and other leaders. He had little patience for race baiters, black or white. “It doesn’t make any difference,” he declared, “about the color of an individual’s skin. No one cares whether a cow is black, red, yellow, or brown. They want to know how much milk it can produce.”
Fuller Products suffered severe reverses after a controversial speech to the National Association of Manufacturers in 1963 in which charged that too many blacks were using their lack of civil rights as an excuse for failure. Many of his comments were reported out of context. Major national black leaders reacted angrily and called for a boycott of Fuller Products. Racists in the South piled on by putting pressure on whites to boycott his products or quit selling for him. Although Fuller Products filed for bankruptcy in 1969, he concentrated with some success on the hard task of rebuilding the company during the 1970s and 1980s. He died in 1988.
Professional historians have pretty much ignored Fuller’s life. The best source is a richly illustrated biography by his daughter, Mary Fuller Casey, S.B. Fuller: Pioneer in Black Economic Development.
Fuller Products is now owned by Dudley Products, Inc. ADDENDUM: This is a good time to mention that L and P is proud to add Booker Rising to the blog roll. It is a group blog of black conservatives and moderates and includes a valuable and detailed compilation of business and social statistics of black life in the left column. Another new blog on the roll is a very popular one run by John Cole, a thoughtul and independent thinking conservative.
Roderick T. Long
I just got back from a delightful week in Paris, city of many of my philosophic heroes -- Abélard, Aquinas, Voltaire, Bastiat, Proudhon, Bellegarrigue, Hugo, Sartre, Foucault. (Okay, so I'm eclectic.) This trip was much more successful than my previous trip (since on my previous trip, in 2003, I was mugged on the first day and so for the rest of the week had very little money for food or museums -- though that trip was nevertheless delightful on balance as well).
Once again I stayed in my favourite neighborhood, on the border between the 5th and 6th arrondissements. This time I saw the Louvre, the Musée d’Orsay, the Panthéon, Sainte-Chapelle, the Eiffel Tower, the Marais, the Arab Institute, and Versailles. (With apologies to my colleague Hans Hoppe, the arrogant, tacky, and grotesque extravagance of Versailles does little to inspire confidence in monarchy as a curb on time-preference.) I also revisited Notre-Dame, the Jardin des Plantes, the Lutetian Arena, the Rue Mouffetard, and the Musée Cluny (where Isabel Paterson used to sit in the garden); took a bateau up and down the Seine; and enjoyed the two absolutely most delicious desserts I have ever tasted: an apricot chocolate crêpe, called a"Lorraine," at La Crêpe Carrée (42 Rue Monge), and a grapefruit sorbet at Berthillon (31 Rue St.-Louis-en-l'Île). In addition, I found a bookstore near the University (Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 6 Place de la Sorbonne) that carries nothing but philosophy books -- both new and used, both French and English (I was pleased to see my friend Dave Schmidtz's Nozick anthology on the shelf). Didn't get to the Champs-Elysées, Arc du Triomphe, Montmartre, or Jardin de Luxembourg this time, but I did those two years ago. (Unfortunately still haven't gotten to the Opéra Garnier, despite my enthusiasm for its most famous inhabitant.)
One of my favourite visits was to the elaborate and haunting Père Lachaise cemetery (take an online tour here) to visit the grave of Gustave de Molinari, founder of market anarchism. Molinari's grave isn't on the official maps, but thanks to Hervé de Quengo's website I knew that it was right next to that of another hero of French liberalism, Benjamin Constant; and Constant is on the maps -- on the Chemin du Dragon, where divisions 27, 28, and 29 come together: see the red circle. (Jean-Baptiste Say's grave, which is also -- scandalously -- not on the official maps, is supposed to be"some ten meters away," but alas, I couldn't find it.) In retrospect I should have bought flowers to lay on Molinari's grave (there are flower shops near the cemetery entrance for such purpose) -- well, next time.
While I long to be still strolling along the Seine, browsing the bouquinistes, or sipping Lavazza at a sidewalk café, I guess I'd better turn my thoughts to the many tasks awaiting me this summer. Au revoir, Paris.
David T. Beito
And when you think they [Iraqis] aren't going to make it -- when you want to criticize what they're doing and it's taking a long time and this and that -- just remember, not to this date, have they made a compromise as bad as the one in 1789 that made my ancestors three-fifths of a man. So let's be humble about what they're going through.
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Ralph Luker posts his reply to my criticisms of his list of the ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries. A few other people have gotten in on the discussion too, including fellow HNN'er Irfan Khawaja and Grant Jones.
Luker titles his reply,"Listmania and Maturity," and then goes on to express surprise at my use of the word"obscene" to describe his inclusion of Rand's Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead on a list that includes Mein Kampf and Protocals of the Elders of Zion. He also expresses disapproval of a comment left at my blog by Technomaget, who calls Luker, in no uncertain terms, a"moron."
Let me clarify a few things.
First, I am not calling Luker"obscene" and I have not called him a moron either. What I thought was"obscene" was placing a pair of works by Rand on a list that includes titles written by mass murderers. I use"obscene" as a synonym for"offensive" and find that particular coupling of Rand and Hitler very offensive.
If Luker had called his list a list of the ten worst books he'd ever read, or a list of the ten most annoying books, or the ten most useless books, or the ten most immature books, I probably would never have noticed it. But"harmful" carries with it a certain stigma, as I explained in my L&P/Notablog post. Strictly defined it means" causing or capable of causing harm." And on those grounds, I just don't see any reasonable criterion by which to equate Rand's novels with Mein Kampf. As Grant Jones puts it succinctly:"Has any reader of her works built Death Camps?" (brings back memories of Whittaker Chambers' cry, upon reading Atlas:"To a gas chamber—go!") As we say here in Brooklyn:"Fuhgedaboudit! You gotta be kiddin' me!"
Luker states:"In a moment of weakness (it just seemed like years of agony), I read Ayn Rand and I don't worship at her shrine! My lack of admiration for Ayn Rand is well known." Well that's fine. I admire her work but I don't worship at her shrine either. And, again, I would have had little problem if Luker had simply said:"These books suck." But suckitude is not the criterion for"harmfulness," especially when one is drawing up a list of books that crosses the line into Hitler territory.
As for Rand's work being serious or unserious, I'm afraid there's nothing in Luker's post that would give me a clue as to the nature of his assessment. Luker may not like Rand's philosophy, but let me assure him that it is not a"so-called philosophy," as he puts it. It may not be a philosophy with which Luker agrees, but it's a systematic philosophy, with integrated positions in ontology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. It is a philosophy that includes a commitment to realism, ethical egoism, individualism, and capitalism. And it is being taken seriously by people on every end of the political and philosophical spectrum, not only in the pages of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies but in a growing list of professional scholarly journals (see here).
If Luker would like to broaden his realm of toleration to include a few of us who were at least moved by Rand's work, let alone influenced, and who don't manifest"immaturity" or a" cult-like psychological disorder" or"delayed adolescent omnipotence," maybe we could talk more seriously. Ad hominem masquerading as psychological diagnosis is no substitute for discussion.
Cross-posted to Notablog.
Keith Halderman
The story later quotes the White House Office of Drug Control Policy as saying "most people in prison for marijuana are violent criminals, repeat offenders, traffickers or all of the above." Notice the sneaky way the ONDCP leads with the absolutely miniscule number of violent criminals who happened to have been arrested for marijuana offenses. Remember, the drug warriors have often asserted a cause and effect relationship between marijuana use and violence but they have never demonstrated it. Reefer Madness is like any other government program, tough to get rid of.
Hat Tip to Richard Lake
Mark Brady
Today Richard Cobden and his friend John Bright are principally remembered for their work on behalf of the Anti-Corn Law League between 1839 and 1846, when Sir Robert Peel announced the phased total repeal of the corn laws, the tariff on imported grain or ‘bread tax’ that worked to raise the price of bread for the laboring poor and the rents accruing to the landlords or ‘bread stealers’. The organization and success of the League is a fine example of how to organize uncompromisingly for liberty and a great inspiration for us today.
My second reason for celebrating the life of Richard Cobden is that he was a firm and eloquent critic of British adventurism abroad and war-making. As was John Bright. In the general election of 1857 both Cobden and Bright lost their seats in the House of Commons because of their opposition to the Crimean War of 1854-56.
Two years later in the election of 1859 Cobden was reelected and over the course of the next year negotiated the Anglo-French commercial treaty of 1860 (the Cobden-Chevalier treaty) that inaugurated thirty years of lower tariffs across Europe.
Cobden’s words ring true today. “I yield to no one in sympathy for those who are struggling for freedom in any part of the world; but I will never sanction an interference which shall go to establish this or that nationality by force of arms, because that invades a principal which I wish to carry out in the other direction—the prevention of all foreign interference with nationalities for the sake of putting them down...”
Moreover, “...whilst we are in a state of profound peace, it is for you, the taxpayers, to decide whether you will run the risk of war, and keep your money in your pockets, or allow an additional number of men in red coats to live in idleness under the pretense of protecting you.”
Cobden believed that free trade would promote peace as well as prosperity. “I see in the free trade principle that which will act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe- drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creeds and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.... I believe the effect will be to change the face of the world, so as to introduce a system of government entirely distinct from that which now prevails. I believe the desire and the motive for large and mighty empires and gigantic armies and great navies . . . will die away .... when man becomes one family, and freely exchanges the fruits of his labour with his brother Man.”
Miles Taylor, professor of modern history at the University of York, author of The Decline of British Radicalism, 1847-1860 (Oxford University Press, 1995), and editor of The European Diaries of Richard Cobden, 1846-1849 (Scolar Press, 1994), has written a very informative and nuanced account of Cobden’s life for the new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (OUP, 2004, and updated online).
Taylor explains that"Cobden's support for non-intervention intensified during the American Civil War, which broke out in 1861. He never doubted that morality was on the side of the Union, and that the future of America lay with the industrial and commercial supremacy of the north. However, Cobden remained suspicious of the protectionist tendencies of the Union, as manifested in the Morrill tariff of 1861, and he had a low opinion of the administrative abilities of the Republican Party: in March 1864 he commented to his friend Thomas Thomasson that ‘if their [the North's] cause was not so good, I should certainly back the South whose men are much more capable whether as statesmen or generals’ (R. Cobden to T. Thomasson, March 1864, Thomas Thomasson MSS, BLPES). Moreover, he opposed the blockade tactics used by the North, which had led to the drying up of the supply of southern cotton to Europe. But he thought throughout the war that Britain, along with the other European powers, should remain neutral. Cobden used his contacts with leading Americans such as Sumner and Adams, within the British and French governments, and also among the Lancashire cotton manufacturers to dampen calls for armed intervention to end the blockade. And he joined in attempts to relieve the distress of cotton workers during the Lancashire famine."
In making my case for Richard Cobden, I recognize (and deplore) the fact that he advocated important measures of state intervention, most notably public funding of education. As Taylor explains, “In the years after 1847 Cobden resumed many of the political campaigns with which he had been associated during the previous decade. Incurring the disapproval of his nonconformist constituents, Cobden became a leading supporter of the National Public Schools Association, believing that ‘government interference is as necessary for education as its non-interference is essential to trade’ (Cobden to James Coppock, 15 June 1847, Cobden MSS, W. Sussex RO).”
My third reason for celebrating the life of Richard Cobden is that he supported the reform of land law—turning leasehold properties into freehold properties and the abolition of primogeniture (inheritance of land through the eldest son). Indeed he once said that getting rid of primogeniture was a more important goal than the repeal of the corn laws. His present-day admirers are almost entirely unaware of his position on land reform. Indeed, many are unaware of his principled opposition to British adventurism abroad. I should add that he was also a firm advocate of retrenchment (reducing government expenditure), the repeal of the taxes on knowledge (taxes on printed matter), and colonial reform.
My final reason for honoring Richard Cobden is that, by all accounts, he was a good and honorable man—indeed for Cobden it was a matter of honor that he rejected all offers of office under the Crown. Born the fourth child of eleven in rural poverty, he lifted himself from a penury that would have crushed a lesser soul. He was a good husband and family man. Cobden died on April 2, 1865 in his sixty-first year, worn out from his labors on behalf of liberty and against power. His fine character is surely reason enough to celebrate his life.
To read Cobden’s works online, go here, and to read about the project to collect and publish his letters, go here. To see portraits and likenesses of Cobden go here, and to buy a mug or a T-shirt bearing his image, go here.
I know of two pubs named after Richard Cobden, one in Chatham in Kent and the other in Havant in Hampshire (and I’d be surprised if there aren’t others). In West Lavington in Sussex you will find the Cobden Obelisk. And outside Mornington Crescent subway station in Camden High Street in north London you will find a statue of Richard Cobden built on the site of an old toll gate. Also in Camden there’s a primary school and a block of flats close by named after him, but, as Mahalia Lloyd, a student at the school, explains, “strangely he had no connection at all with Camden!”
