Reader Comments
Issue 113 - Ausust 6, 2008

Editor: I'm with your editorial "Old Right War Lessons" regarding the significance of World War I. What a blunder our entry was (indeed, the war itself). Yet, I do think that point has been sufficiently emphasized in conservative (maybe even liberal) circles. My guess is that Pat Buchanan takes on WWII given the current "debate" with the Neoconservatives (think Podhoretz) who hold up Churchill and tend to describe the present world situation in terms of Munich, appeasement, Hitler, etc. My take on interventionism is that we (Republicans, those who call themselves conservative) got accostomed to meddling in the world during the Cold War period. Justifiably so -- perhaps we went too far on occasion, but who can argue that we were faced with a real threat? When that threat ended, the habit of meddling with the world didn't. And that's what I see as the problem. This is an intriguing area from any number of angles. One of the things that scares the h_ll out of me is that relatively small group can steer us into a disaster like Iraq; that there was no real difficulty in selling something which on its face was absurd -- remember those small drones that would likely appear off the East coast to spray us all with poisons? Your piece is excellent. I not only enjoyed it, I learned from it. Thanks. George Carey, Georgetown University

Editor: “Old Right War Lessons” is a very interesting and fun ride, not totally “fused” with my own views but I’m always learning, or trying to, in my old age. Did we “first” depart from limited government with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson? How about Lincoln? You asked why many who were opposed to Franklin Roosevelt were not opposed to Wilson. My father opposed U.S. entry into the Great War, and supported Wilson in 1916 because of Wilson’s stated opposition. Ditto WW II, where dad was counsel to General Wood at America First (not blasphemous, btw, and hardly Kennedy-esque – even though Jack was a supporter!). But you’re on to something when you say: “If nonintervention is the issue, World War I should be the focus since without the U.S. in the first war, there would have been a stalemate and no World War II, no Hitler and perhaps no Lenin.” Why did Sen. Robert Taft later support World War II and NATO? Maybe that’s because they were **constitutional,** with a Declaration of War and a debate followed by a vote of 2/3 of senators present and voting. I think you give the Constitution, and thus true pre-Woodstock conservatives, short shrift and that might well account for a good bit of it. Christopher Manion

Editor: Thank you for a thoughtful and illuminating essay, “Old Right War Lessons.” Yes, you have uncovered a strange inconsistency among members of the Paleo-Right (either paleo-conservatives or paleo-libertarians): their heroes were opponents of FDR’s statist (interventionist) policies, but why those heroes had been almost completely absent in opposition to earlier statist Progressives’ policies. Why? Because almost all Paleos’ favorite opponents of FDR’s interventionist foreign policy were domestic progressives, e.g. defenders of big government at home. So, in paleo-writings, you can read praise of Robert LaFollette (father and son), Charles Beard, John Flynn, William Borah, Burton Wheeler, George Norris, even of Gore Vidal--all progressives, or liberals, or New Dealers in domestic policy, all isolationists in foreign policy. Domestic sins are forgiven by Paleo-Right, because of (alleged) foreign policy virtues. On the other hand, real limited government conservatives, anti-Progressives and anti-New Dealers, who, however, from prudential reasons supported aid to Great Britain against Nazi Germany, or even advocated a war against Nazism, are missing from the Paleos’ pantheon of heroes. So, Henry Stimson, Henry Luce, and his glamorous, thoughtful wife Clare Boothe Luce, are never admired by Paleos. Statists at home cum isolationists abroad are preferred to anti-statists at home cum (prudential or occasional) interventionists abroad. Hence, anti-statism isn’t the main factor for Paleos, really. Isolationism is. Of course, from the American point of view, there was no reason or compelling interest, whatsoever, for the U.S. to enter WW I. On the other hand, American intervention into WW II could and should be judged prudentially. The position opposing the U.S.’ entry into the 2nd European war was defensible, as well as a position advocating a defeat of Nazi Germany before a Nazi Germany conquering the whole of Euro-Asia and would become an unconquerable World-Monster. (In my view, America First Committee’s opposition against American entry into the WW II was morally defensible, even though I, for prudential reasons, disagree with it. What was morally, politically and strategically indefensible, was America First’s opposition to any military aid to Great Britain, which was fighting the Nazis alone at the time.) However, Paleos, at least paleo-libertarians, are completely wrong on the Cold War; on the other hand, the post-war American conservative movement, led by William F. Buckley Jr., Frank Meyer, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, was completely right. American isolationism during the Cold War was a recipe for disaster, at least if your love of freedom was genuine and honest. What is maddening, however, is Paleos’ silence on Barry Goldwater. Imagine, there was, in 1964, domestically the most Jeffersonian, anti-statist, anti-big government, pro-decentralization presidential candidate of the 20th Century, and what did Murray Rothbard do? Why, he voted for LBJ!!! Anti-statism, anyone? Very well, why was Barry Goldwater unacceptable to paleo-libertarians, allegedly defenders of freedom? Because of his foreign policy views, of course! But why is the strict, dogmatic isolationism so important to paleo-libertarians, that it trumps anything – and everything - else? Because they are ideological anarchists, which is the most anti-conservative position ever! You know, if you honestly believe that no government or state are legitimate at all, then you conclude that no government’s or state’s active foreign policy is legitimate at all. As a default position, the only acceptable foreign policy is no foreign policy at all, e.g. isolationism, always and everywhere, for ideological reasons only. So Murray Rothbard was very consistent (even though very foolish and perverse) to write in the 70’s of the 20th Century that “...the real enemy was not in Moscow or Havana, but in Washington, D.C.” I would strictly distinguish between a paleo like Pat Buchanan and a paleo like Murray Rothbard. The former is an American patriot, the latter was an anarchist ideologue. Pat Buchanan is, in my view, mistaken in his post-Cold War foreign policy views (especially in his post-Cold War love-affair with Russia, which is keen on post-Communist, KGB-style, neo-imperialism), but there is no doubt that he advocates American interests as he sees them (however mistaken he might be). On the other hand, Murray Rothbard did not give a damn about American interests; he, from a blind ideological passion, always advocated dogmatic isolationism, whatever its consequences for freedom in the World and in America. You see, his greatest enemy had always been the American state. I agree that the foreign policy of a free republic should be judged and evaluated prudentially. A position advocating isolationism always, in all cases and in all circumstances, is as foolish as a position, which always, in all cases and circumstances, advocates interventionism. The proper key to a proper foreign policy of a free nation is prudence, which would sometimes recommend isolationism, sometimes interventionism and in other times anything – or everything – in between. Decisions should all be made according to prudential judgment: which course would serve best in defense of freedom at home primarily, and of freedom abroad secondarily. Roman Joch, Director, Civic Institute, Prague, Czech Republic

Editor: Very good professor in your "Old Right War Lessons.” Like it, I like William F. Buckley Jr. Like him, I travel with my jar of Peanut Butter. This is outstanding; now get out there and vote for John McCain. Tim Sullivan

Editor: Congratulations on "Old Right War Lessons." I thought I had an ample understanding of the showcased "progressive era" but your essay opened my eyes further than ever to the politics of that calamitous time. You have done a wonderful service by translating into contemporary terms the now obscure era's movements and themes. Your writing about the period when the Old Right collapsed in the 30s reminded me of a conversation I once had with our late colleague, Dr. Eliseo Vivas - the great ethics teacher and philosopher of Northwestern University during the 1970s. Dr. Vivas was discussing his days in the student far-left in the 1930s when I asked him what the campuses had been like when conservative academics dominated those precincts. I asked him why the conservatives had seemingly allowed the Marxists (with their quack theories of history and economics) to populate the groves of academe. Initially he was stunned and remarked that no one had ever asked him about those conservative professors and academics. He said that the conservative professors and academics had simply lost all energy and never resisted the Marxist infestation as far as he could recall. He said that the conservatives had no heart for struggle and had simply faded away into the mists. My own reading of the times is that the rising media of the pre-WWII society was so overwhelming infected with ideological hysteria that thoughtful public debate and discussion was virtually nonexistent. In the 20s and 30s there was a tidal wave of irrationality: Psychoanalysis, Quantum theory, Bauhaus, Modernism, Darwinism, Managerial Science, Fascism and Marxism et. cet. Wisdom was reduced to a cultural cul-de-sac. Gnosticisms were pounded relentlessly into the mass mind swamping the influence of quieter and better thinkers rendering them, except for some Christians, lapsed into a kind of despair and exhaustion. (The stalwarts in those times received no amplification or were seen as vestiges of a past consumed.) Tim Hunter

Editor: I certainly don't disagree with your thesis in “Old Right War Lessons“ regarding the evolution of "Progressivism/Populism/Socialism" in the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt was indeed the first "RINO." However, you did not mention another powerful force that came on the scene during the same time frame, that being Female Suffrage. In my view, the Nineteenth Amendment had an enormous part to play in the creation and shaping of the “ Nanny State" that we have today. Given the desire for many if not most females for economic security over economic freedom, the Federal, State and local governments that we have today reflect in large measure that underlying philosophy, and the alphabet-soup of programs and agencies created since 1920 to further those largely female objectives. I do not consider myself a misogynist, only a realist and student of history. I just read the "tea leaves," I don't arrange them. Sincerely, Richard M. Ludwig, Williamsburg, VA

Editor: Thank you for the excellent article on Woodrow Wilson and the Constitution by Robert Curry. I agree with you that Wilson was a pioneer in the attacks on our Constitution. The progressive (liberal) elements in our legislature are now attacking our founding document with real fervor. In a relatively short span of time, the liberal wing of the Supreme Court has shown utter disdain of the Fifth Amendment in the Kelo decision and the recent Second Amendment decision. Thank you for an interesting, educational article. Robert Wolfe

Editor: Hats off to Spencer Warren in his article “PBS’s Distorted War” for being able to sit though this entire "show"! I happened across this “War of the World” about the time Niall Ferguson stated WW II was between "evil" and "lesser evil" forces, so I boiled for a few minutes then changed stations. And Warren is right: why must I continue to have PBS shoved down my throat (and pay for the privilege)? If it went away, the spin-doctor backlash would be hilarious to watch. Keep up the good work. James Hale

Editor: Thank you for Spencer Warren’s article on Ferguson, the British author, and PBS. If Ferguson wants to do yet another analysis on WW2, so be it. It won't be the first, maybe not the last. Appearing on PBS means I won't bother seeing it. Perhaps a small cut of my taxes go to support PBS, but I can't stand Moyers or PBS. If the leftists care about fairness in the media, they should start with an overhaul of PBS. And, I'll believe that when I hear about it from you. Sincerely, Stan Stein, Philadelphia, PA

Editor: Regarding Spencer Warren’s “PBS’s Distorted War,“ I would not give PBS a dime. Everything they do is propaganda, Too bad they can't just do the TRUTH. Retta Weatherhead

Editor: Regarding Larry Hunter’s “A Conservative For Obama,” odd, is it not, that a sometime economist for the US Chamber of Commerce believes so evidently in the unimportance, even apparent irrelevance, of economics? To say nothing of the muddiness of his thoughts (best word?) on how the international political system works? Forgive my asking, but in what sense is this person a Conservative? He might, of course, be a former Conservative, in some pre-Kirkian sense. Jared Lobdel

Editor: I hope there aren't too many Republicans like Larry Hunter! Obama will be ruinous for America! Ethel Begley

Editor: I clearly do not understand Larry Hunter‘s thinking. He is willing to let someone who tells you one thing you do not agree with, YET hoping he is lying and will do another? Please ........ He obviously does not care about the second amendment, or religious freedom or abortion , right of the unborn but insist on rights for the women instead. You think Obama will be able to fix foreign affairs without experience or what experience is he counting on ??????? He certainty has the right to think as he wishes about what the military has done for our country. I hope Obama respects them more than I have seen him or heard him speak of them. Respectfully, Jan Van Wagner

Editor: As a New York State registered Conservative, although I agree that the GOP has abandoned Ronald Reagan's philosophy of limited government and low taxes, to support Sen. Obama for president would be like the proverbial "cutting off your nose to spite your face. Any conservative who thinks that America will be able to return to a free enterprise system that has made America great after socialist democrats like Obama, Pelosi and Reid take control of our government, only has to look at New York City where socialist-Marxist have had controlled city government since the 1930's. If the Obama, Pelosi, Reid big government socialist democrats take over the federal government this November, in my opinion, we will have one party socialist rule in Washington, D.C. until America collapses into bankruptcy as the Soviet Union did. Jack Coughlin, Chairman, Deer Park Conservative Committee

Editor: I hope this “conservative,” Larry Hunter, isn't serious about voting for Obama for President. I know a lot of conservative Republicans are frustrated with their parties, but to vote for Obama is ridiculous. John McCain isn't who I really want either, but he is a lot better then Obama. Obama scares me. Corleen Stephan

Editor: I just finished reading Mr. Hunters piece. I have one question to ask him.....Are you that crazy? Just because the present RNC and its' leaders have gone RINO doesn't mean that every conservative should give in. RD Gatchell

Editor: If Larry Hunter (who must be a closet Democrat intent on some fame and political propaganda) is worried about his personal freedoms, he can really kiss his freedoms goodbye when Mr. Obama and his Senate and House appoint Supreme Court far left-leaning justices. Again, I do not really think Mr. Hunter is a conservative. I think Conservative Battleline was sadly duped. Larry Hunter is a Democrat plant or an insider wannabe. Ann

Editor: I read Larry Hunter's feeble attempt to justify his support for a leftist government interventionist who wishes to increase the power of the federal bureaucracy and has no intentions of allowing the economic and free market forces of our economy work out the corrections that occur when various sections of our economy blow hot and cold over the course of a decade. Indeed the problems we currently have are as a direct result of the short term thinking of fellows like Hunter and the failure to invest in our future. Obama reflects the same selfish greed for power and control that took over in the 1990s, a self-serving attitude that admits to no authority other than the sound of his own voice. Until the people in this country and those who win control of government, business and media realize that people not "stuff" is what is important, until we are a people simplify our lives and return to the ideals of a deity which are found in faith, family and relationships, the polarity and divisiveness which marks the selfish mentality will continue, and those incongruities will continue to allow the destruction of our most precious natural resource - our children. John J. Jakubczyk, Attorney at Law, Phoenix, AZ

Editor: What are Mr. Hunter's thoughts about the type of judges we would get under a liberal President and a liberal Senate? Jack Buzbee

Editor: I hope that since Larry Hunter wrote his article he has now heard the intentions of the illustrious Obama and reevaluated his obvious fascination with his call for change. I hope you can see that the change for America now has become the change, whatever that means, for the World and that is his ambition. He says he is a citizen of the World and this is his destiny. Obama is frightening in that his charisma is seducing many to think that he is the Savior. You are not a conservative you are naive misguided journalist who has fallen into the same trap as the biggest majority of journalists.. Perhaps you will change your mind since the speech in Germany, which is part of his campaign, is a farce and he is the most inept candidate that has ever run for President of our great country. I have been around long enough to know one when I see one. Jeanne M Carr

Editor: Larry Hunter asks some vitally important questions in his article. But he never mentioned the numbers of human lives that are sure to be lost to abortion (50 million and counting to date) if this man secure the Oval Office. Can all those deaths (and more) be justified in the name of anything? Margaret Stephens

Editor: I am appalled about Larry Hunter's perspective. I finally heard the best explanation I've heard about why a conservative should vote for John Mc Cain. There is no possibility that John Mc Cain could convince me to vote for John Mc Cain. However, Barak Obama has completely convinced me to vote for John Mc Cain. I am completely befuddled about how any person who calls him a committed American can possibly fall for a guy who would make a great president on "The West Wing", but is truly an empty suit with no accomplishments, no apparent moral compass, and no other beliefs than those that come out of the Democrat Chicago machine. For shame on Larry Hunter. Sherry Tourino, Nipomo, CA

Editor: Larry Hunter’s article is the most wrong-headed reasoning imaginable. It’s clear that Mr. Hunter is an isolationist and believes we can cling to some mythical past where we sit at home unmolested and pretend the rest of the world doesn’t exist. After all, if we don’t acknowledge its existence, it can’t possibly be. Exactly what are the freedoms taken from us in the name of National Security? Air travel is certainly the most disagreeable method of travel – there’s one. If Mr. Hunter’s whining about surveillance of communications between Americans and known or suspected enemy agents during time of war, that’s nothing new. No others readily come to mind. It seems that we should vote for a neo-Marxist Obama because he will inflict the temporary pain we deserve for past hubris. What nonsense! Such a presidency would make us an easy target for any crackpot terrorist as well as introducing more socialism into our society that’s nearly impossible to reverse once enacted. We’re still paying for the calculated evils inflicted upon us by FDR that were engineered to turn Americans away from being self-sufficient to being big government-dependent. Showing no moral principles, Mr. Hunter is no conservative, he’s a libertarian and his opinions should hold no sway with true conservatives who believe that yes, we can judge right from wrong based on our inherent moral precepts. I wish him luck in getting straight answers to his questions to Obama. He’ll hear lots of hemming and hawing. James C. McAlister, Tampa, FL

Editor: Mr. Hunter is a fool, or worse. The next president will choose probably at least two Supreme Court Justices and Obama will pick the liberals of liberals which will exert governmental control over free press, public discourse, the economy, etc., etc. For this reason alone, not to mention the disaster that the 'cut and run' mentality in Iraq will cause, is sufficient to fight to the very last breath to keep this man out of office! Wm. Mark Smith

Editor: Of course Larry Hunter is wrong. He didn't list the policies Obama would implement if he were in office. He didn't list the policies foreign or domestic that he doesn't like. He doesn't know that Obama would remove the policies he doesn't like. Matter of fact he doesn't say much at all. I guess he just doesn't like McCain or Bush so he is going to take his ball and go home. Boo hoo boo hoo. What a sorry explanation for his voting decisions. In answer to his questions to Obama yes he does think they are the right choices. If Hunter were paying attention he wouldn't have to ask those questions. Robert E. Solum

Editor: Larry Hunter offers as much gobbledygook as Obama. Yours Truly, Valerie Rhodes

Editor: “A Conservative For Obama?“ by Larry Hunter? Was that a joke? Debbie DeCillis, Seaford, NY