The New York Times does not mention Independence Day on its editorial page on the 4th of July. And there is no word of celebration of it on its Op-Ed page. What is present on the Op-Ed page is a further demonstration of that newspaper’s hostility to the fundamental values on which the United States was built.
One article, titled “Spinning the Revolution,” seeks to undercut the value of the American Revolution by presenting it not as the kind of great world-shaking event that it was, signifying for the first time in human history the establishment of a social system dedicated to the protection of individual rights, but as a matter of mere “spin,” manufactured by a collection of writers and pamphleteers. In the same vein, it belittles the value Americans have rightly attached to the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution by sarcastically describing those documents as being viewed as “sacred scripture.”
Another article, “Billionaires to the Rescue,” which compares Warren Buffet’s gift of $31 billion to charity to the charitable giving of Andrew Carnegie early in the last century, proceeds as though it never heard of such a thing as the right to the pursuit of happiness. Clearly revealing the perspective of a collectivist, it dares to ask,
Is society served by permitting so much capital to be accumulated by so few? Should we have to rely on the usually unfulfilled hope that fortunes of this magnitude will be put to a good cause? What becomes of a society that must rely on “gifts” from a handful of socially conscious billionaires to save its schools, cure disease and alleviate poverty?
The author believes that “society,” i.e., politicians and government officials have the right to thwart the individual’s accumulation of wealth, thereby denying his right to the pursuit of happiness. In claiming that it is an accidental matter whether large fortunes are put to a good cause, he reveals his ignorance of the fact that the fortunes are invested in business firms as capital, and thereby serve as the source of supply of goods and services to consumers and of demand for the services of wage earners. He demonstrates further ignorance in failing to realize that the high profits out of which fortunes are accumulated are the result of introducing a series of important innovations in the form of new and better products or more efficient methods of production.
He also does not realize that all that prevents the charitable giving of fortunes from resulting in a reduction in the well-being of consumers and wage earners is their continuing to remain invested rather than being consumed by the recipients of charity. The consumption of the recipients of charity needs to be held within the limits of the income on the capital in order for this destructive outcome to be avoided.
Finally, seizing the fortunes by the government to “save . . . schools, cure disease and alleviate poverty” will accomplish little but the reduction of capital. Schools, books, and all the means of learning are properly the province of private business firms meeting the demand of consumers, just as is the supply of food and clothing. Likewise, curing disease is properly the province of privately owned pharmaceutical firms, hospitals, clinics, and of physicians in private practice. The alleviation of poverty is the daily work of businessmen who introduce the newer and better products and more efficient methods of production: in addition to being the source of fortunes, these last are the source of the rise in the standard of living of everyone. They are what enable almost everyone in the modern world to be well fed, clothed, and housed and to have such goods as indoor plumbing, central heating, refrigerators, stoves, telephones, and television sets.
To the extent that schools, medical care, and poverty represent problems in need of solution, the first step in the solution is removing the government from the picture and allowing the profit motive and the pursuit of happiness to succeed in solving these problems. That is a principle to be remembered on America’s Independence Day.
These pathetic articles are what The Times has to offer on the day dedicated to the celebration of America’s existence. It is an alien publication, dedicated to collectivism and the worship of the State, to principles the opposite of those on which the United States was founded. Over the years, it has been the champion of Stalin, of Mao, and of Castro, and more recently, of the reincarnation of socialism known as environmentalism. One cannot expect it to be the champion of Washington and Jefferson and of the United States. And it certainly is not.
This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
{ 31 comments }
Support 1776, oppose 1789.
I don’t really see the big problem with the article. It is interesting and important to consider “[h]ow exactly did a group of lawyers and politicians become founding fathers in the first place, heroes to be venerated by generations of Americans?”
It is also important to remember a time “when the founding fathers were viewed simply as men, rather than as gods to be worshipped or myths to be debunked.”
Your idea that the American secession signified for the “first time in human history the establishment of a social system dedicated to the protection of individual rights” is a little over the top. As history has shown, the execution has lacked the vigor of the principle.
Another interesting thing is that our political leaders have not been worshipping or venerating the advice of Washington or Jefferson for 200 years. They or their paid intellectuals can pay all the lip service to the ideals they want, but their actions are the total opposite of their recommendations. Does the following quote ring a bell? “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
lahm,
This idea: “Support 1776, oppose 1789.”– is one that very few, including “conservatives”, are even aware of, let alone understand.
Would you care to expound?
ME Hoffer, I would suggest they look up the biography of Patrick Henry who first made a name for himself in the “Parson’s Cause” which was an argument over whether the price of tobacco paid to clergy for their services should be set by the colonial government or by the Crown. He went on to the House of Burgesses where he proposed the Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions and famously announced “”Caesar had his Brutus; Charles the First his Cromwell; and George the Third—” [Cries of "Treason! Treason!"] “George the Third may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.”
Henry went on to make an impassioned speech in 1775 against the encroaching British troops famously stating: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
After the revolution, Henry was a leading antifederalist, a fierce critic of the constitution, and was a primary force in the adoption of the bill of rights. It seemed to Henry that we would have been just fine under the Articles of Confederation. Lysander Spooner’s No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority is a good place to start for a critique of the events of 1789. ME Hoffer, feel free to expound on what i have written or give your own interpretation.
lahm,
Quite so. It seems that the great bulk of the History of the Anti-Federalists has been lost, to the present day, down “the memory hole”.
This: “Proponents of the new Constitution had their work cut out for them. Critics of the pending document, known as the Anti-federalists, were numerous and active in a number of states, such as New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts, where a vote against ratification could sink the proposed Federal system. In both the press and the ratifying conventions, Anti-federalists railed against what they perceived as an unlimited, unchecked taxation power vested in a distant, unaccountable central government. Virginia’s George Mason argued that “the assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated government.” He, like many Anti-federalists, feared that this arrangement was “calculated to annihilate entirely the state governments.” They worried that national taxes would supersede state taxes, drawing limited funds away from a small local base. The Constitution also circumscribed the potential sources of state revenue; Article I, Section 10 prohibited individual states from turning to their favorite revenue source, coining money or emitting bills of credit, and declared import tariffs an exclusive instrument of the national government.
Anti-federalists insisted that control over direct taxes be retained by the states. Specifically, they preferred the requisition system employed under the Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry argued passionately that “the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode — a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people.”– seems to be a good overview/primer to the scene of those times.
This, by: “George Mason argued that “the assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated government.” He, like many Anti-federalists, feared that this arrangement was “calculated to annihilate entirely the state governments.” — has turned out to be prophetic.
Many Americans forget, or have never learned, that the basis for the “Great Experiment” was to put the Individual, Sovereign, above the claims of Government. The Anti-Federalists correctly foresaw the danger of allowing the proposed “Federal” Government direct access to its “own” tax revenue. This step removed it from being a client of the States, to being a direct competitor to the States. It is an upset that the system never recovered from.
The “Rat”, Patrick Henry smelled, was well nigh, and ripe.
For more on the anti-federalist tradition I would suggest the actual Anti-Federalist Papers, The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828 by Saul Cornell, and What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution by Herbert Storing. The last two provide a more or less fair hearing of the arguments. Perhaps others know of more resources?
Below are two sources for the Anti-Fedreralist papers:
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/
http://www.constitution.org/afp.htm
Maybe before we start worshipping the anti-federalists, we should consider what happened when they came to power as the Republicans in 1801. Tariffs, embargos, War of 1812, etc.
Dr. Reisman, As I noted in my initial comment on your previous missive, http://blog.mises.org/archives/00522, it is no doubt fair to criticize some of the New York Time’s reporting and editorials, but it appears increasingly evident that you are flogging rather personal and illusory demons with very little justification that is evident from the paper itself.
You conclude, apparently on the basis solely of the two “pathetic” Op-Ed pieces in the July 4 issue, that New York Times “is an alien publication, dedicated to collectivism and the worship of the State, to principles the opposite of those on which the United States was founded. Over the years, it has been the champion of Stalin, of Mao, and of Castro, and more recently, of the reincarnation of socialism known as environmentalism. One cannot expect it to be the champion of Washington and Jefferson and of the United States. And it certainly is not.”
This rather overwrought conclusion seems wholly unsupported, either by the two Op-Ed pieces in the NYT or by other articles and editorials that the NYT printed relating to the Fourth of July. I hope you don’t mind if we take another quick look at that edition of the paper to see if your conclusions stand up.
1. I think that we all know that Op-Eds, even though printed by the NYT, may not necessarily represent the opinions of the NYT’s editors . As to the first piece, you might not like the title, but it seems that you are reading way too much into it. Rather than taking a sarcastic or belittling tone towards the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution or the value Americans have rightly attached to the, the author, an historian, is simply inviting us to read more American history and to learn about the pamphleteers and almanac writers whose writings about the “founding fathers” helped to unite a “fractious, rebellious, polyglot people”. What is wrong about point to the processes by which our national identity was built, or asking us to remember the people who played an important part in those processes? I think these are the core paragraphs of the op-ed, and fail to see how they are objectionable:
“Indeed, in many respects, the national symbols Americans revere today — the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the founding fathers — entered our canon not through the work of men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or Washington, but through the work of far less celebrated figures like Weems.
“As the years wore on, the almanacs, schoolbooks and pamphlets of the early republic would gather dust in attics, ignored by subsequent generations of Americans who took for granted the nationalism such texts had created.
“So as Americans celebrate this day by looking back on the Declaration of Independence and the men who wrote it, we might also spare a thought for lesser known figures like Weems, Carey, Bingham and Webster, and for they texts they wrote. These men and their publications — at least as much as the founding fathers — created the common heritage Americans celebrate today.”
2. You say that the second op-ed “clearly reveal[s] the perspective of a collectivist”, in implicitly considering whether elimination of the estate tax is wise policy. I imagine that the NYT has taken a position on that issue, but they certainly haven’t here – so feel free to slam the author, who is an historian.
It seems that the historian may have a point, that perhaps you should take up with the ghost of Andrew Carnegie, who thought that an estate tax should be implemented to avoid the development of an American aristocracy. As noted in the op-ed, ” In his mind, Carnegie had not earned this fortune as an individual, but held it as a “trustee” for the larger community, which was the source of all wealth. “Wealth is not chiefly the product of the individual,” he wrote, “but largely the joint product of the community.”" Carnegie led the charge for an estate tax on the wealthy – saying “Of all taxes this seems the wisest” – and proposed that it be set at 50%. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0807047198/104-9974679-6823948?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0501/p16s01-cogn.html
http://www.pgtoday.com/pgt/articles/mt_rushmore_and_a_history.htm
“Carnegie sharply distinguishes between the intended consequence of the inheritance tax (to create funds for public purposes) and its unintended consequence (private philanthropy). The unintended effect of the tax is “to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life.” Wealth is a trust fund for the community that helps the rich “dignify their own lives.” According to Carnegie, philanthropy in a capitalist economy solves the problem of rich and poor alike. “The laws of accumulation will be left free, the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor.”
Carnegie concludes his famous tract with the words: “The man who dies rich dies disgraced.” Carnegie practiced what he preached. He testified before Congress in favor of an estate tax and he gave away over 90% of his estate before his death, leaving a modest trust fund for his family.”
As an aside, Dr. Reisman, you might wish to note that even some collectivist environmentalists are in favor of revising or eliminating the estate tax in its present form:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/estattax/estattax.htm
“When the time comes to pay estate taxes, real estate assets often produce a substantial tax liability that can only be paid by selling the land for development. The impact of the estate tax is most apparent in terms of natural habitats that are destroyed. Endangered species are affected as well, since about one-half of all listed species are found only on privately-owned land. 141 These effects of estate taxation led Michael Bean of The Nature Conservancy to label the estate tax as “highly regressive in the sense that it encourages the destruction of ecologically important land in private ownership.” 142″
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDg3Zjk0YWRhNjZiMWQyM2FiYmUwYjZkMTU0MzZjYzA=
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0606-36.pdf
http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=1592
3. Other coverage by the NYT relating to the Fourth of July seems neither particularly objectionable nor especially biased, including the following
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/opinion/04tues1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/opinion/04tues2.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials (freedom of the press in China)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/opinion/04tues4.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials (third world governments should eliminate taxes on medical supplies)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/nyregion/04fourth.html (immigrants in Queens celebrate)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/weekinreview/02goodheart.html (nothing much really happened on July 4, 1776.)
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/travel/02weekend.html (Revolutionary War history sites)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/us/05liberty.html (Christian statue if Liberty in Memphis)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/washington/05bush.html
You’ve obviously got a bee under your bonnet concerning the Times, Dr. Reisman. Perhaps you should take off your hat and cool your head. (In an air conditioned room of course, since it’s definitely warming up outside!)
Regards,
TT
The TV networks also show very little interest in the true meaning of Independence Day. They’ll throw in A COUPLE of words about the Founders, but it’s almost done as a formality.
The true meaning of the Declaration is swept under the rug to make room for the more important tasks at hand (musical performances & fireworks).
Tokoyo Tom,
The fact that Carnegie petitioned his representatives for an estate tax doesn’t make the government any less of a thug for enforcing one. There’s nothing to wrestle with in this case–even you would agree (I would hope!) that the opinions of the rich should never carry the weight of violence behind them.
regards,
Chris,
w/o Q, any brief reading of the Document:
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
will draw, readily, obvious parallels to our very day, 6 July 2006.
Keith,
Tariffs, Embargoes, and various Wars, all, pre- and post- dated the administration you reference.
Why would you explicitly lay them at the feet of the Anti-Federalists?
MEHoffer: “Specifically, they preferred the requisition system employed under the Articles of Confederation.”
Why do you think men such as George Washington and Ben Franklin supported the Constitution? Because the states started the war and then refused to pay for it. Washington spent the entire war begging the states to buy his troops food, clothing and ammo. They flatly refused, even though they had started the war. Had Ben Franklin not bankrupted the French and Dutch, Washington would have lost the war.
MEH:
Thanks for the links on the anti-Federalist papers; I have never seen them before and look forward to perusing.
Do you have any suggestions on what to read first? It seems to me that creating a common market by eliminating intra-state tariffs etc. was vital in the growth of the US; do you have a different view?
Regards,
Tom
Dan, my chief purpose was simply point to a lack of balance in Reisman’s post. If he wants to argue with an op-ed that discusses Carnegie because he dislikes estate taxes, then he should argue it – while noting that Carnegie himself favored them (as do many of the very wealthy today). Instead, he uses the op-ed to slam the Times. How does he get from this op-ed to his conclusion that the Times is “an alien publication, dedicated to collectivism and the worship of the State”?
As to the merits of the estate tax, let me say that I don’t think that this is a simple matter. I imagine Carnegie had his reasons for supporting one, and I am concerned that we are moving increasingly towards a country by and for the wealthy.
As to the Times, I don’t think a black and white view is at all helpful. Does Reisman disapprove of the Times’s work in revealing the ways in which the Administration is undercutting our civil rights and liberties? Where is his compliment for Judith Miller’s yeoman work in helping the Administration to sell the Iraq invasion to us?
TT
Tom,
this link: http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/
has the titles of the various tracts spelled out. So, I would suggest, you could read the ones that catch your eye, or begin, at the beginning.
And, re: “Common Market”, Yes. The several States could decide for themselves how they wanted to interact with each other. Obviously, if a State decided upon an Economic path that made it less desirable to the Market, it would suffer for it. The Market will out. Much better than Any central commander. Enforced “Common Markets” are the Finance-friendly enemies of Economic Liberty. (As our History with the Constitution shows well) The idea that “Common Markets”, enforced, are a necessity is counter-intuitive. The States, if desirous of some of the benefits of “Freer” Trade, were well able to accord their actions to accomodate it. The “Common Market” hoax is nothing more than agitprop covering the enrichment of the centralizing authority.
Qoute from M E Hoffer: “Tariffs, Embargoes, and various Wars, all, pre- and post- dated the administration you reference.
Why would you explicitly lay them at the feet of the Anti-Federalists?”
Just because somebody else is a thief, doesn’t make them any less thieves. I’ll give credit where credit is due (and I believe that credit is a knife that cuts both ways).
TT, I doubt that Dr. Reisman based his opinion of the NYT on just two opinion pieces. Anyone who has followed the editorial policies of the rag for any length of time knows that the editors are devoted to the collective philosophy.
As someone who reads the NY Times every day, it is clear that the editorial staff and the publisher are devoted to the collective philosophy as RogerM writes. There can be no debating this very obvious fact.
Of course, I have had many leftists claim otherwise, but I dismiss them as liars and fools.
MEH:
You say “If a State decided upon an Economic path that made it less desirable to the Market, it would suffer for it. The Market will out. Much better than Any central commander. Enforced “Common Markets” are the Finance-friendly enemies of Economic Liberty. (As our History with the Constitution shows well) The idea that “Common Markets”, enforced, are a necessity is counter-intuitive. The States, if desirous of some of the benefits of “Freer” Trade, were well able to accord their actions to accomodate it.”
What was the movement from a confederation to the Constitution, but a voluntary – not coerced – decision by each of the original states? You might counter with the dangers of forming a strong central government – and I would agree with you – but that’s a different point. Up until the Civil War it was widely assumed that secession was always an option; maybe legally it was, but Lincoln’s war irrevocably established the superiority of the national government over the states.
Sovereign states should of course be careful of giving away thier sovereignty, but sometimes they and their citizens may be better off disposing of parts of it – to establish broader common markets and abate simmering ethnic frictions by creating a common interest in stability. This is the trend globally, and is a good thing.
Tom
Roger and Yancey:
The question isn’t whether the Times has a leftist or collectivist stance. They have, admittedly.
So what? Can’t we keep that in perspective, while we weighed their slant against the slant of others, criticizing them where we disagree, and encouraging them when they do something valuable, like calling the Bush administration to account for its abuses? Or does disagreement with their slant mean that they are unpatriotic, an enemy, rot from within that must be excised?
Excuse me from thinking that such an Old World perspective leads nowhere constructive, but merely back to the pogroms and ideological cleansings that Reisman purports to be concerned about. The Times is owned by private interests, and is hardly an organ of the state, like Prava. Instead, it is now very much an opposition newspaper – is Reisman so enamoured of this Administration that he seriously suggests that will all be better off if this opposition is eliminated?
I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with any such suggestion, and Reisman is here completely imbalanced – and, as I noted the Times record of that day is wholly unsupportive of his position. Based on Lew Rockwell’s recent remarks, what do you suppose he would have to say to Prof. Reisman?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/conservative-hoax.html
“The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America. …
“For my part, I’m hoping that the whole conservative movement will go down in flames with the decline and fall of the Bush administration. The red-state fascists have had their day and instead of liberty, they gave us the most raw and stupid form of imperial big government one can imagine. They have given America a bad name around the world. They have bamboozled millions. They have looted and bankrupted the country. They have killed tens of thousands.
“If they don’t crack up on their own, we must do what we can to discredit them and their ideology forever.”
I also share Rockwell’s criticism of the left: http://mises.org/daily/2102
“I don’t mean to pick on the right exclusively. The left often … believe that the
government can’t but unleash Hell when it is waging war and spending on military
machinery. But when it comes to domestic policy, they believe the same government can
cure the sick, comfort the afflicted, teach the unlearned, and bring hope and happiness to
all.
“Each side presumes that it potentially enjoys full control over the government it
instructs to do this thing as versus that thing. What happens in real life, of course, is that
the public sector – always and everywhere seeking more power – responds to the
demands of both by granting each party’s positive agenda while eschewing its negative
one. Thus is the left given its welfare, and the right given its warfare, and we end up with
a state that grows ever more vast and intrusive at home and abroad.
“What neither side understands is that the critique they offer of the programs they
do not like applies also to the programs they do like. The same state that robs you and
me, ties business in knots, and wrecks the schools also does the same – and worse – to
countries that the US government invades. From the point of view of the taxed, the
destination of the money doesn’t matter; it is all taken by coercion and all of it saps the
productive capacity of society. Similarly, the state that uses military power to impose its
imperial will on foreign regimes – destroying property and lives, and making endless
enemies – is the one the left proposes to put in charge of our economic lives.”
Here’s hoping for a little more perspective, and less heated rhetoric.
Regards,
Tom
TT,
Quoting you: “What was the movement from a confederation to the Constitution, but a voluntary – not coerced – decision by each of the original states? You might counter with the dangers of forming a strong central government – and I would agree with you – but that’s a different point.”
This: “You might counter with the dangers of forming a strong central government – and I would agree with you.” Is the whole point. And, is not a different point, as you posit.
You state: “Up until the Civil War it was widely assumed that secession was always an option; maybe legally it was, but Lincoln’s war irrevocably established the superiority of the national government over the states.” Proves that the large part of the contention of the Anti-Federalists was, indeed, correct. They foretold that very happenstance.
try this : http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp03.html
with: “Sovereign states should of course be careful of giving away thier sovereignty, but sometimes they and their citizens may be better off disposing of parts of it -…” -would you care to posit some examples for consideration?
And, this: “to establish broader common markets and abate simmering ethnic frictions by creating a common interest in stability”-is unadulterated hokum. More, from you: “Trade Liberty for Security.” Please do give examples where this wonderous ideology( of death ) has been fostered to good ends(?)
And, this: “This is the trend globally, and is a good thing.” — I’m afraid, is all one needs to understand about you and your zeitgeist.
Methinks, you are truly a “Watermelon”.
I am not a political conservative or Republican, but a Classical Liberal/Libertarian. With that said, I believe that the NYT is ideologically dedicated to the generally totalitarian, collectivist system of social democracy. Like the vast majority of the media and academia, the NYT’s fundamental goal is to mold opinion. The factual, objective, and balanced reporting of current and historical events is not the primary consideration. I live in the New York metropolitan area and daily work and interact with those who worship the NYT and its ideology, and these individuals display considerable bias, inconsistency, and irrationality, just like those on the right whom they view, often with religious-like fervor, as devils incarnate. While at the very most he may have engaged in a bit of rhetorical hyperbole, Professor Reisman is accurate in his assessment of the NYT.
TokyoTom, I fully agree with the Lew Rockwell quote that you reproduced. We are extremely fortunate for the existence of the Mises Institute and individuals like Lew Rockwell. But your criticisms of President Bush, while accurate, are misleading. Yes, Bush is a terrible president, but he is following in a tradition that has existed for at least 100 years and has its strongest roots with Lincoln. Several left-wing icons, such as FDR, Wilson, and Truman are arguably guilty of even worse ethical and/or constitutional violations than Bush, but the left loathes Bush because he is not one of them, he is not their president. The political power is currently concentrated with the right and not with the left, and political power is the goal of most of those of either major political party. If the U.S. does have a Democratic president in 2008, virtually nothing fundamental will change with our government, some details yes but nothing in term of basic principles. In typical hypocritical fashion, the criticism of Bush and his policies from those on the left will not be leveled at their man or woman, despite the fact that very little, if anything, fundamental will have changed; most of the same policies will likely remain in place, although possibly under new names. And just as hypocritically, with a Democratic president, some on the right will likely become luke-warm, opportunistic supporters of civil and economic liberty, private property, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and peace.
My thanks to the several individuals whose excellent comments above have pointed out very significant aspects regarding the founding of the U.S. that are continually being ignored and distorted by mainstream academia and virtually all of the media.
TT: Reisman was merely pointing out that the NYT hasn’t changed it’s Marxist stance, which it has held for over a generation. Everyone who has read it for more than a few days knows that Reisman was merely stating the obvious. Do they occasionally slip up and print something that’s pro-capitalist. Of course? Are you suggesting that the NYT is a fortress of balance on economic issues? What is this fetish you have for the NYT and “peer reviewed” publications?
Roger: Let’s not confuse a liberal or socialist bent atthe Times with a Marxist one. The current bunch in power is a much in favor of government spending as the liberals; the big difference seems to be a greater support from the Times for tax and welfare measures that would lower wealth differences, while the Administration seems to care less about such differences while focussing on power aggranziement in the WH. Can’t say that I see much to like on either side.
TT
MEH:
You ask: “Sovereign states should of course be careful of giving away thier sovereignty, but sometimes they and their citizens may be better off disposing of parts of it -…” -would you care to posit some examples for consideration?
How about NATO, the WTO, free trade areas and the web of international trade agreements?
You also say that “this: ‘to establish broader common markets and abate simmering ethnic frictions by creating a common interest in stability’-is unadulterated hokum.”
Care to elaborate? I really do think that focussing on enhancing conditions that foster wealth creation is one of the best ways to secure peace and, by tying people together and having them mutually invested in not killing the trade goose, to eliminate and abate ethnic and other differences that otherwise are susceptible to abuse by politicians etc.
Just had some watermelon yesterday. Delicious, but rather expensive.
Regards,
Tom
Dennis, thanks for your comments.
My own background is as a former Republican, and I am no fan of the left. As there is a rather corrupt Republican administration in power right now, I tend to focus on bashing them, rather than focussing on the failings of the left. For that reason, I find both the NYT to be useful at present, and Dr. Reisman’s rather fevered attacks on it to be disturbing – as they seem to reveal him as one who is in thrall to this very dangerous Administration. For even while he embraces every opportunity to call the Times to account (sometimes for rather slim reasons, as in this case), I have yet to see a post of his that looks askance at anything the Administration does – but have I missed something?
I share you concern generally that people tend to adopt certain perspectives and then to defend them fiercely despite all evidence. I think this is both a function of how we defend our mental reality maps, and the inherent need we have to feel that we share some type of group bonds with others.
Regards,
TT
TT: “Let’s not confuse a liberal or socialist bent at the Times with a Marxist one.”
What’s the difference?
So do you think the NYT trumpeted free market causes when Bill Clinton was President? Will it become a bastion of free market economics when a Democrat takes over?
Roger:
Most of our European allies are market economies with a greater liberal and socialist bent than our own. They are not Marxists, but capitalists. They simply believe in a greater degree of government economic intervention, redistribution of income and welfare. We can disagree with that as being wrong-headed and leading to perverse results without calling it Marxist (or evil). Same with the Times.
The Times is rather consistently to the left, but they remain fundamentally capitalist. They rather consistently call for an end to agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare, and for more information and transparency from the Administration. These are valuable things, I think.
Note that the Republican administration and Congress, while sounding like free marketers, have done nothing to restructure burdensome regulations, but have instead expanded budgets, increased pork-barrel earmarks, created new entitlement programs, proposed creating a new narional ID system, tried to operate in secret as much as possible, waged expensive wars for dubious benefits other than political gain – while undermining civil rights, and done what they can to disrupt voting by minorities and Democrats. The Tims provides a check on this, and that is why they are hated on the right.
It is odd that Dr. Reisman chooses to chastize them, when they are merely acting in support of an opposition party, while ignoring the abuses of power by those who are actually in power.
I am surprised you do not see any room for nuance here.
TT
Comments on this entry are closed.