1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8718/regular-folks-who-hate-war/

Regular Folks Who Hate War

October 7, 2008 by

What Kauffman has done here is more than merely sketch a history, though it is wonderful and detailed history. He has fashioned a new way to look at the makeup of the politics of war. I found it interesting that during the 1990s, it was the Republicans who emerged as the anti-nation-building party as the Democrats embraced their Wilsonian heritage. After 9-11, the roles switched yet again, and today the Republicans are guilty of trafficking in the worst forms of jingoism. FULL ARTICLE

{ 2 comments }

Mark Glasgow October 7, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Although, I’ve not read Bill Kauffmann’s book, I’m eager to do so based on Jeffrey Tucker’s sapient review of it. The stereotypes Tucker’s review invokes, of an America we can all relate to, belies in Kantian fashion, a truth shrouded in history, except for Kauffman’s timely scholarship. Kauffmann draws from the historical record beginning with our nation’s founders, retracing the winding road, over which we’ve traveled in arriving at our currently prevailing politics of war.

No doubt Kauffmann attempts to make his point in Kantian fashion, that, an ignorance of history leads to judgments which bear a semblance of truth but are in fact illusory. According to Tucker, Kauffmann urges us to rethink what it means to be conservative, reconsidering the historical record, which if ignored, allows us in historical ignorance to adopt a false epistemology, through which we will create, most certainly, those circumstances which by their horror disprove our premises.

Such a rethinking is encouraged as an effective means to revalidate our provincial interests, whilst opposing far-flung attempts to remake the world through elite manipulation. It seems that unless we are hell-bent on adapting false means to arrive at arguably more reprehensible ends, it behooves us to move in Hegelian fashion, to synthesize opposing interests, in support of our historical well being. Such well being warrants a reexamination of the historical record, a return to liberal values and a flight from any and all actions that would in any way, shape or form, render our progress to date, null and void.

Mark M. Glasgow October 7, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Although, I’ve not read Bill Kauffmann’s book, I’m eager to do so based on Jeffrey Tucker’s sapient review of it. The stereotypes Tucker’s review invokes, of an America we can all relate to, belies in Kantian fashion, a truth shrouded in history, except for Kauffman’s timely scholarship. Kauffmann draws from the historical record beginning with our nation’s founders, retracing the winding road, over which we’ve traveled in arriving at our currently prevailing politics of war.

No doubt Kauffmann attempts to make his point in Kantian dialectic, that, an ignorance of history leads to judgments which bear a semblance of truth but are in fact illusory. According to Tucker, Kauffmann urges us to rethink what it means to be conservative, reconsidering the historical record, which if ignored, allows us in historical ignorance to adopt a false epistemology, through which we will create, most certainly, those circumstances which by their horror disprove our premises.

Such a rethinking is encouraged as an effective means to revalidate our provincial interests, whilst opposing far-flung attempts to remake the world through elite manipulation. It seems that unless we are hell-bent on adapting false means to arrive at arguably more reprehensible ends, it behooves us to move in Hegelian fashion, to synthesize opposing interests, in support of our historical well being. Such well being warrants a reexamination of the historical record, a return to liberal values and a flight from any and all actions that would in any way, shape or form, render our progress to date, null and void.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: