In “The Man Behind the Wall Street Journal,” Richard Tofel says that Richard Kilgore “drew his own perspective from the Journal’s editorial page, which soon became, and has remained, the leading voice of mainstream libertarian thinking in the nation.”
I should probably leave it at that, but succinctness has never been one of my personal characteristics. So let me say that on economics, the Wall Street Journal editorial page is not all bad. Indeed, quite a bit of it is informative, and much of what it is publishes is compatible with libertarianism. But, when it comes to foreign policy, the “War” Street Journal is about as far removed from the libertarian axiom of non aggression, non invasion, as it is possible to be.
{ 14 comments }
The WSJ and Fox News are owned by the same company. I therefore find it amusing to think that someone considers the WSJ to be a bastion of libertarian thought.
I think many “hardcore libertarians” underestimate how many “regular libertarians” (whatever those terms might mean, and I don’t have any working definitions myself, I’m simply trying to convey an idea) don’t like the war, but are far from being rabidly against it.
Owners of media companies do not always use those companies to champion their own politics, ethics, religion, etc. For some such ownership is mainly a matter of good economic investment and if the WSJ, for example, makes more money for its owners advocating libertarian views than otherwise, they may well open the editorial pages to libertarian thinking even without believing every word of it. Is this in line with professional ethics? That is not the issue in this discussion!
Keith,
A central tenant to libertarianism is the principle of non-aggression. However, war can be waged if it’s in immediate self-defense. For example, a nation was attacked, and didn’t provoke the attacker, the victimized nation can and ought to mobilize forces to thwart the aggression for purposes of self-preservation.
True, Michael, but there’s nothing defensive about our current invasion of Iraq.
I agree with Tibor. The owners of an organ of expression, especially if the owner is a large corporation, typically don’t give a damn what positions it takes, except as they are part of the product it is selling.
Quote from Michael: “A central tenant to libertarianism is the principle of non-aggression.”
Yeah, I know. I’m talking about politics in reality. Socialism and fascism are supposedly bad too, but it sure hasn’t seemed to slow them down much at the polls.
From a distance, things not close together can seem close together.
Example: “we” talk about Fascism as just another socialism, but to the leftist they are as different as night and day.
Since most politics is very “left”, its the same to assign the WSJ and anyone else that even breaths the words “free market” or “deregulate” in any form the Libertarian label.
Just a thought.
“Since most politics is very “left”, its the same to assign the WSJ and anyone else that even breaths the words “free market” or “deregulate” in any form the Libertarian label.”
What?
In other words, Curt’s suggesting that WSJ merely seems ‘libertarian” compared to most other media. Since I don’t keep up with the WSJ, I can’t say how true that might be.
Exactly, Michael.
Another example is that I’ve had Milton Friedman thrown in my face in many, many arguments, as the supposed end-all be-all of Libertarian economist.
Sadly, I believe it was because Milton was simply the most “libertarian” an individual they had ever let penetrate their consciousness. After all, Rothbard didn’t have a movie made about him, didn’t have a TV series, etc etc etc.
Curt,
Also, I do know several people who call themselves libertarians who are really conservatives but got tired of bending over for the GOP.
Quote from Curt Howland: “Example: “we” talk about Fascism as just another socialism, but to the leftist they are as different as night and day.”
Which is why I think we should call them fascists. It’s a far better description, anyway.
Anytime you hear the policies of somebody on the “left” described as socialist, you typically hear them try to refute it by saying “I’m not advocating government ownership of the means of production” and this is essentially true.
They’re typically advocating government regulation and coercion of virtually every aspect of society, from the schools, to commerce, to trade, to wages, to the media. It’s all manipulated through a web of politically connected agencies, both governmental and beholden to the government. It’s fascism.
Plus, calling them fascists tends to piss them off.
On fascism and the Left, the late Susan Sontag once said that Communism is successful fascism and alienated many of her pals on the Left. And if you check it out, in practice all those countries labelled “communist”, like North Korea, Cuba, China, the USSR are or were fascist dictatorships. Not one resembled the impossible dream of the Left, Marxian communism (which even Marx realized would require a change in human nature to be achieved).
Comments on this entry are closed.