The news reports the death of Irving Kristol, one-time socialist turned democratic capitalist. He was of course not a libertarian; his love for the market extended to two cheers only. He was also instrumental in tying the capitalist cause to a celebration of the warfare state–the whole ideology of neoconservatism–which didn’t help the cause much in the end. This ideological move he helped bring about probably did as much to wed the cause of peace to the push for socialism among the left.
However, I have personal fond memories of him from several long lunches with him. One aspect of his very sharp mind I really appreciated: he never trusted an official statistic. He loved grilling bureaucrats and neoclassical economists on the meaning of GDP, unemployment, national income, saving, and all the other statistical apparatus. He would ask question after question, with his funny wry smile and pretend-naive ways, and enjoy watching the experts crumble into dust under his questioning.
He somehow knew just the right question to ask that would cause people to sweat and finally melt in his presence. He was deeply skeptical of the whole enterprise of government in general, and brought his opposition to socialism to bear with a general orientation to disbelieve most of what the bureaucracies do. He might have made a great Austrian had his intellectual training led him in that direction, and if he hadn’t been so dedicated to the idea of the American empire. In any case, I have very fond memories of his doubtful and skeptical mind at work. There’s a good model to follow here.
{ 21 comments }
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/36543.html
Irving Kristol was a genius in a sense and contrary to these modern ‘neocons’ (who in my mind seem to be mindless clones of each other) he was in many ways an original thinker.
A part of his creativity can be explained by the fact that he shared most of his life with Gertrude Himmelfarb, who was an is a good author in her own (and whose Acton study was praised even by Murray N. Rothbard).
wow, lew rockwell certainly doesn’t pull punches.
This is what I saw Kristol doing. He often made remarks belittling and marginalizing Hayek, often mischaracterizing Hayek’s work and attributing views Hayek which were closer to Friedman and Rothbard at there most rationalistic “libertarian” than anything you can find in Hayek.
It was only in his later years that Kristol finally admitted that he’d never read Hayek’s _The Road to Serfdom_, although Kristol’s attacks on Hayek often suggested that he was attacking the Hayek known to the public through Hayek’s one popular work.
The only evidence we have that Kristol did indeed read some Hayek is the fact that 2 or 3 of the key ideas upon which Kristol’s most famous essays turn come straight out of Hayek’s _The Constitution of Liberty_ without citation, Hayek’s account of the distinction between English liberalism and French liberalism
With due respect for Jeff (who I like very much) in his opinion of the man, but I can only judge him by his works and deeds.
He seemed to me a neocon demagogue who advanced imperial agenda. And his view of “democracy” was far from democratic. State intervention to him was justifiable — even when undemocratic. Freedom was just a word that justified state intervention. His only earned merit was when he took on “leftists.” But were the tables turned on him, I’m sure he’d crumble just as easily.
He did not share conservative or libertarian assumptions. He borrowed them when it suited his purpose. Of course, this might be harsh. I’ve read lots of his work and his son’s work, but not all of his work.
Anyways,
Cheers
“The major political event of the twentieth century is the death of socialism.”
gosh. lew rockwell might as well have just said “I’m glad he’s dead.” one’s views on economics and foreign policy only makes up a very small part of who he or she is. Kristol genuinely felt interventionist foreign policy was good for the world. as Ted Kennedy, who recently died thought many things were good for the world that austrians clearly believe aren’t. does this make the person worthy of being talked ill of when they die? Most all of us have good intentions. Only the Stalin’s, and Hitlers, etc. have bad intentions. They don’t deserve to spoken of kindly when they die.
But to speak ill of someone when they die just because they didn’t like your economic heroes? seriously? It seems a bit childish to me. Debate him as much as you want while he’s alive but man. Rockwell had some pretty harsh words.
Was Kristol a kind man? A smart man? A resourseful man? Thanks Jeffery Tucker for focusing on the things you should be focusing on.
We need to get back to the kindness that Keynes and Hayek treated each other with. How about we get closer to Hayek’s comments on Keyne’s death: “the one really great man I ever knew.”
Whether living or dead a person has a record of words and deeds. It is not always possible to hide misdeeds as an act of courtesy when one takes on the responsibility of honestly examining the fruits. It is not necessarily slanderous to analyze the words and deeds of human beings. Falsifying the meaning of what has been done is what lays at the foundation of propaganda.
Of course different people have different perspectives and hearing multiple perspectives is the most illuminating way and the most just way to gain knowledge.
mark,
I’m sure your touchy-feely and naive (how on earth do you think the Stalins, Hitlers and Cheneys get where they are?) sentiments here would mean a lot to the families of the hundreds of thousands murdered by the regime both Kristols worked so hard for. I can definitely say it nauseates one who was forced to pay a part for the abomination. They are/were accessories to massive war crimes and if this were a just world Kristol Sr. would have died doing hard labour and would be tossed in an unmarked grave like so many of the victims of his insane ideology.
(there, now THAT’s harsh)
for the record, lew rockwell spoke ill of kristol during his life. consistency matters.
as for the rest, stalin had a lively sense of humour, hitler loved dogs, and so forth.
Also, Hitler’s ultimate goal was merely the perfection of human society, which entailed world peace. Of course we all object to what he thought it took to realize that–extermination of the “inferior” races. If he had won the second world war, his vision may have come true. You can’t fault him just for wanting what was best.
Mpolzkill is right imo.
“gosh. lew rockwell might as well have just said “I’m glad he’s dead.” one’s views on economics and foreign policy only makes up a very small part of who he or she is. Kristol genuinely felt interventionist foreign policy was good for the world. as Ted Kennedy, who recently died thought many things were good for the world that austrians clearly believe aren’t. does this make the person worthy of being talked ill of when they die? Most all of us have good intentions. Only the Stalin’s, and Hitlers, etc. have bad intentions. They don’t deserve to spoken of kindly when they die.”
In their view what they were doing was driven by good intentions. Ted Kennedy and Irving Kristol were only criminals to a lesser degree, but criminals nonetheless.
Thank you, Inquisitor; and Matt, too, I had also wanted to make your point that nearly everyone thinks they are doing right; most are quite obviously mistaken. If one thinks in terms not of good and evil, but of humility and hubris, then one is on VERY firm ground to condemn Kristol forever in the harshest terms possible.
You’ve probably seen what Mr. Rockwell posted last night. This is what it’s all about:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/zaidi1.1.1.html
Destiny of America
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The Shoe (Shot) That Was Heard Around The World!
Now the voice of the one who threw the shoe!
Will the imperialistic unConstitutional coup in the United States be able to keep these words of this sincere Iraqi out of the reach of the worldwide media? Let’s hope not.
Let’s hope that the vulgar ego-driven interventionism of the economic terrorists that make up the inner circle of the unConstitutional coup is exposed widely.
Oppression by these thieving and counterfeiting ego-driven interventionists is a worldwide blight on humanity and it is the cause of most of the suffering in the world, either directly or indirectly. It is shameful that the name of America is tainted because of their usurpation of the reigns of this once great Constitutional Republic.
Read this personal account by Mutadhar al-Zaidi and judge it fairly and with an unbiased mind.
Restore dignity to America by expressing your total disgust with the way Congress has ignored the Constitution. Hold each elected representative responsible and make obedience to their oath “to uphold and defend the Constitution” the chief criterion, when voting.
True change means restoring the Constitutional Republic!
Bruce Koerber,
Please note what al-Zaidi said in his account about the Aboriginal Americans. I don’t think this experiment is working out so well.
(unless the experiment was to see if they could subjugate as many natives as possible for a couple centuries or so)
“{Kristol} might have made a great Austrian had his intellectual training led him in that direction, and if he hadn’t been so dedicated to the idea of the American empire…”
_____________________________________
…that fundamental dedication was to Israel.
American empire expansion was/is merely an intermediary tool for the security & prosper of that state.
“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.” – Irving Kristol
I’m afraid I can’t say anything good about Kristol. That quote above is quite possibly the most vile thing ever uttered by an America.
It’s not only a repudiation of the enlightenment, but a repudiation of the entire enterprise of human thought going back to ancient Greece and before. It essentially amounts to a defense of lies as foundational to civilization.
Based on what Adam I. cited Irving Kristol, of whom I have ever thought ill on old right grounds, intellectually & philosophically has much in common with Leo Strauss; that quote could have been lifted without attribution from Strauss’ 1953 book Natural Right & History. Neo-conservatism is a truly pernicious enterprize.
Moshe Dayan (whom I met once after a lecture), made me admire Israel. Kristol was among those who’ve made me hate it.
R.I.P. = Rot In Pieces
It is “geniuses” like Kristol that empower and provide credibility for the Hitlers of the world in exchange for their own taste of power and celebrity.
To call them anything but evil, is to engage in evil itself. To see people do it anyway, all in order to be polite, is absolutely asinine.
It’s all quite simple really. An evil-doer who wished to enslave society with his own devices lies dead. The only bad outcome of this will be the vacuum created that will be filled by his equally evil son and the remaining neo-cons.
Irving Kristol spent his whole life in effort to undermine the sustainability of society. Anyone who speaks kindly of him is doing likewise, manners notwithstanding.
Comments on this entry are closed.