A funny and interesting review of The Revolution.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/8091/lifelong-left-liberal-reviews-ron-paul/
Lifelong Left-liberal reviews Ron Paul
Previous post: Wage and Price Controls Failed…
Next post: Natural Disasters, It Turns Out, Are Bad
{ 32 comments }
“Paul still opposes giving federal aid to the disadvantaged”
Uhm, yeah. That’s sorta the whole idea. It’s our job to give charity, not to have it coercively taken by force and misallocated for political purposes.
I give this review 3 proles out of 5.
The book is redundant propaganda? Vague, benevolent populism? Thank God the reviewer is not biased and can look at the issues on their own merits…
I don’t mean to rant, but for once I would like to see the left introduce some kind of rationale or analysis into their work. That can’t be too much to ask. It doesn’t always have to follow the basic formula of “Oh my! Arbitrary Group X will not have statistical parity to Arbitrary Group Z!”.
A major problem with Ms. Berman’s analysis is exemplified in this statement: “The diverse collection of references to everyone from old-school conservatives Robert A. Taft and William F. Buckley…”
Taft and Buckley absolutely do not belong to the same “school” of conservatism. In my opinion, until Americans become aware of the Old Right legacy of which Taft was a major figure, little positive political change will occur in this country.
Ms. Berman needs to read Rothbard’s “Betrayal of the American Right” and many of the works that he references in that book.
Along with embracing the Austrian School of Economics and natural law political theory, Ron Paul is also a great modern-day exemplar of the “Old Right.”
Ms. Berman concludes her article with: “But none of that is enough to elevate The Revolution beyond propaganda, and redundant propaganda, at that.†She seems to be saying, do not purchase and do not read the book. Maybe I am being a little too harsh in my evaluation of her statement, but we would not want increasing book sales to bring more attention to and possibly increased support for Dr. Paul’s message, would we.
I love how at the end she just says, “his book is propaganda”, but gives no example. Also, Paul used to support the death penalty, but the corruption of the system killing innocents is why he doesn’t anymore.
“Strangely, though he touches on nearly every other relevant political issue, The Revolution makes no mention of gay rights.”
Thankfully, my natural ability to use logic tells me that when Paul talks about one’s “individual” rights & liberties – that includes the right to be gay. Maybe Paul should have written his book with crayons…
Like most socialists, Berman doesn’t know the meanings of the words she uses. She is illiterate in the literal sense of the word. She calls her movement liberalism when it has nothing to do with being liberal and everything to do with enslavement to the state. And she clearly doesn’t understand what propaganda is. Neither does she understand libertarians, who are the true liberals but had to find a different name because the socialists stole theirs. Compassionate libertarianism is redundant. True compassion causes people to give of their own wealth to help the poor, as do conservatives and libertarians. Socialists give someone else’s wealth. Where is the compassion or virtue in that? Socialists like Berman simply declare themselves to be liberal, compassionate and virtuous, when the facts demonstrate the opposite. Then, when a libertarian like Paul presents factual evidence that libertarians are the true liberals, compassionate and moral, Berman labels that evidence as propaganda.
it is unbelievable that she accused Ron Paul of pandering! that alone should permanently discount all her future writing..
“About the Author
Judy Berman is a graduate student in New York University?s Cultural Reporting and Criticism program.”
Is it any wonder that she can’t do much more than deal in outmoded labels?
bottom line: any press is good press (besides of say, Reason magazine).
“artificially humble”
I can’t see how someone can be artificially humble. you are either humble or you aren’t
The reviewer raised her proverbial flag in the first couple of sentences, and what follows is a redundant and stereotypical treatment of Ron Paul and the reemergence of the old-right reinforced libertarian movement by a lithograph-liberal “theory” grad student. It amounts to standard Frankfurt school tripe. Her statements regarding Paul’s denunciation of racism and his lack of comment on gay rights are contradictory and dispay either an incapacity or an unwillingness to grasp their inherent connection as federally enforced, group-based identities. This group-based identity fundamentally disavows the underlying inviolable sanctity of each individual human life. Despite this review’s flaws, we should be grateful for her attention–hopefully she’ll read and review EVERY book in the Mises.org bookstore.
Yep. The attachment to group labels, “old-school conservative”, “gay rights”, is pretty pathetic.
It’s no wonder she cannot understand Mises or Paul. They speak of the individual.
You guys are missing the point – Ron Paul refuses to give Federal aid to the disadvantaged. Hello? How can anyone be for that.
That review was garbage, redundant garbage at that.
Fundementalist – good recap. I can’t get over that point sometimes… it’s hard to explain what real ‘liberalism’ is when it’s so blatantly mis-used in our society today by the socialist public (ill-literati)
I need to read Rothbard’s ‘betrayal’ book too -
JB
Speaking as a student at NYU, this is the typical view of libertarianism on campus. You’ll get nods of approval on some of the social issues. But the economic issues are simply another language. That applies to the faculty as well.
Libertarianism has always been the most compassionate ideology. What has never been compassionate is the violent expropriations and enslavement at the hands of those gangsters calling themselves “the government.”
The author writes, “True enough, but it doesn’t change the fact that Paul still opposes giving federal aid to the disadvantaged.”
More accurately, what he is refusing to do is enslave the innocent so as to fill the pockets of the bureaucratic class as they pretend to be benevelent angels “helping the less fortunate.” Paul has no opposition to aid being given to the disadvantaged, just as no other libertarian (not even Rand) opposed to that. Of course aid programmes would exist in a libertarian society; but so too would exist a wall of separation between aid programmes and state.
Dennis writes, “Taft and Buckley absolutely do not belong to the same ‘school’ of conservatism. In my opinion, until Americans become aware of the Old Right legacy of which Taft was a major figure, little positive political change will occur in this country.”
The Old Right had nothing to do with conservatism (and, accurately understood, weren’t even actually on the right), hence I recommend we concede the term “conservative” to the Buckleyites. The term “libertarian” is far more honourable.
Ms. Berman finishes her review by claiming the book is propaganda. It is my understanding that any work created with the intent to persuade one to adopt a certain point of view is propaganda. If this definition is accurate, then certainly the book is propaganda, just as is her review thereof.
I have noticed that journalists tend to not worry about costs and budgets, but they prefer to talk about the forest, the grand theme. Hence, the descriptions of grand causes, and the lack of attention to the trees that make up the forests, the costs involved in these causes and missions. Perhaps Journalists are Big-Picture types, whilst Libertarians are small-detail types. If cost-analysis were part of all media courses, we might end up with a balanced media.
I have been doing a lot of thinking over the last few weeks as to why is it so hard for a lot of people to accept Liberterian ideas around education, healthcare, etc. and why people see the government as a necessary evil. I would like to summarize the points as below:
1. People are not able to visualize the operating of the Free Market because the existing market in all sectors is quite heavily regulated. Take health care for example, people think health care costs skyrocketting is because of the free market and hence government intervention is necessary to bring prices down or make it affordable to all through taxation and government funding. What people fail to realize is that government has so heavily distorted the healthcare market by over regulation. People are afraid that they cannot afford such expensive health care and buy into government endorsed socialized medicine.
2. The rampant myth that capitalism = exploitation: people beleive that if the government didn’t regulate doctors, even butchers will become doctors and start killing people.
I am getting increasingly frustrated that most people around me are endorsing socialism and just don’t get the free market/capitalism ideas. Maybe Robert Murphy’s “Policitally incorrect guide to Capitalism” might help them?
Cheers,
Bryan.
Alex, I agree that Libertarian or Classical Liberal better describes the Old Right than conservative. I would add, however, that the Old Right was not a monolithic group, and more or less formed as a reaction to the domestic and foreign policies of FDR and to a lesser extent Wilson, and in this sense the movement can be label as “conservative.”
In general, using labels to describe movements can lead to confusion, and focusing on the actual principles that a movement embraces leads to better clarity.
JimB: “(ill-literati)”
I like that!
Bryan, I think you make some good points. But I think the problem is a little deeper. As Mises points out in Human Action, the root problem is natural human envy. Envy used to be considered a major sin by the church. Today it’s called social justice and considered good.
nick gray says:
“If cost-analysis were part of all media courses, we might end up with a balanced media.
as far as i’m aware, the only graduate programme for economic journalism using an austrian approach is offered by eseade in buenos aires. kind of staggering, when you think how many programmes exist worldwide.
fundamentalist, I think you are right.. the root cause is indeed envy most of the times.
I think the following point should be considered too:
The government backed central banking system combined with fractional reserve banking is the main cause of the huge inequality of incomes between the very rich and the middle class. Most people think this is due to capitalism and free markets, but fail to see that this is a result of a government regulation (granting monopoly to issue legal tender to one instutition). This has constantly been used in Pseudo arguments from all kinds of people discrediting and undermining capitalism. This leads to increased regulation pressures from people to their governments and furthur undermines capitalism. Is there any Hope???
I live in the United Kindgom, and anything and everything is taxed here and people generally have accepted the myth that higher taxes = higher standard of living! The MPs come with more and more absurd ideas to spend the tax money on and regulate people’s lives more and more in the name of common good for all. There is hardly a conservative voice here. The conservative party is almost as left leaning as the Labour – proposing increases to the National Health Service, Schools, etc. The media constantly undermine the Free Market by citing pseudo arguments (e.g The mortgage crisis is attributed to lax regulations for lenders which is one of the downsides of the Free Market).
Atleast America has still a good population of people with conservative ideas!
Bryan: “At least America has still a good population of people with conservative ideas!”
I thought so until the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. It became clear that Republicans are conservative only when the Democrats are in office. When Republicans get in office they become socialist just as socialist. It’s enough to make one despair.
fundamentalist, hmm so it seems the republicans are just as bad as democrats then. But at least the republican party has some good examples of conservative leaders in the past like Reagan. I don’t think the democrats will ever have a Ron Paul among their ranks would they??
Are there any members of this blog in the United Kingdom? might be worth creating a meetup group or something like that to increase the popularity of Austrian Economics in the UK which it desperately needs at the moment..
If anyone’s interested, drop me a line at: bryan1410@hotmail.com (bryan1410 at hotmail dot com).
Cheers,
Bryan.
Yep, I study in England.
“Neither does she understand libertarians, who are the true liberals but had to find a different name because the socialists stole theirs.”–Fundamentalist
Well said. I’m thinking of abandoning “libertarian” and from now on I think I will tell others that I’m “a liberal….BUTTTT in the ORIGINAL sense of the term BEFORE it was STOLEN by socialists and we true liberals had to find a different name.”
Bryan, I too live and study in the UK, but I think you are perhaps being a bit unfair on the Conservative party. Thatcher for example was a good friend of the Libertarian cause and even called Hayek her favourite philosopher. I think you need to remember that Cameron and the rest of the party are working within the constraints of a democratic system populated by people with very little understanding of economics and even less understanding of the fact that the government’s main tool is one of coercion. As people are not open to listening to Libertarian arguments in the UK it is necessary for Conservatives who are that way inclined to moderate their message and go for a slower, pragmatic approach. David Cameron believes whole-heartedly in smaller government, he is just adopting a pragmatic approach of bringing it about (by the way the party is now advocating a voucher system for some schools). You are however right to complain of the left-wing bias in the media; the all pervasive political correctness at every level of the BBC (which itself is supported by the reprehensible licence fee) is perhaps the main reason why the British public are instinctively sceptical of those philosophically on the right. A group to promote the Libertarian cause in the UK does sound like a good idea.
Bryan: “I don’t think the democrats will ever have a Ron Paul among their ranks would they??”
No, the Democrats are pure Marxists. Look at Barak Obama, likely our next president. His church, and many black churches, promote liberation theology, which is nothing but hard core Marxism in religious drag. I have no doubt Obama subscribes to it.
But look at the pitiful Republicans. They alternate between embarassment and confusion over Ron Paul. Most don’t understand him at all. No Republican that I know of is libertarian. Like Bush, every single Republican runs for office promising smaller government. But when they get control of Congress or the Presidency, they spend money so fast that they make the Democrats blush like a young boy in whore house.
So, liberation theology claims that there should be a class owning all the means of production? And they claim also that polylogism is a truth (look it up if you do not know what that means) ?
Given my own studies in that area, I doubt that very much.
I am not a friend of liberals, nor of socialism, yet, comments like that, make it very hard to argue for the old right.
Such comments have nothing to do with liberalism, but much with statism and the pursue of bringing the “non-believers” under the rule of the “true believers”.
Whatever that true believe is.
Nothing can be further away from liberalism and free market.
Norbert: “Given my own studies in that area, I doubt that very much.”
I’m not sure what you’re saying. Do you mean that you have studied liberation theology, or that you have studied Latin America?
I haven’t spent much time on liberation theology, but what I know about it shows that they definately want state control of the economy, if not outright state ownership. As for polylogism, I would say yes, they do claim it. Especially the black version. Listen to black socialists in the US. They assert that no white can understand the black experience; no rich person can understand the poor experience; even rich blacks can’t understand the poor black experience.
I’m glad the reviewer at least read this book, maybe like an intellectual cancer it will sink in and start working on the bottom of the food chain mentality exhibited by this review. You can give them food for thought, the issue becomes their refusal to eat it.
Lol…yes, I too dream of Libertarianism when I look at my paycheck and think, “That thousand dollars that was taken out could probably be used for better purposes by me.” But then I drive down the pothole filled road, pass the government school where the teacher who works 180 days a year makes more than I do thanks to the government monopoly in place. I pass the police officer who has ticketed a poor guy because he has a crack in his windshield and think of the courts and bureaucracy in place to deal with his $250 ticket. I go to the gas station to pay 50 cents a gallon in taxes to pay for my pothole filled road and I have an epiphany….if it weren’t for all my taxes I wouldn’t be able to pay for these luxuries. Silly me. I then decided to vote for McCain or Obama to ensure these things would remain in place.
There are probably as few libertarians in the Republican party as there are in the Democratic party. It just appears as though the Republicans are more libertarian because a few of the libertarian Republicans, like Ron Paul, have made it into the Establishment. Fewer libertarian Democrats have achieved this, although there is an active libertarian caucus in both parties. Frank Gonzalez is a libertarian who ran in 2006 as a Democrat in Florida and almost made it into Congress, securing fourty-something percent of the vote.
Comments on this entry are closed.