When did the Right unravel?
Many conservatives have come to realize that the old feisty, antigovernment spirit of conservatives has been abraded and somehow been transformed into its statist opposite, writes Murray Rothbard.
It is tempting, and, so far as it goes, certainly correct, to put the blame on the Right's embrace in the 1970s of Truman-Humphrey Cold War liberals calling themselves "neoconservatives," and to allow these ex-Trotskyites and ex-Mensheviks not only into the tent but also to take over the show. But the thesis of the book is that those who wonder what happened to the good old cause must not stop with the neocons: that the rot started long before, with the founding in 1955 of National Review and its rapid rise to dominance of the conservative movement.
It was National Review that, consciously and cleverly, transformed the content of the Old Right into something very like its opposite, while preserving the old forms and rituals, such as lip service to the free market and to the Constitution of the United States. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (31)
Could the old right have won another election?
Published: September 28, 2007 9:01 AM
What difference does it make?
Published: September 28, 2007 9:59 AM
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote for National Review for decades.
Would it be fair to include him – or Russell Kirk for that matter – in the "transformation of the Old Right" by that magazine?
Just asking.
Published: September 28, 2007 10:45 AM
What's the point of an ideology if it can't win?
It doesn't matter how right you are, if you can't win your ideas are not implemented.
Or put it another way, the problem isn't the right, it's us. The ideas failed to win popularity. We can't blame politicians, who merely implement ideas, for the failure of their popularity. If we make our ideas popular, politicians will support them.
Published: September 28, 2007 11:05 AM
Political ideologies are never popular. They are understood and embraced only by small groups of elite intellectuals.
What we call the democratic process has nothing to do with competing ideology but is instead an ideology in itself, where a permanent ruling class divides into two factions who play off the people against each other by promising enough privileges to win a regular contest.
No ideology which challenges the legitimacy of this process will ever be admitted into the process.
Published: September 28, 2007 11:42 AM
Whats the point of winning if you sell your soul? Might as well have let someone else win, no?
Published: September 28, 2007 12:02 PM
Lots of good writers contributed to National Review: Mises, Hazlitt, and even Rothbard among them. The point Murray is making here deals with an institutional mission of the magazine.
It's perfectly fine to contribute to a publication that is otherwise not devoted to freedom. I mean, if the Pentagon wanted to issue a monograph by Hoppe, there would be no reason to object.
Published: September 28, 2007 12:25 PM
8:"We can't blame politicians, who merely implement ideas, for the failure of their popularity."
That's an excellent point. My impressions of the Old Right and the Libertarian movement is that they were scholarly movements. They seem to have endorsed the trickle down theory of truth: change the scholars and the truth will trickle down to the masses. Unfortunately, libertarians seem to be still stuck in that mode, while both socialists and neo-cons slug it out in the marketplaces of ideas--TV and radio. Libertarians can't complain about losing elections when they talk only to themselves and other scholars via journals and web sites. At some point we have to stoop to speak to the uneducated masses in language that will grab their attention and educate them. In short, libertarians are poor communicators.
Hayek, Mises and Rothbard are perfect examples of brilliant minds who communicate poorly. I have a masters degree in econ and I have to read Hayek's books two or three times to figure out what he's saying. Mises and Rothbard aren't much better, though Rothbard is the best writer in the bunch.
Also, I would suspect that the red scare of the 50's and 60's scored a lot of points for the National Review crowd. Their message was simple: stop communism or we'll all land deep in a gulag. This is a favorite tactic of the left--scare the voters over to your side--but the new right used it effectively. Today the new right uses the horror of terrorism to frighten voters to its side.
Politics is the art of frightening voters with just the right amount of hyperbole. If libertarians want to win elections, though I'm not sure they do, they need to pick a topic that has the potential to frighten people, exaggerate the consequences a little, and get the message on TV and radio, not web sites and journals.
Published: September 28, 2007 12:26 PM
Obviously there should be some pragmatism involved. Voters are rational. Give them a smaller government without sending their grandma back to live with them by cutting her social security too much. Lower income taxes but keep the gas tax to pay for road improvements. Cut most farm subsidies and import restrictions but keep school lunches for lower income pupils.
Published: September 28, 2007 12:30 PM
At some point we have to stoop to speak to the uneducated masses in language that will grab their attention and educate them. In short, libertarians are poor communicators.
Calling the people outside of your small group the "uneducated masses" is insulting and a poor communication tactic. But it does substantiate your following sentance!
Published: September 28, 2007 12:36 PM
"Obviously there should be some pragmatism involved. Voters are rational. Give them a smaller government without sending their grandma back to live with them by cutting her social security too much. Lower income taxes but keep the gas tax to pay for road improvements. Cut most farm subsidies and import restrictions but keep school lunches for lower income pupils."
Voters are rational. That's why when a politician promises them a program that people other than them will have to pay for, they enthusiastically support this program.
Published: September 28, 2007 12:43 PM
Unfortunately, libertarians seem to be still stuck in that mode, while both socialists and neo-cons slug it out in the marketplaces of ideas--TV and radio.
I don't agree with this statement. I think the Libertarians are trying to slug it out on TV and Radio, but there are other factors involved that limit how strong our message is from those mediums, the biggest factor being cost. Libertarians don't have the huge sums of money available to us to advertise our message as much as we'd like. Also, have you forgotten that the two party monopoly have imposed regulations, restrictions and laws to make it harder for third parties to get their message out there.
I think a lot of Libertarians realize that we need to communicate in a larger way, but there are obstacles in the way. But we don't let those obstacles block us completely...but they do get in the way, and that's just reality.
In short, libertarians are poor communicators.
I disagree with this statement as well. Not ALL Libertarians are poor communicators, but I'm sure some are. Walter Williams for example is a great communicator, and I consider his philosophy to very Libertarian in nature. And he's substituted for Rush Limbaugh, who is NOT Libertarian, on many occasions. He's also been very well received. We need more people like him on center stage speaking our message.
I do agree with what you say about certain economists being hard to read, their message being hard to absorb. This of course turns a lot of people, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes reading articles on this site makes me feel tired...the subjects just seem so boring sometimes. But I force myself to read many things to educate myself. Don't count on the majority of the population to do that, however.
If libertarians want to win elections, though I'm not sure they do, they need to pick a topic that has the potential to frighten people, exaggerate the consequences a little, and get the message on TV and radio, not web sites and journals.
I disagree with this idea as well. I think our philosophy can be accepted by many, and be very well received, if communicate well (like Walter Williams) and point out the fact that we're not going to play "politics as usual" and use scare tactics against them. I also think it will be positive for Libertarians if we continue to point out, in easy to understand descriptions, how the "scare tactics" the left and right have used allowed government to balloon in size and scope, and have tricked people into supporting their schemes.
Published: September 28, 2007 3:13 PM
"Calling the people outside of your small group the "uneducated masses" is insulting and a poor communication tactic."
This site is mostly frequented by people familiar with Austrian econ, so I doubt Fundamentalist's words will insult anyone.
Anyway, libertarians must never be willing to compromise intellectually on their ultimate goal; however, we should always be willing to bring ourselves closer to that goal in the mean time. Educating the masses and implementing pro-market policies is one way of doing this.
Published: September 28, 2007 7:05 PM
Nelson writes: "Cut most farm subsidies ...but keep school lunches for lower income pupils."
No, I say cut all farm subsidies. Why is it moral for the state to rob one capitalist to insure the profits of a collectivist who calls himself a capitalist? And who determines the menu for the school lunches? The Cattlemen's Association and Clinton/Huckabee? I doubt it will be Gary Null and Dr. Weill. What about the Rights of a 7th Day Adventist or Hindu who is forced to provide funds to help murder defenceless animals, which violates his deepest religious sensibilites?
As for Libertarianism's lack of wide-spread appeal, I say, give it 14 more months of dollar depreciation and the 96-year Fed abcess will burst, and then, unfortunately, economic chaos will turn a dry philosophy into the only life-saver of Everyman's daily economic life. President Paul will have a lot to deal with after his inauguration.
Published: September 28, 2007 10:12 PM
Fundamentalist: "Mises and Rothbard aren't much better ..."
I just picked up a copy of Human Action a few weeks ago, and I'm completely enthralled. Of course, I'm new around here ...
Published: September 28, 2007 10:30 PM
Scott: "I just picked up a copy of Human Action a few weeks ago, and I'm completely enthralled. Of course, I'm new around here ..."
I'm glad. I've read a lot of Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and Reisman and am still enthralled. But we're a small minority. We're interest in economics. I have found that nothing but a good fart clears a room faster than trying to introduce economics into the conversation. And that's among intelligent, college educated people.
Some people might point to the success of the book Freakanomics as evidence that people can be attraced to econ, but it's not even about economics! And the economist had to have a journalist write for him so the average reader could understand it.
Libertarians can keep doing things the way they have for the past 50 years and they'll have the same success they have had for the past 50 years. Why would you expect different results from the same actions? Or you can find a better way to communicate with the majority of voters.
Someone mentioned Walter Williams, and he is an excellent communicator, but who else is there? How many people carry water for the neo-cons and socialists on radio and TV? Other than Williams, John Stossel is about it, though he does an outstanding job. Williams and Stossel are outnumbered about 10,000 to 1.
I don't believe that libertarians lack the money to get on radio and TV. Libertarians should be the wealthiest people in the country. I think the real problem is that libertarians have chosen academia as their main target audience and have ignored the unwashed masses.
Published: September 28, 2007 11:21 PM
You're certainly right Fundamentalist, that people like Walter Williams and John Stossel are rare, and we need more people like them to spread the message.
And I also think you're right that we can't just keep talking to ourselves, to people that already agree with us. We have to get the message out there in a fashion that's attractive and marketable, like John Stossel has done so well. And luckily he's got access to a show where they give him time to put forth that Libertarian like philosophy.
Published: September 29, 2007 10:25 AM
Why is it moral for the state to rob one capitalist to insure the profits of a collectivist who calls himself a capitalist?
Why isn't it moral to ensure our children have food and an education? If its a debate about morality, take it to the voters. Explain your position. If you get elected fine. If you do not, then maybe rethink your position.
I think the real problem is that libertarians have chosen academia as their main target audience and have ignored the unwashed masses.
With an elitist attitude like that, you might as well stay in your ivory tower.
Published: September 29, 2007 11:57 AM
Nelson writes,"Why isn't it moral to insure our children have food and an education......Explain your position."
If you believe its moral to insure our children have food, then why haven't Dem/Reps demanded national soup kitchens that would feed any homeless child or person. Hayek said a society as wealthy as ours (he was refering to Poor England of wartime days) could easily provide food security for all, a position I share. So why does the newly proposed farm bill give $192 Billion over the next 5 years for food stamps which are only available to persons with residences, while $100 Million over 5 years is provided for aid to soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Do you think the homeless are worth 1900 times less than a poor person with a home? Evidently so.
When you rob my child of a dollar through taxation to support huge-corporate mega-farms, a dollar he could have spent on nutritious food or put in his college education, are you "insuring our children have food and an education". No, but you are insuring guaranteed profits for corporate communists.
In 2001, 73% of farm subsidies went to the top 10% income-wise of farmers. The bottom 80% received 12% of subsidies. According to Brian Riedl of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, the average farm household earns $81,420 annually, 29% above the national average and has a net worth of $838,875 (more than 8 times the national average). According to the U.S.D.A., most farm subsidies are distributed to commercial farmers with average income of $199,975 and a net worth just under $2 million dollars.
I'm sure you know, Nelson, that farm subsidies are only paid on certain crops like cotton, wheat, soybeans, etc. but exclude almost all fresh fruits and vegetables. Why do you think the child of a tomato farmer should have a dollar of his college fund robbed from him to subsidize a corporation making $2 million dollars a year? The justice of the modern liberal.
Published: September 29, 2007 2:14 PM
What the hell are you talking about Paul? I said cut farm subsidies but keep the school lunch program.
Published: September 29, 2007 2:20 PM
"Why isn't it moral to ensure our children have food and an education?"
It is the means that are immoral.
Published: September 29, 2007 7:24 PM
Nelson writes,"What the hell are you talking about...I said cut farm subsidies but keep the school lunch program."
Sorry, but I thought you wrote above, "cut most farm subsides" and I wondered why there should be any at all. Why should a lousy farmer be kept in business by the state when a good farmer would produce more food, and not have to rob the taxpayer trying to feed his children? It seems to me the good farmer would be helping to keep food prices lower for all members of society, and thus better insuring your goal of food security.
I'm also curious to know what you would include in these school lunches, and who would determine that? And since these lunches only compromise 5 of the 21 meals a child eats during a week, why not subsidize breakfast and dinner? And what of the poor home-schooled child? Should't he receive a lunch subsidy too?
Perhaps you are aware of the "conservation" program in the farm bill, separate from direct crop subsidies, that pays people not to grow food on their land. Do you think this should be eliminated too?
And what of the effect on Africa where many marginal farmers are forced off the land because the American subsidized crops undercut them. Oxfam estimates that hundreds of thousands of African children have died from malnutrition due to higher food prices caused by American and European farm subsidies. Since you think that some subsidies should be retained, do you think this subsidy-caused starvation is worth the price?
Finally, it seems to me food security could better be achieved by the establishment of destitution camps where any indigent person, man woman or child, could get nutritious vegan food, bathing facilities, and a clean bunk. Adults could trade the state some socially useful labor (cutting roadside fire brush, teaching, reading to children, etc) to cover the costs. Such a program, it seems to me, would provide food security to all at a much lower cost than inflating the currency which hurts the poor the hardest, and then trying to patch the inflation-caused damage with feel-good lunch programs. I think this is the only welfare program necessary, unless I am missing something. This plan might be acceptable to Hayekians, but I know the Rothbardians will object. Remember though that such a program would also provide relief to stock and commodity-futures day traders who wipe themselves out.
But, to restate the question, what would you have on the lunch menu, and who would determine its contents?
Published: September 29, 2007 9:55 PM
I only said most because the school nutrition program is in the farm bill. Buying food is a somewhat small subsidy. Other than actually feeding (poor) people, I'm against all farm subsides (I don't even mind if the government buys food from foreigners). I am also against all import restrictions. The school lunch menus are determined by the school cooks within certain guidelines. But that program already exists... my position was just don't eliminate it. In other words, cut the programs that are handouts to businesses (99% of the farm bill) but don't cut the programs that help poor kids get an education and nutrition (1% of the farm bill). It's not a big compromise to make, but the Rothbardians would rather throw out the baby with the bathwater. (The percentages I used are just for effect, don't take them as fact.)
Published: September 30, 2007 1:32 AM
Nelson, I'm glad to hear you're against all farm subsidies. To favor one group of capitalists (actually corporate communists) at the expense of all other capitalists is obviously both unconstitutional and immoral, especially in a society that pays lip service to free-market mercantilism. However, I would have to strongly differ with you on the percentages in the farm bill. You say handouts to business are 99% of the farm bill, and nutrition is 1% and I realise you mean them as rough figures to illustrate the unjust disparity. Unfortunately, I fell into the same thought trap when I heard with great indignation a few years back that the then latest tranche of farm subsidies came in at $199 Billion for 2 years, or roughly $100Billion/yr, or about $330/yr/person in the U.S. A family of four had to cough up $1320/yr to hand over to the corporate socialists. But, upon researching the matter I found I was wrong, for the major component is for what is euphamistically termed "nutrition". Direct cash payment farm subsidies run $15to25$ billion, depending which think tank is making the estimates. Heritage Foundation puts it at $25 Billion, others at 15% of total funds ($15 Billion). So lets say 15-25 percent. Another good chunk (I'll can give you more exact figures if you wish after I finish this diatribe) is for paying people not to grow food (the 'soil bank' euphamism). Then there's 30 Billion (in the proposed new farm bill which is still being worked on in congress)for local conservation (cleaning up the pollution the farmer's cause because they know the taxpayer will pay, not them) and undefined rural projects, so that the local ruling cliques can subsidize their buddies pet project. But the bulk of the funds, a proposed $192 Billion over 5 years, is for the Food Stamp program (which in Orwellion double talk has become something like 'Nutritional Security'). So food stamps come in at $38Billion a year, $13 Billion more than current direct crop payments.
You write, "The current school lunch menus are determined by the school cooks within certain guidelines. But that program already exists...my position was, just don't eliminate it."
So school cooks get the final say, not a vegan nutritional Ph.D like Gary Null, or Dr.
Andrew Weill, or Dr. Gershon Lesser, or Dr. Dean Edell. We know salt is unnecessary, and raises blood pressure, we know meat, chicken, and eggs raise cholesterol, food colors raise cancer rates, etc. but the person who gets to set what these poor kids eat is the local school cook, not their parents, and not a Ph.D nutritionist. I haven't checked the guidelines, but I'd bet you 5 Rothbards to a dollar, that some of those ingredients are permitted. And if Saint Reagan says that ketchup is a vegetable, then ketchup is a vegetable. The almighty Leviathan State always knows best.
So since the bulk of the Farm Bill is for food stamps, I would be very interested to hear your views on this subject.
Published: September 30, 2007 8:11 AM
So then how much is the total impact of such subsidies, on a per capital level?
Published: September 30, 2007 9:25 AM
Anthony --- I would guess the per capita impact of the food stamp subsidy would be roughly $192Billion divided by 5, divided by (300 million-26.9million, or 273million) = $140.65/person/yr.,but since only 61% of eligible persons actually apply, the total would be 39/61 (roughly 64%) higher if all who were eligible applied and received. This comes out to just over $230/person/year. But in my view it ignores a lot of contiguous economic impacts which would make the real impact much higher for most, lower for a few.
Published: September 30, 2007 11:24 AM
Thanks Paul. I suppose that one must also figure in all the efficiency losses resulting from subsidies to get a complete estimate.
Published: September 30, 2007 1:52 PM
Anthony --- Good point.I overlook the efficiency losses. I was thinking more of the inflationary impact on supermarket prices forcing everyone to pay significantly higher prices, and the guaranteed windfall profits to the stockowners of major supermarket chains. I figure roughly a third of the $192 Billion would go there. And another third going to food companies producing products sold at those markets. So figure maybe $124 billion in corporate guaranteed profits, plus all the extra money non-stamp consumers must pay at the check-out stand. And those higher prices would lead to some malnutrition amongst non-stamp owners, with associated health costs. All told, it must be a huge amount.
Published: September 30, 2007 7:48 PM
I supposed I'd worry about the corporate payoffs (and Import restrictions!) first. Then worry about making the rest of it efficient later. The thing about taxpayer funded school lunches is they can be seen as an investment in the future (educated kids turn into educated adults who can buy their own lunches and pay taxes). Food stamps for adults are a bit more problematic because of the moral hazard problem. We don't want to remove the incentive to work, but neither do we want people to starve. The work for food program you proposed seems like a good balance, although there are some problems such as quality/difficulty of work vs. compensation, etc...
Published: October 1, 2007 3:19 PM
I can't beleive anyone would claim Rothbard to be a poor communicator. To me, his writing is as clear as a bell; in fact, in some ways, he is one of the best writers I have ever read.
Rothbard a "poor cummincator" indeed! As the saying goes: "It takes all sorts..."
P.S. I agree that sometimes Mises is dense and hard to understand, but he is usually worth the extra effort.
Published: October 2, 2007 5:05 PM
...give it 14 more months of dollar depreciation and the 96-year Fed abcess will burst, and then, unfortunately, economic chaos will turn a dry philosophy into the only life-saver of Everyman's daily economic life. President Paul will have a lot to deal with after his inauguration.
If by some weird miracle he was elected, he would actually get blamed. The memory of the average human goes back about to last night's dinner.
Why isn't it moral to ensure our children have food and an education?
"Our" children? That is mere cuckoldry. Nothing in a free society prevents anyone from helping needy children. But... I would say that a school lunch ranks up there in importance of things to eliminate just above helmet laws. However, since public schools should be abolished anyway, the problem of school lunches basically goes away by default, as "free" lunches at private schools would become voluntarily supplied, as the education itself.
Published: October 3, 2007 5:30 PM