Comments (13)

• fundamentalist

  With the self-destruction of the Republican party in the latest presidential election, I can't help but recall something Rush Limbaugh said about Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan. Many listeners were concerned about Bush's advancing the socialist agenda so blatantly. Limbaugh responded that Bush would destroy the Democrat party by offering moderate Democrat voters a few socialist programs to lure them to his side. Worked out well, didn't it?

  I realized many years ago that the Republican party is not conservative; it is socialist-lite.

  Published: November 6, 2009 8:18 AM

• Christopher

  Fantastic article!

  Published: November 6, 2009 8:39 AM

• Barry Loberfeld

  Today's "right" — The Spite Right —was born

  not in the reflection of Read or Chodorov or Garrett, but in the confrontationalism of Up from Liberalism. Its progeny include Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Goldberg, Gallagher, Malkin, Ingraham, Savage, O'Reilly -- self-scribbled caricatures who dwell in their own political cartoon, where there are only intrinsically evil "liberals" (Mr. Limbaugh adduces Ed Koch and William Kunstler on the same page) vs. "conservatives" whose goodness derives solely from fighting them. Such "liberals" are the Spite Right's Left, and once that Left was deemed "anti-war," pro-war was deemed anti-Left, i.e., the Good. Thereafter, the only matter of duty was to defend that war from this "liberal" assault. That meant fighting any and all "liberal lies" that challenged Administration Truth, which was Truth because it stood in opposition to those "lies." It meant fighting any moral challenge to the war, which actually could be only immoral because it challenges the war -- the War on Liberals, the struggle that is the essence of morality. It meant fighting the usual "anti-war" suspects, from Hollywood "limousine liberals" to sign-waving street protesters. For the Spite Right, Iraq is another name for Vietnam.

  From here.

  Published: November 6, 2009 9:27 AM

• Barry Loberfeld

  Sorry, working links for

  Read

  Chodorov

  Garrett

  Published: November 6, 2009 9:32 AM

• Fed Up

  Yet another outdated and useless 1964 article that says nothing about 2009.

  Must I conclude that Misesians are a bunch of losers who live in the past and have nothing worthwhile to say about 2009 ?

  At least cato.org speak about the present and are not irrelevant and boring scholars like you Misesians.

  Published: November 6, 2009 12:15 PM

• Beefcake the Mighty

  Hey Fed Up, I know what you're getting fed by Tom Palmer over at Cato, and you should know, you'll get incontinent like Tom if you keep doing that.

  Published: November 6, 2009 12:21 PM

• Larry N. Martin

  Gee, Fed Up, what do you do? Skip all the current articles specifically so you can complain about the few older articles that are republished here? That's some mighty selective reading you have going on there.

  Published: November 6, 2009 12:48 PM

• Mike

  Please don't feed the trolls.

  (Yeah, I know, I was guilty of it too)

  Published: November 6, 2009 12:54 PM

• CorkyAgain

  Heaven forbid that anyone new to mises.org might learn that its positions weren't invented only yesterday, in response to fashionable chitchat about current affairs!

  Heaven forbid that readers might develop any kind of historical awareness!

  No, no, you mustn't read anything that wasn't written this year, this month, or best of all, today! Voices from the past have nothing to say to us that might profitably be applied to our current situation!

  
  

  Published: November 6, 2009 3:16 PM

• Fat Freddy

  CorkyAgain,

  I am new to Mises and I do appreciate the historical background.

  Thanks

  Published: November 8, 2009 8:36 AM

• You're Fed Up?

  To Fed Up. Rothbard founded the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party and was kicked out of both by retards like you. And what a great job they have done transforming the USA without him!

  Published: November 8, 2009 9:21 AM

• Nikolaj

  Fed Up,

  as for doing nothing to explain 2009, have you read Wood's Meltdown? Or maybe Cato's Tom Palmer convinced you to not do so?

  Published: November 8, 2009 12:58 PM

• Paul Stephens

  This is Rothbard at his very best. I cannot believe that Cato people or anyone, anywhere, claiming to be a "libertarian" would find this controversial or objectionable. I guess that's why I haven't read the Cato Journal or any of that stuff since the 1970's.
  I'm a Left-libertarian, a Social libertarian, and a Green Libertarian. Rothbard is the intellectual godfather of all of it. Most of all, he's the real American.
  (And just for the record, I'm not related to the Stephens & Company bankers and media company from Little Rock, nor the Paul Stephens investment banker in San Francisco. I'm a 4th generation Montanan, and student of Hayek.)

  Published: November 11, 2009 3:10 AM