AmSpec Writer, Smashed, Comes Back for More

I understand Jeffrey Lord has another attack on Ron Paul (and me) over at the American Spectator. Naturally this happens when I am about to catch a plane and head to New York for three days of events. I guess he is upset that some people have criticized Reagan. Reagan is evidently the Obama of the right — the infallible savior against whom all criticism is a form of blasphemy and perversion. How dare you say Reagan wasn’t free-market enough! Why, the Supreme Neocon Council has declared that Reagan was exactly the right amount free market! The question is closed, citizen.

Libertarians, Lord complains, don’t unquestioningly wave incense before everyone who uses the words “free market.” Darn right. We do not wave incense before the pantheon of the gods presented to us by the Americann Spectator or anyone else. Lord thinks this is a defect. Most people, I suspect, would consider it a virtue.

As for Russell Kirk, I think he was unfair to libertarians, but he was merciless on neocons like Lord. I referenced Kirk because we were talking about foreign intervention, and since Lord thinks bringing feminism to Afghanistan is high on the list of conservative imperatives, I thought I would throw a little cold water on the question.

For now, I’ll remind readers of who won the last exchange. Here’s the video I made against Lord. He cannot and will not answer my specific arguments because there are no such answers.

http://twitter.com/DannysKorner Danny de Gracia II

Awesome job, Tom. You know what’s amazing, even the Democrats seem to be going neocon. If you go to the Dem Store they have neocon-styled wares now … looks like Mises was right when he said “A new type of superstition has got hold of peoples minds, the worship of the state. People demand the exercise of the methods of coercion and compulsion, of violence and threat.”
George

That Mr. Jeffrey Lord fails to address
Dr. Woods’ video is not surprising in the least.

Instead, for one quick example, he
asserts that Dr. Woods and Dr. Paul fail to reveal the whole story
behind Felix Morely and Human Events.
This is ridiculous. No person from our side denies that there is a
strong pro-interventionist opinion in the conservative movement on
foreign policy. He changes the subject.

How
does the fact that Human Events
turned into a mainstream outlet with conventional neoconservative
opinions invalidate Woods’ comments? It doesn’t.

According
to Mr. Lord, only a “leftist” could support Paul’s foreign policy
views. That has been proved false. And that was the point of
mentioning Morely and others.

The
man also quotes Russell Kirk. Well, if you want to talk about the
telling of the full story, Kirk at the end of his life did have
somewhat of an alliance with some libertarians. This was when there
was a paleoconservative-paleolibertarian movement. Murray Rothbard
and he campaigned for Pat Buchanan. And Kirk was even a friend of Lew
Rockwell. So despite obviously not agreeing with libertarian
political philosophy, it can easily be argued that later in life he
eased up.

(Lord
engages in purely factual errors, too. Rothbard, e.g., did not invent
the term “paleo-conservative.” Neither did he consider himself
one. Dr. Thomas Fleming and Dr. Paul Gottfried coined the term.)

The
real point is this: would Kirk call Ron Paul’s views on foreign
policy “lunacy”? Yes or no?

On one
final note, was Austrian economics “a key building block of
Reaganomics”? Unless someone can show me where Reagan supported
Hayek’s ideas of ending central banking or legalizing currency
competition, the answer is no (which is different than saying it was
a building block—and that’s debatable—but not the “key” one).
George

That Mr. Jeffrey Lord fails to address Dr. Woods’ video is not surprising in the least.

Instead, for one quick example, he asserts that Dr. Woods and Dr. Paul fail to reveal the whole story behind Felix Morely and Human Events. This is ridiculous. No person from our side denies that there is a strong pro-interventionist opinion in the conservative movement on foreign policy. He changes the subject.

How does the fact that Human Events turned into a mainstream outlet with conventional neoconservative opinions invalidate Woods’ comments? It doesn’t.

According to Mr. Lord, only a “leftist” could support Paul’s foreign policy views. That has been proved false. And that was the point of mentioning Morely and others.

The man also quotes Russell Kirk. Well, if you want to talk about the telling of the full story, Kirk at the end of his life did have somewhat of an alliance with some libertarians. This was when there was a paleoconservative-paleolibertarian movement. Murray Rothbard and he campaigned for Pat Buchanan. And Kirk was even a friend of Lew Rockwell. So despite obviously not agreeing with libertarian political philosophy, it can easily be argued that later in life he eased up.

(Lord engages in purely factual errors, too. Rothbard, e.g., did not invent the term “paleo-conservative.” Neither did he consider himself one. Dr. Thomas Fleming and Dr. Paul Gottfried coined the term.)

The real point is this: would Kirk call Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy “lunacy”? Yes or no?

On one final note, was Austrian economics “a key building block of Reaganomics”? Unless someone can show me where Reagan supported Hayek’s ideas of ending central banking or legalizing currency competition, the answer is no (which is different than saying it was a building block—and that’s debatable—but not the “key” one).
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WC2RJ6DHGXU2HJILWS33CDTVOU tango1956a

Thanks Tom…. I posted this under the wrong place, so here it is again.

Lord and his supporters have a viewpoint as limited as their knowledge
of history. They attack anyone that differs in opinion as being
unpatriotic, un American or whatever. This same bunch has defended the
US involvements on pretext as being OK because the ends justify the
means. Laughably, they claim to be defenders of freedom and liberty.
There can be no freedom and liberty without truth.

Deception of
the American people is just fine for them. This is similar in
mentality to those of the hard core Communists and National Socialists
mindset. Since these people champion goals that are not in the
interests of the American people, and use government power without the
knowledge and consent of the people. Their methods are, like hard core
Communists and Fascists, essentially subversive. Indeed, they have been
much more successful than those other political ideologies. And much
more dangerous.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Karen-Huffman/100000549701140 Karen Huffman

All the King’s loyalists from the colonies found refue in canada.
Logan Evans

I am happy everytime I know their are people like you and I. Hurrah for history.
Rob

Keep it up Tom but remember to be humble. Some of your opponents are idiots and I would hate for you to be viewed as the muscle bound jock beating up on the 98 pound weakling!
Anonymous

The American Spectator has a painfully puerile comment section in desperate need of moderation. Far too many Lord-supporting-commenters preferred infantile name-calling and nonsense to respectful, evidence- or reason-driven discussion.

Aside from his continuing demands for Reagan-worship, the gist of the article seems to be taking Tom Woods to task for delving into the sordid history of neoconservatism, as though that was – or should have been – your goal in a video discussing the Old Right’s history of non-interventionist thought. Ignoring the Old Right is the best means he has to continue smearing Paul with the leftist label.
anarchristian

We saw the same tactic last night during the GOP debate: Rick Perry, quoting from Ron Paul’s 1987 letter of criticism to then-President Reagan (his last year in office), tried to create the suspicion that Ron was a Republican traitor of sorts. Ron immediately reminded everyone not only of his early support for the libertarian aspects of Reagan’ s message, but also of his principled unwillingness to give the Gipper a pass on his betrayal of that message. We know who betrayed what. Perry made a big splash by repeatedly condemning Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, which Reagan famously “saved,” so one would think he could have joined Paul in the criticism at the time. Ah, but that’s when Perry was still starry-eyed over Hillarycare. (He claims he didn’t know what a “monstrosity” it promised to be.)
Brian

I would say that there is no need to rush any response. This guy can wait.

Man, it’s this blind Reagan-worship that is killing the conservative movement. Why is it so bad to say that the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (banning organ selling) that Reagan signed, was unconstitutional, anti-free market and nonconservative?
Chris C.

Kirk may have been merciless on neo-cons but he was an admirer of Reagan and of Lincoln. He may have been critical of the 1991 Gulf war but the anything but non-interventionist Reagan doctrine apparently was OK with him, as were the policies of Lincoln. I am not sure where all that leaves Mr. Paul, but it is hardly out of bounds to question his suitability for the GOP nomination. If he cannot reconcile himself to the legacy of GOP stalwarts like Lincoln and Reagan, he will not move beyond his small Libertarian base.
Anonymous

Speaking of the policies of Reagan, here’s a classic of Ron Paul when he was running in ’88 as a Libertarian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWukDvcVAKw

It’s nice to hear and see a politician who has remained consistent in his views for his entire career.
Anonymous

Speaking of the policies of Reagan, here’s a classic of Ron Paul when he was running in ’88 as a Libertarian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWukDvcVAKw

It’s nice to hear and see a politician who has remained consistent in his views for his entire career.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

So it all depends on whether he supports what a couple politicians did while in office? Principles don’t count? Creepy.
Chris C.

Tom, his support of “what a couple of politicians did while in office..” was a matter of principle for him no? Kirk saw his way to support and admire Lincoln and Reagan I would think, because of principles not inspite of them. And at least as to Reagan, leaving Civil War and seccessionism arguments and Lincoln aside, Dr Paul could well on foreign policy grounds, find common ground with him. The Reagan doctrine dealt with the extraordinary world wide threat of Soviet communism, and needn’t be considered precedent setting in any other context, AND it was buttressed by the Weinberger doctrine, which carefully delineated precise and clear terms governing the use of military force. Any GOP candidate who hopes to win should keep these facts in mind, even if arguing against the use of force in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.
http://dave-davidson.myopenid.com/ Dave

After reading only a small section of the AmSpec comments page, I’m disgusted with how carelessly vicious slurs are thrown around. As a supporter of Ron Paul I’ve been called a racist, an anti-semite, a cultist, insane, even a terrorist! Is this what the conservative movement has come to? Namecalling and mudslinging? This type of behavior is disgusting and only emboldens me to support Dr. Paul and spread the message of liberty.
Martial_Artist

Dr. Woods,

While I don’t disagree with your characterizations of “waving incense” as defect vs. virtue, I might well be inclined to shift the discussion’s analogical reference plane to one a little less “heavy” than morality. Having spent about 10 years almost a decade ago involved in software development, I would probably have said that Lord thinks it is a ‘bug,’ we think it is a “feature.”

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Javier R.

Kirk was an even greater admirer of southerners like John Randolph of Roanoke and John Calhoun. Lincoln didnt even make it into Kirk’s pantheon of conservatives in his seminal work The Conservative Mond. Kirk was also marginalized by Republicans from Midge Dector and Bill Buckley. I dont see any reason why Paul has to “reconcile” himself to Lincoln and Reagan in the slightest. I do agree though with your below comment that he could do a better job communicating his FP. I agree with you big time about how he could emphasize the Weinberger doctrine as a conservative guide to FP. He could also do some useful name dropping such as point out how former Reagan/Bush I advisor Brent Scrowcoft was/is a big critic of Bush II’s decision on Iraq http://www.observer.com/2004/09/brent-scowcroft-calls-iraq-war-overreaction/

Colin Powell was not for this war http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece

Former neocon intellectual giant Francis Fukuyama opposes the Iraq war and the so called “Freedom Agenda” and has rejected his former neocon ways http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece

Reagan was lambasted by neocons back in the 80′s for his approach to the “evil empire”, for his detente and SALT talks. Norman Podhoretz wrote in the NY Times back in ’82 “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy” http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/02/magazine/the-neo-conservative-anguish-over-reagan-s-foreign-policy.html (Subscription needed) Other neocons like Kristol also wrote articles criticizing Reagan in a manner similar to the way Santorum criticizes Paul. One neocon (Robert Tucker) even likened Reagan to Carter for his Middle East Policy in a 1981 Commentary article.

Then finally this piece sums up Reagan pretty fairly http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/think_again_ronald_reagan?page=full

The only thing Paul has to do is show his fidelity to the historical Reagan as opposed to the Reagan of neocon fiction like Jeffrey Lord’s and co.
Javier R.

I accidentally put link for Powell for the Fukuyama reference. This is the correct link http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,407315,00.html
Javier R.

The Conservative Mind… not Mond^
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3YU52EINCBVVCOFOD5A5IHOJWA Bruce C

Good rebuttal. Unfortunately the listeners of those mentioned will mostly never hear this. Most people cannot stand up to a good debate.
Anonymous

Lord said that at around the start of the Cold War a split developed in American conservatism. Both the staffs at Human Events and at the upstart National Review reflected it. At these publications the non-interventionist Old Right lost the battle to the anti-communist New Right. The Buckley-ites prevailed over Rothbard, Morley, Chodorov and others. That victory was consolidated politically by Reagan, who was firmly in the Buckley camp. The non-interventionist Old Right faded to the margins, impotent and irrelevant.

Lord’s version of the history is truthful. The Soviet threat changed the game. Most on the Right adapted to the changed circumstances; some didn’t. Their battles were not only fought in editorial rooms but, most importantly, in political caucuses and at the ballot box. The Rothbard camp disappeared as a political force. It is established fact. Dr. Woods doesn’t like the outcome, but he does not dispute it occurred.

Non-interventionists like Paul, and paleos like Buchanan, can insist that they represent true conservatism and that they are the real legatees to the American conservative tradition. However, without votes, without popular support, without political power, their claims, no matter how vociferously advanced, ring as hollow as those of a Hapsburg heir or a present-day polygamous Mormon.

Of course, that does not mean that the case cannot or should not be pressed. The future is there to be be made. Ron Paul’s imminent crushing defeats in the 2012 GOP primaries will not mean that his ideas have no chance of being the embodiment of the American Right later in this century, only that they are not mainstream conservatism today, just like they haven’t been for 50 years. And no one should claim that they are.

Perhaps the ideas simply need better salesmen.
Javier R.

We might not have to wait that long. Even now several candidates
are sounding like Paul’s influence is having some effect. We hear this in
Perry’s criticism of “military adventurism” and Huntsman’s outright
call for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Even Romney in the first debate in NH
said that “It’s
time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can”. Of course he threw
a bone to his neoconservative supporters by adding the qualifier “…as soon as
our generals think it’s okay”….whatever.
He went on to sound Paulesque by adding that “One lesson we‘ve learned in Afghanistan is
that Americans cannot fight another nation’s war of independence” and “Only
the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban”. On Libya several candidates questioned what
our national security interests are. Even
Gingrich said that the economic costs to war should be play a factor. This time around the republican primary has
put FP on the backburner

I believe that the Cold War put a pause to the Old Right FP.
I don’t think that the cold warriors abandoned their views. The late William F Buckely Jr was critical of
Bush’s 2nd inaugural address as being ambitious and unconservative.
Buckley called Iraq a “failure” and believed rightly in my opinion that Bush
would have no legacy because of it. He
felt also that Iraq was destroying the conservative movement. George Will has been negative on Afghanistan
and Iraq. Cold warrior Brent Scowcroft
was a critic of Iraq from the beginning and criticized the neocon influence on
Bush. Even one of the leading luminaries
of the neoconservatism, Francis Fukuyama, rejects altogether the Freedom Agenda.
I believe that Bush’s Afghanistan and Iraq wars and his endless war on terror
is bringing to the surface dormant views on FP that have always been
there.

I agree
and have stated on other threads on Tom Woods site that Paul gets too clumsy
when trying to spell out his FP and comes out sounding like he is a cheerleader
for Al Queda. He needs to be more
succinct and perhaps leave out the whole why the hate us explanations. As a Paul
supporter I agree that he needs to stop preaching to those of us in the choir
who will gladly vote for him and start campaigning so as to reach out to more
voters.

As for his chances in this primary, sure he won’t
win but I promise you that he’ll clobber the likes of those whose views you no doubt espouse like
Santorum , Gingrich, and Cain. These will experience “imminent crushing defeats
in the 2012 GOP primaries”.