Murray Rothbard is considered by many to be the founding father of the libertarian movement. More than this, he coined the phrase “anarcho-capitalism” which is about as radically libertarian as you can get. Rothbard’s “Man, Economy and the State” is considered quintessential Austrian economic reading, and last but not least, Mr. Rothbard was a personal friend of the greatest champion of liberty of our time, Ron Paul.
I actually don’t agree with Rothbard’s endorsement of President George H.W. Bush in this 1992 Los Angeles Times column. I understand why congressman and senators have to sometimes make endorsements as political strategy, like Richard Nixon endorsing and campaigning with his Republican nemesis Barry Goldwater in 1964. I wish Nixon endorsing Goldwater really did mean that Dick had adopted Barry’s philosophy, but of course his presidency proved this wasn’t true.
Just because you endorse someone doesn’t mean you necessarily believe everything they stand for. In fact, I would argue that the majority of endorsements for any political office and in any party are almost always about political strategy more than anything else.
In his role as philosopher, intellectual and commentator, I would not have joined Rothbard in endorsing President Bush, and I was a Pat Buchanan supporter just as Rothbard was. Then again, at that age, maybe I would have–the last time I voted for a Republican candidate for president in the general election was in 1996. It was for Bob Dole. Why? Because I was 20 years old and Pat Buchanan told me to.
But every presidential election after that I voted third party: Buchanan/Reform Party in 2000, Michael Peroutka/ConstitutionParty in 2004, Chuck Baldwin/Constitution Party in 2008. As a mere conservative pundit, I can afford to simply vote my conscience. Washington political leaders have other things to consider, and not just for them, but the constituents they represent.
Some even have movements they represent. Ron Paul’s movement is slowly (not even slowly in some states) but surely taking over the GOP from the grassroots up. Any endorsements made or not made are done with our movement’s goals and efforts within the GOP in mind, whether some understand this or not.
That said, does anyone think that because Murray Rothbard endorsed President George H.W. Bush in ’92, that everything else Rothbard stood for, wrote and believed simply evaporated? Does anyone think Rothbard endorsing Bush represents the be-all-end-all of his political legacy?
That would be absurd. It would be giving too much credence to the mere act of endorsing.
From the July 30, 1992 issue of The Los Angeles Times:
COLUMN RIGHT/ MURRAY N. ROTHBARD : Hold Back the Hordes for 4 More Years : Any sensible American has one real choice–George Bush.
July 30, 1992|MURRAY N. ROTHBARD | Murray N. Rothbard is a
professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and
academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala
As often happens, my current quandary was put best by my old friend,
Prof. Ralph Raico. He was an ardent Buchananite, but as the horrible
nomination of “Slick Willie” loomed, he began to admonish me, in his
hilarious mocking half-serious tone: “Remember Murray, we must do
nothing to harm the President.” When the Perot phenomenon hit, Raico,
for some unaccountable reason, failed to share my enthusiasm for the
little punk from East Texas. After the Great Betrayal, I was ranting and
raving over the phone to Raico, who took it all in, and then concluded:
“I’m glad to see you’re working your way back to the President.”
Yes, gulp, I’m down to the grim, realistic choice: Which of two sets of bozos is going to rule us in 1993-1997?In Bush’s favor:
–First and foremost, Bush ain’t Clinton.
–Bush has kept his cool and not gotten American troops or even airmen in a shooting war in the former Yugoslavia. The poor Bosnian Muslims claim that all the United States need do is bomb Serbian gun emplacements around Sarajevo. Rubbish. Objective military experts say that it would take a 500,000-man expeditionary force to secure Bosnia and Sarajevo, and God knows how many more to roll back the Serbs. America, keep out of Bosnia!
–Bush has the most even-handed Middle East policy since Jack Kennedy. The most credit, of course, goes to Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who formulated this policy and maintained it under vicious pressure. But Bush deserves credit for picking Baker and backing him up. With only a little stretching, Bush/Baker can even take credit for the Israeli election that got rid of Yitzhak Shamir.
–Last but certainly not least: The President is about to reconcile with Pat Buchanan. At last, Bush has shown some smarts, and perhaps even a spark of a sense of justice. After a vicious and despicable smear campaign by Rich Bond, William Bennett, Dan Quayle et al., the Bush people–while of course not apologizing–are at least implicitly repudiating their own smears by rolling out the welcome mat for Buchanan. Which brings us to the ghastly specter of Clintonian Democracy.
Against Clinton:
–Clinton as Southern moderate is the Big Lie of the 1992 campaign. He is a McGovernite. When he says “investment,” he means government spending.
–The Clinton-managed Democratic convention was the most leftist ever: multiculturalism reigned triumphant, with “Lesbian Rights” banners almost as prevalent as “Clinton for President.” Clinton means the triumph of ultrafeminism, trillions more of our dough for inner cities and the aggrandizement of phony “rights” over the genuine rights of private property.
–Al Gore was one of the biggest spenders in the wild-spending recent Congress. Gore, furthermore, is an extreme-left environmentalist, and he shores up Clinton’s left flank on this issue.
–Never forget the menace of Hillary Clinton. Sure, they cleaned up her act until November; they shut her up, bobbed and blonded her hair and took that damned headband off, and made her look like a sophisticated matron instead of an aging grad student. But if Clinton wins in November, Hillary will be back: in control, nasty, tough and very leftist.
Read Murray Rothbard’s entire column
No comments:
Post a Comment