Where Are They Now
Reason polled a bunch of libertarian and lib-symp brainy-brains, plus me and Glenn Reynolds, about where we stood and stand on Iraq War Phases III and IV. The results make interesting reading, and I pat myself on the back for sticking to the space limit better than certain other commenters.
Unqualified Offerings: Right on War and Peace, Right on “One or Two Lines Per Question.”
Comment by Tom Scudder —
March 18, 2006 @ 5:49 am
I guess Charles Murray gets some points for honesty for his answer to #3. Don’t see how any of the other war-advocates’ answers meant anything different – they were just longer (except in Reynolds’ case).
Michael Young, in particular, ought to know better than to put his trust in ”a genuine, consensual process of national dialogue and stabilization” dictated by a hated outside conqueror/occupier.
Comment by matthew hogan —
March 18, 2006 @ 8:43 am
I always heard that libertarians were Republicans who like drugs.
A neolibertarian (Glenn Reynolds) is a neoconservative who likes drugs.
Comment by Carlos —
March 18, 2006 @ 9:04 am
”Win.” I like that. Short, tough, and inane. Like a Gurkha made of Cheez Whiz.
Comment by Barry —
March 18, 2006 @ 9:26 am
(Let’s see if I can post from here)
Jim,
Why would Reason interview Reynolds and Hitchens, as libertarians? Isn’t there some level of support for fascims ^H^H^H^H^H^H unlimitedunitarysecretexecutivepoweroppositiontowhichisevil that causes libertarians to say ’not one of use’?
Comment by Barry —
March 18, 2006 @ 9:26 am
Aggh. ’not one of us’
Comment by Jon H —
March 18, 2006 @ 10:18 am
Barry,
Actually, either way works.
Comment by Barry —
March 18, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
Good point. I wonder if there were many 1992 libertarians, who, if they supported almost everything the President Clinton did, would be considered by Reason to have still been liberals, in 2000?
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
March 18, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
I’ve been wondering about that too, Barry. It seems like at some point people who press for major expansion of state power ought to have their claims to be libertarian greeted with scorn, if they don’t have the honesty to drop the claim themselves. (When I decided that I felt sufficiently convinced about the desirability of some more liberal-type state action, I dropped the libertarian label on my own initiative, so I’m not pushing for anything I’m unwilling to do myself.) I’m not sure where the threshold of ludicrousness lies – and it’s certainly a fuzzy thing open to ”maybe” and ”in some ways” decisions as well as yes/no – it’s just got to be somewhere way to the liberty side of Reynolds and Hitchens.
Comment by Lynn Gazis-Sax —
March 18, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
When was Hitchens *ever* a libertarian? He jumped from being a socialist to being a neo-con, as far as I can see.
While I support too many liberal-type actions to be a libertarian myself, I love you for ”Hayek does not stop at the water’s edge.” If only more self-styled libertarians would remember that.
Comment by IOZ —
March 18, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
Hitchens is a bloddy-minded fop, isn’t he? He’s like a composite of every character Thackeray ever wrote with a little Heart of Darkness thrown in for some modernist credentials. Though I liked Glenn’s answer best: ”Win.” He reminds me of the worst tennis coach I ever had, a guy whose advice on my service was always and invariably, ”Come on, buddy, you’ve just gotta hit it where you want to hit it.”
Trackback by Political Animal —
March 18, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
Freedom Minded
FREEDOM MINDED….Via the ever-pithy Jim Henley, I learn that Reason magazine asked a bunch of people about their thoughts on the war in Iraq as we near its third anniversary. My favorite part is the explanation at the very beginning:Reason…
Comment by Brian C.B. —
March 18, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
Sweet God, I read Hitchens, but ”Falstaff: Chimes at Midnight” starts flashing in front of my eyes. Which is great, because I just saved a $4.25 rental. When I read Glenn Reynolds glibertarianisms, I something similar happens, but I only see a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Rossetto is just embarrassing, and Jonathan Rauch is wrong, I sincerely believe, that Bush would not have invaded if he had known then what he knows now. He’s had ample opportunity to manfully admit a mistake, and not only has he so far avoided doing anything like it, he’s repeatedly validated the enterprise. Bush figures he’s set into motion circumstances that will echo down the decades. I worry that he’s right, but see a much darker harvest than he does.
Comment by bobbyp —
March 18, 2006 @ 11:13 pm
Charles Murray’s answer to #3 was indeed refreshing, and actually expresses the feelings of the vast majority of the American public.
Where were all these anti-war conservatives in late winter, ’02?
Comment by Greg —
March 19, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
To me, the most interesting thing about the survey was that, regardless of whether they were pro-war or anti-war everybody’s answer to #2 was ’No.’ (with the exception of Jonathan Rauch who went from ’I don’t care” to ”we shouldn’t have done that” over the course of the war). Besides that, everybody’s busily interpreting events to fit their pre-conceived notions of what we should and shouldn’t be doing.
It’s as we always knew: Facts are irrelevant. People see the world through the lense of what they want to see.
Comment by hoyos21 —
March 19, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
Reynolds’ contribution is says something: To the question, what should we do in Iraq now, Reynolds pauses for a moment, reflects, and offers ”win.” Indeed. Heh. Read the whole thing.
What a waste of bits that dude is.
Comment by diana —
March 19, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
Reynolds is the Al Davis of the blogosphere.
Comment by Brian C.B. —
March 19, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
Al Davis, for all his, well, irritating pithy assholishness, knew his business inside and out. He had expertise, something on which his credibility, at least as far as professional football or entertainment went, rested. Glenn…is more like the Raider cheerleader coach, whose name is unfortunatelty lost to history.
Comment by Matt —
March 19, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
Greg says:
To me, the most interesting thing about the survey was that, regardless of whether they were pro-war or anti-war everybody’s answer to #2 was ’No.’ (with the exception of Jonathan Rauch who went from ’I don’t care†to â€we shouldn’t have done that†over the course of the war). Besides that, everybody’s busily interpreting events to fit their pre-conceived notions of what we should and shouldn’t be doing.
It’s as we always knew: Facts are irrelevant. People see the world through the lense of what they want to see.
Um, if you predicted before the Super Bowl that the Seahawks were going to lose by a touchdown or more, then why would you change your position now? Wouldn’t you have been vindicated by the facts?
Comment by Brian C.B. —
March 19, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
Actually, Glenn raises a memory of my own: one reason I didn’t support the war was that there wasn’t any description, cold, hard description, from the White House of what victory in Iraq would look like. Did anyone else note this vacancy? When you don’t prospectively define a specific goal, it’s a lot easier to meet it, later. When reaching a valuable goal might require sacrifice, not defining that valuable goal in hard terms makes persuading others to seek it an easier task. I note that, in terms other than platitudinous ones, making plain something so reasonable as ”how we’ll know we’ve won” is something the Bush Administration is still unwilling, or unable, to do. Today’s Rummy-torial in the Post: ”A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.” Well, what does ’free and stable’ mean, exactly, and why won’t Iraqis use their freedom and stability to attack neighbors, conspire with terrorists, pay rewards to suicide bombers’ families, or kill Americans? I’m guessing that two or three of those actions would make the platform of a successful Iraqi political party. As far as the freedom and stability part, is that free ’n’ stable like, Algeria in the 1990s, or Switzerland since the 17th century? Because, there’s a difference.
Comment by Johnathan Pearce —
March 29, 2006 @ 8:34 am
Well, I supported the war because I thought SD was a threat and a brutal man who had broken dozens of treaties and UN resolutions, and because containment was breaking down. The WMD line has clearly weakened, and arguably SD was more deterrable than I thought, but hindsight is so easy, isn’t it?
The best argument of all is Jim’s original posting, the Hayekian argument that there is a ”fatal conceit” in imagining that big interventions don’t come with big costs and unintended side effects.
So with hindsight I would have opposed the war, but pushed for more work to deter Saddam. I am not interested in guys polishing their libertarian credentials and bragging of how pure they are, but in getting things right. All else is a load of hot air.