(Update) Prominent Right-Wingers Endorses One-Man-Rule and At Least One a Military Coup, in *AMERICA*
When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.
The Wall St. Journal online has today published a lengthy and truly astonishing article by Harvard Government Professor Harvey Mansfield, which expressly argues that the power of the President is greater than “the rule of law.”
The article bears this headline: The Case for the Strong Executive — Under some circumstances, the Rule of Law must yield to the need for Energy. And it is the most explicit argument I have seen yet for vesting in the President the power to override and ignore the rule of law in order to recieve the glories of what Mansfield calls “one-man rule.”
So, DAR, is it not time to admit this is not our Daddy’s GOP/right-wing? And it is corrupting minds we both once held in esteem?
*********
Update: Lawrence Krubner notes in comments that he’s been rereading Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative, and that, “I believe that if I quoted this book out of context, without naming the source, many Bush supporters might think I was merely a liberal writing an anti-Bush screed.”
(from page 12) “The framers of the Constitution had learned the lesson. They were not only students of history, but victims of it; they knew from vivid, personal experience that freedom depends on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single authority. And that is what the Constitution is: a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism.”
Comment by Barry —
May 2, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
“So, DAR, is it not time to admit this is not our Daddy’s GOP/right-wing? ”
Hmmmm…distrust of ‘liberalism’ (both in the modern and classical sense), distrust in democracy, hankering for a ’strong leader’ to take care of political opponents.
Are you implying that these are new trends on the right, or in the GOP?
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 2, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
It’s terrifying what this political party has come to. At one time, in the 1800s, the Republicans were, without question, the Earth’s most truly liberal party. They were the party of freedom. Now they lament the rule of law. Even as recently as 5 years ago I felt that I could quote Hayek to GOP loyalists and I could assume that Hayek would be a name they might respect. But no more. The new GOP crowd have no use for Hayek, or Goldwater, or anyone to the left of Pat Robertson.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 2, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Actually, just last month I ordered Barry Goldwater’s 1960 book, “The Conscience Of A Conservative”, from Amazon. I’m about half way through it. The book leaves me feeling sad, comparing the GOP of 1960 to the GOP of today. The poor GOP – it’s fallen so very far.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
May 2, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Wait – a Harvard professor said that?! Maybe they’re something to all that Republican grousing about radicals in academia after all…
.
Re: Lawrence’s first comment – somewhere around here I’ve got an 1856 politial cartoon skewering the Republicans for being the negro-loving feminist party of free love. Those days are long gone by, eh?
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 2, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
“But he’s not a ‘neo-libertarian’ either — DAR and I remain pals who sometimes disagree.”
For those of us not familiar with your personal categorization scheme, might you attempt another translation of this? Are you saying that “neo-libertarians” are people you couldn’t be pals with, are enemies? Or what?
Comment by Mona —
May 2, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
This is not a categorizaton scheme personal to me, Gary — far from it. The term “neolibertarian” was coined by some libertarians post-9/11, and while much of their approach is sensible, their foreign policy has been neocon. Jon Henke, who many consider the founder of neolibertarianism, just became Director of New Media for the Senate GOP. Further, they either support Bush’s power grabs and theories of lawlessness and torture (Henke does not, however — ironically, tho founder, he is the least neo of them in many respects), are silent about them, or minimize them as no worse than lots of other presidents. The only contemporary Democrat they have any use for, in most instances, is Joe Lieberman. If you do a search of this site, I think Jim has discussed the neolib movement, tho I could be wrong. But I know I have castigated them.
As for “enemies,” I would say my “shrillitude” has made me theirs. Many of them truly despise me. This is not surprising since Jeff Goldstein is one of them.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 2, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
You know, if I were an administration apologist, I’d be damn careful about mentioning the words “military” and “coup” in any sort of positive light. Given how disastrous this war has been, and how it’s weakened the military, I have a hunch that any sort of coup wouldn’t work out quite the way that conservatives might hope.
Which is not to say that it would work out great from any other perspective either–certainly not from mine! It would be a disaster all around.
But if I were an administration apologist I’d be especially wary of suggesting that the military disobey orders…
Comment by Jon H —
May 2, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
“You know, if I were an administration apologist, I’d be damn careful about mentioning the words “military†and “coup†in any sort of positive light.”
And just who does Sowell thinks is running the government right now?
Comment by Thoreau —
May 2, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
I don’t know if my comment adequately conveyed my opposition to the idea of a coup, since it could be construed as a wishy-washy musing on possible benefits. For the record, I think that a coup would be a disaster for our Republic, and I would adamantly oppose such a thing, no matter what the short-term outcome might be, or how bad the pre-existing situation might be.
My only point above was that cheerleaders for the absolute disaster in Iraq shouldn’t be harboring fantasies of uppity generals who decide to elevate themselves above civilian leaders.
I can’t see any Thai or Turkish generals deciding to invade and occupy Iraq. Oh, they could easily decide to invade the Kurdish region to squelch secession plans, but they surely wouldn’t invade and occupy the entire country. More likely they’d invade the region of interest, install a brutal puppet regime that gives oil rights to their cronies, and then get the hell out and let their puppet do the dirty work.
Which is also the sort of thing that I’d oppose, since I’m not a big fan of foreign adventures.
So, in summary: I oppose military coups, and I think Thomas Sowell should as well.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 2, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
Actually, this blog post by Mona inspired me to take up my copy of Barry Goldwater’s book, “Conscience Of A Conservative”, and flip through it. I notice, opening pages randomly, that there are many passages that read like attacks against Bush. I believe that if I quoted this book out of context, without naming the source, many Bush supporters might think I was merely a liberal writing an anti-Bush screed.
A few examples:
(from page 12) “The framers of the Constitution had learned the lesson. They were not only students of history, but victims of it; they knew from vivid, personal experience that freedom depends on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single authority. And that is what the Constitution is: a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism.”
(from page 59) “The conclusion here is inescapable – that far from arresting federal spending and the trend toward Statism we Republicans have kept the trend moving forward.”
(from page 60) “The government must begin to withdraw from a whole series of programs that are outside its constitutional mandate – from social welfare programs, education, public power, agriculture, public housing, urban renewal and all other activities that can be better performed by lower levels of government or by private institutions and individuals.”
(from page 70) “I agree with lobbyists for federal school aid that education is one of the great problems of our day. I am afraid, however, that their views and mine are many miles apart… Their recourse is to the federal government. Mine is to the local public school board, the private school, the individual citizen – as far away from the federal government as one can possibly go.”
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 2, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Also interesting:
(from page 9) “Here we have, by prominent spokesmen of both political parties, an unqualified repudiation of the principle of limited government. There is no reference by either of them to the Constitution, or any attempt to define the legitimate functions of government. The governement can do whatever needs to be done; note, too, the implicit but necessary assumption that it is the government that determines what needs to be done. We must not, I think, underrate the importance of these statements. They reflect the view of a majority of the leaders of one of our parties, and of a strong minority among the leaders of the other, and they propound the first principle of totalitarianism: that the State is competant to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the State.”
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 2, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Or this:
(from page 7) “The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.”
Goldwater’s emphasis seem to be altogether at odds with direction of the modern GOP.
Comment by nabalzbbfr —
May 2, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
It is indeed true that under normal circumstances, as envisaged by the founding fathers, the rule of law, separation of powers, etc. are sacred principles, not to be toyed with lightly. But the current times, especially after last year’s elections are hardly normal. For our system of government to work correctly, all the branches of government should share a common purpose in advancing the welfare of our nation. After the fall election, President Bush and the Congressional Republicans extended their hand in bipartisan friendship. And what was the response? After some hypocritical posturing, the Democrat leadership spat in the President’s face. But more importantly they went hellbent on a spree to sabotage our entire system of government, with reckless abandon, ignoring the damage that they are inflicting. Most notable, of course, has been the unfathomable irresponsibility of defunding our troops in the middle of war. But this is only the latest outrage. The list could go on for many pages, but let me mention only a few. Removing the best UN ambassador we ever had. Endless “investigations” based on the flimsiest pretexts, with the intention of bringing executive departments to a grinding halt. Persecution of able and honorable administration officials out of sheer vindictiveness. Conspiring with foreign interests to drive our representatives out of international organizations. I could go on and on, but my heart would burst with outrage.
So if one of the branches of government willfully acts against our national interests, the normal constitutional processes can’t work as intended. So what is the President to do? Lie down and play dead and hope that they will eventually come to their senses? I would hope not! There have been other democracies which faced similar challenges in the past and were blessed with capable leaders who did what they needed to in order to straighten things out. India under Indira Gandhi and Chile under Augusto Pinochet come to mind. After weathering the storms, these countries have come back as bigger and better democracies than ever.
Comment by D.A. Ridgely —
May 2, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Oh dear, is that a gauntlet suddenly lying at my feet?
Hmm, where to begin? Well, I’ve always thought Sowell was vastly better on economics than on politics and worst in foreign policy (except economic foreign policy), and I still do. As for Mansfield, sometimes I agree wholeheartedly with him (e.g., grade inflation, affirmative action) sometimes I think 40 years as the token Harvard conservative would be enough to drive anyone crazy and, besides, Mansfield has never had any sort of libertarian leanings as far as I know. (I can also hear our old sparring partner, Don Herzog muttering something about “Straussians.”)
As for the Republican Party, you will recall I hope my writing at Left2Right and Inactivist over and over and over again that they’re all weasels. And there have always been “social conservatives” in the GOP who scare the hell out of me and “warmongers” in both parties, at least as far as I can recall. (There used to be social conservatives in the Democratic Party, too, but they were mostly just called Dixicrats back then.) I doubt the GOP can remake itself until Bush is gone and I look forward to that day regardless of how little I look forward to any of his likely successors becoming president.
I’m afraid I’m too old to be a neo-anything at this point, so I just keep doing what I’ve always done — taking shots at both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats such as here, here, here, here, here and here. I’d post more links where I’ve attacked both sides if (1) I weren’t so lazy, (2) my blog had been around more than around a month, or (3) the old Inactivist archive was available. Not much on the war or the totalitarian state we seem to be marching quickstep toward, but I haven’t had much to add to the fray about that lately. Still, I think my bona fides as an equal opportunity critic are pretty sound.
Where Mona and I tend to differ, IMHO, is typically less on specific topics (though we do differ on a few) than on how we go about addressing the issues. It would be ungentlemanly of me to suggest that as between the bludgeon and the rapier, I’m more of a thin blade and she… well, you know.
I’m not crazy about the general signal-to-noise ratio in our political discourse. (By “our” I don’t mean Mona’s and mine.) Besides, I have a pretty low rage fatigue threshold, and it no more surprises me to hear otherwise reasonable people on the right close ranks over Iraq or Bush in general than it does when otherwise reasonable people on the left close ranks over any number of issues about which they would probably privately say “this is both nutty and scary.”
So, yeah, Sowell was being an idiot in that quote and Mansfield has always been an idiot on the notion of state power, at least as far as I can tell. [shrug] What should I do, shout more?
Comment by Tom Scudder —
May 2, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
So. Nabalzbbfr – hoax ironic parody exaggeration or sincere rightwing loon? I vote “hoax”, if only for the mention of Pinochet.
Comment by Mona —
May 2, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Nabalzbbfr is not a hoax. I know who he is, in real life. He believes most of what he says and is an ardent Bush worshipper and neocon. He’s been infesting Greenwald’s site under various handles for about a year spewing the same overblown inanities — he probably does think that about Pinochet.
I ignore him there, and will do so here.
Comment by D.A. Ridgely —
May 2, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
BTW, Mona, (1) thanks for the blog plug, and (2) while I’ve been called “pithy” before, it’s usually been by people who lisp.
Comment by Leonard —
May 2, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Well if he’s not a hoax he still gives me something to aspire to as a satirist.
I did want to add that similar to Chile and India later on, in 1925 Italy also had some terrible governmental challenges. (The trains were really screwed up, and that’s just one of the many challenges they had.) Fortunately they too found a capable leader who did what he needed to in order to straighten things out. Someone had to step into the void and set things aright! And you can see what a good idea that was from the prosperity of the Italian Nation starting in about 1945 or so.
Comment by Matt Stevens —
May 2, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Wow, comment # 13 is awesome. Here we have a genuine, honest-to-God American fascist! No David Neiwert-style hyperbole necessary in his case; he’s the genuine article! If only someone could put a tag on him so he could be monitored in his natural habitat, like a rare monkey…
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 2, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
Whenever either party is overtaken by authoritarians, then the American people have a moral obligation to vote for the other party. The people of America seem to understand that moral obligation, which explains the way they voted in 2006. I suspect the American people will have to make the same choice in 2008. It seems unlikely that the GOP will reform itself by then. There are too many people like Nabalzbbfr who, tragically, have now attained positions of influence within social network that makes up the GOP.
Comment by Walt —
May 2, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
I totally thought #13 was a joke. Actually, #13 _is_ a joke, just not one its author is in on.
Comment by Mona —
May 2, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Believe me, I understand. The commenters at Greenwald’s had a hard time with my insistence that the guy is the real deal, because he is so, so far over-the-top. Greewnald knows also, and has said, that the man is a genuine neocon — it is hard to believe, but I swear to you, while on occasion he says stuff just to stir the pot, most of the ranting constitutes his actual POV.
He sincerely thinks Byron York at NRO, and Commentary magazine are the highest arbiters of truth and endowed with preternatural political savvy. And think about it, SOME cohort keeps that journal afloat — he’s among them. Such persons do actually exist.
Comment by John Emerson —
May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Congress should pass a Bring Home the Troops appropriation bill, not an Iraq War appropriation bill
Instead of sending Bush any form of Iraq War appropriation bill, Congress should send him a nice fat “Bring Home the Troops” appropriation bill. Give him no money at all for the war, and as much money as is needed to protect the troops and get them out of there.
The “abandoning our troops on the battlefield” accusation is lying bullshit, and appropriating money to get them off the battlefield would show that
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 2, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
By the way, in the above quote, from page 59 of Conscience Of A Conservative, Goldwater laments Eisenhower’s tolerance for the growth of the state. That quote was interesting to me because it matched something else that I’ve been thinking about lately. Bush and Eisenhower have this in common, that some very smart people have accussed them of breaking with Republican traditions. Some people lament that Eisenhower gave so much ground to the New Deal. And, of course, some very smart people have accussed Bush of not being a real Republican.
However, there is this difference: Eisenhower broke from Republican traditions and towards what, at the time, was the mainstream of American thought. Bush, on the other hand, is breaking from Republican traditions and is instead embracing an authoritarian style of leadership that has no parallel in American history.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 2, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
By the way, I pulled some quotes from Goldwater’s book, above, and I tried to get one from each chapter. Each chapter has its own focus, such as education, or the growth of the state. Chapter 2, which focuses on the power of the executive, had the most material that is directly relevant to the point that Mona made in the post above. Mona has already highlighted the quote that I pulled from Chapter 2. Goldwater makes excellent points about why the power of the executive needs to be restrained. I think if you took Chapter 2 out of the book and republished it without saying who the author was, some people might mistake for a bit of writing by Glenn Greenwald.
(and if that is an exaggeration, it’s a small exaggeration.)
Comment by Mona —
May 2, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
I agree, and don’t find it to be at all an exaggeration. Greenwald resists labeling, and the closest I’ve seen him come to accepting any at all was once in his comments section saying he most often agrees with those who describe themselves as libertarian. But whatever else is true, the ranting right-wingers who have him down as some raging far-leftist never cease to amuse me. Based on what? His constant invocation of Publius? Or his manifest reverence for the Founders and their values?
Yeah, that’s some virulent, anti-American Marxism Greenwald has going on there.
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 3, 2007 @ 12:29 am
“This is not a categorizaton scheme personal to me, Gary — far from it. The term ‘neolibertarian’ was coined by some libertarians post-9/11,”
You misunderstand me. It’s a trivial point, so I’m best off saying “never mind.”
But for the record, my query as to how “But he’s not a ‘neo-libertarian’” was in opposition to someone “remain[ing] pals [with you.”
That’s what you wrote, and I was trying to understand why one would call for the other. But, as I said, it’s really not important that I understand what you meant by that.
What a “neolibertarian” is is, of course, a much-written-upon question, and not what I asked, or have any questions about. It’s the why you needed to connect it to still being pals with someone that I didn’t get.
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 3, 2007 @ 12:39 am
More important is that I agree with Glenn, so really, never mind.
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 3, 2007 @ 12:43 am
Oh, drat, I forgot to mention that nabalzbbfr is a spammer.
Comment by Mona —
May 3, 2007 @ 6:24 am
Yeah, I’m not gonna go find the link, but he left the same droppings at Greenwld’s. He’s on a mission to defend the Leader against the defeatists and our IslamofascistHitlerNazis “mortal enemies.”
Comment by Mithras —
May 3, 2007 @ 7:50 am
[T]he mutations in the Bush GOP have turned many right-wingers into war-mongering, authoritarian lunatics …
I had the same thought as Barry at #1. I remember Nixon and the narrative surrounding the Vietnam War; I remember Reagan’s race-baiting ‘welfare queens’ and his promotion of the birth of the evangelical right as a political movement. You could argue it goes all the way back to Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. New?
Comment by Seamus —
May 3, 2007 @ 8:06 am
Actually, a few of them were northeastern ethnics as well.
Comment by Seamus —
May 3, 2007 @ 8:07 am
And Midwestern ethnics. (Some social conservative Papist Democrats lived in places like Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and St. Louis, as well as Boston, Philadelphia, and New York).
Comment by Seamus —
May 3, 2007 @ 8:19 am
In case you need more reason to bewail the decline of the GOP, I’d offer this from Robert A. Taft’s “A Foreign Policy for Americans” (1951):
Comment by Seamus —
May 3, 2007 @ 8:21 am
After the fall election, President Bush and the Congressional Republicans extended their hand in bipartisan friendship. And what was the response? After some hypocritical posturing, the Democrat leadership spat in the President’s face.
Given than the election was pretty much a referendum on the war, and one which the critics of the war won, I’d say it was the president who did the spitting, and it was in the face of the American electorate.
Comment by David Brin —
May 3, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
One joke I have been telling
(at http://www.davidbrin.blogspot.com/)
has a real effect on “Ostrich Republicans.”
Ostriches? Those are decent, Goldwater conservatives or libertarians who keep shaking their heads with hands pressed tightly over their ears and their eyes tightly closed, seeing and hearing very little of the evil being done by their party, in their name…
…or rationalizing “Clinton was almost as bad, Clinton was almost as bad, Clinton was almost as bad, Clinton was almost as bad…”
The joke?
I tell them that the STate of Arizona is drawing half of its electrical power, right now, from coild and magnets placed around the spinning in Barry Goldwater’s grave.”
David Brin
Author of The Postman, and The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?
Comment by Thoreau —
May 3, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Yeah, but it was Democrat Napolitano who had the vision to tap that clean, green, renewable energy source.