I thought I'd pose a question in this board since this board is the history board here. And I thought I'd ask it here even though this is contemporary. But, I've seen a lot of people on message boards-- neoconservative in nature go out and think they can defend the Bush administration just because the Obama adminsitration is doing equally and if not worse as bad as they are. So, they're trying to make it seem like Bush was absolutely perfect... which we know is false... and that Dick and Bush didn't commit any crimes (torture-- is a crime). I just wanted to ask you all what you think about these revisionists on both the left and the right and how we can get the truth to prevail. I hope this is on the right board... but I thought I'd ask about it here.
Presidents Obama and Bush are doing what prior presidents did. They have suspended habeas corpus just as President Lincoln did. They have engaged in international and national intervention in the name of improving the economy just as President Wilson and FDR did. The king has on new clothes, but he is still the king.
As to what to do: Read DiLorenzo's books and other like it and then just give a counterpunch were you can. The other day my brother who has heard me rant against government for years started asking question. Now, that Bush is out of office, he more open to discussing governmental mistakes. We had a great discussion.
I came to study Austrian Economics and Theory because a student spoke up in a class I was teaching. I am grateful he did.
Good luck.
To quote Murray Rothbard "Revisionism can either be good or bad but it is never indifferent."
Combating faulty revisionism can be a simple process of writing good revisionism. Those with truth on their side are victorious but sometimes victory is a posthumous award.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Laughing Man: To quote Murray Rothbard "Revisionism can either be good or bad but it is never indifferent." Combating faulty revisionism can be a simple process of writing good revisionism. Those with truth on their side are victorious but sometimes victory is a posthumous award.
I agree. With regards to the OP, however, I would say an example that partially disproves this is Francis Fukuyama
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Nitroadict:Francis Fukuyama
The modern day Millerite
Most conservatives today who defend Bush simply do it because he is a Republican. This pertains to Democrats as well who have had to defend administrations simply because they are Democrats. Now they will do it with Obama. It is why most conservatives voted Republican in the last election: Mccain was a Republican, and that meant he was better than Obama. Never mind the fact that many of their policies were similar, all that mattered was that he was a Republican.
This isn't to say that Bush won't get a beneficial facelift to his presidency in the long term future (Although he won't be better to sane people). Truman was villified after he left office because of his war mongering tendencies and over reactions to the faltering Soviet economy. Yet after the Cold War ended, people looked upon him as a great because they erroneously perceieved what he did to have worked. If we win the Iraq and Afganistan wars, than there is a strong chance of Bush looked upon as being a good president. Sad but true.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap