Reading Arnold Kling has always left me somewhat befuddled. In the past, I’ve pointed to his supposed libertarianism and his contradictory positions. In his latest column, I am even more bemused, yet again, at the same time, entirely clear on what the deal is. Confused?
First off, he begins by quoting Ted Halstead and Michael Lind, a couple of statists that wrote the horrific Radical Center, a how-to book for the modern-day centrist. Then he proceeds to name some Bush crimes, namely his economic bungling:
*We saw the Bush Administration railroad through a prescription drug bill that appears to take the country a little closer to socialized medicine, over the objection of Democratic opponents who wanted it to go further.
*Only a flimsy filibuster stood between the Bush Administration and passage of energy legislation, brought to you in part by Archer-Daniels-Midland, the company that produces the gasoline additive ethanol — energy made from pork. The bill was described by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren as “Hundreds of pages of corporate welfare.”
*Uncomfortable with Chinese bras, the boobs in the Bush Administration decided to put on import restrictions, leading Bruce Bartlett to reluctantly conclude that “From the point of view of trade, it is the worst administration since Herbert Hoover helped bring on the Great Depression by signing the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930.”
Good rundown. Then he proceeds to tell us, “In this Thanksgiving season, even though he has given us a bad month, I am still pretty thankful that George Bush is the President. His instinct on Islamist terror and his courage in the face of opposition are qualities that I admire.” That Kling is pro-war, and supports the war on terror, is not news. But earlier in his piece, he explained, “Halstead and Lind have identified the problem for those of us who lean libertarian. Unlike pure libertarians, who disdainfully refrain from voting for any conventional candidate, we Leaners make lesser-of-evils choices from among the major parties. But the choice is still hard.”
So he’s a “leaner.” Never heard that term before, but it’s appropriate. I like it. It’s an acceptable position, that is, to be a “leaner.” It’s far better than those that claim to represent libertarianism while they actually represent something more akin to Angry Libertinism and Convenience Statism (such as glowing over Greenspan and his Central Banking policies) mixed with a belief in the free market (as long as it’s always “dynamic”). Kling is honest, and always exploring a wide range of topics, many of interest to Austro-libertarians.
However, I’ll never understand the leaners and their support of hegemony, war, and false phraseology such as the “war on terrorism.” That’s the stuff that separates the wheat from the chaff, and ultimately, freedom from chains.
