William Peterson reviews Michael Novak’s new book (The Universal Hunger for Liberty: Why the Clash of Civilizations is Not Inevitable (Basic Books, 2005)) in the Washington Times, and it does appear that Novak brings a wonderful message that is in line with the spirit of the old liberalism he generally supports. He argues that peace is possible through market freedom, and praises Mises while making his case. And yet, one wonders how, in Novak’s view, this applies in the real world. Does it mean peace and free markets, or war in the name of peace and free markets? {C}Novak’s long series of war commentary in National Review reads as if he has lost the capacity to look objectively at the actions of the US military in foreign lands. He seems to equate military conquest by Bush with liberty itself, and any impulse to resist the demands of the US as evidence of terrorism and tyranny. See these examples: 1, 2, and especially 3 (but prepare to wince as you read that the Iraq War is “one of the noblest and brightest pages in American history... Those who died in that cause have given an unforgettable gift to the Iraqi people, which will be remembered with gratitude for generations to come. Their extraordinary achievements have burnished the glory of our nation....”) Novak of course was an eloquent critic of the Vietnam War during a time when he regarded himself as a soft-socialist and a progressive reformer. Having since come to terms with the economics of capitalism and written extensively and often brilliant in its defense, his political instincts seem to have led him to reject parts of his old faith that were sound, namely that which distrusted the government war machine. He was half right then, and half right now. Now if the two right halves could just come together...
Novak on Peace
