It is slowly dawning on people that to understand George W., one must understand his religious impulses, which all evidence suggests are intensely important to him. His views are no different from that of the typical evangelical who absorbed his faith from the American Baptist culture. But they merit closer attention when they are held by an arrogant man with his finger on the button and who is contemplating total war.
"War," said Ludwig von Mises "is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror. Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds, war destroys."
In tough times, people cling to the words of politicians and the statements of TV's talking heads—the two sources least likely to offer a broad perspective that yields answers. Jeffrey Tucker recommends five books for a clear a historical perspective, a theoretical explanation, a forecast for the future, and an agenda for change.
David Frum did not intend to write a send-up of the state. His goal was not to demystify the White House. But that is the effect of his chatty little book, The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush (NY: Random House, 2002).
If the pundits and politicians ever succeed in imposing the draft again on American citizens, for purposes of bolstering the military empire or doing social work, writes Jeffrey Tucker, they will have to look for support outside the libertarian tradition. Mises is not enlisted in this cause.
The idea that commerce and war are allies is a complete perversion of the old liberal tradition. The first theorists of commerce from the 16th through the 18th centuries saw that a most meritorious aspect of commerce is its link to freedom and peace, that commerce made it possible for people to co-operate rather than fight. It made armaments and war less necessary, not more.
Many of the same people who debunked Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty, and ridiculed its failures, are enthusiastically backing George W. Bush’s War on Terror. Both are big-government programs. Why back one and not the other?
The American Conservative is off to a brilliant start. Paul W. Schroeder's article is the best analysis I have seen of the current crisis in America's relations with Iraq.
The Moscow hostage crisis, unlike most actions that the Russian government blames on Chechens, was definitely of the Chechens's making. But the action, as appalling as it was, does not appear in a historical or political vacuum. Yuri N. Maltsev explains the history of Russia's cruelty toward Chechnya.
