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.
There are some things that a state just cannot do, no matter how much power it accumulates or employs. There has been no shortage of rhetoric. No expense is spared on arms escalation. There is no lack of will. The effort has the backing of plenty of smart people. It is backed by threats of massive bloodshed. But, in the end, the war on terror cannot work.
Many intellectuals believe that war is good for many things, including fixing up a weak economy, writes Adam Young. The coming invasion and occupation of Iraq will happen because the Bush administration believes in the Keynesian/Great Depression myth of perpetual war for perpetual prosperity.
The statement given by the Bush administration to Congress and now available online, entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," must be read to be believed, writes Joseph Stromberg. Its historical points are dubious, its economics misleading, and its social theory a heap of dangerous half- or third-truths.
In point of fact, terms like "dove" and "hawk" have little substantive meaning when applied to the Federal Reserve. Robert McTeer's unrelenting inflationism is considered dovish, while Laurence Mayer is labeled a complete hawk on TheStreet.com's Fed Scorecard, despite the fact that he has yet to cast a dissenting vote!
Abraham Lincoln is incorrectly remembered as a restorer of liberty, while Prussian autocrat Otto von Bismarck is generally seen as a ruthless dictator, eager to sacrifice men to his policy of deciding the future of his countrymen "by blood and iron." Contrary to this view, Adam Young explains why both men should be viewed as allied together in the common cause of destroying the principles of classical liberalism.
As the war on terror drags on, many people calling themselves libertarians have decided that it's not such a bad thing after all. What, they ask, is the point of government if not to bomb those who would threaten our safety? The trouble is that real life works a little differently from the civics-text ideal of government. Government uses war—and sometimes foments it—in order to expand its power over its own people or to expand its imperial power.
