TheAgitator.com
And…the Best Single Sentence I’ve Read in Months
Monday, January 26th, 2009The last line of William Kristol’s latest NY Times column:
This is William Kristol’s last column.
Here’s hoping the waning influence of neoconservatism is long and, and for neocons themselves, dispiriting. For too long, the debate in Washington has been between big government liberals and big government conservatives.
You know what would be great? If the Times could find a genuine advocate of limited government (or at least a bona-fide civil libertarian) to take Kristol’s place.
No such luck – he’s moving to the WaPo.
Radley Balko to the NY Times!
Radley -
I’m a regular reader of Glenn Greenwald at Salon. He seems very good as far as civil liberties go.
@ Bryan (#2): I agree, it would be nice to see a real libertarian get a chance at the New York Times and Radley is a libertarian who has experience writing. Having the platform of the Times to raise awareness of some of the issues Radley writes about most often, like criminal justice failures, couldn’t hurt at all.
@ Radley: We don’t want Kristol to disappear. We need someone to be a bellweather for exactly the wrong policy. A safe bet most of the time on any given policy proposal is this:
It’s sort of an, “I don’t know what’s right, but I damn sure know what’s wrong” approach to public policy, but it’s no worse than any other approach.
Oh, when are we going to hear what you think the worst abuses in the criminal justice system as a whole are? (It was asked in the Agitator live chat and you indicated you would answer later in a post.)
For those who are interested, I think they are:
(a) the state’s ability to revoke a person’s probation based on an alleged subsequent criminal act after the person was acquitted of criminal charges arising out of the alleged criminal act (the state can do this because the standard of proof at the revocation hearing is more probably than not, much less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of a criminal trial, and because the rules of evidence at a revocation hearing are relaxed because it is considered an administrative hearing, not a criminal proceeding); and
(b) the State’s abusing pre-trial detention, which is supposed to be used exclusively to ensure the defendant appears at trial, by holding defendants in dangerous, unsanitary county jails for the purpose of extorting the defendants to plead guilty to felonies in exchange for a suspended sentence (probation) so the defendant can get out of the jail as fast as possible (criminal jury trials can take months to occur from the time of arrest, particularly for less serious crimes that are nonetheless felonies, like burglary in the second degree). Lots of people say they would never plead guilty to something they didn’t do. Almost none of those people have spent significant time in a county jail in this country.
I’m so old that I remember a time when Democrats were against corporate welfare and Republicans were against big government.
@ Meyer (#5): I am old enough to remember them saying those things. I don’t know if any of it was ever true. As near as I can tell, both Democrats and Republicans are only dedicated to acquiring, consolidating and exercising power over others.
@ Tom G (#3): I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d prefer someone with more intellectual heft and consistency that Glen Greenwald.
He has described his political views as having been greatly affected by the broadening of executive power that became apparent to him after the events of September 11, 2001. That strikes me as disingenuous, since he is obviously intelligent. I don’t think there is a serious argument against the idea that the power of the federal executive has been expanding (improperly) for the better part of a century all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, at least. The former President Bush did make some striking claims on large, visible issues, but the executive power gram doesn’t date from 9/11/2001. Bush’s claims are like a rash that makes the presence of an infection finally visible on the skin, making Greenwald’s statement appear self-serving, made for the sake of appealing to the majority of people who were not supporters of the former president (irrespective on their position on the issue of executive power) and positioning himself with Democrats.
Someone like Radley, Gene Healy or Will Wilkinson who is clearly not sitting in either of the major party camps would be a more compelling spokesperson for libertarian ideas, a with more scholarly approach (at least with Messrs. Healy and Wilkinson, Radley’s work has also been largely popular stuff, I think, like Greenwald).
I use a similar approach only I substitute “Ralph Nader.”
“I don’t think there is a serious argument against the idea that the power of the federal executive has been expanding (improperly) for the better part of a century all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, at least.”
Truth is you can probably start at George Washington and work your way forward.
Of course, John Tierney had a run on the Op/Ed page, but it was short for some reason.
But as for “bona-fide civil libertarians,” Nat Hentoff was laid off recently from the Village Voice; he’d certainly be a better choice than, well, anybody they currently have.
I nominate Sheldon Richman. He’s an agorist, or free-market anarchist.
freeassociation.blogspot.com
For anyone who is unfamiliar with Kristol’s remarkably bad track record on everything, here’s a quick guided tour.
Really?
For me it was any sentence containing the words “former President George W. Bush”.
John Jenkins,
I think you make a fair point, but I do think it’s very reasonable to believe that Bush’s policies were more than just an extension of executive power-grabs that had been occurring for decades. He almost never even tried to follow the law, he knowingly violated many laws, covered up the fact that he did and then interfered with investigations into his illegal acts. These were not really areas where legality wasmuch in dispute either.
I think the difference in Bush’s power grabs were so significant from others of the past as to make them a different breed entirely. He also violated some of the most fundamental principles of our nation including those espoused in the bill of rights. I think that makes them worse, than efforts to spend more money or prosecute more and new crimes, or initiate new programs as we’ve seen before.
I imagine there are many “average” people who never cared all that much about the constitution or bill of rights or geneva conventions before Bush came along and basically urinated all over them.
Is he serious? Granted, I spent what was left of the 70s in a crib, but were conservatives standing alone against communism before Reagan came along with his jelly beans and grin? Who funded the jihadists against the USSR, the Bathists against Iran, and then the Iranians against the Bathists (while peddling drugs for Central American cartels)? Who waffled and returned semi-automatic weapons to the streets (and hunting lodges), while institutionalizing curbs on civil liberties and empowering the police to fight “wars” against those they’re meant to serve & protect? Which party among the state legislatures has consistently cut back on public education to fulfill promises of tax-cuts (while not daring to slash state jobs for fear of the unions), and at the federal level impeded investment in sciences and technologies that offend the sensibilities of suburban housewives with big hair? And the family – how dare he suggest government can take any credit for what average people do day-in and day-out, raising kids and providing for one another, so often in spite of their government going above & beyond its measures to make it harder on them. He’s proud; fair enough. Fair enough too that I hope he chokes on his hubris.
The one smart thing he included was a question asked by Harvey Mansfield in 1978: “Who today is called a liberal for strength and confidence in defense of liberty?” That’s worth asking still.
Let’s hope classical liberalism gets it’s day; tempered even by hope and sensibility, goal-limited programming rather than bureaucracy building. I don’t know, something called governance.
Neil Boortz would be an excellent replacement for Bill Kristol.
Will Wilkinson.
Or Tyler Cowen, Russ Roberts, or Don Boudreaux.
Either James Bovard or Nat Hentoff would be first-rate.
I love Tyler Cowen, but if libertarians are going to get a voice on the NYT op-ed page, I’d want it to be someone a little more strident or fervent. Tyler’s just too laid back. I’d rather draft his co-blogger, Alex.
Will Wilkinson would be a great choice, also.
Steve Chapman should get the job. Un my book, he is second only to George Will as a political columnist in terms of style and he is clearly the country’s best libertarian columnist.
Per Arnold Horschack, I’d also love Sheldon Richman – or any other free-market agorist – having a national column. But, I live in the real world, and such provocation would never be tolerated at a national newspaper. He’d be great until he got fired….
One of the more general-public-friendly writers from the Mises Blog would be best.
[...] Radley Balko writes, “You know what would be great? If the Times could find a genuine advocate of limited government (or at least a bona-fide civil libertarian) to take Kristol’s place.” The links provide subtle endorsements of Jacob Sullum, David Boaz, Dave Kopel, Gene Healy, and Nat Hentoff. [...]
Wouldn’t it be neat if they gave his column to the STOSSEL?
Haha, even I like the Stossel.