ROTHBARD-ROCKWELL REPORT

A Strategy for the Right by Murray N. Rothbard

Presidential Address to the John Randolph Club, Herndon, , January 18, 1992

This is a triple celebration. Patrick J. Buchanan. As Sidney the individualists and liber- First, we celebrate the death Blumenthal puts it in the tarians, like H.L. Mencken, and disintegration in 1991 of January 6-13 issue of the New Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder one of the most monstrous Republic-he speaks of the Lane, and Garet Garrett; 2) despotisms of all time, the magazine Chronicles but this Right-wing Democrats, hark- Union of Soviet Socialist applies equally well to the Ran- ing back to the laissez-faire Republics. Typically, the only dolph Club-: "Chronicles, views of the 19th-century people mourning the death are which was on the periphery of Democratic party, men such as not in the old Soviet Union, but under Reagan, Governor Albert Ritchie of George Bush, the New York has become suddenly engaged Maryland or Senator James A. Times, and the Establishment in at its center as the Bush- Reed of ; and 3) the , including Buchanan race looms." moderate New Dealers, who our Sovietologists. No longer What has happened is that thought that the Roosevelt will George Bush be able to what I call the Old Right is went too far, for pick up the phone, call Gorby suddenly back! example Herbert on the hot line, and settle the The terms old Hoover. Inter- problems of the world. Now, and new in- estingly, even isn't that a crying shame? evitably get con- though the liber- The second celebration is fusing, with a tarian intellec- mine personally: my own new "new" every tuals were in the return home to the Right-wing, few years, so let's minority, they after 35 years in the political call it the "Orig- necessarily set wilderness. Like a 19th-century inal" Right, the the terms and the Romantic hero, I am confident Right-wing as it rhetoric of the that I am returning home at a existed from 1933 debate, since higher level than when I to approximately theirs was the departed. 1955. This Old only thought-out And third, this, only the sec- Right was form- contrasting ideo- ond annual meeting of the John ed in reaction logy to the New Randolph Club, celebrates the against the New Deal. fact that we have suddenly Deal, and against The most rad- vaulted from the periphery to a the Great Leap ical view of the central role in the American Forward into the 'New Deal was Right. The occasion of this Leviathan state that was the that of libertarian essayist and dramatic change, of course, has essence of that New Deal. novelist Garet Garrett, an been the entry into the presi- This anti-New Deal move- editor of the Saturday Evening dential race of our esteemed ment was a coalition of three Post. His brilliant little pam- Randolph Club member, groups: 1) the "extremists," phlet The Revolution Was, ~~ -published in 1938, began with a “‘war to end all wars,” both of existing government would these penetrating words- which would amount, in the you repeal? How far would you words that would never be p:rophetic words of Charles A. roll government back? fully absorbed by the Right: Beard, to waging ”perpetual The minimum demand which There are those who war for perpetual peace.” almost all Old Rightists agreed still think they are And so the oripal Right was on, which virtually defined the

holding the pass against completed, combating- the Old Right, was total abolition of a revolution that may be Leviathan state in I the New Deal, coming up the road. But domestic affairs. the whole kit and they are gazing in the It said ”no!” to kaboodle of the wrong direction. The the welfare-war- welfare state, the revolution is behind ftare state. The Wagner Act, the them. It went by in the result of adding Social Security night of depression, foreign affairs to Act, going off singing songs to the list was some gold in 1933, and freedom. reshuffling of all the rest. The revolution was, said members: former Beyond that, Garrett, and therefore nothing Rightists such as there were char- less than a counter-revolution Lewis W. Doug- ming disagree- is needed to take the country las, who had ments. Some back. Behold, then, not a ”con- opposed the do- would stop at servative,” but a radical Right. mestic New Deal, repealing the In the late 1930s, there was ‘nowrejoined it as New Deal. Others added to this reaction against internationalists; would press on, the domestic New Deal, a reac- while veteran to abolition of tion against the foreign policy isolationists, Woodrow Wil- of the New Deal: the insistent which as Sena- son’s New Free- drive toward war in Europe tors Borah and dom, including and Asia. Hence, the Right Nye, or intel- the Federal wing added a reaction against lectuals such as Beard, Harry Reserve System and especially big government abroad to the Elmer Barnes, or John T. Flynn, that mighty instrument of attack on big government at gradually but surely became tyranny, the income tax and the home. The one fed on the domestic Right wingers in the . Still other. The Right wing called for course of their determined op- others, extremists such as non-intervention in foreign as position to the foreign New myself, would not stop until we well as domestic affairs, and Deal. repealed the Federal Judiciary denounced FDR’s adoption of If we know what the Old Act of 1789, and maybe even Woodrow Wilson’s Global Right was against, what were think the unthinkable and Crusading which had proved they for? In general terms, they restore the good old Articles of so disastrous in World War I. were for a restoration of the Confederation. To Wilson-Roosevelt global- liberty of the Old Republic, of a Here I should stop and say ism, the Old Right countered government strictly limited to that, contrary to accepted with a policy of First. the defense of the rights of myth, the original Right did not American foreign policy must private property. In the con- disappear with, and was not neither be based on the in- crete, as in the case of any discredited by, our entry into terests of a foreign power- broad coalition, there were dif- World War 11. On the contrary, such as Great Britain-nor be in ferences of opinion within this the congressional elections of the service of such abstract overall framework. But we can 1942-an election neglected by ideals as “making the world boil down those differences to scholars--was a significant vic- safe for democracy,” or waging this question: how much of tory not only for conservative 2 March 1992 Republicans, but for isolationist ical: should we be Lockians, question in a minute. Republicans as well. Even Hobbesians, or Burkeans: On the differences of opi- though intellectual Rightist natural rightsers, or tradi- nion, of the question of diver- opinion, in books and especial- tionalists, or utilitarians? On sity in the Old Right, I was ly in the journals, was virtually political frameworks, should struck by a remark that Tom blotted out during World War we be monarchists, check-and- Fleming made. Tom noted that 11, the Right was still healthy in balance federalists, or radical he was struck, in reading about politics and in the press, such decentralists? Hamiltonians or that period, that there was no as the Hearst press, the New Jeffersonians? party line, that there was no York Daily News, and especially One difference, which person or magazine excom- the . After agitated the Right-wing before municating heretics, that there World War 11, there was an in- the Buckleyite monolith was admirable diversity and tellectual revival of the Right, managed to stifle all debate, is freedom of discussion on the and the Old Right stayed particularly relevant to Right- Old Right. Amen! In other healthy until the mid-1950s. wing strategy, my main topic words, there was no National Within the overall consen- for tonight. The Marxists, who Review. sus, then, on the Old Right, have spent a great deal of time What was the Old Right posi- there were many differences thinking about strategy for tion on culture? There was no within the framework, but their movement, always pose particular position, because differences that remained the question: who is the agen- everyone was imbued with, remarkably friendly and har- cy of social change? Which and loved the old culture. monious. Oddly group may be ex- Culture was not an object of enough, these pected to bring debate, either on the Old Right are precisely the about the desired or, for that matter, anywhere friendly differ- change in socie- else. Of course, they would ences within the ty? Classical have been horrified and in- current paleo Marxism found credulous at the accredited movement: free the answer easy: victimology that has rapidly trade or protec- the proletariat. taken over our culture. Anyone tive tariff, immigra- Then things got a who would have suggested to tion policy, and, lot more compli- an Old Rightist of 1950, for within the policy cated: the peas- example, that in forty years, the of “isolation- antry, oppressed federal courts would be ism,” whether it womanhood, mi- redrawing election districts all should be “doc- norities, etc. over the country so that tr inaire ’ ’ is ola- The relevant Hispanics would be elected tionism, such question for the according to their quota in the as my own, or Right-wing is the population, would have been whether the other side of the considered a fit candidate for United States coin: who can we the loony-bin. As well he should regularly expect to be the might. intervene in the bad guys? Who And while I’m on this tdpic, Western Hemi- are agents of this is the year 1992, and no sphere or in neighboring coun- negative social change? Or: sooner have I been installed as tries of Latin America. Or which groups in society pose President when I am going to whether this nationalist policy the greatest threats to liberty? exceed my constitutional limits. should be flexible among these Basically, there have been two I propose to commit the John various alternatives. answers on the Right: 1) the Randolph Club, right now, to Other differences, which also unwashed masses; and 2) the one simple proposition. I am still exist, are more philosoph- power elites. I will return to this tempted to say, repeat after me: 3 March 1992 ~~ COLUMBUS DISCOVERED insouciant anti-Semitism at his went into real estate. Perhaps AMERICA! father’s dinner table.) that’s why the Trotskyites are Even though a fan of diver- On the contrary, my father running the world. sity, the only revisionism I will was an individualist, and At Columbia College, I was permit on this topic is whether was always strongly anti- only one of two Republicans on Columbus discovered America, communist and anti-socialist, the entire campus, the other or whether it was Amerigo who turned against the New being a literature major with Vespucci. Deal in 1938 because it had whom I had little in common. Poor Italian-! They failed to correct the depres- Not only that: but, a remarkable have never been able to make it sion-a pretty good start. In my thing for a cosmopolitan place to accredited victim status. The high school and college career, like Columbia, Lawrence Cham- only thing they ever got was at , I never berlain, distinguished political Columbus Day. And now, met a Republican, much less scientist, and dean of Columbia they’re trying to take it away! anyone strongly Right-wing. college, admitted one time that If I may be pardoned a per- By the way, he had never met a sonal note, I joined the Old even though I am Republican either. Right in 1946. I grew up in New admittedly sev- By 1946, I had York City in the 1930s in the eral years youri: become politically midst of what can only be ger than Daniel active, and joined called a communist culture. As Hell, Irving Kris- the Young Repub- middle-class in New York, tol, and the rest, I licans of New my relatives, friends, class- rnust say that York. Unfortun- mates, and neighbors faced during all those ately, the Repub- only one great moral decision years I never licans in New in their lives: should they join iieard of Leon York weren’t the Communist Party and Trotsky, much much of an im- devote 100 percent of their lives less of Trotsky- provement: the to the cause; or should they ites, until I got to Dewey-Rockefel- remain fellow travelers and graduate school ler forces con- devote only a fraction of their after World War stituted the ex- lives? That was the great range 11. I was fairly treme Right of the of debate. politically aware, party; most of I had two sets of aunts and and in New York them being either uncles on both sides of the in those days, pro-Communist, family who were in the Com- the “Left” meant like Stanley munist Party. The older uncle the Communist Isaacs, or social was an engineer who helped Party, period. So I think that democrats like JacobJavits. I did, build the legendary Moscow Kristol and the rest are weaving however, have fun writing a subway; the younger one was pretty legends about the cosmic paper for the Young Republicans an editor for the Communist- importance of the debates be- denouncing price control and dominated Drug Workers tween Trotskyites and Stalin- rent control. And after the Union, headed by one of the ists in alcoves A and B at the Republican capture of Congress famous Foner brothers. But I City College cafeteria. As far as in 1946, I was ecstatic. My first hasten to add that I am not, in I’m concerned, the only Trot- publication ever was a “hallelu- the current fashion, like Ro- skyites were a handful of jah!” letter in the Nao York World- seanne Barr Arnold or William academics. By the way, there is Telegram exulting that now, at F. Buckley, Jr., claiming that I a perceptive saying in Left- last, the Republican 80th Con- was a victim of child abuse. wing circles in New York: that gress would repeal the entire (Buckley’s claim is that he was the Trotskyites all went into New Deal. So much for my the victim of the high crime of academia, and the Stalinists strategic acumen in 1946. March 1992 -At any rate, I found the Old First, even granting for a mo- which is necessarily a minority Right and was happy there for ment that the masses are the of the population, which lives a decade. For a couple of years, worst possible, that they are off the second group-the rest I was delighted to subscribe to perpetually Hell-bent on lynch- of the population. Here I point the Chicago Tribune, whose ing anyone down the block, the to one of the most brilliant every news item was filled with mass of people simply don’t essays on political philosophy great Old Right punch and have the time for politics or ever written, John C. Calhoun’s analysis. It is forgotten now political shenanigans. The Disquisition on Government. that the only organized opposi- average person must spend Calhoun pointed out that the tion to the Korean War was not most of his time on the daily very fact of government and of on the Left, which, except for business of life, on making a taxation creates inherent con- the Communist Party and living, being with his family, flict between two great classes: I.F. Stone, fell for the chimera seeing his friends, etc. He can those who pay taxes, and those of Wilsonian-Rooseveltian only get interested in politics or who live off them; the net tax- ”collective security,” but was engage in it sporadically. payers vs. the tax-consumers. on the so-called extreme Right, The only people who have The bigger government gets, particularly in the House of time for politics are the profes- Calhoun noted, the greater and Representatives. sionals: the bureaucrats, politi- more intense the conflict bet- One of the leaders was my cians, and special interest ween those two social classes. friend Howard Buffett, Con- groups dependent on political By the way, I’ve never thought gressman from Omaha, who rule. They make of Governor Pete was a pure libertarian and was money out of Wilson of Califor- Senator Taft’s midwestern politics, and so nia as a distin- campaign manger at the mon- they are intensely guished political strous Republican convention interested, and theorist, but the of 1952, when the Eisenhower- lobby and are ac- other day he said Wall Street cabal stole the tive twenty-four something, pre- election from Robert Taft. After hours a day. sumably unwit- that, I left the Republican Party, Therefore, these tingly, that was only to return this year for the special interest remarkably Cal- Buchanan campaign. During groups will tend hounian. Wilson the 1950s, I joined every Right- to win out over lamented that the wing third party I could find, the uninterested tax-recipien ts in most of which collapsed after masses. This is California were the first meeting. I supported the basic insight beginning to out- the last presidential thrust of of the Public number the tax- the Old Right, the Andrews- Choice school of payers. Well, it‘s a Werdel ticket in 1956, but un- economics. The start. fortunately, they’never made it only other groups If a minority of up to . interested full- elites rule over, After this excursion on my time in politics tax, and exploit personal activity in the Old are ideologists the majority of Right, I return to a key strategic like ourselves, again not a very the public, then this brings up question: who are the major large segment in the popula- starkly the main problem of bad guys, the unwashed tion. So the problem is the political theory: what I like to masses or the power elite? Very ruling elite, the professionals, call the mystery of civil obe- early, I concluded that the big and their dependent special dience. Why does the majority danger is the elite, and not the interest groups. of the public obey these masses, and for the following A second crucial point: soci- turkeys, anyway? This prob- reasons. ety is divided into a ruling elite, lem, I believe, was solved by 5 March 1992 three great political theorists, continued to meet, but nobody same. As Karl Wittfogel shows , mainly but not all libertarian: bothered to show up. How in his great work, Oriental Etienne de la Boetie, French glcirious! Despotism, in Asian empires the libertarian theorist of the But we still haven’t solved intellectuals were able to get mid-16th century; David the mystery of civil obedience. away with the theory that the Hume; and . If the ruling elite is taxing, emperor or pharaoh was him- They pointed out looting, and ex- self divine. U‘ the ruler is God, that, precisely ploiting the few will be induced to disobey because the rul- public, why does or question his commands. ing class is a the public put up We can see what the state minority, that in with this for a rulers get out of their alliance the long run, single moment? with the intellectuals; but what force per se can- Why does it take do the intellectuals get out of it? not rule. Even in them so long to The answer should be obvious. the most despotic withdraw their Intellectuals are the sort of peo- dictatorship, the consent? ple who believe that, in the free government can Here we come market, they are getting paid only persist when to the solution: far less than their wisdom re- it is backed by the the critical role of quires. Now the state is willing majority of the the intellectuals, to pay them salaries, both for population. In the opinion- apologizing for state power, the long run, molding class in and in the modern state, for ideas, not force, society. If the staffing the myriad jobs in rule, and any masses knew the welfare, regulatory state government has what was going apparatus. to have legitimacy on, they would In past centuries, the in the minds of withdraw their churches have constituted the the public. consent quickly: exclusive opinion-molding This truth was starkly they would soon perceive that classes in the society. Hence demonstrated in the collapse of the emperor has no clothes, the importance to the state and the Soviet Union last year. that they are being ripped off. its rulers of an established Simply put, when the tanks That is where the intellectuals church, and the importance to were sent to capture Yeltsin, come in. libertarians of the concept of they were persuaded to turn The ruling elite, whether it be separating church and state, their guns around and defend the monarchs of yore or the which really means not allow- Yeltsin and the Russian Parlia- Communist parties of today, ing the state to confer upon one ment instead. More broadly, it are in desperate need of in- group a monopoly of the is clear that the Soviet govern- fellectual elites to weave opinion-molding function. In ment had totally lost legitimacy izpologias for state power. The the twentieth century, of and support among the public. state rules by divine edict; the course, the church has been To a libertarian, it was a par- state insures the common good replaced in its opinion-molding ticularly wonderful thing to see or the general welfare; the state role, or, in that lovely phrase, unfolding before our very eyes, protects us from the bad guys the ”engineering of consent,” the death of a state, particularly over the mountain; the state by a swarm of intellectuals, a monstrous one such as the guarantees full employment; academics, social scientists, Soviet Union. Toward the end, the state activates the multiplier technocrats, policy scientists, Gorby continued to issue effect; the state insures social social workers, journalists and decrees as before, but now, no justice, and on and on. The the media generally, and on one paid any attention. The apologias differ over the cen- and on. Often included, for old once-mighty Supreme Soviet turies; the effect is always the times’ sake, so to speak, is a 6 March 1992 ~

sprinkling of social gospel persuasion in the austere corri- intellectuals, academics, and ministers and counselors from dors of intellectual cerebration. the media are not all motivated the mainstream churches. This strategy fits, by the way, by truth alone. As we have So, to sum up: the problem is with Hayek’s personality, for seen, the intellectual classes that the bad guys, the ruling Hayek is not exactly known as may be part of the solution, but classes, have gathered unto an intellectual gut-fighter. also they are a big part of the themselves the intellectual and Of course, ideas and persua- problem. For, as we have seen, media elites, who are able to sion are important, but there the intellectuals are part of the bamboozle the masses into con- are several fatal flaws in the ruling class, and their economic senting to their rule, to indoc- Hayekian strategy. First, of interests, as well as their in- trinate them, as the Marxists course, the strategy at best will terests in prestige, power, and would say, with “false con- take several hundred years, admiration, are wrapped up in sciousness.” What can we, the and some of us are a bit more the present welfare-warfare Right-wing opposition, do impatient than that. But time is state system. about it? by no means the only problem. Therefore, in addition to con- One strategy, endemic to Many people have noted, for verting intellectuals to the libertarians and classical example, mysterious blockages cause, the proper course for the liberals, is what we can call the of the trickle. Thus, most real Right-wing opposition must ”Hayekian” scientists have a necessarily be a strategy of model, after F.A. very different boldness and confrontation, of Hayek, or what view of such dynamism and excitement, a I have called environmental strategy, in short, of rousing ”educationism. ” questions as Alar the masses from their slumber Ideas, the model than that of a few and exposing the arrogant declares, are cru- Left-wing hys- elites that are ruling them, con- cial, and ideas terics, and yet trolling them, taxing them, and filter down a hier- somehow it is ripping them off. archy, beginning always the same Another alternative Right- with top philoso- few hysterics that wing strategy is that commonly phers, then seep- are exclusively pursued by many libertarian or ing down to lesser quoted by the conservative think tanks: that philosophers, media. The same of quiet persuasion, not in the then academics, applies to the groves of academe, but in and finally to vexed problem of Washington, D.C., in the cor- journalists and inheritance and ridors of power. This has been politicians, and IQ testing. So called the ”Fabian” strategy, then to the how come the with think tanks issuing reports masses. The thing media invariably calling for a two percent cut in to do is to convert skew the result, a tax here, or a tiny drop in a the top philo- and pick and regulation there. The sup- sophers to the correct ideas, choose the few Leftists in the porters of this strategy often they will convert the lesser, and field? Clearly, because the point to the success of the so on, in a kind of ”trickle- media, especially the respect- Fabian Society, which, by its down effect,” until, at last, the able and influential media, detailed empirical researches, masses are converted and begin, and continue, with a gently pushed the British state liberty has been achieved. strong Left-liberal bias. into a gradual accretion of First, it should be noted that More generally, the Haye- socialist power. this trickle-down strategy is a kian trickle-down model The flaw here, however, is very gentle and genteel one, overlooks a crucial point: that, that what works to increase state relying on quiet mediation and and I hate to break this to you, power does not work in 7 March 1992 ~___~~~~ ~~ ~ reverse. For the Fabians were often shell-shocked Right-wing accomplished. gently nudging the ruling elite intellectual cadre as well. And The Left-liberal vision, then, precisely in the direction they in this era where the intellectual of good conservatives is as wanted to travel anyway. and media elites are all estab- follows: first, Left-liberals, in Nudging the other way would lishment liberal-conservatives, power, make a Great Leap go strongly against the state’s all in a deep sense one variety Forward toward collectivism; grain, and the result is far more or another of social democrat, then, when, in the course of the likely to be the state’s co-opting all bitterly hostile to a genuine political cycle, four or eight and Fabianizing the think- Right, we need a dynamic, years later, conservatives come tankers themselves rather than charismatic leader who has the to power, they of course are the other way around. This sort ability to short-circuit the media horrified at the very idea of of strategy may, of course, be

~ fitable in cushy masses and cut previous gilins of the left, and jobs and con- through the crip- providing a bit of R&R for the tracts from the pling and distor- next liberal Great Leap For- government. But ting hermeneutical ward. And if you think about it, that is precisely fog spread by the you will see that this is pre- the problem. media elites. We cisely what every Republican It is important need, in short, administration has done since to realize that the the leadership the New Deal. Conservatives establishment of Patrick J. Bu- have readily played the desired doesn’t want ex- chanan. Santa Claus role in the liberal citement in poli- But can we call vision of history. tics, it wants such a strategy I would like to ask: how long torpor, it wants ”conservative?” are we going to keep being the masses to I, for one, am suckers? How long will we continue to be tired of the liberal keep playing our appointed lulled to sleep. strategy, on roles in the scenario of the Left? It wants kinder, which they have When are we going to stop gentler, it wants rung the changes playing their game, and start the measured, for forty years, of throwing over the table? judicious, mushy presuming to de- I must admit that, in one tone, and con- fine ”conserva- sense, the liberals have had a tent, of a James tism” as a sup- point. The word “conserva- Reston, a David Broder, or a posed aid to the conservative tive” is unsatisfactory. The “Washington Week in Review.” movement. Whenever liberals original Right never used the It doesn’t want a , have encountered hard-edged term ”conservative”: we called not only for the excitement and abolitionists who, for example, ourselves individualists, or hard edge of his content, but have wanted to repeal the New ”true liberals,” or Rightists. also for his similar tone and Deal or Fair Deal, they say “but The word “conservative” only style. that’s not genuine conserva- swept the board after the And so the proper strategy tism. That’s radicalism.” The publication of ’s for the Right-wing must be genuine conservative, these highly influential Conservative what we can call ”Right-wing liberals go on to say, doesn’t Mind in 1953, in the last years of populism”: exciting, dynamic, want to repeal or abolish the original Right. tough, and confrontational, anything. He is a kind and There are two major prob- rousing, and inspiring not only gentle soul who wants to con- lems with the world “conser- the exploited masses, but the sene what Left-liberals have vative.” First, that it indeed 8 March1992 connotes conserving the status can politics in this century, precisely his radical, populist quo, which is precisely why the more hated and reviled than means. For McCarthy was able, Brezhnevites were called ”con- even , even though for a few years, to short-circuit servatives’’ in the Soviet he was not a Nazi or a Ku Klux- the intense opposition of all the Union. Perhaps there was a er? He was not a libertarian, he elites in American life: from the case for calling us ”conserva- was not an isolationist, he was Eisenhower-Rockefeller tives” in 1910, but surely not not even a conservative, but in administration to the Pentagon now. Now we want to uproot fact was a moderate Republi- and the military-industrial the status quo, not conserve it. can. And yet, he was so univer- complex to liberal and Left And secondly, the word con- sally reviled that media and aca- servative harks back to strug- his very name demic elites-to gles in 19th-century Europe, became a generic overcome all that and in America conditions and dictionary syn- opposition and institutions have been so dif- onym for evil. reach and inspire ferent that the term is seriously I refer, of the masses di- misleading. There is a strong course, to Joe rectly. And he case here, as in other areas, for McCarthy. The did it through what has been called ”Ameri- key to the McCar- television, and

can exceptionalism. ” thy phenomenon without any real So what should we call our- was the comment movement behind selves? I haven’t got an easy made by the him; he had only answer, but perhaps we could entire political a guerrilla band call ourselves radical reaction- culture, from of a few advisers, aries, or ”radical Rightists,” moderate Left to but no organiza- the label that was given to us by moderate Right: tion and no infra- our enemies in the 1950s. Or, if ”we agree with structure. there is too much objection to McCarthy’s goals, Fascinatingly the dread term ”radical,” we we just disagree enough, the re- can follow the suggestion of with his means.” sponse of the in- some of our group to call Of course, tellectual elites to ourselves ”the Hard Right.” McCarthy’s goals the spectre of Any of these terms is preferable were the usual ones absorbed McCarthyism was led by to ”conservative,” and it also from the political culture: the liberals such as Daniel Bell and serves the function of sepa- alleged necessity of waging war Seymour Martin Lipset, who rating ourselves out from the against an international com- are now prominent neo- official conservative movement munist conspiracy whose conservatives. For, in this era, which, as I shall note in a tentacles reached from the the neocons were in the midst minute, has been largely taken Soviet Union and spanned the of the long march which was to over by our enemies. entire globe. McCarthy’s prob- take them from Trotskyism to It is instructive to turn now to lem, and ultimately his Right-wing Trotskyism to a prominent case of Right- wing tragedy, is that he took this Right-wing social democracy, populism headed by a dynamic stuff seriously; if communists and finally to the leadership of leader who appeared in the last and their agents and fellow the conservative movement. At years of the original Right, travelers are everywhere, then this stage of their hegira the and whose advent, indeed, shouldn’t we, in the midst of neo-cons were Truman- marked a transition between the Cold War, root them out of Humphrey-Scoop Jackson the original and the newer, American political life? liberals. Buckleyite Right. Quick now: The unique and the glorious The major intellectual re- who was the most hated, the thing about McCarthy was not sponse to McCarthyism was a most smeared man in Ameri- his goals or his ideology, but book edited by Daniel Bell, 9 March1992 Right (1955), Leftists, engage in a ”para- tion of semantics. Anger by the later updated and expanded to noid”’style (and you know, of good guys, the accredited vic- The Radical Right (1963), course, what paranoids are), and tim groups, is designated as published at a time when suffer from ”status anxiety.” ”rage,” which is somehow McCarthyism was long gone Logically, at any time there noble: the 1ate:st example was and it was necessary to combat are three and only three social the rage of organized feminism a new menace, the John Birch groups: those who are declining in the Clarence ThomaslWillie Society. The basic method was in status, those who are rising Smith incidents. On the other to divert attention from the in status, and those whose hand, anger by designated op- content of the radical Right status is about even. (You can’t pressor groups is not called message and direct attention fault that analysis!) The declin- ”rage,” but ”resentment”: instead to a personal smear of ing groups are the ones whom which conjures up evil little the groups on the Right. Hofstadter focused on for the figures, envious of their The classical, or Hard, Marx- neurosis of status anxiety, betters, skulking around the ist method of smearing op- which causes them to lash out edges of the night. ponents of socialism or com- irrationally at their betters in a And indeed the entire Bell munism was to condemn them paranoid style, and you can fill volume is permeated by a frank as agents of monopoly capital in the rest. But, of course, the portrayal of the noble, intel- or of the bour- rising groups can ligent ivy-league governing geoisie. While also suffer from elite, confronted and harassed these charges the anxiety of try- by a mass of odious, unedu- were wrong, at ing to keep their cated, redneck, paranoid, re- least they had the higher status, sentment-filled authoritarian virtue of clarity and the level working and middle class types and even a cer- groups can be in the heartland, trying irra- tain charm, com- anxious about a tionally to undo the benevolent pared to the later future decline. rule of wise elites concerned for tactics of the soft The result of this the public good. Marxists and hocus-pocus is a History, however, was not liberals of the non-falsifiable, very kind to Hofstadterian 1950s and 60s, universally valid liberalism. For Hofstadter and who engaged in theory that can the others were consistent: Marxo-Freudian be trotted out to they were defending what they psychobabble to smear and dis- considered a wonderful status infer, in the name pose of any per- quo of elite rule, from any of psychological son or group radicals whatever, be they “science, ” that which dissents Right or Left. And so, their opponents from the status Hofstadter and his followers were, well, kind quo. For who, went back through American of crazy. after all, wants to history tarring all radical The preferred method of the be, or to associate with, dissenters from any status quo time was invented by one of the paranoids and the status with the status anxious, contributors to the Bell volume, anxious? paranoid brush, including such and also one of my least Also permeating the Bell groups as progressives, favorite distinguished Ameri- volume is dismissal of these populists, and Northern aboli- can historians, Professor terrible radicals as suffering tionists before the Civil War. Richard Hofstadter. In Hof- from the ”politics of resent- At the same time, Bell, in stadter’s formulation, any ment.” It is interesting, by the 1960, published a once-famous radical dissenters from any way, how Left-liberals deal work proclaiming the End of status quo, be they Rightists or with political anger. It’s a ques- Ideology: from now on, consen- 10 March 1992 ~~ sus elitist liberalism would rule tarian nor really a radical a lot. Ooh, anger! and of forever, ideology would dis- Rightist, McCarthy’s heart was course, since Pat is not only a appear, and all political prob- broken by the censure of the Right-winger but hails from a lems would be merely technical U.S. Senate, an institution designated oppressor group ones, such as which machinery which he actually loved. (White Male Irish Catholic), his to use to clear the streets. (Fore- The oripalRight, the radical anger can never be righteous shadowing thirty Right, had pretty rage, but only a reflection of a years later, a much disappear- paranoid, status-anxious per- similar neocon ed by the time of sonality, filled with, you got it, proclamation of the second edi- ”resentment .” And sure the End of tion of the Bell enough, this week, January 13, History.) But volume in 1963, the august New York Times, shortly after- and in a minute whose every word, unlike the wards, ideology we shall see why. words of the rest of us, is fit to came back with a But now, all of a print, in its lead editorial sets bang, with the sudden, with the the Establishment line, a line radical civil rights entry of Pat which by definition is fixed in and then the Buchanan into concrete, on Pat Buchanan. New Left revolu- the presidential After deploring the hard- tions, part of race, my God, edged and therefore politically which, I am con- they’re back! The incorrect vocabulary (tsk, tsk!) of vinced, was in radical Right is Pat Buchanan, the New York reaction to these back, all over the Times, I am sure for the first arrogant liberal place, feistier time, solemnly quotes Bill doctrines. Smear- than ever and Buckley as if his words were ing radicals, at getting stronger! holy writ (and I’ll get to that in least Left wing The response a minute), and therefore ones, was no to this historic decides that Buchanan, if not longer in fashion, either in phenomenon, by the entire actually anti-Semitic, has said politics or in historiography. spectrum of established and anti-Semitic things. And the Meanwhile, of course, poor correct thought, by the all the Times concludes with this final McCarthy was undone, partly elites from left over to Official punchline, so reminiscent of because of the smears, and the conservatives and neo-conser- the Bell-Hofstadter line of lack of a movement infrastruc- vatives, is very much like the yesteryear: ”What his words ture, and partly too because his reaction to the return of God- convey, much as his bid for the populism, even though zilla in the old movies. And nomination conveys, is the dynamic, had no goals and no wouldn’t you know that they politics, the dangerous politics, program whatsoever, except would trot out the old of resentment.“ the very narrow one of rooting psychobabble, as well as the Resentment! Why should out communists. And partly, old smears of bigotry, anti- anyone, in his right mind, resent too, because McCarthy was not Semitism, the specter of contemporary America? Why really suited for the television Franco, and all the rest? Every should anyone, for example, medium he had ridden to fame: interview with, and article on, going out into the streets of being a ”hot” person in a Pat dredges his ”authoritarian Washington or New York, “cool” medium, with his Catholic” background (ooh!) resent what is surely going to jowls, his heavy five-0’-clock and the fact that he fought a lot happen to him? But, for shadow (which also helped when he was a kid (gee whiz, heaven’s sake, what person in ruin Nixon), and his lack of a like most of the American male his right mind, doesn’t resent it? sense of humor. And also, too, population). What person is not filled with since he was neither a liber- Also: that Pat has been angry noble rage, or ignoble resent-

11 @ March1992 ~ ~

ment, or whatever you choose terms. Very quickly, National radical, conserving Right was to call it? Raiew became the dominant, if worthy of power. Finally, I want to turn to the no? the only, power center on And so the purges began. question: what happened to the Right-wing. One after another, Buckley and the original Right, anyway? lhis power was reinforced by purged and And how did the conservative a brilliantly successful strategy excommunicated all the radi- movement get into its present (pcrhaps guided by NR editors cals, all the non-respectables. mess? Why does it need to be trained in Marxist cadre tactics) Consider the roll-call: isola- sundered, and split apart, and of creating front groups: IS1 for tionists (such as John T. Flynn), a new radical Right movement co’ilege intellectuals, Young anti-Zionists, libertarians, Ayn created upon its ashes? Americans for Freedom for Randians, the John Birch Soci- The answer to both of these campus activists. Moreover, ety, and all those who con- seemingly disparate questions led by Veteran Republican tinued, like the early National is the same: what happened to and NR publisher Bill Review, to dare to oppose Mar- the original Right, and the Rusher, the National Review tin Luther King and the civil cause of the present mess, is complex was able to take over, rights revolution after Buckley the advent and domination of in swift succes- had changed and the Right-wing by Bill Buckley sion, the College decided to em- and the National Review. By the Young Republi- brace it. But if, by mid-l950s, much of the leader- cans, then the the middle and ship of the Old Right was dead National Young late 1960s, Buck- or in retirement. Senator Taft Republicans, and ley had purged and Colonel McCormick had finally to create a the conservative died, and many of the Right- Coldwater move- movement of the wing congressmen had retired. ment in 1960 and genuine Right, The conservative masses, for beyond. he also hastened a long time short on intellectual And so, with to embrace any leadership, were now lacking almost Blitzkrieg group that pro- in political leadership as well. swiftness, by the claimed its hard An intellectual and power early 1960s, the anti-communism, vacuum had developed on the new global cru- or rather anti- Right, and rushing to fill it, in sading conserva- Sovietism or anti- 1955, were Bill Buckley, fresh tive movement, Stalinism. from several years in the CIA, transformed and And of course and Nafional Review, an intelli- headed by Bill the first anti- gent, well-written periodical Wuckley, was al- Stalinists were staffed with ex-communists most ready to the devotees of and ex-leftists eager to trans- take power in the martyred form the Right from an isola- America. But not quite, communist Leon Trotsky. And tionist movement into a because first, all the various so the conservative movement, crusade to crush the Soviet god heretics of the Right, some left while purging itself of genuine that had failed them. over from the oripalRight, all Right-wingers, was happy to Also, Buckley’s writing style, the groups that were in any embrace anyone, any variety of while in those days often witty way radical or could deprive Marxist: Trotskyites, Schacht- and sparkling, was rococo the new conservative move- manites, Mensheviks, social enough to give the reader ment of its much-desired respec- democrats (such as grouped the impression of profound tability in the eyes of the liberal around the magazine The New thought, an impression redou- and centrist elite, all these had Leader), L,ovestonite theoreti- bled by Bill’s habit of sprinkling to be jettisoned. Only such a cians of the American Federa- his prose with French and Latin denatured, respectable, non- tion of Labor, extreme Right- 12 .March1992 -wing Marxists like the in- exception, the only genuine possessed by a stern sense of credibly beloved Sidney Hook, Rightist spokesman who has duty, as one grits one’s teeth anyone who could present not managed to escape neocon ana- and plows through a pile of anti-socialist but suitably anti- thema has been Pat Buchanan. turgid and pointless student- Soviet, anti-Stalinist creden- It was time. It was time to trot term papers-which, indeed, tials. out the old master, the prince of Buckley’s essay matches in The way was then paved for excommunication, the self- content, in learning, and in the final, fateful influx: that of anointed pope of the conser- style. the ex-Trotskyite, Right-wing vative movement, William F. Lest anyone think that my social democrat, democratic Buckley, Jr. It was time for Bill view of Buckley’s and National capitalist, Truman-Humphrey- to go into his old act, to save the Review‘s role in the past and Scoop-Jacksonliberals, displac- movement that he had made present Right-wing merely ed from their home in the over into his own image. It was reflects my own “paranoid Democratic party by the loony time for the man hailed by style,” we turn to the only Left that we know so well: neo-con Eric Breindel, in his revealing art of the Buckley the feminist, deconstructing, newspaper column (New York piece, the introduction by his quota-loving, advanced victim- Post, Jan. 16), as the “authori- acolyte John O’Sullivan, who, ological Left. And also, we tative voice on the American however, is at least still capable should point out, at least a Right.” It was time for Bill of writing a coherent sentence. semi-isolationist, semi anti-war Buckley’s papal bull, his Here is John’s remarkable Left. These displaced people 40,000-word Christmas en- revelation of National Review’s are, of course, the famed neo- cyclical to the self image: ” . . . conservatives, a tiny but ubi- conservative Since its founda- quitous group with Bill Buckley movement, ”In tion, National as their aging figurehead, now Search of Anti- Review has quiet- dominating the conservative Semitism,” the ly played the role movement. Of the 35 neo- screed solemnly of conscience of conservatives, 34 seem to be invoked in the the Right.” After syndicated columnists. anti-Buchanan listing a few of And so the neocons have editorial of the Buckley’s purges- managed to establish them- New York Times. although omit- selves as the only Right-wing The first thing ting isolationists, alternative to the Left. The to say about Buck- Randians, liber- neocons now constitute the ley’s essay is that tarians, and anti- Right-wing end of the ideo- it is virtually un- civil rightsers- logical spectrum. Of the respec- readable. Gone, O’Sullivan gets table, responsible Right-wing, all gone is the wit to anti-Semites, that is. For the neocons have and the sparkle. and the need for managed to establish the Buckley’s ten- wise judgment notion that anyone who might dency to the on the issue. And be to the Right of them is, by rococo has elon- then comes the definition, a representative of gated beyond revelation of the forces of darkness, of measure. His Bill’s papal role: chaos, old night, racism, and prose is serpentine, involuted, ”Before pronouncing [judg- anti- Semitism. At the very and convoluted, twisted and ment, that is], we wanted to be least. qualified, until virtually all sure,” and then he goes on: So that’s how the dice have sense is lost. Reading the whole was there something substan- been loaded in our current thing through is doing penance tial in the charges? “Was it political game. And virtually for one’s sins, and one can a serious sin deserving ex- the only prominent media accomplish the task only if communication, an error l3 March 1992 -~ ~~ ~~ inviting a paternal reproof, or Buckley’s essay is to give it far --ever want to criticize them, something of both?” I’m sure too much credit for clarity. But, except possibly for reasons of all the defendants in the dock taking that risk, here’s the best anti-Semitism. appreciated the “paternal” I can do: Gore Vidal and , reference: Papa Bill, the wise, 1. His long-time disciple and absurdly treated in Bill’s article, stern, but merciful father of us KR editor Joe Sobran, a Ran- can and do take care of them- all, dispensing judgment. This dolph Club member who is selves, the Nation in a blistering statement of here tonight, is a) counter-attack in its January O’Sullivan’s is certainly not an 6-13 issue. On Buchanan and matched in chutz- anti-Semite, but Sobran, there is nothing new, pah only by his b) is ”obsessed whether of fact or insight: it’s other assertion in with“ and the same thin old junk, tire- the introduction ”cuckoo about” somely rehashed. that his em- Israel, and c) is Something, however, should ployer’s treatise therefore ”con- be said about Buckley’s vicious is a ”great read.” textually anti- treatment of Sobran, a personal For shame, John, Semitic, ” what- and ideological disciple who for shame! ever that may has virtually worshiped his The only other mean, and yet, mentor for two decades. point worth not- worst of all, d) he Lashing out at a friend and ing on the purges remains “unre- disciple in public in this is Buckley’s own pentant”; fashion, in order to propitiate passage on exact- 2. Pat Buchan- Podhoretz and the rest, is ly why he had an is not an anti- odious and repellent: at the found it neces- Semite, but he very least, we can say it is sary to excom- has said unac- extremely tacky. municate the ceptably anti- More importantly: Buckley ’s John Birch Soci- Semitic things, latest encyclical may play well ety (O’Sullivan “probably” from in , but it’s said it was because they were an “iconoclastic tempera- not going to go down very well ”cranks”). In a footnote, ment,” yet, curiously, in the conservative movement. Buckley admits that ”the Birch Buchanan too remains The world is different now; it is society was never anti-Semi- unrepentant; no longer 1.958. National Review tic,” but ”it was a dangerous 3. Gore Vidal is an anti- is no longer the monopoly distraction to right reasoning Semite, and the Nation, by power center on the Right. and had to be exiled. National presuming to publish Vidal’s There are new people, young Review,” Bill goes on, “accom- article (by the way, a hilarious people, popping up all over the plished exactly that.’’ one) critical of Norman place, Pat I3uchanan for one, all Well, my, my! Exiled to outer Fodhoretz has revealed the the paleos for another, who Siberia! And for the high crime Left’s increasing proclivity for frankly don’t give a fig for of ”distracting” pope William anti-Semitism; Buckley’s papal pronuncia- from his habitual contempla- 4. Buckley’s bully-boy mentos. The original Right, tion of pure reason, a distrac- disciples at Dartmouth Review and all its heresies is back! tion that he never seems to suf- are not anti-Semitic at all, but In fact, Bill Buckley is the fer while skiing, yachting, or wonderful kids put upon by Mikhail Gorbachev of the communing with John Ken- vicious Leftists; and conservative movement. Like neth Galbraith or Abe Rosen- 5. and Gorbachev, Bill goes on with thal! What a wondrous mind at are wonderful, his old act, but like Gorbachev, work! brilliant people, and it is nobody trembles anymore, Merely to try to summarize ”unclear” why anyone should nobody bends the knee and 14 March 1992 -goes into exile. Nobody cares Buchanan and responds to his are going to shoot the elephant anymore; nobody, except the ideas, the long-forgotten ideas so that it falls on and crushes good old New York Times. Bill that they know to be right but the donkey. Buckley should have accepted could never find articulated in When I was growing up, I his banquet and stayed retired. the public arena. The heartland found that the main argument His comeback is going to be as is with us, and the heartland, against laissez-faire, and for successful as Mohammed Ali’s. bless them, knows little and socialism, was that socialism For Pat Buchanan’s race for cares less about which variety of and communism were in- the presidency has changed the social democrat happens to be evitable: ”You can’t turn back face of the Right-wing. It’s now gaining or losing power inside the clock!” they chanted, “you a brand new ball game. By his the beltway. Yes, the status can’t turn back the clock.” But very entry, Pat Buchanan has anxious, paranoid, deeply the clock of the once-mighty changed and redefined the resentful, radical Right is back, Soviet Union, the clock of entire nature of the conserva- and this time we’re not going to Marxism-Leninism, a creed tive movement. He has created succumb to the smears and the that once mastered half the a new radical, or Hard Right, excommunications. world, is not only turned back, very much like the original The New York Times says, in but lies dead and broken Right before Nafional Review. that anti-Buchanan editorial, forever. But we must not rest For all their wealth, media that the Buchanan campaign is content with this victory. For influence, and seeming power, “underfinanced.” Hah! As we though Marxism-Bolshevism is it is now the official conserva- say in New York, gone forever, tives and the neo-conservatives they should live there still re- who are on the periphery. The so long! the truth mains, plaguing Right-wing shall henceforth is that Pat’s cam- us everywhere, only be defined in relation to paign has gotten its evil cousin: the Buchananite movement. a phenomenal, call it ”soft Marx- That movement, neither kind world-record ism,” ”Marxism- nor gentle, now sets the agen- response to its Humanism, ” da, and sets the terms of the fund-raising. Pat “Marxism-Bern- debate. qualified for fed- steinism, ” Finally, we must ask: what eral matching ”Marxism-Trot- are all the media elites- funds with record skyism,” ”Marx- Leftists, liberals, centrists, speed. And we ism-Freudian- official conservatives, neo- see in the latest ism,’’ . . .well, conservatives-what are they poll that Pat is let’s just call it all afraid of? Why do they fear moving up rapid- ”Menshevism, ” Pat Buchanan so much that ly in New Hamp- or “social demo- they are desperate to smear shire against an cracy. ’’ him and divert attention from increasingly pun- Social demo- his ideas: from his attack on the chy, testy, and cracy is still here welfare state, on taxes, on visibly diminish- in all its variants, foreign aid, and on globaloney? ed George Bush. defining our en- It’s very simple. Because they Pat Buchanan, and Buchanan- tire respectable political spec- know full well that the ism along with him, is on the trum, from advanced victim- heartland, the conservative march. And sorry, Sidney ology and feminism on the Left activists and the conservative Blumenthal, but tomorrow does over to neo-conservatism on masses outside the New York- belong to us! We are going to the Right. We are now trapped, Washington corridor, that the take up the theme of Tom in America, inside a Menshevik heartland is with us. Fleming’s splendid article in fantasy, with the narrow That the heartland loves Pat the December Chronicles: we bounds of respectable debate 15 March 1992 set for us by various brands of With the inspiration of the year, to tear down in their fury Marxists. It is now our task, the death of the Soviet Union the statues of Lenin, to oblit- task of the resurgent Right, of before us, we now know that erate the Leninist legacy. We, the paleo movement, to break it can be done. With Pat too, shall tear down all the those bonds, to finish the Buchanan as our leader, we statues of Franklin D. Roosevelt, job, to finish off shall break the of Harry Truman, of Woodrow Marxism forever. clock of social Wilson, melt them down and One of the democracy. We beat them into plowshares and authors of the shall break the pruning-hooks, and usher in a Daniel Bell vol- clock of the Great twenty-first century of peace, ume says, in hor- Society. We shall freedom, and prosperity. ror and astonish- break the clock of ment, that the the welfare state. Radical Right in- We shall break The John Randolph Club was tends to repeal the clock of the founded by the Rockford In- the twentieth cen- New Deal. We stitute, the Ludwig von Mises tury. Heaven for- shall break the Institute, and the Center for fend! Who would clock of Wood- Libertarian Studies to promote want to repeal row Wilson’s a new of paleo- the twentieth cen- New Freedom conservatism and paleo- tury, the century and perpetual . So successful of horror, the war. We shall was this, that the Club brought century of collectivism, the cen- repeal the twentieth century. about the rebirth of the Old tury of mass destruction and One of the most inspiring Right. The Club’s third annual meeting will be Autumn 1992 genocide, who would want to and wonderful sights of our in Chicago. For more informa- repeal that! Well, we propose to time was to see the peoples of tion, write the RRR. do just that. the Soviet Union rising up, last

Rothbard-Rockwell Report Non-Profit Org. Center for Libertarian Studies U.S.Postage PAID P.O. Box 4091, Burlingame, CA 94011 San Francisco, CA Permit No. 1987

The Rothbard-Rockwell Report is published by the Center for Libertarian Studies, Post Office Box 4091, Burlingame, California 94011. (800) 325-7257. Editors: Murray N. Rothbard and Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Contributing Editors: Sarah Barton and . Publisher: Burton S. Blumert. Monoging Editor: Sybil Regan. Subscription: 549 for 12 issues. Copyright 01992 by the Center for Libertarian Studies. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction of this newsletter or its contents by xerography, facsimile, or any other means is illegal.