Don’t Judge a Book by Its Cover, and Don’t Smear a Reputable Person Without Researching Him
Don’t Judge a Book by Its Cover, and Don’t Smear a Reputable Person Without Researching Him
By Paul Dowling
“There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. If all the means of production were vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of ‘society’ as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us.” – Friedrich A. Hayek, an antisocialist economist whose ideas inspired Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and economic deregulation
The Road to Hell
Remember the old saying: “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Of course, it is okay to make judgments, but they must be informed ones. An article recently appeared in the online news source American Greatness, entitled “Libertarians Are Not Our Friends.” Perhaps this article is well-intentioned in its efforts to render judgment against Friedrich Hayek and in favor William Buckley, Jr., but it falls far short of success and, therefore, demands a swift response, lest its inaccuracies go on the record unchallenged. Perhaps it is also worth remembering that “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
The Case for Friedrich A. Hayek
The author writes, “In a very revealing article many years ago called ‘Why I am Not a Conservative,’ a very famous libertarian let the cat out of the bag. He loudly denounced the argument for tradition and custom by calling for a form of anything goes liberalism and atheism. Some go even further, coming close to anarchy with their complete opposition to the state and its powers from taxes to the military and from policing to favoring prostitution, unlimited immigration, abortion, drugs, obscenity, and license. As I said, anything goes . . .”
The truth is that Hayek never said he was a libertarian. Here is what Hayek wrote in “Why I am Not a Conservative”: “Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called ‘liberalism’ was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense. . .. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves ‘liberals.’ I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true [European-style big-government] conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term ‘liberal’ in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.”
Has the author of “Libertarians Are Not Our Friends” actually read the Hayek paper he refers to – an essay, it should be noted, that was written in 1960.
Further, this author proceeds to write: “He [Hayek] loudly denounced the argument for tradition and custom by calling for a form of anything goes liberalism and atheism.” Where does Hayek ever call for atheism? Hayek does call for more liberalism, but it is classical liberalism, based upon liberty (from the Latin word libertas, meaning “liberty” or “freedom” for the individual) that he wants – the same kind of liberalism promoted by America’s Founders, back when all liberalism was of the classical variety. According to the website Political Science: “Hayek in clear language has stated that he uses the word liberalism in the European nineteenth century meaning. It is, therefore, a clear indication of the fact that his concept of liberalism has attempted to revive the nineteenth century theory . . . called classical liberalism. He defines the concept [as] ‘limiting the coercive powers of all government, whether democratic or not.’ Hayek refuses to call liberalism a political movement.”
The article writer who never opened the book he shames, but denounces its cover quite loudly, then goes on to say this about the libertarians he chooses to style as the allies of Hayekian liberalism: “Some go even further, coming close to anarchy with their complete opposition to the state and its powers from taxes to the military and from policing to favoring prostitution, unlimited immigration, abortion, drugs, obscenity, and license. As I said, anything goes . . ..” So this writer has conflated Hayek’s views with straw-man libertarians that sound more like libertines, rather than libertarians.
According to Webster, the definition of “libertine” goes like this: “1) disparaging: a freethinker especially in religious matters; 2) a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality, specifically: one leading a dissolute life; libertines indulging a variety of amorous impulses.” However, Webster defines “libertarian” this way: “1) an advocate of the doctrine of free will; 2) a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.
As a result of carelessly conflating all of these terms and meanings, while thoughtlessly accusing Hayek of being both a liberal and a libertine in the modern sense – instead of the classical one – the author has done both Hayek and himself a great deal of reputational damage. He has disparaged a great man and, in the process, cast doubt on his own competency as a researcher. And it is inexcusable to throw Hayek under the proverbial bus being driven by those who promote prostitution, abortion, drugs, etc. This is not only oversimplifying Hayek, it is libeling the man’s good name, plain and simple. Hayek writes theoretically; he leaves it up to those who would make use of his ideas to apply his theories in the real world. He does not prescribe immorality, instead hoping that adherents to his ideas – policy-makers and chief executives, such as President Reagan – might apply them morally. The whole of Hayek’s work lends itself quite readily to morally desired outcomes.
By the way, the main libertarian objections to the War on Drugs (which is not the promotion of drug use, by any means) is well articulated by Laurence M. Vance: “The war on drugs has destroyed financial privacy. Deposit more than $10,000 in a bank account and you are a suspected drug trafficker. . .. The war on drugs has provided the rationale for militarizing local police departments. . .. The war on drugs has resulted in outrageous behavior by police in their quest to arrest drug dealers. . .. The war on drugs has eviscerated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Vance’s concern is the fact that, the more the State goes to war, so to speak, the bigger the government must become, eventually growing into a police/surveillance state.”
The Road to Serfdom
It is, perhaps, interesting that Hayek dedicated his book, The Road to Serfdom, thus: “To the socialists of all parties.” It is easy to understand why, when one considers how antisocialist were Hayek’s views and how naturally desirous he would have been to invite reasonable people, who may entertain socialist ideas, to read his book in an effort to dispel their foolish notions that socialism could ever become a viable system that worked for the good of the people. Friedrich Hayek was a lifelong critic of socialism who was inspired to write his book by Alexis de Tocqueville, quoting him at the beginning of The Road to Serfdom: “I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it.”
Hayek, who was President Reagan's favorite economist, wrote the article entitled ‘Why I am Not a Conservative’ to explain the fact that, in Europe, where he came from, the word liberal has customarily held a different meaning. In Europe, the “conservatives” were the traditional big-government statists. Hayek was a classical liberal, along the lines of the American Founding Fathers. By claiming he was a European liberal, Hayek was claiming the heritage of freedom. Classical liberals stand for limited government and the lack of coercive force, when it comes to respecting the freedom of conscience of every individual, while allowing the maximum freedom possible in the marketplace of both goods and ideas. Were Hayek to have labeled himself a “conservative,” it would have thrown the meaning of everything he had ever written into chaos, since throughout the texts of his work, he continuously used the terms “conservative” and “liberal,” respectively, to mean “a believer in the right of the state to exercise unlimited power over the individual” and “the right of the individual to be maximally free of coercion by the state.”
The Case Against William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Conservapedia has this to say on the subject of Buckley: “[He] was a prominent conservative – but occasionally globalist – author and commentator during the second half of the 20th century. He is best known for founding the National Review [a publication now dominated by Never Trumpers], which rarely addressed social issues. . .. Buckley . . . was not a grassroots activist and had no outstanding political achievements. Buckley also led the intense liberal smear of the John Birch Society, which was his more conservative competitor in the 1960s. . .. Buckley was initially unwilling to take the pro-life side of the abortion issue, in the 1960s, for which he was sharply criticized by other conservatives at the time. When Buckley wrote March 1966 that fellow Catholics should not seek pro-life legislation, Midwest conservative L. Brent Bozell, Jr., retorted that Buckley’s column ‘reeks of relativism. . .. Mr. Buckley writes in this instance as though he had never heard of the natural law.’ Buckley also embraced globalist positions contrary to modern conservatives. For example, Buckley supported NAFTA and giving away the Panama Canal, despite its strategic significance and how the United States had built and paid for it. Buckley also favored legalizing marijuana.” So, William F. Buckley, Jr. was not the great conservative he is so often cracked up to be. He believed in big-government conservatism and was far from being a classical liberal or a moral conservative, in the American sense.
The Order of Skull and Bones
Buckley was a member of Skull and Bones, and members of this secret society were some of the most deeply involved people in the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency, which would eventually become a rogue government bureau that would take to spying on members of the public and enabling a culture of corruption, through its media messaging and propaganda activities via Project Mockingbird. It may also bear mentioning that Henry Luce, the founder of Time Magazine and Time-Life Enterprises (as Buckley was founder of The National Review) was also a member of Skull and Bones (class of 1920).
The Order of Skull and Bones still exists at Yale today and still plays an outsized role in guiding government policy, by means of its extensive network of alumni having the ability to get their fellow Bonesmen placed into positions of considerable importance. Buckley can be found in the Skull and Bones class of 1950. The entry reads: “William F. Buckley, Jr. (1950), founder of National Review, former CIA officer.” This puts him in the company of other famous “conservatives,” such as George HW Bush (Skull and Bones class of 1948) and George W Bush (Skull and Bones class of 1968). The Bushes were big-government “conservatives” who increased spending by the government, thereby carving out a larger role for the state. Another big-government politician who is a Bonesman, but on the political left, would be John Forbes Kerry (class of 1966), who served as the “68th United States Secretary of State (2013–2017); U.S. Senator (D-Massachusetts; 1985-2013); Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts (1983–1985); 2004 Democratic Party Presidential nominee.” Bonesmen share values with each other that makes them closer to each other than to the voters who generally support them.
So, when it comes to the charge that modern-day libertarians may not always be aligned with our American tradition of liberty, one must be careful to ascertain what the people under discussion actually believe as individuals. Friedrich A. Hayek never meant to oppose the ideas of America's classically liberal founding or to embrace its enemies’ socialistic statism (just read his book The Road to Serfdom to dispel all doubts). and Buckley was a CIA asset whose purpose was to shape the conservative movement in a way that would allow it eventually to be more easily coöpted by the state for its own purposes (for example, how George W Bush expanded big government and forgave illegal immigration, in the name of conservatism).
The Devil Is in the Details
According to the conventional wisdom, “The devil is in the details.” So, one must be careful when it comes to using broad strokes to describe individuals. One must take care that, in the process, one does not end up smearing people, thus harming their reputations undeservedly. It is incumbent upon a responsible researcher to be sure to do some biographical research before deciding whether someone is likely an angel or a demon.’
Paul Dowling
Paul Dowling has written about the Constitution, as well as articles for American Thinker, Independent Sentinel, Godfather Politics, Eagle Rising, and Free Thought Matters.