thedrifter
07-19-09, 06:24 AM
July 19, 2009
Conservatism in defense of liberty
By Mark Levin
Peter Berkowitz, who reviewed my book Liberty and Tyranny for the Weekly Standard, and did a pretty poor job of it, sees the most aggressive assault on representative and constitutional government in modern history and preaches moderation and, ultimately, inevitability.
In the first sentence of his review he asserts "Moderation ... is an essential political virtue and a quintessentially conservative virtue." This is the way forward for conservatism, he insists. At no time does he define "moderation" or any governing principles, other than to misapply moderation as prudence, when prudence is, in fact, about judgment.
Edmund Burke, who Berkowitz misunderstands and, therefore, wrongly cites for his proposition, supported the American Revolution (while rejecting the French Revolution). The American Revolution can hardly be described as a moderate reaction to England's usurpations. Nor can it be said to be a popular uprising, given that a majority of the nation either opposed it or was indifferent. But it was a revolution whose purpose was to establish a civil society rooted in natural law, a just rule of law, moral order, tradition, faith, reason, and, yes, liberty. Would Berkowitz describe it as a "moderate" revolution? An "imprudent" revolution? Does he think it was a good thing or a bad thing? Of course, moderations can be imprudent in certain circumstances. The conflation of moderation per se and prudence requires such an inquiry of those who misunderstand and misapply the concepts.
For the neo-Statist (or neo-Conservative), the problem is particularly acute when applied to international relations for he usually promotes a hawkish and interventionist foreign policy. If prudence is moderation per se, then how does Berkowitz square this circle? Is bombing Iran's nuclear sites, even as a last resort, a moderate or an immoderate act? Obviously, the question makes no sense. The test is whether it is prudent.
Thus, those, like Berkowitz, who promote moderation (not prudence) as a principle, are actually promoting a tactic or process without any core. They play right into the hands of the Statist. As I wrote in Liberty and Tyranny:
"By abandoning principle for efficiency, the neo-Statist, it seems, is no more bound to the Constitution than is the Statist. He marches more slowly than the Statist, but he marches with him nonetheless. The neo-Statist propounds no discernable standard or practical means to hem in the federal power he helps unleash, and which the Statist would exploit. In many ways, he is as objectionable as the Statist, for he seeks to devour conservatism by clothing himself in its nomenclature."
This defines Berkowitz.
But prudence alone does not explain Burke or conservatism, either. Burke rejected the French Revolution because he rejected its objectives as well. Burke invoked prudence not for the sake of prudence, but to support and secure the civil society. In other words, when Berkowitz uses Burke to argue that Burke supported gradualism and reform as opposed to radical change, Berkowitz does not explain that Burke supported gradualism and reform because he held core beliefs about religion, government, tradition, liberty, etc., which he contended were best secured through prudence. Therefore, to invoke Burke in arguing that true conservatives would not challenge the foundations of statism today, as Berkowitz does in his review, is embarrassingly off the mark.
Oddly, Berkowitz also argues that he uncovered a crucial flaw in my book. He writes, in part,
"To be sure, there is a vital place in democratic politics for passionate partisans like Levin who rouse the base and adopt a take-no-prisoners approach to political argument. And better to have your enthusiasts on the airwaves where their principal job is to entertain than in the universities, which (officially, at least) remain devoted to dispassionate intellectual inquiry. But rightwing talk show hosts' extremism on behalf of liberty and tradition should not be allowed to set the tone for officeholders and party leaders. Nor should their immoderation slide over into an attack on moderation itself, especially since a delicate balancing act sustains their core conservative commitments."
Hmmm. What's this rightwing talk show extremism stuff? Is this the same Berkowitz who disliked my (accurate) description of the statist? Moreover, I cannot decide if he is reviewing my book or my radio show. In any event, better I and my fellow conservative hosts are on the radio where we can be rightwing extremists than in the Ivory Towers of academia, which are reserved for, well, leftwing extremists -- who, of course, are dispassionate intellectuals, or at least supposed to be? And better conservative talk show hosts not influence actual officeholders. No, better that the leftwing professoriate be appointed as czars and other officeholders in the Obama administration where they can actually set policy. Yes, some delicate balancing act. Who is Berkowitz kidding? He talks endlessly of moderation yet does not appear to live in the real world.
Berkowitz points to this excerpt from Liberty and Tyranny as an example of my extremism:
"... the only economic system that produces on a sustainable basis, and for the overwhelming majority of Americans, an abundance of food, housing, energy, and medicine--the staples of human survival; it creates an astonishing array of consumer goods that add comfort, value, and security to the quality of life; and the free market recognizes that it is in man's DNA to take risks, to innovate, to achieve, to compete, and to acquire -- to not only survive but also improve his circumstance."
He adds this excerpt as well:
"Furthermore, the individual knows better how to make and spend that which he has earned from his own labor and provide for his family than do large bureaucracies populated by strangers who see classes of people rather than individual human beings."
Wow. Pretty extreme stuff, huh? Berkowitz contends "There is more to the story, however. As Levin himself observes, the market generates what Joseph Schumpeter called 'creative destruction,' the process by which capitalism's endless innovation and entrepreneurship constantly give birth to new products and companies and render others obsolete and ruin them. But Levin only brings up the market's destabilizing power to criticize efforts by the left to eliminate through law the uncertainty and hardship inherent in capitalism."
Really? Here's what I wrote on page 83:
"Comprehend a future without creative destruction. It is bleak, backwards, and destitute, like most authoritarian societies. Yet the Statist has persuaded some erstwhile conservatives of its demerits. Typically the argument is formulated around protecting America's industrial base. The question is asked: How can America allow its industries to fail and outsource its vital needs to other countries? From where will we get our steel? How will we build our tanks? This is a circular argument. The Conservative urges an economic environment stripped of debilitating regulations and taxes that hinder the performance and competition of American industry. He believes American industry is more than capable of competing against foreign industries and, in most cases, does so. However, where industries are subjected to the Statist's heavy hand rather than the free market's invisible hand, they are obstructed and burdened in ways that are counterintuitive and self-defeating. Ultimately, it is an unworkable formula, as the rest of the world is not obliged to adhere to it but rather will look for ways to exploit it. The Statist, therefore, is destructive of the very ends and the very people he professes to represent"
For Berkowitz, rather than a fairly obvious truth that it is government, more times than not, which is responsible for misery throughout human history -- particularly given recent real world examples of widespread misery from the former Soviet Union and East Bloc, where creative destruction and capitalism were rejected, to our own automobile industry, which, as I explained in the same chapter, is hardly an example of the free market at work and, as is clear, has cost taxpayers, investors, and employees dearly -- he paints the argument for the voluntary use of labor and capital as rightwing extremism. I would discourage him from reading Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and a score of other less prominent economists, some of whom, dare I say, are teaching at universities and colleges. Conservatism borrows from all kinds of "rightwing extremists." If you reject capitalism as producing far more good than bad, albeit imperfect (which I explain repeatedly throughout the book), then you do far more than embrace "moderation." You reject conservatism.
Berkowitz then writes:
"As Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, and George Will (among others) have pointed out, capitalism also creates significant problems for conservatism. Its churning change erodes the traditional beliefs, practices, and institutions that the conservative rightly sees as essential to moral education in a free society. Because both liberty and tradition are good, because each provides the other crucial support, and because at the same time they often reflect opposing impulses and issue contradictory demands, the conservative, who cherishes both, is constantly called upon to strike a prudent balance between them, or exercise moderation."
Where did I state otherwise? In fact, I make this very point at the beginning of the "On the Free Market" chapter, where I wrote:
"The free market is the most transformative of economic systems. It fosters creativity and inventiveness. It produces new industries, products, and services, as it improves upon existing ones. With millions of individuals freely engaged in an infinite number and variety of transactions each day, it is impossible to even conceive all the changes and plans for changes occurring in our economy at any given time. The free market creates more wealth and opportunities for more people than any other economic model.
"But the Conservative believes that the individual is more than a producer and consumer of material goods. He exists within the larger context of the civil society -- which provides for an ordered liberty. The Conservative sees in the free market the harmony of interests and rules of cooperation that also underlie the civil society. For example, the free market promotes self-worth, self-sufficiency, shared values, and honest dealings, which enhance the individual, the family, and the community. It discriminates against no race, religion, or gender. The truck driver does not know the skin color of the individuals who produce the diesel fuel for his vehicle; the cook does not know the religion of the dairy farmers who supply milk to his restaurant; and the airline passenger does not know the gender of the factory workers who manufacture the commercial aircraft that transports him -- nor do they care.
"The free market is an intricate system of voluntary economic, social, and cultural interactions that are motivated by the desires and needs of the individual and the community. The Conservative believes that while the symmetry between the free market and the civil society is imperfect -- that is, not all developments resulting from individual interactions contribute to the overall well-being of the civil society -- one simply cannot exist without the other."
More rightwing extremism? Berkowitz clearly fails to appreciate or comprehend the significance of the market system, which is why he can't bring himself to praise it in his review of my book. The history, context, and experience he claims are missing from conservatism are right in front of him. And we conservatives see them more clearly than most.
Liberty and Tyranny confounds it critics, as it did Berkowitz. By combining philosophy, history, law, economics, and current events I make the case for conservatism and against non-conservatism. The book can be cherry-picked here and there if a reviewer wants to make out-of-context points and arguments, as Berkowitz has. There is much more to the book than Berkowitz wants to admit because his agenda was not so much to honestly review it but rather to try to advance his own case for "moderation." As such, my response to his review of my book is also an unflattering review of his Weekly Standard piece.
Conservatism is a magnificent philosophy that is worthy of its promotion intellectually and politically. There really is no other philosophy that respects the individual and nurtures humanity generally. Despite what some say, including the Weekly Standard when it published this subtitle -- "And extremism is no virtue in politics" -- it is a "broad-tent" philosophy that applies to all people. I tried to capture its wonderment in Liberty and Tyranny. So far 850,000 people have read it, and I will leave it to them to draw their own conclusions free from Berkowitz's agenda.
I also believe that conservatism is the only real alternative to statism, and that's especially so given today's soft tyranny. Berkowitz points to Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1960 as evidence that it cannot win at the ballot box. Here again, his methods are sloppy if not troubling. Of course, Ronald Reagan won two smashing landslides in 1980 and 1984 and there was no more articulate spokesman for first principles than he. Indeed, "moderates" aren't sure whether to claim him (when they do, they often redefine who he was and what he stood for) or reject him (contending that his approach to politics and governance could never work today). Berkowitz also fails to acknowledge the defeat of candidates he supports who seem to represent the old school thinking (which he calls "renovated conservative policy thinking") -- Gerald Ford v. Jimmy Carter, Bush 41 v. Bill Clinton, Bob Dole v. Bill Clinton, and the most recent disaster, John McCain v. Barack Obama. Obviously, events and circumstances play an important part in election results, as they did in the Johnson-Goldwater race, which Berkowitz uses to condemn conservative electoral chances for all times.
As an aside, when my office was contacted by an individual from the Weekly Standard seeking photographs of me "for a story we are running" on my book, it was suggested that the story would be favorable. I assume Bill Kristol is not happy with my brief mention of him in the book as a neo-Statist. So be it. But in the future let's play fair, boys.
Mark R. Levin served in several top posts in the Reagan administration, is a nationally syndicated talk radio host, and author of several New York Times bestsellers, including Liberty and Tyranny (with over 1 million copies in print).
Ellie
Conservatism in defense of liberty
By Mark Levin
Peter Berkowitz, who reviewed my book Liberty and Tyranny for the Weekly Standard, and did a pretty poor job of it, sees the most aggressive assault on representative and constitutional government in modern history and preaches moderation and, ultimately, inevitability.
In the first sentence of his review he asserts "Moderation ... is an essential political virtue and a quintessentially conservative virtue." This is the way forward for conservatism, he insists. At no time does he define "moderation" or any governing principles, other than to misapply moderation as prudence, when prudence is, in fact, about judgment.
Edmund Burke, who Berkowitz misunderstands and, therefore, wrongly cites for his proposition, supported the American Revolution (while rejecting the French Revolution). The American Revolution can hardly be described as a moderate reaction to England's usurpations. Nor can it be said to be a popular uprising, given that a majority of the nation either opposed it or was indifferent. But it was a revolution whose purpose was to establish a civil society rooted in natural law, a just rule of law, moral order, tradition, faith, reason, and, yes, liberty. Would Berkowitz describe it as a "moderate" revolution? An "imprudent" revolution? Does he think it was a good thing or a bad thing? Of course, moderations can be imprudent in certain circumstances. The conflation of moderation per se and prudence requires such an inquiry of those who misunderstand and misapply the concepts.
For the neo-Statist (or neo-Conservative), the problem is particularly acute when applied to international relations for he usually promotes a hawkish and interventionist foreign policy. If prudence is moderation per se, then how does Berkowitz square this circle? Is bombing Iran's nuclear sites, even as a last resort, a moderate or an immoderate act? Obviously, the question makes no sense. The test is whether it is prudent.
Thus, those, like Berkowitz, who promote moderation (not prudence) as a principle, are actually promoting a tactic or process without any core. They play right into the hands of the Statist. As I wrote in Liberty and Tyranny:
"By abandoning principle for efficiency, the neo-Statist, it seems, is no more bound to the Constitution than is the Statist. He marches more slowly than the Statist, but he marches with him nonetheless. The neo-Statist propounds no discernable standard or practical means to hem in the federal power he helps unleash, and which the Statist would exploit. In many ways, he is as objectionable as the Statist, for he seeks to devour conservatism by clothing himself in its nomenclature."
This defines Berkowitz.
But prudence alone does not explain Burke or conservatism, either. Burke rejected the French Revolution because he rejected its objectives as well. Burke invoked prudence not for the sake of prudence, but to support and secure the civil society. In other words, when Berkowitz uses Burke to argue that Burke supported gradualism and reform as opposed to radical change, Berkowitz does not explain that Burke supported gradualism and reform because he held core beliefs about religion, government, tradition, liberty, etc., which he contended were best secured through prudence. Therefore, to invoke Burke in arguing that true conservatives would not challenge the foundations of statism today, as Berkowitz does in his review, is embarrassingly off the mark.
Oddly, Berkowitz also argues that he uncovered a crucial flaw in my book. He writes, in part,
"To be sure, there is a vital place in democratic politics for passionate partisans like Levin who rouse the base and adopt a take-no-prisoners approach to political argument. And better to have your enthusiasts on the airwaves where their principal job is to entertain than in the universities, which (officially, at least) remain devoted to dispassionate intellectual inquiry. But rightwing talk show hosts' extremism on behalf of liberty and tradition should not be allowed to set the tone for officeholders and party leaders. Nor should their immoderation slide over into an attack on moderation itself, especially since a delicate balancing act sustains their core conservative commitments."
Hmmm. What's this rightwing talk show extremism stuff? Is this the same Berkowitz who disliked my (accurate) description of the statist? Moreover, I cannot decide if he is reviewing my book or my radio show. In any event, better I and my fellow conservative hosts are on the radio where we can be rightwing extremists than in the Ivory Towers of academia, which are reserved for, well, leftwing extremists -- who, of course, are dispassionate intellectuals, or at least supposed to be? And better conservative talk show hosts not influence actual officeholders. No, better that the leftwing professoriate be appointed as czars and other officeholders in the Obama administration where they can actually set policy. Yes, some delicate balancing act. Who is Berkowitz kidding? He talks endlessly of moderation yet does not appear to live in the real world.
Berkowitz points to this excerpt from Liberty and Tyranny as an example of my extremism:
"... the only economic system that produces on a sustainable basis, and for the overwhelming majority of Americans, an abundance of food, housing, energy, and medicine--the staples of human survival; it creates an astonishing array of consumer goods that add comfort, value, and security to the quality of life; and the free market recognizes that it is in man's DNA to take risks, to innovate, to achieve, to compete, and to acquire -- to not only survive but also improve his circumstance."
He adds this excerpt as well:
"Furthermore, the individual knows better how to make and spend that which he has earned from his own labor and provide for his family than do large bureaucracies populated by strangers who see classes of people rather than individual human beings."
Wow. Pretty extreme stuff, huh? Berkowitz contends "There is more to the story, however. As Levin himself observes, the market generates what Joseph Schumpeter called 'creative destruction,' the process by which capitalism's endless innovation and entrepreneurship constantly give birth to new products and companies and render others obsolete and ruin them. But Levin only brings up the market's destabilizing power to criticize efforts by the left to eliminate through law the uncertainty and hardship inherent in capitalism."
Really? Here's what I wrote on page 83:
"Comprehend a future without creative destruction. It is bleak, backwards, and destitute, like most authoritarian societies. Yet the Statist has persuaded some erstwhile conservatives of its demerits. Typically the argument is formulated around protecting America's industrial base. The question is asked: How can America allow its industries to fail and outsource its vital needs to other countries? From where will we get our steel? How will we build our tanks? This is a circular argument. The Conservative urges an economic environment stripped of debilitating regulations and taxes that hinder the performance and competition of American industry. He believes American industry is more than capable of competing against foreign industries and, in most cases, does so. However, where industries are subjected to the Statist's heavy hand rather than the free market's invisible hand, they are obstructed and burdened in ways that are counterintuitive and self-defeating. Ultimately, it is an unworkable formula, as the rest of the world is not obliged to adhere to it but rather will look for ways to exploit it. The Statist, therefore, is destructive of the very ends and the very people he professes to represent"
For Berkowitz, rather than a fairly obvious truth that it is government, more times than not, which is responsible for misery throughout human history -- particularly given recent real world examples of widespread misery from the former Soviet Union and East Bloc, where creative destruction and capitalism were rejected, to our own automobile industry, which, as I explained in the same chapter, is hardly an example of the free market at work and, as is clear, has cost taxpayers, investors, and employees dearly -- he paints the argument for the voluntary use of labor and capital as rightwing extremism. I would discourage him from reading Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and a score of other less prominent economists, some of whom, dare I say, are teaching at universities and colleges. Conservatism borrows from all kinds of "rightwing extremists." If you reject capitalism as producing far more good than bad, albeit imperfect (which I explain repeatedly throughout the book), then you do far more than embrace "moderation." You reject conservatism.
Berkowitz then writes:
"As Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, and George Will (among others) have pointed out, capitalism also creates significant problems for conservatism. Its churning change erodes the traditional beliefs, practices, and institutions that the conservative rightly sees as essential to moral education in a free society. Because both liberty and tradition are good, because each provides the other crucial support, and because at the same time they often reflect opposing impulses and issue contradictory demands, the conservative, who cherishes both, is constantly called upon to strike a prudent balance between them, or exercise moderation."
Where did I state otherwise? In fact, I make this very point at the beginning of the "On the Free Market" chapter, where I wrote:
"The free market is the most transformative of economic systems. It fosters creativity and inventiveness. It produces new industries, products, and services, as it improves upon existing ones. With millions of individuals freely engaged in an infinite number and variety of transactions each day, it is impossible to even conceive all the changes and plans for changes occurring in our economy at any given time. The free market creates more wealth and opportunities for more people than any other economic model.
"But the Conservative believes that the individual is more than a producer and consumer of material goods. He exists within the larger context of the civil society -- which provides for an ordered liberty. The Conservative sees in the free market the harmony of interests and rules of cooperation that also underlie the civil society. For example, the free market promotes self-worth, self-sufficiency, shared values, and honest dealings, which enhance the individual, the family, and the community. It discriminates against no race, religion, or gender. The truck driver does not know the skin color of the individuals who produce the diesel fuel for his vehicle; the cook does not know the religion of the dairy farmers who supply milk to his restaurant; and the airline passenger does not know the gender of the factory workers who manufacture the commercial aircraft that transports him -- nor do they care.
"The free market is an intricate system of voluntary economic, social, and cultural interactions that are motivated by the desires and needs of the individual and the community. The Conservative believes that while the symmetry between the free market and the civil society is imperfect -- that is, not all developments resulting from individual interactions contribute to the overall well-being of the civil society -- one simply cannot exist without the other."
More rightwing extremism? Berkowitz clearly fails to appreciate or comprehend the significance of the market system, which is why he can't bring himself to praise it in his review of my book. The history, context, and experience he claims are missing from conservatism are right in front of him. And we conservatives see them more clearly than most.
Liberty and Tyranny confounds it critics, as it did Berkowitz. By combining philosophy, history, law, economics, and current events I make the case for conservatism and against non-conservatism. The book can be cherry-picked here and there if a reviewer wants to make out-of-context points and arguments, as Berkowitz has. There is much more to the book than Berkowitz wants to admit because his agenda was not so much to honestly review it but rather to try to advance his own case for "moderation." As such, my response to his review of my book is also an unflattering review of his Weekly Standard piece.
Conservatism is a magnificent philosophy that is worthy of its promotion intellectually and politically. There really is no other philosophy that respects the individual and nurtures humanity generally. Despite what some say, including the Weekly Standard when it published this subtitle -- "And extremism is no virtue in politics" -- it is a "broad-tent" philosophy that applies to all people. I tried to capture its wonderment in Liberty and Tyranny. So far 850,000 people have read it, and I will leave it to them to draw their own conclusions free from Berkowitz's agenda.
I also believe that conservatism is the only real alternative to statism, and that's especially so given today's soft tyranny. Berkowitz points to Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1960 as evidence that it cannot win at the ballot box. Here again, his methods are sloppy if not troubling. Of course, Ronald Reagan won two smashing landslides in 1980 and 1984 and there was no more articulate spokesman for first principles than he. Indeed, "moderates" aren't sure whether to claim him (when they do, they often redefine who he was and what he stood for) or reject him (contending that his approach to politics and governance could never work today). Berkowitz also fails to acknowledge the defeat of candidates he supports who seem to represent the old school thinking (which he calls "renovated conservative policy thinking") -- Gerald Ford v. Jimmy Carter, Bush 41 v. Bill Clinton, Bob Dole v. Bill Clinton, and the most recent disaster, John McCain v. Barack Obama. Obviously, events and circumstances play an important part in election results, as they did in the Johnson-Goldwater race, which Berkowitz uses to condemn conservative electoral chances for all times.
As an aside, when my office was contacted by an individual from the Weekly Standard seeking photographs of me "for a story we are running" on my book, it was suggested that the story would be favorable. I assume Bill Kristol is not happy with my brief mention of him in the book as a neo-Statist. So be it. But in the future let's play fair, boys.
Mark R. Levin served in several top posts in the Reagan administration, is a nationally syndicated talk radio host, and author of several New York Times bestsellers, including Liberty and Tyranny (with over 1 million copies in print).
Ellie