Liberty

Current Issue  |  Archive  |  Subscription Services  |  Liberty Store  |  Writers' Guide  |  Editors & Staff  |  Search



January 2002
Volume 16,
Number 1

  Reflections  



Sheldon Richman is the editor of Ideas on Liberty.

The Devil and Osama bin Laden Hearing all the blather directed at those who would apply the rule of law even to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, I am reminded of this exchange from Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons":

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do: Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them all down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. — Sheldon Richman

R.W. Bradford is editor and publisher of Liberty

What's treason one day is patriotism the next This is a weird world. A good share of the mail that Liberty has lately received has excoriated us either for being absurdly pro-war or for being unpatriotic in opposing the anti-terrorist campaign. Liberty, of course, has published a variety of opinions, ranging from enthusiastic support for war against Muslim terrorists to outright pacifism in response to their attacks. But you'd never get a clue of this from the letter-writers. Those who favor a broad war on terrorism seem only to have read the commentaries we've published that warn against too wide a war; those who oppose a broad war against terrorism seem only to have read the commentaries calling for an aggressive war against Muslim terrorism.

Letters written to me personally have been weird, too. In the November Liberty, I told how I'd spent Sept. 11 going about my business normally, until the evening, when I caught up on the news about the attack and committed my thoughts to paper. The most notable of my thoughts were the ideas that (a) reacting the way most Americans reacted — by abandoning their daily routine, watching television reports of the same news over and over, wallowing in anger and hate — was to do exactly what the terrorists wanted; and (b) Americans in general were simply overreacting to the events — I cited episodes like the closing down of the state-owned ferry system in the Puget Sound — and would likely continue to overreact.

I received several letters denouncing me as unpatriotic for failing to spend my entire day in front of my television, as the writers had, and for failing to get madder and madder at Osama bin Laden and Muslims all day — or all month, for that matter.

As I write these words, I have the overnight news on the television in the background and several times I have noticed a public service announcement from the Ad Council hectoring me to be a patriotic hero by refusing to change my daily routine in response to terrorism. I wonder: Is the Ad Council being bombarded with letters denouncing it and its advertising as unpatriotic? — R.W. Bradford

Bruce Ramsey is a journalist living in Seattle.

Four approaches to foreign policy I went to a talk early in November by a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Walter Russell Mead. With regard to foreign policy, he sorts Americans into four types: Wilsonians, Hamiltonians, Jeffersonians, and Jacksonians. These four, he says, appear and reappear throughout our history, and are all at play now in this fight against Islamic terrorists.

The Wilsonians believe in an international order based on law. They favor multilateralism, nation-building, human rights, and high-minded intervention. They would make the anti-terror crusade into a war for international law. Clinton was a Wilsonian.

The Hamiltonians believe in pursuing national interests, including economic interests, sometimes through multilateral coalitions and sometimes not. Whatever works. They believe in international order based on a balance of power. Bush is a Hamiltonian.

The Jeffersonians believe in defending the home territory against clear and present threats, and worry that militarism will reduce domestic liberty. They aren't interested in international order. Nor do they focus on national honor, and tend to be more critical of their own country's acts abroad. After Sept. 11 the Jeffersonians were the ones asking what America had done to provoke such an attack.

The Jacksonians are believers in national honor, courage, and the well-being of the majority. They are pro-military, populist, unilateralist, and individualist. They are not interested in international law or of "blaming America first" for breaking it. They do not seek out foreign wars, but if they're in one, they want to win it. They opposed the war on Serbia — Êa Wilsonian war — but were willing to commit ground troops once we were in it. They are 100% behind the attacks on Afghanistan. John McCain might be called a higher Jacksonian, with the lower variety being the man with a flag sticker on his truck.

Libertarians are Jeffersonians — in theory. Judging from what Liberty has published in its last two issues, there is a strong Jacksonian strain in them — Êmuch more than there would be in left-wing Jeffersonians. There is a bit of Hamilton, too. Not much of Wilson. — Bruce Ramsey

Tim Slagle is a stand-up comedian living in Chicago.

Fanatics among us There is a fear in this country today that we are walking alongside evil people who want to destroy the American way of life, even though they live here. These treacherous people want to reduce the most prosperous nation in history to the status of a Third World theocracy. They would prefer we were ruled by tyrannical mystics who speak directly with God, and desire the right to intervene into every aspect of our lives. They want to tell us what to eat, what to wear, how often we can bathe, and restrict free travel — they would like to see the entire world return to the technology and governance of the middle ages. I refer, of course, to environmentalists. — Tim Slagle

© Copyright 2008, Liberty Foundation


Send editorial comments to letters@libertyunbound.com.
All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.

Send web site comments to webmaster@libertyunbound.com.


Current Issue  |  Archive  |  Subscription Services  Liberty Store  |  Writers' Guide  |  Editors & Staff  |  Search