« Blogging and Humility | Main | Thanks »
Omission
Andrew Sullivan writes approvingly about a short piece in The New Republic (registration required) which states that the libertarian Cato Institute has lost all faith in President Bush.
After quoting a paragraph from the article, Sullivan writes, "I have to say I'm delighted by Cato's stand. Bush is slowly destroying conservatism's small government credentials and commitment to expanding personal freedom. " Yes indeed, the institute is unhappy with the Bush administration for record deficit spending, and its regulatory record. Strangely, though, Sullivan omits what may be Cato's biggest complaint about Bush:
'But the tipping point was the invasion of Iraq. As early as December 2001, Institute scholars were writing op-eds urging the administration not to go to war against Saddam Hussein; when it did, Cato was one of the first think tanks to warn that the lack of postwar planning would doom the reconstruction effort. In October 2003, several Cato foreign policy experts joined the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, co-organized by its director of foreign policy studies, Christopher Preble. Today, Cato is unabashed in its calls for an immediate exit from Iraq, a view encapsulated in a March USA Today op-ed by Preble titled "wisest move: leave soon." The Institute's link to its Iraq Web page reads "exit: iraq." Indeed, when it comes to the war, Cato sounds like The Nation--in a March Chicago Sun-Times op-ed, Cato fellow Stanley Kober even called out the administration for not listening to its international critics and failing to retain international support.'
That Sullivan glosses over one of Cato's prime causi belli against Bush is especially puzzling, since Sullivan - his current despair about the occupation notwithstanding - was amongst the most vocal advocates for the invasion of Iraq.
September 10, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834205dc953ef00e55032c0bf8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Omission:
» Drifting To and Fro from Dust in the Light
As is often the way when one drifts toward or away from some habit or topic, I've been surprised, recently, to read people mentioning Andrew Sullivan's blogging activities. When he left for his August break, his blog left my mind,... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 12, 2004 5:16:57 AM
Comments
Indeed. I followed Cato's commentary more closely in the lead up to the war. It was an interesting case of agreeing with someone's conclusions while finding their reasons pretty off-putting.
As soon as the war was over, our conclusions changed quite a bit. I'm still convinced that an immediate withdrawal would have been even worse than what we saw. Even now when I urge a withdrawal, I'm really concerned about what that will mean, both for Iraqis and for everyone else.
Posted by: Chris at Sep 10, 2004 2:32:12 PM
Isn't Sullivan just reporting the dissatisfaction? He doesn't have to approve or disapprove of it to note it, I would think.
Interestingly, the libertarian case against the invasion -- or against the premise that you can change a social order from the top -- is one of the few areas in which libertarians and Burkeans can agree. I'm not a Burkean myself, as you know, Paul, but my arguments before the war against the coming of the monstah were partly Hayek inspired (the lack of knowledge required to organize the project seemed to me to doom it) and partly Burke inspired (this is the Burke of Conor Cruise O'Brien's fourth melody, that strand in his thinking that tied together the passionate protest against the British pilfering of India and his more sub rosa sympathy with Irish Catholics).
Posted by: roger at Sep 11, 2004 11:36:28 AM
Roger,
It's to your credit that you place your thoughts in the Burkean alembic from time to time.
A weakness of "libertarianism" it seems to me - which also might in some ways be a strength - is that it isn't wedded to any particular cultural traditions or streams of thought, but rather can be reduced almost to a catechism of narrow propositions. Those don't have much to say about the casuistries of war, except for adopting the slogan (which I take seriously) that "war is the health of the state." In other words, I'm not sure that there's much of a nuanced "libertarian" doctrine of war - especially in light of more recent events. Perhaps the doctrine would say that there needs to be an awfully high threshold met, if war is to be legitimate.
If Sullivan was merely reporting, then he left out a not inconsequential fact. But his "delight" at Cato's stand shows, I think, that he was not merely recording but positively approving their position - which, again, I find strange since a cornerstone of their taking Bush to task is that he has aggrandized the state by fighting an "unnecessary" war with Iraq.
Posted by: Paul Craddick at Sep 11, 2004 10:21:26 PM
