Heersink Again
Jason Kuznicki on Aug 30th 2007
Below the fold, more from Mr. Heersink, who seems to labor under the misconception that libertarians all are somehow a species of neoconservative. Or something.
Jason Kuznick [sic], Jonathan Rowe, and Timothy Sandefeur, all gay, all academics, all libertarians, should help expose the Marxist, Libertarian, Neo-Conservative Nexus that meets everywhere, but in their Bibles. (Jason is employed by the Cato Institute, corporate Amerika’s capitalist tool.) If you find a “common refrain” in all three ideologies, it is no “coincidence.” Allan Bloom, Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, Milton Friedman, and the University of Chicago might just be a connection worth exploring.
First, purely as technicality, Sandefur is heterosexual and is married to a woman [Update: Oops. Thought he was. Sorry, ladies... He's still eligible!]. He is also not an academic.
As to being a neoconservative, I reject that ideology just as strongly as I reject Marxism.
Classical liberalism, from which modern libertarianism springs, has always been skeptical of imperial projects. Why else my fulsome praise for the (satirically named) Stiftung Leo Strauss? The Stiftung is a giant thumbing of the nose at Bush, the neocons, and their dreams of American empire. I don’t always agree with the Stiftung, but I certainly find him amusing, and he shares my reflexes, so I keep on reading him.
But… no, I’m solidly against Bush’s foreign policy, an opposition balanced only by my opposition to his domestic policy. Why else would I write this and this and this and this and this and this? I have consistently thought it was a bad idea for us to invade Iraq, both on prudential grounds and on moral ones, and that it would be an even worse idea to invade Iran, as some neoconservatives are now suggesting we do.
Really, this repeated insistence that I must somehow side with the Bush/neocon wing of the Republican Party is just bizarre to me. I’ve never voted for the guy, never had a positive opinion of him, and my most negative evaluations have almost always been proven correct. I started with low expectations, and even these were disappointed.
Not only do I find the idea of an American empire revolting, I find it un-American. To make ourselves into an empire, into a global hegemon, would be to methodically stamp out everything good about America. How much (the real) Leo Strauss is responsible for all of this, I find to be an academic question. Irving Kristol, considerably less so: He was and is. And I oppose his ideology.
Now, about Milton Friedman. Suggesting that he — of all people — is to blame for the mess of recent years is a slander, pure and simple, especially when it comes to Iraq. And this took all of five seconds to establish on Google. Here’s what the late Milton Friedman believed about Iraq:
As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression.
Friedman’s opinion is mine as well. Mr. Heersink, if you’re going to attack me, then at least attack me for things I actually believe, not for the fact that Milton Friedman once shared the same educational institution with Leo Strauss, and that both seem to make you uncomfortable.
Filed in The Barracks, The Boardroom
Fish in a barrel Jason. It’s always easier for people to think their opponents fit in their own neat ideological boxes than to take the time to actually read what they write and understand what they say.
Good work.
Jason,
I’m sorry I upset you. I was just pointing to your IDEOLOGICAL DOGMA. You see, that’s why you’re a libertarian and not a liberal. That’s why Liberttarians, Neo-Conservatives, and Marxists interchange their positions.
You would have understood that if you understood the University of Chicago connection. But, as an intern of CATO, perhaps you have not discovered that. After all, who supports CATO?
When you get FREE from SELF-INTEREST, I think you’ll see you’re dogmatism. EVEN my S.D.S. friends saw THEIRS and Libertarian’s DOGMA at the Libertarian’s Convention in San Francisco. They became truly liberal. Starchild is yours!
Getting SOME things right happens to most people (Bush seems an exception). So you don’t defend Bush’s foreign policy? But everything ELSE of his you do. You’re just a different DOGMATIST. Not a liberal, but a libertarian. Sullivan-Rauch’s friendship and SHARED values exposes that one. Virginia Postrel is where these days? Reason Foundation and I go back before you found your lover and entered high school. When it was in SANTA BARBARA. Before the CHICAGO connection. Dig. You’re supposedly an academic!
Correction: AFTER Chicago. Not “before.”
Hint: Hutchins. Adler. Chicago School of Economics. Friedman.
BTW. Montecito is a wealthy enclave of SANTA BARBARA.
I trust those are enough leads. Earn your keep.
I am straight, but I am not married.
You would have understood that if you understood the University of Chicago connection. But, as an intern of CATO, perhaps you have not discovered that. After all, who supports CATO?
When you get FREE from SELF-INTEREST, I think you’ll see you’re dogmatism.
I’m not an intern. I’m a full-time permanent employee. Also, I sought out work at Cato because even before I worked there, I agreed with virtually everything it stands for. I have not been bought, except in the sense that most employees everywhere are bought.
So you don’t defend Bush’s foreign policy? But everything ELSE of his you do.
Well, no. I’m not going to bother posting the links, but I’ve disagreed with him about the following:
1. Habeas corpus
2. Detainee treatment
3. Drug prohibition
4. Medicare Part D
5. Faith-based initiatives
6. Same-sex marriage (I support it.)
7. Immigration (Open the borders, I say.)
8. His Social Security privatization plan, which I think probably ruined the issue for decades to come and would not have even privatized very much.
I’ve also disagreed with Bush about No Child Left Behind, but I’m not sure I’ve blogged that one. About the only thing I support from Bush’s presidency are the tax cuts, and I’m not sure that they are worth the bargain, in light of all the above.
Rather than federal standards in education, I think the Department of Education should be abolished and all education policy should happen at the state level instead. I also support a move toward fully private education, even though I realize that this will be a very difficult thing to achieve politically.
As to the nefarious influence of the University of Chicago, I’m flummoxed. Yes, there’s a definite free-market orientation over there. But personally, I’ve spent all of an afternoon at the U of C, trying unsuccessfully to get into a library collection that was closed. That’s the full extent of my contact. If it’s been a haven for others that think like I do, well… What’s so devious about that?
Let’s be blunt: Heersink is making himself look incredibly stupid. Accusing Jason of supporting everything Bush has done other than the Iraq war? In what universe does this guy live?
Here’s a good rule of thumb. When you get to the part where there is a ‘k’ in ‘Amerika’ you can stop. You are not going to find serious thought.