Chieftain1776
07-13-2009, 08:26 AM
I've written a review of his previous book (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=190060) and continue to follow his "Morning Joe" show on TV. I appreciated his previous book more:
His latest book makes some excellent critiques and uses the term "political class" a number of times but it's not as pro- liberty as "Rome Wasn't Burnt". In fact on the environment and energy it's pretty statist which is really unfortunate from someone who echoes Ron Paul on other issues and actually quotes RP in the book. I'll start with the bad.
On the environment and energy he repeats a Reagan quote "Conservatives Conserve". He avoids the global warming debate entirely and rests his case for intervention on energy independence, energy cost, and Russel Kirk thoughts on the matter. He proposes raising CAFE standards and government "seed money" for new technologies. This paper (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8629) refutes his arguments and defuses the case for a "milder" intervention in the form of gas taxes. As you could probably guess I don't believe in infringing on the liberty in the first place let alone for dubious reasons.
On Social Security he calls for reform but criticizes the Cato reform of privatization and mocks its chances for ever happening. Unfortunately he criticizes them from the left saying that Social Security and Medicare "are part of the social contract" and basically calls for piecemeal reforms.
Okay now for the more favorable parts. He remarks of Dr. Paul as follows:
"But the housing market was broken and the man who sounded the clearest warning was the lone voice of libertarianism on Capitol Hill, Congressman Ron Paul.
In a 2003 hearing focused on Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac, the future GOP presidential candidate warned liberal Banking Committee members that their efforts to protect Fannie and Freddie from the realities of the free market would soon cripple the economy:
Quotes the 2003 statement we emailed him (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=181431)
The libertarian leader then predicted that the economic panic caused by a subprime collapse would be devastating to Americans and urged members to heed the warning of the Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. Paul said:
Again quotes the 2003 statement
Ron Paul saw the future and predicted the subprime fallout. When Alan Greenspan and other conservatives echoed those concerns, they were dismissed by Fannie Mae's enablers as right-wing ideologues who hated poor people." pg 70-71
He again mentions Dr. Paul on pg 73 and shows how Republicans didn't support him and joined with Democrats to take credit for the "ownership society". In this chapter he does an excellent job of describing the causes of the crisis: Cheap money, political pandering, lack of a free market, etc. He also does a great job showing why the free market wasn't at fault and quotes Hayek. This is why the energy chapter is so maddening and why Nick Gillispie of Reason slams the book in a New York Times review (http://reason.com/blog/show/134717.html)
Another good chapter is his writing on foreign policy. He really takes it to the Neo-"conservatives" here. I haven't seen a conservative go after them like this other than Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. He shows how the Neocons ALWAYS are more war-mongering than whoever is in power. He cites a number of examples, one of them a critique in the New York Times magazine that *Reagan* wasn't war mongering enough by the "co-founder" (with Irving Kristol) of Neoconservatism. The title: "The Neo-Conservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy" and one of the critiques was that Reagan "loves commerce more than it loathes Communism". This eventually led me to this book (http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-Neo-Conservatives-Global-Order/dp/0521674603/lewrockwell) and Ch. 5 title shows how the neo-cons aren't even the "Reaganites" (http://zfacts.com/p/130.html)they claim to be. I think Joe Scarborough has given us a good argument to show the mainstream conservative movement that the modern neocons aren't even on the same level as the revered Reagan. Unfortunately he doesn't really care for the non-interventionism.
He at least uses the correct term- at first- then describes his hero Eisenhower as "Ike the internationalist move Republicans away from Taft's isolationism, but maintained a restrictive approach to foreign interventions." and likens him to Colin Powell and encourages this line of "realism" via the "Weinberger-Powell Doctrine"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine)
The part I appreciated the most was at the end of the book where he again criticizes the Neo-cons for being mindless ideologues and lowering the tone of the debate by attacking "Unpatriotic Conservatives" (http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp) like his friend and colleague Pat Buchanan. He makes the following powerful statement:
It is hard reading that National Review piece years later and not being struck by a sense of sadness that the Bush apologists who hijacked the conservative movement over the past decade sank to such low rhetorical levels. After all, National Review founder William Buckley had concluded himself (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007541) that George Bush was not a conservative".
He goes on to make some more salient points and takes the National Review piece pretty personally. That portion of the book alone--for me--makes the book a net benefit to the liberty movement. Overall it's a pretty good read and-- judging from the people the author says goes to the book signings-- will be read by those "in the middle" so at least they'll be told the truth about the Neocons and the causes of the economic crisis.
The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Best-Hope-Restoring-Conservatism/dp/0307463699/lewrockwell) by Joe Scarborough
His latest book makes some excellent critiques and uses the term "political class" a number of times but it's not as pro- liberty as "Rome Wasn't Burnt". In fact on the environment and energy it's pretty statist which is really unfortunate from someone who echoes Ron Paul on other issues and actually quotes RP in the book. I'll start with the bad.
On the environment and energy he repeats a Reagan quote "Conservatives Conserve". He avoids the global warming debate entirely and rests his case for intervention on energy independence, energy cost, and Russel Kirk thoughts on the matter. He proposes raising CAFE standards and government "seed money" for new technologies. This paper (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8629) refutes his arguments and defuses the case for a "milder" intervention in the form of gas taxes. As you could probably guess I don't believe in infringing on the liberty in the first place let alone for dubious reasons.
On Social Security he calls for reform but criticizes the Cato reform of privatization and mocks its chances for ever happening. Unfortunately he criticizes them from the left saying that Social Security and Medicare "are part of the social contract" and basically calls for piecemeal reforms.
Okay now for the more favorable parts. He remarks of Dr. Paul as follows:
"But the housing market was broken and the man who sounded the clearest warning was the lone voice of libertarianism on Capitol Hill, Congressman Ron Paul.
In a 2003 hearing focused on Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac, the future GOP presidential candidate warned liberal Banking Committee members that their efforts to protect Fannie and Freddie from the realities of the free market would soon cripple the economy:
Quotes the 2003 statement we emailed him (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=181431)
The libertarian leader then predicted that the economic panic caused by a subprime collapse would be devastating to Americans and urged members to heed the warning of the Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. Paul said:
Again quotes the 2003 statement
Ron Paul saw the future and predicted the subprime fallout. When Alan Greenspan and other conservatives echoed those concerns, they were dismissed by Fannie Mae's enablers as right-wing ideologues who hated poor people." pg 70-71
He again mentions Dr. Paul on pg 73 and shows how Republicans didn't support him and joined with Democrats to take credit for the "ownership society". In this chapter he does an excellent job of describing the causes of the crisis: Cheap money, political pandering, lack of a free market, etc. He also does a great job showing why the free market wasn't at fault and quotes Hayek. This is why the energy chapter is so maddening and why Nick Gillispie of Reason slams the book in a New York Times review (http://reason.com/blog/show/134717.html)
Another good chapter is his writing on foreign policy. He really takes it to the Neo-"conservatives" here. I haven't seen a conservative go after them like this other than Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. He shows how the Neocons ALWAYS are more war-mongering than whoever is in power. He cites a number of examples, one of them a critique in the New York Times magazine that *Reagan* wasn't war mongering enough by the "co-founder" (with Irving Kristol) of Neoconservatism. The title: "The Neo-Conservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy" and one of the critiques was that Reagan "loves commerce more than it loathes Communism". This eventually led me to this book (http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-Neo-Conservatives-Global-Order/dp/0521674603/lewrockwell) and Ch. 5 title shows how the neo-cons aren't even the "Reaganites" (http://zfacts.com/p/130.html)they claim to be. I think Joe Scarborough has given us a good argument to show the mainstream conservative movement that the modern neocons aren't even on the same level as the revered Reagan. Unfortunately he doesn't really care for the non-interventionism.
He at least uses the correct term- at first- then describes his hero Eisenhower as "Ike the internationalist move Republicans away from Taft's isolationism, but maintained a restrictive approach to foreign interventions." and likens him to Colin Powell and encourages this line of "realism" via the "Weinberger-Powell Doctrine"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine)
The part I appreciated the most was at the end of the book where he again criticizes the Neo-cons for being mindless ideologues and lowering the tone of the debate by attacking "Unpatriotic Conservatives" (http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp) like his friend and colleague Pat Buchanan. He makes the following powerful statement:
It is hard reading that National Review piece years later and not being struck by a sense of sadness that the Bush apologists who hijacked the conservative movement over the past decade sank to such low rhetorical levels. After all, National Review founder William Buckley had concluded himself (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007541) that George Bush was not a conservative".
He goes on to make some more salient points and takes the National Review piece pretty personally. That portion of the book alone--for me--makes the book a net benefit to the liberty movement. Overall it's a pretty good read and-- judging from the people the author says goes to the book signings-- will be read by those "in the middle" so at least they'll be told the truth about the Neocons and the causes of the economic crisis.
The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Best-Hope-Restoring-Conservatism/dp/0307463699/lewrockwell) by Joe Scarborough