Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frum's Flimflam
Lew Rockwell ^ | 3/26/03 | Ilana Mercer

Posted on 03/26/2003 10:02:01 PM PST by billbears

Reading through David Frum's Unpatriotic Conservatives, a shabby indictment against those he lazily blankets as "paleoconservatives," I was reminded of a fascinating paper Jörg Guido Hülsmann of the Mises Institute delivered some years back entitled The Production of Signs and the Growth of the State.

"The most important class of signs are the words we use, in particular the words of the written language," explained Hülsmann. We come to understand "the fundamental facts of moral and political life: religion, liberty, love, hope, faith, property, justice, and all other purely intellectual things" through the configurations we create with letters of the alphabet.

How fragile then are those cherished concepts, and all the more so in the hands of a manipulator such as David Frum. Frum's style of debate is Kafkaesque.

Take this paragraph:

The antiwar conservatives aren't satisfied merely to question the wisdom of an Iraq war. Questions are perfectly reasonable, indeed valuable. There is more than one way to wage the war on terror, and thoughtful people will naturally disagree about how best to do it, whether to focus on terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah or on states like Iraq and Iran; and if states, then which state first?

Note how Frum dictates the terms of debate. He starts off by generously welcoming "questions" about the war on Iraq. But with the next breath Frum constricts the scope of discussion, making the acceptance of the "war on terror" a prerequisite.

By the by, the National Review's blog really showcases the essence of the "girlie-boys," to use Ann Coulter's coinage for this lot. Recall, the "boys with the bowties" dropped Coulter's syndicated column after September 11 when the firebrand columnist suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that we should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Considering that the neoconservatives at the NR advocate the two of Ann's moves, I've a strong suspicion as to what prompted the firing caprice.

Christianity!

Or more appropriately, Coulter's contention that converting Muslims to a religion of peace might do the trick. This was beyond the pale for the multicultists at the NR (who also regularly chide the Pope).

It's hard not to notice how similar the simpering on the NR's blogistan is to Mrs. Frum's infamous e-mail. Danielle Crittenden had done a mass mailing to her pals after her hubby had coined the axis of evil phrase, expressing her "hope you'll indulge my wifely pride."

Rod Dreher of NR exudes the same fake saccharine humility: "I suppose it might be unseemly to praise one's own magazine," he blogs, "but I am proud to be associated with a publication responsible for David Frum's magnificent essay." As Golda Meir once said, "Don't be humble. You're not that great."

In response to Jonah's whine that "paleos have been goading and mocking" him, not least by naming his mag the "Goldberg's Review," I suggest substituting the "Goldberg Variations."

Bach's monumental score for the keyboard ought to remind Jonah that the West that paleolibertarians and conservatives love and wish to peacefully restore is the civilization epitomized by the faith-inspired beauty of Bach. It's the West reflected in the poignancy and "deep pain" Pope John Paul II expresses these days with every fiber of his crippled frame. The picture of this righteous man, head clasped in hands, overcome with sorrow at the savagery unfolding, trumps the nasty specter of the American metropole at its most shameful, cheered by the "girlie-boys" at NR.

A testament to his manipulation of language is that the "facts" Frum marshals for each of the raps he draws up against paleos don't coincide with the accusations:

The antiwar conservatives have gone far, far beyond the advocacy of alternative strategies. They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism... And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies.

Frum's mode of argument is slightly more sophisticated than Michael Savage’s. Savage yelled that he'd demonstrate to his viewers "Why We Fight." If language means anything, then the reason we fight against Iraq must directly relate to an aggression Iraq has visited on us, at the very least.

Instead, Savage began screening and rescreening the attack on the Twin Towers, amidst hysterical yelps of, "This is Why We Fight." His frenzy incites the same in the recipient of the distorted message, thus subverting reason. Note how the signs Guido Hülsmann speaks of have been severed from what they signify – the message Savage conveys is that we fight Iraq because Saddam brought down the Twin Towers. On the facts, this is false.

The sophistry of the State's speechwriter is similar: As evidence that Pat Buchanan "espouses defeatism," Frum dredges Buchanan's observation that other than to use their might, Americans do not understand the conflicts and terrain they plunge into. This is an intelligent observation about American insularity and cultural chauvinism.

Frum affects a similar disconnect between the indictment and the evidence he advances against Toronto Sun foreign correspondent Eric Margolis. Margolis recommended non-aggressive ways in which Arabs might prevent war against Iraq. This Frum labels as a "yearning for defeat." If one respects the words used by the communicator – Margolis – and their meaning, rather than resort to conjecture, then what Margolis was saying was aimed at trying to peacefully thwart American aggression and prevent defeat for all involved.

As is evident from his tittle-tattle tome (and like his wife), Frum is a gossip. His essay is in keeping with this unfortunate character trait. He produces a series of vignettes designed to "prove" that paleos developed an ideology (which, in the case of paleolibertarians, is as old as the natural law), in order to compensate for alleged career failure.

So we discover that the delightful Paul Gottfried doesn't entertain his students and that paleos are among the more "fractious and quarrelsome folk in the conservative universe." (Frum fails to allow that non-conformists do tend to be "belligerent," the word my spouse uses for his wife.) To discredit paleoconservative or paleolibertarian ideas, however, one must tackle the ideas, not the personalities. Claiming that Paul Gottfried, a consistently engaging and interesting intellectual, didn't win a popularity contest with a bunch of 19-year-olds fails to tackle his ideas. Nor can he be refuted by the fact that he teaches at a small college. In order to be taken seriously, Frum must deal with the substance, not personalities or professional travails vis-à-vis the mainstream.

I can't speak for paleoconservatives, but paleolibertarians care first about the effects of the state on civil society. In the words of Lew Rockwell:

Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention – economic, cultural, social, international – amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise.

Everything flows from the passion for "the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization." What Frum calls our "obsessive denunciations of Martin Luther King," is borne of the understanding that "civil rights" legislation is inimical to property rights and freedom of association.

Perforce, Frum charges paleos with racism. And he mocks us for allegedly being incapable of reconciling our alleged belief in "the incorrigible inferiority of darker-skinned people," with our perception that "darker-skinned people are gaining advantage over whites."

What a skilled obscurantist!

While the strength of the paleolibertarian team comes from its enduring commitment to natural rights and justice, the strength of the Frum faction comes from its endorsement of the Almighty State. Yet, the State is conspicuously absent from Frum's silly screed.

Frum must certainly be aware that the State redistributes wealth from those who create it to those who consume it. Frum must also be aware that libertarians oppose this coercive distribution of wealth by the State. And even Frum must be cognizant of discernible trends in wealth creation and wealth consumption. Ditto where crime is concerned: Certain populations are more likely to be perpetrators, others more likely to be victims.

Are these observations racist? To the extent that it is a relevant variable in crime and welfare, paleos comment honestly about demographics.

Yes, certain segments of society are gaining at the expense of others, but there is nothing inexplicable here if one considers the entity whose bidding Frum does so effectively. The ousting of white males from positions of prominence is courtesy of State directive! Surely even David Frum knows that. The beef paleolibertarians have is with the State for seizing and redistributing private property, for prohibiting the rightful exercise of freedom of contract and freedom of association, and for making all-out self-defense impossible.

Jonah claims, incidentally, that David Frum is "libertarian on the economy." I don't know any libertarian who supports the pseudo-science of climate change and the concomitant advocated policies, which Frum apparently does. But if he has a libertarian streak, Frum must have heard of property rights. Why, then, is it a racist notion that productive Americans should not have to subsidize free riders? Frum heaps scorn on Buchanan for having said that "many Americans in the first country are getting weary of subsidizing and explaining away the deepening failure of the second."

Just as property rights are not a new paleo idea, but rather a little Lockean indulgence taken very seriously by the American founders, so too are paleo ideas on foreign policy and American adventurism, rooted in, to quote Felix Morley, the traditional American attitude of "opposition to what George Washington called ‘overgrown military establishments.’" Frum's attempt to cast paleo ideas as new and discontinuous is ignorant of the history of the ideas.

Equally revealing about the Frum framework is his aversion to objective truth. He says that "race and ethnicity are huge and unavoidable issues in modern life, and the liberal orthodoxies on the matter tend to be doctrinaire and hypocritical." Paleo refutation, however, he condemns because it too advances orthodoxies. Does it not occur to this doxy of the State that some "orthodoxies" may be true? Is it not possible that what Buchanan and Harvard economist George Borjas report about immigration is simply correct?

As I've written, and with reference to Borjas' work, it is true that since the 1965 immigration amendments, "the United States has been granting entry visas to persons who have relatives in the United States, with no regard to their skills or economic potential." "Immigrants today are less skilled than their predecessors, more likely to require public assistance, and far more likely to have children who remain in poor, segregated communities." An influx of the unskilled is, moreover, responsible for the lowering of wages across the board, something that hurts poor Americans, especially blacks.

Since 1965, mass immigration has constituted the quintessential "swamping by the central state of an existing population for political ends," to quote paleolibertarian economist, Murray N. Rothbard. Those who laud the changing US, and want more of the same, ignore the fact that this radical transformation, good or bad, has been engineered by the State, to which Frum is in thrall.

Again, the State's speechwriter pries words from their meaning. This time Chronicles' Thomas Fleming catches static for asserting that we "would soon be a nation no longer stratified by class, but by race as well. Europeans and Orientals will compete, as groups, for the top positions, while the other groups will nurse their resentments on the weekly welfare checks they receive from the other half."

Why, pray, is this statement evidence of "racial animus"? Orientals and Europeans, if I am not mistaken, are the highest earners. They shoulder the tax burden. I would think that as a "libertarian on economics," Frum would be irate that, for being high achievers, certain people are denied equal treatment under the law.

Once again, Frum's appended slur doesn't jibe with the utterance of the slurred.

Frum's impoverished coda is full of journalistic jingoism about the epoch September 11 has unleashed. Paleos, spoilsports that they are, have failed to celebrate one of the most formidable consolidations of State power in recent American history. For this failure, David and the "girlie-boys" are going to turn their backboneless backs on us.

To Frum's "War is a great clarifier," we offer Ludwig von Mises' words: "War only destroys; it cannot create. War, carnage, destruction and devastation we have in common with the predatory beast of the jungle." A good synonym for neoconservative.


TOPICS: General Discussion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

1 posted on 03/26/2003 10:02:01 PM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: billbears; Vic Mackey; sheltonmac; mr.pink; GOPcapitalist
Well, here's another conservative speaking out on Frum. Either the entire conservative party is racist and have lost their way or Frum must be wrong. And we all know Frum couldn't be wrong.... ;)
2 posted on 03/26/2003 10:04:23 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Lew's Sour Grapes
3 posted on 03/26/2003 10:09:43 PM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I thought we were supposed to be the adults. Can we put these guys in a pit full of mud and let them go at it with each other?
4 posted on 03/26/2003 10:11:05 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
Good one!! I've yet to see a neocon actually argue the points, just another one liner. And it's Ilana Mercer who wrote the article from WorldNetDaily. But of course that doesn't matter does it? Much easier to go the route of namecalling than face up to the fact that the Republican Party is chasing away conservatives to gain votes isn't it?
5 posted on 03/26/2003 10:13:22 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: billbears
What a shabbily written piece.
6 posted on 03/26/2003 10:24:20 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
To most traditional conservatives I know, David Frum's article was right on the money and people like Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and Pat Buchanan remain fringe wingnuts. Bob Novak skirts the issues too often and is an isolationist at heart.

I know the paleocons and libertarians see it differently. That's why together they comprise less then 1% of the voting public. Sour grapes is right.

7 posted on 03/26/2003 10:26:53 PM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Much easier to go the route of namecalling...

Uh, that's exactly what Lew did.

8 posted on 03/26/2003 10:33:46 PM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: billbears
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31710
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
"Human shields caught in crossfire
Many abandon mission, accuse Iraq of using them"
[Human shield repentences through URL above.]

It's too bad more Nazi, Islamist and Communist
socialists (in their new alliances, in and out of the
closet) didn't join the volunteer human shields to
aid their preferred leaders. They might also have
learned a few valuable lessons.








9 posted on 03/26/2003 10:44:10 PM PST by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Most of the paleos I know of that are anti-war are in no way anti-American. It is very possible to oppose a war, even one against a brutal SOB like Saddam, and still love your country and support our military. The difference between the paleos and the left is that although the paleos oppose going to war, they still want our troops to be victorious. They want us to stay out of the war because they believe that on balance it is not good for America, but they definately don't want us to lose a war. The left on the other hand opposes the war because it is being led by a conservative and they want America to lose because their political battles are more important to them than the country.
10 posted on 03/26/2003 10:50:58 PM PST by elmer fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Frum's taking a well deserved beating on this one...and not just from the Lew Rockwell crowd. Novak tore him to shreds in his rebuttal. The ACU's David Keene slammed him big time yesterday. NR's leading "girly boy" has bitten off more than he can chew with this one.
11 posted on 03/26/2003 11:52:21 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
Lew's Sour Grapes

It seems to be much more than that. The Lew Rockwell crowd, which was targetted in the Frum piece, has certainly responded. But some of the strongest the rebuttals have come from elsewhere. Robert Novak's response to Frum took the latter to the woodshed over his fraudulent guilt-by-association tactics. David Keene, the head of the ACU, slammed Frum hard yesterday (to which Frum's only response is that Keene didn't take time to "understand" his smear piece). Expect more coming, cause Frum's attack methods in that piece are some of his most underhanded to date - it's a transparent guilt-by-association race card smear job not unlike what the far left often uses around election time. And this time he seems to have pissed off a lot of more than just the fringe.

12 posted on 03/27/2003 12:00:22 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Have any of you actually read the official Libertarian
Party Platform? Of any who consider themselves to be
conservatives and are really sincere while advocating it,
I doubt it.

Libertarian Party: Platform
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/

Read it. Now think. Would such policy allow your
nearest neighbor to lean on his legal locked and loaded
50 caliber machine gun (which can pierce lightly armored
houses many miles away) while legally injecting cocaine
into his vein and seducing your, say, 10-year-old child
into his satanic cult while it would be illegal for you
to "kidnap" them back? Do you believe in "separation
of church and state?" ...all kinds of abortion legalized?

Follow the URL address above and read the pertinent
parts of their platform. If you do, then you'll know
why I call them liberaltarians.

The tiny, extraneous parties trying to break
the Republican Party by splitting the vote will remain
so small as to be unnoticed...except for their rantings
on the Net.

Frum's column targeted all who say they are
conservatives while opposing national defense.
Mercer's comments like "...nasty specter of the
American metropole at its most shameful.." and
"American insularity and cultural chauvinism" are
blatantly anti-American, as was her generalized
quotation against any kind of national defense
at the end of her piece.

Mercer's comments were more honestly and openly
anti-American than the insidious seductions of many
others who work so hard to split the Republican vote
by attempting to woo idiots into nearly nonexistant
parties that advocate social anarchy, create vast
conspiracy stories or blame the Jews for American
policies that they disagree with (e.g., Buchanan).

As for Mercer's statements about property rights,
those are an obvious straw man. Conservatives (as
opposed to others who hash the label) are in favor
of property rights.

Conservatism includes its social tenets. We don't
want to dismantle our national defense, legalize
unlimited vice in all places or allow any and all
aliens without any regulation.




13 posted on 03/27/2003 2:18:57 AM PST by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Thanks for the alert.

And we all know Frum couldn't be wrong....

Frum would be the first guy to tell you that ;o)

Watching David run from Frum, the best show in town.
14 posted on 03/27/2003 5:09:51 AM PST by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Would such policy allow your nearest neighbor to lean on his legal locked and loaded 50 caliber machine gun (which can pierce lightly armored houses many miles away)

I take it you believe in "resonable gun control".
15 posted on 03/27/2003 7:47:29 AM PST by jmc813 (Control for smilers can't be bought;The solar garlic starts to rot;Was it for this my life I sought?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: familyop
What makes you think I belong to the libertarian party?
16 posted on 03/27/2003 8:09:50 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I beg to differ. I read Bob Novak's response to David Frum's essay and his remarks were intellectually weak. I also read David Keene's remarks and his overall response in defense of Novak was also very weak. However, just for the record, Keene does support the war with Iraq and the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Frum offered a highly detailed account of how certain members of the conservative movement, are standing in stark opposition to the courageous efforts taken by President Bush and his administartion in finally taking the actions to rid the world of a the dangerous lunatic of Baghdad.

There has been a definite stench of disdain coming from remarks made by people like Novak, Buchanan and other paleocon's. This has been occuring for a long time and has been unwarranted. The fact that Novak and Buchanan now support the troops, doesn't give them a pass for acting so wrongheaded in the lead up to this war.

In fact, in Novak's most recent column, he once again makes remarks that don't ring true and continues to trash decisions made at the highest levels of the Bush adminstartion. In the lead up to the war with Iraq, I never heard one individual use the term "cakewalk". However, Novak now wants us to believe that's exactly what the Bush administration and the military brass were saying all along. That is pure BS! Novak also slams SecPowell for not flying to Turkey and begging the Turk's to alllow US forces to invade Iraq through Turkey, from the north. Novak also mentions remarks made by ex-general Barry McCaffrey, a Clinton appointee.

It's obvious Bob Novak is hurt deeply by David Frum's remarks and he should be. They're true. Novak and his fellow paleo's have been on the wrong side of this issue from the get go and it appears Novak wants to remain a voice of dissention. Novak is wrong on this one.

17 posted on 03/27/2003 9:24:31 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I beg to differ. I read Bob Novak's response to David Frum's essay and his remarks were intellectually weak.

I don't beleive so at all. Novak hit the nail on the head with this line:

"Frum, on the other hand, chose that moment to begin shooting at ''paleo-conservatives.'' He brackets me with his selected paleos--people whom I have never met or read and whose anti-Semitic and white supremacist views I abhor."

That is the heart of Frum's argument. It is nothing more than a guilt-by-association discrediting of the people he named and implicated in that same article.

I also read David Keene's remarks and his overall response in defense of Novak was also very weak.

Once again, I disagree. Keene too hit the issue dead on by calling out Frum's guilt-by-association tactics:

"Frum is among those who can't seem to accept the fact that those who disagree with him may not be in league with the devil...One can question the man's [Novak's] judgment and sometimes even his facts, but to suggest that Novak is no different from the crypto-fascists and Marxists organizing "peace" rallies these days says a lot more about David Frum than it does about Bob Novak."

Frum offered a highly detailed account of how certain members of the conservative movement, are standing in stark opposition to the courageous efforts taken by President Bush and his administartion in finally taking the actions to rid the world of a the dangerous lunatic of Baghdad.

In some respects, yes he did. But that is not the point of objection to his article. The objectionable portion is his use of guilt-by-association in an attempt to discredit Novak by tying him to the American Renaissancer fringe wacko types who he quotes and, most of all, their anti-semitism. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.

There has been a definite stench of disdain coming from remarks made by people like Novak, Buchanan and other paleocon's.

Since when is Novak a "paleocon"? He doesn't appear to consider himself one, nor, by his own admission, does he have much of anything to do with the American Renaissancer types that Frum attempted to associate him with in the smear piece.

The fact that Novak and Buchanan now support the troops, doesn't give them a pass for acting so wrongheaded in the lead up to this war.

Tell me this - why can't Novak, if he chooses, oppose the war as a policy prior to its starting? What is wrong with that? I fully support the war and have been calling for it for quite some time, but that does not mean I have a right to make personal attacks on Bob Novak for holding another view. It is as Keene appropriately put it: "Like many other conservatives, I happen to disagree with Novak's analysis of what's going on in the Middle East. But to suggest, as does Frum, that his disagreement with Bush's Iraq policy stems from a hatred of the president and the country is scandalously and irresponsibly absurd."

18 posted on 03/27/2003 10:05:18 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I believe your evaluation is way off the mark. In fact I'd call it a convenient copeout. I don't see the level of guilt by association that you and others seem to see in David Frum's piece. As with Novak, you seem unwilling to accept the truth of Frum's writing. Too bad you've chosen to be shortsighted in this regard.

The essay by Frum was set up in the first two paragraphs and has more to do with those opening words, then anything else.

"From the very beginning of the War on Terror, there has been dissent, and as the war has proceeded to Iraq, the dissent has grown more radical and more vociferous. Perhaps that was to be expected. But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves "conservatives."

"These conservatives are relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They aspire to reinvent conservative ideology: to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world ... in favor of a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.

And that's the truth.

19 posted on 03/27/2003 10:35:17 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Frankly, I don't think that Frum is even worth all the column space devoted to him. Like most of the good ol' boy crowd at NR, he's just working directly from the neocon playbook. It's kind of like Michael Moore at the Oscars--it doesn't matter whether or not he really believes what he's saying, the fact that he provoked a reaction and raised a few eyebrows is all that matters. He'll milk his 15 minutes of fame for as long as he can.
20 posted on 03/27/2003 10:53:40 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson