I was recently forwarded this 2-year-old Non Sequitur as part of an email "memorial chain" for the victims of the Holocaust. My suspicion is that this is an exercise in preaching to the choir: the recipients of this email memorial will probably say "Amen," but think nothing new and do nothing new because of it.

Maybe this blog is a similar exercise in choir preaching, but it continues to bother me that history's atrocities are blamed on "extremists."

Extremism is just a dirty word for logical consistency. Don't blame Nazism on logical consistency. Blame it on the root philosophy — a philosophy of government and economy that very few in the choir understand beyond the central emphasis that the Nazis hated Jews and murdered millions.

Here's what I wrote about all this 2 years ago:

I, extremist

Today's Non-Sequitur is upsetting on several levels.

Seeing Danae in a concentration camp had the effect on me I'm sure Wiley sought. And I'm the last person to claim that there's anything inherently wrong with references to Hitler or the Holocaust (see "In Defense of Referencing Hitler") but when you make such comparisons, you'd better be clear on the parallel, and you'd better be right.

Having learned where and why the old man involuntarily received his numerical tattoo, Danae wonders why he hasn't had it removed...

I don't know whether Wiley meant to be targeting neocon war hawks, the Religious Right, the Bush administration, or extremists in general, but the words he chose explicitly target all political extremists, which would include me.

As Karl Hess wrote for Barry Goldwater,

...extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Every attack on political extremism is an attack on principle. The consistent application of principle is by definition extremist (so long as we're actually defining terms and using them consistently, rather than appealing always and only to emotional reflexes). It should be clear to anyone who can keep his knee from jerking for 30 seconds, that the problem isn't extremism per se, but rather which ideology is being applied in the extreme. Extreme pacifists will tend to behave quite differently from extreme nationalists. Extreme libertarians (i.e., liberal anarchists) will not lock people up just because of their background, whereas extreme egalitarians already have.

The standard attack on extremism is not an appeal to reason, but its opposite: the conflation of ideologies and the decrying of principle.

So according to Wiley, extremism in the defense of liberty can lead to another Holocaust. Try to figure that one out!

The problem isn't only with confusion on the words principle and extremism; there's also the standard problem that comes from the leftist map of politics. The Left and Right dichotomy may have started with 18th and 19th-century French republicans, but it has been applied throughout the world (especially the West) by 20th-century socialists.

First the Left is defined as progress, as it was for the French (and for classical liberals in general, back when progressives were the people who opposed the Ancien Regime). But now "progress" is linked to the State as egalitarian regulator, social safety net, etc. Thus "Progressives" are always calling for bigger and ever more pervasive government.

The Right, in contrast, is anyone opposed to the Left, anyone opposed to their vision of progress. We are the reactionaries, again by definition. For the socialists who controlled and continue to control the political language of Establishment intellectuals, all opponents of socialism are rightwing -- to varying degrees. So the classical liberals were rightwing, but then so were the fascists.

You might object, isn't fascism just nationalist socialism? Didn't the national socialists oppose liberal capitalism just as much as they opposed illiberal Communism? Sure, but to the left-socialists, any non-egalitarian socialists weren't real socialists. Since the fascists claimed to be defending the bourgeoisie and were, in fact, the dominant opposition to the Communists in many parts of the world, they were really the Right. Maybe these rightwingers said they opposed free-market capitalism, but any good socialist could see right through that: fascism was clearly the epitome of capitalism! (I'm not making this up.)

It didn't matter that classical liberalism and fascism are completely at odds, ideologically -- that one is based on individualism and laissez-faire, while the other is based on national collectivism and economic corpratism -- the Left just asserted that one led inexorably to the other, and we've been lumped together as rightwing extremists ever since.

I have no emotional attachment to the word extremist. I'm not trying to hold onto it the way I'm trying to hold on to the word liberal. I just don't like it when people throw more mud into already muddy waters.

• See Rothbard on moderation.
• See BK on moderation.
• See BlackCrayon.com on centrism.

Postscript to anyone who says that this is "just semantics": if you care about justice, if you care about meaning, then a just semantics is exactly what you care about.

PPS: If the leftwing scare-tactic smear term is "extremist" then the rightwing scare-tactic smear term is "radical". They're not equivalent terms, since radicalism is about perceiving both the problem and the solution as being at the "root" or foundation of the status quo, whereas extremism can designate any position, pro- or anti-radical, taken to the extreme. I am a radical extremist in the Rothbardian tradition, which is neither violent nor revolutionary. (Unfortunately, Murray Rothbard himself was responsible for some confusion on this point back in the 1960s.) Not all extremism is violent, just as not all radicalism is red.

"Criminals are never very amusing. It's because they're failures. Those who make real money aren't counted as criminals. This is a class distinction, not an ethical problem."

– Orson Welles (1915–1985), Mr. Arkadin (1955)

My father, who in one of his professional incarnations was a college English instructor specializing in Shakespeare, is currently reading Conn Iggulden's Emperor series, historical fiction based on the life of Julius Caesar. He's also watching the HBO/BBC series Rome, at our enthusiastic recommendation.

He wrote me today about the complexities of emotionally allying with different "sides" in historical struggles, and how much our allegiance is affected by already knowing the winners and losers.

I replied with a very different perspective on what affects the sides we take and who we root for:

This is something I've been meaning to ask you about, and to research more generally.

Do you think of Shakespeare's play as pro-Caesar? That's certainly the impression I remember.

For most of my life, I've sensed from our culture an approval of Julius Caesar and a disapproval (or hatred) for Brutus. But the more history I learn, the less sense this makes. Or rather, the more Anglo-American republican history I learn, the greater is my sense that American admiration of Caesar is a 20th-century phenomenon.

The Lockean liberals in England, the American revolutionaries, and the founding fathers wrote and published under not just Roman names but Roman republican names — the names of the opponents of Caesar, the allies of Brutus. The once-upon-a-time-libertarian Cato Institute is named for the 18th-century "Cato's Letters" whose English authors were taking the name of the Roman republican Cato. When the American Revolution was over and the debate was beginning for and against a centralizing constitution, the so-called anti-Federalists (the classical liberal/libertarian, decentralist, republicans) wrote under the names Cato and Brutus! (And despite the eventual victory of the Federalists, the mass of the population was on the side of the anti-Federalists.)

Eighty years later, John Wilkes Booth expressed his bafflement, after assassinating Lincoln, that he was so universally reviled when Brutus was so universally honored!

My current guess is that Shakespeare wrote a pro-Caesar play in an era of pro-monarchy, at least somewhat genuinely felt. But English and American republicans recognized that they were historically on the opposite side. In the 20th century (this theory would have it), Americans lost their classical educations and forgot their historical alliances. We knew we should admire Shakespeare, and Shakespeare seemed to admire the centralizers, therefore we abandon our decentralist history and alliances and all hail Caesar.

My father says that Shakespeare saw through Julius Caesar — but despised Brutus.

I'm still hoping someone can tell me about the evolution of Anglo-American attitudes toward Caesar and Brutus. How much of this story do I have right?

The quotemaster at qotd.org, G. Armour Van Horn (who signs his introductory comments "Van") has given some hints before of having libertarian leanings. He's suspicious of government in general, has expressed a past appreciation of Ayn Rand (with the standard disclaimers), and has a fondness for Thomas Jefferson. I've never sensed anything radical about him, however. Until this morning.

Today's mailing was the first hint, the first subtle sign of blasphemy against our secular religion.

Today's introductory comments begin, "I no longer participate in politics directly…"

Sound familiar?

Here's the whole message:

I no longer participate in politics directly, but for months now I've been drawn to watching the presidential race with much the same fascination a bystander might evidence at the scene of a multiple-vehicle road accident. Alas, things appear to be getting ugly, I thought a little cynicism from the ages would be in order. Note that one of our contributors, newsman Edward R. Murrow, was born a century ago today.

Today's Quotes:

• "The politicians were talking themselves red, white, and blue in the face."

  – Clare Boothe Luce, 1902–1987

• "Three groups spend other people's money: children, thieves, politicians. All three need supervision."

  – Dick Armey

• "The politician in my country seeks votes, affection, and respect, in that order…. With few notable exceptions, they are simply men who want to be loved."

  – Edward R. Murrow, 1908–1965

• "The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time."

  – Franklin P. Adams, 1881–1960

• "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

  – Henry Louis Mencken, 1880–1956

• "My choice early in life was either to be a piano–player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference."

  – Harry S Truman, 1884–1972

A new picture book about plastic surgery aims to explain why mom is getting a flatter tummy and a 'prettier' nose.

(via AC & Carolyn)

Well, it horrifies me less than Why Mommy Is a Democrat.

Clinton's play has gotten some impressive reactions. Here's one:

Am I Black Enough, Yet? Written by Clinton Johnston Directed by George Grant Produced by Charter Theater with the Hamner Theatre Reviewed by Debbie Minter Jackson This creative script tackles sensitive, poignant, hilarious even bizarre issues involving race and race relations. A cast of five lightening quick actors pop into a variety of roles, improv style, and rip roar through scenes that will induce chuckles, bursts of laughter, stunned silence, or even painful acknowledgment of the fractured life scenes depicted on stage. Written in George C. Wolfe’s Colored Museum type of humor and style, a kind of Wolfe-lite, Am I Black Enough, Yet? has just enough bite to make a point without puncturing, posturing, or preaching.

[Read the rest »]

I recently quoted from an old movie review by my playwright friend, Clinton Johnston — CJ to some of us. The first time I mentioned that review was in October 2004, at which time I described CJ as "the soon-to-be-published playwright." Well, the play that was then soon to be be published is now headed for the stage, specificially Washington, DC's (OK, Arlington, VA's) Charter Theatre :

Am I Black Enough Yet? by Clinton Johnston directed by George Grant featuring Paige Hernandez, Brittney Sweeney, David Lamont Wilson, Edward Daniels, and Matthew Eisenberg "Can you feel it? Can you see it? When do you wanna be it and when break free of it? And after all, what is it? Where does it start ... and where does it end?" No matter who you are or where you're from, for one night at Charter Theatre, you get to be African American. Playwright Clinton Johnston takes you on a touching, thoughtful, and hysterically funny tour of the state of Blackness in America. Don't miss it. at Theatre on the Run [directions] April 11 - May 3, 2008. Thurs - Sat nights at 8:00 p.m. Sat. and Sun. matinees at 3:00 p.m. $25 on Fri and Sat. nights $20 all other performances Special $10 Previews: April 9 and 10 at 8:00 p.m.

2:26:35 PM David Miller: did you note that Arthur C. Clarke died?

2:26:42 PM BK Marcus: yes

2:26:45 PM BK Marcus: age 90

2:28:13 PM David Miller: yup, interesting that technology seems to have been so much more focused on earthspace than his books suggested.

2:28:50 PM David Miller: The iPod the Web... not manned flights to Jupiter

2:30:11 PM David Miller: I wonder if I'll ever be able to enjoy sci-fi that ignores economics again.

4:19:35 PM BK Marcus: An interesting note from my wife:

Nathalie Marcus

4:01

I find this interesting.  Rothbard is talking about  the Hansen stagnation thesis: "As for technological progress, that too is slowing down. After all, the railroads have already been built and the automobile industry has reached maturity. Whatever minor improvements there might be will probably be withheld by 'reactionary monopolists,' etc."

4:01

They didn't seem to have much imagination.

4:02

Should have read more science fiction...

4:35:16 PM David Miller: yes , it is an interesting note and compliment to my observation. Economist ought to read more Sci-fi and Sci-fi writers should read more econ.

The exchange reminded me of the opening of an old friend's movie review of Speed (1994):

The day began, as all days should, with Ray Bradbury. In Saturday's early afternoon, I had just climbed back into the cab of my frequent movie partner's truck to have him tell me that the voice on the radio came from that old man of SF. While I was mailing our bills, he had tuned in Writer's Corner on our local NPR station. It must have been fifteen to twenty minutes before we were able to date the interview. For all we knew, the conversation could have been live; Bradbury could have been dead for years. I find I am able to keep track of these things less and less without cues.

We drove, listening to 1978. [Read the rest »]

Food quotes from qotd today.

By combining the first and last quotes in the list, we get an interesting synthesis:

1. "Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper." – Adelle Davis

…

5. "A bachelor's life is a fine breakfast, a flat lunch, and a miserable dinner." – Francis Bacon, 1561–1626

It seems to me that quote 1 is normative and quote 5 is descriptive. When the two are combined, we get a new statement: It is best to be a bachelor.

I'm not advocating that position. I'm just noting it.

Anthony Gregory just sent me an image that would make an appropriate banner for any libertarian blog:

First we have Harry Truman saying,

"I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have the sense to do without my persuading them. That's all the powers of the President amount to."

Now I learn of this gem from Truman's successor:

"You do not lead by hitting people over the head — that's assault, not leadership." – Dwight D. Eisenhower

If only it were true. If only the presidency were a ceremonial position, an elected figurehead, the secular equivalent of a spiritual leader whose advice we were free to accept or reject by our own criteria — if only the Declaration of Independence were taken literally, with "the consent of the governed" understood to mean the individual consent of the individual governed — then I wouldn't feel nearly so frightened by the upcoming elections. Clinton, Obama, McCain? They don't seem so scary if you think of them as holding positions equivalent to those of the pope or the Dalai Lama.

What do you think? Did Truman and Eisenhower feel embarrassed by the overtly coercive nature of the executive office, or were they merely embarrassed by the idea that the rest of us might be on to them?

No matter what else you might think of George Washington, he deserves some credit for a more candid assessment of the position he inaugurated:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."