Remember, Clinton had a higher approval rating than Raygun when he left office.

Remember, Clinton had a higher approval rating than Raygun when he left office.

Good post. People need to pay more attention to those on the Right who criticize the right. mises.org and lewrockwell.com offer some great commentary from conservatives who oppose Bush. Also, the new magazine American Conservative (www.amconmag.com) has a great interview with Ralph Nader. Democracts and progressives should start using these dissenting right-wing voices to form new criticisms of the Bush administration. The more right-wingers who sit home this election the better.

Is the Mises Institute really fundamentalist?

Nathan,

But a dictionary. I hardly think that Rothbard's take on Reagan's policies comprises a "consensus".

Sheesh.

If Reagan was such an evil to the labor movement,,,, why did the Teamsters Union endorse him.....

TWICE???????

(1.) Re. Post-3. Right on Jay. Writing as one of that crowd myself. One who may or may not vote this November, but the choice would be between Kerry and a third-partyer; surely not for the most statist of them all (He Who Need Not Be Named).

(2.) To Nathan: Is there really any justification (or: call) for characterizing the Mises Institute in such a slander? I mean, given that you cite the piece quite sympathetically, and given that, well, I would say anyway, it's not true.

-H

Vardaman-- What slander did I use against the Mises Institute?

Nathan:

My regrets and apologies for that portion of my post. I have no reason to suspect your motives in your characterization of the Mises Institute.

I do, though, maintain that you're incorrect. You called it a fundamentalist pro-capitalism organization. Grammatically I'm uncertain how to interpret that. First sense is, the organization is fundamentalist *and* pro-capitalism. Second sense: pro-c. in a fundie sort of way.

Against the first sense: I would suppose the characterization to be based on a sense that many folks at the Institute practice certain religions you would call fundamentalist, and further, that they mix their economics or politics with their religion. But of course you may have not said this so I'll just move along.

Against the second sense: I suppose my touchiness proceeds largely from what's, at bottom, a matter for myself to deal with: that I sympathize with what's termed pro-capitalism (--here--) and I don't feel like that stance is fundie (in the pejorative sense?).

I suppose this post is all confused. Sorry bout that.

I was not referring to the Mises Institute as fundamentalist in the religious sense. I meant that they were analogous to folks who follow the literal words of the bible in that they are literalist capitalist devotees of Adam Smith: no compromise, no hedging of doctrine to conform to the rest of society's norms.

It's a way of saying they are purist capitalists.