Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Shameless Self-Promotion

A Fond Farewell to NLT

After almost ten years of posting intermittently here on NLT, I have to announce with some sadness that I'm moving on.  Our pals at the Power Line Blog, where I've been guest-blogging, have made me an offer too good to turn down--to join them as a permanent partner in the enterprise (and enterprise it is--it is a profitable site).  In exchange they quite reasonably want to have my blogs exclusively there, so I'll be discontinuing my blogs over on NRO's Corner as well as here.

Not to worry: I'll still turn up on the Ashbrook site with feature articles on the home page, and will inflict the occasional podcast with Peter.  I'll probably also post a comment on items here from time to time.  And starting next semester I'll be a visiting professor at Ashland University, starting a new course on political economy.  So I'll still be part of the Ashbrook Center family.  Plus, I'll help promote NLT and the "Ohio Farmer" letters on Power Line from time to time, so this move should actually benefit all of us.

Discussions - 37 Comments

Best of luck to you Steven. I truly enjoyed your postings on NLT over the years. And I look forward to reading your work from your new home.

Blessings, the Claremont brand is stronger than ever.

Steven, what a run it's been!

It just so happens that I thought of you today as I was reading Hayek (yes!), of all people - his "Why I Am Not a Conservative." This part, especially:

"Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one's self with new ideas merely deprives one of the power of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots."

And then I recalled this:
http://i.imgur.com/KnCot.jpg

and then this, too, from the same essay, brought to mind your good (non-scientific) work for the Koch Bros. & the like in climate science, as well as that of your new partner "Hindrocket" (his term - btw, do they still use the nicknames?):

"Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position."

(Hindrocket has previously said: "Darwin's theory of macroevolution is plainly wrong, on strictly scientific grounds" and "is, in my view, a rather obvious fraud, which cannot withstand the mildest scrutiny." He's also an ideological AGW denier, as well)

I'm sure you'll have a profitable good time over at PowerLine. Maybe you can help them with their posts on beauty pageants (at least the bikini part of the pageant - hehe) ??

@ Scanlon:

As a good social conservative, I make it my practice to follow the Miss USA swimsuit competitions on the radio.

(Ok, tiny credit granted for the little joke)

Steve,

While you will be missed here, you have been doing a lovely job at Power Line Blog. No wonder they want you there.

Craig,

It is good to see you are reading Hayek. We all hope you learn fom him. Yes, there are liberals and then there is current American liberalism and many of us who are designated Conservative would rather be called liberal if it could be along Hayek's lines or Jefferson's or Locke's. Conservatives today are certainly not content with the status quo and are more likely to be agitating for personal liberty than the communitarians who call themselves Liberal.

What do you call youself?

or yourself?

"It is good to see you are reading Hayek. We all hope you learn fom [sic] him."

Arrogant much? (And since you mentioned learning from Hayek, do you think Hayward has read Hayek's thoughts on the emptiness of the "un-American" accusation?)

"...many of us who are designated Conservative would rather be called liberal if it could be along Hayek's lines..."

Are you sure? Again, from Hayek:

"The liberal differs from the conservative in his willingness to face this ignorance and to admit how little we know, without claiming the authority of supernatural forces of knowledge where his reason fails him. It has to be admitted that in some respects the liberal is fundamentally a skeptic[12] - but it seems to require a certain degree of diffidence to let others seek their happiness in their own fashion and to adhere consistently to that tolerance which is an essential characteristic of liberalism."

Conservatives of your stripe regularly claim the authority of supernatural forces, and regularly mock and deride tolerance.

Welcome aboard to Powerline Blog - Love those guys - and you will fit right in with them. No good bye as I will be reading your comments there...........

Kate;

I can only guess the reason why Scanlon reading Hayek is because he read Hitchen's last column about David Mamet (Hollywood type) who was a liberal who has been run over by reality (a conservative). Hitchen's did a review of Mamet's book. Here is a link to that article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-the-secret-knowledge-by-david-mamet.html?_r=4

Hitchens finds Mamet's book quite irrating (that says it all) and refers to Mamet's claim in the book that his turn from liberal to conservative was great influenced by Mamet reading Hayek. This obviously irrates Hitchens as he refers to Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative" as a reason that Hayek is not a conservative and should not be referred to in any argument about free markets and capitalism much like Scanlon is attempting to do here on this board.

In the article Hitchens claims that Hayek wrote in "Why I Am Not A Conservative" about capitalism and free markets being a "Tragic View". I am in the middle of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and there is no reference to a Tragic View of free markets or capitalism. Hitchens hasn't read the Road to Serfdom - obviously...

Hitchens and Scanlon for that matter might be interested to know that Hayek spent his young adult hood chasing leftists views until he like Mamet got run over by reality......

Kate;

I can only guess the reason why Scanlon reading Hayek is because he read Hitchen's last column about David Mamet (Hollywood type) who was a liberal who has been run over by reality (a conservative). Hitchen's did a review of Mamet's book. Here is a link to that article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-the-secret-knowledge-by-david-mamet.html?_r=4

Hitchens finds Mamet's book quite irrating (that says it all) and refers to Mamet's claim in the book that his turn from liberal to conservative was great influenced by Mamet reading Hayek. This obviously irrates Hitchens as he refers to Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative" as a reason that Hayek is not a conservative and should not be referred to in any argument about free markets and capitalism much like Scanlon is attempting to do here on this board.

In the article Hitchens claims that Hayek wrote in "Why I Am Not A Conservative" about capitalism and free markets being a "Tragic View". I am in the middle of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and there is no reference to a Tragic View of free markets or capitalism. Hitchens hasn't read the Road to Serfdom - obviously...

Hitchens and Scanlon for that matter might be interested to know that Hayek spent his young adult hood chasing leftists views until he like Mamet got run over by reality......

"This obviously irrates [sic] Hitchens as he refers to Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative" as a reason that Hayek is not a conservative and should not be referred to in any argument about free markets and capitalism much like Scanlon is attempting to do here on this board."

Wrong. That's not what Hitchens said, and not what I said, nor did I imply it. Hitchens is merely pointing out that Hayek would likely distance himself from many of the tendencies of today's American conservatives - tendencies found in characters like Glenn Beck (Hayek would probably see straight through the ridiculous accusations of Pres. Obama's "socialism"), Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Jonah Goldberg, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and, frequently, the Powerline bloggers (see my previous comment), among others. That's pretty obvious by reading his "Why I Am Not a Conservative." What was true then would certainly be at least as true now.

That is not to say that he wouldn't be a promoter of free market economics, as Hitchens notes that "The Road to Serfdom" is the "classic defense of the market." Nobody's arguing that he didn't (and wouldn't still) adore free market economics and hate socialism. Conservatism and free markets/capitalism/neoliberalism clearly overlap in several regards, but are not the same thing; and this is why your accusation is wrong.

"Hitchens and Scanlon for that matter might be interested to know that Hayek spent his young adult hood chasing leftists views until he like Mamet got run over by reality......"

Such because-I-say-so cockiness is addressed by Hayek in "Why I Am Not a Conservative," which he wrote at least 15 years after his "Road to Serfdom." (and this might also address your weak attempt at a gotcha by focusing pointlessly on the exact phrase "tragic view."); another reason why he didn't wish to align himself with conservatives.

"Hitchens hasn't read the Road to Serfdom - obviously..."
You think so?

Nice work though - you did spell serfdom correctly, so that's something.

snap!

Why have you all let Scanlon derail this thread? Ignore him.

Fare thee well, Steven. I don't read Powerline like I used to, but maybe I'll change that. But you aren't actually moving to Minnesota, are you? I had you pegged for a coastal guy.

You and Hitchens are irrated by Hayek - very obvious. Enough that both of you use one article that Hayek wrote to destroy the capitalistic principles and free markets that Hayek supported in "The Road to Serfdom" . You will only read from Hayek want you want to read in order to satisfy your personal beliefs that capitalism and free markets don't work. Again you are entitled to your personal beliefs, but not the facts. Your and Hitchen's belief that socialism is the answer to the US's economic woes is not working and neither of you can see the forest through the trees. Here are some hard facts though - check out the U6 Unemployment Numbers at Obama's Department of Labor - Uemployment is at 16%. Socialism and Big Goverment doesn't work - read "The Road to Serfdom"

Hitchens used the phrase "Tragic View" not me, which does not exist in The Road to Serfdom. More fodder that Hitchens has never read the book. Hitchens called Hayek's view of capitalism a "Tragic View" without even reading the book. Typical liberal.

Neither of you have read "The Road to Serfdom", so stop your lecturing that Hayek is not conservative-leaning. Again, neither you or Hitchens have any idea of who Hayek is and what he has experienced. You read one article and think you are an expert on Hayek. No you are not.

I can spell Serfdom correctly because I live in the bluest, most liberal, and socialist state in the Union - California - which has been heading down the road of socialism faster than the whole country. And guess what - the state is broke. Liberalism doesn't work.

But I have a cure for you Scanlon - Read "The Road to Serfdom". I will buy the copy for you - just let me know where to send it....

"You and Hitchens are irrated [sic] by Hayek - very obvious. Enough that both of you use one article that Hayek wrote to destroy the capitalistic principles and free markets that Hayek supported in "The Road to Serfdom"."

Seriously, what are you talking about? Are you being purposely obtuse, or do you just have no reading comprehension abilities whatsoever? The Hayek quotes I offered weren't even about economic systems, but differing views of civilization and approaches to knowledge, and how those quotes related to Mr. Hayward and his new co-bloggers at PL. They weren't about socialism vs. capitalism. But I guess you'll see whatever you wish.

Do you have anything, anything at all, to offer other than a droning cycle of:

- Obama the bus-driver
- California the stupid state, San Francisco the stupid city
- Liberalism is a mental disease
- Name-calling and groundless speculation (e.g., "Neither of you have read "The Road to Serfdom"")

??

Craig,

First, it is uncanny that you can take a thread about Steve Hayward leaving NLT and make it all about you.

Second, if I was writing with arrogance then it was arrogance with a grin. Of course, you couldn't see that from where you are. I should be sorry to be laughing at you, except it never seems possible to be laughing with you.

Third, it is so many years, perhaps more than thirty*, since I read "Serfdom" that I cannot claim to know it anymore. I was a new conservative and I didn't enjoy the reading. I was supposed to read Hayek and I did it out of duty. I read it with frequent breaks for Agatha Christy, who I had just discovered. God knows they are absurdly linked in my mind.

Fourth, Hayek's is not the only definition for liberalism. I'll tolerate his version as part of the general definition, but do not have to accept my liberalism all on his terms. That's the difference between tolerance and the total acceptance that you seem to require when you demand that conservatives be tolerant.

(I feel like I am making a "Pete" list, while not being able to imagine Pete making this list.)


*You, note the inserted clause.

Cowgirl, I did read that Hitchens review of Mamet's book. You are quite right, and yet ... I have to admit that Hitchens is such a good writer, he made me taste his sour grapes. Think what a betrayal Mamet's conversion is if seen from a Leftist's point of view.

You may argue all you like with Craig Scanlon, but if you think of the liberalism of today as that of history, then you misunderstand what it ought to be by definition. I understand that the definitions of words change, but think in this case of the word "liberal" and its etymological roots that this is a pity. It is a good word spoiled.

"Seriously, what are you talking about? Are you being purposely obtuse, or do you just have no reading comprehension abilities whatsoever? The Hayek quotes I offered weren't even about economic systems, but differing views of civilization and approaches to knowledge, and how those quotes related to Mr. Hayward and his new co-bloggers at PL. They weren't about socialism vs. capitalism. But I guess you'll see whatever you wish."

Quit playing games. I wasn't talking about your quotes, I was talking about why you were reading Hayek.

You haven't read the book "The Road to Serfdom" because you don't like Hayek and his principles - just like Hitchens. When you read the book, let me know and we can have a discussion.

As far as what you refer to my droning cycle - that it may be, but it is all factual based.. You may not like, but you cannot offer any facts that refute any of the droning. Sucks to be you.

I do agree with you - Hitchens is a great writer, but it doesn't always make him right. He is testy and when irrated enough, as in the case of Mamet, he was extremely grumpy and actually used loosely-based facts, i.e. "Tragic View" to try and solidify his arguments. It wasn't a very pretty article.

My referrals to Scanlon as a liberal is based on today's definition of a liberal - not in the past - as Jonah Goldberg defined so well in "Liberal Facism"

"I wasn't talking about your quotes, I was talking about why you were reading Hayek."

That's obviously not the case. Here's what you said:

"...both of you use one article that Hayek wrote to destroy the capitalistic principles and free markets that Hayek supported in "The Road to Serfdom" . You will only read from Hayek want [sic] you want to read in order to satisfy your personal beliefs that capitalism and free markets don't work."

Why don't you get a grip, quit jerking your knee spasmodically, and take a couple minutes to read what I wrote about Hayek - and how it pertains to Hayward and NLT/PL conservatives? The Hayek quotes that I offered from his "Why I Am Not a Conservative" (which is more of a book chapter than an article) do not really get into capitalism or economics whatsoever. Aside from the fact that it would be ludicrous to try to utilize the ideas of Hayek to "destroy the capitalistic principles and free markets," the quotes I've offered did not even touch upon those subjects. What I offered from Hayek was about:

- conservative hostility to internationalism and conservative tendency towards nationalism (both applicable to most or all NLT and Powerline bloggers)

- the vacuousness of trying to discredit something by saying that it's "un-American" (see Mr. Hayward and his meat-eating pals wearing their "Socialism is un-American" t-shirts - with the Obama "O" campaign symbol integrated into the word socialism).

- conservative obscurantism, which I connect to the right's dismissal of global warming, as well as the right's frequent skepticism to evolution (as seen from Powerline blogger Hinderaker) - something which Hayek specifically notes and had no patience for

- conservatives' typical reliance on "supernatural forces of knowledge" to assert their authority on matters in which there are an array of differing yet valid viewpoints, as well as their anti-tolerant tendencies.

None of those things would fall under your socialism-vs.-capitalism category.

"You haven't read the book "The Road to Serfdom" because you don't like Hayek and his principles - just like Hitchens."

You are projecting. That may be your likely approach to reading and learning - only read those things that you have been told go along with your established principles - but it's not mine. If I took that approach, why do you think I would be a regular reader of NLT? I have numerous problems with most of the NLT bloggers, and their implied and stated principles, yet I still read them. I find it interesting and enlightening to read the thoughts of those I disagree with, even if I am usually left unconvinced by them.

And you have absolutely no idea what books I have or haven't read. But you enjoy ranting as if you did.

"As far as what you refer to my droning cycle - that it may be, but it is all factual based."

Yes, yes, Obama is a bus driver. Whoever said you were "low-hanging fruit" for arguments was on to something.

"First, it is uncanny that you can take a thread about Steve Hayward leaving NLT and make it all about you."

Oh, please. It's not like I've burst in on some private wine and cheese party. And I doubt he's weeping over his manly steak and pricey scotch. It was a blog post by NLT's biggest "shameless self-promot[er]" (when does the joke actually morph into reality?) - to use one of the blog's category titles. Nobody is forced to click on "comments" and if everyone follows Mr. Schramm's earlier instructions to the NLT foot soldiers, they will certainly ignore mine completely (which, you may be surprised to learn, doesn't bother me at all).

My post wasn't "about [me]" - it was about Mr. Hayward, Hayek's thoughts on conservatives and how those pertain to Mr. Hayward and a few of the things he's said and done, and about Hayward's new co-bloggers over at PL. What did I say about myself, other than later comments to clarify to cowgirl what should have been blazingly obvious from the get-go (e.g., that I wasn't trying to make Hayek into some anti-capitalist, that I like to read things that I don't agree with, etc.) ???

Further, I wasn't talking about liberalism, I was talking about Hayek's ideas on conservatives (from the appropriately titled chapter), which are quite pertinent in many ways to today's American conservatives.

I believe it's Agatha Christie, not "Christy."

Now, go and resume your virtual confetti-tossing and back-slapping.

You are correct about Agatha Christie, mis-typed and I didn't notice.

Intensely off-topic thread. Makes me smile. Adios Mr. Hayward, and congratulations!

You can bluff all you want Scanlon, but your intentions here are clear as water - to discredit Hayek and his book you never read and dislike because Beck, Palin, Malkin and bloggers at NTL refer to it when discussing why socialism doesn't work. However one only has to look to the Stupid State that I live in to know that socialism/Liberalism does not work. You are all fluff and no substance.

As far as Obama the Bus driver - Let us list the people/countries he has thrown under the bus:

Britain, Israel, his pastor of 20 years, the black community he represented as a Illinois State Senator (he managed to have the district redrawn which rid his district of poor black folk to rich, white, liberal and elitist people he could USE in order to further his political aspirations), his entire church, his positions on gun-control, gay marriage, the wars in the Middle East, and oh yeah, his white grandmother. The one who help raise him with his socialist principles while working at a large private financial institution making a pretty good salary. His socialist grandfather was an executive for an OIL company. Thus both socialists who provided their grandson the opportunity to attend private and elite schools to learn more about socialism on money made by capitalism and free markets.

As far as the low-hanging fruit , your arguments aren't even rotten low hanging fruit - they are just rotten, but there is no doubt that you are an elitist.

Oh yeah - I forgot one more person/item that our gallant leader Obama just threw under the bus

Mr. 57-states Obama screwed up the names two Medal of Honor recipients, Jared Monti who received the Medal posthumously and Sal Giunti who Obama personally placed the Medal around Giunti's neck. He mixed it up claiming in the speech that he placed the Medal of Honor around Monit's neck when in reality Mr. 57-States awarded the Medal to Monti posthumously.

The White House released a press statement basically blaming the gaffe on who else but the telepromoter - gosh you can just not make this stuff up....

Anyhow, Obama drives the bus over the teleprompter....

Keep the wind at your back and the sun on your face, Steve. Well done.

"You can bluff all you want Scanlon, but your intentions here are clear as water."

Knowing your standards for water, that's a fairly inscrutable remark:
http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2010/09/raising-boys-up.php#comment-71364

But as for your brilliance and debating style, nicely demonstrated in this thread, I'm guessing that you're on the short list to be Mr. Hayward's replacement here at NLT.

Please, who could replace him?

Oh, Kate, you're just jealous that you're not on the list - denied again! ;)

(Fear not, she probably won't get a spot - NLT only allows one token female blogger at a time.)

At some point I bet you will show up here with an biography of my life and postings. However, I will not be impressed so don't fall all over yourself writing it...

Well, if it would be a biography of your life and postings, I doubt anyone would be impressed. (I didn't really WANT to say that, but you had to go and make it so easy. It IS unsatisfying - the low-hanging fruit - I must admit. Commence hollering about my elitism, etc., etc.)

Have you ever considered the fact that I enjoy baiting you because it is so easy to get you going?

You continuously forget I live among the most liberals of all liberals and can spot one a mile away. I know exactly what to say get them going... I am obviously very good at it... Just look at you...

Before I could answer your question I would have to know what you mean by "baiting" (are you just pretending to care about Hayek's ideas, are you saying things you don't actually think or believe?) and what you mean by "get [me] going." I might be a bit baffled (can anyone really have such poor reading comprehension?) and frustrated, perhaps even annoyed, but nothing more...

I will note that such cop-outs ("Oh, I was only trying to get you going. Worked, didn't it?") are quite typical among bar-stool blowhards as they finally come to the realization that they're not winning the argument, and only their drunkest friends would even consider claiming them the victor. At the very least, it's a juvenile approach to discussion or debate - setting irritation ("getting them going") as your goal.

You are biting hard. Just to make you feel better, all my California liberal friends lose it with me also when we talk politics. I have a talent second to none, but when you are a conservative living in the bluest state in the country you learn how easily it is to irrate them. But you can always calm them down with a doobie or two.

Actually, cowgirl, you are the one who's been played - quite thoroughly. I hereby declare checkmate.

See I am getting to you. What is your poison - weed, gold, power skunk or maybe a little soapstone.... Then a little happy trails for you...

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/16769