Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was a principle architect of the “Reagan Revolution,” as an assistant secretary of the Treasury during that time. He led an assault on “keynesian” economics that led to the ascension of “monetarism,” a view of economics that has come to dominate in the current globalist, free market theory capitalism of floating national currencies.
So what was Dr. Roberts doing on talk radio last week, sounding every bit as strident and defiant as your run of the mill BooTribbing Daily Kossack?
Did he really call for international war crimes trials for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al.?
Did he really say that?
Uh, yeah.
Perhaps Boo should consider running more features on the growing list of well known conservative dissidents. They seem to me capable of making more profoundly damning statements about the failure of this administration than any number of notable liberal/progressive dissidents ever could. Statements that will resonate more successfully within the uneasy minds of the Rebumblican faithful, who are always only a recession away from abandoning conservative “principles” anyway.
They are out there, some hiding under rocks maybe, but some becoming bolder as the bumbling by the administration grows ever more noticeable by a small but growing legion of the formally-committed-to-anything-Republican Republicans, who now seem to be experiencing a very belated and long overdue case of buyers remorse about the primate in chief and his tragically simple minded view of the world.
For heroes, as Steven D has pointed out on the front page, are not that many and often stem from unlikely places…
I’ve been reading Paul Craig Roberts for over a year at Anti War.com along with another “unlikely” dissedent, Rep. Ron Paul (R) Tx. You can find them in the “additional contributor” list on the right of the front page.
I have to disagree that thier statement will resonate more clearly. Not with republicans anyway. Craig is viewed for the most part as a traitor to the party by the right, or at least the more extreme of those on the right, which afterall seems to be about 90% of them these days. I’ve seen him savaged on right wing blogs and websites like Free Republic and Redstate.
I you dont mean to pick on you because you consistently converse in my diary threads and I appreciate it, but you immediately jump to the conclusion that the fire breathers wont listen to Roberts (I agree)and that the fire eaters compose 90% or so of the Republicans.
I dont agree there. In fact, many, maybe even most republican voters are not fire eaters. They are pretty much like Democratic voters in the middle, and the progressive left is only harming itself by turning them into fire breathers when they are not. Its not just you, I see it all the time on all the Daily Kos and clone blogs.
Demonize them and they are less likely to hear us. If they dont hear us they will never reject the failed path.
I see the worm turning here pretty clearly away from the Rebumblican Right way, but it seems not to be turning to the Progressive Left way either.
Maybe this is a little example of why.
It is true though that 90% of Republicans get their news from Fox and Rush and both of them have demonized Roberts… so that’s why he now posts exclusively on “far left” sites… antiwar.com, counterpunch, etc. He even wrote a piece about his demonization and that he is considered a traitor by the right. That’s not making stuff up, it’s just a fact. And we do ourselves no service by not acknowledging how much influence Fox and talk radio have on Republicans… maybe not 90% of them, but a lot of them.
Actually I would say its closer to the truth that 90% of americans dont even pay attention to the news, political news, especially. Its closer to the truth to say 90% of all americans think both Republican and Democratic politicians are idiots and/or grifters of the highest order.
But that doesnt really advance any conversation or any voter realignment either.
The 90% rule seems to be in effect today.
granted. but how does your diary calling for more antiwar voices on a liberal site advance that either?
not meaning to be rude, just asking the question since you opened the door.
You are not being rude and your question has merit.
The point i am trying to make, however badly, is that more voices with more perspectives would be a good thing on this or any blog. Its a long time btwn elections, big news events, etc. The insularity of blogging viewpoints gets pretty boring pretty fast. And neither side is talking to the other, hence nothing really occurs, like when a tree falls and no one hears it.
Those two ex CIA guys are ok, but lets go a step farther. How about a guest slot for Roberts here. Invite him or some other noted political personage to converse with us in an open forum. Or some such other figures from the right/left/outer space. Like Kinky Friedman, or the Redstate editor, or soemthing. A frank exchange of views. That would be cool and different, and also inclusionary.
Who know, maybe even transcendent on occasion.
I think that’s a great idea…
Boo…
Susan…
😉
I agree with you about the percentage of apathy, and about the finding of common. The thing that is missing here though,. to my mind, is to GET voter “realignment” through the inspiring those who don’t vote — give ’em something to vote FOR. Idiots and grifters abound on both sides, here, there and everywhere, people need to get involved — probably preaching at the choir here, but I just had to post, since I actually agreed with you!
😉
One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that libertarians tend to be pretty consistently anti-war. Justin Raimondo is as good an exempar of that as anyone. Certainly, when I was first starting to vote back in the mid 1980s, it was Libertarian candidates who often impressed me the most regarding straight talk on issues like nuclear war and military expenditures. Folks like Dr. Roberts remind me an awful lot of my dad – the so-called paleocons. Most of the paleocons I’ve run into generally too are skeptical about getting the nation involved in wars (my dad for example, would count WWII as the last war that was arguably worth going into), and a number of them have been none too pleased about the latest Mess O’Potamia.
I have my share of differences with the libertarians and paleocons on plenty of issues, but I do see plenty of common ground when it comes to the anti-war movement, where I think they’d make good allies.
Yes. I also am in agreement with Libertarian views of immigration and drugs. As in above comment to Supersoling, I believe we should be searching for more common ground with more Bush voters in more ways. Paleocons are a good point. Every time I see or read one now I think, we are closer to agreement than he/her are with Bush.
I know I will be accused again of being a hated Centrist, and deluding myself, or being deluded by Rovian media trickery, etc. but unless we are planning armed insurrection here (thats a laugh in itself)we must decide: influence and possibly win elections or stay transfixed in the lose/grouse pattern of the insular (and too often irrelevant) lefty blogs?