Now and Then: Reflections on the War on Terrorism and the War on Communism

Now we are in a state of war against terrorism. My gut, instinctive, reasoned, first, and last responses to Bush's war on terrorism have been negative. The Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the transformation of airports into post offices, corporate subsidies (e.g., airlines) and especially nation building and foreign wars, in my opinion, are all wrong. Yet many writers whom I had respected in the past are gung ho in favor of these policies. For example, I have been a great admirer of William Buckley and I have subscribed to National Review for almost 20 years. Yet NR's support of the Iraq war in particular has prompted me to let my subscription lapse. A primary reason I believed in NR then was its vociferous anti-communism. So the current debate among so-called conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, and libertarians (not to mention liberals, socialists, and leftists in general) regarding the war now, has given me significant pause for reflection on the war on communism and what I thought then.

Bear with me for the following personal account that would qualify for Walter Block's archive of libertarian autobiographies, except that I am an unknown and perhaps not a full-blooded libertarian. Depending upon my mood and the topic at hand I describe myself as a reactionary libertarian or a libertarian reactionary.

I grew up apolitical with a much greater interest in the Cubs than any political party. However, I was a good reader, with a keen interest in history, especially the civil war, but had no overall direction. In college I was an engineering student and managed to graduate without taking any courses in history, political science or economics (the exception being engineering economics which focuses on applications of the time value of money). Evidence regarding my lack of political convictions from this period was my vote for the bland, non-entity John Anderson in the 1980 presidential election.

During the 80's I became interested in political issues. I had watched Buckley on Firing Line for a number of years. I was impressed with his erudition and that of his guests. I do not recall understanding his politics. I did not know NR existed. While in graduate school, it seems for the first time, I began to have political discussions. I found myself taking the conservative line on most issues. In 1984 I voted for Reagan. I learned of NR from my academic advisor and started reading his old issues. Upon reading the memorial issue for James Burnham I decided to take out my own subscription to the magazine. Under the influence of NR I read virtually everything by Whitaker Chambers, many books by Burnham, of course more by Buckley, as well as more traditional conservative classics such as The Federalist Papers, DeTocqueville’s Democracy in America, and Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.

One of my favorite haunts during graduate school at Duke University was Perkins Library. There was a display in the lobby that contained the favorite books of individuals who had made donations to the library. The latest book by Buckley was in the display. A short caption mentioned that this was always the current favorite of Ruth Matthews. It also mentioned that she had worked at NR and lived in Durham. I admired Buckley and NR so much that I asked for her number from the library staff and invited her to lunch. We had lunch on that occasion and many more times as we became great friends.

I had expected to meet a retired secretary who might be able to tell me tales of Buckley, Chambers, Burnham, etc. She was much more than a secretary, being a writer and a scholar in her own right. Her late husband J. B. Matthews was well known but is now obscure. It was her donation of his papers that made her a Friend of the Library. In many ways he was an archetype of the 30s intellectual who turned against communism. He reminds me of Chambers in that the source of his socialist ideas was the great sympathy he felt for his fellow human beings. He eventually realized that far from being a salve for the human condition, socialism is a virus that destroys people, and then had the integrity and courage to fight what he had previously been fighting for. By the 50s he was given the moniker Mr. Anti-Communist and J. B. and Ruth maintained a right-wing salon in their New York penthouse. Frequent visitors included Ayn Rand and Joseph McCarthy, among many other writers, politicians, and anti-communists from other walks of life.

During the administration of Bush senior my interest in economics began to grow. Primarily because the economists were so consistently wrong. Compared to engineering calculation, I thought economic calculation was disastrous. I determined to study the subject. On one occasion visiting Ruth's apartment I noticed a book titled Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, sitting on her coffee table. I had never heard of the author, Ludwig von Mises, but Ruth told me they had been close friends. Margit von Mises mentions Ruth in her book about her life with Ludwig. I borrowed and read Human Action; thus I began to study economics and started on the road to libertarianism. Passages like the one below substantiated my observation that the numerical modelers were now, and always would be, fundamentally in error.

The very idea that the future is predictable, that some formulas could be substituted for the specific understanding which is the essence of entrepreneurial activity, and that familiarity with these formulas could make it possible for anybody to take over the conduct of business is, of course, an outgrowth of the whole complex of fallacies and misconceptions which are at the bottom of present-day anticapitalistic policies. (Retrieved from http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap38sec3.asp, October 4, 2004.)

I was hooked on Mises. I read many more of his works as well as those of Friedrich von Hayek. Ruth gave me a subscription to the Rothbard-Rockwell Report. I read many more books and publications from the Ludwig von Mises Institute and now read LewRockwell.com regularly.

Thus for me Buckley, through Ruth, led to Mises. Now I wonder, was my appreciation and affection for the anti-communists ill conceived. I believe Mises' critique of socialism is correct, that without economic calculation production would collapse. But would that economic collapse alone necessarily lead to the political and military collapse of the Communist party in the Soviet Union? Were the anti-communists statists like Bush, who used the Cold War to enhance government power? Did they sing the same siren song of most (all?) democratic governments? "You are in danger, I will protect you if you give me power," where the danger is overblown. If there is a legitimate balance between security and liberty, what are the risks posed by the conspiracy movement of international jihadist Islam compared to the former conspiracy movement of international communism? The last question of comparison brings to mind several more questions for analysis.

What is the homeland military threat? The Soviets had a large arsenal of nuclear weapons aimed at the US and were a leading sponsor of terrorism. However, I do not know of any terrorist acts they committed on US soil beyond killing their own or defectors. Of course the Islamic jihadists accomplished 9/11, and threaten more terrorism. But it seems to me they pose is no true military threat.

What is the international military threat? All over the world communist military forces were active and the list of countries absorbed into the communist empire continued to swell well into the 70s. At present there is no military threat to the West, as there are only a couple of regimes, most notably Iran, which could be described as Islamic jihadist, and their militaries are regional powers at most.

What is the homeland threat for revolution? International conspiracy movements are more inclined to incite revolutions than to overt military action. Communists have had and continue to have tremendous influence on virtually all aspects of life in this country. In the 30s it seemed that the workers, led by the intellectuals, could turn the US into a communist country. They infiltrated virtually all the institutions including the highest levels of government. The Islamic jihadists have virtually no influence with the vast majority of Americans.

What is the international threat for revolution? As mentioned above, the communists were very active and the communist empire continued to grow up until only a decade before it collapsed, most often through revolutionary movements. There is a major threat of Islamic revolution within Islamic countries; however, there is no threat in the rest of the world.

Perhaps the biggest threat to the West by the Islamic jihadists is their potential for controlling, or a least disrupting, the flow of oil. But the communists, through their global influence, probably posed at least as much of a threat.

Thus I believe communism and communists were a much greater threat to the US and the West than that posed by the Islamic jihadists. Furthermore, this threat would have been present independent of American imperialism, as communist imperialism started at least as far back as Marx; e.g., "Workers of the world unite." In contrast, the Islamic threat is somewhat overblown and is the direct result of American imperialism.

These preliminary conclusions lead me to believe that some form of anti-communism was justified; but certainly some anti-communists did aggrandize the state. I still believe that communism was and is terrible; however, my understanding of history has changed. I now realize, what I did not then, that virtually all wars begin with lies and only achieve mixed results at best. So now I know that the terrorists are wrong, but our government is a greater threat to the blood and treasure of this country.

October 12, 2004