Party
Hacks, Propagandists and Apologists
by
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
DIGG THIS
In his
treatise Human
Action, Ludwig von Mises made many sage comments about the
conduct of research not only in economics but in sociology, psychology,
history, and other disciplines. One of his comments on the study
of history seems particularly relevant to the literature that I
have been focusing on for several years, namely, the political economy
of the War Between the States. Consider the following statement
from page 48 of the Scholar’s Edition of Human Action (Mises
Institute, 1998), in a section entitled "The Scope and Specific
Method of History":
It is obvious
that the historian must not be biased by any prejudices and party
tenets. Those writers who consider historical events as an arsenal
of weapons for the conduct of their party feuds are not historians
but propagandists and apologists. They are not eager to acquire
knowledge but to justify the program of their parties . . . .
They usurp the name of history for their writings as a blind in
order to deceive the incredulous.
I was reminded
of this passage recently when a friend sent me an email link that
included the announcement of the 2007 "Lincoln Fellows"
at the Claremont Institute, the shrine in California devoted to
the worshipping of Abe Lincoln and Winston Churchill. The Institute
said it was proud to announce its latest Lincoln Fellows, who will
be treated to eight days of indoctrination this summer in Newport
Beach, California. There is no pretense that this "fellowship"
program is a scholarly endeavor. The first line of the announcement
says "Lincoln Fellowships are offered to professionals serving
elected officials or appointed policy makers in the federal government,
as well as staff members of national political parties, non-profit
institutions that research and publish on public policy and constitutional
issues, and political editorialists in the media." Political
hacks, propagandists and apologists, in other words.
This of course
is an untrue statement. Claremont’s Lincoln Fellowships are intended
for Republican Party hacks, propagandists and apologists
only (or a few wayward Democrats who, like the odious Joe Lieberman,
support the neoconservative foreign policy agenda of world domination,
imperialism, and perpetual global warfare). "Alumni" of
the program are said to include "senior staff of United States
Representatives and Senators, White House staff and speech writers,
and senior advisors in numerous U.S. [government] Departments and
agencies. Indeed, a California newspaper editor recently mentioned
to me that Claremont staffer Ken Masugi has left the shrine to work
as a speech writer for Alberto "Torture Chamber" Gonzalez.
This makes
perfect sense. You are not likely to find anything Masugi has ever
written being used as scholarly input at any university in America
outside of Claremont, California. But like all other Claremontistas,
he is capable of inserting out-of-context and a-historical quotes
from Lincoln (whom he habitually calls "Father Abraham")
into a politician’s speeches to give "the incredulous"
the impression that the politician’s policies would meet with Dishonest
Abe’s approval.
I suspect
that Masugi will inform Gonzalez of the passage in the book, Fate
of Liberty, by fellow Lincoln cultist Mark Neely, Jr., where
Neely describes how the Lincoln regime employed its own torture
chambers, which included water torture, among other things. According
to Neely, the torture of Northern civilians, not enemy soldiers,
was exposed when a British subject was subjected to it by mistake
and the British foreign minister protested and demanded the man’s
release (he had been unjustly imprisoned without due process since
Habeas Corpus was suspended by Dishonest Abe). Despite the fact
that this barbaric behavior was revealed to the public, Lincoln
did nothing to stop it according to Neely. It’s a good bet that
this story will be fed to Alberto Gonzalez at some point. If "Father
Abraham" did it, then it surely must be acceptable.
Looking over
the list of this year’s Claremontista Lincoln Fellows, there appears
to be a preference in favor of spies, spooks, Defense Department
propagandists, and Republican Party hacks and hangers on in general.
There’s a "Strategic Planning Commissioner" from the U.S.
Department of Defense, no doubt a junior member of the Pentagon
Cheney gang. The treasurer of the California Republican Party will
be honing his Lincoln-quoting skills as well (perhaps with an Austrian
accent). The California director of the Republican Jewish Coalition
with a background in the "Naval Intelligence Reserves"
will also engage in Lincoln fellowship.
A "Director
for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council,"
formerly with the U.S. State Department, will be indoctrinated in
neoconservative political correctness this summer, as will a former
bureaucrat at the wasteful, useless, and scandal-ridden Department
of Homeland Security. They will be joined by a former "Senior
Writer at the Republican National Committee," and a few bureaucrats
from the Bush State Department and the Defense Intelligence Agency
(a.k.a., the Neocon War Propaganda Agency).
All of the
fellows will be treated to a week of seminars on "the theory
and literature of the American founding, the statesmanship of Abraham
Lincoln, and the rise of modern liberalism . . ." Judging by
everything I’ve ever read by Claremont Cult Leader Harry Jaffa,
which is simply repeated over and over by his acolytes, what the
fellows will be taught, essentially, is the fake and mythical "history"
of the American founding that was first concocted by Alexander Hamilton
and repeated by fellow nationalists (advocates of a centralized,
monopolistic government with dictatorial executive powers) such
as John Marshall, Joseph Story, Rufus King, Daniel Webster, Henry
Clay, and Dishonest Abe. Short shrift – if any shrift at all – will
be given to the anti-nationalists, also known as the anti-Federalists
or Jeffersonians.
Hamilton revealed
the nationalists’ hand at the constitutional convention, where he
proposed a president for life (i.e., a king) who would appoint all
the governors of the states and have veto power over all state legislation.
Under this scheme the citizens of the states would have no control
whatsoever over the central government, just has the American colonists
had no control over the government of King George, III.
Hamilton’s
plan was discarded, after which he denounced the Constitution as
a "frail and worthless fabric." But he and his (Federalist)
party did not give up. They immediately began rewriting history
claiming, for example, that the states were never sovereign, that
the Constitution was adopted by "the whole people" of
America, not the citizens of the states. This is part of the Claremontista
dogma, but it is probably the biggest lie in all of American history.
The purpose of the lie was to use this mythical "history"
to propagandize for Hamilton’s dream of a monopolistic central government.
All political power must be centralized in the nation’s capitol,
the Federalists argued, and the citizens of the states must not
interfere. They believed that the central government should be the
master, rather than the servant, of the people. (All to serve "the
public good," one of Hamilton’s favorite phrases.) The Jeffersonians
believed the opposite. (See The
Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution by Kevin
Gutzman for an overview of this history.)
The Federalists
became the Whigs in the 1830s, and then the Republicans in the 1850s
(and thereafter). It is telling that during the War to Prevent Southern
Independence, European commentators on the war, including such luminaries
as Charles Dickens and John Stuart Mill, quite naturally referred
to the Northern Army in their writings as the army of "the
Federalists" (see Charles Adams’ new book, Slavery,
Secession, and Civil War).
The Big Lie
about the "whole people" adopting the Constitution, and
the citizens of the "free and independent states," as
they are called in the Declaration of Independence, never being
sovereign, is the false "history" of the founding that
is taught at Claremont. It is not actual history, but a modern rendition
of the Big Hamiltonian (and Lincoln) lie. It was the lie that was
invoked by Dishonest Abe as his "justification" for micromanaging
a war that killed 300,000 of his fellow citizens, all for the abstraction
of "the glorious union," which finally realized the Hamiltonian
dream of a monopolistic central government with unlimited powers.
But
as Judge Andrew Napolitano pointed out in his book, The
Constitution in Exile (p. 49), all one needs to do to expose
this lie is to read Article VII of the Constitution: "The Ratification
of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment
of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
The Constitution "was not approved by the people in the form
of a national plebiscite," writes Napolitano. This is true
American history, unlike the version that is spouted at Claremont.
This
is just one of the bigger lies that will be taught to the Republican
Party propagandists and apologists at Claremont this summer, all
in the name of "recovering" the "moral conditions
of free society," as their press release says.
July
5, 2007
Thomas
J. DiLorenzo [send him mail]
professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the
author of The
Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
Unnecessary War,
(Three Rivers Press/Random House). His
latest book is Lincoln
Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe
(Crown Forum/Random House).
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Thomas
DiLorenzo Archives at LRC
Thomas
DiLorenzo Archives at Mises.org
|