Articles
Along Pennsylvania Avenue, by
Aubrey Herbert,
Faith and Freedom, Sep 1955
After some comments on politics and politicians, covers the debate over the TVA from both Republican and Democrat sides and finds a libertarian voice in a young Republican, ending with remarks on regulatory mischief at the Civil Aeronautics Board
In our television era, politicians—like soap—are "sold" to the public in attractive and gaudy packages. Unlike soap, however, we never get a chance to unwrap and test the contents of the package. When we gauge an office seeker by his smile or by the charm he gives off, we chase a will-o'-the-wisp. We poor voters, bombarded by press releases and staged TV appearances, can't know a man's true character. We can only judge his policies, for different policies cause different results. So we must learn to tell the difference between a man's smile and his ideas.
The Ethics of Voting: Part Three [PDF], by
George H. Smith,
The Voluntaryist, Apr 1983
Examines, among other things, whether a libertarian can be employed by or hold office in a State entity
A particular Senator (e.g., a libertarian) may never actually vote for a tax bill, but he has the legal right nonetheless. The privilege resides in the office. A person elected to high political office allies himself with the power of leviathan. He voluntarily seeks and successfully achieves the privileges of political office which permit him to aggress against his neighbors—privileges enforced by the State. Such a person is a dangerous threat to innocent persons everywhere ... The protest of the libertarian office-holder—that he intends to use his power for beneficent ends—is beside the point.
The Ethics of Voting: Part Two [PDF], by
George H. Smith,
The Voluntaryist, Dec 1982
An analysis of the State as an institution, the latter term being used "in a broad sense to designate a widely recognized and stabilized method of pursuing a social activity"
I have attempted to show what it means to say that an anarchist politician contributes to State injustice merely by filling a role (i.e., holding political office). I have attemped to show why the intentions of the politician are irrelevant ... Political offices are indispensable roles in the State apparatus; and ... anyone who fills these roles contributes, however inadvertently, to the State process (monopoly of power) and product (sovereignty) ... Thus the anarchist politician is like the auto worker who claims to be building a boat, and who professes surprise when a car comes out anyway against his wishes.
Loving Ambiguity, by
Charley Reese,
LewRockwell.com, 19 Feb 2007
Demonstrates why politicians like ambiguous phrases by relating a call to the State Department to inquire about the U.S. "national interest" in the Sudan
I have two phrases that I bet you can't define off the top of your head. They are "national security" and "national interests." Politicians love these phrases precisely because they are both ambiguous and iconic almost in a religious sense. Who, after all, would wish to do anything to harm national security or fail to do what was necessary for our national interests? It pays, however, to always define your terms. If politicians were honest, it shouldn't be difficult to define both phrases, but try to get them to do it.
Machiavelli and U.S. Politics Part 1: Pattern and Perception, by
Lawrence M. Ludlow,
FFF.org, 15 Aug 2005
Begins an examination of
The Prince in relation to current U.S. practices by providing background on Machiavelli and selected advice quotations
It is easy to see ... the workings of the lie, hypocrisy, and half-truth. The lie is that politicians have our interests at heart. Their real intention is the monopolization of power. The hypocrisy is that they—most undeniably human—give themselves permission to do precisely what is forbidden to the rest of us as they act on their own behalf and ours. Finally, the half-truth is that people do indeed make mistakes—some more than others. This is something about which politicians remind us incessantly when we try to act on our own account. They ignore it, however, when they are the actors.
Machiavelli and U.S. Politics Part 5: War Crimes and Atrocities, by
Lawrence M. Ludlow,
FFF.org, 24 Aug 2005
Continues the examination of Machiavelli's
The Prince, focusing on what he wrote about war and finding parallels with recent U.S. policy
U.S. politicians claimed that the napalm and Agent Orange used in Vietnam, the sanctions against Iraq, and Operation Iraqi Freedom itself were designed to topple the leaders of evil regimes ... When accused of encouraging these crimes and other acts of torture, politicians resort to "damage control." To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, they create a plausible half-truth as a cover story. They tell us the crimes were "isolated acts" and were confined to a few "bad apples." Then they sponsor sham investigations that—it is not surprising—discover wrongdoing only among the lowest ranks of soldiers.
The Mugging of Murtha, by
Justin Raimondo, 17 Nov 2006
Comments on how the the U.S. congressional Democrats, after having gained control of both houses in the 2006 elections, chose Steny Hoyer instead of John Murtha as House majority leader
Now we hear talk of a "final push," a sudden increase in the number of troops to leave some sort of semi-permanent imprint on the chaos. How many more have to die in order to save the face of the Washington know-it-alls? This once again underlines the basic principle at the heart of any peace movement worthy of the name: put not your trust in politicians. The people voted to get us out of Iraq, and instead the Democrats will stand idly by – at best – while we get in deeper. They can concentrate on extending the welfare state and wait for the Baker Commission to somehow magically come up with a comfortably "bipartisan" solution.
The Politicians Are Scaring You Again, by
Sheldon Richman, 16 Oct 2014
Comments on scaremongering efforts by Obama administration as well as opposition offiicials in order to gain support for military action against the Islamic State
They are doing it again. "They" are the war-party politicians, Democrats and Republicans. "It" is scaring you into supporting another war in the Middle East. When will the American people learn? If in a republic the people are the ultimate check on government power, a gullible, easily frightened public is a disaster waiting to happen. Where is the derisive skepticism Americans are reputed to feel toward politicians? ... Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), for example, goes to absurd lengths to frighten Americans ... He forecast the deaths of hundreds of millions of Americans if something drastic is not done.
The Surveillance State Lives, by
Sheldon Richman, 21 Jan 2014
Examines Obama's 17 Jan 2014 speech "Remarks by the President on Review of Signals Intelligence" announcing some "reforms" to surveillance programs
In sizing up Obama's "reforms" of the indiscriminate gathering of data on every American, remember this: Politicians will do everything they can get away with in pursuit of their own agenda. To them, liberty and privacy are unimportant, things to be gotten around with the minimum of public attention. Should the public get wind of some untoward thing the politicians are up to—as it did, thanks to Edward Snowden—they will put on a public-relations show to lull the people back to sleep, enabling the state once again to go about its unsavory business unobserved.
A Tribute to John T. Flynn, by
John T. Flynn, Adam Young, 31 Jan 2003
Biographical overview followed by quotes from Flynn's writings on Franklin Roosevelt, Roosevelt's monument, the New Deal, the Second World War and the Roosevelt myth
On Roosevelt the Man:There was really nothing complex about Roosevelt. He was of a well-known type found in every city and state in political life. He is the wellborn, rich gentleman with a taste for public life, its importance and honors, who finds for himself a post in the most corrupt political machines, utters in campaigns and interviews the most pious platitudes about public virtue while getting his own dividends out of public corruption one way or another. In any case, they are a type in which the loftiest sentiments and pretensions are combined with a rather lowgrade political conscience.
Interviews
Interview with James Buchanan, by
James M. Buchanan,
The Region, Sep 1995
Topics include
The Calculus of Consent, public choice theory, monetary policy and the Federal Reserve
Buchanan: ... [C]ommon sense tells you that a politician is very much like the rest of us. A politician who's seeking office or seeking to remain in office ... wants to go back to a constituency and tell them that he's either lowered their taxes, or he's brought them program benefits. You plug that into politics and you have a natural proclivity of a politician to create deficits. Then the question comes along: Why didn't we have deficits before? You see the Keynesian economic revolution gave the politicians an excuse for deficits. You give politicians half an excuse ...
The Plowboy Interview: Karl Hess, by
Karl Hess, Anson Mount,
Mother Earth News, Jan 1976
Karl Hess interview in issue No. 37, Jan/Feb 1976, shortly after his book
Dear America (1975) had become a bestseller, questions him about the switch from right wing conservatism to the New Left
HESS: ... You don't have to do anything to write speeches for politicians. You don't have to know anything. You don't even have to think. All you have to do is be glib and invent great phrases. Historic phrases. You see, all politicians want to go down in the history books. Right? And history books are written, by and large (chuckle), by idiots. And idiots look for meaningless but good-sounding phrases. That's why all political administrations have to have slogans. All except the good ones, that is ... Like what was George Washington's administration called? Or Jefferson's? Madison's?
