Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

Book Cover_0

How, he asks, can Krauthammer say that these are “great achievements,” and that conservatives accept them? Unlike Krauthammer, McCarthy, like many of the Hillsdale College group of conservatives and those from the Claremont Institute as well, believes that the Progressive Era of Woodrow Wilson and FDR’s subsequent New Deal were both the start of “the centralized welfare state,” which McCarthy says no mainstream Republican accepts. McCarthy argues not against “social welfare for the truly needy,” which he asserts should be left to the states and most likely private charities, rather than to the central government, which is intrinsically an abuse of the U.S. Constitution.

Krauthammer, as he makes clear himself, moved from Left to Right because he dissented from the big-government liberalism he once adhered to. As he writes in an introduction to his new book, excerpted in NRO, first he began to change his views because of the foreign policy of the Democratic Party, whose adherents “went even further left” than they had been in the ’60s by the 1970s and ’80s. On domestic policy, he writes, the Democratic Party  “remained true to itself. I changed.” What changed him is his understanding, based on empirical evidence, that “the results of the Great Society experiments started coming in and began showing that, for all its good intentions, the War on Poverty was causing irreparable damage to the very communities it was designed to help.” So now, he writes, he supports “a vision of limited government that, while providing for the helpless, is committed above all to guaranteeing individual liberty and the pursuit of one’s own Millian ‘ends of life.’”

What Krauthammer understands, and what Andy McCarthy disagrees with, is that liberalism developed programs with wide bi-partisan support that did things like end child labor, and instituted programs like Social Security, which at its start was not meant as a welfare program but as aid to elderly retirees that would be based on funds taken from their own paychecks that would be given to them upon retirement, and that seemed to be feasible when the average age of death was 62 years.

Now, as he tells Jon Stewart, the current programs are fiscally impossible to sustain, and are bound to bankrupt the government and produce even more insoluble problems in the future. He makes a distinction between the early programs that he finds defensible and positive, while McCarthy believes that all of them are “prosperity killers” and basically unconstitutional and unnecessary.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (16)
All Comments   (16)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my neighbor's half-sister makes $87/hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for five months but last month her pay was $12080 just working on the internet for a few hours. pop over to these guys======================= www.fb29.com
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
So why is this character assassin being given a platform here? http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2008-01-01.html
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
They let you on, didn't they?
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I beg your pardon?
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Beg away, you won't get it. You call Ron Radosh a character assassin and then link to an article that calls Ron a "half-wit"? Coulter complains that Ron questioned her character, but for all her bluster and bluff, offers no evidence of that at all. So I restate, the only one engaged in character assassination on this thread is you. I expect that won't remain the case, because the far right now has little other than character assassination left in its idea-less crusade to role back everything to Cal Coolidge and beyond. The list of victims knitted into the sweaters includes not only McCain, Graham and the usual suspects, but now Rubio, Scott Walker, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan, Christie, and many other once true blue conservatives now deemed beyond the pale and subject routinely here to character assassination as RINOS, sell-outs, even traitors. Routinely. I wish it would stop. It is thoroughly destructive of any real conservatism. But don't give me "I beg your pardon."
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thanks for demonstrating that Radosh's sycophants aren't all that good with facts or reading comprehension. Though the article is posted on Coulter's site, she didn't write it. M. Stanton Evans, the victim of Radosh's smear, did. It's inane that you falsely claim he "offers no evidence," which the piece is jam-packed with, but here's the key passage for the character assassin charge:

"At one point, discussing the Amerasia case of 1945 in which official documents were funneled to a pro-Red publication and the facts about this hidden from the public, Radosh writes, 'Evans tries hard to make it appear the cover-up was something he discovered.' (No evidence is presented for this snide assertion, nor could it be, for none exists.) Even worse, in referring to a book he and Prof. Harvey Klehr published on the Amerasia case in 1996, Radosh parenthetically says this was 'a book from which Evans takes virtually all of his material and which he does not acknowledge.' This vicious statement is an astounding, and outrageous, lie. My documentation of the Amerasia fix, cover-up, grand-jury rigging, wiretapping, and so on is derived from the files of the FBI here in Washington, several thousand pages of which I have in my possession, accumulated over a span of years. It owes nothing to the Klehr-Radosh book, as may readily be seen by scanning my end-notes and comparing these to their annotations, which are based on an entirely different indexing system, so that one isn’t transposable to the other.

"On the merits of the Klehr-Radosh book itself, I should add that I have the utmost respect for Harvey Klehr, an eminent scholar of these matters, and gave the book a favorable review when it appeared a decade ago — even though I am personally criticized in it (a rare experience, I should think, in book-reviewing circles). But I derived none of my FBI documentation from it, provide material that isn’t featured in it, and conversely don’t cover matters that it covers because my materials differed in form and content from those collected at Emory University, which has its own archive of FBI files pertaining to Amerasia, a main source of the Klehr-Radosh data.

"(A single overlapping item from this source, unrelated to the fix or the FBI, is a photo of Lattimore et al., obtained by my publisher from Emory with full and proper acknowledgment given.)"
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, so it was Evans not Coulter who called Ron a "half-wit." (Coulter only facilitated the smear.)

None of what you provide here about what Evans says Ron Radosh says, all mere assertion on Evans' part anyway, describes Ron Radosh making a stupid ad hominem attack such as yours and Evans' in labeling Radosh a "character assassin" or a "half-wit." That you cannot distinguish between substantive criticisms of the work someone does from attacks on that person's character suggests you should ease up on the snide remarks about MY reading comprehension problems. As for calling me a "sycophant," well, par for the course from someone so bothered by character assassination. Go look in the mirror, friend.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
"all mere assertion on Evans' part anyway"

Perhaps, though (a) Evans provides more than enough detail to verify his defense by going back to the relevant books, and (b) considering how much Andy McCarthy's responses to this post show Radosh getting wrong, when forced to choose between the two, Evans has more credibility.

And if you're seriously suggesting that Radosh falsely accusing Evans of stealing work isn't character assassination against Evans, or that it doesn't reflect badly on Radosh's character......well, then you're even dumber -- or more dishonest -- than I thought.

Call that an ad hominem attack if you wish; that doesn't make it untrue.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
"The New Deal was, whatever its flaws, a response to an overwhelming catastrophe, national as well as international in scope. The states were all but powerless to contend with it by themselves, as FDR knew well, having been governor of the most powerful of the states and having tried to cope with relief and employment programs in that state to little avail. Roosevelt himself was as ideologically opposed to the mere dole and to welfare dependency as any conservative and resisted mightily pressures to dole out cash and unbalance budgets.

As to Republicans back then being opposed only to federal constitutional overreach, I would like Mr. McCarthy to detail for me the conservative Republican state programs of the 1930s to revive the economy and help the destitute. In fact, as Charles Krauthammer correctly put it, they opposed FDR's program vigorously while offering NOTHING in its place but bromides and platitudes, a tragic fact that is now being repeated by the Tea Party wing of the movement. It is dismaying in the extreme to see what was in fact a potentially break-through moment for a rational conservatism (the Krauthammer-Stewart interchange) get this shabby treatment on NRO"


Well, WWII had high manufacturing demand, and this is what brought the US out but in those
days no outsourcing or heavily use of robots or automation. Think the political heyday of Repbulcians in places like San Deigo and Orange County was when they supported aerospace firms.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is more moderation and progressivism remaining in Krauthammer, in my view, than this essay suggests. CK is still opposed to the Tea Party. See http
The problem with the Tea party is some like Ron Paul and other libertarians, defense cut radicals. Some defense spending is stupid but as I mention below Reagan was able to do better in the west with it.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well Reagan was the last beside George H to do good in California. Ronnie did higher in the OC at 67 percent while Romney got only 53 percent in Orange County Ca. Ronnie pushed defense spending thru the root and in 1990 La had 189,000 people working in Aerospace, Orange 42,000 and San Diego 28,700 thousands by 2011 La down to 59,200 and Orange to 15,000 and San Diego to 11,500. Aerospace direct pays 30,000 more than regular manufacturing, why not support a reversal of the sequestarion on military and streamline commerical aircraft for more producation and developed private space like Space X and so forth. In fact in 1990 1,105,800 aerospace versus 2011 in 663,800. Most aerospace companies pay health benefits. Granted, there is some outsourcing and automation but why not counter the left with jobs that pay decent.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
I got to this excellent take by Ron Radosh after reading McCarthy's piece earlier and commenting on it. So to save trouble, I will post the same comment here - just so I can get attacked in the same way by the same rightwing knee-jerk current that is running strongly there. sadly.

To McCarthy on NRO
Aside from being plain wrong to claim that the New Deal was a fraud "designed to create permanent dependency on government," this claim is also fanciful beyond belief to say the least in its political implications now. To the degree the conservative movement clings to a rhetoric of rolling back the New Deal and all welfare state functions of the federal government, it will cling to its increasing marginalization and ultimate demise.

The New Deal was, whatever its flaws, a response to an overwhelming catastrophe, national as well as international in scope. The states were all but powerless to contend with it by themselves, as FDR knew well, having been governor of the most powerful of the states and having tried to cope with relief and employment programs in that state to little avail. Roosevelt himself was as ideologically opposed to the mere dole and to welfare dependency as any conservative and resisted mightily pressures to dole out cash and unbalance budgets.

As to Republicans back then being opposed only to federal constitutional overreach, I would like Mr. McCarthy to detail for me the conservative Republican state programs of the 1930s to revive the economy and help the destitute. In fact, as Charles Krauthammer correctly put it, they opposed FDR's program vigorously while offering NOTHING in its place but bromides and platitudes, a tragic fact that is now being repeated by the Tea Party wing of the movement. It is dismaying in the extreme to see what was in fact a potentially break-through moment for a rational conservatism (the Krauthammer-Stewart interchange) get this shabby treatment on NRO.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Powerful, because of propaganda support by the media, Leftist Presidents faced with recessions and helpless to beat them, because of their ideology, only prolong and sometimes worsen them. For proof see the Administrations of Roosevelt and Obama.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
McCarthy thinks that the USA is in the Death Star's garbage compactor, and that the course Krauthammer proposes is slow suicide, in that it does not even try to stop, let alone escape crushing walls of the Progressive ratchet but merely seeks to slow it down in the hope of... what miracle Krauthammer cannot say.

Radosh thinks the course that McCarthy (who understands his own proposal to be a desperate measure with iffy chances for success) is quick suicide for the Republican Party.

Perhaps they are both right.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
To expect a radical rollback of the state is political folly. Acceptance of an imagined status quo state is suicide.

Krauthammer runs nigh, McCarthy inevitable.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is more moderation and progressivism remaining in Krauthammer, in my view, than this essay suggests. CK is still opposed to the Tea Party. See http://clarespark.com/2013/10/26/krauthammer-fox-news-channel-and-the-search-for-unity/.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All