Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Friday, December 28, 2007

Ron Paul and David Schuster

Ron Paul's MSNBC appearance with David Schuster, in which Lincoln and the Civil War were discussed for seven minutes, was a disaster. Why Ron Paul let it go on, rather than insist that they should be discussing a war that he could actually do something about if elected, is beyond me. No one who was not already a Lincoln revisionist would have been impressed. Schuster and his producers wanted to convey the message that Ron Paul is not a serious candidate (a "crackpot," as Jack Jacobs called him to his "face") -- and Ron Paul played their shameful game. A very big mistake indeed. Who's calling the shots in that campaign?

Cross-posted at Liberty & Power.


littlehorn said...

Don't know if what i'm gonna say is foolish or not.
But I think it's actually best to treat something like the Civil War first. After all, as Russert was quoted saying in the previous entry, most people think change happen mostly through violence and war.

"We'd still have slavery."

"The French would be speaking german."

"Saddam Hussein would still be in power."

"Communism would have spread through Asia."


The Civil War is a textbook case of the "greater good" mythology. To see someone refute its utility because thousands of people died because of it, well that kind of stance obviously implies that the war in Iraq is wrong.

Jimi G said...

"Who's calling the shots in that campaign?"

I dunno -- John Kerry's people? LOL!!!

I don't want to see any harm come to Dr. Paul, he seems like a nice enough statist. Perhaps this "disaster" will save his life by preventing him from seriously contending for the throne. If Kennedy was a maverick, what will the powers-that-be do to Paul?

And I'm still confused as to why Sheldon seems to have a rooting interest in all this.

Anonymous said...

Lincoln platformed on the promise that he would not free the slaves. He signed the Emancipation Proclamation to gain support for his military efforts as the the North was suffering not only dramatic losses but dramatic increases in defection and disdain. Lincoln was very close to losing the support of the military completely. Once the slaves were freed it created support from a new crowd and revitalized his war campaign.

Lincoln is great for freeing the slaves but it is important to know that it was not his original intention. Slavery was not the initial reason for the Civil War. Not everything you learn in your high school history books is the truth.

The author that RP was mentioning is only one of many of renowned scholars and historians that back up this truth.