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.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

It's Official. I'm Tired of Barack Obama

I tried to hold out until after inauguration day. I really did. But I can't. He promises a "fresh" approach to our economic problems -- monster "stimulus"borrowing and deficit spending is fresh? -- without ideological (read: theoretical) preconceptions. But of course that is impossible. No one looks at economic or social phenomena without theoretical preconceptions. The only question is whether one's theoretical preconceptions are sound or unsound. It's been said we're all Keynesians now, and in one respect that includes me. Keynes said, "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."

Mr. Obama, pay attention.


Robert Higgs said...

Keynes might well have noted with equal point, "Impractical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."

Uncle Fester said...

The new president is looking more and more like the old president. I thought I would at least give him a chance, but after seeing his picks for cabinet, I am losing what little hope I had for him.

Sheldon Richman said...

Indeed. It's not that I had great hopes for him--on the contrary. But that I could tolerate watching him speak, unlike the rest of the presidents in my lifetime. That's no longer the case. And I've given up watching his shameless apologists: Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

D. Saul Weiner said...

Look on the bright side. After he implements his agenda, then both political parties will be discredited.

Mimi said...

Yep. That's why I voted for Nader.

Christine Smith said...

(Higgs' paraphrase - excellent point.)

For me, the falseness in Obama's voice, and certainly, of course, the "content" such as it is, is unbearable.
But many I see are still enthralled with him. Even IF both parties are discredited (which I doubt based on what seems to be
people's acceptance of this whole charade), within four years of such policies this nation may well not be standing economically.
I've never felt any "hope" when it came to Obama. What does it take for people to see?

Anonymous said...

I sort of like Keith Olbermann. I am sorry to hear he is shilling for "Spare Change"


Anonymous said...

Impeach Obama now! Why wait? ;>)

Edward said...

I don't think you can impeach some one until they become the president. Its really amazing how much Obama thinks of himself, I don't believe there has every been a need to coin the term "president electency" along with "presidency."

Anonymous said...

What's to like about Obama at all? A socialist is a socialist...all that remains to be seen is what flavor or combination of such he favors: Marxist communism or the old regulatory standby--fascism.

RS Weir

Nick said...

Obama is a socialist when viewed on a conventional spectrum of political economy, but I know some self-identified socialists who don't really like Obama.

The generic libertarian spectrum of political economy has always had voluntary socialists-mutualists.