opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
R. Emmett Tyrrell
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
4 Feb 2016
The Clinton Curse Returns

WASHINGTON — In the many decades I have had the pleasure of covering the Clintons, I have developed … Read More.

28 Jan 2016
A Manifesto of My Own

WASHINGTON — In reading Paul Johnson's masterful "Art: A New History," I came across a startling number … Read More.

21 Jan 2016
Hillary's Past Meets the Present

WASHINGTON — Did any of the political cognoscenti consult Real Clear Politics last Thursday? Those who … Read More.

Giving Obama His Honeymoon


WASHINGTON — There is a vexed brouhaha going on between two of my favorite conservatives, Rush Limbaugh and Sen. Tom Coburn of the great state of Oklahoma. It has been caused by a mischief-maker by the name of Jeff Greenfield, now working apparently for CBS TV. Greenfield began his TV career as a mischief-maker on the late William F. Buckley's "Firing Line" and continued it on CNN. Now he interviews personages for CBS, but he has not lost his knack for creating a row … or simple confusion.

Shortly after President Barack H. Obama took the oath of office, Greenfield was interviewing Sen. Coburn, whom he stopped in his tracks after the senator genially offered that he wished the new president well and hoped he would "succeed." Greenfield notified the senator that Limbaugh, "probably the most prominent conservative commentator in America," did not wish Obama success. Greenfield quoted Limbaugh as saying, "I know what (Obama) wants to do, and I don't want him to succeed." That sounds as if Rush has gone into kamikaze mode. It sounds downright unpatriotic. Yet it misrepresents what Rush was talking about, and later, on his radio show, Rush explained his point.

All depends on what President Obama "wants to do," and Rush believes he wants to socialize the economy — the banks, health care, the auto industry, the works. Rush believes that state control of commerce is, well, the road to serfdom, as Friedrich von Hayek put it six decades ago. Since Hayek's time, we have had ample evidence to meditate on the performance of socialism, and such renowned socialist states as India (the soft form of socialism) and China (the rough form of socialism) have discarded it. Both have fashioned their economies around market capitalism and flourished in a way that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.

Capitalism brings prosperity. Since the Reagan Revolution, America has enjoyed a quarter-century of almost unbroken economic growth. There were two brief and shallow recessions, but in modern history, there never has been such a period of prosperity.

Now we are in a recession, and it appears it will be neither short nor shallow. That is why I have been drawing attention to the original cause of this recession, namely government. It was government, specifically the Clinton administration, that goaded two government instrumentalities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to traffic in subprime mortgages and traffic wantonly. The junk mortgages were sold all over the world, often to government-regulated institutions. I stand with the newly elected president in admiring government regulation, at least some government regulation. But this economic mess proves that government regulation is not foolproof. The regulators were human, and humans fall prey to error, as they did in regulating American banks in the 1990s and more recently.

So once again, Rush is right. Socialism is a menace to freedom and to prosperity. If President Obama nationalizes as extensively as some of his supporters are advocating, I will be against him, too. Fortifying the banking system and buying up troubled assets is wise and, as was seen in the late 1980s rescue of the troubled savings and loan associations, is effective. The president's proposed giant stimulus program is another matter. We have tried such programs in the past. They are ineffective, breed corruption, and leave in their wake inflation.

Yet for my part, I am willing to give the new president the benefit of the doubt. In his fine and workmanlike speech, he spoke out for markets, saying their capacity "to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched." There was a day not so long ago when liberals denied markets even existed. The great advocate of the mixed economy John Kenneth Galbraith, who late in life identified himself as a socialist, jeered at the very idea of a market, joking that he could not see it or touch it. Well, most educated people now recognize the existence of markets and their indispensability to economic prosperity. I say let us give the new president an opportunity to show us what he knows about markets.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. To find out more about R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



1 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;...You are sort of mixing your metaphors when you link Socialism with Serfdom; so let me help you with that... We already have too much Socialism like public hospitals, republican government, public education, public highways and streets, and God forbid: Social Security... We, meaning the rich, cannot afford it....But Serfdom has never been the consequence of Socialism...The Chinese broke free of feudalism the moment they became Socialistic... But even under Feudalism the grunts had rights, and in many respects, moving into Capitalism, the working people lost rights...The poor had inheritable property rights under Feudalism, and never knew wide spread poverty until the commons were lifted from them against their will, and consent... I would embrace Feudalism at any point compared to the rights we have under Capitalism, because our rights are civil, but meaningless...The only rights that matter make one man superior to another, and only property rights can do that.... So; that is the Socialism we should have, with government protecting and enforcing the rights of Property, and binding the population in perpetual servitude to Property... It is National Socialism you look for....Industrial Feudalism by another name...Real Feudalism gave all classes rights...You do not want that by any means...You want a Commonwealth for the wealthy, and pure savagery for the poor..Let them tear their guts out for a crumb....Let them kill each other for a dollar...There is no law the poor will obey, or any law they should obey but the law of survival... Just watch out for them...Don't go slumming, and have your tires go flat.... And you should change a few things about your government...Liberty and Justice for All is far too Socialistic...Liberty and justice for the rich sounds better....And We the People should be changed to -We the Rich People....Do you get my drift???There is no reason anyone should get any ideas about justice or liberty or equality...God may have made men equal; but money makes them unequal; which means that only the Godly are free to correct God in his errors... What should it matter to the pure of heart if the whole of mankind is reduced to a primitive existence???Why should humanity not be made to devolve into monkeys...Is that not the object of our Constitution, our Government, our Laws, and our Economy???Is it not to make monkeys of men and of mankind??? That has been the result...Who can say it was not always its purpose???...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:52 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 7 Feb 2016
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 6 Feb 2016
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 5 Feb 2016

25 Jun 2014 Breakfast With a Doctor

7 Sep 2011 What Is to Become of Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

24 Sep 2009 Conservatism's Next Coming