Blogs

Displaying 91-100 of 25855 results.
ID: 1981
Uid: 28
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: MUGWUMPS ARE GO
Source:
Body: <p>David and Linda Beito's article"<a href="http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/TIR44_Beito.pdf">Gold Democrats and the Decline of Classical Liberalism, 1896-1900</a>" (mentioned below in"<a href=http://hnn.us/articles/1621.html#12200301>Anti-Imperialists, Classical Liberals, and Progressives</a>") describes the presidential election of 1896, in which some classical liberal Democrats were so opposed to their party's rabble-rousing inflation-advocating presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan, that they formed a new political party, The National Democratic Party (NDP), to oppose him. They captured only a meager (Libertarian Party-like) less-than-1% of the vote but, as they hoped, Bryan lost. (Some NDPers would later claim responsibility for Bryan's loss but this is questionable; unlike, for example, the Nader votes in 2000, even if all of the NDP votes had been gone to the Democrats Bryan would still have lost.) The"Mugwumps" (more or less"big chiefs," a mocking name given to them by their critics), New England reformers who viewed themselves as defenders of the old republican virtues, were important organizers of the NDP and later the Anti-Imperialist League. Daniel B. Schirmer ("<a href=http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/dbs/re01.html>Republic or Empire</a>") suggests a group economic basis for the Mugwumps' emphasis on free trade, sound money, and ethical government:</p><p><I>"The political thrust of mercantile discontent had been carried after the Civil War not by the merchants alone, but also by a group of Boston liberals, many of whom were later prominent in the anti-imperialist movement. Linked as they were to the city's older mercantile wealth by manifold family ties and social connections, these lawyers and professionals quite naturally shared its hostility to the new-rich industrialists and their policies. &#8230; </p><p>"In addition to free trade, the Boston liberals were concerned with sound currency and civil service reform. Sound currency was important to the holders of inherited wealth, who felt threatened in these years by the popular agitation for cheap money (the free coinage of silver). The demand for civil service reform arose from the evidence of corruption at all levels of government after the Civil War. The country's new industrial entrepreneurs caused more than one scandal by their efforts to buy what they wanted politically, offending puritan sensibilities."</I></p><p>To continue this analysis, we can say that the Democrats in 1896, by advocating the inflationary free silver policy, represented the economic interests of debtors, especially indebted farmers, while the Republicans, by advocating protective tariffs, represented the economic interests of the manufacturers. Both parties wished to use the state to benefit their favored constituency. Under the circumstances, starting a third party to highlight the lack of a classical liberal alternative and to sabotage the candidacy of what was in their opinion the greater of the two evils may have been the most politically effective choice.</p><p>It's a controversial opinion, but it seems to me that the Mugwumps were skilled political operators worthy of study by today's drastically outnumbered classical liberals. In 1884, repulsed by the Republican Party's nomination of a candidate ("Slippery Jim" Blaine,"the continental liar from the state of Maine") accused of taking bribes from the railroad industry, the Mugwumps-to-be left the Republican Party and joined the Democratic. The Democrats were infamously and somewhat accurately called the party of"rum, Romanism, and rebellion" - in other words an alliance of urban Catholic immigrant"machine" politics and the former Confederates running Dixie, opposed to Protestant puritan prohibition and"blue laws" (as late as the 1970s you couldn't shop on Sunday in parts of Massachusetts). Joining the Democratic Party was, therefore, a pretty radical step for New England Protestant reformers of the Jerusalem-building variety but it paid off, as the Mugwumps were probably the deciding factor in securing the party's nomination for Grover Cleveland, a classical liberal with an unblemished record in public life (though with some personal relations <a href=http://www.newyorktalksandwalks.com/presidentialexpert/portrayals3.htm>issues</a>).</p><p><a href="http://www.progress.org/books/george.htm"><img src="http://www.progress.org/books/images/single.jpg" vspace="6" hspace="6" border="0" align="right"></a>The Mugwumps distrusted populism and organized labor, yet allied themselves with both, leading critics to charge that they represented"<a href="http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/dbs/N_12_">Harvard and the slums</a>." (One interesting and successful alliance was with the"Red" classical liberal"single taxers" - followers of <a href="http://www.progress.org/books/george.htm">Henry George</a>.) When founding the Anti-Imperialist League the Mugwumps allied with <a href="http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/dbs/re01b.html">a veritable who's-who of outsider trouble-makers</a>:</P><p><I>"Putting aside their upper-class aversion to organized labor and Boston's Irish population, the Brahmin anti-imperialists turned to them as important participants in the common cause. Their bitter disagreements with currency-reforming Silver Democrats, Silver Republicans and Populists they likewise set aside; they included even the Socialists, whose views most of them abhorred. They made special appeals to blacks and women. They worked to influence and unite with anti-imperialists in Democratic, and, so far as they could, Republican ranks. They sought out anti-imperialist clergymen, intellectuals, farmers' representatives. They worked to bring the press into the anti-imperialist fold."</I></p><p>That the Mugwumps refused to treat their, often distrusted, allies as"useful idiots" can be seen by the fact that the Anti-Imperialist League endorsed the hated Williams Jennings Bryan in the presidential race of 1900.</p><p>I agree with most of Gene Healy's <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/1621.html#12190303">comments about Howard Dean</a>. Still, it seems to me that if we're going to participate in electoral politics we should use our votes to punish and reward. And we should punish Bush for the invasion of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act and the doctrine of preventive attack (a.k.a. permanent war) - and let that be a warning to the rest of them. 1896 would imply a slate of sane, I mean classical liberal, Republican defectors; 1884 would imply joining the Democratic Party and campaigning for the least-bad legitimate candidate.</p>
ID: 1982
Uid: 23
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: SUNSTEIN ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Source:
Body: <A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16832-2003Dec19.html">Cass Sunstein</a> is calling the Supreme Court's approval of the new campaign finance reform law,"a surprising endorsement of congressional authority." <p> I couldn't agree more. Considering the text of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law..."), I'd say that the Court's approval of a federal law sharply regulating political speech prior to an election is surprising, at the very least.<p> The only difference between Sunstein and me is that I wouldn't dare call myself pleasantly surprised by an emerging trend of judicial deference to" congressional authority" in this arena.<p>
ID: 1983
Uid: 14
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: AN ODD START TO THE SALVOS
Source:
Body: The RedStarTribune is silent today over the new science and social science standards, but the PioneerPress, rather than discuss them, digs up some education researchers <a href="http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/7546871.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp">unhappy over Commissioner Yecke's book.</a> In The War Against Excellence, Yecke is rather <a href="http://www.waragainstexcellence.com/about/">critical of" cooperative learning". <p></a><blockquote>Ability grouping was discouraged as elitist, and in many places was replaced with" cooperative learning," where a few students did all the work and everyone shared the grade. High ability students were often not allowed to work at their own pace, but instead were held to the pace of the rest of the class and required to tutor others--resulting in a loss to their own intellectual growth. Based on misinterpretations of scientific theories addressing brain development, a number of schools watered-down the middle school curriculum out of fear that pre-adolescent brains could not be expected to handle rigorous learning. And in some cases, academic competition was discouraged. These policies and practices resulted in some middle school environments that actively encouraged a culture that looked down upon high academic achievement.</blockquote><p>The authors of a leading book on cooperative learning happen to teach at the University of Minnesota. They argue that Yecke has not read their work and that they are"professors, not activists". But <a href="http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC18/Johnson.htm">their own work </a>downplays the importance of what they call"technical skills".<p><blockquote>The ability of all students to learn to work cooperatively with others is the keystone to building and maintaining stable marriages, families, careers, and friendships. Being able to perform technical skills such as reading, speaking, listening, writing, computing, problem-solving, etc., are valuable but of little use if the person cannot apply those skills in cooperative interaction with other people in career, family, and community settings. The most logical way to emphasize the use of student's knowledge and skills within a cooperative framework, such as they will meet as members of society, is to spend much of the time learning those skills in cooperative relationships with each other.</blockquote><p>Yet the research of Marian Matthews suggests that group learning limits the abilities of gifted learners. The problem, it seems to me, is agreement on what should be called" cooperative learning". When it is tied up with the question of"tracking" (which <a href="http://scsu-scholars.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_scsu-scholars_archive.html#107169517302482054">I discussed </a>earlier, as has <a href="http://www.higheredintel.blogspot.com/2003_12_14_higheredintel_archive.html#107176721697333843">Michael Lopez</a>), it boils down to the broader question of limiting excellence, which is what Yecke is discussing. Cooperative learning with tracking would give much different results than without tracking -- I suspect it would be better but I'm not going to be able to prove that to anyone's satisfaction who doesn't already agree with me. <p>The other item that struck me was this misunderstanding of cooperative and competitive behaviors and the heroism of Flight 93. <P><blockquote>Yecke said she was struck when she read news stories that repeatedly characterized the heroes of that flight as very competitive. <p><b>"Family members didn't talk about their cooperative nature," she said."In Flight 93, you have competitive individuals who knew how to cooperate, but they were driven by a competitive spirit." <p>David Johnson wondered if Yecke was giving short shrift to the collaboration of the heroes."They organized. They talked with each other," he said."It's a testament to the power of cooperation. Each one of those men might not have been able to do it on their own." </b></blockquote><p> I think that Johnson, one of the UM professors, has a real problem with understanding what competition is. In the article they write that competition"is characterized by negative goal interdependence, where, when one person wins, the others lose." That's true only in a zero-sum game situation. Entrepreneurs compete, and thrill from the competition, without their victories being completely offset by the losses to others. This is the nature of market activity. Only one may win the spelling bee, but high grades are not earned generally at the expense of others (unless you grade based on standard deviations from mean performance in the classroom). The Johnsons divide competitive from"individualistic" learning, where students move independently to meet predetermined learning objectives. That, I hasten to add, is exactly what the new standards are about -- individualistic, not competitive. Cooperative learning could help when structured with appropriate incentives, a point with which I think even Yecke would agree. Why Welsh decided to run this piece now is a question worth answering.
ID: 1984
Uid: 16
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: NEOCONSERVATIVES, LIBYA, ISRAEL AND WMD
Source:
Body: Raimondo hits one <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html"> out of the park today <A> in an article about Libya&#8217;s abandonment of WMD. Does the Libya agreement provide proof that Dubya&#8217;s saber rattling is the best guarantee of world peace? Not at all. Libya has been intensely interested in turning over a new leaf since the 1990s though Clinton and Bush (until now) showed little interest in these feelers. Raimondo speculates that Gaddafi wants to restore his country's pre-modern role as a Mediterranean power. <P> Raimondo predicts that the neoconservatives and other enthusiastic pro-warriors will condemn the agreement as a ruse. Why? Because it might put the squeeze on Israel to abandon its own WMD and ease up on other hard-line policies. As if almost on cue, Raimondo&#8217;s prediction has been confirmed today in two articles. First, <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36250"> Joseph Farah frets <a> that Libya&#8217;s action will increase &#8220;international pressure&#8221; on Israel to abandon WMD.<P> Farah is a pussycat compared to Ariel Natan Pasko who <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11440"> defends <a> the inalienable right of Israel (and no other country in the Middle East) to own WMDs. In what has to be the most priceless neoconservative quote of the week, he uses the pages of the normally secular Frontpage to proclaim: &#8220;Sure Israel should 'Ban the Bomb'; When the Messiah comes!&#8221;
ID: 1985
Uid: 21
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: VAE VICTIS
Source:
Body: [Cross-posted at <a href="http://praxeology.net/unblog12-03.htm#09">In a Blog's Stead</a>] <br><br> Who should try Saddam Hussein? <br><br> The Nuremberg trials have had both a positive and a negative legacy. The positive legacy is the affirmation of a higher moral standard to which government rulers are subject and in the name of which they can be called to accouint. But the negative legacy is the notion that the vanquished may legitimately be tried <I>by the victor</I>. <br><br> As John Locke famously pointed out, no one can be trusted to be a judge in his own case. Thus, apart from emergency situations when instant action must be taken, plaintiffs should submit their grievances to a third-party arbiter. <br><br> (Locke further takes this principle to support the establishment of a single monopoly arbiter. Of course it does no such thing. The inference from <I>All disputes should be submitted to a third-party arbiter</I> to <I>There should be a third-party arbiter to whom all disputes are submitted</I> is no more legitimate than would be the inference from <I>Everyone likes at least one TV show</I> to <I>There's at least one TV show that everyone likes</I>. In fact Locke's principle <I>rules out</I> a single monopoly arbiter &#8211; for a single monopoly arbiter would have to be a judge in its own case in any dispute to which it was a party.) <br><br> Locke's principle obviously rules out a trial by the U.S. &#8211; especially since the U.S. president has already called for Hussein's execution, thus nullifying any semblance of a fair trial. But it equally rules out the legitimacy of having the new Iraqi government try Hussein. (I say"Hussein" rather than"Saddam" because I am not on a first-name basis with the man; I&#8217;m not sure why everybody else seems to be.) The problem is not just that any Iraqi tribunal is likely to be a U.S. puppet (though that is certainly an obvious concern). Even if the U.S. had no influence on the Iraqi government at all, as long as Hussein is being accused, not of crimes against selected individuals, but of crimes against the Iraqi people as a whole, <I>a government purportedly representing the entire Iraqi people cannot legitimately try him</I>, since by doing so they would be acting as judges in their own case. <br><br> The only legitimate course of action would be for both the U.S. government and the Iraqi government to recuse themselves and hand Hussein over to a genuinely independent tribunal. <br><br> Don't hold your breath.
ID: 1986
Uid: 16
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: KEEPING THE TRUE SPIRIT OF KWANZAA!
Source:
Body: Ann Coulter is not one of my favorite people but she does often show a talent for good one-liners such as this one, &#8220;Is it just me, or is Kwanzaa becoming way too commercialized?&#8221;
ID: 1987
Uid: 26
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: SOWING AND REAPING
Source:
Body: <P>Speaking of <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/1621.html#12180304">sowing and reaping</a>, here's a report from the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13558-2003Dec18.html"><I>Washington Post</i></a> that is worth reading. WP reporter Dana Priest writes: <P><B>Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly declassified documents. ... The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the nonprofit National Security Archive, provide new, behind-the-scenes details of U.S. efforts to court Iraq as an ally even as it used chemical weapons in its war with Iran. An earlier trip by Rumsfeld to Baghdad, in December 1983, has been widely reported as having helped persuade Iraq to resume diplomatic ties with the United States. An explicit purpose of Rumsfeld's return trip in March 1984, the once-secret documents reveal for the first time, was to ease the strain created by a U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons. The documents do not show what Rumsfeld said in his meetings with Aziz, only what he was instructed to say. It would be highly unusual for a presidential envoy to have ignored direct instructions from Shultz. ... [T]he administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein.</b>
ID: 1988
Uid: 16
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: ANTI-IMPERIALISTS, CLASSICAL LIBERALS, AND PROGRESSIVES
Source:
Body: Liberty and Power guest blogger, <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/1621.html#12190304"> Sam Koritz <a> has mentioned <a> the fine website of Jim Zwick on the <a href="http://www.boondocksnet.com/index.html"> history of the Anti-Imperialist League</a>. As Sam notes, many of the anti-imperialists were dedicated classical liberals. He also points out that the turn of the century was a period of transition in which classical liberalism gave way to progressivism. <P> Tracing this transition has long been one of my research interests. For this reason, along with my wife, Linda Royster Beito, I wrote an <a href="http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/TIR44_Beito.pdf"> article for the Independent Review <a>, on the National Democratic (or Gold Democratic) Party. The party, which ran a ticket to oppose Bryan and McKinley in 1896, included many men who later were stalwarts of the League. Among them were such champions of free trade and the gold standard as Edward Atkinson, Oswald Garrison Villard, Horace White, and Moorfield Storey. <P> Interestingly, Storey and Villard were also pioneers in the crusade to uphold individual rights for blacks. Storey was the first president of the NAACP while Villard was its treasurer. While Villard later moved away from classical liberalism, Storey held on to most of these beliefs to the end of his life and even opposed federal child labor laws in the 1920s.<P> The National Democrats garnered less than one percent of the vote in 1896 and did not run a candidate in 1900. One of those votes in 1896 was cast by none other than President Grover Cleveland, who later became a vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League.
ID: 1989
Uid: 26
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: PERFECT TIMING
Source:
Body: <P>I started my day today in a playful mood on the subject of <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/1621.html#12190301">conspiracy theory<a>. But I think the following takes conspiracy theory to a new height. A relative of mine, who shall go nameless, said something similar months ago that sounded terribly cynical to me. If I didn't know for sure, I'd say this relative wrote into the"Voice of the People" of <I>The New York Daily News</i> under the pseudonym of"Leo F. Marshall" of Kew Gardens, Queens. My relative insists not. But here's what Mr. Marshall had to say under the title,"Perfect Timing" on 16 December 2003: <P><B>We're supposed to believe that the U.S. military happened to capture Saddam Hussein on Saturday afternoon&#8212;just in time to be covered on all the Sunday morning news shows and to divert attention from the Halliburton overcharging scandal, the economy and Howard Dean's popularity. It's obvious the military knew where he was all along and were just waiting for the right moment to" capture" him. It's equally obvious they know where Osama Bin Laden is and will" capture" him just before the November 2004 election.</b><P>So, y'all heard it here first. If there's an October surprise, we'll have to get in touch with Mr. Marshall and congratulate him for his soothsaying abilities. <P>Meanwhile, on a more serious note: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/19/nyregion/19CND-TOWERS.html?hp">All Hail the Freedom Tower</a>: The New York Spirit of 1776 (feet) that will stand like a huge Middle Finger to Al Qaeda.
ID: 1990
Uid: 28
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: TERMS OF DISENGAGEMENT, 12-19-03
Source:
Body: <p>Jim Zwick has an excellent site, with the unclear-on-the-concept name of <a href="http://www.boondocksnet.com/index.html"> boondocksnet.com</a>, dedicated to the history of the American Anti-Imperialist League. The historical documents archived on the site are particularly valuable, but the essays by Zwick and others are also worthwhile (though I have significant disagreements with them), especially for those of us interested in issues of liberty and power. The arguably successful, in my view (more on that below), pre-Cold War American opposition to US imperialism is probably the best historical model we have for our own opposition to US military global hegemonism (for want of a better term). A good introduction to the history of the League is Zwick's"<a href="http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ail/airoots.html">Imperialists and Anti-Imperialists: The Roots of American Non-Intervention Movements</a>":</p><p><I>"The Spanish-American War of 1898 proved to be a watershed for those in the U.S. who were advocating commercial and military expansion. It not only led to the annexation of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, but at the height of the patriotic fever surrounding the war Congress put aside its opposition to the formal annexation of Hawaii, a valuable commercial and military outpost on the route to Asia."</I></p><p>Donald Boudreaux in"The Socialist Origins of the Pledge" (below) explains that Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge of allegiance in 1892 as a contribution to the Dewey-ist education centralization movement. Zwick follows-up:</p><p><I>"&#8230;[A]nti-imperialists were frequently portrayed as traitors to their country. The pressures they faced were tremendous in an era when 'patriotic' conformity was being established as the norm. It was during the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars, for example, that saluting the flag and other 'patriotic exercises' first became mandatory in many of the nation's schools. In New York State the legislation requiring this was passed just two days before the Spanish-American War began."</P></I><p>I disagree with the conclusion of Zwick's essay, that the Anti-Imperialists"ultimately lost the turn-of-the-century debate about imperialism." The imperialism that the Anti-Imperialists were united in opposing was classical imperialism, i.e. colonialism - a policy decisively rejected by the US government. (The high price Americans paid for the Pacific colonies during World War II is a good demonstration of the dangers of imperialism, and without imperialism maybe we could have skipped the Cuban missile crisis's nuclear war near-miss.) Now let's cut loose Puerto Rico, Guam, and the dozen other dependencies, or make them states, and we can move on from that ugly era. Ultimately, the Anti-Imperialist League split into the hard and soft anti-(classical) imperialists, with many of the latter joining the interventionist bureaucracy. Mission accomplished.</p><p>If a neo-League were being organized today, I would argue that the central mission should be the closing of all US military bases overseas. Even some of the hegemonist proponents of military modernization want foreign bases downsized (along with increased resources for US-based force projection), so obviously closing foreign bases wouldn't end the quest for global hegemony. And, in fact, closing all bases almost certainly won't happen - just as the US government still has 14 leftover dependencies, but isn't fighting wars to add more. But even the closure of the majority of overseas bases would be a huge step towards normalcy, and if nothing else it would help keep things like Saudi power struggles from spilling over onto American civilians (and can we close those bases in <I><a href="http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=P249_0_1_90">Central Asia</a></I> yesterday, please?).</p><p>A number of brainy jingoists have recently approvingly suggested that the US government is an empire, which would make"imperialism" and"anti-imperialism" valid contemporary terms. Here's British immigrant Niall Ferguson, writing in <I>Foreign Affairs</I> ("<a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901fareviewessay82512/niall-ferguson/hegemony-or-empire.html">Hegemony or Empire?</a>"):</P><p>"&#8230;[T]he very concept of 'hegemony' is really just a way to avoid talking about empire, 'empire' being a word to which most Americans remain averse. But 'empire' has never exclusively meant direct rule over foreign territories without any political representation of their inhabitants. Students of imperial history have a far more sophisticated conceptual framework than that. During the imperial age, for example, British colonial administrators such as Frederick Lugard clearly understood the distinction between 'direct' and 'indirect' rule; large parts of the British Empire in Asia and Africa were ruled indirectly, through the agency of local potentates rather than British governors."</P><p>But it seems to me that the very fact that Ferguson has to explain that"empire" doesn't <I>exclusively</I> mean direct rule suggests that the word implies direct rule, so it's a poor choice to describe a policy that essentially rejects direct rule."Imperialism" is even more problematic than"empire," since it brings to mind the Cold War-era Leninist implication of commercial monopoly or oligopoly and/or international trade and investment, along with direct or indirect rule. And then there's" cultural imperialism," which is hard to distinguish from international popularity."Anti-Imperialist" is even worse than the other terms, since it's so negative. The <a href="http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/libcong.html">National Liberty Congress of Anti-Imperialists</a> (1900) got back to zero by adding to their name what they did want. Ditching"anti" altogether,"<a href="http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/shibley00.html">Republic Clubs</a>" were set up for Anti-Imperialist members of the Republican Party:</p><I><p>"Many Anti-Imperialist Republicans are unwilling to join a Democratic club, but would gladly join an organization based on the paramount issue of Anti-Imperialism. Such an organization in each community will greatly help to emphasize the issue of Empire versus Republic and keep it before the people as the leading question.</p><p>"NAME.</P><p>"The success of such an organization will largely depend on the name given the club. The one presented on the enclosed pamphlet -- Republic Club -- has much to commend it. Over against clubs of Rough Riders -- riding roughly over the Republic, and for the establishment of an Empire -- let us put up REPUBLIC CLUBS, and state as the one and only qualification for membership, OPPOSITION TO THE OVERTHROW OF THE REPUBLIC AND THE ERECTION OF AN EMPIRE. &#8230;[T]he evil is clearly marked -- it is the overthrow of the Republic if the voters at the polls ratify the Puerto Rican law and the President's similar policy in the Philippines; therefore,"Republic Club" raises the specific question at issue. &#8230;"</P></I><a href="http://www.antiwar.com/letters/letters.html"><img src="http://www.antiwar.com/buttons/backtalk2b.gif" align="right" vspace="6" hspace="6" border="0"></a><p>If"anti-imperialist" leaves much to be desired, there's not an obvious other choice. At Antiwar.com we get emails from proponents of the principles of the power of positive thinking (<a href="http://www.antiwar.com/letters/letters.html">new letters file posted today</a>) criticizing the site's name - <I>tell us what you're pro-, not what you're anti-</I> - and from others saying that we must be (strict) pacifists, or that we're hypocritical if not. And"anti-interventionist" and"anti-hegemonist" just sound weird."Non-interventionist" seems kind of vague, but at least"non" is less anti than"anti."</p>