History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
On the right side of the Instapundit screen, there is an advertisement for a t-shirt with the slogan,"ACLU Enemy of the State."
I wonder what the great libertarian Albert Jay Nock, not to mention L and P blogger Walter Grinder who wrote an introduction to Nock's book of nearly the same name, would make of this. The hammer and sickle is an odd touch. What's next?"Stalin: Enemy of the State."
Hat tip Matt Barganier.
Given their history, self-described conservatives have an excuse. The self-described libertarians, such as Glenn Reynolds who ran the advertisement, are another matter.
The last comment much too generously implies that the intellectual content of what passes for "conservatism" today is worth taking seriously on grounds other than evidence of intellectual pathology. It is not Burke, it is not Oakeshott, but it does share something with monarchists and theocrats. And of course both like to fantasize BEING the state - as with Louis XIV: "'L'etat c'est moi'" (I am the state).
From this perspective the t-shirt makes perfect sense.
Yes, the point is that it's (a) odd to equate "communist" with "anti-state," and (b) odd for libertarians/conservatives to say that there's anything wrong with being an enemy of the state (or call for a group to be persecuted by the state).
John, I agree with your interpretation of the shirt but not your interpretation of Dave; I took him to mean not "it's odd to have a hammer and sickle next to something you're in favour of" but "it's odd to have a hammer and sickle next to something called enemy of the state." But Dave can clear up for us which way he meant it. (Assuming Dave is a privileged interpreter of his own words ....)
I'm not sure you have the meaning of this shirt correct. As I understood it, it is meant to be worn by conservatives implying that the ACLU is, or should become, an enemy of the state and therefore ripe for persecution. I could be wrong, but I can't understand how else it should be interpreted.