Bruce Bartlett Free at Last

by Liberty and Power

In this space, William Marina has posted on the plight, or as I like to think of it the liberation, of Bruce Bartlett. In yesterday's Washington Times Bartlett spoke for himself on his firing from The National Center for Policy Analysis for being too critical of the Bush Administration, ably refuting the charge of opportunism. He also laid out some key points illustrating the thesis of his new book, Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. The title pretty much says it all and I agree with it. In my humble opinion, Ronald Reagan, for all his blindness concerning the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs, was still the best president of my of my lifetime and the current George Bush far and away the worst.

That edition of the paper also contains a review of Bartlett’s new book in which Claude R. Marx unfairly accuses the author of having a “generally tedious writing style.” As a regular reader of Bartlett’s essays, I can testify that they are well written, interesting, and that they often contain very revealing information. The reviewer takes a more substantial shot when he writes that, “It is easy to criticize an administration (of either party) when you don't have to answer to voters or 535 members of Congress, each with his or her own agenda.” However, Mr. Marx needs to be reminded that in each and every case the programs cited by Bartlett were enthusiastically embraced by the Bush Administration not imposed upon them by the opposition.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Robert Higgs - 3/4/2006

A contributor to this group blog wrote a few days ago with regard to Bruce Bartlett: "His thesis was later published as Cover-up: The Politics of Pearl Harbor, 1941-1946 (Arlington House, 1978). That alone, would be enough to alienate him from the foreign policies of George W. Bush, because it is clear Bruce, was, and is, a non-interventionist, in both foreign and domestic policies."

In this regard, it is worthwhile to note that Bartlett has publicly recanted his previous views about U.S. foreign policy. In an article called "This Is Where I Stand: Me and War," at National Review Online, Feb. 19, 2003, Bartlett recanted his prior view of World War II (and his book on that subject) as well as his prior overall view of the history of U.S. foreign policy. Moreover, on the brink of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he endorsed that "conquering" of Iraq, giving justifications for his endorsement that merely parroted the Bush line at that time.

Mark Brady - 3/3/2006

I'm sure Bartlett thought Kerry would make a bad president. And I don't know a self-identified libertarian who wouldn't have agreed with him to a considerable extent. The argument that we would have been slightly better off if Kerry had defeated Bush in 2004 rests not on a comparison of Kerry with Bush but on the consequences of a divided government--a Democrat in the White House facing a Republican Congress.

Keith Halderman - 3/3/2006

Would Mark Brady, Robert Higgs, and Keith Halderman like it if Bruce Bartlett were an outspoken critic of George Bush's ill conceived and expensive quest for empire? Yes. Unfortunately, he is not, however, too many people still believe that the GOP is a party of fiscal restraint and small government. Anything Bartlett does to help dispell that myth is to the good.

As for the 2004 election maybe Bartlett thought that Kerry would make a bad president. Anyone who argues that we would be better off and Iraq less of a mess if the vote had been different is engaging in pure speculation. Kerry is also a member of the war party.

William Marina - 3/3/2006

The point of my piece about Bruce getting back to History, and citing Suskind's quote about the Empire, is that History is a seamless web, and that
neither Bruce, nor any of us, can nicely divide the two parts of the welfare/warfare state.
I don't see how Bruce, an anti-interventionist,
can defend Reagan on foreign policy.
Bush, of course, has gone much farther.

Robert Higgs - 3/3/2006

In the just-distributed Cato Policy Report for January/February 2006, the featured article, beginning on p. 1, is Bartlett's "How Bush Bankrupted America," which is identified as based on his just-published book. In this article, Bartlett condemns Bush for his runaway spending and for his prescription-drug entitlement in particular, but he never mentions the military-spending surge or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, non-military spending has surged, too, although a bit slower than military spending, but anyone who supposes that the two surges have been independent is either incompetent or disingenuous. Evidently somebody--the author, the editor, or the publisher--does not wish to mention the elephant stomping about the fiscal living room and, not just incidentally, smashing our liberties with its every move. The idea of restraining, in virtually any regard, an activated warfare state is too far-fetched to merit serious discussion.

Mark Brady - 3/3/2006

I suggest that Bruce Bartlett is less courageous and more of a partisan Republican than many of his proponents would have us believe. The time to have published his book would have been prior to the 2004 election when it might have had some impact.

In a recent Fresh Air interview with Terry Gross, Ms. Gross asks Bartlett, "Was there a period when you felt you should hold your tongue...?"

Bartlett replied: "Well, I wouldn't have written this book if it were going to be published before the election, but once past the election in 2004, I didn't see any reason to hold back anymore. Nothing in this book is going to do anything to hurt Bush's re-election prospects because he can't run for re-election. And so I think now's the time to do this. If not now, when?"

I'm sure the book will help serve to educate knee jerk Republicans on some of the failings of the current administration but the fact is that other Republicans spoke out against Bush and his gang before the 2004 election.

I also have a question for Keith. Does Bruce Bartlett discuss U.S. foreign policy and, in particular, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq? That, I suggest, is the greatest betrayal of conservative principles as once defined.