Truth to tell, neither endorsements nor "news" from newspapers matter anymore. Our print media are being scavenged (or have already been) for the value of the printing presses and the real estate. Those who continue to publish are a sorry imitation of their former selves.
I agree. I can think of one, and maybe two presidential elections where I was despondently undecided until I read a compelling lesser-of-two-evils piece by an A-List columnist. But I'm not in the that league, and those elections occurred in less-polarized times, when lots of well-read, politically-engaged people were still persuadable in presidential and other blockbuster elections.
For me endorse/don't endorse is a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis. (A) If I issue an endorsement in a presidential election, it's possible that I might influence how 4 or 5 readers vote--and with near-certainty, those shifts will not affect the outcome of the election or of any state's election results. (B) But if I write thoughtful pieces on healthcare legislation, I might change the minds of dozens or hundreds of people. Doing so might change how they vote in future elections. And, based on conversations with past students, colleagues, readers, and listeners, when I change a mind--especially within the policy community--those newfound allies propagate my viewpoints to THEIR students, colleagues, readers, and listeners over years or decades. Given my admittedly modest reach, I believe (A) and (B) are for me mutually exclusive options. Hence, I choose B.
"I agree. I can think of one, and maybe two presidential elections where I was despondently undecided until I read a compelling lesser-of-two-evils piece by an A-List columnist."
Valid for a Political Junkie. Is it for your basic voter?
The fact we look for an endorsement from you is a sign of our respect for your thinking and writing. But all of your explanations for why you don't endorse make good sense and I for one respect your position. Thinking out loud here, refusing to make a public endorsement is one step removed from not voting at all, and that's not a good choice either.
Years ago I ran for local elective office. I did so without a deep understanding of the voters of that constituency or their needs, as I had recently settled there, and I deservedly lost. But I came away from the experience with the conviction that American politics and politicians weren't about "what needs to be done" as much as "the other guy and his party are horrible creatures." Addressing that mentality is a good reason for endorsements from respectable thinkers. Your caveats, I think, overcome the argument in my previous statement, though. Thank you for remaining true to your beliefs.
The New York Times endorsed John Kennedy for President in 1960. At a press conference after the election, Kennedy quipped, "I am one person who can truthfully say, 'I got my job through the New York Times.'"
But, most Americans trusted the news media in 1960. They no longer do. As of 1972, two-thirds of Americans told Gallup that they put "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of trust in the news media. By 2025, one-third said "not very much" while another third said, "None at all."
Why the collapse of media credibility? Above all, political bias. Campaign endorsements are a good example of that bias. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican Presidential nominee in seventy years.
I'll drag out my favorite horse here -- government meddles a lot more in our lives now than it used to. Even in JFK's time, most government meddling was limited to lots of taxes. Then came the EPA, car safety, the War on Poverty, the FDA, health and medicine, tobacco, 55 mph, far more personal regulation that deeply affected people, much more than what FDR had done.
Before then, the difference in parties was taxation and wars. The party in power made little difference in people's daily lives. After LBJ and Nixon, government meddling mattered a great deal.
I have the feeling that endorsements mattered a lot less than people think, that endorsements reflected public opinion more than they set it.
Has anyone ever been surprised by someone's endorsement for a political candidate? I have not. If we cannot figure out who someone is going to vote for simply by talking to them, we're probably not really paying much attention.
Yes, I’ve been surprised at times. If I remember correctly, George Will endorsed Clinton in 1992 because (and I’m paraphrasing from memory), “Bill Clinton cannot do what George H. W. Bush is doing, which is rotting conservatism out from the inside.” I also recall Eugene McCarthy supporting Reagan over Carter in 1980. In 2016, P. J. O’Rourke similarly endorsed Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, saying, “She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”
I’m most impressed when a thoughtful public figure offers a counterintuitive endorsement without discarding their principles. (This does not apply to a figure like Bill Kristol, who appears to have discarded every core belief that he seemed to hold when he published the Weekly Standard.)
Fair enough. George Will may have had information I did not have about Bush. So yes, that one surprises me. I can see why some Democrats might have liked Reagan over Carter, simply because Regan was a really nice guy. And of course, Donald Trump is like no other in my life time for generating visceral praise or rage.
Don't agree with every thing. But its intelligently thought out. Your column that is. And I did not know that about Philip Johnsons synagogue design. I did know about his liking for Hitler. It would have been interesting to have all the information.
No,I'm flattered. I will continue to read you for two reasons, One, I have to think to disagree with your arguments. That's getting rare. And you can always teach me things. This with Philip Johnson. And the last one with the Vice Presidents.
I spent nearly 30 years teaching Public Budgeting (at the local and state level) and various policy courses and few students ever managed to discern my personal preferences. As one grad student told me, at the end of the course (paraphrased), "None of us cant tell what your politics are. We do think you're crazy and you know a lot, but you find bad things to say about every possible choice."
I told her that made me think I was doing it right. People who want whatever choice they favor tend to tell you only good things that come from that choice, and bad things from the choices of others. It is better for you to try to find the bad things about any choice then decide if the trade-offs are worth it.
“I have some libertarian inclinations but dislike the Libertarian Party’s endless marijuana buzz, isolationist policies, and fondness for the unreadable Ayn Rand.”
I couldn’t care less about the legalization of drugs but I would very much like to hear you defend the U.S. government’s “national security” and “national interest” policies (especially “the War on Terror”!)—I am assuming if you object to being an isolationist you are someone who believes that the World Wars were justified military actions.
Also, you have every right to dislike Rand’s philosophy (as well as anything else she championed), but I don’t think I have ever heard anyone (who has actually read her work) describe her writing as unreadable—I would recommend giving We the Living a read (or another reading).
For instance, I hate James Joyce because his writing focuses on the mundane and the miseries of human existence, but I would never say that Joyce couldn’t write—I just prefer that novels have heroes and villains (there are always exceptions like 1984 and Brave New World, which are two of my favorites). I would say that nothing that he’s ever written has added anything of value to my world view. On the other hand, I love Crime and Punishment and many other Russian novels with tragic stories.
(1) I can criticize the execution and details of the War on Terror, but I’m fine with the War on Terror itself. When Osama bin Laden took down the World Trade Center, I would have been sorely disappointed by any president who didn’t vow to chase him and his ilk to the ends of the earth to evaporate them. Jimmy Carter should have waged a War on Terror against the Ayatollahs after the hostages were taken, and the world would be been spared a half-century of terror—and justifications for limiting civil liberties.
(2) I’m speaking of Ayn Rand’s literary style—wooden prose, stiff characters who are more avatars of ideas than complex literary characters, unnecessary length to make her points. Forgive me, but I won’t make the case. I’m merely expressing an opinion. However, I’ll try to find some links to post below. Critics whom I respect have produced a large body of writing on just how bad her literary style was. I’m also not enamored of her philosophy. Adam Smith wrote of how selfish behavior leads accidentally to benefits for others; he saw the negative motivations yielding positive results. By my reading, Ayn Rand thought the selfishness was itself a positive good. She had a bitter and bleak outlook and personality that eventually drove away almost all of her friends and protégés.
(3) World War I and World War II have almost nothing in common. WWII was absolutely justifiable. WWI was avoidable, but for Woodrow Wilson’s blindness and lack of self-doubt.
“When Osama bin Laden took down the World Trade Center, I would have been sorely disappointed by any president who didn’t vow to chase him and his ilk to the ends of the earth to evaporate them. Jimmy Carter should have waged a War on Terror against the Ayatollahs after the hostages were taken, and the world would be been spared a half-century of terror—and justifications for limiting civil liberties.”
I knew the men whose helicopters broke down in a failed attempt to rescue the hostages. I trained where they trained. Your reference to TR’s "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead" is exactly what Carter didn’t say and his failure is well documented. I fully agree that the U.S. should have acted swiftly and forcefully against Iran.
But that was an act of war. What Osama bin Laden orchestrated was a criminal act (its magnitude doesn’t make it war). What country order this atrocity? If the U.S. had evidence that any state actor had sponsored these attacks, the U.S. would have an absolute right to attack the leaders of such a state (our record of reliable intelligence is poor).
Otherwise, the United States has no legal authority to kidnap or kill any individual (criminals or persons of interest) without the sanction from the home government (and when I say “kidnap” that is what an unlawful detention is—I trust that “kill” is self-explanatory).
Of course, we Americans are happy when the bad guys get bombed or executed or simply assassinated. No one (or very few) cry foul because due process was suspended (for that is what a summary execution is).
Now as for Ayn Rand, I will not fault you for your opinion of her writing. I certainly don’t need other people’s opinions of her work—yours is sufficient (after all, this is not an argument about the effects of price controls!).
I will say (because you mentioned Adam Smith—and I’m a huge fan of his two major works) that you are wrong (or rather imprecise) in your assessment of Smith.
“Adam Smith wrote of how selfish behavior leads accidentally to benefits for others; he saw the negative motivations yielding positive results.”
Adam Smith's concept of the "invisible hand" suggests that individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a free market often “unintentionally” promote the good of society. Driven by the desire for personal gain, they produce goods and services that others value, creating unintended positive outcomes.
Smith distinguished between beneficial self-interest and destructive selfishness (or "vile" greed).
In The Wealth of Nations, he argued that when individuals act in their own interest, they are led by an "invisible hand" to promote an end (social benefit) which was no part of their intention.
Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, believed that although humans act in their own interest, they are not purely selfish and possess natural empathy, allowing for moral, self-interested behavior.
Smith did not believe all self-interest was positive; he condemned behaviors that actively harmed others to benefit oneself.
While often interpreted as a defense of greed, Smith’s work suggests that rational self-interest, regulated by competition and moral sentiment, drives economic prosperity. This is approximately Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and her moral philosophy of rational selfishness.
“World War I and World War II have almost nothing in common.”
Other than the fact that WWII was simply the continuation of the war—the burning embers that The Treaty of Versailles failed to extinguish and reignited once conditions grew worse.
While they are distinct conflicts with different causes and geopolitical landscapes, saying they have almost nothing in common is inaccurate.
The harsh terms imposed on Germany after WWI created the economic instability and deep resentment that allowed the Nazis to rise to power, directly leading to WWII.
Both wars involved a conflict between a German-led alliance and an alliance containing France, the UK, and eventually the US.
WWII was essentially a faster, more mechanized, and more destructive continuation of the industrial warfare developed in WWI (tanks, aircraft, submarines).
Both conflicts involved a massive mobilization of resources and fighting across multiple continents and oceans.
While they are separate events, WWII is largely viewed by historians as the continuation of a "European Civil War" that began in 1914. (See Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan)
As for WWII being absolutely justifiable, I think such statements are obscene when they fail to mention the more than 400,000 American soldiers who died during that war. Most of those men were forced into the war by conscription (Out of over 16 million Americans who served, nearly 10 to 11.5 million were draftees, while about 39% were volunteers.).
PS—I do agree that Ayn Rand was a controversial (and sometimes even a contemptible) figure. She alienated many good people for what she herself argued in favor of, not being second-handers (or weak minded people who conform to the majority or leader). That said, I still wonder if you actually read her books (even one) , cover to cover.
PPS—I want you to know that our disagreements in no way change how much I value your thoughtful writing. I was so terribly sorry to hear about your wife’s passing. I have been in love with my wife for almost 40 years. I cannot imagine life without her. You are someone that I truly admire for the way you continue to live and continue to love life (at least that is my opinion of what you express through your words).
You said: "What Osama bin Laden orchestrated was a criminal act (its magnitude doesn’t make it war). What country order this atrocity? If the U.S. had evidence that any state actor had sponsored these attacks, the U.S. would have an absolute right to attack the leaders of such a state (our record of reliable intelligence is poor)."
Perdicaris was taken captive by a free-lance brigand and not on the orders of any sovereign power. Roosevelt told the Sultan of Morocco that he and his country would be held responsible because Raisuli was operating on their territory. The Sultan thus had great motive to bring Raisuli under control. In 1979, the Ayatollahs claimed that the hostages were taken by "students"--not by the Iranian government.
Under the current interpretations of Westphalian sovereignty, nations are held responsible for the actions of non-state actors like Bin Laden. Afghanistan certainly encouraged or failed to discourage Al Qaeda's criminal acts.
You wrote: "Smith distinguished between beneficial self-interest and destructive selfishness (or 'vile' greed)." Exactly. And Ayn Rand always struck me as being kind of OK with either flavor of selfishness. Since I can no more read through her books than I can swim through molasses, I must rely on the observations of others who sacrificed their time and eyes to read her. Perhaps the writers whose opinions sway me are unduly harsh on her.
Endorsements matter if they come from reputable endorsers. Newspaper and media endorsements do not matter much anymore
Truth to tell, neither endorsements nor "news" from newspapers matter anymore. Our print media are being scavenged (or have already been) for the value of the printing presses and the real estate. Those who continue to publish are a sorry imitation of their former selves.
I agree. I can think of one, and maybe two presidential elections where I was despondently undecided until I read a compelling lesser-of-two-evils piece by an A-List columnist. But I'm not in the that league, and those elections occurred in less-polarized times, when lots of well-read, politically-engaged people were still persuadable in presidential and other blockbuster elections.
For me endorse/don't endorse is a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis. (A) If I issue an endorsement in a presidential election, it's possible that I might influence how 4 or 5 readers vote--and with near-certainty, those shifts will not affect the outcome of the election or of any state's election results. (B) But if I write thoughtful pieces on healthcare legislation, I might change the minds of dozens or hundreds of people. Doing so might change how they vote in future elections. And, based on conversations with past students, colleagues, readers, and listeners, when I change a mind--especially within the policy community--those newfound allies propagate my viewpoints to THEIR students, colleagues, readers, and listeners over years or decades. Given my admittedly modest reach, I believe (A) and (B) are for me mutually exclusive options. Hence, I choose B.
"I agree. I can think of one, and maybe two presidential elections where I was despondently undecided until I read a compelling lesser-of-two-evils piece by an A-List columnist."
Valid for a Political Junkie. Is it for your basic voter?
Good question.
Huzzah!
:)
This is just hilarious - thank you!
You bet!
The fact we look for an endorsement from you is a sign of our respect for your thinking and writing. But all of your explanations for why you don't endorse make good sense and I for one respect your position. Thinking out loud here, refusing to make a public endorsement is one step removed from not voting at all, and that's not a good choice either.
Years ago I ran for local elective office. I did so without a deep understanding of the voters of that constituency or their needs, as I had recently settled there, and I deservedly lost. But I came away from the experience with the conviction that American politics and politicians weren't about "what needs to be done" as much as "the other guy and his party are horrible creatures." Addressing that mentality is a good reason for endorsements from respectable thinkers. Your caveats, I think, overcome the argument in my previous statement, though. Thank you for remaining true to your beliefs.
Thanks so much. I am humbled by your comments.
The New York Times endorsed John Kennedy for President in 1960. At a press conference after the election, Kennedy quipped, "I am one person who can truthfully say, 'I got my job through the New York Times.'"
But, most Americans trusted the news media in 1960. They no longer do. As of 1972, two-thirds of Americans told Gallup that they put "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of trust in the news media. By 2025, one-third said "not very much" while another third said, "None at all."
Why the collapse of media credibility? Above all, political bias. Campaign endorsements are a good example of that bias. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican Presidential nominee in seventy years.
I'll drag out my favorite horse here -- government meddles a lot more in our lives now than it used to. Even in JFK's time, most government meddling was limited to lots of taxes. Then came the EPA, car safety, the War on Poverty, the FDA, health and medicine, tobacco, 55 mph, far more personal regulation that deeply affected people, much more than what FDR had done.
Before then, the difference in parties was taxation and wars. The party in power made little difference in people's daily lives. After LBJ and Nixon, government meddling mattered a great deal.
I have the feeling that endorsements mattered a lot less than people think, that endorsements reflected public opinion more than they set it.
Has anyone ever been surprised by someone's endorsement for a political candidate? I have not. If we cannot figure out who someone is going to vote for simply by talking to them, we're probably not really paying much attention.
Yes, I’ve been surprised at times. If I remember correctly, George Will endorsed Clinton in 1992 because (and I’m paraphrasing from memory), “Bill Clinton cannot do what George H. W. Bush is doing, which is rotting conservatism out from the inside.” I also recall Eugene McCarthy supporting Reagan over Carter in 1980. In 2016, P. J. O’Rourke similarly endorsed Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, saying, “She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”
I’m most impressed when a thoughtful public figure offers a counterintuitive endorsement without discarding their principles. (This does not apply to a figure like Bill Kristol, who appears to have discarded every core belief that he seemed to hold when he published the Weekly Standard.)
Fair enough. George Will may have had information I did not have about Bush. So yes, that one surprises me. I can see why some Democrats might have liked Reagan over Carter, simply because Regan was a really nice guy. And of course, Donald Trump is like no other in my life time for generating visceral praise or rage.
Add to the list, William F Buckley, Jr, endorsing Democrat Joe Lieberman over Republican Lowell Weicker for Senate in 1988.
Now that one makes some sense, no? Lieberman was fairly centrist, wasn't he? I do not recall much about Weicker.
Weicker was quite liberal. Hence Buckley's choice.
Don't agree with every thing. But its intelligently thought out. Your column that is. And I did not know that about Philip Johnsons synagogue design. I did know about his liking for Hitler. It would have been interesting to have all the information.
Thanks so much. This comment pleases me greatly. I sometimes quip that if someone likes everything that I say, I’m not doing my job properly.
No,I'm flattered. I will continue to read you for two reasons, One, I have to think to disagree with your arguments. That's getting rare. And you can always teach me things. This with Philip Johnson. And the last one with the Vice Presidents.
This makes my day!
I spent nearly 30 years teaching Public Budgeting (at the local and state level) and various policy courses and few students ever managed to discern my personal preferences. As one grad student told me, at the end of the course (paraphrased), "None of us cant tell what your politics are. We do think you're crazy and you know a lot, but you find bad things to say about every possible choice."
I told her that made me think I was doing it right. People who want whatever choice they favor tend to tell you only good things that come from that choice, and bad things from the choices of others. It is better for you to try to find the bad things about any choice then decide if the trade-offs are worth it.
I won a Professor of the Year award, and their citation said, “We never knew where he stood on any issue.” They never felt safe from my questioning.
“I have some libertarian inclinations but dislike the Libertarian Party’s endless marijuana buzz, isolationist policies, and fondness for the unreadable Ayn Rand.”
I couldn’t care less about the legalization of drugs but I would very much like to hear you defend the U.S. government’s “national security” and “national interest” policies (especially “the War on Terror”!)—I am assuming if you object to being an isolationist you are someone who believes that the World Wars were justified military actions.
Also, you have every right to dislike Rand’s philosophy (as well as anything else she championed), but I don’t think I have ever heard anyone (who has actually read her work) describe her writing as unreadable—I would recommend giving We the Living a read (or another reading).
For instance, I hate James Joyce because his writing focuses on the mundane and the miseries of human existence, but I would never say that Joyce couldn’t write—I just prefer that novels have heroes and villains (there are always exceptions like 1984 and Brave New World, which are two of my favorites). I would say that nothing that he’s ever written has added anything of value to my world view. On the other hand, I love Crime and Punishment and many other Russian novels with tragic stories.
“Unreadable”?—please make your case.
(1) I can criticize the execution and details of the War on Terror, but I’m fine with the War on Terror itself. When Osama bin Laden took down the World Trade Center, I would have been sorely disappointed by any president who didn’t vow to chase him and his ilk to the ends of the earth to evaporate them. Jimmy Carter should have waged a War on Terror against the Ayatollahs after the hostages were taken, and the world would be been spared a half-century of terror—and justifications for limiting civil liberties.
(2) I’m speaking of Ayn Rand’s literary style—wooden prose, stiff characters who are more avatars of ideas than complex literary characters, unnecessary length to make her points. Forgive me, but I won’t make the case. I’m merely expressing an opinion. However, I’ll try to find some links to post below. Critics whom I respect have produced a large body of writing on just how bad her literary style was. I’m also not enamored of her philosophy. Adam Smith wrote of how selfish behavior leads accidentally to benefits for others; he saw the negative motivations yielding positive results. By my reading, Ayn Rand thought the selfishness was itself a positive good. She had a bitter and bleak outlook and personality that eventually drove away almost all of her friends and protégés.
(3) World War I and World War II have almost nothing in common. WWII was absolutely justifiable. WWI was avoidable, but for Woodrow Wilson’s blindness and lack of self-doubt.
There is a difference between War and Crime.
“When Osama bin Laden took down the World Trade Center, I would have been sorely disappointed by any president who didn’t vow to chase him and his ilk to the ends of the earth to evaporate them. Jimmy Carter should have waged a War on Terror against the Ayatollahs after the hostages were taken, and the world would be been spared a half-century of terror—and justifications for limiting civil liberties.”
I knew the men whose helicopters broke down in a failed attempt to rescue the hostages. I trained where they trained. Your reference to TR’s "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead" is exactly what Carter didn’t say and his failure is well documented. I fully agree that the U.S. should have acted swiftly and forcefully against Iran.
But that was an act of war. What Osama bin Laden orchestrated was a criminal act (its magnitude doesn’t make it war). What country order this atrocity? If the U.S. had evidence that any state actor had sponsored these attacks, the U.S. would have an absolute right to attack the leaders of such a state (our record of reliable intelligence is poor).
Otherwise, the United States has no legal authority to kidnap or kill any individual (criminals or persons of interest) without the sanction from the home government (and when I say “kidnap” that is what an unlawful detention is—I trust that “kill” is self-explanatory).
Of course, we Americans are happy when the bad guys get bombed or executed or simply assassinated. No one (or very few) cry foul because due process was suspended (for that is what a summary execution is).
Now as for Ayn Rand, I will not fault you for your opinion of her writing. I certainly don’t need other people’s opinions of her work—yours is sufficient (after all, this is not an argument about the effects of price controls!).
I will say (because you mentioned Adam Smith—and I’m a huge fan of his two major works) that you are wrong (or rather imprecise) in your assessment of Smith.
“Adam Smith wrote of how selfish behavior leads accidentally to benefits for others; he saw the negative motivations yielding positive results.”
Adam Smith's concept of the "invisible hand" suggests that individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a free market often “unintentionally” promote the good of society. Driven by the desire for personal gain, they produce goods and services that others value, creating unintended positive outcomes.
Smith distinguished between beneficial self-interest and destructive selfishness (or "vile" greed).
In The Wealth of Nations, he argued that when individuals act in their own interest, they are led by an "invisible hand" to promote an end (social benefit) which was no part of their intention.
Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, believed that although humans act in their own interest, they are not purely selfish and possess natural empathy, allowing for moral, self-interested behavior.
Smith did not believe all self-interest was positive; he condemned behaviors that actively harmed others to benefit oneself.
While often interpreted as a defense of greed, Smith’s work suggests that rational self-interest, regulated by competition and moral sentiment, drives economic prosperity. This is approximately Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and her moral philosophy of rational selfishness.
“World War I and World War II have almost nothing in common.”
Other than the fact that WWII was simply the continuation of the war—the burning embers that The Treaty of Versailles failed to extinguish and reignited once conditions grew worse.
While they are distinct conflicts with different causes and geopolitical landscapes, saying they have almost nothing in common is inaccurate.
The harsh terms imposed on Germany after WWI created the economic instability and deep resentment that allowed the Nazis to rise to power, directly leading to WWII.
Both wars involved a conflict between a German-led alliance and an alliance containing France, the UK, and eventually the US.
WWII was essentially a faster, more mechanized, and more destructive continuation of the industrial warfare developed in WWI (tanks, aircraft, submarines).
Both conflicts involved a massive mobilization of resources and fighting across multiple continents and oceans.
While they are separate events, WWII is largely viewed by historians as the continuation of a "European Civil War" that began in 1914. (See Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan)
As for WWII being absolutely justifiable, I think such statements are obscene when they fail to mention the more than 400,000 American soldiers who died during that war. Most of those men were forced into the war by conscription (Out of over 16 million Americans who served, nearly 10 to 11.5 million were draftees, while about 39% were volunteers.).
PS—I do agree that Ayn Rand was a controversial (and sometimes even a contemptible) figure. She alienated many good people for what she herself argued in favor of, not being second-handers (or weak minded people who conform to the majority or leader). That said, I still wonder if you actually read her books (even one) , cover to cover.
PPS—I want you to know that our disagreements in no way change how much I value your thoughtful writing. I was so terribly sorry to hear about your wife’s passing. I have been in love with my wife for almost 40 years. I cannot imagine life without her. You are someone that I truly admire for the way you continue to live and continue to love life (at least that is my opinion of what you express through your words).
You said: "What Osama bin Laden orchestrated was a criminal act (its magnitude doesn’t make it war). What country order this atrocity? If the U.S. had evidence that any state actor had sponsored these attacks, the U.S. would have an absolute right to attack the leaders of such a state (our record of reliable intelligence is poor)."
Perdicaris was taken captive by a free-lance brigand and not on the orders of any sovereign power. Roosevelt told the Sultan of Morocco that he and his country would be held responsible because Raisuli was operating on their territory. The Sultan thus had great motive to bring Raisuli under control. In 1979, the Ayatollahs claimed that the hostages were taken by "students"--not by the Iranian government.
Under the current interpretations of Westphalian sovereignty, nations are held responsible for the actions of non-state actors like Bin Laden. Afghanistan certainly encouraged or failed to discourage Al Qaeda's criminal acts.
You wrote: "Smith distinguished between beneficial self-interest and destructive selfishness (or 'vile' greed)." Exactly. And Ayn Rand always struck me as being kind of OK with either flavor of selfishness. Since I can no more read through her books than I can swim through molasses, I must rely on the observations of others who sacrificed their time and eyes to read her. Perhaps the writers whose opinions sway me are unduly harsh on her.