Hopelessness in the New History

In May, Law & Liberty ran a forum debate on the nature of modern socialist thought. Prominent among the criticisms raised are points applicable to current leftist ideology overall: its historicism, relativism, and nihilism. I have certainly shared in this concern, noting this of the New York Times1619 Project and of its editorial board’s exploitation of the current pandemic. However, this attempt to rewrite the social and historical narratives of both American history and economic history in general embraces what we might call a loose construction of fact.

In this attempt to revise the narratives of capitalism and the development of the modern world, the modern crop of socialists, which is nearly indistinguishable in any substantive way from progressivism generally, certainly make a number of highly questionable assertions.

Yet, for the most part, it is not the nihilism or merely the will to assert what is a fact that mars the modern progressive approach to history. It is the ultimate hopelessness of the narratives that they are spinning that is the primary problem. If the issue were merely errors of fact, the implications of the so-called “New Histories” would hardly amount to the proverbial tempest in a teapot.

More than Just the Facts

There are plenty of facts in the so-called “New Histories of Capitalism.” Most of those facts I would even affirm to be true. Slavery existed and it did contribute in certain important ways to the products and incomes of the early modern economy. One ought to be aware of these facts and relate them to the particulars of that institution in all its brutality.

Nor is moral relativism rightly understood, the entirety of what is wrong. Our progressive social warriors (of whatever sort) are generally brimming overfull with moral indignation, if not a hypertrophied sense of distributional equity or what is also called “social justice.”  A capricious decisionism of the will is not the primary problem. What is most objectionable is not factual error or relativism, but the way in which those facts are arrayed and the specific ethical orientation from which they emerge.

Traditional Marxism tied its ethical foundations to a claim about the nature of facts in history. Specifically the systemic nature of power was supposedly revealed in the way society creates and distributes economic wealth. The claim was that the measurable, tangible sources of material production were in fact the primary vehicle through which power is exercised in society, and only after reaching a certain point of development, would ideas themselves begin to alter how people think, preparing the way for the revolutionary reformation of society.

The modern progressive narrative, however, has discarded the idea that power flows from any particular arrangement of production in the economy. Instead, the modern radical believes it inheres directly in institutions, where beliefs about its proper exercise hold sway. No particular relationship to the facts of production are privileged from this perspective, but all relations throughout society are interpreted as evidence of a system of thought through which the intentions of the powerful are transmitted. In some respects, this is not so different from old fashioned intellectual and political narratives of the past that held to the primacy of ideas, with one very significant difference.

Historical Context Rightly Understood

Traditional intellectual histories recognized multiple competing voices in the past. One thinks here of historians like R. R. Palmer who set democratic ideas alongside monarchical and aristocratic traditions, or Caroline Robbins who placed republican thought in the context of absolutist and feudal modes of thought, or Harold Berman who studied the contending views of authority and law in both the late medieval and Reformation eras as they related to the various factions within Christianity. This kind of intellectual history aimed at understanding how different viewpoints could arise by understanding the context in which they developed.

Each of these historians viewed the various parties to a contest in time as playing a role in the shaping of the institutional character of society from one moment to the next. Sometimes such processes seemed to move society along more open and liberal channels (e.g. Palmer) but not necessarily so (e.g. Berman). And here was the ultimate source of history’s hopefulness. The contest of ideas was real, and individual choices remained open at each moment, with give and take on all sides contributing to the historical moment, holding out the possibility of substantial learning and the gaining of wisdom over time.

The modern radical narrative, however, accepts no such interplay. Instead, these theorists view the political realm as the product of ruling belief structures with little or no give and take of competing thoughts. That view reduces the realm of the past to a political battle of contending elites. It is the hopelessness of such a view, it’s either-or character, that is the real source of danger for our already too divisive political climate, and in this way, I don’t share Nathan Pinkoski’s relatively more benign assessment of current progressivism as simply misguided bourgeois liberalism.

The Hopelessness of Systemic Interpretation

The assertion that slavery is at the core of our modern day economic and legal “system” partakes of this very particular understanding of the systemic nature of discourse. In earlier historical debates, the tensions in logic and practice between free exchange and compulsory labor was a problem requiring historical understanding. It is what prompted Eugene Genovese’s earlier Marxist interpretation of the essentially backward-looking ideology of the Southern Planter Class. Slavery represented not a capitalist, but a re-feudalized order of society.

However, with the realization in the mid-20th century that Marx’s revolution would not occur as a matter of historical necessity, modern day revolutionaries surrendered the claim to an objective structural materialism at work in history for the idea that whatever exists, it exists as a system of thought where all aspects of current conditions become evidence of intentionality on the part of those with power, however complicated or even contradictory such ideas might at first appear.

From such a perspective, ideas and beliefs are imposed and not mediated. And unlike earlier liberal pluralism for which thoughts were formed through processes of give and take, modern progressives have no interest per se in the interplay of ideas with the genuine messiness of authentic legal, political or economic contexts, where distinct individual experiences generate genuine differences of perspective and opinion.

Even classic Marxists, like Genovese, still held that the means of capitalist production were part of a stage in economic development and were not evil in themselves. With modern discourse theory, however, evil is left open to the subjectivity of the beholder whether he or she inclines to seeing systemic machinations of sexism, racism, environmentalism or any combination of the above. All that matters is the systemic reformation of the whole.

Historical context, in this “new” way of thinking, simply becomes the expression of the predominate intellectual paradigm which the reformer must overturn. Such a view retains the conspiratorial aspects of Marx’s theory of class hegemony, but without any of the limitations imposed by his historical theory of material development. The modern revolutionary need not wait for the give and take of history among individuals and groups but seeks to forcefully replace one “structure of belief” with another in what amounts to an all or nothing, win or lose, contest.

Of course, that understanding requires “thought leaders” and “experts” who can distinguish the right ideas, behaviors, and intentions from the wrong ones and are strategically poised to assume the reins of power. And here is why freedom of speech and expression are under such severe attack.

Free Speech as Oppression

The central point to understand about Progressive discourse theory is that it contends not against the problematic nature of power, but only against the motives and ideas of those who are said to wield it. Symbols, ideas, manners, art, and language all become subject to critical reformulation, and the mode of reform must perforce rely on the critical direction of experts.

The destructive and ultimately hopeless nature of such a world view rests in the fact that it has no place for honest disagreement, no mere difference of opinion. Because all is evidence of a system of thought there can be no acceptable order where there is opposition over the substantive vision of the good that is to replace it, whatever that might be. Disagreement implies the persistence of opposition, and this, to our current crop of progressives, is intolerable.

Here the liberty of opinion serves no useful or necessary relation to the establishment of the new vision of a just social system which must be realized in whole, from the top down. In fact, liberty of thought and speech would be subversive, preserving smoldering embers of resistance or makeweights to power’s reformulation.

And so, tolerance itself, in the words of a leading critical theorist of the mid-20th century, Herbert Marcuse, becomes “tolerance towards that which is radically evil,” and must be countered because it is itself the manifestation of a whole whose “structure and function determine every particular condition and relation.” In other words, to use the favorite watchwords of our current radicals, evil is always and everywhere, “systemic.” And that has a direct bearing on the kinds of activity such radicals must pursue.

For the modern progressive, cultural planning has taken the place of economic planning, concocted from a heady brew of largely 20th century German and French critical theory and phenomenology. Any counter empowerment to the plans of social justice however defined, is to be rooted out as bias, prejudice, and aggression at all levels. In this world, a general rule respecting toleration and free expression is regarded as irrelevant at best, and more likely subversive in fact.

Individual liberty presupposes that voluntary action is possible and fundamentally beneficial when set within the parameters of equal laws, but the idea of society as a system where “every particular condition” is rooted in “structure and function,” rejects that premise. A commitment to voluntary choice and the liberty of free association hold out the hope for mutual gains from individual exchanges and the possibility of incremental improvements in society over time.

The systemic perspective, on the other hand, has room only for the reformation of the whole order, and so makes its pitch directly for control of the institutions of government. For the systemic thinkers of today, you are either one of the cognoscenti in favor of change, the enemy opposing it, or merely a pawn in the game. All the nuance and complexity of genuine context is drained away.

The “New” Socialist Narrative Agenda

And here then is the heart of the new radicalism of our time. All that is concerned with liberal institutions, such as markets, contracts, property, or constitutions, the rule of law, custom and precedent, are interpreted as the expression of systemic asymmetries of power. Being thus categorized, nothing of the politics of the U.S. or the economics of a largely market driven economy can offer anything redemptive or hopeful, and no quarter is to be given in the push for change.

In essence, the turn to a systemic narrative in modern socialist readings results in the worst kind of historical reductionism: the total politicization of all social relations all the way down, exposing the very truncated and shallow sense of context that informs present-day radical discourse. From here, the entirety of the past must be rewritten only with those power relations, in “every particular condition and relation,” boldly and unavoidably “confronted.”

And so, to the current crop of “New Historians,” slavery can no longer be interpreted as an evil and unfortunate off-shoot of historical and economic contexts but must be portrayed as the very engine of a single unitary system. Any dissent and all departures from that narrative and the substantive alternative vision of systemic justice with which it is inevitably fused, howsoever formulated in the mind of any given author, are to be classed as reactionary.

Histories that uphold, for example, older idealist interpretations become worse than suspect when they point to the positive aspects of past individuals, movements, beliefs or policies of those regarded to be part of the system. To think such is to deny that there is a “system.” Thus, the all too obvious tensions existing between the revolutionary ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the institution of slavery in the colonies is simply denied and the very movement for independence is itself asserted to be merely a defense of bondage, and not ultimately of liberty and self-government.

And what is worse, historians who point to such historical tensions, where motives and aims are seen to be in contention even among the so-called powerful, are quickly dismissed by such historians as complicit in the drive to preserve the “system.” And so we find that even Alfred Chandler and the New Institutionalist historians of the 1960s and 70s, however, “progressive” they may have thought themselves to be at the time, are actually counted among the apologists of capitalist exploitation, by allegedly providing a more pleasing portrayal of business practices in the late 19th century.

Conspiracy, in the form of systemic motivation, is really the only remaining vestige of the earlier Marxist critique. The groups doing the oppressing may not have any material basis in some specific mode of industrial production, but the common commitment to the wrong ideas mark them, whoever they may be, as enemies, and when you are an enemy of the substantive vision of social justice, whatever that might be, then there can be no liberty given, but only the freedom to renounce. It is all or nothing. That is a hopeless narrative—hopeless for all who might disagree at whatever level of opposition, even eventually among the revolutionists themselves.

Taking an Axe to Historical Context

The power ethic on which these new systemic narratives are based afford no ground from which a common social narrative can ultimately be worked out through civil exchange, polite debate, or learned disputation. These are old liberal tropes for which the modern critical narrativists have lost all patience. Of course, this means that there will never be any authentic unity even within their own ranks. For every Trotsky, there awaits an ice axe.

But in the meantime, statuary is to be pulled down, and not merely of offending Confederates, but a whole host of characters from Christopher Columbus to Thomas Jefferson, from George Washington to Winston Churchill. None of the symbols representing any degree of inconsistency with the systemic re-envisioning of the good can be tolerated.

This is no recipe either for a real understanding of the complexities of genuine historical context nor for the construction of an inclusive and stable social order in the present. A real sense of the complexities of context requires that space be given to the inescapable reality of human individuality and difference. It is however what Edmund Burke understood, to be at the root of revolutionary zealotry, the all or nothing, my way or the highway approach to society.

Real History is Hopeful

But reality, past or present, is not systemic. It has to be understood and interpreted precisely because each person as well as each moment is a composite of unique and often inconsistent elements. Here is the original notion of the concrete wherein real history’s hopefulness resides.

To be hopeful, history and politics must ultimately be truthful and that means more than mere facticity. A real understanding of both realms must accept far more than what a fixed and largely static conception of “systemic power” or “social justice” now asserts. It must accept that common social narratives are built up, bit by bit, in open, free and civil discussion where differences can first be clarified and discussed, and not through compulsory genuflection.

All hopeful narratives give some quarter for redemption through acknowledgement that good can exist simultaneously in this world with evil, and that anyone can come to see the tensions between them and choose the positive over the negative, affirming ultimately the salutary order of a society of free and equal laws. But perhaps even more importantly, hopeful narratives remain open to the possibility of their own falsification. This is the reason why liberty of thought remains such a vital principle in civil society rightly understood.

Accepting the possibility that one might be wrong is the very air that sustains all hopeful narratives, built up as they are through the give and take of multiple contributors. Such narratives depend on the liberty of free expression, opinion and perhaps most importantly, debate. That is indeed how peaceful, open and enduring civil order is actually formed. The new narratives, either of the past or the present, do not offer such hope—instead, they promise only destruction.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on September 03, 2020 at 07:18:09 am

Yes, true, but.... Socialists hold no patent on intolerant moralizing. Alas, there is quite a lot of competition in the moral intolerance game - which has been going on for quite some time. Every new technology - print, radio, television, and now the internet - has in turn been used to spread intolerance and incivility, but each has presented unique challenges. Censorship is not the solution. But I do wonder if some reform of libel law might help encourage civility while still permitting open debate.

read full comment
on September 03, 2020 at 07:30:12 am

These are the words I have been waiting for, although of course I could not have written them myself. Within my own thinking, they remained an inarticulate "sense of things"; one that I suspect is shared by many, many others. I will distribute this post far and wide in hope (not "hopelessness"!) that its content will embolden ordinary citizens to engage with those who will not consider the possibility that they may be wrong.

read full comment
Image of Latecomer
on September 03, 2020 at 08:50:52 am

An absurd reductionism becomes a reductionism of convenience. But it's telling, vis-a-vis reality (which is in fact not systemic or reductionist, obviously) as to just how absurd their reductionist vision is. I.e. it's telling in psychological terms, most notably it's telling of a substantial degree of infantilization and the need and insistency to be indulged in that manner. This too is a part of what needs to be appreciated.

A solid piece, a sound take on things.

read full comment
Image of Michael Bond
Michael Bond
on September 03, 2020 at 15:47:15 pm

Mr. Eicholz provides a valuable perspective, which touches on several topics that have been recently discussed in these essays. I would suggest the following synthesis of some of these ideas:


a,) Things change according to their nature; more specifically they change according to their nature in response to their environment. The idea of nature implies that something has consistent traits that determine its behavior, and make it possible to predict and even design responses.

b.) Human actions are stimulated by a small class of motivations, which includes reason, emotion, belief and instinct. These produce second order motivations such as duty, revenge, and charity.

c.) All societies develop hierarchies; all change in social structures produce hierarchies.


a.) Emotions are strong motivators but poor counselors. They make people do really dumb and pointless things.

b.) Myths, as used in socialist literature are those narratives that provoke immediate action. To quote Mark Antliff's interpretation of Georges Sorel's concept of myth, they are "those visionary principles that inspire immediate action." Sorel concluded that religious sects and political movements achieved "transformations...from the emotive impact of their core myths." Sorel also strongly advocated the power of myth because

A myth cannot be refuted since it is, at bottom, identical to the convictions of a group...unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions.

This is absolutely crucial: Myths do not express a desired end state or telos; their value is solely in their ability to provoke action. Myths that do so by appealing to emotion rather than reason are more likely to stimulate immediate action (and consequently lead people to do dumb and pointless things). Sorel even claimed that "Utopias" were the opposite of myths because Utopias are "intellectual products." (It is useful to note this because Sorel influenced Frantz Fanon who influenced the Negritude and black power movements of the 1960s and '70s, which in turn are the seeds nurtured by critical theory and social justice rhetoric.)

Sorel's prototypical "myth" is the Christian notion of life-after death. It cannot be refuted, and it affects the decisions and life choices of devout Christians. It does not need historical precedent or contemporary evidence, and if the belief is propagated, the consequent actions follow. It is also important to note that myths can be true, partially true or completely false. They may have appeal to reason, emotion, instinct, or spiritual natures. Their usefulness does not depend on their susceptibility to rational analysis.


a.) The value of history in Western thought is to serve as reservoir of data and experience that illuminates the nature of human experience. This allows for designing and implementing those institutions that might be expected to improve human life, according to its nature, and to allow people to flourish.

b.) The current denigration of history is an attempt to turn history into a Sorelian myth; to alter it into an emotional appeal that will stimulate immediate action. It is also to treat it as Sorel asserted: a myth "that cannot be refuted" because it is "identical to the convictions of a group." Thus, denying that you are racist means you are a racist. Myths do not have to make sense.

c.) When people refer to "narratives," they are referring to what Sorel would have called a myth. Examples of this are the "1619 Project," "Systemic racism," "hands up, don't shoot," "White fragility." A more local example is the myth that Minneapolis police had shot an unarmed black man, when he in fact was armed and committed suicide, but which nonetheless resulted in emotion-driven rioting and looting.

d.) The reason that current social justice narratives seem nihilistic and pessimistic is that they have no telos. They do not express a desired end-state which, as Sorel noted, is the whole point. The idea is to stimulate action, with such action itself being the goal, without a clear objective. That the action spoken of is almost exclusively destructive does not matter. Even the boilerplate "values" of "equity," and "justice" are implicitly understood to be illogical pretexts rather than desired goals.

e.) You cannot argue people out of their attachment to myths. The power of destructive myths is overcome by virtuous acts, patiently pursued and based on the dignity and worth of every individual person.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
on September 09, 2020 at 20:39:08 pm

I cannot imagine more hopefulness than this U.S. citizen, a non-Anglo-American-originalist, Phil Beaver, perceives on reading this essay. Hans Eicholz has, intentionally or not, written the arguments for considering the proffered preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). Its intention is ineluctable goodness among fellow citizens rather than civilly imposed Anglo-American “common good” or Anglo-American Christianity.

Ineluctable is a civic more than private goodness. Perhaps taking negative cue from authors of the books of the Bibles (from the diverse canons: Hebrew, Greek Orthodox, Ethiopian Tewahedo, Catholic, factional-Protestant, etc.), the U.S. preamble’s authors declined civic, civil, legal, or private standards, such as factional-American Protestantism and laws/traditions that could not be amended. Under the U.S. Preamble, the individual decides his or her norms for personal happiness while practicing civic integrity.

Having experienced or observed that their youth was prepared for a future the 1774 founders could not imagine, the 1787 signers of the U.S. Preamble approved an abstract proposition: living citizens include posterity in the people’s disciplinary goals and purpose, in order to develop ineluctable goodness. Consequently, posterity’s posterity will discover the ineluctable goodness the 2020 “ourselves” hope for. However, only 2/3 of 1787 delegates signed the document that changed the U.S. from a confederation of states to public discipline of by and for the people in their states’ Union with willing states: perhaps 1/3 of delegates were dissidents. The required 9 of 12 states ratified the constitution in 1788.

The First Congress, too traditional to tolerate the U.S. Preamble’s progressive proposition, reinstated, as much as possible, British-colonial, Anglo-American, Chapter XI Machiavellianism in order to repress the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Chapter XI’s church-state partnership picks the people’s pockets with immunity; each family expects their personal God to eventually relieve them of the misery and loss to the government partnership. Believers tend to overlook Genesis 1:28’s non-consignable charge to constrain chaos on earth. Whatever-God-is does not usurp humankind's responsibility for human peace.

Eicholz cites “the contending views of authority and law . . . as they related to the various factions within Christianity” without admitting Christianity’s doctrinal arrogance, exclusions, abuses, and tyranny. Without accepting the Congressional tyranny, Eicholz is not positioned to include fellow citizens like me. Excluding me from the U.S. debate is taken for granted by the establishment, including this forum.

Consider the direct topic, I think citizens who unfortunately volunteer for AMO--Alinsky-Marxist organizations’ causes. The Alinsky form of Marxism is that if his egocentric rights are threatened, his violence is justified. Listen to the last 2 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=OsfxnaFaHWI. In the introduction, Alinsky does not object when Buckley describes him as “the pet revolutionary for church people in America”. It was a radical form of African-American-Christianity; https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778.

Alinsky’s Marxism hinges on self-adjudicated victimization to generate racial animosity. It is this tacit rejection of his own human, ineluctable good—the good that motivates individuals to behave for mutual, comprehensive safety and security. The misguided attraction to AMO has America distracted by “progressives” who may not understand that they are straining for the proffered and neglected ineluctable goodness under the U.S. Preamble’s abstract proposal more than specific “distribution of economic wealth”. Distracted by both 1) AMO violence over “a loose construction of fact” they don’t know enough to refute and 2) the Anglo-American Christian tradition or Judeo-Christianity or the Vatican or African-American-Christianity no one can articulate, they may indeed feel hopeless. I don’t feel hopeless.

Rather than “revolutionary reformation of society,” progressives strain for the 1787-intended U.S. way of living: public discipline “in order to” practice responsible human independence. After 231 years under Christianity’s beliefs it is evident that civic integrity is based on ineluctable evidence, some of which is erroneously discussed in the Bibles. Civic integrity addresses performance during life rather than destiny in the afterdeath. The separation of life and afterdeath; reality and spirit; earth and otherworlds; known and unknown; integrity and infidelity is valid for every individual. Each one knows how life is going but can only speculate about the afterdeath. When Eicholz cites Berman’s Christian channel “And here was the ultimate source of history’s hopefulness,” he seems to affirm the civil imposition of Christianity but does not admit to its tyranny.

It is not difficult to assess the U.S. Civil war as a military victory under the less erroneous Christian opinion. However, scholars work to hide Christianity’s responsibility. Eicholz wrote “slavery represented not a capitalist, but a re-feudalized order of society." He references “tolerance towards that which is radically evil,” yet overlooks factional-Christianity’s evil in opposing U.S. abolition of slavery. Frederick Douglass objected in 1852; bleeding Kansas suffered in 1856; R.E. Lee wrote to his wife about abolitionists “evil” in 1856; and the Confederate States of America fired on the U.S. in 1861, citing “more erroneous [Christian] beliefs”. These are elements of factual history that are suppressed by U.S. civil Christianity. This is no time for AMO soldiers---I write daily to convince them to reform. However, it is time for U.S. citizens to stonewall Christian doctrine at the civic, civil, legal, and private tables. Ineluctable goodness has been stonewalled too long.

Eicholz could promote the U.S. Preamble in “A commitment to voluntary choice and the liberty of free association hold out the hope for mutual gains from individual exchanges and the possibility of incremental improvements in society over time.” A more difficult self-examination is offered in “commitment to the wrong ideas mark [fellow citizens] as enemies, and when you are an enemy of the [ineluctable good] then there can be . . . only the freedom to renounce.” And again in “[H]opeful narratives give some quarter for redemption through acknowledgement that [ineluctable] good can exist simultaneously in this world with evil, and that anyone can come to see the tensions between them and choose the positive over the negative, affirming ultimately the salutary order of a society of free and [equitable] laws.”

Eicholz seems critical of people who interpret history. However, it seems clear that people who wrote history interpreted the events they experienced or observed. To say that a citizen cannot interpret the interpretations, including the documents such as the U.S. Preamble, seems arbitrary censorship. People who continue to insist on the imposition of Christianity can’t imagine that their “freedom of speech and expression” severely attacks fellow citizens who have no interest in Christian doctrine; there is no reason for a civic citizen to tolerate Christian civil favor. The citizen who cannot keep his or her religion private no longer deserves a seat at the civic table. “There can be no acceptable order where there is opposition [to] the [ineluctable] good.”

The U.S. Preamble is remarkable in that it demands interpretation. The preamble has two major thoughts: declaration of the laws and organization of the USA and the people’s proposition for public discipline. The second thought is abstractly stated yet specifically directed to the continuum of living citizens: “ourselves and our Posterity.” In 2020, AMO has made it clear that “liberty” is too often taken as license to express egocentric “rights” by harming fellow citizens and our properties. Also, the U.S. Preamble offers no norms for the goals and purpose. Consequently, my interpretation today, offered for improvement is: This appreciative citizen practices the five-U.S.-public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Much as I choose to accept developing my person as a human being who behaves for statutory justice, I am offered the opportunity to be a U.S. citizen according to my civic interpretation of the U.S. Preamble rather than to Anglo-American tradition. The first Congress thought the preamble was too progressive for Anglo-American Christian doctrine. However, these 231 years later, the entity “We the People of the United States in order to . . .” can hold Congress and other government officials accountable to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

I have yet to read a post in this forum that makes the case better than Eicholz’ essay in my view.

read full comment
Image of Phillip Beaver
Phillip Beaver

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.