Taking on Mark Levin – November 17th, 2015

This episode is the epitome of why I started this blog, and why I can’t do the same sort of thing for Mark Levin. There are so many problems with Levin. If I were to write a post just on the clips Jason pulled, it would be 4 or 5 pages. We’re talking the constitutionality of the president committing troops to hostile action abroad, to freeing the slaves through civil war.

Jason, on the other hand, rips Levin to shreds. Jason exploded every point Levin made. Except after he was done, there came an almost crippling retort from the other side. Actually, it came at the beginning of the show by way of Tammy, but Levin would have raised it had he and Jason been talking directly. Is this what would the world look like if the libertarians had been in control in 1941? It’s supposed to be this great smack down against libertarian foreign policy.

Jason and Daren got up from that blow and brought the fight back, to even footing with the response, “Hey, look, we’ve been doing it your way for the last 14 years and it hasn’t worked.” Of course, Levin can point to the fact there hasn’t been a major terrorist attack stateside since then, so it seems to be working fine.

Here is the way to land the knock out right after the question is posed. When someone asks, “Well what would the libertarians have done after Pearl Harbor,” is to ask why we should have to take over on December 8th 1941. You can’t play a chess game and ask someone else to take over when you’re two moves away from being checkmated! Let’s suppose that Libertarians had been in power in America in 1916. Had a Ron Paul been elected in 1916, we would have never entered the First World War. The war would have ended sooner. Because the Germans would have either barely won or barely lost. The peace would not have been nearly as harsh. Whether they had won or lost, without the Americans involved, Germany wouldn’t have been saddled with the overwhelming war debt, and more importantly their government wouldn’t have been radically changed. How, exactly, could Hitler have come to power if Germany still had her Kaiser? Of course, one of Hitler’s main complaints, and the way he attracted most of his following, was by railing against the Versailles Treaty. Without the Versailles treaty, and with a Kaiser, the Nazi party would have never come to power.

Not just that, but without fresh blood on the allied side, the war would have ended sooner. Maybe their Czar wouldn’t have been abdicated in Russia. That means the Bolsheviks would never have had the opportunity to take over! That means 60 years of communist rule in Russia and Eastern Europe might have been avoided. Without a socialist Russia, it is highly doubtful either China, Vietnam, or Korea would have turned Communist. Now we are talking about WWII, the Korean, and the Vietnam conflict never happening.

But, what about Japan? Well Japan was on our side in WWI, and won for themselves business rights in the Shandong province of China (a fact that really, really upset the Chinese). But, the Japanese left the Paris peace conference offended! Why? Because they had proposed a clause to be put into the peace treaty, something to the effect that Asians are not inherently inferior to Europeans. This is how we made enemies with Japan and caused them to go over to the German side, and break their Alliance with the British.

Now, I’m not an expert on WWI or the middle east, but it does seem a question might also be raised concerning the impact U.S. involvement in WWI played in the Middle East. I can only hypothesize: had the U.S. not entered the war, the British wouldn’t have been able to devote so many resources and so much man power into attacking the Ottoman empire in present day Iraq. Might the sick man of Europe been able to recover after WWI? The fermentation of resentment of Arabs towards the west might have been shut off at the beginning had the U.S. not gotten involved in WWI. Maybe we would have never installed puppet rulers in the Middle East, maybe the world could have gone on as it had before.

Don’t come to me and tell me I have to take over on Dec 8th 1941! That’s ridiculous! I want to take over in 1916. By December 8th the mess has already been made.

However, we’re not good Misessians if we don’t take the hardest road. Nevertheless, it should also be fair. How about Jan 20th 1941. That was when FDR was sworn in for his 3rd term. It could have been a Libertarian. So now, there’s war in Europe and we have nearly a year before the attack. Well, the first thing is the most obvious: move the Pacific fleet back to San Diego where it was before the war broke out! Moving your fleet 1/2 way across the Ocean towards a country in the midst of a war seems to be a pretty good way of getting into a war. If the fleet had been in San Diego, it is much less likely they would have been attacked. Secondly, stop encroaching into Japanese waters. It makes it look like you want a fight. Third, don’t shut off their oil supply. I don’t fully recall the details, but the U.S. was instrumental in shutting down the supply of oil going to Japan from the Dutch East Indies. Fourth, don’t freeze Japanese assets held in the United States.

Neutrals in war shouldn’t do these things. You can’t move your fleet half way across an ocean towards another country when they are in the middle of a war. Not while, at the same time, you’re sending war ships into their waters, freezing their assets and shutting off their oil.

Frankly speaking, the administration was only surprised that Pearl Harbor was attacked at 7:48 AM on Sunday December 7th. They knew it was coming sooner or later. Beginning in January of 1941 there was still enough time to maintain the peace, avoid war with Japan, and let the Communist Russia and Nazi Germany wear each other down to a nub. Why wouldn’t Levin want this? Who’s worse than Nazis and Communists.

In truth, France and the U.K. shouldn’t have gotten into WWII, but I think that’s enough for now. Sadly most people are bored by history, and that boredom turns to torture when the history isn’t their own.

Right now, we are living with problems created 100 years ago. We can stop and start to clean up that mess, or we can ignore it and continue to create problems for our children and grandchildren.

I must say I loved Jason’s analogy of neo-cons and war as compared to democrats and fiscal irresponsibility. It’s brilliant.

Take care, and listen to Jason, not Mark Levin.

If you want to know more about what happened leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor here are a few recommendations:

For more on the specifics of Pearl Harbor: http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1447844098&sr=8-12&keywords=pearl+harbor+books

For wars in general, this is a must read. It is amazing how the same raw data can be included in so many histories, but the context remains missing. It’s as if they are children sounding out words which they have no understanding of the definition. Denson does a great job on the major wars between 1861 and 1945: http://store.mises.org/Century-of-War-Digital-Book-P10492.aspx

Or in print at: http://store.mises.org/Century-of-War-A–P152.aspx


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *