Won’t Somebody Love Bruce Bartlett?

The nasty Bruce Bartlett, who is just too darn serious a thinker to be troubled by ideas that aren’t endorsed by the New York Times, lashes out at LewRockwell.com for noting the crony capitalism of the transcontinental railroad. This isn’t “relevant” for Bruce, since it happened over 10 minutes ago. That Obama cites it in support of his own crony-welfare spending today is a detail I dare not raise with Busy, Important Bruce.

Bartlett started off working for Ron Paul, then switched to Jack Kemp when that seemed more opportune, and later switched to supporting Obama. Each time hoping to ride a wave of approval. Instead, no one cared.

My reply to Bruce:

(Slightly different version posted at LRC.)

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • RobertRoddis

    Since Bartlett clearing understands libertarian and Austrian analysis, his distortions and backstabbings demonstrate extreme malice aforethought. He wrote this in the May 1980 edition of “Libertarian Review”:



  • RobertRoddis

    The leftists’ obfuscation of the crucial differences between laissez faire and crony capitalism are central to their ubiquitous lies about the robber baron era. Just as with Keynesianism, the statists refuse to even note that the free market argument explains the various problems as caused by prior government interventions, an alternative explanation which ALWAYS disappears from the establishment version of the story.

    Unlike most of the leftist hacks, Bartlett knows all this. This places Bartlett’s betrayal at an even lower level than the actions of the typical leftist.

  • http://www.anarchistnotebook.wordpress.com TJ

    Many fake libertarians today will be like this in the future. They join our movement with ulterior motives that have nothing to do with liberty, freedom, independence, or voluntary interactions. Whatever it is, when they don’t get it they will go back to mainstream, conform themselves to the narrow confines of acceptable opinion, and attack our movement under the title of “defector” or “former libertarian” as an act of confession and repentance.

  • Dave in Ann Arbor

    Here’s his self-description on his Twitter profile:

    “Worked for Reps Ron Paul & Jack Kemp, Reagan White House, Bush 41
    Treasury Dept, Cato, Heritage Fndn. My tweets should not always be
    taken seriously.”

    Don’t worry, Bruce, there is no danger of anyone taking you seriously.

  • http://1atodds.blogspot.com/ At Odds

    “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

    Not that libertarianism is organized religion nor am I making that point, but doesn’t anybody see parallels here? Often times, I wonder why Evangelicals/Fundamentalists aren’t more attracted to libertarianism not just for similar teachings but for similar situations. It’s not just this event, here, but others.

  • http://1atodds.blogspot.com/ At Odds

    LOL His statement of “should not always be taken seriously” is like insurance coverage for bad tweets that would get him stuck into a corner. The last sentence should be followed by: “Always” is based on my opinion not yours.

  • http://www.anarchistnotebook.wordpress.com TJ

    I definitely see a lot of application from that passage. A lot of people’s moral convictions are, sadly, circumstantial, acceptable only as long as they do not inconvenience or interfere with their unspoken highest values. A person only believes in something when they willing to suffer for it or give up less valuable things to preserve it. That is why most people do not believe in freedom or liberty. They do not believe it is worth fighting for or worth dying for.

  • Neoconned

    He and Jamie “we should have all gay marine squads to prove how gays can be tough” kirchick are just constantly begging for establishment approval, yet no one seems to like either of them. Both have pathetic influence and social media following given the advantages they have in being promoted on mainstream media sources, yet even the media does not seem to care for these clowns.

    Whenever they are discussed on Tom’s radio show, the queen song “need somebody to love” should be played.