The “progressive” Left always prefers a neoconservative to an antiwar libertarian.  That’s Woods’ Law #2.  They can overlook the support for war, the centralization of power (what “progressive” would disagree with that these days?), the encroachments on civil liberties.  That’s all fine and dandy.  But someone who opposes the initiation of violence against peaceful people?  Get him!

I am under attack from these people because I wonder if 300 million people ruled from one city is the most humane way to live.  Don’t I know I am not supposed to ask such a heretical question?

I predicted exactly what these people would say about me when my book Nullification came out.  I nailed it to a T.  Here’s my actual background, since you won’t learn about it from them (an oversight, I’m sure).  And I’m pretty sure my Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, which they haven’t read but are sure must be terrible, survives the two neoconservative attacks they cite against it.  See my “Replies to Critics” on this page, and decide for yourself who has the better of the argument.

The fact that the Claremont Institute, which awarded Donald Rumsfeld its 2007 Statesmanship Award, doesn’t like my book is evidence to a progressive that you’re not supposed to like it.  How clueless can you be?  (Natch, they leave out that Claremont did like this book.  Probably just an oversight.)

The progressives who are after me are the worst kind of all.  If California decriminalizes marijuana, they will be the first to call for locking people up in government cages anyway.  For how dare they resist their wise overlords in Washington!  What’s that, comrade?  “Question Authority,” you say?  Wherever did you learn that?  What are you, some kind of “neo-Confederate”?

These “progressives” favor centralized government, they insist, because it’s so good for minority groups.  Oh, it’s super.  How great the federal drug war has been for blacks!

You know what all this calls to mind?  My Interview with a Zombie: