Is "Liberty and Tyranny" any good?

Liberty and Tyranny- A Conservative Manifesto
by Mark Levin
256 pages

As I said in my 5,000 Year Leap review, I'm still a political newbie, so this is not a be-all end-all review of the book. I first heard of Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" on the Rush Limbaugh talk show. There was a lot of buzz going on about this book and Rush gave it a glowing review, saying every page was chock full of information. I thought the book was okay, but I wouldn't call it true conservatism.

A big problem I notice in the book (and right wing talk radio in general) is that they always refer to "leftists" or "liberals" as big government statists, ignoring the fact that the typical modern Republican Conservative is big government statist when it comes to military intervention and personal liberties (the left is guilty of this as well). Mr Levin doesn't address many social issues in the book such as civil liberties, abortion, or the war on drugs.

There is a lot of good vs. bad, Conservative vs. Statist [randomly opening the book]

"The Statist must also rely on legions of academics to serve as his missionaries." (pg. 19)...

"The Statist is also assisted by the media, for the media are parasites of the Statist-not the government per se but the Statist." (pg. 21)...

"For the most part the Statist's enemies are the media's enemies, as reflected in their hostility to individuality and private property, and the Statist and the media have kindred spirits in academia and Hollywood." (pg 22)...

Much of Levin's economic arguments make sense to me, but when it comes to Chapter 10 On Self-Preservation, I just can't follow his logic on why the Iraq war was necessary. He downplays George Washington's neutrality arguments, points to the Marshall Plan of 1948 as a successful example of nation building, and suggests that Democracy in Afghanistan can still be a sound objective even if it doesn't take hold. Nowhere did I find a clear explanation of how invading Iraq was essential to our security. Here is all that he says specifically about Iraq:

"Saddam's Iraq had a history of aggressive behavior against America's ally Kuwait (and threatened Saudi Arabia) and had actively pursued nuclear weapons (such as Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, destroyed by Israel in 1981). The United States and its allies no longer face the prospect of a nuclear Iraq under the control of a megalomaniac. For now, at least, it is one less destabilizing threat to American interests." (pg 181-182)

"And does such a purpose and mission exclude Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was terrorizing and brutalizing large segments of the Iraqi population?" (pg 186)

And that's it. The rest is mostly just pointing to other examples of U.S. foreign policy for justification and bashing the Statist's foreign policy. His logic is just unsound to me. Even though the same people that he quotes, like George Washington, says that making allies and enemies is a last resort, that war is an absolute last resort, he more or less sums up his philosophy as:

"The Conservative does not seek rigid adherence to any specific course of action: neutrality or alliance, preemptive war or defensive posture, nation building or limited military strike. The benchmark, again, is whether any specific path will serve the nation's best interests." (pg 183)

Wow, that sounds a lot like the Statist's domestic policy that he rails so much against. No principles, no rules, just force what you want, when you want, in the name of the nation's ambiguous and ever-changing "best interests".

I found this book to be much like that. He makes some good arguments, but his conclusions and how he ties things together don't always make sense. Mr. Levin is very articulate, yet also incredibly simplistic at times, which leaves me wondering what he's leaving out. So if you are unfamiliar with the right wing talk radio version of neo-Conservatism, this is a good book for you. If you are interested in a more principled version of Conservatism, read "The Revolution" by Ron Paul.