wkmac
Well-Known Member
Developments at the Cato Institute have in recent months taken a surprising turn. After a protracted struggle between Ed Crane, the President of Cato since its inception, and Charles and David Koch, both sides have reached a settlement. John Allison, a highly successful banker, has replaced Crane: he is now President and CEO of Cato, To all of us who care about the future of Rothbardian libertarianism, this appointment should be a matter of grave concern, It signals a new stage in the efforts of Cato to separate itself from its Rothbardian founding principles and to replace these principles with something radically different.
Allison’s appointment at first sight seems difficult to understand. He is not only a follower of Ayn Rand, but a Randian of the strictest observance. In his recent book, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure, he acknowledges "a deep intellectual debt to Aristotle, Ayn Rand, and Leonard Peikoff." (For many readers, "from the sublime to the ridiculous" will come to mind.) Peikoff is of course the guardian of the flame of Objectivist orthodoxy, ever anxious to expel heretics, such as David Kelley, who displease him. Peikoff is closely associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, and the President of that organization, Yaron Brook, also is close to Allison, He finds Allison’s book to be "the best, deepest, explanation of what caused the crisis and the consequences of our government’s response to it." The website of the Ayn Rand Institute features the book.
Allison is a strict Randian, close to Peikoff and Brook: so what? Why do his views make his appointment difficult to understand? The answer lies in bringing together two facts. The Cato Institute, despite its break with Rothbard, bills itself as a libertarian organization; but the Ayn Rand Institute has for many years bitterly opposed libertarianism. The opposition finds its foremost expression in a pamphlet by Peter Schwartz, "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty." As Randians of the Peikoff faction see matters, libertarians’ defense of the free market counts for little or nothing, in the absence of the proper philosophical foundations. Only Objectivists can consistently defend liberty. Schwartz draws the following conclusion in a shorter essay of 1989, "On Moral Sanctions: "Justice demands moral judgment. It demands that one objectively evaluate Libertarianism, and act in accordance with that evaluation. It demands that one identify Libertarianism as the antithesis of – and therefore as a clear threat to – not merely genuine liberty, but all rational values. And it demands that Libertarianism, like all such threats, be boycotted and condemned."
Cato, Brook, Allison