In response to my article today on LRC entitled “Champions of Nonsense” an emailer named Mr. G posed an interesting question: Neocons absurdly claim that protectionism is consistent with natural rights when it comes to Lincoln, but why don’t they make the same claim with regard to Pat Buchanan’s protectionism? If Lincoln championed natural rights with protectionism (a complete crock, of course), then why isn’t Pat, one of the most outspoken protectionists of our time, treated in the same way and invited to keynote Claremont Institute banquets? Why isn’t he treated as the heir to the Lincolnian protectionist tradition? Blog away if you have any theories.

The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo