 This weekend, Tom Woods joins us to discuss his new book entitled Real Descent, a Libertarian Sets Fire to the Index Card of Allowable Opinion. Of course, Tom needs little introduction here among fans of the Mises Institute. He's the best-selling author of several books, the creator of Liberty Classroom, host of the Tom Woods show, a frequent speaker at Liberty events around the country, a frequent guest on major media, and he's heading up Ron Paul's homeschool program, all while managing a growing family of five daughters. He also holds a history degree from Harvard and a PhD from Columbia. Tom is perhaps the most prolific Libertarian scholar alive today, placing him squarely in the tradition of the late Murray Rothbard. We're proud to call Tom a Mises Institute senior fellow, and you'll want to hear more about his terrific new book. Stay tuned. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back once again to Mises Weekends. I'm your host, Jeff Deist, and as promised, we're joined this weekend by our good friend and senior fellow, Tom Woods. Tom, how are you? Doing well, Jeff. Thanks for having me. Well, as I mentioned in the intro, your book is entitled Real Descent, a Libertarian Sets Fire to the Index Card of Allowable Opinion. So going through the table of contents, it almost seems to me like this is a how-to book for Libertarians of sorts. It is, and it's not just a how-to book in terms of how to win arguments, although it is that. It's also, it's really a how-to-live kind of manual in the sense that you should not feel confined to the opinions that you're supposed to hold, all the respectable people hold. There was an article on Salon not too long ago by Michael Lind who said, you know, I can't believe we have to waste our time with these Libertarians who expect us to take seriously the following propositions. One, the Fed should be abolished. Two, and they list all these things. So for them, it's okay to say the Fed's policy is 3% off, you know, or taxes ought to be marginally adjusted. That's fine. You can do that and be respected by Salon. But why would you want to? Like, what way is that to live and what good is that going to do? What we need is some cold water in the face, you know, and that's really what the Libertarian position represents. We're not saying, well, maybe we shouldn't go to war with those people. Maybe we should just try to starve them to death. You know, we're trying to say, you know, there might actually be a position, a way of thinking that's outside of this constrained set of choices that we get from the New York Times. That's the gist of the book. Well, it's interesting in the internet age, we like to think that there is a much broader range of opinion that's permissible. But it turns out, even when you go online, that there are still gatekeepers, there are still what you call thought controllers, commissars, or enforcers of approved opinion. And you can see that in the way they respond to you. If you do make an intelligent argument about the Fed or about foreign policy, especially if you're dealing with neoconservatives, but there are some progressives who will give you trouble for that, too, or whatever the issue is, if you're not on what I call the three by five card of allowable opinion, you're going to be not refuted, but smeared. They're not going to bother to show where you're wrong. You're so uppity for having an independent thought that you don't even deserve a refutation. Instead, you're going to be called an extremist and all this other stuff. I never minded being called an extremist because, of course, extremist depends on extremely what, right? If I'm extremely awesome, there's nothing wrong with that. It's a completely contentless word. But these are the types of things they do. They'll say, well, this person is just out of bounds, or this person is on the fringe, and this and that. It's not on the fringe to say, let's go bomb this basically borderline third world country for really no good reason, for reasons we can all see are made up and invented. That's not fringe. It's fringe to say, maybe we shouldn't do that. But they try to use these words, like fringe or whatever, to intimidate otherwise decent people into keeping their mouths shut. But to me, what I have fun doing to the contrary is exposing these people for what they are, which is thought controllers. I always use terms like that because it really stings when they have to hear it. But Tom, this goes beyond just debating on the internet, right? I mean, this affects people's lives and careers. For instance, people in academia are people who would like to write for a living. The thought controllers actually impact their lives and careers. There's no question about it. I mean, there are career-destroying smears that these people use. Now, I'm lucky that at this point, I have been fortunate enough to build up enough of a following that people who follow me, they know the sorts of things that the bad guys say about me. They already know it and we just laugh it off and it's okay. But if I were just starting out, yeah, that could seriously harm me. And as a matter of fact, back about 10 years ago when my book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, came out, I took a lot of abuse over that book. There was a signed editorial, a signed editorial on the New York Times editorial page against me and the book. Reason Magazine, one of their columnists, attacked me. Although then it turns out the nefarious Tom Woods has friends and allies everywhere, even on the board at Reason. And my friend told them to shut up and they never bothered me again. But the Boston Globe attacked me. It was everywhere and it wasn't Woods is wrong. And here's, let's prove why he's wrong. If you look at the New York Times attack, it's I can't believe Woods says this and I can't believe Woods says that. Well, you know, Doug got it, show me what's wrong with what I said. Because all those statements are eminently defensible. Well, at that time, Jeff, I thought to myself and I actually called up the publisher. Now, it was a smash hit. New York Times bestseller for 12 weeks, got into the top 10. It was doing great. But I called up the publisher and I said, is my life over? Like is my career over because of these smears? And you know how your publisher is supposed to reassure you? He kind of sat on the phone and saying, you know, I think I have to take another call. Like, I mean, he really thought maybe. But what it turns out, I mean, this is just a little word of encouragement for people. So it's not all depression. When something like that's happening to you, you feel like the whole world is watching. The whole world is reading every one of these attacks. But the fact is most people aren't and people who aren't going to like you will read this and forget your name the next day. But your supporters, if they see something like this, they'll just say, oh, typical mainstream media. The same way you and I would react when they would attack Ron. That just gave Ron more credibility, you know, more street cred. Of course they're attacking him because he's a truth teller. But I'll tell you, at the time it is a very scary thing. It's nice to say afterward, oh, yeah, it's really cool to be attacked by the powers that be. Well, yeah, that's a lot of bluster after the fact. At the time, it's scary. Well, Tom, I see your new book as doing much the same of what you did. In other words, an end run around the Boston Globes and New York Times of the world. I noticed that you have a whole section in this book and addressed toward what I would call the Beltway Strain of Libertarianism. The Milk Toast, let's say, who are so afraid of offending anyone. You know, it's interesting. I'd like to take your thoughts on whether we as libertarians sometimes unconsciously fall prey to PC ourselves. Well, it is easy and tempting. And, you know, Ann Coulter made this remark about libertarians. I better not repeat the word that she used. But let's just say she called us cowards, but she used another word. And what she meant by that was that, yeah, you libertarians, you'll say things that the media is basically OK with, like, let's legalize pot. Well, you know, in 2014 doesn't take a whole lot of courage to say that. But how many of you people are going to come out and publicly say I'm against anti-discrimination law? And I thought she was absolutely right about that. I mean, libertarians were up in arms that she said that, but she's absolutely right. Yeah, it is hard to find people who will take courageous stances like that. So it is true in real descent. There are 10 parts in this book and one of the parts is aimed at a particular wing, let's say a Beltway wing of libertarianism. It's one of the shorter parts of the book, reflecting the fact that this is not my principal concern as a writer, but it does need to be addressed. And for all people who will say, woods, you shouldn't engage in infighting, which, by the way, of all people on earth, I have more right to engage in infighting after the way I've been treated by some of these jerks than than most people I generally don't because I don't have the time or the interest. But it has to be done sometimes if people are are taking the good name of libertarianism and confusing that name in people's minds. It needs to be pointed out. But I know that a lot of these people who will say, I shouldn't include a part like that, they're going to turn right to that part first. They're going to flip right to part seven because it's a guilty pleasure. They want to see what I'm saying. Well, I also noticed that you have a large section of the book devoted to the Ron Paul Revolution. Yeah. And my take is that one of the reasons Ron is so beloved is because he was not programmed. He was very homespun. He was down to earth. He was a family man. He was sort of a gentle bourgeois doctor. And of course, this is the exact reason that many the Beltway types hate him. Exactly. And the reason I inserted a section on Ron in this book is, first of all, he exemplifies the idea of the book's title real descent because we didn't get any real descent other than Ron in these presidential debates. It was all stupid, nothingness they were debating. You know, who's going to withdraw how many troops when or who's going to send how many more troops when that was the whole debate. But we got real descent from Ron and it was courageous descent. He would go to South Carolina and say, we got to end the drug war. He'd go to Florida and say, we got to end the embargo with Cuba. And that's what we loved about the guy. So what I'm trying to do in that section of the book is record for posterity, why he was so special. I mean, I know that's a little sappy sounding, but why he mattered? What was so significant? Why we were so excited about him? And what what disturbs me is that some of the people I, you know, locked arms with in this great struggle on Ron's behalf are now saying the exact opposite of what they said just two years ago, two years ago, they would or three years ago, they would pitch Ron to their friends by saying, you know, what's great about Ron is that he's not like the others. He doesn't say things because, well, he's got to say those things to get votes or he doesn't say things because, well, you got to play the game. But now I hear all these idea, formerly idealistic young people saying, well, hey, look, you know, Ron's a sweet guy and everything, but we got to get things done. And to get things done, you got to say what you got to say. And I just think, my gosh, you know, all that time people were right. Who said that politics crushes the soul to see these kids turned into automatons like this is very dispiriting. We got to get things done, Tom, that's for sure. Now, speaking of getting things done, you have two other large sections in the book devoted one to war and foreign policy. And two devoted to the Fed. So I was pleased to see you taking the right on head on when it comes to war. Yeah. Can you talk about that? Yeah, absolutely. Because, you know, there is a section of the book that takes on anti-capitalist writers, but that's easy, you know, for libertarians, that's like, we're all in favor of capitalism. That's easy. It's harder to take on the war question because, you know, we do have some of our audience is kind of conservative. And the conservatives tend to be the most bellicose on foreign policy. So I did want to take them on partly because I used to be one of those people. I grew up in the 1980s and I loved Ronald Reagan and I supported every single military intervention that he engaged in, even the ones he just thought about doing, I supported those. And so I see some of myself in these people and I can speak a language that reaches them, but at the same time, it's not I'm not just I'm not by any means coddling them in some ways. I'm I'm quite tough on them that it's one thing to be swept away by Ronald Reagan when the Soviet Union is around. But it's quite another to get snookered into the Iraq war of 2003. I mean, really, I mean, surely you are above this for heaven's sake. So I allowed myself to be talked into putting the war section as part one of the book to just go right up front and say, yes, even though this is a book that there will be some parts of it that conservatives will like, this it's going to challenge them right away. But with arguments that have reached a lot of conservatives, that I can tell you, I have the emails and the personal testimonies approve it, these sorts of arguments they win over conservatives. A lot of us argue with conservatives. We can't understand how they don't see the folly of the foreign policy. So I actually start the book with chapter one on my own personal story of how I went from being a neocon college freshman who didn't know any better, who thought that was the Liberty position. I didn't know any better. I mean, no one was teaching it to me and I wasn't original enough to think of it myself going from that to being the person I am now and how I realized, oh, my gosh, I am actually supporting things that are evil. That I mean, it's not even there's no mincing words here. I'm supporting something that is evil. It's it's a it's a shocking revelation to realize that about yourself. And I think a lot of people, frankly, if they head down that path, they can't face it. It's too much to face. So they just keep on imbibing the propaganda and moving on. But I'm glad to say that I had friends who talked to me out of it, who got me out of it. And so I put that as chapter one. And I hope that it'll help other people to see the path that I took. Well, a lot of otherwise free market conservatives also have a tremendous blind spot when it comes to money and banking. So let's talk about your section on the Fed. Well, as a matter of fact, in the section on the Fed, I take on both progressives and self-described conservatives. It was so funny in a, you know, an annoying way during Ron's campaigns that we would get so-called conservatives saying that Ron Paul is crazy and you'd say, oh, I know why because of his foreign policy. Right? No, he's crazy because he wants the gold standard, which isn't even technically correct these days. But, but all right, let's, for the sake of argument, say he wants the gold standard. They acted like this was unthinkable and that the, by implication then, that the existing monetary policy and regime is the best conceivable one or really only needs a little tinkering. I mean, these conservatives, they're supposed to support the free market and they're supporting an institution that expressly engages in central planning in order to control certain macroeconomic variables in the economy. Now, if you believe in that, your case for the free market is, shall we say, severely vitiated and can hardly be taken seriously. So Ron is the real free market here and the people, the Austrians, who believe in a genuine free market without these interventions, they are the free market here. So again, so I pitch it to them as, don't you believe in the free market? I thought you guys believed in the free market. I mean, if we put it that way, well, then they have to try to defend themselves. And what are they going to say? Well, some intervention is okay. That's going to be pretty lame sounding to anybody who's following the debate. Well, Tom, it seems like the right has a huge blind spot when it comes to war. The left has a huge blind spot when it comes to markets. They both have a blind spot when it comes to the Fed. Let me throw this out there. Maybe you address it in the book. I do not know. Do libertarians have blind spots as well that you've identified? Oh, that's a really good one. Well, some do and some don't. And I don't mean to say that I'm perfect. I mean, even my own views on some subjects continue to evolve as I think about them. And if you look at my writing over the years, well, there's been a shift in emphasis maybe here and there. But I do think that there are some cultural questions that libertarians ought to take an interest in. There are issues related to the family that libertarians ought to take an interest in. Because we should bear in mind that there is a reason that the state wants to undermine these naturally occurring forms of human associations. It's not just because they had nothing to do today, so they figured they'd try to engage in incursions against the family. It's that they always want to undermine competing institutions. And so to me, I'm not a libertarian because I want to be an oddball. Even because I'm an individualist, people confuse these things. Libertarians don't have to be individualists. I'm not an individualist when it comes to my family. I don't turn to my family and say, well, to each his own, to everybody, every man for himself in this household, you're going to have to fetch your own dinner. You're going to have to fend for yourself. I wouldn't act that way. I like being at events with the Mises Institute. And the Mises Institute is a collective group that I enjoy being with. So it's not that we're for individualism against collectivism. We're against artificial collectives that exist only in the mind of a central planner. But naturally occurring social institutions can be perfectly enriching and can be important barriers against the state. Tom, we are almost out of time. Let me wrap it up, which is one final question to you. What do you hope the impact of this book will be? Well, I've written at this point a dozen books. I can hardly believe this myself. And people always ask me which one is my favorite. Now it may seem, I don't know, maybe unpersuasive when an author says, well, the current one really is my favorite because it sounds like he's just trying to sell copies. But at least at this moment, it is my favorite because I think it's a good introduction to what we're doing as libertarians and to what I'm doing. But it's not at an introductory level at the same time. I mean, like somebody who's been around the block awhile is going to get some good ammunition against the Fed and against the foreign policy that they use and all this other stuff. What I want to see it do is to, in effect, give people the courage, the desire to go out there and continue to force the discussion open further. The discussion on so many issues is so closed and narrow, it's almost a joke how little we're actually debating with each other. And yet libertarians have such humane and commonsensical alternatives that are just ruled out. They're ruled out of the discussion off the bat. And what I'm trying to show in the book is that what we have to say is so valuable and so persuasive as soon as it's heard that we cannot be discouraged by how little the powers that be want to hear it. We should be encouraged by how little they want to hear it because that means that we're on the right track. So I want to blast open the discussion and that's why it's such a dramatic title, setting fire to the index card of allowable opinion. I mean, there is implicitly a little card with all acceptable opinions written on it and how can we possibly make any advance if we're going to confine ourselves to that? So we got to just set it on fire. Tom, thanks very much for your time this weekend. Ladies and gentlemen, the book is entitled Real Descent. You can find it at a website called realdescent.com. You can find it at Amazon. And in a day or two, you're going to be able to find it right here at mises.org. Have a great weekend.