 This is Jeff Deist and you're listening to the Human Action Podcast. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back once again to the Human Action Podcast. And if you've been listening along to the show, you will recall that over the last couple of weeks, we discussed a couple of shorter Rothbard works which combine both history and economics and relied on his tremendous grasp of historical knowledge, and particularly American history. So two weeks ago, we covered America's Great Depression, which really laid out an alternative history and alternative case about the causes and problems behind that period in U.S. history. And last week, we studied the case against the Fed, which I think is really a fantastic short little book that lays out the truly Rothbardian case against central banking wholesale. So we enjoyed both those shows very much. And I thought that in keeping with those two shows, we would continue in a similar vein. We got a very special, I would say, treat for you today because we are joined by our friend, Professor Patrick Newman. Many of you know him for his tremendous work editing Rothbard. He is the editor of Rothbard's The Progressive Era book, which came out a couple of years ago in 2017. And perhaps more importantly, he was the person who resurrected what was considered the lost Volume 5 of Rothbard's colonial history conceived in liberty. So he took Rothbard's manuscript and deciphered some of the hard-to-read handwriting and edited it and proofed it and turned it into what has been a really smash success that we now have is that fifth volume of that important set by Rothbard. So Patrick is also an author in his own right and has just finished. He must feel very happy about this, I'm sure. He's just finished a tremendous work on American history called Liberty vs. Power, cronyism in America 1607 to 1849. And much like Rothbard, he manages to combine American history with a tremendous working knowledge of economics. So he's both a historian and an economist in his own right. So all that said, Patrick, welcome to the show. Thank you so much. It's always a pleasure to be on. Well, this is exciting. I have a galley proof of the book in my hand, so I've been able to go through a fair bit of it. Obviously our listeners have not, but I just wanted to give them a preview of what this book is all about. And I wanted to talk about it because, first and foremost, we're raising money to produce this book. And second of all, we're signing up people to get on the list to receive this book early. And this book's going to come out later in 2021, so we're excited by it. It's really a Rothbardian book. I think your status as a Rothbardian scholar shines through on a lot of the pages. So I want to start with that. Rothbard and the Mises Institute more broadly are perhaps known for, among other things, presenting revisionist history. So tell us a little bit what made you want to write this book and why do you think revisionist history is important? Why do you think we shouldn't just sort of accept the official narrative on things? To me, the answer is obvious, but I'd like to know your thought process. Well, so I'm glad you mentioned the Rothbard influence because this book is very heavily Rothbardian. Rothbard's my greatest influence, he really shines through a lot of the book. So why I wanted to write this book, one of the first things I ever listened to and I started looking at Mises.org was Rothbard's lectures on the progressive era. I always was interested in history and it just fascinated me because what you're taught history in high school and college is very different than the actual history that exists. It's about the capitalism is bad, politicians are good, all of these laws, the Federal Reserve, the Food and Drug Act, so on and so forth. It's all for the greater good of mankind, et cetera. And I always wanted to sort of write my own book, kind of describing, sort of overturning, destroying that myth and in particular also name names. I always loved how Rothbard named names. I really try to name names in this book, show sort of the power elite who was really behind various laws in early American history. And revisionist history is extremely important just for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. It's important to actually understand what history, what happened instead of how it's usually presented to us. And especially nowadays when you hear about early American history, it's definitely gotten worse than even the mainstream consensus that Rothbard was fighting in the 1970s and 80s where now it's all about race, gender class. America is this terrible place. It's all this exploitation, so on and so forth. And there's even more fallacies to uncover, which is really what I try to do as well as what many other revisionist historians try to do. So if we had to use a term, would you say the focus of this book is what we today call special interests? Is that what you mean by cronyism? Sort of the melding of state and private interests? Yeah, so when we generally think of regulation, the way it's always taught to us is that it's in the public interest. It serves these wise government politicians and bureaucrats passed laws to benefit society overall. This makes us all better off. We all submit to certain forms of coercion, et cetera. And yeah, how in reality I show that actually government legislation does not serve the public interest. It serves private interests. It serves insiders with special privileges and other government subsidies. And cronyism is special interest policies that don't benefit the public overall. They benefit insiders at the expense of the public. And that's really what I try and focus on in this book, the history of cronyism in early America. I try and show that this isn't a new phenomenon. Cronyism has been with us since the beginning. People have been profiting off of the public since the very beginning. And we need to learn that so we can at least try and take this information and reform our current system. Because I've been going through the first part of this book. It struck me that today, 2021 America, a lot of institutions are under fire. I think the Trump election brought this to the fore, the COVID lockdowns. All of these things were challenging institutions, whether academia or media or political or whatever it might be. And it dawned on me that we sometimes tend to imagine that there was some golden era for institutions in America. But when you read Patrick Newman, you tend to come to the conclusion that a lot of what we think about American institutions is actually not true. That they were founded for private interests and not always upright interests. And that the whole system, when we read about it honestly and openly, has been more corrupt than even we imagined. Absolutely. We tend to have this illusion that like you said that, oh, there were the good old days when, you know, politics wasn't so partisan or divisive or the media was, you know, objective or, you know, our higher education or economists and intellectuals. Well, they didn't get their hands dirty and fight in politics or et cetera. Politicians weren't corrupt. You know, this isn't what we learned back in the day of the great founding fathers and so on. But, you know, it's absolutely incorrect. We've been crony, you know, there's been crony policies in America since the beginning. You know, the Jamestown, you know, the colonies were founded in special privileges. Many even, you know, the nation's capital, which is something I talk about was was founded in a was founded in a like an insider deal. And we've always had this. People have always played dirty politicians and businesses have always played dirty. And this is important to realize because it's it's endemic to the nature of government. You know, cronyism goes hand in hand in government. You can't, you know, there's not a magical government where you don't have these types of policies that existed sometime in history. Even in America, you know, cronyism proliferated. So if someone just has a more generalized interest in what you term sort of the great men view of American history as opposed to the particular issue of cronyism. If somebody's interested in differing visions for America, Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, Madisonian, does this book hold appeal for them? I absolutely believe so. I think right now American history is in sort of a crisis mode where we're now overturning. You know, traditionally American history was the great man perspective, which as you mentioned, which is how it's been described by other political scientists and historians is it's the study of, you know, elite older white men maneuvering in government and in business, which is if you want to understand the important policies, that's the perspective you have to take. It might, you know, offend some people's sensibilities, but, you know, tough. This is, you know, it's important to use that perspective. And it really, you know, just for general American history, this is really the correct perspective. So someone who is just interested in history in general, interested in, you know, an old school American history where you've got, you know, the classic Jeffersonian versus Hamiltonian. You've got, you know, you're talking about the run up to the war of 1812 and then you've got the Jacksonians and in the wigs and you're talking about the major players of this time period. You know, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and so on. You know, it's absolutely a book for that audience. You know, of course I go through other individuals and businesses and people behind the scenes as well. But it takes that perspective that, you know, if you want to understand American history, you have to understand it properly. You can't just, you know, try and interpret it the way that, you know, would make you feel the best. Is it facile to think that one of those particular gentlemen's visions ultimately one out and represent the America we live in today? Well, you know, I think it's unfortunate. I think we were founded under the Jeffersonian vision of decentralization, secession, individualism, you know, natural rights, etc. But I think the Hamiltonian, the big government vision has one out, you know, Alexander Hamilton and then went to Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson and so on. We're definitely not living in Jefferson's world. We're living in Hamilton's world. And so the problems we have today, people often, you know, say it's due to individualism or capitalism and stuff. But now it's due to crony capitalism. It's due to, you know, insider government deals, connections and so forth. So we're unfortunately someone who I, I, some might say I don't treat him kindly, but I say in my response I treat him accurately is Alexander Hamilton. We live in Alexander Hamilton's world right now. Well, in the introduction of the book and also in the title of the book Liberty versus Power, you discuss Murray Rothbard's historical analytical framework and the notion of Liberty versus Power to view historical events. So history is a clash between the individual and the marketplace and the state and that the state power tends to grow, it tends not to limit itself. And then finally that reforming it is usually impossible unless there's some schism like a war or a secessionary movement or something like that. So just give our listeners the background. What does Liberty versus Power mean to you and to Rothbard and how do we use it to look at events? So the Liberty versus Power theory basically argues as you mentioned that history is a struggle between the forces of limited government and anti cronyism versus the forces of big government or the social power versus state power in the words of Albert J. And when basically the forces of Liberty win, you see a decline in the size of government, you see decline in government cronyism, when the forces of power win when they control a government for a period of time, cronyism is up on the rise. This is something that really influenced Rothbard throughout most of his historical works, especially conceived in Liberty. And I take this and I continue just like Rothbard did, I apply it to early American history and the nuances of the theory aside from this clash is taking something from Lord Acton is that power tends to corrupt. So what happens is that when the forces of Liberty forces of small government such as the Jeffersonians or the Jacksonians are able to take control of the government cronyism only moderately declines before it increases because the holders of power and never be corrupted. And we almost see this today. They're not saying there's like a full, you know, full, fully fledged, you know, libertarian movement but whenever small government forces take control of the machinery, you know, we always see a move to moderation or dropping sort of the, the campaign promises and so on. And it just seems like business, business as usual. And this is something that, you know, happened in the past that it happened with much greater ideological, you know, drive so you had these really hardcore libertarians who did want to truly reform the system. And they never would be got corrupted by power they wanted to use it to pass their own crony policies and it's important to understand this perspective because that way we can more accurately, you know, interpret American history and show what were the actual forces behind cronies. So when you open the book in 1607 Jonestown settlement. What why do you choose to call that initial early American history the road to empire why is 1607 to 1790 that you know setting the foundation for what America is today. Right so that's a it's a great question. The main thing that something that shines in this book and this is even only up to 1849 without some obviously more noticeable events is that America from the beginning was always is always this trend towards decentralization and republic separate governments. Now after the American Revolutionary War the 13 independent separate states, you know, should remain separate they're sort of brought under the Articles of Confederation. And then you had this movement to the Constitution, and this is something that I know is even references isn't just me interpreting it the proponents who were trying to, you know, install the Constitution and the articles and on the public they truly wanted an empire they wanted an old order empire like Great Britain or France versus the people who are fighting this such as Patrick Henry, the famous Patrick Henry of Virginia was trying to fight this trend towards consolidation empire and so by 1790 really 1789. Once we established the US Constitution, we were more or less on the road to creating an empire which is the general trend where the history of crony is in America is very linked with our land expansionism. So after the Constitution it was only, you know, it was only inevitable that we were going to gobble up the Louisiana as well as the Texas and Mexico and all the other landed. We truly did create an empire which is something that really forms kind of the backbone of the book. So when we're praising that revolutionary and formative period in American history, you know, we like to think that Enlightenment principles informed the founders and that they rejected Old World English mercantilism, for example. So is that true? Is there actually an animating libertarian impulse in the colonies at the time of the founding? Oh, absolutely. I think you really had two types of Americans. You had those who wanted to legitimately reduce the size of government they wanted. If they wanted an empire such as Jefferson who had this famous phrase, the Empire of Liberty, it was supposed to be, you know, it was really just supposed to be multiple countries or confederacies kind of bound together by a common language, the English language, common constitutional norms, etc. But Jefferson at one point thought that the West Coast would become its own republic and there were people who thought that well, you know, the North, the New England, the Mid-Atlantic should just do their thing, the South, and then even the West at the time when it was around the Mississippi River should just do their own thing. So, you know, you absolutely had people who were instilled with libertarianism. I've mentioned Patrick Henry to a similar extent. Thomas Jefferson, there's also the famous one of my favorite congressmen of all time, John Randolph, and who could forget people like Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson. There absolutely were libertarians in the past, much more hardcore than the many libertarians of today. There also just were many statists, so to speak, many proponents of big government who legitimately wanted a, you know, old school British empire, people like Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton, then you even go with people such as Henry Clay or John Quincy Adams, who was a very belligerent expansionist, and there really is that divide. And there is the divide of liberty and power and people back then explicitly use this theory. You know, they use this theory of liberty versus power, power, corruption, etc. It was all intertwined into daily American life. So, within your theme of cronyism, how should we think about the federalists and the anti-federalists? So, the anti-federalists who were, in a sense, originally the true federalists when you actually understand the original definition of federalism, the anti-federalists were clearly the forces of liberty. They wanted smaller government. They obviously weren't perfect. You had sort of a, you know, for many people like an incomplete libertarian, it's inaccurate to uphold the standard of complete purity to people in the past, but they were absolutely for smaller government. They were much more libertarian. The federalists wanted bigger government. They wanted that old school empire. They wanted to really destroy the states or have them as severely emasculated. And they were in favor of cronyism. They wanted to basically assume debts at par. They wanted a central bank. They wanted tariffs. They wanted a standing army and navy and so on and so forth. So, is Hamilton their avatar? I mean, you know, the second part of your book is called the Hamiltonian Era 1790 to 1801. So, he's the Treasury Secretary he wants to and ultimately does establish the Bank of the United States. Is he the villain in Patrick Newman's story? Well, for a large part of it, yes. That's quite accurate to say he's the villain, because I think he was a villain. This is something that it's quite unfortunate because, you know, so many people now when they know of Hamilton, they know of the play. And if he's sort of presented as the hero, and Jefferson, while, you know, I don't think he was perfect, you know, he's presented as the villain. And Hamilton at one point in the late 1790s, he wanted the United States to declare war against France and take over French Louisiana and even South America and he explicitly maneuvered to put himself in second in command of the army right behind George Washington. He was, in a sense, always warm to say the least to the idea of monarchy or the British system of government. Hamilton was absolutely a villain. He was one of our original cronies to put it bluntly. So why is the Jeffersonian vision failed? You have a section of the book called The Failed Jeffersonian Revolution, 1801 to 1817. So this is right on the heels of Hamilton's rise. So what makes the Jeffersonian vision a failure, looking back? So Jefferson, who wasn't around for the time of the Constitution, he starts off as Washington's Secretary of State. He's really the only, of Washington's cabinet, his initial cabinet, he's really the only one who didn't be considered a quasi anti-Federalist or supporter of small government. And, you know, in face of the rising Hamiltonian Federalist Party, Jefferson starts to strategically interpret the Constitution strictly, so to say it's actually a document of limited powers instead of, you know, endless powers, which is what the Federalists wanted it to be and they designed it to be. And Jefferson forms this Republican Party. This Republican Party has no explicit relationship to the modern Republican Party, but it was supposed to combat the Federalists. And it was a combination of basically former anti-Federalists, people who were soon became known as the old Republicans, as well as ex-Federalists moderates. And Jefferson, he had this plan from the early 1790s. He said, you know, we've got to get rid of the Bank of the United States. We've got to decrease government spending. We've got to pay off the debt. We've got to pass all these strict amendments, the, you know, limit the necessary and proper clause, the general welfare clause and all this stuff. We want to limit borrowing, all this great stuff from a libertarian perspective. And, you know, unfortunately, when he gets into office, initially he just, he moderates. You know, they cut some of the government spending. They cut some taxes. He doesn't get rid of the First Bank of the United States. And this kind of angers a lot of old Republicans such as John Randolph and John Taylor. And he really gets corrupted by the Louisiana Purchase, you could say. Because this was this massive land, land graph that Jefferson, he was torn by it because he was presented with this sort of this windfall for a bargain, $15 million to get, you know, 500 million acres. And he, at one point, you know, wanted to have us, the Congress in the States pass an amendment explicitly allowing for this. So he couldn't lean on, you know, the net, the broad clauses like necessary and proper in general, welfare and so on. And, you know, it was just the end of the day it was too much land and he sort of said, Well, we'll pass an amendment after we ratify it, which is meaningless. You know, if you're the one time you're you know that your hands behind your back then you can easily untie it. And once he got Louisiana, he started to just totally throw away all his principles he started to support, you know, speculative land grants to prevent people from seceding he then turned his gaze towards Florida. He tried to get he tried to bribe basically France into bullying Spain to give up Florida he supported aggression against Britain to try and get Canada so you know all the sort of expanded maintain the empire he supported internal improvements to buying the empire together protective to please manufacturers and so on. And, you know, it turns into a failed revolution because the principles that he he defeated the Hamiltonians with or at least John Adams in the election of 1800, which really should be understood as the revolution of 1800. You know, he discard so by the war of 1812, which was I show in the book are are attempted conquest of Canada and Florida. It's never put like that in traditional histories but then again that's why you have to have revisionist history. The Republican Party and just as John Randolph pointed out had become just as big government in crony as the Federalists. So by the end of the war. So a bunch of Federalists that joined the Republicans and you had this led by James Madison this National Republican Party that supported protective tariffs internal improvements central banking and the whole nine yards. So, you know, it was a 15 year experiment that ultimately failed. Again, a purchase is that per se a black mark on Jefferson's record because you don't acquire a vast new territory presumably just to leave it alone in a decentralized fashion. You're looking to sort of bring that into your national governance. Yeah, so that's I ultimately consider it a, you know, a stain because one this is something I point out is that the actual transfer a lot of people don't know this is that France only Spain only sold it to France under certain conditions that France would never actually sell it to another power, aka Great Britain or the United States and there are certain. France also agreed to make grants and favors to the Spanish royalty as royalty and so on and they didn't actually do it. And this is something that many resistors of the Louisiana purchase tried to impress for us a hey do we actually have proof of ownership because this whole transfer was sort of, you know, elicit. And, you know, the traditional process of ownership in incorporation which is what many people wanted, even the later proponents of manifest destiny was the gradual process of homesteading and settlement. You know, Louisiana, that whole area from what we now consider the state of Louisiana all the way up almost to, you could say the Dakotas in beyond was very sparsely settled, and it was just one massive purchase from one government to another so you know, instead of having it sort of break away, you know, split up into separate confederacies or become its own government which is what we should have done around the time of the Constitution. Jefferson breaks his principles twists his principles for the constant you know with the Constitution he accepts broad construction and then he has this massive amount of land and he's now he's basically forced to support all this big country in order to keep all this land in the in the nation I mean he explicitly started to support a federal system of internal improvements to sort of bind the country together so to prevent the extremities, the West, you know around the Mississippi were at the time from breaking away. So, yeah, I think Jefferson's first couple years of his presidency, all things considered, especially compared to later presidents so 1801 and 1802. Fantastic, they were great. I mean it wasn't perfect there's moderations as I mentioned but you know, it gets an A in my book. But after the Louisiana purchase it really all went downhill, and the central reason was this huge land grab. And so how does the war of 1812 factor into this is that expansionary is that a mistake for America. Yes, I think it's a mistake. A lot of people are you that it was due to Britain and pressing great Britain and pressing our soldiers and seizing ships trading with Napoleonic France you know they were engaged in the war wars, but when I actually trying shows that are the real reason for this was, we were trying to invade, we're trying to expand our empire into Canada, as well as Florida. So, our the war of 1812 was really our, our desire to try and conquer that land Jefferson sort of explicitly, you know referenced it at the beginning of the war he wasn't president at the time but he mentioned oh you know we got to have Canada as a, you know, this absolute condition of peace, and many of the so called war hawks. So these were the many of the names that you know we know and love now right so Henry clay and other big proponents of statism and the later or known American system wanted to conquer Canada and bring it into the union that was our first in a sense more of conquest or expansionary war. We failed to take Canada, though we tried. We did end up getting biting off a sliver of Florida during that so it technically was a war of conquest we did conquer part of Florida with that. So the period after Jefferson, you titled the era of corruption 1817 to 1829. And here we see as they are today much as they are today Patrick the Republicans go all in on centralization, and it's actually Martin Van Buren and the Democrats who are the Libertarian Party that new kids on the block. Yeah, exactly. The era of corruption is a fascinating period because it's usually known as the era of good feelings and this is kind of a period where at least in a basic history you kind of just skim over or you go through or you'd say oh it was the 1820s and you know now let's move on to Jackson or something but it was very important because it was a one party system. And you basically had everyone just sort of dipping their hand into the the public trough so to speak Henry Clay's famous speaker of the house was trying to implement his grand American system to sort of further strengthen and buying the empire together so he wanted central banking which is through the second bank of the United States to achieve credit to businesses he wanted a protective tariff to subsidize northern manufacturers and also to raise revenue for the third plank of the American system internal improvements. So this was sort of a giant scheme that really just benefited northern manufacturers in the history at the expense of Western settlers basically forced to pay high prices for for land which is another thing to raise money for internal improvements as well as the south, and this was becoming a problem most famously. This is another thing that made shock our listeners is that you know elections have always been corrupt. So about 200 years ago you had this famous election of 1824 with this corrupt bargain of 1825 where Andrew Jackson was the popular, he had at least the most popular votes and electoral votes but we had to go to the overtime house and Henry Clay speaker of the house then and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams basically made a deal so Henry Clay said you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back. Henry Clay basically agreed to rally the votes to make John Quincy Adams president and John Quincy Adams in return would make Henry Clay Secretary of State, which back then was the stepping stone into the White House. This this this, you know this blatant deal is odious deal basically really really peeve Jackson, you know he's thunder that the Judas of the West is has closed the contract and received his 30 pieces of silver his end will be the same. And Martin Van Buren someone who Rothbard really admired really love. It goes through this whole heroic process. Great Rothbardian way of putting it of organizing the Democratic Party which is still the Democratic Party of today though there obviously are many differences with it, which was a party in favor of limited government so anti American system anti tariffs anti central banking anti internal improvements and they successfully defeat Andrew Jackson, excuse me they successfully defeat John Quincy Adams in the Revolution of 1828 and now Andrew Jackson is president so this is a very important part in American history to understand, just from the perspective of libertarianism and cronyism overall. But then, as you point out Andrew Jackson goes on to disappoint us into abandon was a fair to an extent. Yeah, so, you know, Andrew Jackson I. So, I think the the failed Jacksonian Revolution. I, a lot of people now sort of demonize Andrew Jackson, and you know we see this now it's been trying to, you know, taking, take him off the $20 bill. Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren were actually fairly good presidents Andrew Jackson wasn't perfect he could be a militarist that at times but he did transform the presidential veto into a tool of anti cronyism vetoing internal improvements bills vetoing the famous early charter recharter of the second Bank of the United States. And, and so forth. And what happened though is that well, just like before lands kind of reared its ugly head and particularly in Texas so Texas at the time was part of Mexico. Then Texas secedes from Mexico and it becomes its own independent country. And we sort of maneuver to take Texas initially, Van Buren who is really the laissez faire not interventionist was able to kind of hold Jackson back. But once, you know by the time when Texas became a major issue in 1844 split the Democratic Party wide open. Van Buren and Thomas Benton said no we shouldn't annex Texas Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk said we should. And the whole motive for doing that was, you know, partially to you know continue expanding the United States but it was really to Mexico because we wanted the western ports. So we could in have our international empire and start to connect with China, and all of that, and that was, again, another massive expansionist war to the Mexican war, where we took California and the modern Southwest. And so, you know, land acquisition territorial acquisition corrupted the Jacksonians. And the same thing happened to the Jacksonians the Jacksonians were able to get more stuff done before for a variety of reasons. But at the end of the day, it still was a failed Jacksonian Revolution. So how do you come to choose 49 is the cutoff date for this book. In terms of, you know, 1849, after the it was the end of basically the, the Mexican war released in 1848 and the Democratic Party was split. And Martin Van Buren actually runs as an independent third party candidate. And you have basically the wig Zachary Taylor who who enters into the into the White House at this time and by then, you now had to basically pro power parties, the the wig party, and then the Democratic Party in favor of their own individual forms of cronyism. And so then that kind of sets the stage for the 1850s and beyond of sort of another era of corruption or as, you know, certain historians have called it the plundering generation but it really kind of you tie it you have from 1607 to 1849 or really when my plot sort of thickens is, you know, 1791 to 1849 it covers the two major reform parties or the two major libertarian parties that really did try to reform the system they were committed to smaller government, greater states rights, free trade, you know anti government spending hard money and all the stuff we know and love. But at the end of the day they failed, it's that they they got preoccupied with expanding, they started to embrace their own cronyism, and that really set the stage for things like the Civil War and then later on the progressive era, because we didn't really have a political party in favor of small government by that time. So when you look at some of the financial interests involved when you look at parties when you look at some of the big players the speakers of the house the various presence. It is it easy for you to see analogies with what's going on today is everything sort of the same in that sense. Absolutely to an extent I mean, again, we've always had, there's always been lobbyists and special interests and there's always been, you know, politicians have been working for various business interests so you know before you had this famous so you know the merchant prince Robert Morris who Alexander Hamilton is working for a while for working with for a while, then you move on to this group, you know the the Essex Junto, these new England manufacturers and shippers and then the post associates and so on and there's always been a power leak because people mentioned earlier we sort of have this naive illusion that will government at some point in time, you didn't have this you didn't have cronyism and it was working for the public interest and you know people would usually mentioned in history at least traditionally, and that's just not true you, you see the insider deals corruption and, you know, working for vested interest what happens in 2021 happened in 1791. Again cronyism is it's it's it's almost synonymous with government. I mean it really is it's it's it's always linked everywhere and at all times you could say. So Patrick I know our audience in particular will enjoy reading this book and having some of the myths of the American founding period and later century punctured but as a devil's advocate question here's what I wonder will people accuse you of revisionism for revisionism sake, for example or worse yet to serve your own anti state agenda in other words something like the 1619 project is this sort of the Patrick Newman project where you're interjecting your own jaundice view of American history upon us. Well, you know that's that's that's a good that's a good point that's a good question because you know you don't want to if you're attacking previous biases you don't want to bring in your own biases but that this is really. If my view is distorted than the view of many earlier Americans is also distorted because this is a mention this liberty versus power this cronyism. You know corruption this is many people back in the day were animated by this the anti federalist the Jeffersonians the Jacksonians. And this is it's a story that needs to be told because it is correct. It doesn't act if you know it doesn't cover up it doesn't try and whitewash things. It tries to present things as as they actually happen so it tries to show that you know corruption did exist people profited at the expense of the taxpayer or you know you're the average consumer and so on. And it tries to show how many of the laws that you know we take for granted is showing oh this is fundamental for our government is that now it actually did. You know in rich certain people at the expense of others you know the 1619 project is definitely much more of a smear to not only whitewash history but to really destroy I would think I would say America to kind of to to totally say oh it was all terrible back then and it was all this exploitation and other stuff and I don't try and do that I try and show that well actually no there were like the traditional America that many people do you know uphold you know the small government conservative libertarian and so on of that that was there was there were there were many Americans who have held you know who held those who held the adhere to those principles and in fact that you know for a large part of the history I look at is the majority of the population and you know we shouldn't try to again I'm not bringing my own biases or criticizing them for well you know what they were doing because it offends me in 2021 is that well no it you know it was it was many people thought you know the cronies and all that was wrong back then. So I like the view of myself is it's it's it's the untold story of America or it's the story that many of us you know we we've always wanted to see this story this this narrative be written and I think for the first time I'm kind of the one doing it. Well Patrick maybe the optimistic takeaway here is that if there's always been cronyism in America there's always been political favoritism there's always been a financial power elite. But yet despite all of this for average Americans anyway the American experience has been relatively free and relatively prosperous and relatively happy that we can look at what's going on around us today with let's say the Biden administration or whatever's happening on social media or whatever political divisions and to set we have and social problems and this seeming cultural war between red and blue and we can say you know that perhaps this isn't so bad perhaps this is sort of par for the course and we can view it a little more impartially and get on with our own lives knowing that there's still happiness out there to be yielded despite all of this. Yes, so I would I would certainly think that yeah so this isn't unusual it's kind of the same stuff different day, you know for the typical phrase in that, you know for all the problems with America we've traditionally we have been better for for relatively to other countries you know we are great so to speak. And, and it is important to keep that keep that perspective going on that what's going on now is in new it's not due to something that's changed you know and changing the water we drink in the you know in the 1980s or 1990s 90s this has been going on and that if this is the type of governmental system you know the type of society we want to live in then this is this is to be expected basically. Well ladies gentlemen, the title of the book the tentative working title is liberty versus power cronyism in America 1607 to 1849 authored by our guest today, Professor Patrick Newman. I'm sure all of you are receiving daily email updates from the Mises Institute but if you are not and you want to track the progress of this book and find out how you can donate to it or receive your own copy. You want to just sign up for our daily emails at mises.org. And I'm going to go ahead and let the cat out of the bag and say we're going to have a beautiful hardcover dust jacket version of this book available at our event in Tampa, Florida in October of 2021 and that happens to be near Professor Newman's house so he'll be there. He'll be signing this book you'll be able to get a chat with its author and get a beautiful autograph on it and again it's going to be a beautiful hardcover version so just put that in the back of your mind if you're thinking about joining us for that event. And so all that said Patrick I want to congratulate you I'm sure it's a weight off your shoulders to have this book done and have it in the editing stages. And I want to say that I hope it's a great success for you and for your CV. Thank you so much I appreciate it's been a it's been a long journey of about two two and a half years and I'm happy to to move on and I really help other people will read the book and like it because I think it's I think it's an important book and I think I think it'll be great so I'm just so happy fortunate for the Mises Institute published this book and I can't wait to see it in print in October. All right well thank you so much Patrick and ladies and gentlemen have a great weekend. The Human Action Podcast is available on iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, Spotify, Google Play and on Mises.org. Subscribe to get new episodes every week and find more content like this on Mises.org.