Blogger, Post at Your Peril
By Robert Higgs • Tuesday February 8, 2011 9:57 AM PDT • 29 Comments
Whenever a writer composes anything more elaborate than a grocery list and allows it to be published, even on the Web, he bears a certain resemblance to Christopher Columbus in the navigator’s voyage of 1492. Which is to say, he knows where he wants to go, but he is not sure that the course he follows will take him there. Moreover, when he does reach land, it may not be the India he sought, but a miserable Caribbean island whose inhabitants are not especially pleased by his arrival.
To consider the most recent such voyage of mine, we must go back about three years. At that time, the Independent Institute had just begun to publish at its website a group blog called The Beacon, which was (and still is) overseen by my colleague Anthony Gregory. I have never had a personal blog; nor have I wanted one – my attitude was, and should have remained, that nobody had an interest in my rants, so I might well spend my time more productively or enjoyably in alternative employments. However, Anthony prevailed on me to join the group at The Beacon, and eventually I did so, although I warned him that I probably would not contribute much.
Alas, I have failed miserably to keep my promise. According to the counter on The Beacon’s main page, I have now posted 190 contributions, great and small, or about one every six days, on average. It would have been a splendid accomplishment if all of these posts had been dazzlingly expressed, highly informative, keenly argued, and wisely concluded. As a rule, however, they were utterly mundane. Occasionally I attempted to lighten the tone with my homespun humor, but I must confess: I am no Will Rogers. Writing funny stuff is not as easy as it looks.
Moreover, being funny and making a serious point simultaneously is much more difficult than either being funny or making a serious point, by itself. A master such as H. L. Mencken or Fred Reed can pull it off, but a plodding economist such as I should stick to his more humdrum knitting. Nevertheless, just as a happily married middle-aged man knows that it is stupid to launch into an affair with a 22 year old bimbo he met at a bar, but does so anyhow, I do not always follow the rules I have discovered will bring me the best outcome. The urge for adventure takes hold of me, and I run off trying to be funny and serious at the same time.
I made this sort of mistake most recently in a post about the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. The cheese that attracted me into this mousetrap was a photograph I saw posted at Facebook (another imprudent Web entanglement into which I have blundered). So, like that middle-aged guy who buys a red convertible sports car to impress the bimbo with whom he’s trying to hook up, I made haste to my keyboard and began to type in excess of the posted speed limit.
As any accomplished literary humorist would have done, I chose my words to suit the desired mood, beginning my screed by writing, “Texas A&M University, which is a more or less legitimate institution of higher education, harbors something called The Bush School of Government and Public Service.” And then I went on, which was not very difficult because from that point it was all downhill.
If I had continued to plow the same furrow that I’d begun, my post might have done little harm, amounting to nothing more than another insignificant drop of failed humor in a sea of lame jokes. But because I’m not Russell Baker or P. J. O’Rourke, I could not leave bad enough alone. I had to inject the serious stuff into my narrative.
After all, as any moron can tell you, there’s simply nothing funny about mass murder. So when I insisted on throwing a few stones at the former killer-in-chief for whom the Bush School is named, I violated a cardinal rule of coherent writing: don’t mix voices. Mea culpa. Like that middle-aged guy, when his wife’s lawyer presents him with the news that his wife wants a divorce (and most of the wealth he’s accumulated by keeping his nose to the grindstone for twenty-five years in the accounting department at the Acme Co.), I was brought to an acute realization of my sin when the comments on my post began to arrive.
Now, to be sure, some readers claimed to have got my jokes. So I was not a complete flop at stand-up. And some readers expressed agreement with my brief assessment of George H. W. Bush and the havoc he unleashed on the hapless Iraqis in 1991. But such positive feedback scarcely set the tone.
Indeed, the most vividly expressed comments went more along the lines of a reader who advised me: “Get your head out of your ass, clean off the fecal matter, and get yourself enrolled in The Bush School so that you might be able to write with some manner of knowledge of your subject as well as presenting yourself as something more than a male child of Sarah Palin.” Now that’s spirited writing! However, inasmuch as it was written by someone who claims to be a student at the Bush School, I was tempted to attribute this writer’s ire, at least in part, to the very natural human tendency to defend one’s turf (and one’s personal identity).
More distressing to me was the message signed by “Paul from Texas,” who commented: “Dr. Higgs, you lost a lot of your credibility today. . . . Very disappointing. Very revealing.” Now, I’m not begging for sympathy, gentle reader, but please consider where this judgment leaves me. I spent more than forty years building up what little credibility I had, and then in a mere blink of an eye – in no more time than it took for me to describe Texas A&M as “a more or less legitimate institution of higher education”―I destroyed my reputation.
I now find myself in a most unenviable situation, rather like an old man who is starting to walk across the Mojave Desert in August with only six ounces of water in his canteen. At my advanced age, I must return to cranking out those articles for the hard-to-please American Economic Review, the Journal of Political Economy, and the Journal of Economic History, among many others, as I did in my salad days. Somehow I must find the strength to write another dozen books, digging up all of those arcane footnotes and esoteric tidbits with which I established my reputation when I was younger. I must also retrace my steps through that maze of op-eds, speeches, seminars, and whatnot in order to restore the credibility that Paul from Texas has authoritatively informed me I have squandered. Woe, indeed, is me, because I am anything but convinced that my present physical and mental equipment suffices to carry me to the end of this newly required journey.
The moral of this sad tale is doubtlessly plain enough at this point, but because so much is at stake, I beseech the reader’s forbearance while I state it as clearly as I can: If you have acquired any reputation at all as a writer, analyst, or thinker, don’t post at blogs; and whatever you do, don’t try to be funny, ever. Quicker than a flash of lightening, you may find the entire edifice of your human capital blown to smithereens by a denunciation that took your detractor less than sixty seconds to type.
You might think, of course, that by writing the foregoing lament, I have already disregarded my own advice. But it’s okay, you see: At this point, I have nothing left to lose.
Addendum: In order to ensure that I have made myself completely clear in this post, I place here a partial list of more or less legitimate institutions of higher education in the United States: Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Penn, Cornell, Johns Hopkins (from which I was awarded a Ph.D. degree), Duke, Northwestern, Washington University (St. Louis), Ohio State, Indiana, Penn State, NYU, Stanford, University of Washington (where I was once a tenured full professor), Illinois (Urbana), and Texas A&M (where I have made seminar presentations to faculty and students, as I have at all of the other schools listed, among many others). I am sure that students, faculty, and defensive tackles at Texas A&M will agree that they are in mighty highfalutin company and will take no further offense at what I wrote in a previous blog post (although, in truth, I never wrote those scurrilous words; my evil twin did).
Simple rule. The United States has two kinds of institutions of higher education: those that are more or less legitimate and those that are not.
Tags: Humor 
It’s not that you’ve seen as discredited, but rather unfashionable.
DW | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
I have read just about every single blog you have posted on this website. The one about the Bush school at Texas A&M didnt seem that bad to me. I think some of your readers that claimed they were attending the Bush school were being overly sensitive. They should get a degree that will teach them marketable skills so they can get a job that produces wealth and requires them to compete. I would hope that prospect would sound better than joining the imperial nanny state federal government. Especially for the libertarians who read your articles and should know better.
You have written many outstanding post and you are very intelligent. I have read several of your articles that have made me laugh out loud. My least favorite of your articles was the one you wrote about Bush’s popularity rating after he left office. I dont remember when that article was written or what it was called, but it was only 1 or 2 small paragraphs from what I remember.
Dont beat yourself up to much, everyone including myself gets emotionally carried away when we talk about the State. The people who rule the state are arrogant, ignorant, snobbish, and cruel. When libertarians like me and you know more about economics and property than a Harry Reid or Karl Rove, naturally we will feel frustrated when they can get the whole country to listen to their mindless talking points. Dr Higgs, I wish more Americans would listen to you and your mentors like Murray Rothbard. We would all be better off.
I really hope you keep writing articles for this website I have learned a great deal from you and Thank you.
Ken Camp | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
I thought the Bush school post was funny and I didn’t even look at the comments. I always liked your sense of humor and always check out the beacon to see if you posted any new insights/observations of the utter hilariousness of our tragic situation. If I were able to post blogs on a website that people actually read I would probably refrain from looking at the comments anyway. Its seems to be an aspect of human nature to be more likely to complain about something then to congratulate it. Which is what I did; I read your post, laughed to myself, and then carried on without looking at or noticing any of the comments.
Keep up the interesting work.
P.S. You should be on Scott Horton’s show again sometime. I always enjoy interviews.
evin | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
I’m quite sure that they know about the economics, and that makes them venal and craven men not simply ignorant.
Steve Verdon | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
I suppose future stints as a visiting scholar at Oxford or Stanford are a foregone conclusion. Is there any danger your doctorate will be revoked?
At any rate, best of luck Dr.(?) Higgs, and my condolences on the heavy cost of comedy. I hope your position with Independent Institute is at least secure. The cost of frivolity can sometimes be truly staggering.
Will | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
Ahem, that should be “foregone opportunity,” not conclusion. I guess my reputation as a commentator is shot now too.
Will | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
I liked your post on the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. I did not say so because that is not much to say. Other people were offended. F*** them. Rude? No. Defending mass murder does not warrant a polite response. It is to be condemned in the strongest terms. You speak your mind. Good.
A Supporter | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
“... the havoc he unleashed on the hapless Iraqis in 1991....”
Oh, yes, those hapless Iraqi soldiers who had invaded Kuwait and slaughtered hundreds of its citizens or were lined up along the border with Saudi Arabia preparing to take its oil fields, too. Yes, that mean old George Bush overrode the wishes of Saudis and Kuwaitis and overrode the wishes of the United Nations and our allies and conducted a war designed to kill as many innocent Iraqi civilians as possible and overthrow the Iraqi government.
Oh, perhaps that’s a bit wrong. George Bush was begged to intervene by Saudis and Kuwaitis, waited until the UN requested intervention, waited until our allies joined us in a multinational war effort, and ended the fighting when the Iraqi armies retreated from Kuwait and the Saudi border and before our troops reached Baghdad. And, he (foolishly) left Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government intact.
It’s one thing to criticize our military actions in Iraq, but it’s another to completely falsify history and claim that the Gulf War was an unprincipled war of aggression against “hapless” Iraqis.
Dr. T | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
As a student at one of the more or less legitimate institutions of higher learning in your list above I can testify that students in programs for ‘government’ are always whiny and, whatever their pretensions to the contrary, always latent statists as well.
Viva la Higgs!
Zach | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
Dr. T,
I guess civilian deaths from aerial bombings don’t count?
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-myth.htm
DW | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
Dr. T,
If I remember right, there were no Iraqi soldiers lined at the Saudi border, itching to take the oil fields and didn’t the US ambassador discuss the Kuwait invasion with representatives of the Iraqi government, and didn’t she tell them that Washington “doesn’t have an opinion” on the conflict between Kuwait and Iraq? and Isn’t it true that the Saudi’s only begged the US to protect them after our government showed them doctored pictures of tanks on the border, tanks that weren’t really there? And let’s not forget about the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter, who was coached by one of the most prestigious PR firms in Washington to lie to Congress about babies being dumped from incubators? Methinks you’ve been drinking too much Kool-Aid...
Mickey | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
Dear Bob:
For a post that garnered (from The Beacon alone) 361 “Shares,” 63 “Likes” and 14 Tweets—not to mention Facebook activity, re-posts, etc., I’d say “Not bad.”
Not that this is a popularity contest or anything, but when I post and don’t get any angry outbursts I consider I have failed in my duty to provoke rethinking.
Keep up the great work!
Best wishes,
Mary
Mary Theroux | Feb 9, 2011 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
Don’t get too upset about fanatically loyal Aggies ripping your critique of their treasured university. I’ve lived in Texas 27 years and have observed the cult-like culture that thrives at this school and among its alumni. It’s very unique but also very strange and disturbing to those of us who refrain from “following the herd.” Just watch all of their weird sports rituals and you’ll get an idea of what I’m talking about. It’s also well known that TAMU is “CIA-U”—a breeding ground for soulless, amoral spooks and political operatives. And no, I’m not a UT or TT alum.
If you’ve offended anyone, you’ve offended the enemy. So, don’t sweat it and keep on blogging!
Roger Young | Feb 9, 2011 | Reply
Mr. Higgs,
Considering that anyone who would defend a parasite such as Bush has no credibility to begin with...you have nothing to worry about from their criticisms.
tone | Feb 9, 2011 | Reply
Dr. T, the U.S. government didn’t slaughter Iraqi civilians intentionally despite the UN’s wishes. It did so with the UN’s blessings. The entire sanctions regime of the 1990s was intended as a matter of policies to make the Iraqi population so miserable they would overthrow Saddam. That was the whole point. It was a utilitarian calculation, that then-UN ambassador Madeline Albright said was “worth it,” when directly confronted on the number of Iraqi civilians killed in pursuit of this US policy goal. It was terrorism on an unspeakably vast scale. Not just the Bushes, but Clinton too — they were all killers of innocent Iraqis.
BTW, a lot of the stuff about the Iraqis about to invade Saudi Arabia was based on lying propaganda: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html
Anthony Gregory | Feb 9, 2011 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
I wholeheartedly agree with Ken Camp: some of your critics of that post were “overly sensitive.” You have done an excellent job in mixing your intelligence and knowledge with humor in your blogs and your essays. I have learned a great deal from you, and have had many good laughs.
And there’s nothing wrong with having a good laugh at a statist’s expense, nothing wrong with it. But let’s be clear. You in no way were using humor in your description of what the elder President Bush had caused with his murderous destruction, followed by sanctions that led to the deaths of thousands. But you did insert some sarcasm, which I think some people took the wrong way.
But in knowing the true, disgusting history of what the U.S. government has done to the people of Iraq (including causing their country to now be a theocratic, Islamic state under repressive Sharia Law), how can one not be sarcastic or cynical? And, as one of the commenters to this very post has already shown, obviously many people just don’t know about what the U.S. government did in the 1990s. They should read James Bovard’s article, “Iraqi Sanctions and American Intentions: Blameless Carnage?” at FFF.org. (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp)
And I see nothing wrong with poking fun at stupid, corrupt presidents like Bush (and his son). After all, not everyone has scrapbook photos of himself throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister while discussing important issues of trade and security.
And not everyone makes a fool of himself riding a tank during a campaign...oh wait, that was Dukakis. Oh well, Dukakis, Bush, they’re all the same, aren’t they?
So anyway, Dr. Higgs, please continue with your contributions to The Beacon, and all other publications, using your knowledge, wisdom and wit, as well as sarcasm. You have nothing to apologize for. (It’s those politicians who owe many apologies.)
Scott Lazarowitz | Feb 9, 2011 | Reply
“But it’s okay, you see: At this point, I have nothing left to lose.”
HAHAHA, and now you’re free too.
To me, it seems when people get offended by words against things like their school or their sports team it’s really nothing more than a form of religious idolatry, but that’s just me. Otherwise, as the saying goes, they’re just too thin-skinned.
@Dr. T, where is your mention of April Gillespie telling the Iraqis that it was OK to invade? Hmm?
You left that part out. What do they call that, a draw play? A setup? What?
clark | Feb 9, 2011 | Reply
I thought your “Public Service” post was humorous, clever, and right on target. Let those who are offended scream all they like, but please give us more!
JdL | Feb 9, 2011 | Reply
I wonder how many of these fresh faced youngsters actually have a clue about what they are getting into. The days of “boss hog” and political easy street are coming to a close. And none too soon.
They’re going to need to find another line of work.
MamaLiberty | Feb 10, 2011 | Reply
http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Read-This-On-The-Net/1400351
Hypothetical Q & A between a father and his daughter on why we invaded Iraq done in a serious/crying-funny way.
clark | Feb 10, 2011 | Reply
In Texas there are many A&M-UT jokes. Most are funny, some not, but I’m a Lehigh University guy so none bothered or stuck with me, but then there are those Lafayette jokes....
ralph | Feb 11, 2011 | Reply
Wait a second ... Aggies can read?
An alternative lesson would be to learn how and when to turn off comments.
RRW | Feb 14, 2011 | Reply
Dr. Higgs...
Your biggest problem is yet to come. Good luck when you finally decide (as I did some time ago) to get off FaceBook. :) The process takes: one week for you to discover it; and then two more weeks to complete it. During the latter, if you return to the site for any reason, you are then re-enrolled. To help you along those lines, the FaceBook folks send misleading emails to lure you back. The whole thing is almost as bad as being on FaceBook, which is one’s worst nightmare.
Having lived all over the continental U.S., I can state without reservation that Texans are the weirdest people in our country. I should know; I’m currently living in the Lone Star State. So... no worries about your blogging faux pas. Texans deserve all the criticism AND humor that anyone can dish out. :)
Scott Haley | Feb 14, 2011 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
I read your commentaries all of the time and will continue to do so. I consider you, along with Ivan Eland, to be two of the most highly knowledgeable men writing about the issues that matter today and the both of you, to me anyway, are usually correct in your summations, because most times you back said summations with carefully documented evidence to support such. However, no one is perfect and EVERYONE screws up once in awhile for one reason or another. Don’t worry about it. Just keep on keeping on!
Steve Hill | Feb 15, 2011 | Reply
Dear Dr. Higgs,
Whatever you do, please don’t stop blogging! Your rants, riddles and humorous pieces are invariably interesting and entertaining, and the world would be a duller place without them. It would be impossible to write such pieces week after week without occasionally treading on someone’s toes, but I am sure all your readers, even those who attend the Bush School of Government, will agree that anything and everything should be forgiven for author of “The Econ Smash.”
Jon Guze | Feb 15, 2011 | Reply
I have several disjointed comments:
1) I’m on Facebook, and I like it. Gives me a nice forum to present my libertarian ideas (both on economics and religion).
2) It must also be remembered that at one time Kuwait was a part of Iraq, but was later created by the British. Saddam was simply trying to “Preserve the Union...”
3) Texas is rated as one of the most free states in these here United States...just because they like Public, taxpayer-funded universities (which in my best recollection, every state in the union has) doesn’t make them weird.
Just my opinions. BTW, I’d stop reading The Beacon if you weren’t here Robert...so keep up the good work. Some people are just too darned sensitive.
Ed Burley | Feb 15, 2011 | Reply
I found the Bush School post informative and entertaining. The petulant whining of an interested few MUST NOT discourage you, nor even give you pause.
I usually judge the value of my own work by whom it offends, why, and how.
The value of your work is incalculable. Please don’t even slow down!
N. Joseph Potts | Feb 16, 2011 | Reply
I can not see how you lost any credibilty in that post. And I consider everyone with high suspicion telling me of a “just” war. Especially none of those after WWII can take a grain of “beeing” just.
To serve under Mr. Bush surely can’t be seen as “heroic.” So what is your opinion and you loose much more of any respectibilty if you change your mind more often than you shirts.
Bush and his administration ran amok. They dropped any civil manners. Or can anyone tell me what Guantanamo is. Where is it different from any “working” camp somewhere?
No right means just “disposable”. So disposable men, and that’s what Bush has done to them and to your soldiers they made them disposable.
Must I really come back to the other capital offenses the government has taken. What the hell goes on in one’s mind if any visitor to the U.S. is first though of as terrorist.
If you give up your way of writing you’re giving in to such freaks. I just can say follow the Mises motto. Or must we start to just think and speak political correct?
What will be left over than form irony and sarcasm or heaven’s forbig black humour?
Friedrich | Feb 17, 2011 | Reply
Now wait a minute! Bush has lived in Texas a long time, and no one else living there has threatened to arrest him for his war crimes (among other crimes), so say anything you want about Texas until someone steps up to do their patriotic duty. Hell, even Switzerland was ready to string him up last week if he tried to land there and give a speech! And I thought Texans were noted for their ability to round up a posse!
Jerry | Feb 19, 2011 | Reply