James Bovard


James Bovard, author of Attention Deficit Democracy, discusses Bill Clinton’s definition of terrorism: when regular people act like governments do, the Republican Party’s inability to criticize law enforcement during the Waco Congressional hearings, why the libertarian movement is stuck in limbo and the large portion of tea party protesters that love government when it is warring, wiretapping or waterboarding.

MP3 here. (25:38)

James Bovard is a contributor to The American Conservative magazine and policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal and many other books.


Scott’s collection of Jesse Trentadue’s court files here.

Interviews of the late J.D. Cash, Jesse Trentadue, Roger Charles, James Ridgeway, Frederic Whitehurst, Rick Ojeda and others on the Oklahoma City Bombing available here.

7 thoughts on “James Bovard”

  1. "Bill Clinton’s definition of terrorism: when regular people act like governments do, the Republican Party’s inability to criticize law enforcement during the Waco Congressional hearings"

    Boy, does this comment hit the nail squarely on the head! I actually cast a single vote for Slick Willie, partly due to my instinctive and well-deserved, burning hot HATRED for the entire Bush family, from the very first day I saw Bush Senior's face appear on the public stage as Reagan's VP, and partly because I let myself be conned into believing the Clinton bull manure about being a 'different kind of Democrat'. However, on April 19th, 1993 – I knew that I had made one of the biggest mistakes of my life in the voting booth – and I now place the Clintons in the same category as the Bush Family – hard core, mass murdering, corrupt criminals and probably criminal drug pushers. Juan McAmnestyMcCain, a globalist war mongering worm if there ever was one – fits into that cesspool of criminal traitors, as well. Bovard's book, Attention Deficit Democracy was great and he gives a great interview. I'm looking forward to this one.

  2. I'd like Scott to address something about Ron Paul and the Libertarian philosophy. The government spends upwards of a trillion dollars per year on maintaining its military. US companies supply about 50% of the weapons on the international market. Of the few decent manufacturing jobs left in the US, many are military related. If Ron Paul is ever elected, what does Scott think will happen to the US economic system? I don't hear Ron Paul talking about any kind of public works/infrastructure program to replace military spending. Does he think we can just pull the plug and everything will be fine? Thanks Scott for the excellent interviews.

    1. This thing is exellently explained in Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in 1 Lesson" (written 1946) in the chapter entitled "Disbanding Troops and Bureaucrats". It's really not difficult.

      "WHEN, AFTER EVERY great war, it is proposed to demobilize the armed forces, there is always a great fear that there will not be enough jobs for these forces and that in consequence they will be unemployed. It is true that, when millions of men are suddenly released, it may require time for private industry to reabsorb them—though what has been chiefly remarkable in the past has been the speed, rather than the slowness, with which this was accomplished. The fears of unemployment arise because people look at only one side of the process.

      They see soldiers being turned loose on the labor market. Where is the “purchasing power” going to come from to employ them? If we assume that the public budget is being balanced, the answer is simple. The government will cease to support the soldiers. But the taxpayers will be allowed to retain the funds that were previously taken from them in order to support the soldiers. And the taxpayers will then have additional funds to buy additional goods. Civilian demand, in other words, will be increased, and will give employment to the added labor force represented by the former soldiers.


    2. Imagine the government actually being able to dramatically LOWER taxes with the surpluses saved from curbing the $1 trillion per year on foreign policy. The markets would surge on sudden reserves that otherwise went into paying taxes. Businesses are more likely to spend the recouped tax money on growing the business. Individuals are more likely to spend the same tax money on goods and services than saving it. Getting government out of the equation is paramount to boosting productivity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.