January 27, 2009 10:18AM # Slate on Cato Conference By [Benjamin H. Friedman](https://www.cato.org/people/benjamin-friedman) --- SHARE Michael Newman, *Slate’s* politics editor, [writes up](http://www.slate.com/id/2208779/) the counterterrorism [conference](https://www.cato.org/events/counterterrorism/index.html) we held here two weeks ago. It’s an OK article, and we appreciate the publicity. The trouble is that Newman tries to stuff a conference summary into a theme about Libertarians and Obama. Hence the title, “Cozying Up to the New Guy: Libertarians are oddly hopeful about the Obama administration.” That may be a good hook, it may even be generally true, but it creates a misleading impression here. So at the risk of looking a gift horse in the mouth, I have several complaints. First, Cato’s defense and foreign policy scholars have repeatedly attacked the Obama team for its adherence to the flawed, bipartisan counterterrorism and defense strategy that it inherited. See [here](https://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5609) and [here](http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20202) for starters. I’m not sure who is cozying up. Second, the article imagines a strategic rationale behind the conference — Cato thinks it can most influence Obama on issues related to terrorism and is therefore directing its energies there. Not really. There is no singular “Cato view” on these matters or any other. Several scholars here had an interest in counterterrorism policy, and organized a project, which included a public conference, on it. The conference would have happened regardless of who was President. Sure, we’d like the policy-makers in the executive branch to adopt a more sensible perspective about terrorism than their predecessors. But we’d also like Congress, the public, and the media to adopt that view. Third, Newman gets the theme of the conference right — terror is as big a problem as the terrorism that sparks it — but *Slate* readers may get the impression that this was just a bunch of libertarians saying so. In fact, the speakers came from across the ideological spectrum. To the extent that they agree, and not all do, it shows that these policies are common-sense, even if they remain unconventional. Finally, the article says that: “Think tank experts aren’t stupid.” I would have started that sentence with “most.” ##### Related Tags [Defense and Foreign Policy](https://www.cato.org/defense-foreign-policy), [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).