Posted on 09/14/2013 4:49:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
Do you know of any place you can go to find a rational, well-thought out economic argument for liberalism? I can't. And that's really strange considering the degree to which this political philosophy dominates our culture.
By the term "liberalism" I mean the intellectual effort to apologize for and defend economic programs primarily associated with Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. There are four main ones:
•The substitution of regulation for markets,
•The substitution of social insurance for private provision,
•The nationalization of welfare, and
•The manipulation of the economy by the government.
It is difficult to exaggerate how completely this intellectual movement dominated thinking in the post-World War II period. During the 1950s and 1960s there was virtually no book, no journal, and no college campus where you could find a serious competing point of view.
When I was an undergraduate at the University of Texas in the 1960s, there were only two people on the entire liberal arts faculty who you could describe as right of center — a moderate Republican in the English department and a libertarian in the Political Science department. And this was a campus with 27,000 students!
Then in 1962 Milton Friedman wrote Capitalism and Freedom. Friedman called himself a "classical liberal" and his book was a wholesale assault on modern liberalism and all its major programs. In place of Social Security, Freidman proposed private savings accounts. In place of the income tax system, a flat tax. In place of a monopoly public school system, educational vouchers. In place of the welfare state, a negative income tax. And so forth.
Whether you agree or disagree with Friedman, the book represented a coherent statement of a political philosophy. From cover to cover, you could see how it all fit together. Starting from a few simple values, you could see how the entire set of recommended polices cohered.
So here is the obvious question: Where can one find the counter to Friedman? Where is there a book that makes the case for modern liberalism as persuasively and as coherently as Friedman's critique?
I can't find any.
How could so many people hold a viewpoint that has never been written down, explained and defended? Hold that thought for a moment.
Since I can't cover everything in a single article, let's stick with regulation. There are three things you need to know:
1.Virtually every federal regulatory agency created in the 20th century came into existence at the request of the regulated industry.
2.In virtually every case the regulatory body viewed maintaining industry profitability as its most important goal.
3.In almost every case the bulk of the agency's time was spent not protecting consumers from price gouging, but protecting the industry from "ruinous competition."
However, to get economic favors from government, the industries were expected to make a devil's bargain. Since the Republicans mainly believed in hands off government, the producers had to give political support to Roosevelt and other Democrats who were granting the favors.
This approach started with the progressives, who were the forerunners of modern liberalism. They were not the first to pass special interest legislation, of course. But they were the first to give an intellectual justification for the rejection of free markets while they were doing it, a justification that often belied their real intent.
For example, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) — our first federal regulatory agency — was ostensibly established to protect the general public from greedy robber barons. But, as the leftist historian Gabriel Kolko has documented, the ICC was primarily dominated by, and served the interest of, the railroads themselves. The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was passed ostensibly in order to protect the public from bad meat — exposed, for example, by the novelist Upton Sinclair. However, the regulatory apparatus the act created served the interests of large meatpackers instead. Safety standards were already being met — or were easily accommodated — by the large companies. But the regulations forced many small meatpackers out of business and made it difficult for new ones to enter the industry. This same pattern — of regulatory agencies serving the interests of the regulated — was repeated with the establishment of almost all subsequent regulatory agencies. For this reason, Kolko called the entire Progressive Era the "triumph of conservatism."
As I reported previously, in the Franklin Roosevelt era, the ICC became a cartel agent for the trucking industry as well as the railroads. The Civil Aeronautics Board became a cartel agent for the airlines. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) became a cartel agent for the broadcasters.
Even the pretense of consumer protection was blatantly tossed aside with the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The goal of the NIRA was to allow each industry to set its own prices, set its own wages and control its own output. Had Roosevelt gotten his way, we would have had predatory monopolies in every market.
What was happening at the national level during the 20th century was replicated in spades at the local level. Virtually every professional licensing requirement in the country was requested not by consumers, but by people in the trade. Today, almost one in every three jobs requires a license.
Where can you find an intellectual defense of all this? You can't. What I'm describing contradicts not only Adam Smith, but also almost all of modern economics. Special monopoly privileges designed for one group create benefits for that group, but harm everyone else. And the harm to society as a whole is inevitably much greater than the benefits to the special interests.
So back to the question posed earlier: why do so many intellectuals apologize for and defend the indefensible? The only answer I can think of is that what we call liberalism is not an ideology at all. It's a sociology. And that would be okay, if it were comparable to one's preference for natural food or artsy movies.
It's not okay when it imposes costs on millions of innocent people.
Many liberals live in a group speak echo chamber where they never encounter opposition to their views. Their principles are developed in a vacuum and are never exposed to the real world. When encountering opposition they have no real intellectual supports to back up their beliefs. Therefore they go nuts on any one who opposes their reality. For the most point their problem is arrested development. Liberals have a hard time seeing anyone’s point of view besides their own and labor under the delusion that life is fair. They tend not to like anything, such as religion that puts someone else above their EGO and holds them accountable for their actions.
Liberals also are great at making themselves the exception to the rule. They are fantastic rationalizes. They always have a really good reason why they are not held to the same standard as the rest of us. Bill and Hillary are prefect examples and now BO
Why do liberals believe what they believe?
I think the difference between liberals and conservatives is explained in large part by whether one accepts or rejects an accurate understanding of certain basic Biblical principles (regardless of whether one is personally a Bible believer). (Many libs quote the Bible but misunderstand and misconstrue it, and although not all conservatives accept the Bible, they still hold to certain principles grounded in it.)
In his book A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell discusses the fundamental difference between how conservatives and liberals view human nature.
http://www.conservativemonitor.com/top-ten/conflict-of-visions.shtml
Libs take an unBiblical view of human nature, whereas conservatives, *if* they’re knowledgeable and consistent, take a view of human nature that lines up better with a Biblical view of human nature.
It’s called “The Communist Manifesto.”
His title has the form of a rhetorical question, so I was expecting some reasoned speculation as to why it is so. Or, as a scientist, I could say that I was expecting a logic based hypothesis. He did not provide that.
We really do not know why liberals think the way they do. It is a subject that begs to be studied formally.
FDRs love Mussolini
Yes, I am aware of all that. And I have noticed not only the utter arrogance of liberal leaders, but that this arrogance is strongly attractive to liberal followers. Looking at pictures of Obama vs. Bush drives home that point: Obama *always* places himself to look down on people, and even when he is alone, he holds his head so as to give the impression that he is looking down his nose at the entire world. Whereas Bush is always seen looking straight at the camera, or putting himself at the same level of anyone he is interacting with. The difference is profound.
But that wasn’t really what I was looking for in the way of an answer to “why”—that is more of a “how.” I came from the same background, I went through the same cultural indoctrination, yet I question and challenge everything. My background should have made me a rabidly pro-abortion man-hating feminist, enamored with unions and minimum wage laws, and convinced that the government isn’t redistributing enough wealth. I would like to know the fundamental reason why the leftist/socialist propaganda is so readily swallowed by some, while others roundly reject it. And once we have an answer to that, I want to know how to enable people to protect themselves against the siren call of the left.
Yep, we need a vaccine to cure leftism
I would say that some people are certain emotion-driven, and that is a bad thing because that leaves them open to manipulation by authoritarians or anyone else who wants something from them.
However, not everyone bases their life on emotion. I am an extremely logical person—when I was 6 years and the original Star Trek series was broadcast, I couldn’t understand most of the material, however, I was absolutely fascinated by Mr. Spock. I sensed that he was a kindred spirit, and wanted to be exactly like him. Since I prefer to have the truth, and base decisions on facts and logic, I am always confounded by people who would rather pick and choose facts to support their pet beliefs... sadly, those people exist on the right as well as on the left.
I might take a quick glance at the book you mentioned.
You make an interesting point re looking for confirmation versus looking for truth. Because, as they say, the truth hurts. I know that I found it to be the opposite of pleasurable when I began to see how the dots connected in the landscape of liberalism blending into communism. But I persisted, despite the discomfort, because I knew that truth was more important.
There are probably a multitude of reasons why one person is influenced by the left and another is not. But enabling people to protect themselves from the siren call of the left begins with education, parents teaching their kids the truth, and accessing good books and media. Many of the people who want Obamacare do not have any understanding about economics and those are the same people who voted Democrat because they could get a mortgage on a home they could not afford. They furthermore are more interested in what they can get rather than what is best for the country and so we are dealing with ignorance as well as an entitlement frame of mind. Education and parents are the key when young. It is harder to reach them when older but I know I learned a lot from Rush Limbaugh and freerepublic. It is a process and it all depends on how vehemently the people feel a need to hold onto their belief system.
I can’t even start researching such a vaccine until I know what causes leftism. :(
I’d say Coulter’s opening to “Demonic”, including the passage from Mark 5:2-9 nails it: The Democratic party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents.
And they are, “legion”.
So are we.
Why do Lemmings and Sheep follow their leader over a cliff? They are not leaders, have no leadership qualities, and simply go where they are lead. That’s why Obama keeps saying FORWARD, A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. Same thing they tell the bull at the slaughter house.
It comes down to a single word: they are weak in character.
Groupthink. They only listen to each other, dismissing out of hand anything that is even slightly out of line with said groupthink.
Why is there no opposite of Capitalism and Freedom? Liberals are too busy trying to shut down and destroy anything that might possibly oppose them. They lurch from one Utopian idea to another, anything to "fix" the world and make it "better".
Of course, this is only the rank-and-file voting Democrat liberal. The one's really running things, the party officials, know all of this is hogwash. But it works to keep the useful idiots - sorry, rank-and-file voters - in line. The leaders are in it for the power. The more power the federal government has over the nation, the more power they have over people.
because liberals are brainwashed by the mainstream media into believing all that bs including in global warming
They are using the term “general welfare” to cover the gamut.
That is why welfare is called “Welfare”.
If you want to know how the left is so ignorant of such a clause, understand it’s origin.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html
I have always believed Rush’s theory is the most accurate. Liberals are inherently unhappy people who have found each other. They blame their unhappiness on society as a whole and if they could just fix things they wouldn’t be miserable. So their quest is a utopian society, the more they change things, the more things get out if whack. When they get what they want, it still doesn’t make them happy. It is endless.
Everything you’ve stated here is pretty much spot on. Growing up in NY as I did, I had the displeasure of being exposed to their crap on a daily basis. In those times (late 60’s and early 70’s) the Vietnam War was the catalyst that served as the foundation for their belief(s) that the US was the root of all evil.
I could probably go on for hours about the BS statements I heard from these characters but that would probably fill a book. Every time they “argued” with me about some lame-brain political craze of the moment their “solutions” always were something along lines of “Do as I Say Not as I do”. I saw through their transparency very early in my life.
The biggest problem with Liberals is that we call them “Liberals” - They aren’t; they are socialists and communists and collectivists. They are not even Progressives though the like to think of themselves as such. They should be called what they are not what they (Liberal) think they are.
I too grew up in NY during the same time as you. I saw it front row and up close as a NYPD police officer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.