creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Joe Conason
Joe Conason
24 May 2012
Where's the ‘Beef'? Clinton's Answer to Romney Snark

For Mitt Romney, the president's greatest vulnerability seems to be that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton … Read More.

17 May 2012
The Only True Way to Save Marriage From Obama

For honoring his conscience on the issue of marriage equality, President Obama earned angry rebukes from all … Read More.

10 May 2012
What the China Crisis (and His Gay Crisis) Revealed About Mitt

Just as aspiring judges ought to possess the quality known as "judicial temperament," a would-be … Read More.

The Ideologies Behind the Ideologues

Share Comment

Let nobody accuse the tea party enthusiasts of lacking intellectual sophistication, no matter what their favorite candidates might say about evolution, civil rights, masturbation or alcohol prohibition.

According to The New York Times, the movement's reading list includes works of political economy by such right-wing thinkers as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek and Frederic Bastiat. (And never mind that some of them are reading Glenn Beck's favorite crank, the late Cleon Skousen, who doesn't quite belong in the same category.)

What makes this news so bemusing is not that the far right is rediscovering anarcho-capitalism or ultra-libertarianism — an ideology whose potential consequences were observed the other day in Tennessee, where firefighters watched a family's house burn down because they hadn't paid a fee. Mises, Hayek and their successors have long influenced the American right, from William F. Buckley Jr. to Alan Greenspan.

What's funny is the sudden reverence among the tea party's self-styled super-patriots for a bunch of foreign philosophers whose outlook is known as "Austrian economics," except for Bastiat — whose Frenchness might be expected to arouse even greater suspicion among our nativists. Among the most bitter complaints against President Obama is his supposed penchant for European notions concerning health care reform, climate change and global security. His angriest critics at tea party demonstrations maliciously suggest that the president is himself a foreigner who doesn't respect the American way.

So why do those same people now tell us that America should heed the Austrian school of economics, with its strictures against public schooling, public roads and government services of almost any kind?

Why should European ideologies of the far right suddenly become fashionable among citizens who so blithely accuse the White House of importing "socialist" policies from abroad?

The Austrian craze is particularly curious because it has displaced a school of economics that ought to be more appealing to the proud and patriotic, especially those who claim to be true to the views of the nation's founders.

That would be the school known as "the American system" — which offers the added attraction of a real record of promoting national prosperity.

What is (or was) the American system? As articulated by thinkers from Alexander Hamilton to Henry Clay to Abraham Lincoln, it included protective tariffs to foster industry, national support for scientific research, federal spending (and debt!) to finance public works, regulation of private infrastructure (such as railroads) and universal education. That way of doing things persisted well into the past century, influencing policy in the Progressive Era, the New Deal and the Great Society. It preserved the nation's independence after the Revolution and built the United States into the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world.

But Austrian economics — which the Austrians themselves have wisely rejected, by the way, in favor of a more democratic and egalitarian style — had precisely nothing to do with that historic process.

So why would the tea party movement, so prone to bouts of jingoism and xenophobia, embrace an untried foreign ideology? Why would they ignore the traditional, native-grown concepts that bear the stamp of Hamilton and Lincoln? It is hard not to suspect that the Washington-based exponents of Austrian economics, at corporate-funded outfits like Americans for Prosperity, are promoting their own familiar agenda.

If the "Austrian" ideology prevailed in tearing down government, extirpating regulation and destroying public institutions, what would be left standing? Not much except giant corporations, mammoth banks and hedge funds, whose proprietors would then be able to completely dominate an increasingly impoverished, uneducated and undefended people. Not every aspect of the old American system could or should have been preserved — but it is much preferable to the corporate oligarchy that can be glimpsed behind the tea party.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
I am amazed at the ignorance displayed by this journalist, who didn't check his facts first.

Does he know that Friedrich von Hayek influence Social Democrat Helmut Schmidt, in helping design the German welfare state? (see Helmut Schmidt's famous statement, "We are all Hayekians now", after he read Constitution of Liberty and implemented the book)

Does he know that Ludwig von Mises despised anarchists, and as someone who experienced anti-Semitism in central Europe in pre-1920s, believed that the government was necessary, because people were "imperfect and reckless"? (see Omnipotent Government)

Does he know that they both WORKED IN GOVERNMENTS, and pushed for having public spending put more towards public investment and public services like roads and infrastructure, instead of military spending?

Does he know that this "far right" Frederic Bastiat was considered a leftist in his day?

I have read excellent books by people of the Keynesian school, Chicago school, the Austrian school, the classical school, and many others, and there are intelligent people on all sides of them, what with Messrs. Stiglitz, Block, Mishkin, Sowell, and whatnot. Amazingly, each of these schools has been demonized by people of all political spectrums when it did not fit their views. And people speak of what THEY think they think, without looking up what they actually think.

For one thing, anarcho-capitalism is the product of one subset of Austrianism called the Auburn School, which is purely homegrown in Alabama. And being an Austrian doesn't mean being a libertarian, it means being anti-mathematics. The Chicago School treats humans mathematically like atoms and planets while Austrians and Keynesians have an anti-mathematical method. There are Austrian leftists, called Austro-punk, and centrist Austrians like Pete Boettke.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Prateek Sanjay
Wed Oct 6, 2010 11:05 AM
How, in this bit of propaganda/drivel, Conason comes to the conclusion that the Tea Partiers are rabid "nativists" is not clear. Regardless, it's very much a product of his fevered imagination. Equally, the Tea Party's "bouts of jingoism and xenophobia" are inventions of Conason's mind. Basically, lacking any substantive basis for attacking the Tea Parties, Conason is resorting to the invention of strawman arguments he can pretend to demolish.
As to ""the American system," as exemplified in Conason's mind by Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay , and Abraham Lincoln, all three were Big Government statists whose philosophies of government are largely rejected by the Tea Parties. That their "way of doing things persisted well into the past century, influencing policy in the Progressive Era, the New Deal and the Great Society," is certainly no endorsement for Tea Partiers--the much-despised federal income tax was a result of the "Progressive Era," and both the New Deal and the Great Society were and are, insanely expensive failures that threaten to this day to ruin the American economy.
Finally, to assert that "Austrians themselves have wisely rejected" Austrian economics is a lot like asserting that the French reject French Fries. The term "Austrian economics" refers to the nationalities of some of the founders of the school, not to any national policy, rejected or otherwise, of Austria. Again, Conason is doing the strawman argument thing.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Henry Miller
Thu Oct 7, 2010 8:23 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Joe Conason
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Tom Rosshirt
Tom RosshirtUpdated 26 May 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 25 May 2012

6 Aug 2009 What Are the Birthers Really After?

22 Jan 2009 What Bipartisan Means Now

5 Mar 2009 Rushing Toward Irrelevance