Better Rightwingers Needed
In the course of shilling for coal and oil industry types against those who believe that the negative externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions should be curtailed via pricing, Heritage’s Nick Loris explains:
Second, the only thing a green ‘New Deal’ will do is lead us down a Green Road to Serfdom. (Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom is a telling portrayal of what collectivism in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany can lead to: impoverishment and oppression of freedom.)
You’d think conservatives would at least have a better grasp of what their own books are about. But The Road to Serfdom is not primarily a portrayal of oppression in the totalitarian states. It is, rather, an argument that Western Europe’s postwar mixed-economy democracies were on a slippery slope (i.e., “road”) to Soviet-style totalitarianism (i.e., “to serfdom”). And I suppose it’s true that by the same logic that says the creation of the National Health Service in the UK would lead inevitably to the Gulag, you might as well say the same about a cap and trade program. But that logic is wrong.
48 Responses to “Better Rightwingers Needed”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 29th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
As John McCain would say, he doesn’t like green energy because freedom blah blah blah.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I’m pretty content with Republicans retreating into a complete Red Scare mode. I think it’ll work wonders for their numbers. I hope Heritage Foundation writers are so motivated by their fears that we are about to slip down the slope to Green Stalinist Maoism that they are willing to do more than write politely about it; if that’s what they actually believe, they should of course be on the street protesting, or better yet building up their survivalist compounds in the mountains.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
The problem, of course, is that most of these think-tankers are not especially bright by conventional standards. Matt is very much the exception.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
they should of course be on the street protesting, or better yet building up their survivalist compounds in the mountains.
Ah, the same group who so believed in American Exceptionalism and the American Century that they dredged campuses of YRs and assorted ijuts to man the Iraqi provisional government.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Not a single one of the totalitarian states that have ever existed got that way in the manner described by Hayek.
Not one.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
“You’d think conservatives would at least have a better grasp of what their own books are about.”
Indeed, you’d also hope that someone writing for a conservative think tank blog wouldn’t even have to attempt to explain what one of modern conservatism’s founding documents says, let alone get it wrong.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Might as well be quoting from Atlas Shrugged (the lunatic novel, not the lunatic blog).
October 29th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Given recent events, it’s a bit surreal seeing a libertarian argue that a national carbon tax will cause the economy to collapse.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I think that is actually a pretty good description of part of the these of The Road to Serfdom. Hayek does argue that Soviet and Nazi regimes are totalitarian because they are socialist. Hayek also argues that a social welfare state is going to have strong tendencies to develop in the same direction for the same reasons that applied in Russia and Germany.
BTW, Hayek would be pretty happy with a carbon tax. What Hayek doesn’t like is planning and social justice.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Hayek does argue that Soviet and Nazi regimes are totalitarian because they are socialist. Hayek also argues that a social welfare state is going to have strong tendencies to develop in the same direction for the same reasons that applied in Russia and Germany.
But that’s wrong. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany resorted to central planning because they were totalitarian and used social welfare payouts as a means of paying off potential discontents and consolidating their power. What he argues, IIRC, is that things will work in the opposite direction: that increased focus on social spending will lead to totalitarianism. Historically, it didn’t work out that way with the genuine totalitarian regimes, and post-war europe didn’t see their own social-welfare programs slide into totalitarianism.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I’m not claiming that Hayek is right, I’m claiming simply that Hayek did make the sort of claim that Nick Loris is attributing to him. Now it might be useful for conservatives giving up on a simple minded version of this Hayek book, but that’s a different story.
The relationship between economic systems and political power can be a useful question to think about, if done correctly. Some people have Marx and some have Hayek. I’ve read and thought about both of them, but none are sacred texts that have probative value in themselves about how the world works.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
The Republican pundits often show ignorance of the very sources they cite as the foundations of their ideology. Probably because the stupid fuckers can’t read –much less reason. Hence having to depend heavily on their core competency of finding some rich man’s ass to kiss.
Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations had a scathing depiction of the con games the financial sector will get up to if left unregulated by the government. Yet Republican leaders blithly speak of letting the “invisible hand” work its magic.
As a result, the people of this country are being smacked around by the not so invisible hand like a street whore taking it in the chops from her pimp.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Two quibbles:
1. “The Road to Serfdom” was published in March 1944. So it certainly says nothing about “post-war mixed economies”.
2. The core argument of the book is that central planning, not redistributive policies (i.e., the National Health Service), leads to totalitarian politics. That is a rather uncontroversial proposition. Can anyone out there point to country that has had simultaneously: a) a centrally planned economy, and b) a democratic regime?
October 29th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
The core argument of the book is that central planning, not redistributive policies (i.e., the National Health Service), leads to totalitarian politics
I’d argue that the NHS is bears more resemblance to central planning than to mere redistribution.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Re “Hayek also argues that a social welfare state is going to have strong tendencies to develop in the same direction ”
—————
And 2200 years before Hayek, Aristotle pointed out that ANY ruling faction — the One, the Few , or the Many — becomes deeply corrupt with the passage of time and starts fucking the other members of society in deeply unjust ways. Hence, the rotation from corrupt oligarchy to tyrant to howling mob.
What Newt Gingrich didn’t address — the card he palmed — is that a society of 300 Million people dependent upon the reliable workings of an advanced ,complex civilization is going to depend upon planning and management to some degree.
You never saw the 350 Republicans –once they were in power — give up the slightest amount of their power to rule 300 million people. Including dumping $5.5 Trillion of debt onto us.
Government has its flaws but they are nothing to corporate CEOs who work people into the ground for decades, grab the wealth for themselves, and throw their employees onto the unemployment rolls so they can divert capital to CHina. The corrupt oligarchs who rule us are far worse than any republican government.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Re Mr Hope’s comment “Can anyone out there point to country that has had simultaneously: a) a centrally planned economy, and b) a democratic regime?”
—————
US Government spending amounts to what?? 20 percent of US GDP? How do you think its spending gets done? The US Defense budget is set in a manner that the old Soviet Union’s Politburo would recognize. Any Commissar worth his salt would grin in recognition when told of earmarks.
Even the so called “Private sector” engages in extensive planning. Any Fortune 500 CEO would privately think an Advocate of the “free market” is a dangerous moron. You don’t risk $Billions on chance. You must have the rules hardwired –via laws — before you commit major money to ventures. Look at how the Bells fucked the Long Distance Fiber Optic Companies and seized the fruits of long distance innovations. Look at what Enron’s rolling blackouts did to Silicon Valley in 2000.
Why do you think the two US Parties get close to $1 Billion per election? Do you think those donations are being made to buy “democracy” or “the free market”??
When are we going to discuss REALITY — instead of the bullshit cons disseminated by self-serving mouthpieces for the rich.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Clearly the hack does know what the Road to Serfdom’s about, which is both why he cites it, and why he misstates the contents. Since Hayek was wrong, he can only nod to trhe argument without undercutting his own version it.
That he still makes the argument is presumably because he’s a rightwing lunatic in addition to being a hack.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
In my opinion, Verizon,etc made out in telecommunications because they outspent AT&T in Congress –to get Congress to support their unjustified monopoly — not because of any business virtue or innovation.
Same goes for Microsoft and it’s “freedom to innovate”. I agree with SUN’s Scott Mcnealy that Microsoft never invented anything in their life.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Re Don Williams: “US Government spending amounts to what?? 20 percent of US GDP? How do you think its spending gets done? The US Defense budget is set in a manner that the old Soviet Union’s Politburo would recognize. Any Commissar worth his salt would grin in recognition when told of earmarks.”
You are confusing the act of “planning”, i.e., making a forecast and setting a course of action consistent with that forecast (something every person and every organization on Earth does), and “central planning”, i.e., an economic system whereby all prices (including wages) and production targets are set and enforced by a government body (the Soviet Gosplan, for instance), without regard to considerations of supply and demand.
I thus repeat the question: can anyone name a country that has both a centrally planned economy (as described above) and a democratic regime?
October 29th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“The core argument of the book is that central planning, not redistributive policies (i.e., the National Health Service), leads to totalitarian politics. That is a rather uncontroversial proposition.”
Not at all, it’s rather idiosyncratic.
“Can anyone out there point to country that has had simultaneously: a) a centrally planned economy, and b) a democratic regime?”
If no countries have had a) and b) simultaneously, it follows that there’s no empirical support for the idea that a) leads to the opposite of b).
India did have some degree of central planning for a long time.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Hayek is like Clauswitz – quoted by many, understood by few.
US Government spending amounts to what?? 20 percent of US GDP? How do you think its spending gets done? The US Defense budget is set in a manner that the old Soviet Union’s Politburo would recognize.
LOLZ. Not quite, but nice hyperbole.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Re “LOLZ. Not quite, but nice hyperbole.”
What hyperbole? US GDP is $14.3 Trillion. Government expenditures (including States) is $2.9 Trillion -> 20 percent of GDP.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/txt/gdp208f.txt
Plus BEA is palming the cards. Federal budget alone is $2.9 Trillion –NOT $1.1 Trillion -when you include mandates (Social Security checks,etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008
So make that 33 percent of GDP under control of the Commissars. I thought the Republicans were in control 2000-2006.
Somewhere, Pareto is laughing.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
If no countries have had a) and b) simultaneously, it follows that there’s no empirical support for the idea that a) leads to the opposite of b).
Probably not, but at the very least, you have to concede that the correlation is pretty strong. As for causation, you have three options: 1) Hayek is right and central planning indeed brings about totalitarian regimes; 2) Hayek got it backwards; totalitarian dictatorships tend very strongly to go for central planning; or, 3) there is absolutely no causal relationship between the two phenomena and it is just mere coincidence that every centrally planned economy that has ever existed has also been a dictatorship. I find 3) quite unlikely; my guess is that the truth lies somewhere between 1) and 2) (political control leads to economic control which in turns leads to more political control). Again, I don’t think that proposition is very controversial.
India did have some degree of central planning for a long time.
As far as I know (and I might be wrong about this), India had (and to some extent, still has)a large public sector, highly interventionist industrial policies, and a significant amount of protectionism, but I don’t think it would quite fit into the classic definition of central planning. Even at the height of the so-called “regulation raj” (i.e., the 1970’s), most means of production were privately owned and most prices were market-based.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Alejandro Hope,
I believe that a slight majority of India’s means of production were publicly owned in the 1970s, but I could be wrong about that. Government ownership was certainly heavier in industry and services than in agriculture.
In terms of states that were somewhat “democratic” with largely planned economies, one might consider Allende’s Chile, Ortega’s Nicaragua, and Dubcek’s Czechoslovakia. All of them were short-lived of course, collapsing under pressure either from the United States or Russia. Which somewhat weakens your case about “every central planned economy”. You’re talking as if there are a number of independent examples which prove your case. There may be a number of examples, but they aren’t really independent. Most countries were pulled into the orbit of either the United States, Soviet Russia, or China, and thus gravitated either towards capitalism or neo-Bolshevism- those countries which tried to chart an independent, democratic-socialist path were fairly quickly brought to heel by one of the two superpowers.
One might also note that central planning and socialism are not necessarily the same thing. Yugoslavia was a socialist country with a largely market-based system of pricing, and Nazi Germany was the opposite. Personally I favor a market-based, decentralized socialism, perhaps something along the Yugoslav lines but going further.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
1) Hayek is right and central planning indeed brings about totalitarian regimes; 2) Hayek got it backwards; totalitarian dictatorships tend very strongly to go for central planning; or, 3) there is absolutely no causal relationship between the two phenomena and it is just mere coincidence that every centrally planned economy that has ever existed has also been a dictatorship.
Nonsense – some things are caused by the confluence of several factors and cannot be understood by looking at each variable and deciding if it (a) always causes it, (b) always results from it or (c) has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
They can only be properly understood as being the result of several causes acting together under the right circumstances.
As Hayek lays out his argument in Road to Serfdom, he acknowledges the factors which contribute to the emergence of totalitarianism in centrally planned economies and in the process implicitly and explicitly acknowledges that in the absense of some or all of these factors, central planning does not necessarily lead to totalitarianism.
Hayek, like Clauswitz, cannot be properly understood or expressed in sound bites and 1 sentence summaries.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Hayek, like Clauswitz, cannot be properly understood or expressed in sound bites and 1 sentence summaries
Likewise for Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Smith, Marx, Gramsci, Rawls, Nozick, etc. But this the comments section of a blog, not a PhD thesis. We are all well aware of the fact that Hayek’s arguments are far subtler than any rendering that has appeared in this discussion. But I don’t think any serious Hayek scholar would quibble with the assertion that the gist of Hayek’s argument in “Road to Serfdom” is that central planning has a tendency of leading to rather nasty political outcomes, such as, say, Nazi dictatorship.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Alejandro,
Im with you.
I was pointing out the foolishness of framing it in the way quoted – which of course was bound to result in the “no relationship” conclusion since it isn’t 100% causal. Its a false frame and textbook setup for knocking down a strawman.
Anyways, your right about it not being a PhD thesis.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Re Alejandro’s comment ““central planning”, i.e., an economic system whereby all prices (including wages) and production targets are set and enforced by a government body (the Soviet Gosplan, for instance), without regard to considerations of supply and demand.”
———–
What do you think government contracting is? The staffing positions and wages are pretty strongly controlled by the government. And your “Demand” curve consists of 1 entity and your “supply curve” usually consist of two bidders at most.
The US government takes measures all the time to depress the wages of productive segments of the economy. Doctors have been taking it in the shorts for some time because of US laws encouraging jobs programs for lawyers and HMOs.
Tax laws encourage layoffs in the US and export of capital abroad. Wages of computer programmers and engineers are depressed by H1B visas allowing the import of a million foreign workers for 6 year stretches.
But control of the wages of scum like Corporate CEOs, political donors, lawyers, lobbyists, and Wall Street con artists ? Not so much.
October 30th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Abbot Gleason in his book about totalitarianism writes that the righwingers got wrong in their definition about it being the government intervening in the economy. Rather totalitarianism is about the government erasing or abolishing any indepedent civil sociey. The Republicans with their constant attacks on the Democrats for being traitors or that that some Americans need to tried for un-American activities fit Gleason’s definition of a totalitarian way of thinking.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:12 am
I’m sorry gents, but this is where I’m a crazy right winger. All of this stuff is premature. I’ve got nothing against investing in alternative technologies (especially tax breaks for plug-in hybrids), but have you taken a look at some of the models recently? We’ve had consistent years of falling temps. This flies in the face of all of the folks that predicted otherwise.
I don’t know about you guys (and I’m not saying that this is scientific by any stretch of the imagination) but I’ve spoken to friends around the country and they’ve told me that so far, this has been the coldest fall that they can remember.
There was an article the other day about the drop in sunspot activity. Very interesting, and worth the read.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Matthew, if you’re looking for Conservatives…look in foreign policy. That’s the most important issue that we face today, and we’re going to need a coalition of left and right if we’re to ensure that it gets fixed.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Ed Smythe — “…but have you taken a look at some of the models recently? We’ve had consistent years of falling temps.”
Uh, no. If you think we’ve had consistent years of falling temps, then you haven’t actually been looking at the models. You’ve been reading bullshit on the internet written by know-nothings.
Try this site.
This is the point that global warming skeptics inevitably fail to grasp. There ARE natural, cyclical changes in climate that are completely unrelated to human activity. And there are also changes related to human activity. The result is not a steady curve, but an oscillation that trends upward.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:11 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
laptop battery
March 11th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Incredible site!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra