Tuesday, November 28, 2006

 

A Public Service

I only have a few rare British readers but I thought I should post a link to this blog.

Monday, November 20, 2006

 

Thoughts on Milton Friedman


Milton Friedman was the most articulate and important intellectual defender of freedom in the 20th Century. Period. Others were quite good. He was better.

The difference between obituaries for Friedman is defined by a single word: Chile. If the article mentions his trip to Chile in the 1970’s to lecture on economics as “controversial”, the reader would do well to stop reading and move on to the sports section.

I read “Capitalism and Freedom” in 1995. I have never really been the same since.

John Kenneth Galbraith has been mentioned in most of the articles. This is a good thing. Not only were they good friends, and that speaks well of both of them, but they were the archetypes of two different political and economic philosophies. However, the papers always neglect to mention that Galbraith’s influence on the science of economics has been reduced to zero, and the descendants of Friedman dominate.

In college, my Libertarian friend and I always referred to Friedman as Uncle Milty. We disagreed on much but not on our favorite intellectual relative.

Friedman visited Chile to lecture on economics and was attacked by the Left as supporting the dictator Pinochet. Then he visited Communist China and heard only silence. This said more about his Leftist critics then it ever did about Friedman.

If we had appointed Friedman Dictator for Life he would have implemented a flat tax, drug legalization, school choice, and a negative income tax instead of welfare. Then he would have resigned.

Economics is complex, but one idea is simple. Inflation only happens when the government prints too much money (Friedman’s first point).

The Right has forgotten a simple debating tactic: smile. Friedman’s good nature never hurt his cause.

In front of a hostile 1960’s college audience, Friedman’s debate opponent sarcastically read Friedman’s policy proscriptions out loud. There was much laughter until he stated that Friedman wanted the draft eliminated. The crowd was Friedman’s from that point forward.

Friedman was an economic advisor to President Nixon. After Nixon declared wage and price controls, he stopped speaking to Friedman. The President did not want to be lectured on elementary economics by the Professor.

Friedman, Galbraith, and William F. Buckley were all fierce partisans of their political views. They were also avid skiers and good friends. Try to imagine Anne Coulter and Michael Moore on a ski lift together.


Wednesday, November 08, 2006

 

To Hell with Texas

Kinky Friedman has lost.

 

Duty

I have done my civic duty and voted. This was my take on the election.

A Conservative’s Dilemma

The Right wing punditry is buzzing with a plea: please vote. The well founded fear that motivates this plea is that conservatives are so disenchanted by the current Republican Party that they will not vote for anyone in November and give the Democrats their de facto support.

National Review’s blog, The Corner, has become an electronic billboard for the Republican Party. And the usually bombastic Michelle Malkin has recanted her previous position and now advocates voting for the incumbents.

In the DC Examiner Jay Ambrose has argued that one should vote for Republicans for congress because “The Democrats, by and large, are far worse.” Congressional careerists may reason that if their political positions are dependent on a lesser of two evils argument it may be time to consider alternative employment.

Ambrose has summed up the pro argument for a Republican Congress: what would a Democratic majority in congress accomplish? The majority would attempt to erase part of, if not all of, the Bush tax cuts. A bill for nationalized health care may also be passed. It can be reasonably assumed that any of these events would cause the phantom veto of President Bush to finally manifest itself.

The con argument is a question: What conservative position is furthered by voting Republican in the current election? This question demands a positive answer. In order to compel support from the electorate, the position should be articulated that a Republican congress will actually do something conservative.

Would a Republican Congress reform the US tax code? The last tax cut may have reduced taxes on all Americans however it also added more complexity to the already incoherent mess that is US progressive taxation.

Could we plausibly expect that a Republican Congress will implement any conservative political goals such as Congressional term limits, a balanced budget, real tax reform, expanded free trade, or some kind of realistic foreign policy? Well none of this has occurred in the last six years, the expectation that it will in the next 2 years is a strange instance of the triumph of hope over experience.

In the next two years a Republican Congress will in all likelihood elicit cheers from a single section of the conservative big tent. Votes against embryonic stem cell research and for Constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage and flag burning would be assured. This will excite the minority of the electorate that make up the entirety of the President’s anemic approval rating.

Perhaps the solution to the conservative’s dilemma is to plagiarize the late great liberal congressman Tip O’Neill and state that all politics is local. If one believes that Michael Steele would be an excellent Senator then by all means vote. However, ambivalence regarding Senator Allen’s campaign against Jim Webb should not be remedy by references to the supposed necessity of a Republican Congress.

That will not satisfy the Republican partisans however it may satisfy what was once styled the conscious of a conservative.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?