-
Throw the Book at Him
June 13, 2013 | 196 comments
-
Testimonial to a Great American
June 6, 2013 | 39 comments
-
A Close Call at the Newseum
May 30, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Obama’s Imbroglios
May 23, 2013 | 45 comments
-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
The Current Crisis
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Now the Liberals covet the corpses of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan.
Milton Friedman, the great economist, was one of a handful of intellectuals whose work forms the foundation for the modern conservative movement. He has been dead since 2006, but this week would be his centennial. He lived a long and prodigious life. In his lifetime, he was viewed as an odious figure by the Liberal brethren, a close advisor to dictators, an advocate of child labor, a favorite of fat cats.
Yet with the passage of time his repute as the prophet of an age of unsurpassed prosperity for just about everyone has only spread. Thus the Liberals have adopted a different tack. They adduce certain of his ideas to prove how dangerously cranky contemporary conservatives are. Even Milton Friedman did not go as far as Mitt Romney and the Tea Partiers, we are told.
“How Conservatives Misread and Misuse Milton Friedman,” reads a recent headline in the Washington Post above a piece by Nicholas Wapshott, which seems to argue that in Friedman’s great work A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960, written with Anna Schwartz, Friedman was arguing for inflating the American economy out of the Depression and presumably out of lesser recessions.
Needless to say it is a simplification, but it will serve a purpose with some Liberals. It helps to make Mitt Romney out as a harebrained radical for saying things like, “Milton Friedman understood what, frankly, our president, President Obama, I don’t think has learned even after three years and hundreds of billion of dollars in federal spending. And that is: Government does not create prosperity. Free markets and free people create prosperity.”
Mr. Wapshott, a sedulously reportorial former foreign editor of the New York Sun, appears in the unlikely role of what we increasingly see in this era of conservative recrudescence, a Liberal Body Snatcher. The Liberal Body Snatchers ghoulishly wait for a conservative leader to die and then they alight upon the speechless corpse and attribute to him sensible, prudent, and of course Liberal ideas. Sam Tanenhaus did it with the lifeless body of Bill Buckley. Mr. Wapshott apparently does it with Milton Friedman.
A whole gang of Body Snatchers has done it with President Reagan, arguing that he really was not that hawkish after all and never meant to challenge the USSR with force. He was all the while outmaneuvering such warmongers as Caspar Weinberger and Bill Casey and keeping things civilized for the likes of the editorial board of the New York Times and other Liberals who were so responsible for the peaceful conclusion of the Cold War. The Liberal Body Snatcher disfigures history.
Stephen Moore in the Wall Street Journal writes that Friedman “was the economist who saved capitalism by dismembering the ideas of central planning when most of academia was mesmerized by the creed of government as savior.” He was a tireless opponent of the state. In books and columns — most notably Newsweek in its heyday — he argued against state planning and for free markets.
I recall a longstanding debate between Milton and John Kenneth Galbraith, who at the time was billed as an economist but now is usually recognized as an elegant journalist. Galbraith mouthed the current wisdom. There was no free market, Galbraith claimed. He could not see it. He could not touch it. Today only an illiterate believes this. Free markets are observed allocating resources all over the world, even in India (until recently socialist), even in China (until recently communist). Only in places like the Obama White House is the state seen as a worthy replacement for markets.
Friedman argued abstruse economic questions and more general questions, for instance, the role of the state and the rule of law. He also had policies that he had worked out: low taxes, alternatives to Social Security, school vouchers, the volunteer military, and legalization of drugs. Taking him on was always hazardous. He was a cheerful and courteous advocate but deadly in debate. On the voluntary military his rejoinder to those who claimed he favored “mercenaries” was that they apparently favored “slaves.” I disagreed with him on the voluntary military and legalized drugs. Of course, history has proved him right on the military. Might it prove him right on drugs?
Mr. Moore ends his piece in the Journal by quoting Harvard’s Andrei Shleifer as describing the period from 1980 to 2005 as “The Age of Milton Friedman.” During it we “witnessed remarkable progress of mankind. As the world embraced free-market policies, living standards rose sharply while life expectancy, educational attainment, and democracy improved and absolute poverty declined.” I suppose a question worth asking in this election year is, are we finished with such progress or shall we begin “The Age of Milton Friedman” anew?
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (52) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/02/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 8.2.12 @ 6:54AM
With all due respect I have to disagree. Reagan's policy was always defensive. He reacted to threats from an advancing Soviet Union but he always said his goal was to negotiate from strength. He helped insurgents in Nicaragua, and Afganistan, for example, but didn't go after Castro. When he found a fine partner for peace he jumped at it and made peace. He was a great man. His goal always was peace, and he hated nuclear weapons and war.
Milton Friedman was another great man. But it is hard to totally ignore his background in the New Deal and his pushing for the witholding tax. He had many other similar ideas that the left can use to claim him to some degree. Bernanke has been using his theories for the last few years since this depression hit. We still are in the depression. One thing about Mr Friedman was that he was a great teacher, who gave you a lot to think about.
Howard| 8.2.12 @ 8:21AM
Friedman was indeed a leftist in his early years. But thorough study and analysis he changed his beliefs.
Von Mises Jr| 8.2.12 @ 8:34AM
Correct Howard. The Chicago School of Economics is what turned him around. It promulgated the ideas of Austrian Economics. Check out www.mises.org.
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 10:25AM
And yet, at 94 he recanted some of his earlier conservative economic theories.
"Milton Friedman's latest research on the Federal Reserve challenges key assumptions of a very prominent economist: Milton Friedman."
http://prospect.org/article/cant-and-recant
George S| 8.2.12 @ 10:37AM
Save yourselves the trouble... the author of that article has also written a piece called "Our Most Widely Ignored Public Intellectuals: Why don't those in power listen to economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman?"
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 10:43AM
Whatsamatta? You no like your own economic whizzes questioning themselves?
At least he was open to revising his theories when new information required it - I'll give him that. Kudos to him and also to Alan Greenspan who admitted he was wrong too. You guys DO NOT have all the answers, but go ahead and resist. It is your nature to be closed minded. I get that.
George S| 8.2.12 @ 11:01AM
You petitioned us to read an opinion in the hopes that we may get discouraged by Friedman's apparent rejection of an aspect or two of free market capitalism. I referred to the author's potential prejudices by another article he wrote. This way one can weigh the information in perspective. We all heard of Friedman; but very few know of the author who wrote the piece. I am just doing my public service.
AhiaBoy| 8.2.12 @ 11:49AM
"At least he was open to revising his theories when new information required it "
Unlike the current President whose only answer for failed policies that haven't fixed the economy is more of the same.
I guess we need yet ANOTHER "Recovery Summer" eh?
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 1:34PM
No, let's go back to the GW Bush Policies - that worked out soooo much better, didn't?
The fact the country has to de-leverage is directly attributable to Bush and Greenspan policies. It takes a long time to de-leverage, but until we do, we're in for a long less than stellar growth curve. Recovering from a Depression, the Bush Depression is much harder than the the little recession that Bush had or even the larger recession that Reagan had.
The last thing we need to do is rebuild the bubble economy, which is all Romney advocates and have a worse downfall down the line.
We need to stay the course with this President, get rid of the crazy fringe TeaPublicans that want to destroy this country to make a point and re-elect President Obama.
lost| 8.2.12 @ 4:58PM
Who created the housing bubble? Oh that's right liberals did. When liberals forced banks to make sub-prime loans before Bush 2 was in office it is his fault when the shell game falls apart? This country was not founded with a command and control thinking. This country was founded with the idea of limited government the exact opposite of what Obama is doing. So who is destroying this country? Liberal the control freaks
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 10:58PM
You're lost, lost. Go learn some facts.
lost| 8.3.12 @ 10:43AM
Ah yes another who falls for my nickname. You with out a doubt live in a dream where the "facts" are what ever you wish them to be
Doctor Right| 8.2.12 @ 11:12AM
Hey, dummy...
You were shooting your mouth off yesterday about how swell things are at GM since Obama-boy swooped-in, so I wanted to give you a heads-up:
GM's profits are DOWN by 41%!
41%!!!!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/busi.....-struggles
BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!!!!
How long until this crappy company goes under and takes ALL their UAW scabs down with them???
You know NOTHING.
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 1:37PM
Dr. BooBoo - You're absolutely right, but apparently you didn't look further.
Both GM and Toyota explained that R&D took a huge chunk from their profit projections, to build for the future.
That's how business works, investing in the future, but you don't know anything - I clearly don't believe you are a Doctor of anything, you un-American slob.
Rooting for Americans to fail - you're an ahole.
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 1:44PM
In any case, profitable is profitable and GM is. So stick that in your ...
Truncheon| 8.2.12 @ 2:32PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....03202.html
""The Internal Revenue Service has decided that the government's involvement with these companies, both its acquisitions plus its disposals of their stock, means they should be exempt" from the rule, said Robert Willens, a New York tax consultant who advises investment banks and hedge funds.
The government's rationale, said people familiar with the situation, is that the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors, and that the value of the benefit is greater than the lost tax payments, especially since the tax payments would not exist if the companies fail.
GM declined to comment."
You should not speak in public, for you are shallow, and without clue.
Truncheon| 8.2.12 @ 2:34PM
When you are tax-exempt, your "profits" are illusionary compared to your competition, inasmuch as you no longer have to pay any taxes.
You know, those "tax breaks for the rich" you guys supposedly despise.
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 11:00PM
When you can read GM's balance sheet, come back and play...
PsychoDad| 8.2.12 @ 12:18PM
Jack obviously doesn't remember how the Professional Left and the collaborationist media wallowed in their lurid portrayals of Reagan as a reckless cowboy ready to shoot from the hip. His avowed objective was the end of the Soviet Empire.
Howard| 8.2.12 @ 8:18AM
I remember reading Galbraith's 'New Industrial State" that came out around 1967. It opined that there was no free economy; only General Electric, GM, etc. counterbalanced by the trade unions. No mention of small and dynamic business. No mention of the soon to be strangling, parasitical public unions. Friedman was spot on in his analysis of how the world works, and he was one of the 20th Centuries key figures.
I agree that our liberal friends demonize conservatives when they are alive, but after a period of time, after they are deceased, grudging respect is given. As if we need their approval!!
Anthony| 8.2.12 @ 9:02AM
Not quite Howard. Our ever determined leftist propagandists do not bestow respect on great conservatives, rather, they twist and engage in Orwellian newspeak and redefine them.
Great conservatives are found to have embraced leftist dogma all along, we just never realized it.
These folks are not just congenital liars, they are dangerous beyond comprehension.
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 10:44AM
As if you haven't twisted Keynesian economic theory to death ...
benny havens| 8.2.12 @ 11:28AM
With the nation $15 trillion in debt, no twisting is necessary.
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 11:39AM
Well, if you eliminate the 10Trillion in debt that Reagan and the Bush Twins placed on the national credit card, that picture is entirely different, Bub. And, they weren't fighting Great Depression II, now were they?
PsychoDad| 8.2.12 @ 12:19PM
Haha, it's gone from "Blame Bush!"* to "Blame Both Bushes and Reagan!" Pathetic, just pathetic.
*Copyright Hussein Holdings Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Soros Int'l.
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 1:38PM
If you knew anything, you would know those are facts, not spin. But you won't check, it would disturb your carefully indoctrinated right wing mythology, wouldn't it?
lost| 8.2.12 @ 6:00PM
I checked and you are wrong. The only thing I will kind of give you a break on is Bush 2, he spent too much but then much of that was Obama voting for that also.
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 11:02PM
Lost - 1.8 T under Reagan
2.7 T under Papa Bush
5.2 T under Baby Bush
I assume you can add. Remember you must include Baby's last 2009 budget deficit of 1.4 T. it's his not Obama's budget.
lost| 8.3.12 @ 10:52AM
yep sure can add but then I used real numbers. I will not give 2009 to Bush 2, not his budget. Both houses were controlled by liberals when that budget was passed with Obama voting for it. It is a budget that Obama wanted so lets put that where it belongs.
Von Mises Jr| 8.2.12 @ 8:32AM
Milton Friedman was not only brilliant beyond comprehension to most of us, but he had the unique gift of presenting his conclusions coherently to the average man http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Adam Smith, Bastiat, Von Mises, Hayek, Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Burke, to Buckley have contributed immensely to our understanding of the political economy, but greats such as Friedman make it very understandable as per the video clip.
If you do not read Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter E. Williams, you are missing our contemporary economic geniuses with the ability to communicate effectively to the common man. I posit that this is also the genius of Rush, Beck, Breitbart and Andrew klavan.
Walter White| 8.2.12 @ 9:45AM
To omit the preeminent genius of the day - Mark Levin - is egregious. I trust that this was oversight.
JimH| 8.2.12 @ 9:52AM
VM, I'm sure you can explain better than I, and please correct if I have this wrong, that while Friedman and Austrian school economists have much in common as far as advocating free markets. Friedman was not one himself. In fact he was a critic of a number of aspects of Austrian theory, notably the causes of the business cycle. He believed that central banks should have role in the maintenance of monetary policy. To summarize the difference one might say that Austrians advocate that money be subject to market forces rather than by government policy.
Von Mises Jr| 8.2.12 @ 10:31AM
Walter, of course Mark Levin is seminal and clearly "The Great One." I have read and recommend all three of his books.
Others could also be cited such as Dinesh D'Souza, VHD, and Jim Rogers as a practical investor and speaker.
JimH, you are correct that Friedman is not featured at the Mises Institute. There is criticism of him, but I must confess that I have not read the remarks.
The Austrian School tends toward theory while Friedman's books tend to be more technical at times such as "Money Mischief" that discusses bimetallism and "Capitalism and Freedom" that discusses monetary and fiscal policy.
The Austrians would argue more that money could be anything virtually all believe does and will be accepted as a medium of exchange, and that monetary policy is moot as long as it is reflected in market prices.
So perhaps Friedman is frowned upon as dealing with the practical issues of the gold v. silver standard that created arbitrage and Gresham's Law of bad money forcing out good. But Rothbard argues the same in "What Has Government Done to Our Money."
So I suspect that it is an issue of one school of thought advocating against government intervention v. dealing with the realities of interventionism.
Good question, my friend. I will look for more on the topic.
Von Mises Jr| 8.2.12 @ 10:48AM
JimH, in spite of replicating the habits of Perpy in responding to me, here is what I found:
Austrian school criticism
In 1971, libertarian economist Murray Rothbard criticized Friedman's efforts to make the government more efficient as detrimental to individual liberty, concluding "...as we examine Milton Friedman’s credentials to be the leader of free-market economics, we arrive at the chilling conclusion that it is difficult to consider him a free-market economist at all." Friedman's position on governmental control of money changed since 1971 when this criticism was made. In a 1995 interview in Reason magazine he said the "difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction." He said he actually would "like to abolish the Fed," and points out that when he has written about the Fed it is simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I still recommend that all refrain from taking the troll bait. Usually the links are non sequiturs and the logic is childish. So let them talk to themselves. I am sure they have no friends and play with themselves.
Mimi | 8.2.12 @ 10:43AM
Thanks for the vidio clip....it is a pleasure to see a young, vigorus Milton Friedman so confident and clear in his ideas....with a smile on his face...lots of good debate. All should take a break and enjoy the clips.
aroundthetrack| 8.2.12 @ 9:09AM
Bob's amusing comments are right on the mark. What's even more amusing is just how intensely Friedman would detest the current direction of economic policy, contrary to the latest liberal take. By the way, Friedman said that his biggest error was his work on the withholding mechanism.
Al Adab| 8.2.12 @ 9:33AM
Historical revisionism is a favorite tactic of The Left. In a nation like this one where we no longer, as a people, have knowledge or understanding of our exceptional past or of the philosophy of government which underlies our success, it is a prospering tactic.
During the course of their lives and careers, both Friedman and Reagan were escoriated by and were anathema to The Left. Now they attempt to co-opt the legacy they so opposed at the time. It is a never ending battle to keep the truth of our past and the policies which do work alive.
Seek| 8.2.12 @ 1:56PM
Unfortunately, the Right also plays this game. Witness the revisionist nonsense that Martin Luther King Jr., a man of the far Left, was "really" a conservative. Every January I am forced to witness the spectacle of Human Events, Town Hall, The Heritage Foundation and National Review reminding us that King would have horrified at civil rights leaders "distorting" his message.
Co-optation of a man's life for political gain is a fact of life. I dislike it when the Left takes history out of context like this. But I'm not going to put blinders over my eyes when the Right does the same thing.
Al Adab| 8.2.12 @ 2:40PM
As you note, MLK was no conservative. It is however a measure of how far The Left has moved that quoting his "Content of their character" these days drives Leftist crazy. The Left has come to judge everything through the prism of race. While that may be advantageous to their political power, it does make them racist.
Who Knows?| 8.2.12 @ 11:04AM
Change is eternal.
With an MA in math, I thought I was hot stuff. Then, in Vietnam, working as a travel pay specialist in Da Nang in 1967-68, to pass time, I tried to read and understand “The New Industrial State”. Was I ever surprised and dismayed at how stupid I was about economics!
I did continue to study it, even took a JC intro course in it, the last year of my army service. Being animated by a desire NOT to end up like my dad, a meat cutter, or even have to spend my life working for the man, I thought it would be “cool” to join AID, and “save the world”.
Ah, but one needed a Ph D in econ!
UCSB accepted me, but I needed to spend a year taking only undergrad classes.
When I talked to the department, I told them how Galbraith had inspired me, and it was like Satan had appeared. John Kenneth was total anathema to them!
Also, words mean something. As a recovering marijuana aficionado, the old argument comes back to me—
It’s not about legalizing grass---smoky beer---but decriminalizing it.
Legalizing implies a YES, whereas decriminalizing implies NO OPINION---it’s up to you.
Of course, illegal affirms---NO!
nathan| 8.2.12 @ 11:05AM
Reagan, more myth perhaps than reality?
On Iran/Contra he was arguably impeachable. Sorry but true and no, I don't care about "good intentions" the road to hell as we've seen the last 12 years is paved with them.
He did in fact go to Iceland totally willing to negotiate a total elimination of nuclear weapons. It didn't happen but he was apparently serious about it.
But here's what's more troublesome. Carter created three cabinent positions. Did RR make any effort to eliminate them? No. What real effort did RR attempt at eliminating any parts of the New Deal or the Great Society? None that we saw. Granted all spending bills orginate in the House, conceded, but at one point did republicans not control the house for at least two years during his administration? Here we have the greatest "conservative" of our generation, and domestically what really did he do? Didn't he even sign a gun control bill? If we can't get conservative domestic actions of him, roll backs of GS and ND from him, what chance do we have with MR? Delude yourself all you want but four years from now ACA will still be with us, but just like in the past MR and Boehner will "fix" it like their predecessors "fixed" SS and medicare when they should have been eliminating them altogether. Enjoy your day!
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 11:44AM
You are correct. Reagan today would be primaried out of existence by idiotic TeaPublicans that want spending cut to oblivion and couldn't care less if the country goes with it.
Mitt the Twit couldn't handle an easy peasy Mitt's Foreign Adventure, couldn't figure out how to prepare for running for President so he could release his tax returns with his tax issues and doesn't understand Economics 101.
PsychoDad| 8.2.12 @ 12:22PM
Oh look! The troll is talking to himself!
It's called "alts" and it doesn't fool anyone.
Truncheon| 8.2.12 @ 12:52PM
Old-schoolers call it "sock puppetry".
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 1:40PM
You are an idiot. Not knowing what you're talking about is endemic with you.
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.2.12 @ 6:14PM
Ignore the troll with the split personality disorder talking to his own shadow.
Purp| 8.2.12 @ 11:03PM
Go play with a poll
Truncheon| 8.2.12 @ 12:54PM
History will prove him right on drug prohibition as well, all due respect to Mr. Tyrell's disagreement.
Kingofthenet| 8.2.12 @ 1:29PM
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers,
and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your psalms, talk about John 3:16.. Obama 3:16 says I just whipped your Butt". "Obama 3:16"
Libertyinfinite| 8.2.12 @ 3:27PM
Better than coveting Mitt Romney. At lease those guys did something for conservatism.
supremecourtlegislator| 8.2.12 @ 3:31PM
We will begin anew, Mr. Tyrrell.
Wonder if Barack Obama ever feels cold, icy fingers grasping for him from behind. Ronald Reagan is defeating him from the grave.
Barack Obama has been an abomination and a damnation to this nation. But he has not yet made it into a damned, abominable Obamanation.