After the show...
06/05/2012 20:39
Went to The Historical Society’s biennial conference this week. It was great: small and low-key, with very smart people presenting interesting material. I’ll probably have a lot to say in the next few weeks as a result of it, but one thing struck me, and I wrote a little about it on the bus-trip home:
I really need to re-engage with the libertarians again, at some point. Because once upon a time, I was one of those young, naïve, fresh-faced guys (there were many at the conference). That was me once: I had my picture taken with Henry Hazlitt! (which, given when he died, dates me…) And I know their founding documents. I‘m probably a little hard on them, because I really believe in the importance of the classical liberalism they claim to support. But I’m particularly unhappy when well-heeled corporate sponsors use these ideals as cover for actions and policies that are antithetical.
The conservative spokespeople who were at the conference are very smart, and most of them are sincere. When push comes to shove, most admit that their support of free market principles does not necessarily mean they support the 1%. That they understand that there’s growing income and wealth inequality, and that just isn’t good. But why does push have to come to shove, to get them to admit these things? My point is, if you’re going to advocate for free markets, you have an EXTRA responsibility to point out when they are not operating freely, and to work toward the IDEAL situation you advocate, rather than the ACTUAL situation where global corporations regularly end-run free markets, but use free-market rhetoric to cover their tracks and silence their critics.
The conservatives’ story is that people accuse them of being hyper-patriotic and chauvinistic. That Howard Zinn’s over-the-top critique of America is the problem. I think Zinn is too easy a straw man. I have a copy of the conservative, patriotic values one of the speakers espouses, and I agree with most of them. The actual critique, I think, is that these guys are suspected of fronting for corporations that don’t walk this talk. That this is just propaganda the 1% pay to have pushed on the poor and middle classes to bamboozle us, while they pollute, victimize employees, avoid paying their share to support the social and physical infrastructure that makes their profits possible, and even (ie. Goldman Sachs) routinely break the law when they can’t change it to their advantage.
I’m not denying that entrepreneurship and innovation are important (even heroic) elements of American character, or that private property and financial rewards encourage these activities. But let’s also admit that concentrations of wealth create power inequalities, and that collective action is sometimes necessary to create the DIALOGUE about values that enables societies to choose between alternatives. Or are we really supposed to believe that the rich, the poor, or anyone else can be impartial, especially when they have a lot of skin in the game? Hasn’t postmodernism at least taught us that we’re all influenced by the particular cultures we’re part of?
So I’m hoping to find people who really believe in classical liberalism. And maybe it’ll be my role to engage with them (taking advantage of my perspective as an informed outsider) to help them explore the relationship between their (or our shared) ideals and the situation on the ground. Both historically and right now. My working title for this project might be adapted from Ayn Rand: “Capitalism, the Unpracticed Ideal.”
I really need to re-engage with the libertarians again, at some point. Because once upon a time, I was one of those young, naïve, fresh-faced guys (there were many at the conference). That was me once: I had my picture taken with Henry Hazlitt! (which, given when he died, dates me…) And I know their founding documents. I‘m probably a little hard on them, because I really believe in the importance of the classical liberalism they claim to support. But I’m particularly unhappy when well-heeled corporate sponsors use these ideals as cover for actions and policies that are antithetical.
The conservative spokespeople who were at the conference are very smart, and most of them are sincere. When push comes to shove, most admit that their support of free market principles does not necessarily mean they support the 1%. That they understand that there’s growing income and wealth inequality, and that just isn’t good. But why does push have to come to shove, to get them to admit these things? My point is, if you’re going to advocate for free markets, you have an EXTRA responsibility to point out when they are not operating freely, and to work toward the IDEAL situation you advocate, rather than the ACTUAL situation where global corporations regularly end-run free markets, but use free-market rhetoric to cover their tracks and silence their critics.
The conservatives’ story is that people accuse them of being hyper-patriotic and chauvinistic. That Howard Zinn’s over-the-top critique of America is the problem. I think Zinn is too easy a straw man. I have a copy of the conservative, patriotic values one of the speakers espouses, and I agree with most of them. The actual critique, I think, is that these guys are suspected of fronting for corporations that don’t walk this talk. That this is just propaganda the 1% pay to have pushed on the poor and middle classes to bamboozle us, while they pollute, victimize employees, avoid paying their share to support the social and physical infrastructure that makes their profits possible, and even (ie. Goldman Sachs) routinely break the law when they can’t change it to their advantage.
I’m not denying that entrepreneurship and innovation are important (even heroic) elements of American character, or that private property and financial rewards encourage these activities. But let’s also admit that concentrations of wealth create power inequalities, and that collective action is sometimes necessary to create the DIALOGUE about values that enables societies to choose between alternatives. Or are we really supposed to believe that the rich, the poor, or anyone else can be impartial, especially when they have a lot of skin in the game? Hasn’t postmodernism at least taught us that we’re all influenced by the particular cultures we’re part of?
So I’m hoping to find people who really believe in classical liberalism. And maybe it’ll be my role to engage with them (taking advantage of my perspective as an informed outsider) to help them explore the relationship between their (or our shared) ideals and the situation on the ground. Both historically and right now. My working title for this project might be adapted from Ayn Rand: “Capitalism, the Unpracticed Ideal.”
