« The demand for authenticity | Main | Illegal immigrant fact of the day »
A plea for more anthropology of ideology
I've been pondering Daniel Davies's attempted takedown of Milton Friedman, or for that matter Jon Chait's book on supply side economics, and so I slip beneath the fold...
What strikes me is that these writers, and also their counterparts on the Right, see so little need to adduce anthropological evidence to characterize other people's views. When it concerns the Laffer Curve, or global warming, or the correct measure of civilian deaths in Iraq, the concern is for the highest standards of evidence. Yet the question of what other people "really believe" also can be treated in more or less sophisticated form, most of all with the tools of anthropology. Web quotations are relevant, but there is no substitute for getting out there and speaking to those people, for a start.
I'd like to propose a new research convention. Anytime a writer or blogger talks about what The Right or The Left (or some subset thereof) really wants or means, I'd like them to list their personal anthropological experience with the subjects under consideration. Davies presents Friedman as a shill for the Republican Party; I'd like to know how many (public or non-public) conversations he has had with Friedman about the topic of the Republican Party. I've been present for a few, and while I'm open to feedback from Davies, my guess reading his post is that he hasn't been there for any. Yet he writes with a tone of certitude: "it's clearly not intellectual honesty that makes American liberals act pretend that Milton Friedman wasn't a party line Republican hack."
Is it really true that "The ideological core of Chicago-style libertarianism has two planks. 1. Vote Republican. 2. That's it."? And Davies's own quotation of Milton Friedman does not support his core claims; he simply asks us to believe that Friedman is lying. I would ask Davies to apply the same standards of argumentation and evidence that he does to the Lancet study of Iraq or the many other topics he has written excellent blog posts about.
How many supply-siders has Chait talked to? It might be a lot, but again I'd like to know. Has he met with the people who write The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page? How many of them? How many leading Republican donors and strategists does he know? Did they really chat with him, or were they in controlled "interview mode"? How motivated are they by supply-side doctrine? What did those say who weren't so motivated?
How many intelligent pro-life Republicans do you know? How many southern racist Republicans do you know? Have they confided in you? Do they trust you? Do you really think you know what they believe?
I don't mean to suggest that such anthropological research will always yield sanitizing answers. Nor do I believe that the Left is worse in ignoring the anthropology of ideology than is the Right.
It is sad that anthropological research has such a low status among so many smart people. It is fashionable to open up data sets for replication. So let's do the same for research into ideology or even just proclamations about the ideology of others, especially those you disagree with. Tell us how much field work you did, who you did it with, how much they trusted you, and what you wish you could have done but didn't. That is easy enough in the on-line world.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 29, 2007 at 10:36 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
My god! If Milton Friedman was able to argue that simply, persuasively, and logically about things he believed false; then he is a far greater genius than any of us could have imagined.
Posted by: josh at Nov 29, 2007 10:58:44 AM
Who the hell is Daniel Davies and why should you or I care what he says? Would anyone taking a contrary view want to sit down and discuss the issue with an obviously biased and hot-tempered person? I can easily find more interesting insults on many other left-wing blogs, or from some of my friends and neighbors.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Nov 29, 2007 11:05:56 AM
Yes. In the case of Milton Friedman, simply reading his two most famous popular works or watching one of the numerous interviews on YouTube should be enough to challenge the Republican hack theory of the man. It seems kind of obvious that if you're going to write a book bashing a very highly respected economist, you should want to collect evidence of his hackery. If you don't, aren't you yourself committing a hack?
Posted by: CT at Nov 29, 2007 11:07:43 AM
I think what you are proposing is a great idea.
All the GMU economic bloggers should set an example by following the guidelines you propose when they discuss political/economic philosophies they disagree with.
Posted by: spencer at Nov 29, 2007 11:18:11 AM
I agree with Rich Berger. After reading Daniel Davies' post, I will purposefully avoid everything else he has written or will write. Anyone whose thoughts are warped enough to churn out a post as poorly considered and poorly argued as his cannot be taken seriously. It may take a lot of writing to garner a high level of intellectual respect, but it can only take one post to lose it. He lost it.
Posted by: Ryan at Nov 29, 2007 11:25:02 AM
Yep, begging the question by assuming the worst of somebody, and thus finding it, is a serious methodological flaw.
Posted by: Luis Enrique at Nov 29, 2007 11:27:04 AM
It feels more like he trolled the everliving christ out of some people.
Posted by: perianwyr at Nov 29, 2007 11:30:18 AM
Easily one of your best posts.
Posted by: Rue Des Quatre Vents at Nov 29, 2007 11:31:39 AM
Rich - Because he's smart and consistently entertaining.
CT - I think you're confusing Davies (who wrote a blog post about a famous economist) and Chait (who wrote a book about supply-side ideology).
Posted by: washerdreyer at Nov 29, 2007 11:36:59 AM
mind you, I suppose assuming the best in everybody and thus finding it, is too.
washerdreyer, seconded.
Posted by: Luis Enrique at Nov 29, 2007 11:43:03 AM
An interesting idea, Tyler, but isn't there the very real chance that we end up promoting anecdotes and gut feelings over the things that people actually say to the public? After all, the primary way that people in political circles matter is by either voting a specific way, when they have the power, or influencing the public. All of that is more or less open to view without anthropological evidence. (None of this is meant to comment on your disapprobation for the Daniel Davies post, just the general proposal).
Posted by: Justin at Nov 29, 2007 11:44:55 AM
I agree with your point, but there is at least a modicum of irony here in that you are in some sense arguing in defense of Friedman with the opposite of what the progenitor of "as-if" methodological inquiry proposed in 1953. His own motivation doesn't matter --- it is only the congruence with d-squared's observations that matter. (I mean this in jest, of course.)
Posted by: Jonathan at Nov 29, 2007 11:47:49 AM
Great posting.
Wasn't/isn't Krugman guilty of this kind of thing all the time too? I remember how his wrap-up about Milton Friedman included some references to Friedman's supposed "intellectual dishonesty." Woulda been nice if he'd raised his points (whatever they were) to Friedman's face when the guy was still around to respond to him.
So maybe sometimes cowardice plays a role in the way people carry on like this?
Posted by: Micheal Blowhard at Nov 29, 2007 11:49:12 AM
Hmmm, perhaps my email is broken, because I would have thought that before writing this, Tyler might have taken the trouble to find out whether I was partly joking, or writing polemically, or whether I meant that post to be taken as 100% representative of my final, considered view of Milton Friedman.
Of course, if the view is that I wrote what I wrote and have to live with it, then the same is true for Milton Friedman. Whatever he thought, said or expressed, he signed that letter in support of Bush fiscal policy, and he *must* have known, *while he was doing so* that he was signing his name to something that wasn't true.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 12:04:32 PM
I think Jonathan's comment hits the nail on the head. It seems that TC's suggestion is the kind of "Why not just ask the dolphins?" approach to human behaviour that economists (and most of all Milton Friedman himself) are rightly suspicious of.
Posted by: Ben at Nov 29, 2007 12:06:20 PM
[Davies presents Friedman as a shill for the Republican Party]
By the way, it's not a matter of me "presenting him". He did, in fact, prevaricate and obfuscate over the Patriot Act. He did, in fact, sign the 2004 economists' letter in support of the Bush fiscal policy. Those are actual facts, and that's what I stuck to. If you can find anything in that post where I even speculate about what Milton Friedman believed in his heart of hearts, I will edit it. But the actual facts of the matter are that consistently (and I could dig up more examples if they were needed), when Milton Friedman was put in a situation where saying what he thought would be electorally damaging to the Republican Party, it was the Republicans which won, repeatedly.. That's bad when Communists do it, and it's bad when anyone else does.
I am not signing up for this soft moral-relativist "you can't judge them, it's their culture" approach. I am in favour of objective standards on this one.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 12:11:51 PM
Dsquared:
"Tyler might have taken the trouble to find out whether I was partly joking, or writing polemically, or whether I meant that post to be taken as 100% representative of my final, considered view of Milton Friedman."
How the hell do you want it to be taken? As 73% representative?
"They're always hacks, Brad. Always. Yes even Milton Friedman."
"I wouldn't mind, but it's clearly not intellectual honesty that makes American liberals act pretend that Milton Friedman wasn't a party line Republican hack (which he was;"
Oh I get it. Your partly joking. That's partly hilarious. By the way, this comment should only be taken as 34.6% of my representitive beliefs.
Posted by: josh at Nov 29, 2007 12:11:53 PM
Why do intentions matter? Why not argue with empirical results, or with methodology, or use logic to argue with the model in question?
In my opinion this is the single biggest failing with those on the economic Left in general, as well as some other folks. I could care less whether it is someone's intent to help someone else or whether it is a byproduct of a selfish act (cue Adam Smith's invisible hand). I care tremendously whether or not their actions actually help, or if they hurt, the individual(s) in question.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Nov 29, 2007 12:13:14 PM
Strange that we've settled on this equilibrium considering it would seem to make arguments far more convincing if we followed Tyler's suggestion.
I find myself naturally wanting to defend Southern Christian conservatives when I hear them criticized--not because I necessarily agree with them, but because I grew up with them and know them well enough to appreciate the nuances in their views, so the evidently ill-informed caricatures bother me. At the same time, this personal (or anthropological) knowledge would allow me to make far more rigorous and persuasive arguments against them if I so chose.
Good post.
Posted by: Jeff H. at Nov 29, 2007 12:14:39 PM
a dozen some attempted take-downs of d^2s post, and noone has really bothered to respond to his point.
Posted by: yoyo at Nov 29, 2007 12:19:51 PM
"If you can find anything in that post where I even speculate about what Milton Friedman believed in his heart of hearts, I will edit it."
"when Milton Friedman was put in a situation where saying what he thought would be electorally damaging to the Republican Party, it was the Republicans which won, repeatedly.."
That was easy. You provided it one sentence below.
Posted by: josh at Nov 29, 2007 12:29:26 PM
Well no, Josh. You haven't read that right. Given that you've also not understood the phrase "100% representative of my views", I think you're not actually making much of an effort.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 12:31:54 PM
"a dozen some attempted take-downs of d^2s post, and noone has really bothered to respond to his point."
Wasn't his point that Friedman is always a hack?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at Nov 29, 2007 12:39:47 PM
Yoyo, why must we respond to Davies' points when we can all refer to the many books and papers that Dr. Friedman wrote to find out what he believed.
There was no Friedman party. He didn't have the option to vote or support his true beliefs in politics, and he, like all of us, was/is forced to vote for the percieved best option, or lesser of two evils if you prefer. I'm not willing to condemn Friedman, or anyone else for that matter, for supporting one party over another. If the best evidence Davies' has of Friedman's shilling for the republicans is that he supported tax cuts and a fiscal policy he had no hand in executing, then I think he needs to dig a bit deeper.
Posted by: Ryan at Nov 29, 2007 12:43:44 PM
Unless you're psychic, there are two ways you could know what he thought:
a) he said it.
b) you're speculating
If he didn't say it, you're speculating about what he believed in his heart of hearts, aren't you?
What are people supposed to do with the knowledge that your post is not 100% representative of your views? We don't even know you.
Posted by: josh at Nov 29, 2007 12:44:15 PM
One *huge* advantage that most libertarian (and some conservative) intellectuals have over leftist intellectuals is that they (and I include myself) have themselves been leftist intellectuals when they were younger.
Assuming they have good memories, many libertarians and conservatives actually know from direct personal experience what it is like to regard equality as an imperative, to be pro-affirmative action, to favor high taxation and to regard unions as an engine of social justice.
Leftist intellectuals, by contrast, have (almost) never been anything but leftist intellectuals - and only know about libertarians and conservatives by observation or report - but not from inside experience.
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at Nov 29, 2007 12:46:39 PM
Let me throw some more gasoline onto the fire:
>: Contrast with rightwing politics. As I've posted earlier, the single most sensible thing said in political philosophy in the twentieth century was JK Galbraith's aphorism that the quest of conservative thought throughout the ages has been "the search for a higher moral justification for selfishness". Some rightwingers are not hypocrites because they admit that their basic moral principle is "what I have, I keep". Some rightwingers are hypocrites because they pretend that "what I have, I keep" is always and everywhere the best way to express a general unparticularised love for all sentient things. Then there are the tricky cases where the rightwingers happen to be on the right side because we haven't yet discovered a better form of social organisation than private property for solving several important classes of optimisation problem...
Posted by: Brad DeLong at Nov 29, 2007 12:48:53 PM
[Unless you're psychic, there are two ways you could know what he thought:
a) he said it.
b) you're speculating]
Yes, I used method a). Friedman did (as Brad DeLong correctly noted) say regularly and publicly that Bush's fiscal policy was a disaster, in 2002 for example. Then in 2004, he signed a letter endorsing it. When someone says one thing when there are no special political consequences for doing so, then changes what they say because it is an election year or the party line has changed, then that is what's called "being a hack". Let's get this straight. It wasn't just a general endorsement of the Republican Party here. It was a specific statement that the Bush fiscal policy was good for America and would help shrink the size of the tax burden. Similarly, a statement that the Patriot Act was a relatively small and probably temporary imposition on civil liberties. These were definite, false statements that were inconsistent with what he said in other times and places.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 12:51:45 PM
I'd also note that being a hack isn't the worst thing in the world - it just means that you're a bit of a hack. Paul Sweezy was a terrible hack for consistently changing what he said when the CPUSA party line changed in response to Moscow, but he was nevertheless a good economist and (I am told) a nice bloke. It's bad to be a hack, but it's just one personal failing that can certainly be offset by other qualities.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 12:54:41 PM
In the mean time, while you are trying to be balanced, fair, and do due diligence, the people who aren't are going to be shaping public opinion and policy. I think the biggest mistake the left/liberal/progressive party has made in the last 40 years is their intense desire to be fair. Playing fair while someone else has no problems whatsoever about cheating only gets you demolished. You can enjoy the moral high ground while they are enjoying the spoils of victory.
Posted by: Lewis W at Nov 29, 2007 1:00:00 PM
So yoyo-
What was his point? Friedman didn't denounce the Patriot Act or the Iraq War? Republican shill, QED! Friedman signed letter praising Bush fiscal policy - apparently not true - letter specifically opposed Kerry proposals. No QED there.
Double-D's stuff is minor league. If you want to admire professional duplicity, check out Paul Krugman's piece on Friedman from the NY Review of Books - at least he makes a few claims that can be tested.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Nov 29, 2007 1:00:51 PM
Brad,
Poor attempt at fanning the flames:
A) What I have, I keep.
B) Unless you're signing up for the Pete Singer give-it-all-away-and-live-like-a-monk roadshow, what _you_ have is mostly what _you_ keep, too.
C) Those that don't have would generally like to get their hands on it so they can, themselves, keep it.
Hypocrisy abounds, being the normal human condition on the Left, Right, above, below and sideways.
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero at Nov 29, 2007 1:04:49 PM
[Friedman], like all of us, was/is forced to vote for the percieved best option, or lesser of two evils if you prefer. I'm not willing to condemn Friedman, or anyone else for that matter, for supporting one party over another.
It's not a question of voting for one party over another because one prefers its policies, overall. It's a question of endorsing specific policies one knows to be unwise because that will help the party you prefer.
This is all the worse when someone of Friedman's stature does it because in so doing he passes up an opportunity to steer policy in a sounder direction.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Nov 29, 2007 1:05:19 PM
D2,
in your original post you write Friedman "was in fact for it" - it being the Patriot Act.
I'm not following your argument. If he was for it, then why not say so and earn party brownie points. To fit with your Republican hack argument, don't you have to assert that he was actually against it, but equivocated in that interview because he was a Republican hack?
Reading it again, the excerpt from that interview gives me the impression that he didn't like the Patriot Act but thought it might be a necessary evil (that's me naively taking his words at face value, I suppose).
I'd be interested to see what he said in other times and places that contradicts what he said about the Patriot Act in that interview. Have you got a link?
Posted by: Luis Enrique at Nov 29, 2007 1:08:03 PM
I do remember hearing Milton speak. He didn't like political labels and if pushed would say that his views were more Libertarian. Milton did not have a political party agenda, he had a vision of how the world should work. (Or please explain his relationship with Senator Paul Douglas). He would also tell all who would listen that he was not pro business or pro any group - he was in favor of competition and the benefits that flow from that competition. He was not interested in helping political parties beyond supporting people who shared his vision. Above everything Milton was about keeping control in the hands of the individual, we should be Free to Choose without excessive control from government or business.
Posted by: DanC at Nov 29, 2007 1:11:03 PM
Davies says here: "He did, in fact, prevaricate and obfuscate over the Patriot Act."
In what way? It would be useful if you could be specific, given the degree to which people regularly misrepresent what the Patriot Act actually did (as Orin Kerr has documented time and time again, and see also here, and here).
Posted by: Stuart Buck at Nov 29, 2007 1:13:32 PM
Conservatives could say that the quest of liberal thought throughout the ages has been the search for a higher moral justification for envy. That sort of hyper-reductionism, however, would be unfair.
Posted by: Stuart Buck at Nov 29, 2007 1:17:41 PM
Do subjects really understand their own beliefs well enough to give good answers? My guess is no.
Posted by: at Nov 29, 2007 1:18:13 PM
And doesn't he really say in that interview that he's not going to talk about the Patriot Act specifically (consistent with avoiding an uncomfortable issue where his views diverge from the Party Line), but that in general the war will involve a small curtailment of freedoms, but the sooner it's finished the better.
In the post Brad started off by criticizing, the writer seemed to imply that the Patriot Act was the sort of idea the Chicago boys had in the wings, waiting for a crisis to usher in.
I fail to see how you conclude Friedman was "actually for" the Patriot Act (but you may yet provide more evidence).
Posted by: Luis Enrique at Nov 29, 2007 1:19:37 PM
Or how you conclude that he said, knowing it to be false, that the "Patriot Act was a relatively small and probably temporary imposition on civil liberties".
He says, when asked about the Patriot Act, that it's not clear, and he's not going to get involved in that.
Posted by: Luis Enrique at Nov 29, 2007 1:23:12 PM
well D^2 is here now, so you could ask him. But most of the posts, especially the first bunch, are of the hero-worshiping sort, that inner moral qualities matter. My reading of the original post is that public acts are what matter in evaluating public figures, and those indicate there are a large number of right wing intellectuals who only pretend to dialogue in good-faith. Consider Cowen's "anthropological" way of looking at people's views. The main thrust of that is to give right-wing opinionaters the continual benefit of the doubt; but in political debate such openess is foolish.
Posted by: yoyo at Nov 29, 2007 1:32:47 PM
Consider Cowen's "anthropological" way of looking at people's views. The main thrust of that is to give right-wing opinionaters the continual benefit of the doubt; but in political debate such openess is foolish.
You really read it that way? The way I read it is he is simply saying that it is awfully hard to divine intent, and to have any chance of getting that right you really ought to use firsthand information if possible. In the absence of firsthand information, or at least "reliable" secondhand information, then people should just shut up and deal with verifiable facts.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Nov 29, 2007 1:39:24 PM
D2,
Do you have a link to the letter. I found this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/release_bc04_economists.html
signed by Friedman, denouncing Kerry's proposed economic agenda, but it doesn't mention Bush. Is there another letter?
Posted by: josh at Nov 29, 2007 1:46:40 PM
Ah, the left. They do pride themselves on their debate-winning prowess, don't they? And some of them are showy and aggressive debaters, god knows. But perhaps they over-pride themselves on the winning-the-debate thing? And perhaps they overvalue the worth of debates generally?
Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Nov 29, 2007 1:46:45 PM
Actually, Tyler's post runs contrary to what economists generally argue, that you shouldn't base your judgements on someone based on what they say but on how they behave. What happened to the notion of cheap talk? Its costless for libertarians (or any group) to stay they are distinct from Republicans. But when push comes to shove, if they end up donating their money to the Republican party every time I consider that a data point and draw inferences accordingly. Indeed, the entire field of economics passes judgements on people by writing down their utility functions (ascribing motives) and drawing inferences based on revealed preferences, not based on what people say.
And if we really are going to make this about Milton Friedman, he was famous for saying a model is only worth anything if it has predictive power. Chait's and Krugman's political views had a hell of a lot more predictive power than their critics'.
Posted by: j at Nov 29, 2007 1:48:35 PM
And doesn't he really say in that interview that he's not going to talk about the Patriot Act specifically (consistent with avoiding an uncomfortable issue where his views diverge from the Party Line)...
Avoiding an uncomfortable issue where his views diverge from the Party Line is also consistent with him being a hack.
Posted by: Lemmy Caution at Nov 29, 2007 1:49:34 PM
Lemmy,
yes - it's consistent with him being a party hack, and privately against the Patriot Act. But if I read it correctly, that interview was cited by D2 as evidence he was for it.
'course, I may be missing something.
Posted by: Luis Enrique at Nov 29, 2007 1:52:52 PM
Given that DD cites one example that supposedly supports his thesis, how many counterexamples do we need to supply to undermine his argument? One, two, three, or how many?
I suspect the answer is that no number of counterexamples will do, because, well, he was a Republican party hack!
Posted by: Rich Berger at Nov 29, 2007 1:59:45 PM
"He did, in fact, sign the 2004 economists' letter in support of the Bush fiscal policy."
"Yes, I used method a). Friedman did (as Brad DeLong correctly noted) say regularly and publicly that Bush's fiscal policy was a disaster, in 2002 for example. Then in 2004, he signed a letter endorsing it"
"It wasn't just a general endorsement of the Republican Party here. It was a specific statement that the Bush fiscal policy was good for America and would help shrink the size of the tax burden."
We all try to redefine arguments in ways beneficial to us, but the letter isn't a support of the Bush fiscal policy, it is just an endictment of Kerry's, "We, the undersigned, strongly oppose key aspects of the economic agenda that John Kerry has offered in his bid for the U.S. presidency." And it goes on like that, there is no mention of Bush in the letter.
So your argument is Friedman attacked Bush's fiscal policy and then supported it. But your evidence is Friedman attacked Bush's fiscal policy and then attacked Kerry's fiscal policy. So it seems you have not shown what you were attempting to show.
"Similarly, a statement that the Patriot Act was a relatively small and probably temporary imposition on civil liberties. These were definite, false statements that were inconsistent with what he said in other times and places."
DA: In a time of war, how do we maintain our freedom?
MF: We don’t. We invariably reduce our freedom. But that doesn’t mean it’s a permanent reduction. As long as we really keep in mind what we’re doing, that we keep it temporary, we need not destroy our freedom.
Cavuto: "Are you concerned that some of the measures we’re taking now to fight the war, like the Patriot Act, may be more than just temporary?"
Friedman: "It’s not clear. The Patriot Act is a very complicated issue, and I’m not going to get involved in that. But I think that on the whole, this war is small enough relative to our economy that it is not going to be a serious impediment to our freedom. But the sooner we can get rid of it and out of it, the better."
Again the evidence falls short of the claim. Claim: MF says Patriot Act is probably temporary, when it obviously isn't. Evidence: MF says Patriot Act should be kept temporary. The other claim is a bit more interesting, Claim: The Patriot Act was a relatively small imposition on civil liberties. Evidence: MF says this war is small relative to the economy and not serious impediment to our freedom. I will let you all evaluate the last claim and evidence, if you are willing to let war substitute for Patriot Act and freedom substitute for civil liberties, in which case, the claim first part of the claim is true. The second part of the claim revolved around MF not believing at the time the war was a small infringement of liberty. That is clearly not shown by DD (though could be true).
MF could be a hack, but you certainly didn't show it. And the fact that you had to pretend evidence supported your argument when it obviously doesn't makes your argument appear weak.
Posted by: Charlie at Nov 29, 2007 2:04:16 PM
Bernard Guerrero--
Ah! Bernard limps in with the old "liberals-are-hypocrites-because-they-don't-renounce-all-possessions argument! I love that one!
I'll call your insult with a libertarians-who-give-to-charity-are-hypocrites claim and raise you an if-you're-so-durned-libertarian-why-don't-you-charge-your-kids-rent accusation! It's no limit reductio ad absurdum, everyone can play!
Bernard, outside of The _Fountainhead_ most people aren't caricatures of their philosophy. Don't treat them like they were.
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at Nov 29, 2007 2:06:37 PM
The thing I always noticed about Friedman is that he was very much into big ideas, trends, and concepts. While most assuredly a dogmatic libertarian, Friedman rarely delved into the nitty gritty of politics. His work as an economist did not center around tarnishing the careers of others or tearing into who they "were" as a person. No, Friedman, though political, was very much an intellectual who had little concern for the banal political back and forth that so greatly concerns the right and left in this country. If I were to judge the lives of Friedman and Davies by their scholarship, I would easily conclude that Friedman was the far greater human being. Naomi Klien and Davies should do a better job of arguing against the ideas and policies that Friedman promoted, instead of playing children in the sand box.
Posted by: John Pertz at Nov 29, 2007 2:11:27 PM
Before anyone gets any further with this "it wasn't supporting Bush, it was just attacking Kerry" nonsense (as if attacking Kerry in a two-horse race against Bush wasn't supporting Bush!), perhaps they'd care to read the press release accompanying the statement, which clarified the matter by saying "America 's economists recognize that President Bush's pro-growth policies and across-the-board tax relief are the right policies for sustained growth". Or for that matter, the article "What Every American Wants" in 2003. You're embarrassing yourselves.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 2:14:24 PM
"Bush-Cheney '04 today announced 368 of the nation's leading economists from 44 states have signed an economic statement denouncing John Kerry's economic proposals. The group boasts six Nobel laureates, including recent winner and Professor of Economics at Arizona State University Edward C. Prescott, as well as six former chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. America 's economists recognize that President Bush's pro-growth policies and across-the-board tax relief are the right policies for sustained growth – and they are urging voters not to turn back with John Kerry's tax and spend agenda.
Glenn Hubbard, Dean of the Columbia University Business School and former Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, said: "Ideas and response to events are the tests of economic leadership. President Bush's focus on raising long-term growth using well-timed tax cuts, opening markets, and seeking to limit regulatory and litigation costs has furthered the global economic expansion. The administration's leadership in the War on Terror, the management of terrorism risk, and restoring investor confidence also limited potentially damaging downturns of confidence. Senator Kerry's recipe of limiting job creation by raising tax rates on entrepreneurs and our most successful global companies, while radically expanding the size and scope of government will limit future economic growth and lead to increasingly grim fiscal choices."
And Milton didn't know this was propaganda and would be viewed as implicit endorsment of the policies of the Bush administration? It strains any reasonable interpretation of his actions, especially knowing that Milton was consciously and explicitly a public intellectual - that he even wrote the classic "Capitalism and Freedom" is a demonstration of his awareness of the responsibilities of public intellectuals.
I don't underestimate his or my intelligence like others here do with "its only against John Kerrys plans, not for Bush economic policy" He knew what he was doing. I know what he was doing.
Sorry Tyler, this "observation" was a tool to get people to slag on libruls.
Posted by: mickslam at Nov 29, 2007 2:19:46 PM
I invite everyone to check out the link provided by josh, relinked here.
Seems like those who claim that that letter is support for Bush's policies are the real hacks here by misrepresenting something to slander Milton Friedman. The letter clearly bashes specific economic proposals of Kerry's, and I suspect that the vast bulk of economists who actually read the text would agree with most of it, demurring perhaps only on the marginal income tax rates.
The letter doesn't mention Bush at all (although the introduction to the letter by poster mentions him, this intro is not part of the letter itself that was sent).
Some might say that this works out to an endorsement of Bush's policies, but this is a logical fallacy. The rejection of A doesn't mean that one agrees with all of B. Milton Friedman was consistently on the record as saying (I am probably paraphrasing here) that he never met a tax cut he didn't like. The reasoning being that he felt the main issue was not the taxes themselves, but rather the size of government which he very much wanted to reduce.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Nov 29, 2007 2:23:05 PM
DD-
No, you are embarassing yourself. E.g, you stated "He did, in fact, sign the 2004 economists' letter in support of the Bush fiscal policy." Then, you do a rowback by citing the press release instead. I doubt he authored the press release, too.
But on a lighter note, there were over 50 replies to this post in less than 2 hours. Tyler, anytime things get slow, quote DD.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Nov 29, 2007 2:24:00 PM
It's an endorsement of Bush relative to Kerry not relative to any absolute standard. There's really not necessarily any hackery in it.
My question before was serious. I thought there must be something else, because the letter you refer to "wasn't just a general endorsement of the Republican Party here. It was a specific statement that the Bush fiscal policy was good for America and would help shrink the size of the tax burden." Where on earth does this letter say this (other than implying it relative to an inferred Kerry plan)?
Did Friedman sign or even ever see the press release before it came out? You act as if he did something hypocritical, when, in actuality, he probably agreed with every word in that letter.
Posted by: josh at Nov 29, 2007 2:33:13 PM
[Did Friedman sign or even ever see the press release before it came out? ]
hahahaha!
Can anyone help me with a crossword clue?
"Signs partisan statements without reading them" (4). I've got H blank C blank.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 3:04:33 PM
In the end, this is a great case study in slipshod argumentation:
First, making a sweeping claim - "They're always hacks, Brad. Always. Yes even Milton Friedman."
Second, cite one piece of evidence in support of your claim - MF interview excerpt. Oh, and give another, when prodded.
Analysis - Fuzzy, global claims can't really be proven or disproven ("They're always hacks, Brad"). If you think one or two quotes support your claim, your deluding yourself. What you got here is a basic worldview at best, simple irrational prejudice at worst.
Even the evidence wilts under closer examination. If you really believe this stuff, evidence is never really evaluated.
But I do agree with the guy on one thing: there must be a pony in there somewhere! I got pointed to a good interview to read. Reading Krugman's stuff inspired me to read An Economist's Protest, a collection of his Newsweek columns, and A Monetary History of the US, just to find out who was right.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Nov 29, 2007 3:04:39 PM
"Signs partisan statements without reading them"
The press release, D2, not the actual letter. He did not sign the press release.
Posted by: josh at Nov 29, 2007 3:08:43 PM
Reading the statment itself is even cause for more alarm.
"We, the undersigned, strongly oppose key aspects of the economic agenda that John Kerry has offered in his bid for the U.S. presidency.
John Kerry says he "is committed to balancing the budget," but he has proposed additional spending that some analysts have estimated could cost as much as $226.1 billion annually ($2.261 trillion over ten years). He promises to "end corporate welfare as we know it" by implementing the "McCain-Kerry commission on corporate welfare," but he also proposes to provide additional "tax credits and subsidies to manufacturers" that meet his criteria.
Entitlement reform is the most important fiscal challenge facing the country, yet Kerry's approach has been to deny that any fix is needed. Indeed, Kerry criticized the recent Medicare expansion for not being large enough.
John Kerry has proposed tax increases that threaten to sap the economy's vitality and reduce long-term growth. Specifically, Kerry proposes to "restore the top two [income] tax rates to their levels under President Clinton." He would also, among other things, "restore the capital gains and dividend rates for families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton." Kerry's stated desire to balance the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed.
John Kerry boasts that his economic policies will lead to the creation of 10 million jobs in his first term as president. As Martin Sullivan wrote last April in the strictly non-partisan Tax Notes, no one "has presented any analysis to relate the Kerry plan to the creation of 1 million jobs, much less 10 million jobs." In fact, we believe Kerry's proposals would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.
John Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to reduce trade barriers. He has promised, if elected, to "review existing trade agreements." He vows not to "sign any new trade agreements until the review is complete and its recommendations [are] put in place." That's a prescription for political gridlock. Given the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, Kerry's trade policies would harm U.S. producers and consumers alike.
All in all, John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people."
Wow.
Posted by: mickslam at Nov 29, 2007 3:09:51 PM
Milton Friedman was a human who thought, wrote and spoke a lot. Therefore he was not fully consistent. Whether, as I suspect, he was less incosistent than most of us is a proper matter for detailed scholarly analysis. What I am sure of is that disagreeing with him is highly fruitful.
I regard Milton Friedman as one of those theorists who successfully changed practical men's way of thinking. He regarded those who made some attempt, however confused, to follow through his ideas as worth his support in principle. At the same time, he usually was advising them how to do a better job of putting his ideas into practice. That again is a proposition calling for detailed scholarly analysis (just as his ideas are worth very serious analysis and criticism).
Detailed scholarly analysis is the nearest you can get to good anthropology when the subject of study is no longer available for dialogue.
The idea that Milton Friedman was any sort of hack is a proposition calling for a belly laugh.
Posted by: Diversity at Nov 29, 2007 3:20:45 PM
Does this boil down to Friedman being guilty for choosing the lesser of two evils?
Posted by: 8 at Nov 29, 2007 3:24:06 PM
I never met Milton Friedman, nor did I ever hear him speak. I also have not followed closely
exactly which petitions he signed or exactly which politicians he supported and when. It does
seem that most of the time he tended to support Republicans over Democrats, when he made a Public
Choice (so to speak,:-)), but I also know that he turned down numerous invitations from various
presidents (all Republicans, I think) to actually hold any government positions, at least partly
because he wanted to be Free To Choose to criticize them and their policies when he felt like it,
which I believe he sometimes did.
I have heard it from people in the University of Chicago Economics Department, or formerly from it,
that at a personal level Friedman was always perfectly friendly, civil, and open-minded to one and
all, irrespective of their ideologies or political or economic views or arguments. This was a sharp
contrast with certain other people in that department, with one frequently mentioned in this regard
in a more negative way being Stigler.
Also, many of his libertarian views, including even those in economics, were not ones supported by
Republicans particularly. I remember well one of my former professors who lectured in a class on
Friedman's criticism of AMA-supported licensing of doctors. One of the students in the class, whose
dad was some bigwig with the AMA, went to the governing board of the university to demand that this
professor be fired for advocating "communist ideas."
Finally, to Bruce Charlton: I know former libertarians who have gone left, at least for awhile...
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 29, 2007 3:25:04 PM
d squared -- you should know better to get between a libertarian and Milton Friedman. They have a cult of the great man that is much like the Communist had for Mao and Stalin and their reaction is very similar to what you would have gotten from a Communist when each cult of the great man was the party line.
Posted by: spencer at Nov 29, 2007 3:25:07 PM
The proposed reserch convention makes a lot of sense -- unless you are trying to sell a general audience book. I think a lot of what lies behind the recent substandard work of Chait, Krugman and Naomi Klein etc. is that simply they are trying to sell books. The likely audience for their books is people who have a certain point of view. They buy the book to reinforce that view. If you can't deliver that, because you've learned by conscientiously adhering to intellectually honest methods, that the view is overstated and inaccurate, you won't make it worthwhile to publish and market the book. "Disaster Capitalism: A Mixed Verdict" or "The Uncertainties of a Liberal" aren't going to fly off the shelf. It's no different and actually even worse on the right -- Bill O'Reilly books, Anne Coulter books, Clinton hatchet jobs, etc.
Posted by: mt57 at Nov 29, 2007 3:27:23 PM
And so fellow anthropologists, when we have the chance to observe the subject dsquared, do we find that he:
- recognizes the weaknesses of his arguments and works to improve them?
- seriously consideres evidence offered up for discussion?
- revises his views in the face of evidence?
- is open to alternative ways of looking at a given facts?
- seeks more evidence for his position when it is questioned?
- tests his ideas against available information?
- recognizes the limitation of evidence available?
- draws only conclusions supported by evidence?
- when challenged simply take off his shoes and throw them?
Posted by: John Kunze at Nov 29, 2007 3:45:13 PM
This is just sad. DD, have your silly fight with Brad, but there's no reason to trash Friedman in the process.
As for the bit on the letter, I take it you now retract the claim that "It was a specific statement that the Bush fiscal policy was good for America and would help shrink the size of the tax burden." Because that's clearly not supported by the text of the letter. Not even the worst sort of hack would keep up with that line. Let's see how bad you have it.
Posted by: Thomas at Nov 29, 2007 3:54:21 PM
[Because that's clearly not supported by the text of the letter.]
It clearly is. "America's economists recognize that President Bush's pro-growth policies and across-the-board tax relief are the right policies for sustained growth – and they are urging voters not to turn back with John Kerry's tax and spend agenda." The only response to this appears to be to accuse Glenn Hubbard of monstrously exploiting Milton Friedman's signature to falsely claim his endorsement; if Hubbard did perform this act of perfidy, none of the signatories ever complained. Friedman also specifically further endorsed the Bush fiscal program in his article "What Every American Wants" - as I said, I can pick up a hell of a lot of references, because it is not as if endorsing Republican party policies was a once-in-a-blue-moon activity for Milton Friedman.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 4:07:38 PM
DD, I really hope your site does not have any readers, except those looking for a good bit of satire.
Twisting facts and warping them to fit your ideological bent is one the greatest forms of intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by: Ryan at Nov 29, 2007 4:19:42 PM
"Before anyone gets any further with this "it wasn't supporting Bush, it was just attacking Kerry" nonsense (as if attacking Kerry in a two-horse race against Bush wasn't supporting Bush!), perhaps they'd care to read the press release accompanying the statement, which clarified the matter by saying "America 's economists recognize that President Bush's pro-growth policies and across-the-board tax relief are the right policies for sustained growth". Or for that matter, the article "What Every American Wants" in 2003. You're embarrassing yourselves."
This is interesting. I distinctly remember you complaining that the press release surrounding the Lancet report on Iraqi 'excess deaths' should not be taken as evidence for the substantive views of the report. Do I need to bother to look that up, or would you care to distinguish the point?
As a general point, press releases are not the same as the underlying substantive document, and someone who signs off on a substantive document rarely has anything to do with the press release (they are generally written after the substantive document).
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at Nov 29, 2007 4:30:54 PM
"Before anyone gets any further with this "it wasn't supporting Bush, it was just attacking Kerry" nonsense (as if attacking Kerry in a two-horse race against Bush wasn't supporting Bush!), perhaps they'd care to read the press release accompanying the statement, which clarified the matter by saying "America 's economists recognize that President Bush's pro-growth policies and across-the-board tax relief are the right policies for sustained growth". Or for that matter, the article "What Every American Wants" in 2003. You're embarrassing yourselves."
This is interesting. I distinctly remember you complaining that the press release surrounding the Lancet report on Iraqi 'excess deaths' should not be taken as evidence for the substantive views of the report. Do I need to bother to look that up, or would you care to distinguish the point?
As a general point, press releases are not the same as the underlying substantive document, and someone who signs off on a substantive document rarely has anything to do with the press release (they are generally written after the substantive document).
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at Nov 29, 2007 4:32:09 PM
"as I said, I can pick up a hell of a lot of references, because it is not as if endorsing Republican party policies was a once-in-a-blue-moon activity for Milton Friedman."
This may be true, but if so, it would be nice if you picked ones that actually support your point rather than the ones you have currently offered. And I would note that not all instances of "endorsing Republican party policies" count toward your thesis of hackishness. If you offer examples which are in line with Friedman's economic understanding, that will just show that he supported policies that he thought were good ideas--not exactly the definition of a hack.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at Nov 29, 2007 4:36:31 PM
This is actually getting quite funny, watch what DD does on this one:
"[Because that's clearly not supported by the text of the letter.]
It clearly is. "America's economists recognize that President Bush's pro-growth policies and across-the-board tax relief are the right policies for sustained growth – and they are urging voters not to turn back with John Kerry's tax and spend agenda." The only response to this appears to be to accuse Glenn Hubbard of monstrously exploiting Milton Friedman's signature to falsely claim his endorsement; if Hubbard did perform this act of perfidy, none of the signatories ever complained."
It seems obvious to anyone reading this that DD is showing that Hubbard says the quote "American economists...blah, blah," but in fact, that quote is from "Bush-Cheney communications" the author of the press statement. The statement goes on to quote Hubbard who says, "Ideas and response to events are the tests of economic leadership. President Bush's focus on raising long-term growth using well-timed tax cuts, opening markets, and seeking to limit regulatory and litigation costs has furthered the global economic expansion. The administration's leadership in the War on Terror, the management of terrorism risk, and restoring investor confidence also limited potentially damaging downturns of confidence."
So we have Hubbard stating something he believes (presumably) that has nothing to do MF. We have "Bush-Cheney" saying something about "America's economists support Bush's pro-growth policies and across the board tax cut" which is actually a statement MF would probably agree with, but that many economists wouldn't agree with. So of all the economists that should stand up and disagree with being generalized this way, MF probably wouldn't be one.
But how did DD imply MF was supporting something he obviously didn't agree with. Well, to do that we have to change "pro-growth policies and across the board tax cuts" to fiscal policy. Fiscal policy includes spending. It's funny that even the B-C people aren't willing to say, "economists support Bush's fiscal policy."
This is a serious pattern of abuse and misuse of evidence. I actually think a person could put together a reasonable case that MF was a hack. But rather than not ably make that case, DD greatly undermines his own credibility by consistently misusing evidence.
Posted by: Charlie at Nov 29, 2007 4:41:37 PM
dsquared @4:07pm,
Come on! It is ludicrous to suggest that someone who signs a petition is responsible for what someone says in a press release when handing out the petition.
As far as the new article you mention, but didn't link to, entitled What Every American Wants and subtitled I never met a tax cut I didn't like, and I like President Bush's a lot, the entire article was about tax cutting in general, some of the outlined tax cuts in particular, and government spending in general. Here is the link, which is worth reading in full.
It is most definitely not an endorsement of the Bush fiscal policy, but merely the tax changes. Bush radically increased government spending, and Friedman specifically points out that he wants less government spending, not more.
Therefore a more proper framing of this particular article is an endorsement of the Bush tax cuts, and a nonspecific disendorsement of the Bush spending increases. Hardly the work of a hack, and hardly inconsistent with his longstanding and voluminous advocacy of increased individual freedom to choose in both economic and civil matters.
Let's face it, you are wrong. Just admit it, and get on with something of substance.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Nov 29, 2007 4:46:53 PM
[Given that DD cites one example that supposedly supports his thesis, how many counterexamples do we need to supply to undermine his argument? One, two, three, or how many?]
*If* there is even one established example, no amount of counterexamples will suffice. This is analogous to Soviet dissidents -- give in to the system once and you lose credibility in the dissident circles. Even though most dissidents understand that you must take care of your family etc. and respect your choice, you would likely become "un-handshakeable".
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Nov 29, 2007 4:49:39 PM
May I just say, awesome smackdown TC!
Posted by: --- at Nov 29, 2007 4:52:27 PM
But, doesn't actual data (numbers) betray 'revealed preference's of people without need for any anthropological observations?
May be it won't help that much when analyzing opinions about someone's opinion of someone else's ideas!
Posted by: Sesh at Nov 29, 2007 4:53:06 PM
Sebastian: Les Roberts has repeatedly said that the statement in the press release was wrong and a mistake, as it certainly was, and in quite exactly the way Milton Friedman didn't.
Everyone else still flogging this dead horse: Don't be silly. If the Bush-Cheney campaign phones you up during a Presidential race and asks "Will you sign a petition criticising Kerry's fiscal policy?", does anyone really think that a Nobel Prize-winning economist who has been an active member of the Republican Party for over fifty years would think "at least I'm not endorsing Bush's fiscal policy"? Listen to yourselves.
"What Every American Wants" was indeed an endorsement of Bush's fiscal policy. It specifically endorsed the strategy of bulding up large deficits today in the hope of making matching spending cuts at some time in the future. It was written one year after Milton Friedman had, according to the eyewitnesses Brad DeLong cites, spent his ninetieth birthday party at the White House telling George Bush that his fiscal policy was a disaster.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 5:02:57 PM
D2, why do you keep implying that Friedman threw his support behind the campaign press release? Evidence?
And as for your charge that Friedman never publicly contradicted Republican Party orthodoxy, you mean like his stance on the war on drugs? Nixon's economic policies? Selected elements of Reagan's protectionism?
Strawman.
Posted by: Holy S at Nov 29, 2007 5:03:44 PM
Putting aside the D-squared stuff for a minute, I think that this post is simply wrong. As someone noted earlier, it's what people say and write publicly that matter. This notion that you have to talk to the person -- presumably to allow him or her to obfuscate or change his or her original comments -- is just plain silly. The entire idea of being a public intellectual or a public figure revolves around taking seriously the act of public statement. If one simply fails to get across his or her view correctly, or -- more likely -- realizes later that he or she was wrong, then that person must face the consequences. The only acceptable and honest response to a subsequent "anthropological" interview would be to admit to being wrong or admit to being a poor communicator. No other option really exists, setting aside acts of egregious misquoting or editing on the part of an interviewer or publisher.
Moreover, I would go even further in the OTHER direction from Tyler. What really, really matters are the statements that intellectuals make in their popular writing, such as editorials, because they reach the widest audience and have the explicit purpose of influencing public debate. Furthermore, it's the main ideas of those writings on which one is to be really judged. In other words, too many individuals with horrible beliefs or opinions insert some small clause, say, at the end of an editorial then later claim, when his or her ideas are later attacked, that the 1,000 words preceding the minor escape clause at the end are irrelevant. Said intellectual will the proceed to feel as though he or she is being unjustly persecuted. Bull. Choose your main ideas carefully and state them clearly. In the end, that's all the member of the public remembers (if they remember at all), and anyone who seeks to be a public intellectual with least bit of sense knows this.
Posted by: J at Nov 29, 2007 5:08:36 PM
The measure of whether or not someone is a "Republican shill" is whether or not he shills for Republicans - a thing that is done, by its very definition, in public. It is a common belief in Republican circles these days that believing the right thing in private makes up for publicly doing the wrong thing. Frankly, I don't care what Colin Powell, for instance, says at cocktail parties, it's what he said when he was influencing policy that matters. (And, of course, unlike the Republicans, I don't much care what Bill Clinton did in private, except to the extent that it influenced his public behavior.)
Posted by: politicalfootball at Nov 29, 2007 5:18:13 PM
And, of course, unlike the Republicans, I don't much care what Bill Clinton did in private, except to the extent that it influenced his public behavior.Can I point you to what Tyler wrote just a few pages up?
I'd like to propose a new research convention. Anytime a writer or blogger talks about what The Right or The Left (or some subset thereof) really wants or means, I'd like them to list their personal anthropological experience with the subjects under consideration.Please list your personal anthropological experience with "the Republicans."
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Nov 29, 2007 5:21:21 PM
spent his ninetieth birthday party at the White House telling George Bush that his fiscal policy was a disaster.
It was and is a disaster, at least if you believe smaller government is better than bigger government. Reason being that he is/was spending way too much, and in fact increasing the wedge so that spending is "scheduled" to increase even more in the future.
Also the original tax cuts in 2001 were Keynesian in nature, which as Friedman points out in his article are something he generally thinks is a stupid way to go about things.
This is not at all inconsistent with either the petition or the tax article.
By the way fiscal policy is about both taxing and spending, just in case anyone is confused. This is not mere semantics, and goes to the heart of the issue, at least as far as Milton Friedman is concerned, and is something Friedman has long written and talked about. It is the spending that is the problem, not the taxing nor the borrowing.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Nov 29, 2007 5:27:46 PM
dsquared 12, critics zero.
Posted by: zak822 at Nov 29, 2007 5:28:58 PM
[And as for your charge that Friedman never publicly contradicted Republican Party orthodoxy, you mean like his stance on the war on drugs? Nixon's economic policies? Selected elements of Reagan's protectionism?]
Nixon in particular is a wonderful example of my point. Friedman regarded him as "the most socialist President that the USA ever had" and disagreed with him on nearly every point of economic policy. But nevertheless continued to serve on his Council of Economic Advisers, never spoke out against him in campaigns, never resigned, in general continued to support the Republican cause.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 5:29:46 PM
Please list your personal anthropological experience with "the Republicans."
For this purpose, you may assume that I have none. For the reasons I describe, I disavow the need to have any.
Posted by: politicalfootball at Nov 29, 2007 5:40:45 PM
Democrats: much higher spending, higher taxes
Republicans: higher spending, lower taxes
Friedman: "and this is why I say second, my general policy is to be in favor of a tax cut at any time, for any reason, for any excuse. To be in favor of a tax cut, not primarily because it will stimulate initiative and inventiveness but in order to keep down government spending."
Government can go into debt, but only so far. Eventually it has to raise taxes or hold down spending. Which party is more likely to hold down spending? As bad as Republicans have been, understand that most, if not all of Bush's spending bills were opposed by Democrats because they didn't spend enough!
Friedman chose the lesser of two evils.
As for the PATRIOT Act, if anyone thinks President Gore or President Kerry would have acted substantially differently, I have a bridge to sell you. Friedman was pretty clear: you lose your freedom if you fail to fight the enemy and you'll lose freedom when the government fights the enemy. You can always repeal the government after the war, but if the enemy wins you're out of luck. Again, the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: 8 at Nov 29, 2007 5:43:48 PM
DD, you said above: "It was a specific statement that the Bush fiscal policy was good for America and would help shrink the size of the tax burden." And when I said that wasn't supported by the text of the letter, you responded by insisting it was and quoting something else. Which isn't exactly responsive. Now I see that when you say "was a specific statement that the Bush fiscal policy was good for America and would help shrink the size of the tax burden" you mean something like "was a specific statement attacking Kerry's proposed policies, which was attached to a press release issued by the campaign which said that "America 's economists recognize that President Bush's pro-growth policies and across-the-board tax relief are the right policies for sustained growth" (and which press release didn't say "the Bush fiscal policy was good for America and would help shrink the size of the tax burden") and which press release Friedman never publicly objected to."
Nope, that's not hackish. It's too fucking unpersuasive to be hackish. You've got work to do to get to that level.
Posted by: Thomas at Nov 29, 2007 5:48:19 PM
It is a common belief in Republican circles these days that believing the right thing in private makes up for publicly doing the wrong thing.
This is the source of anger between conservatives and Republicans, liberals and Democrats.
Posted by: 8 at Nov 29, 2007 5:48:38 PM
I was astonished at how quickly the Pinochet libertarians decided that the Patriot Act was a lesser evil.
Under Clinton, all libertarians, many Republicans, and a fair number of Democrats opposed Clinton's encroachments on civil liberties, but none of the Republicans and only some of the libertarians opposed Bush's. "War is the health of the state" indeed!
Libertarians: Republicans on drugs.
Posted by: John Emerson at Nov 29, 2007 5:52:57 PM
But upon reflection, Bob, I have to add are you kidding me? I do, of course, have extensive personal experience with Republicans. If you feel this is an unfair characterization of "the Republicans" from your personal anthropological experience, I'd be curious to hear about it.
Mostly, though, I think you and Cowen are using "personal anthropological experience" as a dodge to mask your unwillingness to confront actual public statements.
Posted by: politicalfootball at Nov 29, 2007 5:54:15 PM
Bryan Caplan picked up this topic over at EconLog, and received this response from 'Chris':
--
"Some time ago, Derek Lowe (I think it was Derek Lowe. He's a great pharma blogger at Corante.com) laid out a useful test when debating someone. Ask your opponent what statements, if true, would convince him to change his position. If no such statements exist, then the debate is over."
--
So, dsquared, do you have a list?
Posted by: Fly Fisher at Nov 29, 2007 5:54:15 PM
Dsquared,
Ooooooops!!! You should have carefully read my post above.
Repeat: Milton Friedman never accepted any invitation from any Republican president to serve
in any official governmental capacity. That includes Nixon's CEA. He never resigned from it,
because he was never on it.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 29, 2007 5:58:27 PM
Not speaking for Dsquared, but i have changed my mind about the rump faction of the libertarians who have opposed the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Jim Henley, Julian Sanchez, and a number of others.
The others are hacks like Friedman.
Posted by: John Emerson at Nov 29, 2007 6:00:58 PM
For this purpose, you may assume that I have none. For the reasons I describe, I disavow the need to have any.I'm not really sure what to make of this - "I don't need to actually interact with those people because they're all bastards." Umm, how do you know that what you describe is true since you have no interactions with them?
What strikes me is that these writers, and also their counterparts on the Right, see so little need to adduce anthropological evidence to characterize other people's views.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Nov 29, 2007 6:01:05 PM
D^2,
So your complaint isn't really that Friedman was a Republican hack (public support of some Republican policies ranging from enthusiastic to lukewarm, silence or criticism on others - hardly hackary), but that he wasn't a Democratic partisan (attacked Kerry, didn't criticize Nixon enough publicly, argued for Bush tax cuts despite being critical of overall fiscal policy). It seems that one would need to be more critical of the Republican party than the majority of Democrats are (the majority of Dem legislators supported the PATRIOT Act) to escape charges of Republican hackery.
Posted by: MattXIV at Nov 29, 2007 6:05:16 PM
If someone thinks of George W. Bush as a lesser evil, not only in 2000 and 2004 but even today, isn't that evidence? It would seem especially incumbent on people who supported Bush in the past to oppose him publicly now, at least f they want to clear their good names. (I'm not talking about Friedman specifically, obviously, but the more general question.)
Someone who opposes Bush also has some serious choices to make next fall, because most of the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) look like Bush-squared.
Posted by: John Emerson at Nov 29, 2007 6:11:01 PM
"I don't need to actually interact with those people because they're all bastards."
Bob, Bob, Bob. I know a number of Republicans who fit the description I offered when I mentioned "the Republicans". Many of them - most, even - are not bastards. Heck, offhand I'll tell you that some of the most personally noble people I know fit in that group. Despite your quotation marks, I didn't say they were "bastards" and I didn't say anything that would imply that I think they are bastards.
Why do you think that people are who fit the description I offered are necessarily bastards?
Posted by: politicalfootball at Nov 29, 2007 6:15:48 PM
Mostly, though, I think you and Cowen are using "personal anthropological experience" as a dodge to mask your unwillingness to confront actual public statements.I think Tyler makes a good point that when making blanket statements about groups' thoughts/desires/hopes (like your statement about all Republicans) you should back it up with something. "the Republicans" are millions of people across the US and to badmouth them all because their leader(s) behave badly is dishonest and a poor argument.
Anyway, Tyler makes a good point but he, for some reason, attached to his good point a poor example; Davies' attack on Friedman, which is not mostly a statement about a group's thoughts, but rather a statement about a particular man's thoughts, which can be mostly surmised from his writings.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Nov 29, 2007 6:15:53 PM
Tyler's original post seemed to me to be mainly about inferring some kind of belief held by all X without evidence, where X is some group you're not a member of. Sweeping statements that all southern whites are racist, all blacks are gangstas, all rich liberals are hypocrites, etc., don't have much value, except as ways to preach to the choir.
Posted by: albatross at Nov 29, 2007 6:19:52 PM
Under Clinton, all libertarians, many Republicans, and a fair number of Democrats opposed Clinton's encroachments on civil liberties, but none of the Republicans and only some of the libertarians opposed Bush's. "War is the health of the state" indeed!
As opposed to the Democrats who mostly (honorable exceptions like Feingold deserve credit where it's due) who didn't figure out that they opposed Bush's encroachments on civil liberties until his approval rating had safely dropped to the 30s.
D^2 almost has an insight in his post when he criticizes American liberals for not calling out libertarians for being fair-weather supporters of civil liberties, but he fails to notice that the primary reason for this is that mainstream liberalism in the US (in particular as manifested in the Democratic party) not only shows primarily fair weather support for civil liberties, but many (as the Clinton examples demonstrate) will proactively align in favor of encroachment when it's a Democrat doing the encroaching.
Posted by: MattXIV at Nov 29, 2007 6:23:24 PM
Jim Henley argued before the 2004 election that libertarians should support Kerry as the lesser evil. I was less optimistic about the libertarians than he was, so I sent a letter to all the libertarian blogs I knew of suggesting that if they opposed Bush and wanted to cast a protest vote, what they could do was vote for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate. Judging by Badnarik's .32% of the vote, very few libertarians listened to me.
Posted by: John Emerson at Nov 29, 2007 6:24:54 PM
Tyler, you're a hoot. "Personal anthropological experience with the subjects under consideration": pray tell, what anthropological training do you profess to have? All your pompous pretense is saying is that you listened to the great man and thus feel differently. Please, show us your anthropological notes so that we can all be awed and cowed by your perspicacious insights! Did you use that awesome libertarian power of knowing what people really think?
It's really sad to see all your syncophants (and Milton's) attacking D2 with their inept arguments. How blasphemous the idea that the great man could have had a pimple! Let alone one so large. Besides his design of the Federal withholding tax.
My Critiques of Libertarianism site has a relatively new index for Milton Friedman. Only a few things there. If anybody would like to suggest more, I'd welcome it.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Nov 29, 2007 6:29:41 PM
Main Entry: hack
Function: noun
Etymology: short for hackney
Date: 1672 a person who works solely for mercenary reasons : hireling Main Entry: hire·ling
Pronunciation: \ˈhī(-ə)r-liŋ\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
: a person who serves for hire especially for purely mercenary motives
Did Milton Friedman 'serve the (Republican) party for hire especially for purely mercenary purposes?'
Hardly.
Posted by: afprj at Nov 29, 2007 6:30:38 PM
MattXIV: I'm not defending the Democrats. The Patriot Act is exactly the kind of thing which libertarians, if they actually exist and are actually libertarians, would be expected to take a leading role on. If the libertarians have any independent function in American politics, that would be it. But they didn't.
I use the small-l word because I don't just mean party members. Bush's various offenses on habeas corpus etc. (not just the Patriot Act) have been egregious, and you don't have to be a libertarian militant to oppose them.
Posted by: John Emerson at Nov 29, 2007 6:32:11 PM
I think Friedman was a political. If there was a democrat selling a free market platform he would of just as easily hopped into bed with him or her. However, how many democrats in contemporary political history have showed a flair for the "free market." I cant think of one. BTW, while we are on the topic of Friedman, can we dispense with the cheapness and get down to what we dont like about his ideas?
1. Lower taxes or higher taxes
2. More competition in the secondary education sector
3. A reduced role for the military
4. No more pork
5. Spending caps
Pick an idea of his and start attacking. It makes reading this post a lot more fruitful. The back and forth about what he said or didnt say about Bush is really boring, not to mention the fact that it is IRRELEVANT.
Posted by: John Pertz at Nov 29, 2007 6:33:41 PM
I didn't like much of anything about Friedman, but the specific thing I've put on the table here is his willingness to accept authoritarian government if free markets and low taxes came along with. His relationship to Bush was completely RELEVANT to that.
Friedman wasn't as cozy with Pinochet as Hayek was, but based on his relationship to Bush, I think that he too prioritized economic liberties over civil liberties.
Posted by: John Emerson at Nov 29, 2007 6:58:29 PM
John,
I don't know many libertarians who supported Bush in '04 - by my estimates around 10% of the ones whose stances I knew did and Kerry had at least a 2 to 1 advantage among them. A lot of them didn't vote for Badnarik because he was crazy even by LP nominee standards. I personally didn't vote at all in '04 due to a scheduling mix up that left me out of state at the poll date but was going with either Kerry or a protest write-in. I think libertarians largely stayed home in '04 - Badnarik was uninspiring and Kerry had weak credibility on civil liberties and foreign policy. The failure of Democrats to mount any serious opposition to Bush's enchroachments during the first term was a major blow to the prospect of them getting libertarian support in '04. It's pretty hard to sell a candidate who voted for the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War as an alternative to people whose biggest gripes with the Republican party are civil liberties and foreign policy.
Posted by: MattXIV at Nov 29, 2007 6:59:45 PM
Barkley Rosser above is right; I misread a biography which said (correctly) that Milton Friedman was an advisor to Nixon, and assumed (incorrectly) that this meant the CEA. Although he *was* an economic advisor to Nixon, and he endorsed the 1972 campaign despite Nixon having announced the "War on Drugs" in 1971, said "We are all Keynesians now" the same year and continued to make use of conscription in Vietnam despite running on an anti-draft ticket (on Friedman's advice) and having commissioned the report of the Committee on an All-Volunteer Force which reported in 1970. So I maintain my substantive point - given what Nixon actually did, it is very hard to see what a Republican presidential candidate would have to do in order to not get the Friedman endorsement.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 29, 2007 7:04:59 PM
Friedman's intellectual integrity was questioned a long time ago by Harry Johnson and by Don Patinkin. (I think I mentioned this once on Max Sawicky's blog, and Barkley Rosser suggested, as far as I recall, that later literature suggests Patinkin's claims should be moderated.)
Posted by: Robert at Nov 29, 2007 7:39:37 PM
Did someone mention Lancet?
dsquared writes:
Les Roberts has repeatedly said that the statement in the press release was wrong and a mistake, as it certainly was, and in quite exactly the way Milton Friedman didn't.
"Repeatedly"? Now, I don't know if this is true or not but I have read my fair share of Lancet commentary, by Roberts and others. Where does Roberts admit this?
And, by the by, much more work by serious scholars about the Lancet surveys is coming down the pike. Better get those clumpy boots on, dsquared!
;-)
Posted by: David Kane at Nov 29, 2007 7:44:01 PM
dsquared, way to not let the facts get in the way of your substantive point.
When the facts change, I keep the same hardheaded opinion, what do you do sir?
- John M. Keynes, oh wait, no that was dsquared
Posted by: joe at Nov 29, 2007 7:46:20 PM
I would guess that one way for a Republican to lose Friedman's endorsement would be to be George McGovern.
Since Nixon did in fact end the draft in 1973, Friedman seems to have backed the right horse in that respect at least.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Nov 29, 2007 7:59:43 PM
Well, with David Kane here, the zoo is complete.
Posted by: John Emerson at Nov 29, 2007 8:06:34 PM
joe, that's unfair: DD was right that Friedman never resigned. If you keep it up, we can even get him to hang the whole case on that absurdity.
Posted by: Thomas at Nov 29, 2007 8:25:43 PM
This has to be the most embarrassing comments section for Tyler ever. You guys clearly can't think at all. I just can't understand how people can close their eyes to the obvious reality that MF was a hack in this particular instance.
It defies basic human interactions, and I wonder if any of you have actually had a friend or any human interactions before. Not a wife, thats for sure, because they wouldn't let you get away with the bullshit you are pulling here. MF didn't endorse Bush, only slammed Kerry. Yeah, right.
Remember, when the Bush '04 campaign, called MF, he didn't have to sign. He wanted to sign enough that he did. Why? What does this give to him personally? The ultra-capitalist philosopher doesn't need to add to reputation, doesn't need anything that this paper can offer! He would reflexively think, what does this offer to me. So what does signing this offer him?
And then Kevin Drum gets to the whole point of the matter is that it doesn't matter what public people do privately, only what they do publically.
Posted by: mickslam at Nov 29, 2007 10:00:56 PM
I can't help but to think that the real reason why liberals hate Friedman (and they do!!) stems from his success.
And Friedman had unprecedented success for an economist. He ruled both the academic community and the popular economics community.
Lets face it, Galbraith was popular but not really respected by his academic peers. But Friedman managed to be both. He became a household name, yet extremely powerful in the academic community as well. this drives the left crazy.
Posted by: thehova at Nov 29, 2007 10:46:12 PM
I'm completely puzzled, completely apart from the question of whether or not MF endorsed a p-r release.
(DD -- dude, you should really be feeling embarrassed about being reduced to defending your stance based on a press release. And I say this as someone with no special fondness for Milton Friedman.)
Anyway, let me see if I can get some of the assumptions in this argument straight.
* Is it that economists shouldn't participate in politics, because that automatically makes them -- horreurs -- "hacks"?
* Or is it maybe: There's some way for economists to participate in economics that doesn't make them -- horreurs -- "hacks"?
But but but ...
If the former, then an awful lot of respectable economists have been hacks. If the latter ... Well, presumably Brad DeLong has the secret to this.
Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Nov 29, 2007 11:32:31 PM
Wasn't Friedman about a million years old in 2004?
As a general rule, when evaluating the character of major historical figures, we shouldn't put too much weight on what they did after age 90.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 29, 2007 11:38:31 PM
In 1971, Milton Friedman's column in Newsweek was the leading voice of opposition to President Nixon's highly popular (at the time) wage and price freeze.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 29, 2007 11:42:45 PM
Milton Friedman was brilliant and humane, a powerful combination.
Posted by: Max at Nov 29, 2007 11:50:13 PM
"Anyway, let me see if I can get some of the assumptions in this argument straight.
* Is it that economists shouldn't participate in politics, because that automatically makes them -- horreurs -- "hacks"?
* Or is it maybe: There's some way for economists to participate in economics that doesn't make them -- horreurs -- "hacks"? "
Of course, as a libertarian, I would like economist to participate with the political community as much as possible (Obama's chief economics adviser is a U chicago grad, a victory in my book).
But I believe all left leaning groups/people will scream at any economist who engages in politics. Even Brad Delong is looked down upon by many left leaning figures in the blogospher.
Posted by: thehova at Nov 29, 2007 11:50:26 PM
I don't hate MF. He is responsible for my career. I work in financial futures. I've all but prayed to the guy.
Posted by: mickslam at Nov 29, 2007 11:53:15 PM
Libertarians don't universally love Milton Friedman. At mises.org they hate him and are willing to make even more dishonest attacks on him than d-squared. I still prefer them to Cato though.
Posted by: TGGP at Nov 30, 2007 12:45:14 AM
I am trying to understand what you meant by all this, DD. You are calling a man who (along with Barry Goldwater) defined modern Republican fiscal policy: a “Republican hack”. Doesn’t that sound odd, when repeated back to you?
How can someone be a hack for supporting a movement they helped define? Would you say that John Lennon was a hack? Would you say that Bob Dylan was a hack? (I am listening to music… can you tell?)
It has already been pointed out that MF went after Republicans hard when they betrayed the policies he championed. To suggest that he was somehow disingenuous to go after John Kerry’s policies confuses me.
Are you saying MF was only allowed to go after Republicans when they act like Democrats?
Anyone have any MF quotes on Mike Gravel? I have a feeling those two had some good things to say about each other. Though I suppose Gravel might be a Republican hack, too.
-Ben
Posted by: Ben at Nov 30, 2007 1:12:02 AM
--
"Remember, when the Bush '04 campaign, called MF, he didn't have to sign. He wanted to sign enough that he did. Why? What does this give to him personally? The ultra-capitalist philosopher doesn't need to add to reputation, doesn't need anything that this paper can offer! He would reflexively think, what does this offer to me. So what does signing this offer him?"
--
Maybe -- just maybe -- he signed because he believed it was bad for the country if we elected John Kerry as our President. After all, that was the message conveyed by the letter.
A prominent public figure who believes in capitalism and personal freedom has supported presidential candidates that he believes are most likely to support and advance capitalism. Thanks to all who contributed to uncovering this stunning revelation.
Posted by: Fly Fisher at Nov 30, 2007 1:16:31 AM
[dude, you should really be feeling embarrassed about being reduced to defending your stance based on a press release]
what, a press release that Milton Friedman signed? No, you should be embarrassed for using such a weak argument to me (you should also be a bit embarrassed for trying to get away with calling me a coward when you thought I wouldn't be reading this thread, I did notice that by the way, you coward). You might notice I've also cited an article Milton Friedman wrote, two interviews that Milton Friedman gave and the fact that Milton Friedman endorsed Richard Nixon, twice. That's what hacks do, they sign up to big statements with press releases, despite not really believing what it says in the press release, or even reading what they're signing.
[* Or is it maybe: There's some way for economists to participate in economics[sic - presumably you mean politics] that doesn't make them -- horreurs -- "hacks"? "]
Well yes there is. It's not exactly difficult. If you don't want to be a hack, but nevertheless want to participate in politics, don't say things that you don't mean. Don't endorse policies in public that you criticise in private. Don't, to put it bluntly - "horreurs" - lie to the voters. Michael, are you being - horreurs - disingenous on purpose? I think so. Horreurs.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 30, 2007 1:53:39 AM
Nixon was certainly nothing to get excited about, DD. But you seem to think that he and MF had nothing in common. Ending the draft was quite a coup for MF.
Should he have endorsed McGovern? While that may have pleased Democrats, it wouldn't have made any sense. McGovern advocated, at different time, increased welfare and the minimum wage.
We all choose the candidate closest to our own principals. I don't know why MF is a hack for having principals more in line with the Republican party.
(And I feel like I need to add, again, as many others here have, that MF was not kind to Republicans when they betrayed the free market. That, in and of itself, seems to blow up your premise.)
-Ben
Posted by: Ben at Nov 30, 2007 2:34:07 AM
Did Milton sign the press release or the letter?
If he just signed the letter, then the interpretation that he did so simply because he didn't want Kerry elected, which is not hackery, is still available. D2 your argument then hangs on the supposition that Friedman would have known the letter was going to be turned into an endorsement of the Bush fiscal policy, which is speculation whichever way you cut it. You might be right, but there's plenty of room for you to be wrong, so you've not call acting like everybody who disagrees with you is a fool or a knave.
And signing a letter saying A when you ought to have known it would be taken as B is another step removed from outright hackery. Perhaps Milt didn't think it through, or was a bit lazy on that occasion. You are rushing to judgement somewhat if this is all you're argument hangs on. Seems to me there are a few people on this thread who have come convinced that Milton was a hack, and aren't troubled that the arguments presented here are not sufficient to show that. And who believe that actually being a Republican can only mean being a hack - well if you believe that, what's to discuss?
Also, as far as I can see D2 you have not addressed my points that the excerpts from the interview about the Patriot Act do not appear to support your argument, as they stand. Perhaps you have not responded because I am so obviously wrong; if so I await embarrassment.
Posted by: Luis Enrique at Nov 30, 2007 2:35:57 AM
[D2 your argument then hangs on the supposition that Friedman would have known the letter was going to be turned into an endorsement of the Bush fiscal policy, which is speculation whichever way you cut it. ]
How on earth else can anyone suppose that a letter which you are asked to sign by a Presidential campaign team is going to be used? There is also the matter of "What Every American Wants".
Luis, the point in the original post (which I think you have misunderstood) was that Brad (and everyone else) had assumed that Friedman would have opposed the Patriot Act, because it was completely at variance with libertarian principles. Whereas he did, in fact, when given the chance to publicly denounce it, not do so.
[Ending the draft was quite a coup for MF.]
ending it while the Vietnam War was going on would have been more of a coup, but that would have involved politically embarrassing a serving Republican president.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 30, 2007 3:01:43 AM
"As someone noted earlier, it's what people say and write publicly that matter. This notion that you have to talk to the person -- presumably to allow him or her to obfuscate or change his or her original comments -- is just plain silly."
That would be fine, but it has nothing to do with what D^2 is doing. He takes statements which don't on their face support his argument and decodes their 'real' meaning based on his personal interpretation of their character.
So Friedman saying that he didn't like Kerry's policy (which is exactly what you would expect a non-hack with Friedman's economic beliefs to say) REALLY MEANS that Friedman wholeheartedly supports Bush's policies.
Or the fact that Friedman offers a description of what tends to happen in war-like responses (that we devalue liberty at such times) REALLY MEANS that Friedman desires this devaluation of liberty.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at Nov 30, 2007 3:06:27 AM
Still, you are telling a story about what happened over that letter that supports your argument, but it is not the only available story. Maybe Milt just thought he was joining the good fight against Kerry, wanting to help out as a sincere Republican supporter, and did not think "hey, by signing this I am effectively endorsing Bush's fiscal policy".
And even if you think that's how he should have seen it, and can't believe he didn't, if this is the extent of his hackery, to weigh against everything else Milt said throughout his life, it's not certain the scales come down in your favour.
Likewise, failing to condemn the Patriot Act when given the opportunity to do so does not amount to supporting it, in the way that Brad was originally arguing against. It is consistent with your argument that his politics trumped his principles on occasion, but that doesn't speak to the point Brad was contesting.
I wish I knew more about JK Galbraith - I get the impression he was a man true to his principles, but if somebody rooted through his public pronouncements and found instances where he appears to have contradicted his principles in his political career, would you be condemning him in the same terms you are Milt? Isn't it possible that, to use ghastly econ speak, your priors are playing a role here?
Posted by: Luis Enrique at Nov 30, 2007 3:39:40 AM
"But nevertheless continued to serve on his Council of Economic Advisers, never spoke out against him in campaigns, never resigned, in general continued to support the Republican cause."
that is an impressive amount of wrong to cram into just one sentence. As has already been mentioned friedman never sat on the CEA and spoke out against nixon policy openly and often.
Apparently, though, the above facts, alongside friedman's numerous other breaks with republican policy, is neither here nor there since he voted republican. Let me inform DD of something he is apparently unaware of: You don't have to agree with a party's policy platform to vote for that party, only consider it less bad than the other guy's.
Now, if you can cite an example of friedman supporting a republican administration in preference of a democratic opposition that was proposing to the end the war on drugs, introduce school vouchers, cut government spending ect. then you would be somewhere uncharacteristically close to a point.
I hope you don't mind that piece of unsolicited advice in the preceding paragraph, but boy, you are struggling here.
Posted by: pimp hand strikes! at Nov 30, 2007 3:41:35 AM
It has become obvious that D^2 doesn't know the difference between tax cuts and fiscal policy or doesn't know what MF believes or more likely, since he conveniently chooses to interchange them to make his evidence seem substantive when it isn't, he does know the difference, but believes he is right and because of that he thinks it's ok to misuse evidence.
In my mind, it is fairly consistent that MF has stood for the following:
Low taxes and low spending is desirable.
When low spending is not feasible, low taxes is better than high taxes. Low taxes will force the government to eventually force the government to cut spending.
This is why, it is totally reasonable for him to chastise Bush for not cutting spending and also to support Bush over Kerry. In his mind, Kerry is high tax, high spend and Bush is low tax, high spend. He chastises Bush, though, for not being low tax, low spend.
I'm not saying MF is right that Kerry is a worse alternative to Bush even for Friedman like fiscal policy, but I certainly think it is true that MF believed that. I don't think D^2 has provided any evidence to the contrary. All the evidence he has provided is that MF is for low taxes, low spending and in the absence of that low taxes. That is what MF has said throughout his public life.
STOP referencing sources that don't say what they want you are pretending they say. Either that or answer my points directly as I've answered yours.
Posted by: Charlie at Nov 30, 2007 4:05:51 AM
[Still, you are telling a story about what happened over that letter that supports your argument, but it is not the only available story. Maybe Milt just thought he was joining the good fight against Kerry, wanting to help out as a sincere Republican supporter, and did not think "hey, by signing this I am effectively endorsing Bush's fiscal policy". ]
well maybe he *was* an idiot, but I think this unlikely, the man did win the Nobel Prize after all. This was hardly the first Presidential election campaign he'd seen.
What is the point of handing out all this benefit of the doubt? It is never reciprocated.
Posted by: dsquared at Nov 30, 2007 5:26:50 AM
Well, I extend the benefit of doubt to left wingers too, who, while I consider myself one of them, run at best a close second in the hack stakes with the other half of the political spectrum, as far as I can see.
Posted by: Luis Enrique at Nov 30, 2007 6:16:42 AM
Friedman always 'advised' people he diagreed with; to give some random examples, Communist China and Pinochet's Chile. He hoped his ideas would have liberalising effects.
He was consistenly Republican albeit reptillian, viewing them as the lesser evil, and the more receptive to his ideas. His support for Bush's fiscal policy might've been ideological tax-cutter starve the beast logic. Or maybe Sailer's Octogenarian point is right. Or maybe he was sometimes a bit of a party hack, because he thought they were the lesser evil, and wanted Republicans to win.
Hm, posthumous anthropological research is tricky. But I don't think Davies' proved his case.
Posted by: cerebus at Nov 30, 2007 7:27:49 AM
D squared. . .
The only one proven here to be a hack is yourself. You stake out a position which no evidence supports, and then as your purported evidence is not only disproved but demolished, you grasp further and further afield, flailing to find support for it. SUmmary:
1: The signing of a letter does not equal the signing of the press release that is later attached to it.
2: Supporting some policies is not the same as supporting all policies
3: You could even theoretically disagree with ALL of a candidate's policies yet still support them because you disagreed with all of his opponent's policies MORE. We essentially havea binary system - third party candidates are not viable here, so a smart person often plays damage control with their vote. While there are many points of Bush that Friedman would disagree with, he is INFINITELY closer to Friedman's principles than a prospective president Kerry would have ever been.
4: Negative support of a candidates policies(Kerry) does not impute positive suport of another candidate's policies(Bush)
5: Heym dsquared. . if I imbed your posts in a press release, does that mean I can impute whatever statements I want to you? Hot Damn! I could have fun with this!
Posted by: Ryan M. at Nov 30, 2007 7:35:25 AM
I'd like to know how many (public or non-public) conversations he has had with Friedman about the topic of the Republican Party. I've been present for a few
Hark at Lord Muck. Argument from authority, to say nothing of argument from social status.
And frankly, of all groups who can chuck around demands for "personal anthropological evidence" without being hypocritical, rightwing libertarian economics bloggers are not the most obvious.
Posted by: Alex at Nov 30, 2007 8:05:52 AM
Going forward, those wishing to identify rotten eggs should give details of previous experience of life as a chicken.
Posted by: Un oeuf est.... at Nov 30, 2007 8:09:37 AM
We're arguing about Friedman's psychology, Alex. It may be argument from authority, but short of mind-reading it seems the best approach.
Posted by: cerebus at Nov 30, 2007 8:30:42 AM
Well, then a consideration of his public statements ought to be a good place to start. This has the further consequence that if someone who knows him better asserts that his private views are in fact different, the charge of hypocrisy is reinforced, not weakened.
QED.
Posted by: Alex at Nov 30,