« I, Dirt | Main | Markets in everything »
Two links, from the Atacama desert
1. More polemic against the Milton Friedman Institute, from Marshall Sahlins.
2. Play MR Jeopardy again: the answer is Andrew Jackson, what is the question? This is from Andrew Sullivan, who is the first blogger I ever read and remains one of my favorites.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 18, 2008 at 12:28 PM in Travels | Permalink
Comments
The first Christian President of the US, I believe. Do I win something?
Posted by: Craig at Aug 18, 2008 12:36:55 PM
Am I reading Sullivan's post correctly? I'd say that any definition of "Christian" that excludes Episcopalians is pretty dicey indeed. Is the contention that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe attended Episcopal churches, but were not really Episcopalians?
Posted by: d.cous. at Aug 18, 2008 12:39:46 PM
Sorry, I meant: Who was the first Christian President of the US?
Posted by: Craig at Aug 18, 2008 12:40:23 PM
d.cous., if I read the post correctly, your point is exactly the point (or one of the points) Andrew Sullivan is trying to make - that Christianity is a large and diverse faith, and that many of those who consider themselves Christians are excluded by the strict, doctrinaire definitions espoused by some modern fundamentalists.
Also, just so I don't get disqualified on a technicality, the precise question probably should be stated as Andrew's post title, "Who was the first truly Christian President?". I promise that is that last time I make any corrections.
Posted by: Craig at Aug 18, 2008 12:51:40 PM
Washington was not so much a "Christian" as the "husband of a Christian."
Posted by: KipEsquire at Aug 18, 2008 12:57:24 PM
Thanks, Craig. I see that now.
I'd already heard that most of our founders were Unitarians or Deists or something similar, so I'm really more surprised to learn that so many of them attended Christian churches at all.
Christianity is a very large and diverse faith, but I think the fundamentalists have a point in terms of the definition. At the top of my "Are You A Christian" questionnaire would be the question "Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God?" You have to draw the line somewhere, or the word has no meaning whatsoever. Saying that you are something doesn't make it so.
Posted by: d.cous. at Aug 18, 2008 12:59:55 PM
If one can affirm the Apostle's Creed, one is a Christian. If one cannot affirm the Creed, one does not accept the Christian faith. Certain denominations do not abide by the Creed while representing themselves as part of the Christian tradition.
Posted by: Theresa at Aug 18, 2008 1:12:31 PM
Hopefully Anonymous calls upon all of us to denounce Andrew Sullivan and praise Marginal Revolution.
And Kip, if you're still here, I sent an e-mail a while back asking why you'd deleted all my comments and also why I was banned. I didn't get a response, so why not take the opportunity here explain what violation of decorum I committed so that it can be avoided in the future, and the atmosphere of the blogosphere thus improved? Also, in the offchance that my comments are still stored somewhere, I'd appreciate access to them so I can preserve them for posterity at my own site.
Posted by: TGGP at Aug 18, 2008 1:38:46 PM
Who is the first president to have been born in the Unitted States?
Posted by: larry at Aug 18, 2008 2:38:50 PM
Who is the first president to have been born in the Unitted States?
Martin Van Buren, of course.
Posted by: Brian at Aug 18, 2008 3:10:13 PM
Re: Martin van Buren, to use the constitutional term:
"Who is the first president who was a natural-born citizen of the United States?"
Posted by: PJ at Aug 18, 2008 3:24:16 PM
#1 makes me all warm and fuzzy. I never knew how roughshod we've ridden over past and future governments. Now we have the very stranglehold on truth but for a few million dollars in donations. What a deal. We drink up your milkshake! All your university are belong to us!
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 18, 2008 3:40:08 PM
In South America many catholic refer to evangelic as " Christian" because the latter refer themselves as such
Posted by: k at Aug 18, 2008 3:54:27 PM
A thought question: Would the reaction have been different if they decided to name it, say, the Ronald Coase Institute? I'm curious, especially because most of the opponents talk fearfully of "branding" the university in a certain way (a very corporate-sounding concept for people with anti-capitalist views).
Posted by: mike at Aug 18, 2008 4:07:45 PM
From the first link:
"In fact, neither markets nor individualism of this sort [i.e., the sort advocated by Milton Friedman] are present in the majority of societies known to history and anthropology . . . ."
Friedman was well-aware of this. He was also aware that lack of markets and individualism accounted for why the majority of societies known to history and anthropology have been tyrannical, miserable, and grindingly poor.
Posted by: anon at Aug 18, 2008 4:21:37 PM
Whose portrait most frequently comes pouring out of electronic devices.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Aug 18, 2008 4:28:55 PM
Who was president the last time that the U.S. government had no national debt?
Posted by: liberalarts at Aug 18, 2008 4:50:57 PM
"Why not also a Louis Farrakhan Center for Religious Studies? Or a Friedrich Engels Institute for Political Science?" -MARSHALL SAHLINS
Lovely. The reason, Mr. Sahlins, is because Milton Friedman has supported all his claims with thorough empirical research, whereas Farrakhan and Engels blathered incoherently about things they have very little understanding of.
Posted by: Ken at Aug 18, 2008 5:17:05 PM
I want to same Who is a president that did a worst job than George W Bush? However the problem is the answer is erroneous, since Lincoln, FDR and a few other tyrants fit the bill.
Posted by: Jay at Aug 18, 2008 6:29:27 PM
It's a shame that Sahlins and others continue to mangle their arguments against the Friedman Institute so badly. I think a debate about balance within academic institutions and the potential risks of privately funded institutes could be valuable. Unfortunately, Sahlins seems intent on burying that idea in a load of BS. The $1-2 M donors get to attend lectures, not direct the research agenda. Hardly seems like a threat to the supposed objectivity of academia.
I don't see Sahlins complaining about the endowment of his former chair in anthropology, which also came from private donations. Perhaps only certain private donations should be considered suspect? Those that don't support the left-leaning views of most professors?
Could anyone be convinced by Sahlins' point that many societies didn't have markets? A lot of societies didn't have, say, written language, refrigerators, coffee, or recorded music either. Does that mean I should give all of those wonderful things up?
Posted by: Greg at Aug 18, 2008 7:17:20 PM
I think that there might be some legitimate concerns about so much private funding into one institute, but it seems like most of the people complaining would be happy if they just take off Friedman's name.
What's sad is that most of the people that are upset about the name don't have the courage to come out and say what is really bothering them:
"I am a [communist/socialist], and Friedman offends me."
Posted by: brent at Aug 18, 2008 8:24:58 PM
I refuse to play any future MR jeopardy until the first question is given. Note the last comment: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/play-jeopardy-a.html
Posted by: at Aug 18, 2008 11:37:05 PM
I don't know about the Karl Marx Institute, but who would argue with the John Maynard Keynes Center for Government Intervention at Berkely? Well, I guess some people might argue against it, "the Berkeley reputation will be sullied by left wing politics..." But that argument is of course, equally ridiculous.
Again I get to say that for people at the U of C to complain about their reputation being sullied by The Chicago Boys and Milton Friedman and The Chicago School and monetarism, it already has! They are the only reason the school is famous. Do they know that centers and institutes very reason for being is to bring in money? Do they know the money follows the fame? Do they know that the money comes not from gov't grants? That's just how it works. Do they know what they are complaining about?
Of course they want to change the name, but without the name, there's no money. Will one day the GMU education department complain about the millions brought to the school by the Walter Williams Center for Economic Education or the Tyler Cowen Institute of Cultural Comparitive Public Choice, or whatever? Of course! Who knows exactly what will be popular and bring in the money, but some things are easy to predict. They hate the power of private funds and they always will.
To quote Duran Duran, "when it comes to making money, it's yes, please, and thank you"
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 19, 2008 5:27:49 AM
The weird thing about Marshall Sahlins's post is that Chicago University is already famous in the economics profession for its market-based approach and for Milton Friedman.
He also displays an ignorance of economic theory when he says "The Milton Friedman Institute will provide the rich and powerful with the best self-promoting ideas their money can buy. "
Milton Friedman was famous in part for arguing against subsidies to the rich and powerful. If Chicago wanted to provide the best self-promoting ideas to the rich and powerful, it should go in for mercantalism.
Posted by: Tracy W at Aug 19, 2008 5:59:53 AM
"Why not ... a Friedrich Engels Institute for Political Science?"
Why indeed not? Is that meant to be an argument? Given that Engels had even more influence on the course of world affairs so far than Friedman, and that neither man actually killed anyone, it seems a bit silly.
Posted by: Millian at Aug 19, 2008 7:17:52 AM
