Why Do Liberals Believe What They Believe?

[boobie4three]

Why Do Liberals Believe What They Believe?

John C. Goodman | Sep 14, 2013

Do you know of any place you can go to find a rational, well-thought out economic argument for liberalism? I can't. And that's really strange considering the degree to which this political philosophy dominates our culture.

By the term "liberalism" I mean the intellectual effort to apologize for and defend economic programs primarily associated with Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. There are four main ones:

•The subs ution of regulation for markets,

•The subs ution of social insurance for private provision,

•The nationalization of welfare, and

•The manipulation of the economy by the government.

It is difficult to exaggerate how completely this intellectual movement dominated thinking in the post-World War II period. During the 1950s and 1960s there was virtually no book, no journal, and no college campus where you could find a serious competing point of view.

When I was an undergraduate at the University of Texas in the 1960s, there were only two people on the entire liberal arts faculty who you could describe as right of center — a moderate Republican in the English department and a libertarian in the Political Science department. And this was a campus with 27,000 students!

Then in 1962 Milton Friedman wrote Capitalism and Freedom. Friedman called himself a "classical liberal" and his book was a wholesale assault on modern liberalism and all its major programs. In place of Social Security, Freidman proposed private savings accounts. In place of the income tax system, a flat tax. In place of a monopoly public school system, educational vouchers. In place of the welfare state, a negative income tax. And so forth.

Whether you agree or disagree with Friedman, the book represented a coherent statement of a political philosophy. From cover to cover, you could see how it all fit together. Starting from a few simple values, you could see how the entire set of recommended polices cohered.

So here is the obvious question: Where can one find the counter to Friedman? Where is there a book that makes the case for modern liberalism as persuasively and as coherently as Friedman's critique?

I can't find any.

How could so many people hold a viewpoint that has never been written down, explained and defended? Hold that thought for a moment.

Since I can't cover everything in a single article, let's stick with regulation. There are three things you need to know:

1.Virtually every federal regulatory agency created in the 20th century came into existence at the request of the regulated industry.

2.In virtually every case the regulatory body viewed maintaining industry profitability as its most important goal.

3.In almost every case the bulk of the agency's time was spent not protecting consumers from price gouging, but protecting the industry from "ruinous compe ion."

However, to get economic favors from government, the industries were expected to make a devil's bargain. Since the Republicans mainly believed in hands off government, the producers had to give political support to Roosevelt and other Democrats who were granting the favors.

This approach started with the progressives, who were the forerunners of modern liberalism. They were not the first to pass special interest legislation, of course. But they were the first to give an intellectual justification for the rejection of free markets while they were doing it, a justification that often belied their real intent.

For example, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) — our first federal regulatory agency — was ostensibly established to protect the general public from greedy robber barons. But, as the leftist historian Gabriel Kolko has do ented, the ICC was primarily dominated by, and served the interest of, the railroads themselves. The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was passed ostensibly in order to protect the public from bad meat — exposed, for example, by the novelist Upton Sinclair. However, the regulatory apparatus the act created served the interests of large meatpackers instead. Safety standards were already being met — or were easily accommodated — by the large companies. But the regulations forced many small meatpackers out of business and made it difficult for new ones to enter the industry. This same pattern — of regulatory agencies serving the interests of the regulated — was repeated with the establishment of almost all subsequent regulatory agencies. For this reason, Kolko called the entire Progressive Era the "triumph of conservatism."

As I reported previously, in the Franklin Roosevelt era, the ICC became a cartel agent for the trucking industry as well as the railroads. The Civil Aeronautics Board became a cartel agent for the airlines. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) became a cartel agent for the broadcasters.

Even the pretense of consumer protection was blatantly tossed aside with the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The goal of the NIRA was to allow each industry to set its own prices, set its own wages and control its own output. Had Roosevelt gotten his way, we would have had predatory monopolies in every market.

What was happening at the national level during the 20th century was replicated in spades at the local level. Virtually every professional licensing requirement in the country was requested not by consumers, but by people in the trade. Today, almost one in every three jobs requires a license.

Where can you find an intellectual defense of all this? You can't. What I'm describing contradicts not only Adam Smith, but also almost all of modern economics. Special monopoly privileges designed for one group create benefits for that group, but harm everyone else. And the harm to society as a whole is inevitably much greater than the benefits to the special interests.

So back to the question posed earlier: why do so many intellectuals apologize for and defend the indefensible? The only answer I can think of is that what we call liberalism is not an ideology at all. It's a sociology. And that would be okay, if it were comparable to one's preference for natural food or artsy movies.

It's not okay when it imposes costs on millions of innocent people.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnc...tm_campaign=nl

[Koolaid_Man]

the premise is false:

The subs ution of regulation for markets,

•The subs ution of social insurance for private provision,

•The nationalization of welfare, and

•The manipulation of the economy by the government.

when I think of the words corporate privacy I think corruption (to some degree) by definition..

if markets aren't regulated we get wide spread corruption & discrimination by private companies
private insurers don't have your best interest at heart (only for a select few ) they're forced to comply because of rules
are private companies willing to band together to pay for welfare, medicare, or SS?
would rather goven't manipulate markets than private companies at least they're held accountable through elections...who would hold private companies accountable....

[pgardn]

This is so incredibly simplistic it's nauseating.

There has always been debate on the powers of government in a free market economy. A free market unfettered by any regulations has been a failure in many segments of the economy, just as a government swallowing up private companies has been a disaster. The experiments have already taken place in the US and many other countries throughout history. It's a matter of degree of govt. regulation, degree being the key word in specific situations.

Typical ideologue again. It's so simple, but it's not.

[boobie4three]

Since I can't cover everything in a single article, let's stick with regulation. There are three things you need to know:

1.Virtually every federal regulatory agency created in the 20th century came into existence at the request of the regulated industry.

2.In virtually every case the regulatory body viewed maintaining industry profitability as its most important goal.

3.In almost every case the bulk of the agency's time was spent not protecting consumers from price gouging, but protecting the industry from "ruinous compe ion."

One of the main points the author was getting at was that the industries themselves were pushing for these regulations in order to stifle compe ion and not to protect consumers. Liberals, the so-called champion of the little guy, were more than happy to go along with this, being the hippocrates that they are.

[Wild Cobra]

Liberals are indoctrinated by feel-good talk.

just that simple.

[pgardn]

Since I can't cover everything in a single article, let's stick with regulation. There are three things you need to know:

1.Virtually every federal regulatory agency created in the 20th century came into existence at the request of the regulated industry.

2.In virtually every case the regulatory body viewed maintaining industry profitability as its most important goal.

3.In almost every case the bulk of the agency's time was spent not protecting consumers from price gouging, but protecting the industry from "ruinous compe ion."

One of the main points the author was getting at was that the industries themselves were pushing for these regulations in order to stifle compe ion and not to protect consumers. Liberals, the so-called champion of the little guy, were more than happy to go along with this, being the hippocrates that they are.

Since when have industries had an interest in protecting consumers? Protect them how?

So liberals are hippo crates... I guess you mean we need warm fuzzy people to box large mammals. Where do liberals send these hippos in their crates? Or are liberals only involved in the packaging of the beasts?

[boobie4three]

Since when have industries had an interest in protecting consumers? Protect them how?

So liberals are hippo crates... I guess you mean we need warm fuzzy people to box large mammals. Where do liberals send these hippos in their crates? Or are liberals only involved in the packaging of the beasts?

You probably won't be seeing me at any spelling bees in the near future. Should have been hypocrite.

[boutons_deux]

the Townhall whiner offers no evidence for his claims, because right-wingers and Bible-thumpers don't believe evidence anyway.

[pgardn]

You probably won't be seeing me at any spelling bees in the near future. Should have been hypocrite.

I make spelling mistakes frequently as well. I just had never seen that form before.

[Bill_Brasky]

you're being very liberal with the stupid threads.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Liberals are indoctrinated by feel-good talk.

just that simple.

And you are indoctrinated by guesses and wishful thinking.

The opposition to liberalism is most definitely characterized by puritanical ideology. This article for example, lays out several dualistic ways of looking at the world on things like 'social insurance' and 'private provision' and then only allows for the poles to be valid outcomes. I hate it when people eat up this dumbed down nonsense.

[m>s]

Liberals need to be eradicated from western society

[101A]

Since I can't cover everything in a single article, let's stick with regulation. There are three things you need to know:
O
1.Virtually every federal regulatory agency created in the 20th century came into existence at the request of the regulated industry.

2.In virtually every case the regulatory body viewed maintaining industry profitability as its most important goal.

3.In almost every case the bulk of the agency's time was spent not protecting consumers from price gouging, but protecting the industry from "ruinous compe ion."

One of the main points the author was getting at was that the industries themselves were pushing for these regulations in order to stifle compe ion and not to protect consumers. Liberals, the so-called champion of the little guy, were more than happy to go along with this, being the hippocrates that they are.

Misspellings aside...this is a fundamental point. Is it straw or is it true? The author makes a compelling case. CIs there refutation, or just misdirection and insults?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Misspellings aside...this is a fundamental point. Is it straw or is it true? The author makes a compelling case. CIs there refutation, or just misdirection and insults?

Poor supporting arguments are not to be made aside. In the next paragraph he does not make a compelling argument about what he claims is the motivation behind the creation of the FDA, ICC, or the NIRA. All he has done is describe what they became as a result of influence of industry. Even in that he shows him puritanical thinking by trying to present it all as one way.

Mostly what he does is just assume his premise in his supporting argument with things like

What was happening at the national level during the 20th century was replicated in spades at the local level. Virtually every professional licensing requirement in the country was requested not by consumers, but by people in the trade. Today, almost one in every three jobs requires a license.

We are supposed to take this from him on faith? that.

This is the perfect presentation for ideologues. Lots of assertions on generalized notions and very little in the way of specific facts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Liberals need to be eradicated from western society

I am just putting you on ignore. Your schtick is a waste of my time.

[m>s]

Good riddance communist. We real descendants of the Aryans await the day your kind are a thing of the past, not mentioned anywhere in the history books so that your filth will never spread to future generations.

[ChumpDumper]

lol m<s is pro-censorship.

[boutons_deux]

Misspellings aside...this is a fundamental point. Is it straw or is it true? The author makes a compelling case. CIs there refutation, or just misdirection and insults?

he parrots bull talking points, drivel to pad out townhall rag, with no evidence, nothing specific, not compelling in the least.

[boobie4three]

he parrots bull talking points, drivel to pad out townhall rag, with no evidence, nothing specific, not compelling in the least.

Says the King of Bull .

[ElNono]

i am rubber, you are glue