Reaping the Whirlwind of Progressivism, Parts I, II, III

[jhaag]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=985

By William Anderson

View all 44 articles by William Anderson

Published 07/02/10

Printer-friendly version

When I recently criticized an editorial cartoonist for slamming libertarians -- he said a libertarian "lifeguard" would let everyone drown -- he wrote back claiming that libertarians would abolish numerous federal departments and agencies, like the Department of Education and even the Federal Reserve. In other words, the cartoonist repeated the litany of Progressivism that we have heard all our lives.

Like most Americans who took an American history course or two, I was told that the late nineteenth century was a time of rapacious monopolies and growing poverty. Businesses like Standard Oil were strangling the American economy and individual Americans, giving them unsafe products and higher prices.

However, like the knight on the white horse, the Progressives rode in to change the destructive course of this country. Men like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson exercised their powers and even exceeded their constitutional authority -- all to the good of this country. Progressives in Congress passed laws regulating the economy and created commissions and agencies with the authority to regulate unsafe and "unfair" business practices. Taking the mantle of "can-do Americanism," they directed the economy to "serve the people" rather the wealthy.

We have read of how the Food and Drug Administration made food safe and ensured we had safe and effective pharmaceuticals. The Fed "wisely" regulated the nation’s "money supply," and the Federal Trade Commission, with its centerpiece Bureau of Competition, intervened to make the U.S. economy competitive once more. Armed with newly acquired "scientific" knowledge, the people who populated these departments and agencies would be able to detect immediately what needed to be done, as opposed to the slow and monopoly-dominated the free market.

Centralized Curricula

In more modern times, we are told the Department of Education, through its efforts to centralize school curricula and more, is going to make this country more "competitive." As for the environmental realm, pollution was becoming worse and worse until the "people" declared they had suffered enough. So the government created the Environmental Protection Agency, which will save us from the ravages of "climate change" through its regulatory policies.

And so it goes. Thus anyone who even questions this litany about the growth of the "reformist" federal government is at best an ignoramus and "mossback," and at worst is an "enemy of the people." If we raise even a peep, it is obvious we want Americans to die of food poisoning, suffer birth defects (via Thalidomide), have rivers catching fire, and see child labor and low wages. To modern Progressives the only thing separating us from this hell on earth is the list of federal agencies, so anyone who wishes to abolish these agencies either is utterly ignorant of history or wants everyone but the "rich" to live in misery.

Unfortunately, because such beliefs have become institutionalized in our body politic -- to the point where the mere mention of an agency is a declaration that it actually does what it is "supposed" to do -- it is hard for people to understand that the opposite is true: Our current standard of living is considerably lower than it would have been had the Progressives not taken power.

Yes, such a statement runs counter to what "everyone knows," especially people in education and the media, where Progressivism made its strongest inroads. But what "everyone knows" isn’t so. As the economy continues to falter in the aftermath of the housing and financial meltdown, the housing market is still laden with government incentives to promote home ownership, particularly in finance, the very portion of the economy that had the worst crisis.

Look at the legacy of Progressivism. From numerous wars (to promote "democracy" abroad) to the current depression, we see the imprint of government intervention. In future columns, I will explain why Progressive government has been a disaster not a savior.

Copyright © 2010 Foundation for Economic Education

Edited July 15, 2010 by Cdubyah
update thread title

[jhaag]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=998

By William Anderson

View all 44 articles by William Anderson

Published 07/08/10

Printer-friendly version

Modern Progressives love the term "smart" to describe their approach to everything from zoning to energy. For them, attempts to expand the role of the State are smart, which means free markets must be "stupid."

By the late nineteenth century, Progressives believed that scientific knowledge was so advanced that "experts" could govern American society better than corrupt politicians and business owners. Well-intentioned experts could direct economic activity in a "rational" way.

Although many Progressives did not openly embrace socialism, they believed that a market economy left to its own devices would lead to chaos and monopoly. To combat this problem they did not call for outright State ownership of most production, but rather regulation by federal commissions and bureaus.

Modern historians usually portray entities like the Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and Food and Drug Administration as historical "progress." They especially praise the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1914, which was supposed to end financial "panics" and do away with booms and busts in the economy.

Progressivism permeated all levels of government from local city councils to the White House. The first openly Progressive president was Theodore Roosevelt, who publicly despised the U.S. Constitution with its checks and balances and hated the legacy of Thomas Jefferson. Roosevelt believed that the president should have the power to do whatever seems necessary and that experts in powerful federal agencies should be authorized to carry out mandates to solve the various social and economic problems.

What They Left Out

However, Progressives left out the most important elements in planning: human nature and economic calculation. The rule of experts has not resulted in Nirvana. For example, the current "top economists" of the federal government, from Lawrence Summers to Ben Bernanke, have doctorates from some of the most prestigious institutions in the world, yet they have created an utter mess.

Why? "Experts" might have advanced learning, but that knowledge cannot replace what people need to make complex economic decisions. Many government economic experts are Keynesians, or at least apply Keynesian-style policies, and no matter how many complex mathematical models they might use to "solve" economic problems, their models are worthless because Keynesian analysis simply treats an economy as a homogeneous mass that suffers downturns occurs because spending is inadequate.

Many government-oriented experts seem almost incapable of understanding an economic argument. For example, the government pays them to find ways to make alcohol-based fuel from switch grass, yet just because they can produce this fuel does not mean it is economically feasible. Government planners tout it as a "fuel of the future," yet it is vastly inferior to petroleum-based fuels in performance and in resources required to create and distribute it.

"Smart" policies have unforeseen consequences. For example, "smart growth" has resulted in forcing up housing prices to astronomical levels, with "Progressives" then demanding that government subsidize housing to make it "affordable."

Furthermore, as experts become entrenched in powerful bureaucracies, they act like, well, bureaucrats focused on preserving their own jobs. Although Progressives believed that an expert-led government would bypass political behavior, that never has been the case. Government is inherently political, and government agents can be expected to act in their own political best interests.

Moreover, F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises pointed out fatal flaws in any kind of government planning. In his classic "The Use of Knowledge in Society," Hayek noted that general knowledge cannot replace the specific knowledge that government economic planners would need to "run" an economy, and the failure of the socialists states eloquently proves his point. Likewise, Mises noted that without prices, private ownership, and free markets, economic calculation was impossible, leading to "planned chaos." Their wisdom contrasts with the destructive foolishness we see coming from Washington and elsewhere.

Copyright © 2010 Foundation for Economic Education

[jhaag]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1013

By William Anderson

View all 44 articles by William Anderson

Published 07/15/10

Printer-friendly version

Most Americans pay homage to the U.S. Constitution. Public officials swear to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic," and the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who wrote the book on pork barrel spending, carried a copy of the document with him at all times.

Almost everyone in authority claims to revere the Constitution. However, few people of them believe they should be bound by the limitations that define the document.

During the late 1800s and early 1900s the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws imposed at all governmental levels that attempted to regulate business hours and employee pay. Today, the U.S. secretary of labor dictates much labor policy.

More than a century ago most Americans would have been shocked to see federal agents visiting businesses and even private dwellings. Today, federal agents are a part of daily life, as the government regulates more and more of our private affairs.

How did Americans go in a hundred years from people who had little contact with the federal government to now having much of their lives controlled by federal policies? How did the State grow so large and so powerful? In a word, it was "Progressivism."

Guy Rexford Tugwell, one of President Franklin Roosevelt's most influential advisers, noted that Progressives had a very different view of the State than did the framers of the Constitution. He wrote:

The Constitution was a negative document, meant mostly to protect citizens from their government. . . . Above all, men were to be free to do as they liked, and since the government was likely to intervene and because prosperity was to be found in the free management of their affairs, a constitution was needed to prevent such intervention. . . . The laws would maintain order, but would not touch the individual who behaved reasonably. [Emphasis added.]

However, that state of affairs, according to Tugwell, was not acceptable. He continued:

To the extent that these new social virtues developed [in the New Deal], they were tortured interpretations of a document intended to prevent them. The government did accept responsibility for individuals' well-being, and it did interfere to make [them] secure. But it really had to be admitted that it was done irregularly and according to doctrines the framers would have rejected. . . Much of the lagging and reluctance was owed to constantly reiterated intention that what was being done was in pursuit of the aims embodied in the Constitution of 1787, when obviously it was done in contravention of them. [Emphasis added.]

Nothing to Fear?

As Tugwell duly noted, the Constitution was written to protect individuals from the ravages of government because people understood that government power was something to be feared. However, after Progressives took control not only of government but also of other important social institutions, like education and the news media, they convinced people that they could have good government.

Progressive literature of the day, from Ida Tarbell's "expose" on the Standard Oil Company to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, claimed that the real threat to individuals came from businesses, and that government needed to defend citizens from the ravages of private enterprise. Obviously, the kind of government needed to protect people by regulating and controlling businesses needed to be much larger than the government in place.

The catalyst for the expansion of the "good State" was World War I and then later the Great Depression. State intervention was justified in the name of "protecting America" and ultimately (and ironically) "protecting" the Constitution.

Progressives won the day because they gained control of the institutions that serve as "gatekeepers" in civil society, and they also won because intervention begets more intervention. For example, the Federal Reserve System, a favorite of Progressives, helped create the Great Depression and the New Deal, which, in effect, overthrew what was left of the constitutional order.

Today, the United States is what I call a "Progressive Democracy," bearing little resemblance to the republic that existed 200 years ago. However, no matter how "advanced" government may claim to be, it still is government and needs to be controlled.

Copyright © 2010 Foundation for Economic Education

[Disclaimer]

I read the three threads you started... and then looked up this "William Anderson" guy.

1) He's obviously got an agenda

2) He doesn't have any citations in his opinions

3) He busts on Paul Krugman for his economic views -- Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman. What makes Mr. Anderson qualified? He's got a doctorate from Auburn, but other than that he really doesn't have any peer recognition that I could find. He's a professor at some university in Maryland...

And maybe it's just me, but I'm skeptical of anyone that doesn't recognize a moderate view. A fanatical view of free-market capitalism is just as bad as one in socialism. 99.9999% of the time, the best solution is in the middle somewhere.

[obesityrules]

dust off ye ol' tricorn hat, the anti-federalist has arrived

[Cheech]

I read the three threads you started... and then looked up this "William Anderson" guy.

1) He's obviously got an agenda

2) He doesn't have any citations in his opinions

3) He busts on Paul Krugman for his economic views -- Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman. What makes Mr. Anderson qualified? He's got a doctorate from Auburn, but other than that he really doesn't have any peer recognition that I could find. He's a professor at some university in Maryland...

And maybe it's just me, but I'm skeptical of anyone that doesn't recognize a moderate view. A fanatical view of free-market capitalism is just as bad as one in socialism. 99.9999% of the time, the best solution is in the middle somewhere.

thanks for doing the legwork on this one, I was too busy chowing down popcorn.

I love free-market worshippers. Glass-Steagall was enacted as a direct result of the Great Depression, and the bank failures and practices that were instrumental to its cause. When it was repealed, it can be argued that that was reducing a significant layer of regulation and oversight in the banking industry, similar to the changes postulated in the article. All that being said, how would you explain the credit crisis, more specifically the credit default swaps?

[Cdubyah]

I merged these three together, as they seem to have the same topic, and are by the same author.

[RFM]

Ok... I read this and am left thinking why... Are these part of a larger body of work? All this does really is makes a claim that Progressivism harms (while citing instances of where regulations have made a positive impact (trust-busting, Drug Regulating, Food Standards (through Upton Sinclair's 1906 work.)).

This work, as is, is hardly academic. The conclusion has nothing to do with the work, and the work proves nothing, and only asserts that we now have a government different than it was 200 years ago.