Here’s a letter that I sent a few weeks back to the New York Times:
I’m flabbergasted by the
faith that people – left, right, and center – put in politics and in
the candidates du jour. Millions of Americans today famously believe
that a President Obama will fundamentally "change" America (into what,
though, is unclear). And today, David Brooks suggests that a President
McCain might well quash special-interest-group politics and turn Uncle
Sam’s attention chiefly to the general interest ("Talking Versus
Doing," May 20).
These are delusions. I’ll bet $100 that,
regardless of which candidate wins the White House, in 2013 the federal
budget will still contain agricultural subsidies and tariffs that take
billions of dollars from the many to give to the few – that a majority
of Members of Congress will continue to successfully sponsor earmarks -
that the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare will be
no smaller than they are today – and that partisan bickering will be
every bit as much a part of the daily news as it is now.
Politics delivers Svengalis, not salvation.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 21 comments }
Wow, I agree with Don.
At least we can hope he will get us perceptibly closer to equilibrium!
Wow. STR agrees with something written on Cafe Hayek.
And what changes are Libertarians doing besides Internet blogs? After all America wasn't founded on Internet blogs.
How is fundamental change effected Gil?
what is the difference between federalist/anti-federalist papers and blogs other than the technology?
Of course Don is right…Don should have bet a million because it's a sure bet.
And I am once again flabbergasted by the cynicism and sarcasm used by a professor who is foremost supposed to inspire the youth that things can be better.
This tenured professor should do well remembering that if those “Millions of Americans who famously believe that a President can fundamentally ‘change’ America” did not believe so, for a starter he would not have a University to be tenured at, and he would most probably be hiding from the anarchy that would be rampant on the streets.
The beliefs and the illusions of its young people are the best expressions of a country’s true wealth.
Their faith, Don, is explained by our faith.
Remember we must recognize that our faith says that the public school system in the USA really is as bad as we believe it to be.
I speak of the school system that has for decades been pumping out a majority that really are as fundamentally ignorant as we believe them to be.
I could elaborate on the above statement for days but it isn't necessary to go beyond it when addressing a group of intelligent people who are capable of extrapolation of a core idea.
Our future under either of the two candidates.
http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=2033
It's really no surprize that people put their faith in utopia-spouting politicians. Only very few will ever adopt the economic way of thinking taught by luminaries such as Bastiat, for it is subtle and not easily understood. In contrast, the revolutionary way of thinking, although warped and wrong, makes sense to the masses and is by them easily absorbed.
Obama's "change" platform is but a mutation of the revolutionary thinking (anathema to the classical liberal) that has wooed the masses throughout the ages and paved the way for monsters like Stalin and Mao and Hitler. This mentality is cunningly manipulated by the Chávez and the Obamas of the world to sway public opinion in their favor and to convince the people that they themselves are the "saviors of the fatherland". But where does this mentality come from? Here is an interesting quote from Norman Cohn, "The Pursuit of the Millenium", that strives to answer that question:
What Fabio Franco quotes from Norman Cohn’s "The Pursuit of the Millennium" is a perfect explanation for a hugo chávez. Now the question is how you effectively tackle a social myth, by attacking it head on and denigrating it, and in the process creating perhaps another social myth, or by diligently and with good arguments chipping away at its falsehoods. Let me tell you the first way just tends to strengthen a social myth that gets most of its strength from antagonizing others and lining up for a final battle.
I am sorry, but some of those who write here give an impression of just being some Hitler- Jugend´s fighting communism.
Humans have evolved tribal behavior patterns.
The purpose of evoking fear, the starting point for many political causes, is to keep humans in animal/reactive mode. This makes them receptive to faith in hierarchical leadership.
I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men, and where the profounder contempt is expressed for the theory of the permanent equality of property.
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
ABOUT: Mc.Cain And Milli Vanilli
America is a country where they have freedom of speech but everyone says the same thing.
About: Milli Vanilli Bubbles
I am far from denying that newspapers in democratic countries lead citizens to do very ill-considered things in common; but without newspapers there would be hardly any common action at all. So they mend many more ills than they cause.
ABOUT: Hollywoods Media
In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.
ABOUT: Speech Without Substance (Liberal but no concept and consistency in believes)
The genius of democracies is seen not only in the great number of new words introduced but even more in the new ideas they express.
About: Changes We Cannot Beleives It
- The most dangerous moment for a bad government is when it begins to reform.
- It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth.
ABOUT: Hillary Vs. Milli Vanilli
I have no hesitation in saying that although the American woman never leaves her domestic sphere and is in some respects very dependent within it, nowhere does she enjoy a higher station. And if anyone asks me what I think the chief cause of the extraordinary prosperity and growing power of this nation, I should answer that it is due to the superiority of their women.
Your's
Alexis de Tocqueville
(http://www.c-span.org/classroom/tocqueville)
The beliefs and the illusions of its young people are the best expressions of a country’s true wealth.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jun 11, 2008 9:48:58 AM
Sorry but not these public-school indoctrinated young people. They are not our true wealth anymore.
Yet, the value of the illusions of a young person, no matter how misguided they might be, are still immensely higher than the lack of illusions of a cynical youth, no matter how well grounded his cynicism might be.
The role of a professor is not to kill illusions but to help create those good illusions that drive a society forward. The role of a professor is most definitively not to contaminate his students with his own disillusions.
P K,
What you just posted was good, but I have to ask. Are you sure you want to use the word illusions in this:
"The beliefs and the illusions of its young people are the best expressions of a country’s true wealth.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jun 11, 2008 9:48:58 AM"
An illusion is basically a decption, and I can't see how you can rationally explain how the self deception of youth is a valuable asset (true wealth). I am certainly willing to read and learn, if you can do so.
Isn't it the laboring under illusions which leads to cynicism?
How about confidence in the rightness of liberty?
That way we can contain cynicism where appropriate and hope where appropriate.
Anybody who doesn't possess a at least a modicum of cynicism in regard to politics is
a as much a fool as anyone who is cynical about everything.
Are you sure you want to use the word illusions in this: "The beliefs and the illusions of its young people are the best expressions of a country’s true wealth.” An illusion is basically a deception, and I can't see how you can rationally explain how the self deception of youth is a valuable asset (true wealth).
Posted by: vidyohs | Jun 11, 2008 6:01:24 PM
You could be right and I might have translated wrongly from Spanish the word “ilusión” and which there, also, signifies something like a “hope of something good happening” somewhere along the lines of what a “I have a dream” could signify. In which case the phase should read
"The hopeful dreams of its young people are the best expressions of a country’s true wealth”
I don't think the point of the post is that there is no reason for the youth of America to have hopes and dreams. Just that politics is no way to realize those hopes and dreams. As other posts in this blog point out, the quality of life is far superior in many ways today than it was in the past, even 10-20 years ago. These improvements have come about only when doctors, scientists, entrepreneurs and such have maximized their talents and overcome the obstacles politicians put in their way. The only dreams McCain or Obama will fulfill will be their own. If you have hopes and dreams for the future yourself, there are plenty of places to look, but Washington is certainly not one of them.
The entire political agenda in Washington is driven be an "End of the World" scenario. Global warming is the the excuse the politicians will use to set up a totalitarian state in the US.