New Blog: stevenwhite.wordpress.com

Ron Paul and the Libertarian "Movement"

Reihan Salam writes:

Should libertarians think Paul is bad for the movement? After all, he comes from an anti-immigration right-populist tradition that sharply contradicts the cosmopolitanism that increasingly defines libertarianism. It's clear that Ron Paul is more Bob Taft or than he is a modern-day hipstertarian, which is part of his charm...The Paul campaign strikes me as a narrow phenomenon that mostly reflects a quirky, populist subculture (or Birchers and Buchananites) meeting an affluent, angry subculture (of anti-war non-movement libertarians). Paul is thus unlikely to do any lasting damage to the libertarian brand, and his candidacy will in all likelihood help the broader movement flourish. (By, among other things, introducing some non-trivial number of young people to new and appealing ideas.)

First, what's with the whole "hipstertarian" thing? When exactly did it become trendy to be a clever and ironic young cosmopolitan free marketeer? It's less a movement and more a subcultural subset of detached hipsterdom.

Second, I don't think Paul is actually going to have much effect on libertarianism as a movement. For all the disenchanted young people he's bringing on board, I bet most of them are motivated by some kind of isolationist, anti-imperialist opposition to the war in Iraq that's very time- and place-specific -- and not necessarily grounded in libertarianism. Paul's weird abortion rhetoric, apparent discomfort with gay rights, and generally crazy monetary beliefs make him more a kook than anything else. It's fun watching him in the debates, but even with a $5 million fundraising quarter, I don't think he's a lasting trend.

Degrees of Elitism

Referencing my last post, Bryan Caplan writes:

This sounds awfully elitist to me - and awfully plausible. Though my harshest critics come from the left, my model of politics is a lot closer to theirs than they'd like to admit.

Well, kind of. To the degree that Caplan believes most voters are stupid, we're pretty much in agreement. However, Caplan goes beyond that and argues they are irrational and systematically biased in very particular ways -- which is something quite different than mere ignorance.

It's true (and, for liberal Democrats, perhaps strategically useful) that John Edwards is the most liberal viable candidate but is perceived to be the most moderate. While this little fact is bound up in issues of region, race, and gender, it's also bound up in the fact that the public doesn't understand the intricacies of policy wonkery and often relies on personality over substance. But this kind of ignorant behavior is distinct from systematic bias.

Analytical elitism is not wrong per se. The general public will always get any number of things wrong. But not understanding a relatively objective fact (e.g. John Edwards is more liberal than Hillary Clinton) is not directly comparable to not understanding the supposed superiority of a certain policy preference (e.g. more deregulation is a good thing for society). While a lot of evidence can be given for any policy preference, it can't reach the level of objectivity in the same way. In that sense, my belief that the public "just doesn't get" the differences between Edwards and Clinton is a lot different than Caplan's belief that the public "just doesn't get" what's best for the economy. And that's precisely the point where Caplan's irrational voter argument moves from an interesting attempt at dealing with general voter stupidity into the somewhat murkier waters of why Americans just can't understand why the free market is so grand.

Hello, EconLog Readers

In addition to nicely providing a link to my blog, here's what Bryan Caplan says about my recent Campus Progress profile of him:

I've long enjoyed negative-but-fair reviews of my work, but this negative-but-fair review of me personally is even better:

This George Mason economist favors free market biases over legitimate democracy, and has more ears in Washington than you might think.

Given the number and diversity of the links, it's clear that the author, Steven White, is an avid Econlog reader. (Hi, Steven!) Almost everything he says is accurate, though perhaps he should have also told his readers at Campus Progress about my views on immigration, religion, terrorism, and Columbus.

Come on, Steven, even a "right-wing ideologue" is left twice a day.

A commenter on my blog asks how Caplan can be seen as "right-wing." Caplan also seems confused by the company Campus Progress puts him in. And to be fair, I actually did include information about his atheism and distinctly non-right-wing views on immigration, the war, and Columbus in the initial draft, but this got dropped during editing to help in sticking to the point. Also: the article was placed in the "Know Your Right-Wing Speakers" series after it was written, not before. But to the critics in the comment section, Caplan admits the article's characterization is "fair." The difference between us is not a question of facts, but rather a question of what these facts mean. It's telling, of course, that simply explaining Caplan's arguments to the average person (or, in this case, an audience of college liberals) makes them recoil in horror (though Caplan, no doubt, would see as a sort of anti-intellectualism or irrationality). So yeah, Caplan isn't a typical "right-winger." But his economic views -- pretty much unfiltered free trade, deregulation, and so on -- are right-wing, even if some of his other views aren't. And since Caplan is an economist, this is what he focuses on and what he is most known for -- not those other things.

Anyway, to those EconLog readers: Thanks for coming. I hope at least a couple of you stick around.

Revenge of the Nerd: Bryan Caplan and the Masses

My latest article is up at Campus Progress:

George Mason University economics professor Bryan Caplan thinks you have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to economics. You don’t instinctively understand the market, you distrust unfiltered free trade, and you care too much about equality at the expense of growth. Your concern with corporate responsibility is misguided and your pessimism is just a psychological marker completely lacking reason. And because of this, we’d all be better off if you didn’t participate in economic decision-making. People like Caplan know what’s best for you. Trust them, they’re economists.

Read the rest here.

You Know You're Not in DC When...

"Cato" means a women's clothing store instead of these people.

Ron Paul's Abortion Rhetoric

New article up at TAP Online about Ron Paul and abortion:

In 1981 a Republican congressman declared:

Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The name of the congressman? Ron Paul. Yes, that Ron Paul, the long-shot GOP candidate for president running on a platform of pulling out of Iraq and slashing government spending.

The rest is here. I'm currently sitting in a McDonald's in the middle of Virginia, near James Madison University, because somehow the Starbucks here doesn't have wireless internet yet. I'm driving to Tennessee to spend a week and a half or so with my family. Let me add, as a note of conclusion, that the Drive-By Truckers make for good driving music.

Quote of the Day

"My hunch is that libertarians are safe debate partners for liberals. With Republicans, too much appears to be at stake, and partisanship generally overwhelms the policy discussion. The other side must actually be stopped. But libertarians aren't going anywhere politically, so the discussion can largely focus in on interesting questions of political and economic theory. That's intellectually useful, but a bit frivolous, so it tends to mainly happen among people with too much time on their hands and little in the way of responsibilities, like bloggers and high school seniors." -Ezra Klein

If John Stossel is "Rational," Count Me Out

Is the Bryan Caplan, democracy-is-dangerous trend growing? John Stossel just wrote an glowing review of The Myth of the Rational Voter, where he basically admits Caplan's thesis affirms his own grumpiness with how people vote the "wrong" way.

As a result of these biases, people often support price controls, foreign-trade barriers and laws against job "outsourcing," and oppose immigration. Most economists are eager to demonstrate that these policies are bad for society, but most people aren't interested in evidence. They're interested in what confirms their worldview and makes them feel good. So they often vote for protectionists, anti-immigration advocates and other opponents of the free market.

And:

More practically, he thinks that "Everyone who knows some economics" should grab every opportunity to teach it. That's what I try to do with my "20/20" segments, television specials and the Stossel in the Classroom program, which brings economic ideas to high-school and college classrooms.

I hope we will create some rational voters in the process.

I will rest better at night knowing John Stossel's new life's work is to create rational little libertarians out of America's children.

The Myth of Bryan Caplan's Seriousness

My new article is up at TAP Online:

What happens when libertarians get together to talk about why people who disagree with them shouldn't make decisions, why democracy isn't really as important as people think, and why low voter turnout isn't a bad thing? People roll their eyes and move on, right? Actually, no. Apparently employees of government agencies, embassies, and think tanks trek down to 1000 Massachusetts Avenue to listen and be enlightened in the F. A. Hayek Auditorium.