William Buckley, Economics, and the Conservative Movement--Posner

The death on February 27 of William Buckley provoked a surprising outpouring of praise, not limited to conservatives. The praise was mixed with hyperbole. He was credited with having created modern American conservatism, with having united free-market economists with social and other noneconomic conservatives, with being the person without whom there would never have been a Reagan presidency, and with being a formidable intellectual. I doubt that any of those things is quite true. He was colorful, rich, good-natured, a skillful polemicist and influential "public intellectual" (in my book Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [2001]) he ranked number 20 in "media mentions" for the period--long past his period of greatest influence--1995 to 2000), a bricoleur, defined by Wikipedia as "a person who creates things from scratch, is creative and resourceful: a person who collects information and things and then puts them together in a way that they were not originally designed to do." What he put together were conservative Catholicism; McCarthyism; belligerent, even militaristic anticommunism (roll back the Iron Curtain rather than contain the Soviet Union)--a position related, like his McCarthyism, to his religiosity, which made communism particularly odious to him--defense of the southern states' resistance to racial integration; hostility to big government' and (the basis of his hostility to the "nanny state") individualism, as expressed for example in his advocacy of legalizing marijuana and other mind-altering drugs (though I don't know when he began advocating legalization), and entrepreneurship. All but repealing the drug laws were ingredients of an American conservatism of the 1950s that was outside the mainstream of the Republican Party of the time, though it stopped short of the John Birch Society. Apart from his libertarian streak, Buckley's policy positions were not, for the most part, sound. Joseph McCarthy appeared on the scene after the communist penetration (which was considerable) of the government had been eliminated by the Truman Administration. The southern states' rights movement was disreputable. Containment was probably the most sensible response to Soviet expansionism. And religion is not, in my opinion anyway, a good basis for public policy. Moreover, Buckley was a journalist, working under deadlines that resulted in most of his opinions being merely asserted rather than also well-supported. His policy positions were not fully coherent: His enthusiasm for rolling back the Iron Curtain did not sort well with his dislike of big government, since wars and heavy defense expenditures increase the size of government, as President Eisenhower was well aware. The suggestion in the obituaries that he united free-market economists with other conservatives is especially misleading. Free-market economists have always been on a different track from the kind of political and social conservative that Buckley exemplified. He was a friend of free markets, but on moral grounds rather than because he thought the market a more efficient method of allocating resources than the government, though he thought that also. The conservative economic movement has had two major streams, which are convergent. One is the Austrian school, whose best-known exemplar was Friedrich Hayek. Hayek argued powerfully that socialism doesn't work, because it does not enable the aggregation of the information required to operate a modern economy; for that, the price system is necessary, because prices impound and transmit information far more effectively than a centralized economic controller can do. Hayek's insight was vindicated by the collapse of the communist system. But his influence has been mainly in Europe, where it has been, however, considerable, especially in the nations transitioning from communism. The other stream, largely independent of the Austrian, originated with maverick economists, such as Milton Friedman, Aaron Director, and George Stigler, who at the height of the 1930s depression, when free-market economics was in the dog house and the Soviet Union's collectivist economy was widely admired including among economists, had the temerity (like Hayek) to argue that collectivist regulation of the economy was inferior to leaving the regulation of economic activity to the market. The school expanded slowly after World War II; Ronald Coase, a brilliant English economist who moved to the United States, was an influential critic of regulation. While Director and Stigler mounted a strong challenge to conventional views of antitrust, Stigler and especially Friedman challenged a wide range of governmental policies. Other economists, and even a few economics-minded law professors, joined the free-market movement. But the movement received virtually no hearing during the 1960s, the era of the "Great Society" programs of Lyndon Johnson. However, the stagflation of the 1970s exposed the failure of conventional “liberal” (in the welfare-state sense) policies, promoted increased acceptance of free-market economics, and stimulated the deregulation and privatization movements, which began in the Clinton Administration and expanded in the Reagan and (first) Bush Administration, continuing into the Clinton Administration, notably with welfare reform. All this had nothing to do with William Buckley. Most of the causes dearest to his heart were unrelated to economic policy, such as his belief about the proper strategies for defending against the Soviet Union, expelling Soviet agents from the federal government, or defeating our current enemies. Buckley was a strong opponent of abortion, whereas economists, while they can tote up the costs of forbidding or permitting abortion, do not, as economists, have any position on whether a fetus should have the same legal status as a newborn child. Economists might think that particular religious beliefs, such as Calvinism, with its emphasis on frugality and saving, promote social welfare, but they have no position on the truth of religion. They value markets because markets are efficient, not because people have a moral entitlement (as John Stuart Mill believed) to engage in any and all conduct that does not create a palpable harm to other people ("my rights end where your nose begins"). Markets to an economist are just instruments, and for solving particular problems there are sometimes better instruments. What is true is that a political movement based solely on free-market economics could not have achieved political power under conditions of modern American democracy. Modern conservatism, to the extent that it is a coherent movement, combines free-market economics (to a degree) with political and social conservatism (tough on crime, strong on national defense, friendly to religion, critical of liberal social values, hostile to trial lawyers and judicial activism). It was not a movement created by Buckley, able journalist and polemicist though he was.

Comments

[rwe]

AW, it's just amazing how Posner misses the larger point. Bringing up McCarthy again? After all these years, and after Buckley confessed, many times, to having misjudged the man.

Above all, Buckley was trying to make three central points: 1) That in general free enterprise offers both liberty and prosperity, and is therefore a much better system than the alternatives; 2) That Soviet Communism ought to be vigorously opposed, not placated or appeased and 3) That the cutural and moral relativism that had taken hold of the left in the 1960's was corrosive, and that the liberal social policies that flowed from that relativism (like leniency toward criminals) were socially destructive. And he has been proven right on all three.

Buckley was not origninal in the way that Friedman, for example, was. But he offered a crucial intellectual synthesis of ideas that were already in the air that was pretty coherent and persuasive. I don't agree, then, that it's hyperbole to say that Buckley provided the intellectual synthesis that made people take conservatism seriously again as an intellectual movement.

Buckley and Friedman paved the way for Ronald Reagan to come to power. What had seemed to most people so extreme in 1964 gradually seemed more reasonable, as conservative(and libertarian)intellectuals exposed the intellectual weaknesses of modern liberalism, and its empirical failings became increasingly obvious.

In all thsi Buckley played a major role. I'm looking right now at a book on the rise of American conservatism by some folks at the Economists. Gary Becker is in it, and Buckley is ubiquitous. I don't see Judge Posner mantioned at all.

[Rob]

Just a quick note. William F. Buckley was extremely important to me. I can't speak for the grand scheme of things.

At one time, the only path to conservative thought for a youngster growing up in the mid-west went through William F. Buckley and started with his TV show, Firing Line. This led to National Review. From that point on, perhaps he was not so important. For me, there was no other possible portal of entrance to the rhetoric and philosophy of the right.

[neilehat]

Jack, I like that analogy to a leaking ship. The only difference is, all the ships I've been on, have built in and automatic bilge systems to pump out and dump the leakage overboard. Unlike the Economy. And the Trade Deficit is now what?

[Bernard Yomtov]

Excellent post. Buckley was a skilled polemicist, and an entertaining and no doubt intelligent individual, but he was no great thinker. He made lots of blunders - civil rights, McCarthy - and is generally overrated.

[Bill Weissman]

What a tasteless, inane post. The gratuitous history of economic enlightenment may serve in some sense to frame the bloggers place in their autobiographical account of history. Buckley's conservativism, by contrast, converted many to the belief that limited government best serves the interests of personal freedom and economic progress. And people actually understood the message in measurable numbers - which is a notable accomplishment when compared to the solipsimal musings of economists. As for the "media mentions", being unfamiliar with the context, I can only say that such a measure of relevance would of late put Mr. Spitzer in high regard. The metric, while valued perhaps by the neglected, should hold little positive value to intelligent readers.

[A.W.]

When all is said and done, Buckley will have been far a more influential person than Posner--though I'm sure this overinflated, pompous judge will never understand that.

[A.W.]

A few more things.

Posner says the outpouring of praise for Buckley was "surprising." How could that be surprising to anyone who knew anything of Buckley's influence, who knew anything about the esteem in which Buckley was held? This is just like when Posner said that the strong and widespread opposition to his position on immigration was "surprising." Posner gets surprised about things that are very obvious to so many of the rest of us. The man is simply out of touch. Hopefully a few more "surprises" will deflate that massive ego of his, by showing him that maybe he doesn't know as much as he thinks.

As for containment being a better policy than rollback--gee, now which approach was it that actually worked? Could someone remind me? You know, hindsight is supposed to be 20/20. How do you get hindsight wrong?

But of all the nauseating, jaw-droppingly ignorant things Posner says here, by far the worst is his statement that he doubts Buckley was a formidable intellectual. If you're not even going to concede that much (or, rather, that little), then there's no reason anyone should take you seriously.

[Bernard Yomtov]

But of all the nauseating, jaw-droppingly ignorant things Posner says here, by far the worst is his statement that he doubts Buckley was a formidable intellectual.

Buckley was not a great intellectual. He was a great advocate for his political cause, and a quick-witted and articulate speaker and writer. But he was more a promoter of ideas than a creator of them. Whatever his contributions, they did not include any notable intellectual advances.

[Grady Shilling]

According to the dictionary, an intellectual (or man of letters) is "a man who is devoted to literary or scholarly pursuits." Sounds like Buckley to me.

[Andrew]

As a twenty-seven year old, Buckley was before my time. But since I have been hearing about him now that he is dead, I looked at some of his matierial. Although I do not agree with alot of what he said and he seemed rather pompous at times, I have alot of respect for him because he was an outspoken individual who was not afraid to flex his cerebral muscles. In fact, watching Buckley is a breath of fresh air in our modern, dumbed down environment.

(For some comic relief, here is a link to a clip wherein he threatens to smack Gore Vidal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRjZR8j4-z4

[neilehat]

Yes, AW, you're quite right. One should never, ever, speak ill of the dead. In that spirit, I have composed the following poem:

Here lies the bones of old Will

Wise, Pious, Humble, and more still

Who of Life told us all how we should think and live it

Let that be said - and God forgive it

---freely adapted (read stolen) from Ambrose Bierce---

[Bernard Yomtov]

"a man who is devoted to literary or scholarly pursuits."

Buckley was devoted primarily to political activity - to the advancement of a set of political ideas. He was not a scholar. His literary activities consisted of writing some spy novels, which may be entertaining - I don't know - but he was hardly devoted to literary pursuits.

[Evan]

So Richard, you really don't think that the policy movements after the failure of the "War on Poverty" had anything to do with the ideological foundation Buckley almost single-handedly laid? That is preposterous. If conservatism wasn't a growing and well-articulated set of political and economic philosophies they would have never developed the political power to reverse failed liberal approaches. Buckley is more responsible for this coherence than anyone else.

[neilehat]

Evan, In the end, the issue is not dependent on whether the position is "coherent" or "incoherent". The only issue is its success or failure in its policy initiatives. What difference does it make when we are now stuck with a failed conservative approach as opposed to a failed liberal approach? Just remember, "truth" lies in its practical consequences and results.

[St. Darwin Assissi's cat]

Wow, STRONG reactions to this post. Thanks Judge Posner. I have never thought of you as being pompous or inflated, maybe a snob about higher education ... anyway for Buckley to rank 20 in your book "Public Intellectuals" pretty much sums it up ... Buckley was up there with Kissinger and others. I always liked to watch him raise and lower his eyebrows, cross and uncross his legs, take off his glasses and toss them around...

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™ ŸÖÿµÿ±
--
دردشة مصرية

[Anonymous]

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

[Anonymous]

Hello. Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them.
I am from Laos and also am speaking English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "For more information about mexico vacation, you can visit for example mexico holiday homes."

With best wishes :-), Prince.

[Anonymous]

Beautiful site!

[Anonymous]

Great site. Good info.

[Anonymous]

thanks for your

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

Incredible site!

[Anonymous]

Great work, webmaster, nice design!