A U of Chicago Physics grad of '69, I couldn't agree more and find it amusing that you use the expression "very different" that Friedman almost never failed to use in his many talks and interviews.

Very well put.

Well said, Prof. Becker. You might also have mentioned that the University of Chicago already has a Fermi Institute and a Stigler Center, so the precedent for naming research institutes for highly distinguished faculty rather than big donors is well established there, to the university's credit.

I'm disappointed in Prof. Posner's implication that naming a research institute after Milton Friedman might have been a mistake, albeit one that would prove too costly to undo. Friedman's former colleagues and students have benefited immeasurably from the force of his intellect and from his perseverance in the face of intense criticism. It is altogether appropriate that they repay the favor now by emulating him rather than deploying lawyerly arguments that make expedient concessions to outright distortions of simple facts.

Nice article, it is important that the record be accurate. Prof. Becker not only understands Friedman's scholarship but was there with Friedman and can attest first-hand to his intellectual rigor and motivation.

I find it ironic that Friedman is often regarded in the popular press as some sort of 'corporatist' and manipulator [see Naomi Klein, for example], when the clear focus of his thinking was making life better for the 'ordinary' person [an adjective he used frequently] by minimizing state interference and maximizing personal liberty.

I have no doubt that many, if not most, of the opponents to the MFI have only a superficial understanding of Milton Friedman.

I agree with Professor Becker, and I hope that you and your colleagues persevere in this struggle to name the institute after Professor Friedman. In my opinion this institute should not be named after Friedman because of his ideology, but because of his immense contributions to the field of economics. The only thing that I would change is the purpose of the institute. I think that it would be beneficial to take out the part which states that it should be a free market oriented institute and replace it with a more neutral statement of purpose. Empirical work will continue to prove Friedman right, anyway.
On their website critics attack both Friedman's integrity and his scholarly work. The first line of attack seems rather distasteful, considering the fact that it is unrelated to their logic, which is essentially their fear of ideological dogmatism. Maybe they should take a lesson in effective debating from none other than Friedman himself, and focus on ideas rather than character. This way they only look like a bunch of unknown, envious academics, who fall far short of the man they criticize. The second line of the attack is, on the other hand, pretentious, considering the fact that they all know far less about economics than Friedman did.
In the end I just want to say that I find this opposition difficult to comprehend, especially considering that many of those who oppose it have taught me and seemed like a very reasonable, well educated and balanced people. I am sorry to say that their attack on Friedman's integrity, makes me sick and changes the way I look at many of them.

Again I hope that you persevere.

Godspeed!

I totally agree. I think Milton Friedman deserves that institue has his name.

Thanks for your post stating the arguments.

Francisco Hernández Marcos
Former University of Chicago student

I agree. After all, Princeton has every right to build a "Krugman Center"

I would hope that these 150 self-rightous prfessors would turn down a Nobel Peace Prize because Alfred Nobel was famous for inventing a weapon of war. I am sure that they would-----NOT.

Oh, by the way. Maybe you should name it after someone from The U of C who is apolitical. Someone like, say, Austin Goolsby. Then again, maybe not.

The opposition to Friedman, criticizing his "dogmatic" economic ideology or his tenuous association with Gen. Pinochet, is itself coming from a dogmatic ideological perspective. Whether you agree or disagree with Friedman, there is no question that he is one of the giants in his field. That alone makes him worthy of this honor.

Two comments:

1. As was pointed out in the first paragraph, the alternative often is to essentially sell the "naming rights" to a rich donor. That seems more a promotion of capitalistic values than honoring someone's life work. It really bugs me that the engineering school I graduated from has been renamed after a rich guy who, it turns out, is a dreadfully boring graduation speaker.

2. I admit I haven't read the case in detail, but the attempt to tie him to Pinochet seems about as tenuous as the the attempt to tie Barack Obama to Bill Ayers, just at a different end of the ideological spectrum.

Finally, a professor talking sense about MFI here on campus.

well said! Friedman deserves it. Still, it was very surprising to me that Friedman has such opposition within University of Chicago. By the lukewarm endorsement of prof Posner, it seems that perhaps not all economists are thrilled with MFI either. It's very strange that people from schools all over the country envy UofC for having such an iconic and powerful thinker that represents intellectualism very well and yet some people within UofC are ashame of using his name.

Milton Friedman was one of the world's greatest thinkers and he will be remembered for that for centuries to come.

He will have more than one institute named after him.

I am a retired teacher of economics. When I was a student, Keynesian ideas held sway. Milton Friedman's challenge of those ideas were not well received by me at that time. As I grew older, I mellowed with time and began to appreciate his views better.
I have many differences with his ideas and significant reservations about his policy prescriptions even now. But I am unable to digest the idea that in USA there is opposition to the naming of an institute after him in the University where he taught for several decades.
Friedman is still respectfully remembered in India as among the finest thinkers of the last century. The University of Chicago should not go back on its decision to start the Miltnf Friedman Institute.

Professor Friedman was perhaps the most prominent economist of the 20th century. Naming of a single research institute will have little effect on that. I also consider the fact that he taught at Chicago well-known to anyone having at least some knowledge of the recent history of economics. Furthermore, the label "Chicago School" both in economics and anti-trust law is fairly telling in terms of geographical location. The name chosen for the institute seems a natural extension of the fame (or notoriety, if you will) of prof. Friedman as a staunch advocate of free markets. It is therefore hard to understand what the whole fuss is about.

I'm afraid that the underlying problem does not concern the merits or the character of prof. Friedman himself, but of those people whom received his ideas enthusiastically. The political right of the early 1980's in the US and the UK serves as the prime example. The writings by Hayek and Friedman which were aimed to a wider audience are now heavily associated with politicians such as Thatcher and Reagan, and for many this alone would be a good enough reason to question the achievements of those two economists. The political colouring attached to them is permanent, and popular books such as the recent one by Naomi Klein merely render this connection all the more stronger.

If the political influence of prof. Friedman's writings and his active promoting of certain political views is the problem here, this leads to the wider issue of how, if at all, economists should take part in political discourse. I believe that such active advocacy as prof. Friedman practiced is essential to sustain and develop the relevance of economic analysis in political decision making. However, one weakness of this approach is that the views of a distinguished professor and Nobelist might be by the general public perceived to represent the current state of the art as a codified and well-established whole, which is usually misleading. This danger is far less pressing when Einstein, for example, discussed in public his religious views, even though those views were in an anecdotal level linked to his opinions on quantum mechanics. In this context it is refreshing to see established economists publicly disagreeing on a variety of policy issues. This is preferable as long as giving two or more different sides to the same story doesn't mean allowing lousy arguments to be represented just for the sake of dialecticism.

As prof. Becker points out, Friedman's political stances and his work in economics were, if not indistinguishable from each other, at least very much intertwined in the sense that they were based on same analyses and approached equally vigorously. The whole MFI controversy proves yet again that curiosity and intellectual consistence can often lead a person to be deemed "controversial" (as the recent NY Times article on the MFI debate did). David Hume, one of the greatest inquiring minds in the history of Western thought pointed out that although he had "written on all sorts of subjects calculated to excite hostility, moral, political, and religious" he had "no enemies -- except, indeed, all the Whigs, all the Tories, and all the Christians". In comparison, the legacy of prof. Friedman seems surprisingly uncontroversial when assessed in light of his contributing to debate on many fiercely battled issues.

Good riddance to the evil dwarf.

Why name anything after him. He lived his life in a island of fantasy as do his followers.

He missed his chance in life when he didn't get a part in a once popular TV show.

How I would have loved to see him "Boss!... The plane! The plane!"

"Alleged" involvement? Becker, one is either involved or not involved with dictators. It is the case that Friedman was involved as Friedman himself points out in his own writings and that you later write in the post. So it is not "alleged". It is fact. Honestly, had Milton stuck strictly to economics, of which he was brilliant, and not worked alongside Pinochet, who was a tyrant, those who opposed the naming of the institution would have little to no grounds on which to stand. But that is not what transpired. He sullied his legacy. If one is not familiar with Pinochet, imagine if one substituted Saddam Hussein instead. There would no doubt be an uproar. Milton cannot preach individual freedom and government minimization on one hand and condone the murderous actions of a totalitarian regime. It makes a mockery of the concept of individual freedom and liberty.

Rather than correct "Publius" on his errors of fact, I'd like to address his deficient reasoning from those alleged facts. Suppose that an economist believes that the current policies in a country are odious in and of themselves and also deter economic progress. He also believes, on the basis of both theory and evidence, that a particular set of reforms will not only improve the country's economic situation but is also likely in the long run to undermine the ability of the current regime to continue its policy of repression. I pose the following questions to "Publius" and his ilk:

1) What is the logical basis for refusing to propose those reforms either in a public forum or directly to the government itself?

2) If that country did indeed implement those reforms and, 30 years later, was recognized to be the most prosperous and freest country in its hemisphere, on what basis could anyone denounce the economist who recommended those reforms?

As a matter of both logic and evidence, Milton Friedman's publicly-given policy advice during his one-week trip to Chile in 1975 should be considered only one of his innumerable contributions to the cause of human liberty and welfare. That it is instead used as a cudgel to hammer at the reputation of this great scholar and his legacy is yet another of the many indicators of the intellectual, moral, and ethical bankruptcy of the contemporary left.

Bill, In certain circles they were know as the "Chili Boys". As for Chile and Pinochet (hey! that rhymes!) in order to preserve order and liberty there are times that one must deal with the Devil. Given the scale and conditions, where else could the experiment have been run? Good science requires that any theory requires empircal testing. And sometimes the "Shadow" knows and takes covert action.

Let's say Kim Jong Il called up Prof. Becker one day and said, "Professor Becker, I have read some of your books, and I learned a lot about free markets and economics from them. While my country has always been Communist, I see the continual poverty of my people and wonder if some free-market reforms might help. I invite you to come to North Korea to discuss some of your ideas with me and members of my government. If you have some specific policy prescriptions, we would be glad to hear them. Of course, I do not plan on giving up dictatorial control over my country, and I would be very displeased to hear of any recommendation that I cede authority or institute some kind of republican form of government here. Thus, my only condition is that you focus your ideas on economics and markets. Are you willing to help?"

Here are Professor Becker's possible responses:

A. "No. I do not work with dictators and other totalitarian thugs."

B. "I would, but only under the condition that you allow me to criticize you, your form of government and the general travesty of Communist rulership. Since you have already said that is a deal-breaker, then I guess my answer has to be no."

C. "Yes. I do not like that I can only speak to certain things, but I would rather do what I can rather than do nothing."

Which is the most desirable response?

Quite frankly, I think C has to be the best answer here. Spreading some pro-freedom reform in an oppressive country is better than doing nothing. While it may be better for one's free-market bona fides to never associate with totalitarians, the potential to improve the lives and freedoms of those in an oppressed nation certainly must weigh heavier than the opinions of your critics. It's not every day that a totalitarian is willing to reach out to pro-free market ideas, so when the opportunity is presented I would think that folks like Prof. Becker would take up the offer, despite the unsavoriness of the dictator on the other end, in order to do some good.

How about if Kim Jong Il said "My friends and I are not making enough money shooting and brutalizing the population, dear Dr Friedman would you come over and show us how we can exploit them more efficiently and effectively?" Surely this is more along the lines of Pinochet request for help? But didn't Milton start training the "Chili Boys" with the CIA and US Military well before the glorious (counter-)revolution which overthrew with extreme violence a democratically elected government? And what evidence that Milton even said to them, you can start by not dropping your opponents out of helicopters? Lets face it. The evil dwarf was warped morally and intellectually. If you have a Milton Friedman Institute why not one to celebrate Stalin or Hitler while you are at it. Let the dwarf rest in peace and why not have a truly interdisciplinary institute now that people are beginning to reject the "Chicago School" economics and are looking for something more reality based. Work more along the lines of Heckman, rather than the flights of fancy of the other faux Nobel laureates who were probably only awarded the prize because they are members of the sinister Mont Pelerin Society. And why if these people are so interested in freedom including freedom of thought and ideas do they work so hard at suppressing all intellectual opposition to themselves. Humorously, the way they behave is more like Communists than the liberals they claim to be. The so-called Chicago School should more appropriately be called the Chicago Collective. Just like a Communist Collective see the vehemence with which they turn on someone, like Heckman, who dares to vary from the party line. No compromise, no prisoners, and no thought unauthorized by the collective is tolerated.

Rumple: Stop trolling. Thanks.

That was the first time I'd seen anything by Friedman explaining what was and what was not his involvement with Pinochet. To Publius: I don't understand your point. Pinochet was harming his people through his hyperinflationary policies, was he not? So why can't Friedman get credit for trying to minimize that harm by giving him sound counsel? Are you making the argument that b/c Friedman helped him kill hyperinflation in Chile, that it enabled Pinochet to be even crueler to the Chileans than he would've been had the hyperinflation not been allowed to continue? If that's your argument, I would appreciate hearing more of it, because that is the only way I can imagine your criticism of his involvement with Pinochet as holding any water - that his help actually harmed the Chileans more than had they done nothing at all. That's not impossible to imagine, but I just was hoping you could explain why you think that way if so.

Rumpled, Ever hear of the "Monroe Doctrine"? "Democratically elected"?

Remember, the "Shadow" knows and has the power to cloud men's minds.

F. A. Hayek, could not initially get a publisher for Road to Serfdom due to left wing "intellectual" opposition in the US and was, both before and after its eventual publication, subject to one ad hominem attack after another from the left for it (whether they read the book or not). He lamented there (among much else of more substance) the usurpation of the term "liberal" by the political left, who are, of course, anything but liberal in any sense of the word, but most strikingly in their response to any disagreement with their views, which invariably results in charges that the source of such opposition is incredibly stupid and/or evil.

It is these same anti-liberals who now, based on similar ad hominem accusations, seek to villify and discredit Professor Friedman.

This is not about the Friedman Institute. It's sure not about Pinochet. It's about the left's anti-liberalism (sadley, Judge Posner again proves with his post that he's one of their apolgists) and the domination of all of American acedemia by it that was first described (I believe) by Jacques Barzun, accelerated during the Viet Nam riddled 60's, and has now received a new shot-in-the-arm with Iraq and the credit crisis.

Milton Friedman was one of 20th Century America's great figures. His economics (and politics, for that matter) are not discredited by the current crisis. In fact, there's a fair argument to be made that if we had been nearer Friedman's views, we'd not now be in the current mess. His involvement with the Chilean government of General Pinochet was typical of Friedman writings and according to Prof. Becker, the man personally. They were direct, honest, and consistent with his strong views on economic freedoms being conditions precedent to political ones.

Hopefully, those who know the truth of Friedman (like Prof. Becker) will prevail here and allow UC to prove worthy of using his name.

I think the anti-Friedman argument is, fairly, boiled down into two main points:

1. By assisting Gen. Pinochet's regime in Chile, Friedman "condone[d] the murderous actions of a totalitarian regime," as Publius puts it.

2. By assisting Gen. Pinochet's regime, Friedman extended the life of a dictatorship that would have crumbled on its own had it not received any assistance whatsoever, and thus Friedman's assistance perpetuated human rights abuses.

I think the first point is of little merit. By that logic, every single government worker/soldier implicitly should be held to "condone" every monstrous act perpetrated by the government. That is clearly not the case.

The second point is more interesting. Alluding to my earlier example, if Prof. Becker provides Kim Jong Il with free-market reforms that improve the economy of North Korea, it is possible that the dictatorship will last longer than it would have had its previous ruinous economic policies persisted. On the other hand, it is also true that the incorporation of some pro-freedom reforms will also grease the wheels for other reforms, possibly hastening the demise of the totalitarian regime. Introducing pro-freedom reforms to a totalitarian state also helps prepare the populace for a non-totalitarian future by changing the basic culture and expectations of the people. I think North Korea and, especially, Cuba have clearly demonstrated that "starving the totalitarian beast" is not the surest or swiftest way to promote regime change. So I do not think this criticism is strong, either.

The (extreme) left and right are remarkably similar in their behavior when it comes to other opinions. In fact, whether a particular person at either extreme is left or right seems to be largely a matter of chance. I imagine that an extreme right wing person if reborn would be just as likely to become extreme left as extreme right, what could be certain is that they would not find themselves in the middle. Friedman was an ideologue. He disregarded or misrepresented facts that did not accord with his views. Hayek was the same. Their freedom of property rights but not humans philosophy is a might is right philosophy and was not at all out of step with Pinochet, or except for a few details, with Kim Jong Il or the Chinese leadership or G W Bush. True, the extreme left were not receptive to Hayek but neither is the extreme right to anyone who steps marginally out of line. Look at the vehemence with which Heckman was turned on when he merely contemplated being reasonable about the naming of the institute.

Further, there is a world of difference between trying to starve "the totalitarian beast" which in the case of the US government and Cuba involves an attempt to stop any individual feeding it and feeding it, oneself. Friedman and the CIA not only were happy to feed the beast, they gave birth to, trained and suckled the beast from birth.

I probably have no right to make a comment here, since I am neither an economist nor an alumnus of the University of Chicago. I am just an educated (Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania) semi-retired lawyer interested in the subject. My comment: Professor Becker's comments demonstrate that upon occasion Nobel prize winners not only have immense knowledge and learning, but that they also (albeit less frequently) have wisdom. Keep writing Professor Becker!

It is not really surprising that college professors, who are not merely experts in their respective fields, but intellectuals, are repulsed by Milton Friedman. Even though George W. Bush differs in key respects from the right libertarianism of Friedman, they share certain basic philosophical starting points that places them both on the political right. So, it is also no surprise that I see on the local news here in Dallas a stream of stories about Southern Methodist University professors making a similar case to SMU Trustees and the United Methodist Church in an attempt to block construction of the George W. Bush Presidential Library on the SMU campus. There is a long history throughout the Twentieth Century of intellectuals being drawn to the political left with its commitment to statism and forcibly achieved equality of condition. Anyone who stands in the way of this leftist agenda will be accused of any and every crime against humanity conceivable.

For the left, opposition to their egalitarian agenda is on par with Satanic opposition to the Christian Church in spreading the Gospel. For the secular (or religious) left, Heaven can be achieved here and now if we would only redistribute enough wealth and income as well as effectively enforce civil rights laws and racial quotas. Then the Millennium would be ushered in and we would all live together in peace and harmony in an egalitarian utopia. Only demonic forces would oppose such a vision.

Why are intellectuals primarily drawn to such unrealistic proposals? Friedrich Hayek touched on this key aspect of why intellectuals oppose the principles of classical liberalism in his “Intellectuals and Socialism” by observing that intellectuals hate realism and making trade-offs to move closer to practical improvements in the human condition. They hate piece-meal, practical reforms. They do not want to see the harshness of life or the limitations of this world. Instead, due to their abstract and conceptual mindset, they prefer to dwell on grandiose visions that are frictionless in their implementation. Imaginative, heterodox innovations fascinate them. No matter how far-fetched the vision, in fact the more far-fetched the better, nothing seems impossible or impracticable within the confines of their speculations. What Hayek noticed about intellectuals was exactly what Edmund Burke 160 earlier had warned against even among classical liberals in France who wanted to directly and forcibly implement the same political philosophy that Burke himself accepted. This immediate, decontextualized forcible implementation of an abstraction is part of the problem with the left or any political philosophy even that of Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Burke, as the French showed. One cannot simply set down ideals in an established culture and redesign the underlying structure of the political, social, and economic regime without brutality on a massive scale.

That is why it is disingenuous for critics of Friedman to bring up the association of his economic policies with the political regime of General Pinochet in Chile. Of course, when one overthrows an authoritarian leftist regime, one must use violence to gain and maintain control. But leftists would be the first to agree that to overthrow an existing regime and maintain power and achieve the social goals that they aspire to, there must be bloodshed. These same leftists do not seem as outraged by the brutality of leftist regimes. They do not decry using violence to achieve greater equality of result. In fact, they realize that they must use the State to violently displace those they see as unjustly in power. What they do not like in Chile is that a leftist was taken out.

Another aspect of the left that makes them hostile to the right is their moral nihilism. We have already seen that tendency with their willingness to kill millions to stamp out the upper and middle classes. They seem fascinated with primitive people whom they (falsely) perceive as sexual libertines with little interest in planning for their futures or hard work. Many intellectuals see middle class “bourgeois” values of hard work, self-control (especially sexual self-control), personal responsibility, and a certain rectitude as stifling and inauthentic. They see true freedom achieved only by first introducing complete social and economic equality followed by liberation from bourgeois morality. Of course, as Daniel Bell observed about capitalism, the creation of wealth is based on self-control especially to defer gratification and save and plan for the future. Individual self-control is exactly what the left led by the Frankfurt School see as gross violations of freedom. This nihilistic streak also explains their seemingly cultural suicidal hostility to Western Culture. Not only does the focus on preserving European culture in Europe and the United States strike them as racist on egalitarian grounds, the Western focus on rational self-control, science and technology, and, paradoxically intellectual achievement, is at odds with the adoration they place on the simplicity, cooperation, equality, and pristine quality of those indigenous cultures overwhelmed by modernity.

This adoration of the exotic plays back into the left’s humanitarianism. I see humanitarianism as rooted in the impulse to feel sorry for the plight of certain people, and find pleasure and a sense of significance in taking care of them. Some humanitarians use private, voluntary means to help others while other humanitarians prefer to use the State to force the general public to fund their efforts.

Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.

Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.

Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.

Utilitarians (watch out Judge Posner), followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. This focus is quite different from Christians who emphasize the depravity of humans and the need for personal redemption.

The humanitarianism helps explain the meliorism, the egalitarianism, the adoration of primitive people, the concern for the marginalized, and their hatred of free markets, especially free trade. They see free trade as destructive of the pristine native populations who live in harmony with the earth and with each other. We should become more like the people we have dispossessed through empire (trade or military—hence the tie between Bush and Friedman in the left’s eyes) and exploited rather than converting the “savages” and “civilizing” them as happened in the Nineteenth Century and is happening once again with global capitalism.

Of course, Milton Friedman was an honorable man who courageously fought for liberty and the preservation of the founding principles of our country. The people who oppose honoring his memory hate the United States of America and the classical liberalism, capitalism, and the traditions from which it was built. What these opponents of Friedman stand for is the destruction of our country and its way of life. They are correct to hate Friedman and to oppose all that he stood for. Anything less than total opposition from these enemies of liberty would be an insult to Milton Friedman and all who have stood with him. We should be honored by their opposition as we stand with Milton Friedman.

Rumpled, Using "Historical Revisionism" as a last refuge to cover the tracks of a failed KGB covert op.?

And what about the Christian Democrats in the Legislature, who controlled it, and who turned on Allende and later found themselves on the "Secret List" and began to disappear or were outright assasinated? Hmmm!?

Remember, the "Shadow knows and has the power to cloud men's minds".

دردشة صوتية

,,,,,,,

دليل دردشات

العاب بنت ابوي

,,,,,

شات صوتي

دليل مواقع الانترنت

,,,,,

منتديات بنت

صور بنت

دردشة صوتية

شات صوتي

3 mobile australia repossessed mobile homes for sale

Great, I read all the comments, none of them was against Milton Friedman,is that a coincidence? Have you sellected only the pros and erased the cons? You might not post my comment on this blog, but there is only one thing I have to say.
Hitler is held responsible for the death of millions of Jews, maybe Hitler himself never killed a man, but his ideas led to the death of so many people. Just like Milton Friedman's ideas led to the death of millions of people. I think he is just as guilty and greedy. A Faculty should be named after a man that helped millions not a man responsible for the death of millions. From Chile, to China to Poland, Russia and today Iraq! Devil covered with rose garments!
Milton Friedman needs to be forgotten for ever!!

Last blog news about health and diet. http://teplovozik.biz

i think your observations on the current economic problems were much more interesting, the observations and opinions were well founded, even if i did'nt agree with all of them, they were based on unbiased fact as opposed to a political opinion.

قطر كام
شات صوتي

Need more info about Multi stress syllable word? You are welcome! on http://metacures.biz

thanxxx

plastic bucket manufacturer

شات

شات صوتي

He sounds like a conservative from the Barry Goldwater era. And they (depending on how important social policy is to them) often vote democrat now.