[Editor’s Note: As a non-narrative book, “The Young Conservative’s Field Guide: Facts, Charts and Figures,” by Brenton Stransky and Andrew Foy, M.D., defies the usual short review and asks instead for a more comprehensive discussion. We are pleased to provide you with that discussion in the last of four parts.]
What we have in The Young Conservative’s Field Guide is not a book, but a power-point presentation chock-full of bullet points in a slack tissue of reasoning. At best, these bullet points are enough to provoke a re-examination of assumptions, always a good thing even if the end result is a reinforcement of those assumptions. At worse, they are blank ammunition. The reason for an extended multi-part discussion of The Young Conservative’s Field Guide was not so much to prove an opposing case, but to illustrate the extent to which the book inappropriately reduces complex issues for ideologically self-serving ends.
None of the facts or conclusions in the book is the final word, however much Mssrs. Stransky and Foy might hope otherwise for the sake of budding conservatives. For example, they attempt to put climate change to rest with the statement that, “Scientists and politicians clinging to global warming alarmism…claim that even though CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change it is an AMPLIFIER. However, they hope you never make it this far in the argument, because then they’ve lost.” A review of what climate scientists themselves have to say about amplification reveals how Mssrs. Stransky and Foy indulge in wishful thinking with just a hint of arrogance. The concept of amplification, related to the notion of feedback in a system, is important to all planetary sciences. Dismissing CO2 in global warming, whether as cause or amplifier, is as cavalier as dismissing the amplifying effect of gasoline in the presence of fire.
In an email sent to me shortly after publishing the second part of this discussion, Dr. Foy suggested two areas in which I had taken him and Mr. Stransky out of context.
“One, we do not imply Mr. Keynes to be an advocate for totalitarianism, only that he admitted his idea of govt stimulus is best applied to totalitarian regimes. Therefore, from the outset he admits a weakness in his idea of stimulus when applying it to a capitalist system.”
But it’s not possible to take someone out of context when the persons themselves do not provide any context for the facts they present. What I wrote in regards to Keynes was not that authors believe Keynes advocated totalitarianism, per se, but this: “Mssrs. Stransky and Foy are quick to condemn Friedman’s economic opposite, Keynes, by associating him with totalitarianism (via a quoted snippet, no less).” And this is precisely what they do, accompanied by numerous, contrasting associations of Friedman and free-market capitalism with liberty. On the page in question, page 127, the text consists of the following:
“When Keynes released the German Language version of ‘The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in Nazi Germany in 1936,’ he prefaced the book with ‘Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole…is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition…’”
Considering that “Nazi Germany in 1936” is emphasized in larger, bolder type and the above block of text is followed by a definition of totalitarianism taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica, the rhetorical strategy of damning Keynes (specifically, but not exclusively, his theory) by not-so-subtle implication is as impossible to ignore as the authors’ association of Obama with socialism and communism. Lacking is the context of the quote from the remainder of Keynes’ book, his theories, his entire body of work, as well as the political, historical, and cultural conditions under which Keynes worked.
Absentee context, which amounts to pure cherry-picking, is the book’s consistent weakness. The authors discuss the Founding Fathers, but neglect how the Constitution was written mostly by rich white men to the exclusion of women, blacks and Native Americans and the poor. They discuss healthcare. But as someone who has firsthand experience of both Canadian and American healthcare (and prefers the Canadian way), I found that they not only glossed over major policy issues, they neglected other practical considerations that don’t fit into their model. They discuss economics, but neglect almost all of the history of labour. They object to entitlements, but never consider bloated and wasteful military spending. And so on.
“Two, traditional westarn [sic] capitalism, the kind advocated by Smith, the founders, Hayek, Rand, Friedman, Sowell, etc… cannot work for dictatorships being that true capitalism bans the use of force from social relationships. In a dictatoriship [sic] (much as in our current hybrid system here in the U.S. and all over Europe) you have ‘command and control capitalism’ which Brent and I detest. This style of ‘command and control capitalism’ necessary breeds chronyism [sic] and corporate welfarism and hurts small business. Nowhere in the book do Brent or I advocate for this model, and we believe we made it clear that we disapprove of TARP as well as the economic stimulus. As an aside, I believe BP should be held severely responsible for current spill and trouble it creates for local residents. Brent and I firmly believe that as govt grows, corporations inevitably gain power and influence, this is true in both Democrat and Republican regimes. At present, I do not believe Repubs or Dems have a principled stance for or against corporate welfarism besides ‘whatever suits their immediate interest.’
Unfortunately, to say that “true capitalism bans the use of force from social relationship,” confuses the relationship between economics, which studies the manufacture and consumption of products and services, and politics, which involves human behaviour, including the use of force. Again, the example of Friedman and Chile comes to mind. Of course, it isn’t necessary to get fancy. Capitalism depends on private property, and private property is only possible with force – either directly, indirectly through law, or through the force that upholds the law. Therefore, capitalism by its very nature does, ultimately, rely on force. The character and quantity of force are the variables.
Truth To Corporate Power, But Not Enough
However much Mssrs. Stransky and Foy believe that corporate power increases with government power in both “Democrat and Republican regimes,” — this is true and could stand more elaboration in the book as something both conservatives and liberals can agree on — they are highly selective in criticisms based on this point. In all fairness, they do lay some small blame for the latest auto manufacture bailout at President Bush’s doorstep, but mostly they direct their criticism on economics and other issues towards President Obama. This leads, disappointingly, to a book that comes across as a partisan attack piece rather than a meaningful ideological manifesto. Certainly, it is curious that they fail, at the very least, to mention how deficit spending increased under Reagan (see this piece from the Cato Institute http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa013.html) and how a budget surplus was wiped out under George W. Bush. The authors would make a stronger case for themselves as ideological conservatives if they challenged Republicans with as much fervour as they take on Obama.
So the book’s partisanship and tired indulgence of the conservative vs. liberal smackdown points to a more suitable title for what is, basically, a hymn book for a choir that wants to be libertarian but is afraid of straying from party ranks. Call it The Young Republican’s Guide to Official Talking Points. Except for easily ambushed supermarket solicitors, it’s hard to see how informed liberals, let alone anti-partisan pragmatists fed up with ideological posturing, will be convinced by the book’s facts, figures, and charts. If anything, the familiar bumper stickers of “cut spending, cut taxes, deregulate, privatize, and exploit nature,” will only reinforce the view that conservatives have no innovative ideas to offer and can only resort to denying the existence of problems as an excuse to avoid solutions. If liberals won’t be persuaded, one has to wonder what benefit conservative whipper-snappers will enjoy from the book other than an uncritical validation of their own opinions.
The shame is that there are, amidst all the book’s tidbits, the hints of broader issues that we should talk about and challenge in a way that spans ideologies. There is even the faint – faint! — possibility of breaking out into a rousing rendition of kumbaya. To what extent does a valuable social safety net become a nursing blanket? How are government subsidies affecting our way of life, from how we eat to how we maintain control over our own economic output? How can we revolutionize the tax code so that it is philosophically sensible, fair in execution, and delivers a good return on investment? How do we balance our human needs and wants with sustaining the environment we live in? How should we sever the connection between government and corporations that leads to “too big to fail?” As a book intended to function not as a bridge but as a primer for debating liberals, however, The Young Conservative’s Field Guide misses out on an opportunity to help this country move beyond divisive politics.
There is a silver lining, though; the book provided me with motivation to revisit my old friends Woodcock, Tucker, Warren, Spooner, and Proudhon. At least that.
Frederik may be contacted at fsisa@thefrontpageonlie.com
