In 1944, Austrian economist
Friedrich Hayek published his landmark book, The Road to Serfdom.
Written during the height of World War II, it was meant as a warning to the
United States and Great Britain that the flawed economic policies being pursued
by each nation would eventually lead to an outcome that had befallen the German
people living under the tyranny of Adolf Hitler.
Hayek, in a chapter on why the
worst types of people often end up on top of political movements argued that:
“…. in general the higher
the education and intelligence of individuals becomes, the more their views and
tastes are differentiated and the less likely they are to agree on a particular
hierarchy of values. It is a corollary of this that if we wish to find a high
degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the
regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and
"common" instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the
majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest
group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low
standards.
If, however, a potential
dictator had to rely entirely on those whose uncomplicated and primitive
instincts happen to be very similar, their number would scarcely give
sufficient weight to their endeavors. He will have to increase their numbers by
converting more to the same simple creed.
Here comes in the second
negative principle of selection: he will be able to obtain the support of all
the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are
prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into
their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and
imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are
readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.”
Could there be a more prophetic
statement to encapsulate the Republican party in 2016?
The Republicans, once a party
that stood for Constitutional rights, free trade, pro-business immigration
policies and economic freedom has devolved, under the “leadership” of Donald
Trump. It has gone through a bizarre metamorphosis that is driven by
economic ignorance, bigotry and the art of blaming others for the ills that
have come upon our nation.
Hayek would argue that Trump
has successfully descended into the lower regions of conservative “thought” by
insisting that Mexican immigrants, Muslim refugees and trade deals with China
are at the root of our country’s problems. Of course no Trump supporter
seems interested in the economic facts concerning the benefits immigration; the
low probability of refugee-generated terrorist attacks and the historical
merits of international trade. They simply see in Trump a savior who
vulgarly and bombastically speaks for them. Even when detractors point
out the fact that Trump has been a champion for the use of eminent domain to
take away the property rights of other citizens or that he routinely shows
virtually no understanding of the checks and balances of the Constitution, his
fans simply ignore the evidence and cheer him for “telling it like it
is.”
It is ironic that only three
decades ago our nation was led by a Republican who supported amnesty for
illegal immigrants; free markets and liberalized trade agreements and managed
to assist Soviet dissidents who wanted to flee to America all while showing the
world that America could exhibit genuine leadership in the global fight against
Communism without bluster, threats or other irresponsible acts.
If Ronald Reagan were running
against Trump today his reasoned and intellectual approach to foreign and
economic policy would probably get him booed off the debate stage by angry
Americans who are more interested in discussions about hand size and the
“beauty” of torture.
I hope Hillary Clinton is
watching closely because this fall she is going to have to be the composed
adult in the room that keeps our nation from electing a person who is much more
like the leader Hayek was warning us about.
I can't, in good conscience, vote for Trump. I don't want an untrustworthy, hateful, foul-mouthed bully to be POTUS. Part of me has trouble believing that people are actually voting for him--that people are really this deluded into thinking that he's an even remotely acceptable choice for the President of the United States. The results of the Florida primary say it all, though, and it deeply saddens me.
ReplyDeleteBut I can't vote for Hillary Clinton, either. Among many other things, she supports and even celebrates the mass murder of babies in the womb. If abortion truly is murder, then the abolishment of abortion should be a paramount issue. (And it's not as if Trump's stance on abortion is rock-solid, either--it's yet another reason to not support him.)
So what do I do if Trump and Clinton win their respective nominations? Not vote come November? That's looking to be a more appealing choice than voting for either of them.
Gary Johnson 2016
ReplyDeleteHi Professor Chambless....long time. Anyway, in response to this blog, I would offer the following. You know how much I respect you and your viewpoint and in many ways, I agree with much of what you say, but I have to disagree with some of the comments you make regarding Mr. Trump and the people who "support" him. You know, some of us are just sick of the status quo, the establishment way of thinking, if you will. Some of us, like after George W. Bush was President, are just ready for change and are wiling to elect almost anyone to affect that change, much like when President Obama was elected in his first term. President Obama had very little experience and yet, we voted for him. He came from a state notorious for a "thug" mentality and ties to crime and yet we took our chance with him. To me, big mistake. But now, who do we elect? Mr. Trump, who pretty much is "what you see is what you get", or the alternatives, Ted Cruz who is about as establishment and status quo as you can get, Hillary Clinton who I suspect has done a lot of lying and misleading already and who we cannot trust at all, or Bernie Sanders, who is basically a Socialist? I mean, there really are no good choices here. But the one thing you can't deny is that Mr. Trump is a really good businessman. And we need help with our economy. It surprises me, that as an economist, you don't see the merit that his business experience would be an asset to our economic problems. Many of us, that are halfway intelligent, aren't just blindly getting on the Trump bandwagon because we are sheep. We are supporting him because the alternatives are even more a bitter pill to swallow. And once again, we need change. Change that will stop terrorism, change that will help ILLEGAL (not legal) immigration, change that will cut back on socialist programs that keep the lazy and empathetic from depending on the rest of us to support themselves, and change that will help our stagnant economy get back on it's feet and become the strong and respected country we used to be. I am not sure any of the Presidential Candidates that we have to choose from are capable of all that or not, but I think I'll choose the one that's least likely to pick up the reins of our current administration and maintain the status quo.
ReplyDeleteOops.....meant "apathetic", not "empathetic". :)
ReplyDeleteOh, and one more thing....as a Jewish person, it pains me to see you compare Mr. Trump to Adolf Hitler. There are many people that have spoken out on behalf of Mr. Trump that have told stories of ways in which he helped them. He has children who are successful and by all appearances, kind. To me, there's no comparison between Mr. Trump and Adolf Hitler, murderer of 6 million Jews.
ReplyDelete