On the advice of "Ubermensch" from Left Libertarian, I read over Murray Rothbard's 1989 Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy. Rothbard writes not as a "left" libertarian, but rather as tradionalist, seemingly more in line with Ayn Rand's Objectivism than ensuring the public's freedom from government intervention.
A quick glance at Rothbard before we begin is in order. Rothbard was dean of the Austrian school, which focuses on austerity and neoclassical methodology through the free market. He has been called "The Father of Modern Libertarianism" with a detailed manifesto outlining what liberty should be. Rothbard credits inspiring Ron Paul with a renewed focus on commodity money. Most notably to me is Rothbard's coining of the term anarcho-capitalism, wherein Rothbard believes that anarchy with the ability to possess private property or a fully market-based society. To summarize, we'll pull from Rothbard's own words to describe the goals of Libertarianism without any government intervention:
Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."
As can be seen, Rothbard is staunch in his ideals and largely consistent. He is anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-invasion of all freedom. I would traditionally call anarchy, except that there is always the trap of capitalist exploitation. Applying a Marxian logic here would dilute a pure review, but remember the basic method of profit gathering assuming exploitation is believed. Rothbard's allowance of businesses and individuals to own property and maintain total control over them enables the debate of communo-anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.
Now we have some ideas in place about Rothbard. Let's bring it all back home to Reagan.
In March 1989, Rothbard published his "Autopsy" in Liberty. Rothbard employs a gambit immediately: attack and destroy the image of Reagan in the eyes of libertarians. Whether or not he assumed the Reagan Revival in economic policy (though wavering), as well as in civil duty. The issue comes with a lack of citation: Rothbard does not employ any sources in his report, while faulting the anecdotal speak of Reagan. In fact, Rothbard calls on generalities often to support his point:
-Donald Regan and others have commented on Ronald Reagan’s strange passivity
-Reagan doesn’t actually have to do anything; like Peter Sellers in his last film, all he has to do is be there, the beloved icon, giving his vital sanction to the governmental process.
-[Reagan] is still able to act as if he were totally separate from the actions of the government
-So who cares if the actual story is wrong? Let it stand, like a Hollywood story, as a surrogate for the welfare cheats whom everyone knows do exist.
While valid observations, they do not pass the common knowledge test. He in fact calls on "others" and Peter Sellers references to prove points that could be acknowledged in press or academic articles. These issues all occur within the first two pages, and remain pervasive throughout. So, let's try to leave it as solely an opinion piece without getting into a froth over a lack of academic standards. I can't speak for Liberty, nor the citation rules of 1989, so I'd hate to argue it anyway.
Why the attack straight on the character of Reagan? The same jokes would later be made on the "Reaganing" episode of 30 Rock, mocking Reagan's wide mouth and ability to be tamed. For a man with such a devout following and incredibly well-written and defended articles, the piece reads more for public relations than for the active searching and classification of death present in an autopsy.
And public relations seems to be the key. If you are the "founder" of modern Libertarianism, finding a fault with the ruling rightist class will allow a gap to form. It pulls individuals in, while not ruining favor with the ruling class. The more moderate changes of HW Bush do not receive the same autopsy, however he is given a pass for simply avoiding Reagan's PR obsession and ability as an actor. Rothbard writes to stir the masses, creating something more akin to a manifesto.
So, to Rothbard, what did Reagan do wrong economically? He was a puppet, Rothbard claims, so let's use "Reagan" as a more general term for the policies enacted by his administration between 1980-1988. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 seems the most offensive, an orchestrated maneuver to empower those without money while taking from those who have succeeded. This dialect creates a near classist argument, one Rothbard himself points out in a later article which even mentions a relationship to Marxism.
The increase in government spending is the other cardinal sin, as Reagan's, "spending surpassed even Carter's irresponsible estimates...[increasing] government spending by an enormous amount - so enormous it would take a 40 percent cut to bring us back to Carter's wild spending totals...". The 1981 tax cut that did get put into place is eliminated by "bracket creep," something Rothbard seems to attribute to Reagan's policies.
Let's address these issues front on: it is totally against libertarian values to increase government spending, but it is a right wing tradition. Actually, it's pretty much every president's tradition.
Also included is the federal surplus or deficit, which did raise sharply after 1980. So yes, Reagan created a surplus while increasing spending by what, on an indexed curve, looks about right for the time. The "bracket creep" of inflation could as easily count for this increased spending, while the downturn following 1985 suggests that tax cuts did lower the actual owned monies of the government. So again, Rothbard is correct in his assumptions.
However, this is a Libertarian analysis. Rothbard being correct, in the complete reliance of his previously established ideas concerning the power of the free market, creates a class distinction that effectively rejoins him with Rand. The rich will get rich due to their own power, and while that power accumulates, it must come from a lower class. A class distinction is then destined to form within the Rothbard ideal, which, while vital to libertarianism, creates the possibility of control by corporation.
This is only my first post on Reagan and the Libertarians. I will update more on the ethics of corporate control as time goes, hopefully sooner than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment