Posted on 08/10/2005 7:41:13 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist
One of the Left’s sleaziest rhetorical tricks is to discredit conservative ideals by claiming they are based on religious beliefs, while liberal ideals are based on science. The Right, they sneer, is “faith based.” The Left, they brag, is “reality based.” So we have Paul Krugman, America’s most dangerous liberal pundit, claiming that the world of conservative thought is “increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research.” Krugman even thinks the conservative preference for lower tax rates and higher economic growth is nothing more than a matter of right-wing religious zealotry. In his Friday New York Times column, Krugman called supply-side economics a “doctrine” that believes in “miraculous positive effects” which has “never been backed by evidence.”
Of course Krugman believes that his own leftist “doctrines” are entirely scientific. He excoriates Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum for statements they have made about the religious foundations of their views. But he never objects to the same kind of foundations when they support the views of Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesse Jackson, or even Al Sharpton.
In fact, Krugman doesn’t seem to know that the modern liberal conception of the welfare state began as a great religious awakening, led by the Christian Socialist and Social Gospel movements of the late 19th century. Their central doctrine was that the power of the state should be harnessed to redistribute wealth in order to combat sin among America’s crowded new urban populations. This doctrine gradually prevailed throughout the 20th century, through the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society, with the introduction of the federal income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and the regulatory state.
Today’s seemingly secular science of economics — an establishment in which Paul Krugman is regarded as a leading authority — was deliberately created in the late 19th century to manufacture an intellectual imprimatur for the Christian Socialist and Social Gospel movements. It came about in just the way Krugman, in his Friday column, claims today’s conservative think tanks were created by the Right to manufacture evidence against liberal shibboleths such as global warming.
The American Economic Association — the leading professional organization of economics — was founded in 1885 to be, in the words of its leading founder Richard T. Ely, “an influential movement which will help in the diffusion of a sound, Christian political economy.” Its first mission statement called for combating “social problems whose solution is impossible without the united efforts of Church, State, and Science.”
Science? Au contraire. Of the AEA’s 50 founding members, more than 20 were former or practicing clergymen. And while Krugman warns today that the religious Right has begun a “process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom,” the AEA was founded explicitly to banish Darwinistic science from economics, for fear that it was buttressing the then-dominant paradigm of laissez-faire capitalism. No matter that Darwinism was good science. As historian Benjamin G. Rader put it in a biography of Ely, “Christian moral responsibility should be emphasized rather than the search for mechanistic laws.”
The banishment of Darwin — and science — from economics continues today in the work of statists like Krugman, and the AEA continues to put its imprimatur on their work. Every two years the AEA awards the John Bates Clark medal to the most distinguished American economist under the age of 40. Paul Krugman won it in 1991. Clark, an AEA founder, was a Christian Socialist. Though famous as the great pioneer of the theory of “perfect competition,” Clark actually believed that “Individual competition ... ought to disappear ... The alternative regulator is moral force.”
It must be moral force — it certainly isn’t science — that permits Krugman to claim that supply-side economics has “never been backed by evidence.” How does he reconcile the fact that federal tax revenues plummeted after peaking in 2000 (while tax rates remained high) and then recovered after the 2003 tax cuts were put in place? What does he call Krugman Truth Squad member Kevin Hassett’s observation that the tax revenues currently anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office for 2006 are about the same as those it anticipated for 2006 back in 1999 — even though tax rates have been slashed since then?
Here’s what I call it: scientific, empirical, real-world proof. Supply-side economics works. Lower tax rates, higher economic growth, and higher tax revenues go hand in hand in hand.
But despite the evidence, what economic “doctrine” would Paul Krugman prefer? He wants to see tax hikes — big tax hikes. He recently said, “We should be getting 28% of GDP [gross domestic product] in revenue. We are only collecting 17%.” It doesn’t take much of a scientist to realize that he’s talking about increasing federal taxes of all types by about 65 percent on average. But if Krugman were more of a scientist — if he’d look at the evidence — he’d realize that it can’t be done.
Historically, federal taxes have never even taken as much as 21 percent of GDP — even though federal income tax rates have at one time topped 90 percent (from 1944 to 1953). So what tax rate would Krugman propose in order to collect 28 percent of GDP in revenues when even 90 percent rates won’t get revenues up to even 21 percent of GDP? Krugman Truth Squad member William Anderson reported on the VonMises Blog that Krugman himself once said that 70 percent income-tax rates are “insane.” So if rates even worse than insane won’t do it, what will?
Sheer faith, apparently.
And for those of you still wondering how I became a right-wing atheist...this article explains it very well.
BTTT
Furthermore, Luskin's job certainly is "a filthy job, but somebody has to do it." As part of the effort to keep the pressure on the New York Times (and for that matter, on Princeton University) to force them to become at least slightly more honest, Luskin's work is a fine, public service.
Congressman Billybob
Good post. Thanks.
I will add my request here for any ID advocate who wishes to have ID taught as an alternative hypothesis under the umbrella of science.
Please list the elements of ID that are compatible with mainstream biology. I am looking for a positive statement that will serve as a bridge.
To actually have to read Krugman's articles repeatedly, trying to fact-check them and identify their sources....it's just too painful to imagine. No wonder the Times doesn't have anyone doing it.
So where does the Conservative Christian Economic Theory fit in? There's no detail of this in the article. Surely you do see the difference between Right & Left wing Christians?
Very interesting article, thanks for posting it.
Liberalism is a faith based phenomena...
... It takes a hell of a lot of faith to believe Krugman has any credibility.
Read his books on Economics... He's fine right up until he starts drawing his conclusions, which is where he loses his credibility.
Hey, one can call Liberal economics, "Faith Based Economics". That is, "Trust us... If we take most of what you make, and give it away to people who don't work, the unemployed will buy more products, ensuring that you can keep your job. The more we give them, the more they spend."
Well if you know better, than sorry for you.
Does it explain how you became an atheist? Or how you became a right-winger? And what were you before?
Check it out, last paragraph. Someone from National Review is citing the von Mises blog. Doesn't NR consider that a site for unpatriotic conservatives? If they are indeed no longer considered unpatriotic, that is quite a relief.
ID suggests that evolution is not random. It works as an addendum to Darwin's Theory, not a replacement. Even Darwin notes that evolution is not the definitive answer but another piece of the puzzle.
Chaos theory and the science of synchrony also postulate that there is underlying order to the universe - that from chaotic exchanges matter orders itself. How? We don't have to pretend to know all the specifics nor could we ever really.
Science as we perform it is done in a moment in time incapable of giving the definitive answers we look for. Examples:
1. Where is the missing link in evolution? The anthropologists keep finding new species of almost-humans...but none are that missing link that would turn evolution theory into evolution law.
2. I have a personal beef with so called weak and strong force in atoms. Exactly how are the mysterious "strong" and "weak" forces that hold atoms together on the micro scale different from the forces of gravity that hold celestial bodies together on the macro scale. Should our perception be the scale? Should we make allowances for our perception being the scale?
3. Ever wonder why the periodic table keeps growing as we *make* new elements? That seems fishy to me. And schools don't even test on those man made ones. Just the ones that were here before we arrived on the scene. I bet it keeps growing though as our technological ability to force subatomic particles together under certain conditions expands.
4. And speaking of particles, first there were atoms, then there were neutrons, protons and electrons. Now they're just making them up as they theorize along...there's a photon and graviton...Seems to me we could just keep theorizing on and on.
I bring these questions up because it's important kids understand science is an excellent tool, but scientists don't have all the answers. The next question should always be asked. And if the next question asks why the molecules of life arranged in such a way as to promote evolution, then an underlying order of the universe as argued and supported by chaos theory and synchrony a valid theory. And certainly as valid as any other theory that can't make an important missing-link connection.
You don't have to believe in an Almighty that conjures up preconceived notions to believe there is order in the universe. Although once you believe in order, it's a short trip via faith to believing in an ethereal intelligence.
But you have ignored my request to list the points that ID has in common with mainstream science.
But Marx explained the science of human history and the superiority of atheism. How could you believe anything else? Darwin's own belief in the Almighty was obviously delusional.
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel every now and then.
That is not what I'm saying at all. Both the left and right have equally invalid reasons for criticizing evolution, with the reason being that their criticisms are not supported by the facts and the scientific evidence. I am not saying that evolution should be supported simply because some factions of the left reject it, although the only reason some on the left speak in favor of it is because a vocal and ignorant contigent on the right continue to oppose it in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you were to ever bother to actually read what I and others have written, you wouldn't consistently make such stupid and boneheaded comments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.