Folk Beliefs Have Consequences

TCS Daily ^ | 23 January 2006 | Arnold Kling

[papertyger]

"the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute"
-- Maureen Dowd, the New York Times

Maureen Dowd's statement is Marxist. No, she did not advocate revolution by the proletariat. She did not say that we ought to have a Communist state. But her famous remark that someone in a particular class of victims has "absolute" moral authority is derived from "folk Marxism," as will be explained below.

In my previous essay, I talked about the process by which the views of important thinkers become distilled into folk beliefs. I argued that it is these folk beliefs that shape our societies. I suggested that John Locke and Karl Marx are two thinkers whose enormous influence can be described using this model. In this essay, I want to elaborate on the folk beliefs that followed Locke and Marx.

Folk Locke-ism

Seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke's theory of government influenced America's founders. It has become deeply embedded in our culture. Beliefs that Locke helped to encourage include:

-- individuals have inalienable rights
-- those who govern have obligations to the governed (and not just vice-versa)
-- government's rightful powers are limited, not absolute

At the level of folk beliefs, Locke's views have been distilled into a jaunty defiance of tyrants, whether they are actual, potential, or imagined. This can be seen in expressions such as Give me liberty or give me death! or Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade. or "You'll have to pry this gun from my cold, dead fingers."

As Americans, we cannot conceive of ourselves submitting meekly to tyranny. We cannot picture a regime like that of North Korea or Saddam Hussein's Iraq taking root in our soil.

By maintaining our Lockean tradition, we have built a vibrant society and a prosperous economy. Limited government has allowed innovation to flourish in a peaceful, gradual, evolutionary way.

Folk Marxism

Folk Marxism looks at political economy as a struggle pitting the oppressors against the oppressed. Of course, for Marx, the oppressors were the owners of capital and the oppressed were the workers. But folk Marxism is not limited by this economic classification scheme. All sorts of other issues are viewed through the lens of oppressors and oppressed. Folk Marxists see Israelis as oppressors and Palestinians as oppressed. They see white males as oppressors and minorities and females as oppressed. They see corporations as oppressors and individuals as oppressed. They see America as on oppressor and other countries as oppressed.

I believe that folk Marxism helps to explain the pride and joy that many people felt when Maryland passed its anti-Walmart law. They think of Walmart as an oppressor, and they think of other businesses and Walmart workers as the oppressed. The mainstream media share this folk Marxism, as they reported the Maryland law as a "victory for labor."

The folk Marxist view of Iraq is that the United States is the oppressor, and the groups fighting the United States are the oppressed. At the extreme, Michael Moore and Ted Rall have made explicit statements to this effect. However, even reporters in the mainstream media who are not openly supporting the enemy take this folk Marxist view when they refer to "the insurgency."

If you think about it, the forces fighting America in Iraq consist of former oppressors and would-be future oppressors. But because America is a rich, powerful country, the folk Marxist instinct is to romanticize ("insurgency") the real oppressors and to demonize ("occupation") the real liberators.

I am not saying that only a folk Marxist would oppose the way we went to war in Iraq or the way that the war has been conducted. However, I would say that it is striking that the basic narrative of the war coming through the mainstream media is folk Marxist. This is particularly true in Europe, where the folk Marxist view of America's presence in Iraq appears to be broadly and deeply held.

The rationale for tax cuts -- "It's your money" -- makes sense to folk-Locke-ism. It drives folk Marxists crazy. Folk Marxists ask What's the Matter with Kansas?. They cannot understand why the oppressed do not see the advantages of higher taxes on their "rich" oppressors.

Folk Marxism can explain why some environmentalists do not like using taxes to control pollution. If you think of polluters as the oppressors and everyone else as the oppressed, then merely taxing pollution is not morally satisfying.

The Consequences of Locke and Marx

The contrast between the results of following Locke and those of following Marx could not be sharper. Marxist countries have murdered millions, imposed a regime of fear and repression on their citizens, and impeded economic development. Where the "natural experiment" was performed of splitting one culture into Communist and non-Communist regions (North and South Korea, East and West Germany), well-being in the non-Communist country ended up several times higher than in the Communist country. People fled Communist countries by the millions, while barely a trickle of individuals chose to emigrate in the other direction.

The differing consequences of Locke and Marx are not an accident. Under folk Locke-ism, each individual has moral standing. We all are endowed with rights, and we all are obligated to follow the law. It should be no surprise that the principle of equality before the law would lead individuals to focus on mutually advantageous interactions. It should be no surprise that inequality before the law, such as the Jim Crow South of 50 years ago, would come to be regarded as a blot and a national disgrace.

Under folk Marxism, the oppressed class has inherent moral superiority to the oppressor class -- recall the quote which opens this essay. Class membership trumps individual character in determining moral standing. It should be no surprise that this belief could lead to tyranny and wanton murder by government. It should be no surprise that this belief has failed to improve the lot of those regarded as "oppressed." It inverts Martin Luther King's call to judge people by the content of their character.

Even when Marxism does not lead to tyranny, it retards economic growth, as the stagnation of continental Europe indicates. If you believe that the poor are oppressed and the rich are oppressors, then your impulse is to penalize work, risk-taking, innovation, and saving -- the engines of economic progress. As entrepreneur Paul Graham put it,

"So let's be clear what reducing economic inequality means. It is identical with taking money from the rich...It sounds benevolent to say we ought to reduce economic inequality. When you phrase it that way, who can argue with you? Inequality has to be bad, right? It sounds a good deal less benevolent to say we ought to reduce the rate at which new companies are founded. And yet the one implies the other."

Marx and the Academy

The vast majority of college professors are folk Marxists, even though they do not advocate for Communism. Their folk Marxism is dangerous because they do not even realize the extent to which it colors their world view. Although the academy is also the last bastion of avowed Marxists, it is not the overt Marxists who trouble me. They are not winning converts.

Every day, in big and small ways, academic speech reinforces the view that the world consists of oppressor classes and oppressed classes. In a way, the controversy over Lawrence Summers as President of Harvard reflects his defiance of folk Marxist orthodoxy. Folk Marxism is so automatic and so pervasive that it effectively goes unnoticed.

I would consider it a great step forward for liberals in the academic community to acknowledge the existence of folk Locke-ism and folk Marxism. If my liberal friends want to express support for folk Marxism, that is fine. If they want to criticize folk Locke-ism, that is all right, too. If they would like to give a less loaded name than "folk Marxism" to the oppressed/oppressor paradigm, I have no problem using a different label.

My concern with what I call folk Marxism is substantive, not rhetorical. To me, the danger of folk Marxism in the academy today is that it is implicit and unrecognized -- and therefore unquestioned.

Arnold Kling is author of Learning Economics.

(Editor’s Note: This article is part of a series on the effects of ideas on the popular mindset. You can read Part One here.)

[Rocko]

Bump.

[MEG33]

Interesting read!

[jigsaw]

Thanks for posting this article. It's very interesting.

[Shalom Israel]

Wow--awesome article!

[RobFromGa]

Where the "natural experiment" was performed of splitting one culture into Communist and non-Communist regions (North and South Korea, East and West Germany), well-being in the non-Communist country ended up several times higher than in the Communist country. People fled Communist countries by the millions, while barely a trickle of individuals chose to emigrate in the other direction.

Bears repeating.

[satchmodog9]

Dowd was mentioned. There are rules.

[MarkL]

Dear MoDo,

Maybe you can explain to me how the "moral authority" of "parents who bury children killed in Iraq" who support the troops and mission is any LESS absolute than that of those who oppose the war.

Is it just that in their grief, that they don't know what they're doing? Or maybe it's that they're mind numbed robots? Or could it just be that since you don't actually know anyone who supports the war personally, they don't really exist, outside of some Rovian plot through third channel blogs. I'm reminded of the Mondole supporter who said, "I can't believe that idiot Reagan won! I don't know anyone who voted for him!" Or could it simply be that since YOU don't support the war, and YOU believe that the war is wrong, and YOUR beliefs are right and good, then those other people aren't just wrong, but in many cases evil, and either way, should be ignored, if not dismissed out of hand.

Maybe you really need to try thinking about things before you bother writing them down.

Mark

[R. Scott]

The mainstream media share this folk Marxism, as they reported the Maryland law as a "victory for labor."

The Internationale

[Mr. Jeeves]

Great article - "Folk Marxism" is the very soul of today's Democratic Party.

[Lucky Dog]

"the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute"
-- Maureen Dowd, the New York Times

Is the moral authority of the parents who buried children killed in the World Trade Center also absolute? … How about the moral authority of the parents who buried children killed in Kobar Towers or the USS Cole or US Embassies in Keyna? …etc., etc...

What is the moral authority of “selective outrage?”

What is the moral authority of “ideological blindness?”

What is the moral authority of “propaganda?”

[evilC]

We all like to think that we won a Cold War victory over communism. We did not. The Soviet Union may have fallen but we have largely lost the battle against collectivist thinking.

A majority of the US people believes that an individual has a right to healthcare, education, and housing (to each according to his needs). A majority also believes in progressive forms of taxation such as property taxes and income taxes (from each according to his means).

Government has a monopoly on education and is fortifying its monopoly position in healthcare. About 65% of Federal spending and 80% of state spending is related to income redistribution.

Spending on the military is considered "discretionary" but spending on the biggest welfare program (Social Security) is considered mandatory.

Folk Marxism has embedded itself so well, that a president who promised the largest expansion of the welfare state and who promised to increase federal involvement in education can be called "conservative". Folk Marxism is so engrained that few people can even imagine (let alone hope for) a world without massive income transfer programs, a world where people save for their own retirement, a world where education is the concern of parents and not state government.

We defeated the Soviet Union but lost the more important war against collectivism. The victory of collectivist thinking is so complete that we are not even aware of our defeat.

[an amused spectator]

Media Schadenfreude ping.

Excellent exposition of "Folk Marxism" in the Media and the Academy.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[Dutchgirl]

Good find. Bumped and bookmarked.

[Focault's Pendulum]

I suggested that John Locke and Karl Marx are two thinkers whose enormous influence can be described using this model. In this essay, I want to elaborate on the folk beliefs that followed Locke and Marx.

Dear Maureen,
When you pass this mortal coil,
I will be happy to transport your remains to be interred in the Kremlin Wall, beside your Marx, Lenin...or my personal favorite..Trotsky.

Oh wait!!! None of them are actually buried on the hallowed ground of the Progressive Proletariat that was once the Soviet Republic.

Seventy five years of your adopted Social Experiment, failed miserably, sending millions to their deaths.

Aw Crap!! I forgot about John Reed. He was a journalist, if I recall.

Yeah!!!

He's there among the Heroes of the Revolution. And He was an American Citizen.

You'll be in good company.

[Smokin' Joe]

Remember, though, even they were the minority, the Bolsheviks called themselves, literally, the 'Majority' Party. As long as the sheep are willing to be told what they believe by the MSM, they will be led like lambs.

The more you remind those who work for a living that they are paying extra to have the Government provide services they could procure in the private sector,especially if they did not pay the Government for them, the better chance we have to reverse the propaganda victories of the Left.

I have seen a surprising number of self-labelled "conservatives" around here who have no clue how liberal they are, and that is the most frightening aspect of all.

[evilC]

>>>
I have seen a surprising number of self-labelled "conservatives" around here who have no clue how liberal they are, and that is the most frightening aspect of all.
<<<

In a way I was trying to make that point ...
... but without stirring up any hornets!
(FR has too many of the "more conservative than thou" type of arguments)

[redhead]

"We defeated the Soviet Union but lost the more important war against collectivism. The victory of collectivist thinking is so complete that we are not even aware of our defeat."

Too true to be good, unfortunately.