That some or even much of the New Deal was inconsequential or beneficial in some way does not mitigate its overall negative impact. Conversely, its failures do not invalidate its successes. So, great post at the Ross Douthat blog.
To my mind, the worst of the New Deal was its price/wage controls and other economic interventions (the Blue Eagle in all its forms). So, too, were the Wilson, Truman, and Nixon price controls. But none of those others are much blamed for the horrible legacies of those policies. None of them should escape it.
By ranting about Social Security we miss the real failure of the New Deal in its price/wage controls. Similarly, by calling Truman “brave” for Hiroshima or the ‘48 election, we excuse his own back-ass abuse of price/wage controls, which ruined so much innovation and competitive force in the American economy of the Forties, Fifties, and beyond. In damning Wilson’s League of Nations we forget the horrible impact of his nationalization of the economy during WWI. In elevating Nixon’s China policies, or blaming all things on Watergate, we lose sight of his role in the energy “crisis” and general economic retardation of the 1970s.
With these confused and mixed legacies, the good and bad of an Administration get mixed as well, and the particulars go bland. There should be no — zero — excuse for any central fixing of prices. None. And no “good” achieved by way of some corollary policy can excuse it. The worst of the 20th century comes of these malicious attempts to control markets through some central order as to how much something should cost or who much someone should get paid.
We might also recognize those Presidents who avoid or crush movements for such interventions. For starters, we must thank our current President for squashing all talk of price control over gasoline. Hillary called for it in ‘05. Another person in office might have taken it on. The negative can be just as strong as the positive act.
There's more discussion of Shlaes's book at Greg Mankiw's blog. That's right, the former Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors has a blog. The world has changed.
John Updike's review of Shlaes's book is here.
I didn't realize before how similar Updike and Garrison Keillor are. They're both small town boys who grew up idolizing the New Yorker magazine and building their lives around it. They're also both sentimental and nostalgic yellow dog Democrats.
To be facetious I could say that for Updike, and Keillor, and probably Dan Rather and Bill Moyers waiting around with your neighbors for government cheese builds character and community.
All the more so if there's only one variety available and it's produced by a cooperative of Norwegian bachelor farmers and lovingly approved by a federal inspector.
Waiting in line they feel solidarity, connectedness, brotherhood, peace. If there's dirt or sweat in the cheese, that makes it all the more authentic and human.
To nip into the supermarket and choose between forty varieties of cheese -- or to send one's assistant to do it, which is what I suspect they do -- is alienating and artificial.
Well, it's a trade-off. One of the blog posters supports the New Deal as a trading of well-being for "more democracy."
I like the response of one of Douthat's correspondents:
I was taken by Updike's claim that:
"Business, of which Shlaes is so solicitous, is basically merciless, geared to maximize profit. Government is ultimately a human transaction..."
This resonated with me because every time I go to Starbucks they mercilessly beat me and take all my cash, while at the DMV there's no wait in the line for hugs.
In a lot of ways it's a generational thing. Updike reflects the Depression-era mentality pretty well.