Irony used to be Andrew Jackson on a central bank note. Now, as NYT blogger Justin Wolfers points out, irony might now be “Hayek propped up by government intervention.” As was noted in last Sunday’s NYT, the Texas Board of Education voted to change the state’s school curriculum to include, among other conservative points, Friedrich Hayek in economics courses along with Smith, Marx, and Keynes. I’m happy to hear that more people will be learning about Hayek’s work. I won’t front, I’m probably going to make him part of my course curriculum if I ever teach a class on theory or economic sociology. I think he is one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. Of course, I’m equally turned off by the emphasis on Christianity in the American Revolution and the exclusion of Thomas Jefferson in world history.
That being said, I think there’s a whole lot more irony that people are missing in the discussion surrounding this issue.
- The progressive faith in government as opposed to market processes. This wasn’t a close vote. It was 10-5. The opponents of these changes got spanked. Where are the champions of the democratic process? Why aren’t they rejoicing in the triumph their elected leaders who are held accountable to the people – unlike those corporations? (Fun fact: Harvard is the oldest corporation in the Americas)
- One of Hayek’s biggest fears was the centralization of power. The opponents of the change don’t seem bothered by this as much as by the fact that they think the wrong curriculum is being taught. I won’t even go the whole “but if we had wholly private schools” route. What if Texas had school vouchers or tax credits for private or charter schools? What is each municipality or even county was in charge of it’s own curriculum? The picture would probably be a lot different with less Hayek taught across Texas.
- Doesn’t this illustrate the zero-sum nature of political processes? Every question is either/or and a whole lot of animus is the result. Far from being some sort of utopian public sphere of debate and resolution, I didn’t see much enlightened discussion in the article.
Wolfers, basing his opinion on the number of JSTOR references to Hayek, argues that he shouldn’t be on the curriculum. God, what a positivist! Given the issues raised above, I think my analysis shows that Hayek is needed more than ever to demonstrate to people how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
- Josh McCabe
1. Where are the champions of the democratic process? Why aren’t they rejoicing in the triumph their elected leaders who are held accountable to the people – unlike those corporations?
Very strange questions. Did it blow your mind when you realized that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were politicians who exerted power through massive government bureaucracies, and not entrepreneurs building businesses from the ground up? Most people are consequentialists and emphasize particular processes because they view those processes as being the best means of achieving their preferred ends. As far as the infallibility of particular processes, I’m pretty sure progressives remember George W. Bush getting elected twice. The only people who seriously argue that certain processes always produce the optimal outcome are free-market anti-government utopians.
One of Hayek’s biggest fears was the centralization of power. The opponents of the change don’t seem bothered by this as much as by the fact that they think the wrong curriculum is being taught.
Of course what is especially interesting about Texas is that national textbook publishers tend to sell books following Texan standards to smaller states. Centralization of power is not purely a function of government power.
Doesn’t this illustrate the zero-sum nature of political processes?
Yes, this is why a lot of people hate politics, and prefer to think about how life is driven by impersonal economic forces in which all interactions are mutually beneficial. The fact that there is no neutral silver bullet that settles a political question does not mean that the question is not important, it just means that the question is, well, political. And that’s life.
Pingback: Friday Links « Open Economics