dagblog - Comments for "NEWT Gingrich: Thought Leader for Hire."

Hayek opposed "central

moat — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 00:42:25 +0000

Hayek opposed "central planning" on the basis that the market would always do a better job of bringing prosperity to the greatest number of people if left to its own devices. In his debates with Keynes, he described the efforts to stimulate the system with cash provided by the government as a false economy. He presented the matter as a function of the limited capability of any group of planners to deal with the complexity of the actual world of exchange. One could share his skepticism regarding such capabilities without agreeing there was a "true" market that would provide more in proportion to how little anybody interfered with its workings.

After Keynes, the next heavy hitter to challenge Hayek's thought was JK Galbraith. In his New Industrial State, he explores the degree what seems unplanned in the market is actually mapped out in great detail.

In my comment regarding Gingrich, I am not trying to pretend that I understand what this huge debate amounts to; only to say that Gingrich has steadfastly been treating a premise as a fact his whole career. His work has not been in vain.

What is "false economy?"

Peter Schwartz — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 23:34:24 +0000

In reply to The tether between the ready

What is "false economy?"

Some interesting philosophy

Oxy Mora — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 04:56:31 +0000

In reply to Newt says stuff like this,

Some interesting philosophy here. Seems there is a distinction between "unregulated" and "rigged". Theoretically in unregulated capitalism the concentration of wealth would continue until some breaking point is reached---perhaps there is not enough consumption to keep GDP at a positive level---or something along that line; then a reshuffling takes place. "Rigged" is the use of devices which hurry the process of wealth accumulation along, enabled by people like Gingrich. But we don't actually reach the breaking point because that is the worst thing the elites can imagine.

The tether between the ready

moat — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:04:36 +0000

In reply to Newt says stuff like this,

The tether between the ready reaction to whatever progressives and liberals propose and the only agenda that matters to "conservatives" of the stripe Robin is describing is the idea of "false economy" put forward by Hayek. In terms of establishing the concept as a given in political discourse, Gingrich has been very consistent in his language since he put out a Contract on America back in the day.

When you control what words can be used, flip flopping on issues is not going to have the same disastrous effect as it would on an ordinary human.

Newt says stuff like this,

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:38:13 +0000

In reply to Thanks, Peter. That's a very

Newt says stuff like this, often very quickly and in passing. He's fascinating to watch because, in a way, he's truthful, or truthful now and then. But this is, I'm pretty sure what he said this time around, when he was asked about his former support.

And there's good video of DeMint supporting Romney in 2008 and lavishing praise on RomneyCare, including the individual mandate, I believe.

If you read Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind, you come to see that much of what conservatives do is in reaction to what progressives or liberals do or want to do. Left to their own devices, they'd do nothing except clear the way for the market to work.

Q took me to task for leaving out that they seek to funnel money to the wealthiest. that's something they actually do. That's true, but I think they see it as a way of making the market work more freely. That is, unregulated capitalism tends to favor those who have money or have managed to get a lot of it. The rich get richer.

So you see them saying things like, "We shouldn't prop up the housing market. We should let it crash and clean itself out. That's the fastest way to get beyond and rebuild a healthy market. Delaying the suffering only prolongs it."

Looking at Newt's style, you

Oxy Mora — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:57:21 +0000

In reply to You forgot to mention that

Looking at Newt's style, you raise an interesting point about "sophistry". I've always thought of it as based on tight reasoning---a la a Jesuit, for example, going deeper into the subject in the way that so many here do so well. It seems that what Newt is doing is simply changing subjects, and not necessarily in a pre-planned method. In the world of sound bites and short debate exchanges his style appears to be effective.

Gingrich hit at least three

Oxy Mora — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:38:42 +0000

In reply to NEWT Gingrich: Thought Leader for Hire.

Gingrich hit at least three of his stylistic bases in the Republican debate.

The arcane reference (depending on one's age I suppose) was to the WWII Selective Service Boards, offered as a mechanism for sorting through illegal immigrants, determining status, work permits, etc.

The WWII era program was in support of his sudden jump to moderation with the word "humane" applied to immigration policy---we shouldn't break up families. This segue appeared to catch Romney off guard as he realized that Newt had suddenly played the general election drift to the middle card.

Gingrich also demonized Obama in the usual manner---he doesn't think this is an exceptional country.etc.

One wonders how Gingrich's programs like administering child janitor programs in public schools and running a World War II scale immigration board system exactly jibe with conservative repugnance for social engineering. Seems to me that "social engineering on the right is just as bad as social engineering from the left."

Perhaps for efficiency's sake the child janitor boards and the immigration boards could be combined. Maybe enough illegal immigrant kids with work permits could be found that the white kids could be excused from cleaning toilets.

Thanks, Peter. That's a very

Oxy Mora — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:36:59 +0000

In reply to Don't expect too much from

Thanks, Peter. That's a very intriguing theory of their strategy; I have never heard it expressed in exactly that way. It works on so many levels against Democrats and Progressives who, mostly being logically minded, take the opposing position at face value. If at the same time the Republican party regulars saw it as a fake position to begin with they would harbor no ill will when it's reversed.

I think Jonas, who is not a party regular, would be quick to see through it but I'm not sure he would care.

Don't expect too much from

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:34:14 +0000

In reply to NEWT Gingrich: Thought Leader for Hire.

Don't expect too much from Jonas, O. He's more likely to trust what hears from G now and will be disinclined to untangle the historical record.

The most interesting Newtism (to me) occurred at the beginning of the campaign, before his staff left him.

He was asked about his support for the individual mandate back in the 1990s. He said, in so many words as I recall, that yes, he supported it, but ONLY as a way to defeat HillaryCare.

Republicans had to APPEAR to care about health care and have alternative proposals to reform it, because public opinion, as you may recall, was very much in favor of reform and the Republicans, at least initially, were thrown back on their heels.

This strikes me as representative of the conservative or Republican strategy as a whole. All "positions" (except the feed the rich ones, which are disguised because they are too unpalatable) are simply temporary holding patterns designed to defeat liberal positions and programs. They don't hold any value in themselves. And once the enemy is defeated (HillaryCare), they are discarded like a spent bullet shell.

The public doesn't remember and the news cycle moves on to some other issue.

Much obliged, Anon. An

Oxy Mora — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:34:26 +0000

In reply to You forgot to mention that

Much obliged, Anon. An interesting site, there. Why do some conservative ideas sound so reasonable on paper but by the time they are given life via an actual Republican politician they aren't worth the paper they're written on. I'm not excusing Democrats but that's a different subject.

It will be fascinating to see whether any of the other "candidates" can successfully attack Gingrich's M.O.

I'm going to run some of these Gingrich inconsistencies past my neighbor, Jonas. I think the fees from the pharma industry trade group re the drug benefit debate are particularly egregious and easy to understand. I need to find a synonym for "sophist".