Tag Archives: tea party

CEI Podcast for October 13, 2011: Occupy Wall Street

 

Have a listen here.

CEI Founder and President Fred Smith compares the Occupy Wall Street movement with the Tea Party movement and finds similarities as well as differences. Both oppose bailouts and other forms of corporate welfare. But, as he points out in a recent USA Today op-ed, he fears the Occupiers are confusing such crony capitalism with the real thing. If corporations have undue influence over government, making that government bigger and more powerful will only worsen the problem. The solution is separation of corporation and state.

What Shrinking Government?

I have a letter to the editor in today’s Washington Post:

Richard Cohen fretted that Tea Party activists have “shrunk the government.” He need not worry. Federal spending has gone from $2.9 trillion in 2008 to $3.8 trillion in 2011. Thirty percent spending growth in three years is hardly shrinkage. Even under the Boehner plan, federal spending will continue to increase every year for at least the next decade.

Meanwhile, federal agencies continue to finalize more than 3,500 new regulations per year. They repeal almost none, no matter how loud the Tea Party’s howls.

If anything, Tea Party activists have been devastatingly ineffective at shrinking government. Mr. Cohen can rest easy.

Ryan Young, Washington

The writer is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

An Optimistic Take on the Election

CEI President and Founder Fred Smith and I have an article in The Daily Caller expressing cautious optimism about yesterday’s election results. Our main points:

-We are (cautiously) optimistic because voters turned out in droves to make a statement against big government, not to endorse GOP policies. But no reforms will happen unless people keep fighting for them.

-Activists have a lesson to learn from the Bush-era anti-war movement. Anti-Iraq War protestors vanished into thin air almost the moment President Obama was elected. They gave up. That’s one reason there are still 50,000 troops in Iraq and America’s presence in Afghanistan has doubled. The next few years will be the true test of the tea party movement. Will it grow complacent in victory?

-GOP politicians have a lesson to learn from their 1994 victory and subsequent fall from grace. The 1994 Republicans gave up as reformers after about six months. Voters kept them around because they did a tolerable job of checking Clintonian excesses. But six years of one-party rule under Bush were more than enough to show that Republicans were far more concerned with staying in power than with shrinking government. Federal spending roughly doubled under Bush, and that was enough to give them the boot.

It will be interesting to see what happens. The 2010 election might be nothing more than a blip on the radar. Or it could be the start of a genuine reform movement that will take on the coming entitlement crisis. We’re hoping for the latter.

Tea Parties and Corporations

Milwaukee’s alternative weekly, the Shepherd Express, recently ran a thought-provoking article by Lisa Kaiser criticizing the tea party movement. I haven’t written a whole lot about the tea party movement. But my reaction has been mixed.

The positive is that a large and vocal constituency is agitating for lower spending and lower taxes. That’s been missing from the protest scene since at least Vietnam.

The negative was summed up almost perfectly by Koch Industries VP Richard Fink: “Some of their worries are… more thoughtful, some of them are less thoughtful.”

If you think about it, tea partiers are the right-wing analogue of Bush-era Iraq war protesters. Both of their main causes are true and just. War against a country that never attacked us is wrong. So is the Bush-Obama spending spree.

But both movements attracted a fringe. A loud fringe. A fringe that, because of their volume, their kookiness, their entertainment value – attracted disproportionate press coverage. Tea partiers have their birthers and John Birchers and so on. The anti-war movement has its Code Pink, truthers, and other strange, fascinating, creatures.

Now suppose you’re a journalist covering one of these protests. You’re on a deadline, and you don’t know a whole lot about what you’re covering.

You could write a story about the ordinary people in jeans and t-shirts, kids in tow, holding up their signs with quiet dignity.

Or you could talk to outlandish – and outlandishly quotable! – nutjobs from Code Pink or the John Birch Society. It’s pretty obvious which tactic gets you the more entertaining story in less time.

An economist would point this out as a classic example of the law of demand. If something costs less, people consume more of it. If it costs more, then less. Since writing a story about colorful kooks costs less time and effort than interviewing ordinary people, no wonder so many newspaper stories are of the cheaper-effort variety.

Which brings us to the article in question.

The words “corporate,” “corporations,” and variations of the same appear nine times. And it is not a long article. Each time, the epithet is unsubtly used as shorthand for “I disagree with this.”

This is a mental shortcut — evidence that Kaiser did not give the issue deep thought. If your gut feeling is that you don’t like something, you can research it to find out for sure. But that is very costly in terms of time and effort. It’s mentally cheaper to just blame “the corporations.”

This is not a rigorous line of thought. Arguments are either right or wrong. The presence or absence of corporate funding has nothing to do with whether an argument is right or wrong.

Take the pull quote from the print edition:

“Americans for Prosperity is a corporate-funded front group that is trying to extract as much of our public dollars as they can and then put it (sic) in the hands of the corporations that fund it.”

That isn’t actually true. AFP is against corporate bailouts. Against corporate subsidies. AFP thinks that corporations should compete in the marketplace. Not in Washington. Public dollars should be kept as far away from corporations as possible. The source who Kaiser quotes is factually inaccurate. And she doesn’t correct him. She agrees with him.

He uses the same mental shortcut that Kaiser does. Just use the word “corporate” to stand for that which he disagrees with. Then he attributes those views to AFP, blissfully unaware of AFP’s actual stances on taxpayer-to-corporation wealth transfers.

This is intellectually lazy. If Kaiser and the activist are against government funding of corporations, they actually have a lot in common with AFP.

Kaiser quotes another activist:

“It’s no coincidence that profits from giant corporations are being pumped into front groups like AFP to further those corporate interests.”

This guy doesn’t get it either. Dollars tend to flow to causes that the donors already agree with. The arrow of causality is pointing in the opposite direction that he thinks.

For example, I favor legalizing same-sex marriage. Suppose that I’m planning to donate money to an organization to advance my view on that issue. Will I get better results by giving to a group that already agrees with me, or by giving to Focus on the Family in hopes of changing their mind?

Koch Industries in particular comes under fire for its longtime support of free-market organizations. And they have much to gain from the crony capitalism they are accused of promoting.

But they aren’t actually promoting crony capitalism. If their political giving actually was made in the name of corporate self-interest, they’d be giving to groups like the Center for American Progress, which openly favors giving billions of taxpayers’ dollars to corporations.

Instead, Koch-funded groups believe, across the board, that corporate welfare is wrong. The Koch brothers are free-market ideologues, and it shows in their philanthropy.

Kaiser’s Shepherd Express article is an interesting read. But not for what it says about tea parties and corporations. It’s interesting because of what it says about her, and about how the law of demand partially explains the poor quality of most journalism.

Advice to Tea Partiers

I have mixed feelings about the tea party movement. On one hand, it is wonderful that there is a large and vocal constituency agitating for lower taxes and lower spending. And while many tea partiers are appropriately wary of the Republican party, they certainly seem to skew conservative. And conservatives are no friends of limited government.

John Samples from Cato nails my sentiments exactly in the video below. Here is a list of his main points:

1. Republicans aren’t always your friends.
2. Some tea partiers like big government.
3. Democrats aren’t always your enemies.
4. Smaller government demands restraint abroad.
5. Leave social issues to the states.

Hayek’s Uneasy Relationship with Conservatives

Bill Easterly does a good job of sticking up for Hayek.

Hayek could be quite different than Hayekians. That distinction needs to be made in this era of tea parties and the dominant liberal-vs.-conservative false dichotomy.

I think it’s great that some conservatives are boosting Hayek (I wish progressives would, too; they’d find a lot to like). It just appears they aren’t reading him very closely. Do bear that in mind before associating Hayek with conservatism.

Worth reading: Hayek’s essay, “Why I Am Not a Conservative.” Print it out. Read it closely. Mark up the margins with your notes and reactions. Agree or disagree, this essay rewards deep and careful thought. I’ve read it several times over the years, and every time I pick it up again I learn something new.