Adam Cohen’s piece in today’s New York Times, “Republicans’ Latest Talking Point: The New Deal Failed,” is profoundly interesting. I have no idea if the article is representative of Cohen’s thought. But I’m led to believe that he is the type of person who, while very intelligent, did not ask many questions in school.
The standard high school civics textbook paints a glowing picture of the New Deal. So does public opinion. The inquisitive mind does not just take that at face value. It asks questions. Seeks answers. Comes to its own conclusion.
Maybe Cohen did all that, and decided the New Deal was a good thing. I am skeptical that he went to the trouble.
Why? Start with his first argument. It is simply lazy. It is a partisan’s argument. He quotes Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, and declares, these people vote Republican! Of course they’re wrong!
Yes, Republicans are wrong on many issues. Most issues, in fact. At least from my perspective. But Republican = wrong is just lazy. One must take an argument seriously to determine its merit.
His second argument is also lazy. It appeals to public opinion. This is a fallacy. A quarter of voters didn’t even know which party controlled Congress last election. 55% of Americans reject something as basic as evolution. Public opinion is not to be trusted, in other words. Better to come to your own conclusions. Better to ask questions.
Cohen’s most compelling argument is also his least rigorous: anecdote. He tells a story of a man helped by New Deal spending. Note that he left out stories of people hurt by that spending. Both kinds of anecdotes are right there in the open. Cohen is guilty of cherrypicking.
Then there are the errors of fact. Cohen claims that President Bush rolled back the regulatory state. But 33,055 new regulations passed under Bush’s watch. That’s not a typo. I’ll spell it out. Thirty-three thousand and fifty-five new regulations. Look at the data. Bush didn’t roll back anything.
Cohen is simply mistaken. He didn’t ask questions. He just assumed that Republican = deregulation. He didn’t ask if that was actually true.
As an economist, here’s the real doozy:
“The anti-New Deal line is wrong as a matter of economics. F.D.R.’s spending programs did help the economy and created millions of new jobs. The problem, we now know, is not that F.D.R. spent too much priming the pump, but rather that he spent too little. It was his decision to cut back on spending on New Deal programs that brought about a nasty recession in 1937-38.”
Really?
First, the theory. Let’s ask: what was the impact of FDR’s programs? Every dollar spent on them was a dollar that was taken out of the economy, then put back into it. This is not how an economy grows. Growth requires the creation of new wealth, not the redistribution of old wealth.
And the data? One of President Obama’s top advisers, Christina Romer, showed that both the Depression and the 1937-38 dip were largely monetary phenomenons. Not fiscal. Monetary. Look at the data.
What about that fiscal policy? Another economist, Price Fishback, demonstrated that New Deal fiscal policy had almost no net effect on the economy. Again, look at the data.
If one asks questions and looks at the data, one finds that the New Deal did not actually help the economy. Partisan affiliation has nothing to do with it. Neither does public opinion.
Theory and data do. All you have to do is ask them.
Sadly, most media outlets – and their customers – do not want to ask questions. That requires too much thought. Too much effort. Worse, such things can’t fit into soundbites. No, we want people who have answers.
Inertia Wins! 
