Brink Lindsey, fra fri-markedstænketanken Cato Institute, skrev tilbage i november på instituttets blog, Cato@Liberty, om de dominerende strømninger i politisk tænkning i USA og mere præcist om hvordan de har forrykket sig gennem tiden.
Egentlig skriver han for at opponere mod Michael Linds (wacko!) op-ed i FT om selvsamme emne, men Lindseys kommentarer er mere fornuftige end Linds oprindelige indlæg. Derfor mine kommentarer til selvsamme:
Lind provides a potted history of America’s evolving political economy. In the opening act of 1932-1968, New Deal welfare-state liberalism occupied the political center, flanked on the left by economic populism and on the right by Eisenhower-style “dime store New Deal” conservatism. Then came the shift to the right during 1968-2004, when welfare-state liberalism was shunted to the left, a newly assertive libertarianism occupied the right, and moderate conservatism commanded the center. Now, according to Lind, anxieties over globalization have led to the rout of the libertarians and the rebirth of populism.
I’ll concede that we’ve seen a cyclical shift in recent years somewhat along the lines Lind describes. The political terrain has become more difficult for supporters of free markets and limited government, and more inviting for Lou Dobbsian populism.
But we need to be careful to distinguish between cyclical and secular change. Lind focuses on the back-and-forth of the pendulum and misses the fact that the whole clock has been moving. And it’s been moving in a generally libertarian direction.
Lind merrily proclaims that welfare-state liberalism has reclaimed the center that it occupied during 1932-1968. But he ignores the fact that welfare-state liberals today are dramatically more libertarian on economic issues than their predecessors in their parents’ and grandparents’ generations. Nobody these days seriously supports a return to a 70% top income-tax rate, or Keynesian fine-tuning, or interest-rate controls for banks, or the phone monopoly, or regulated trucking; nobody touts nationalization or wage-and-price controls as cures for what ails.
The economy today is dramatically more competitive and entrepreneurial today, and markets are dramatically less regulated, than was the case a few decades ago. And notwithstanding Lind’s fond hopes for a return of the New Deal liberal ascendancy, there is little reason to believe that this huge secular shift is going to be reversed in the foreseeable future.
Brink Lindsey har en vigtig pointe hér, som påfaldende mange alt for tit glemmer. ”Free Minds & Free Markets” er libertarianismen i en nøddeskal, for nu at bruge Reason Magazines slogan. Milton Friedman ville nok have byttet om på ”markets” og ”minds” men fred være med det.
Med de landvindinger der trods alt har været i både USA og Europa, bl.a. som følge af en mere global konkurrence, må man give Lindsey ret i, at vores syn på, hvordan man ikke skal regulere et samfund og et frit marked, på en lang række områder rent faktisk har slået igennem.
Man kan selvfølgelig altid afregulere endnu mere; men frem for alt kan man være glad for, at vi ikke lever med 1970’ernes kollektivismeideal og en marginaltrækprocent på vel over 70.
Når et par konservative bloggere her i landet kæfter op om, at libertære mennesker vælger revolutionens vej frem for den inkrementalistiske, skulle de måske løfte blikket fra den selvretfærdige teori og kigge ud i af vinduet.
Den økonomiske liberalisering indenfor de seneste 20 års tid har sin rod i hjerne hos især tre (konsekventialistiske) libertarianere: Friedman, Hayek og Mises. Primært de to første (for makroøkonomi hhv. afregulering, offentlig administration og management).
Ingen af dem var revolutionære, som deres værdi-/rettighedsabsolutte brødre Thomas Jefferson og Murray Rothbard. Men libertære var de alle — for nu at sætte folk i bås.
