Teddy Roosevelt in 1910 delivered one of the most influential political speeches in American history, the one in which he announced his stand for a “square deal” for the common man and reaffirmed his belief in the responsibility of government to deal with social problems.

“When I say that I am for the square deal,” Roosevelt said, “I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity.”

So when Obama told the nation, “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules,” I heard the echo of earlier times.

But Frank points out that Obama is being very selective about the issues that he picks up from TR. In the same speech TR went on…

Our government, national and state, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. . .. We must drive the special interest out of politics. That is one of our tasks today.

I think that Frank would like to see that fed into Obama’s autocue.  The point is that the outcome of the push for TR’s square deal and more involvement from the government is the way we are at present. However on a second reading, Frank’s piece contains mixed messages. He wants a debate that addresses the real issues but he seems to have a foot in the camp of the people who want the high flyers to pay more tax. That is a worry. I thought he was a fan of the Tea Pa;rty. So we have to re-run the debate from the Progressive era and make the distinction between the two types of entrepreneurs.

Frank seems to be impressed by the rhetoric about Buffet paying less tax than his secretaries. But who created the jobs of the secretaries and all the other people who Buffet employs. What if we credit him with the tax that they pay?

I should have said this before I left town for the day. I meant to give MORAL  credit for the tax paid as a result of the jobs that he created. I thought anyone with a three digit IQ would have read it that way. Thanks to the Montster for screwing up the thread.

The passage was a part of a critique of the psychologial theory of human progress, that it is driven by the progressive tendency of the human mind. The author commented that there are other tendencies of the human mind like forgetfullness, indolence and dogmatism.

If we wish to replace this surprisingly naïve theory by a more tenable one, we have to make two main alterations. First, we have to attempt to find conditions of progress, and to this end we must try to imagine, for example, conditions under which progress would be arrested. This immediately leads to the realization that a psychological propensity alone cannot be sufficient to explain progress, since conditions may be found on which it may depend. Thus we must, next, replace the theory of psychological propensities by something better; I suggest, by an institutional (and technological) analysis of the conditions of progress.

He speculated about ways to arrest scientific and industrial progress, for example by closing down (or subjecting to political control) laboratories for research, scientific periodicals, congresses and conferences, universities and printing presses.  That process has made giant strides in Big Science funded by Big Government. So there is no need to be surprised by the climate scam, it was predictable!

The process is proceeding apace in the arts under our current “soviet” regime. As Tim Blair put it “Dance arts monkeys, dance! For money”

David Archibald, polymath, makes a bold prediction that temperatures are about to dive sharply (in the decadal sense). He took the  forgotten correlation that as solar cycles lengthen and weaken, the world gets cooler. He refined it into a predictive tool, tested it and published in 2007. His paper has been expanded on recently by Prof Solheim in Norway, who predicts a 1.5°C drop in Central Norway over the next ten years.

It helps to remember that the predictions of scary warming are not based on  trends of observed temperatures over time, they are fabricated from the abuse of models. And given the degree of uncertainty about the mechanisms involved in warming and cooling (what was that about the science being settled?) there is nothing inherently implausible about a scenario of cooling.

Their combined efforts offered a framework for the study of economics and the other human sciences which could have:

1. Maintained sociology and economics as an integrated discipline.

2. Sponsored partnerships between economists and students of all social institutions  – law, politics, literature, religion and cultural studies at large.

3. Ensured that “high theory” and empirical studies inform, enrich  and correct each other.

4. Contributed to good public policy, especially by checking the results of increased regulation and intervention in the marketplace and the impact of the erosion of the “bourgeoise virtues”. This work could have commenced when the role of government was much smaller and less entrenched.

There was a window of opportunity for the these three leading figures in their respective  fields , plus their followers, to form a united front across the disciplines of sociology, economics and philosophy to promote the ideas that they shared and to debate the views that they did not share.

This did not happen.  The defective ideas which all three identified in the 1930s became embedded in the rapidly growing community of academics and researchers after the war.

Who dropped the ball?

We take somber note of the reality that in 1933 Europe contained the world’s largest Jewish community.  Until that time, Progressive Jews participated actively and productively in European society, adding much to the quality of life in science, art, music, medicine, law, teaching, commerce and many other fields.  In the ensuing 12 years, six million Jews were wiped out, and the people of the world — with many laudable exceptions — watched in silent assent.

A reminder from the World Union for Progressive Judaism.

Not entirely happy with the idea that the people of the world watched in silent assent. How many people of the world knew what was happening?

What are the lessons of the Holocaust?  Nowadays we know about dreadful crimes of religous persecution that happen in many places around the world, practically every day, but can we react more effectively than the world managed to do in the 1930s?

That commentary reminds me of a  beautiful paper written years ago bythe late Len Hume about the so-called cultural cringe. It first appeared in an academic journal, was reprinted as a pamphlet by CIS and I put it on line by arrangement with Hume’s widow.

Pete Craven mentioned Barry Humphries as one of our cultural treasures, there is a section about him in one of the Rathouse Revivalist issues with a picture by Kilmeny Niland and a report on the little-noticed encounter when Karl Popper met Barry Mackenzie.

Dumb research on “Australian racism“. Sorted out by Lorenzo Warby. 

In what is wrong with this “research” effort, the only question is where to begin. First, 102 people is a tiny sample. Second, agreeing that the White Australia Policy “saved Australia from many problems experienced by other countries” does not demonstrate racism. One can agree that monoculturalism has advantages without being racist. Moreover, a majority of flag-fliers did not agree with the statement. So, tagging an activity which a majority of those engaged in where found not to be racist as associated with racism is slander by correlation. (As is typical, the media reporting is worse than the actual study.)

Keith Windschuttle defends the Constitution from charges of racism.

Far from being a racist document, the Australian Constitution … puts all Australians on an equal footing, no matter when they or their ancestors arrived here. Indeed, it would be not only racially discriminatory but also socially divisive to endorse this report and give some Australians status and privileges not available to others simply because of their ancestry.

At the review of the Fair Work Act. Just don’t mention the war  productivity. And don’t involve the Productivity Commisssion!

What a crook start to the new year. It turns out, 2011 was the worst year for job creation since 1992.[i] And productivity has fallen to a level last seen in the mid 1990s.[ii]

Is it just the Crows or does the reference [regarding the brief of the review] to “economic issues” sound like an after-thought?

If it was, Bill Shorten appears anxious to assist in ensuring their irrelevance to the review. As the Employment minister said in announcing the FWA Review by John Edwards, Ron McCallum and Michael Moore, “Real economic prosperity and growth requires fairness and security in the workplace. This review reaffirms the Gillard Government’s fundamental commitment to these aims.” [v]

But it would be good if we all knew the cost of a kinder, gentler IR system, which coincidentally just happens to generate work for union officials. The way to do this is to examine FWA’s impact on productivity to date and project what will happen on the basis of existing evidence. Given its resources and terms of reference this will be impossible for the review in the five months it has.

Gosh is there nobody who can help, an organisation that could have started on the necessary groundwork before Dr John Edwards et al got cracking?

Well what about, and it’s just a stab in the dark you understand, the Productivity Commission?

Oddly enough, the Commission was ignored when the review was established and, entirely understandably, knows when it is not wanted. Minister Shorten’s officials say they have not asked for a submission from the Commission and the PC says it will accordingly get on with its work.

A warning for Craig Thomson? Too much sex on the sideline!

Steve Horwitz responds to some misrepresentations of his claims about gender gap in pay in the US.

JamesK on the Open forum posted the Larry Summers memo on US economic policy. “8. Greg Mankiw, economic adviser to Mitt Romney, was dubious about the stimulus. Greg Mankiw is the only economist we have consulted with who refused to name a number and was generally skeptical about stimulus.”

Pete Klein on O&M posted a list of all the economists who were consulted.

(For the record, the economists consulted — supposedly representing the full spectrum of legitimate opinion — were Robert Reich (recommended stimulus: $1.2 trillion over 2 years), Joe Siglitz ($1 trillion over two years), Paul Krugman ($600 billion in one year), Jamie Galbraith ($900 billion in one year), Dean Baker and colleagues ($900 billion), Marty Feldstein ($400 billion in one year), Larry Lindsey ($800 billion to $1 trillion), Ken Rogoff ($1 trillion over two years), Mark Zandi ($600 billion in one year), an unnamed group of Fed officials (over $600 billion), Adam Posen ($500-700 billion in one year), and an unnamed group at Goldman Sachs(!) ($600 billion). So, we’ve got left-wing Keynesians, right-wing Keynesians, moderate Keynesians, Robert Reich who wouldn’t know a Keynesian from a Kenyan, and Goldman Sachs. How’s that for diversity of opinion?)

Peter Klein again on apes imitating humans, will it work if they don’t have insight?  In the comments I suggest that the answer is NO.

In “A Bend in the River” by V S Naipaul the store at the bend in the river in a third world country is “nationalized” by revolutionaries. In addition to selling things in the front of the shop, they knew that some stuff had to be done in the back office as well. That was where the owner used to drink whiskey while he did the books, prepared orders for stock etc. So every evening the new owners sat in the office drinking whiskey and shufflilng pieces of paper.

On a grander scale you have the whole Melanesian “cargo cult” phenomenon where the natives observed the US forces coming in during WW2, and building airstrips where planes arrived to deliver cargo. The natives did their best to imitate the strips, in the expectation that more cargo would arrive.

Then there is the phenomenon of scientism where people imitate what they think are the inductive methods of the natural sciences.

“A Conservative Teacher” in the US reports how the Cold War is taught by liberal teachers.

The lecture notes that I am looking at that were delivered by the liberal teacher in my school are one-sided liberal spin. They begin by pointing out that the Cold War wasn’t really a war- that the United States was just scared of losing its position of power in the world and so reacted to an emerging Soviet Union by pretending that there was some sort of Cold War we were engaged in. The definition of ‘Red Scare’ according to this liberal teacher was ‘the unjustified fear of communism in the United States’. The teacher then goes on to attack McCarthy- “known as a lazy and corrupt politician,” “played up imaginary fears of communists to gullible public,” and “made up evidence of spies to get re-elected.”

He also has some detailed notes on Obama’s State of the Nation Speech. He sounds like JC!

Misleading climate models. Climate change policy is driven by models, but what about the actual data?  Waiting for the Warming -  Helpful pictures on the same topic from BoltA.

Some are academics, some run think tanks and policy organisations, others are writers and public thinkers. What they have in common is high prominence on the public stage of ideas and the ability to be taken seriously by other powerful people. A kind of knock-on power and influence.

Here is John’s profile and the other people on the list.

It was reported that he went to an IPA event or some such gathering recently and was gobsmacked to find that the people looked quite normal (no forked tails) and said some quite reasonable things. What did he expect?

Well what do you expect a leftwing intellectual to expect?

Imagine that a brilliant young Australian journalist became a supporter of national socialism, travelled to the Continent and became a lifelong editor and reporter for the cause.  At some stage he parts company with the official organization of the movement but he maintains his rage and never repents. He writes a memoire, called something like Come the Revolution: A Memoire. What sort of reception would this book receive by critics and commentators in Australia?

In The Weekend Australian Peter Craven reviewed a book by Alex Mitchell, coincidentally titled Come the Revolution: A Memoire.  Alex Mitchell grew up in Queensland, went to England, became a Trotskyite, edited the Workers Press, then returned to Sydney as the political editor of the Sun-Herald, went freelance and became president of the NSW Parliamentary Press Gallery.

Craven reports that the book shows evidence of Mitchell’s toughness of spirit and ability to write lucidly (the same could be said of Wilfred Burchett). “Michell seems to have given his heart and soul to the communist project”. He writes that Mitchell has not turned his face from the light.

Come the Revolution is a bracing memoire of ancient pieties which is also, every so often, a great journalist’s recollections of the colour and horror of history on the run.

Recall that a great part of the history of the 20th century is the colour and horror of ordinary people on the run from state socialist and national socialist murderers and torturers. Many tens of millions did not run fast enough. We are told that he lets his experiences and his mistakes speak for themselves. “Not that he is repentant”

We are told elsewhere that Mitchell is “unafraid to ask hard questions about the world, and himself”.

I would like to see Alex Mitchell and Peter Craven answer the following (possibly hard) questions.

1. When are you going to stop giving free passes to people who have been lifelong supporters of communism (aka state socialism), unless you are prepared to offer the same hospitality to lifelong supporters of national socialism?

2. When are you going to give credit for the comparative peace, freedom and prosperity that people enjoy under democratic capitalism?

3. When will you make the effort to understand that many if not all of the residual welfare problems under democratic capitalism are the outcome of  attempts to implement socialist policies?

And 4. The really hard one. How come state socialism was ok but national socialism was not?

Taking a point from the comments:  The bottom line is that state socialism and national socialism are morally equivalent but the difference is that state socialism attracted and maintains a following among western intellectuals.

And one more thing, would Alex Mitchell like to come up with a rejoinder to Kolakowski’s commentary on the unreconstructed communism of Edward Thompson?

To be fair to Peter Craven, this is an excellent piece on the demise of the Australian Literary Review, the monthly supplement to The Australian.