Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Keelay — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:52:06 -0000

Sorry - that comment was in reference to this

"I am more and more coming to the conclusion that National Greatness Conservatism, like all quasi-fascist movements, is based on a weird romantic teenager’s fantasies about what it means to be a grown up."

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Keelay — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:51:12 -0000

<>

That is precisely the reason I was originally drawn to it as an adolescent.

And I also had framed prints of Labrador retrievers with dead ducks in their mouths.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Joel — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:37:32 -0000

Will,

National greatness conservatives are like alcoholics who spike the near-beer with the real stuff, worst of both worlds, so I agree with you there.

Yet just as the neocons inappropriately place private virtues in the public sphere, you seem to be doing the reverse, when you celebrate the tasteful "functionalism" of liberal individualism. It may be admirable to caution restraint in government, but I'm not sure why this is a fundamental argument rather than a practical one.

At any rate, I'm more comfortable to calls for the "fundamental decency" of liberal individualism when it comes from someone who went through that over-romantic adolescent phase. Like Shaw said (I think it was him, and not Churchill) about being a liberal at 20 and conservative at 40 (or was it 30? 50? so many different versions of that anecdote...)

Anyway, wonderfully written piece even if I have some caveats.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Egypt Steve — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:25:42 -0000

Jason: Swedish modern. Upscale, not the Ikea version.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Egypt Steve — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:18:08 -0000

I'm a liberal, in fact, quasi-socialist and quasi-pacifist. I hate and reject National Greatness Conservatism and all other quasi-fascist movements. I have, however, read Aristotle in Greek. Does that make me a bad person?

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Jay — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:42:46 -0000

Oh, my... This is the best exhibit they have in their argument against self-interest?

Recent congressional history has laid bare the fallacy of this argument. Republicans who proclaimed from the stump that greed was good turned out to believe it when they got into office, amassing earmarks and bridges to nowhere by means of their newfound powers. Why should we be surprised?

Really? It would seem that this example defeats -- rather than supports -- their own argument. What do earmarks and bridges to nowhere have to do with the free market? Nothing.

If anything, these examples highlight the danger of centralizing power, even if done supposedly to serve a higher purpose. As Hayek said, the worst always come out on top in this sort of system.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

chris — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:20:32 -0000

Very well done, sir. Succinct. You helped me put words to what I couldn't.

"And the problem with most modernist buildings is that nobody could live in them."

Modernist architecture was an attempt to draw *everyone* together into a simplified liberal individualism. Unfortunately, not everyone can live like that; some would rather go to war for a cause regardless of their apprehension of it. And some need to live/work in a building that pretends to give them meaning and culture. And a laundry room.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

America Uber Alles — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:02:14 -0000

National Greatness Conservatives are like Kevin Spacey's next door neighbor in American Beauty, standing in your garage with a rifle.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Jack — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:37:14 -0000

The least we can do for the memory of the late Milton Friedman is to spell his name correctly . . .

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

oddjob — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:24:22 -0000

a grotesque wood-paneled den stuffed with animal heads, mounted swords, garish carpets, and a giant roaring fire. Only the most vulgar tuck in next to that fire, light a fat cigar, and think they’ve really got it all figured out.

LOL!

If you have not, the next time you're in the NYC area you should visit Sagamore Hill, Teddy Roosevelt's home in Oyster Bay, NY.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

David — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:24:25 -0000

Overheard at CATO:

Mr. Wilkinson muttering in the hallway,

"DAMMIT, YOU CONSERVATIVES, ORNAMENT IS CRIME!"

;)

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

mk — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:42:47 -0000

As brilliant as the analogy is, I think National Greatness Conservatism (or "NGC" as it appears in rap songs) is just as self-congratulatory but not as static or navel-gazing as the analogy suggests.

Or I guess, it depends on what idea or practice is giving us greatness. Sometimes, I assume, it's war. And while that's kitschy, it also has real consequences such as death.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

David Morris — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:22:29 -0000

"National Greatness Conservatism is like a grotesque wood-paneled den stuffed with animal heads, mounted swords, garish carpets, and a giant roaring fire. Only the most vulgar tuck in next to that fire, light a fat cigar, and think they’ve really got it all figured out."

Ha! What a great line! It's like something out of a Wodehouse novel.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Greg Newburn — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:34:40 -0000

What do you embrace, Julian? National suckiness?

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Julian Sanchez — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:05:17 -0000

You probably could have saved yourself a fair amount of time (and perhaps a modicum of embarrassment) by just Googling "national greatness conservatism".

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

John — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:21:48 -0000

What exactly do you mean by "national greatness conservatism". If your bitch is about Iraq, which it always is, fine. But a commitment to free markets has nothing to do with that. Lots of people who have no use for free markets or individual freedom object to interventionism and lots of people who do believe in the market don't object to interventionism.

Are you guy saying that you don't believe in anything beyond "the market" and have no attachment to country you grew up in beyond happening to live here? If you don't embrace national greatness, what do you embrace, national suckiness? Why can't you be a libertarian and embrace national greatness? Ron Paul certainly seems to. He embraces patriotism and US sovereignty and the need to keep the US separate and distinct from a North American Union and so forth. I disagree with Ron Paul but I would never question his patriotism or his commitment to making this country great. Does that make him a "national greatness conservative"? If it doesn't, just what the hell does the term mean other than anyone who disagrees with you? The whole thing is just a bunch of crap.

Lastly, liking modern architecture is in no way a sign of discernment. I am not sure what is more sad, that someone who occasionally writes for serious magazines could make such a lame post or that a herd of sycophants would all run and tell him how cool he is.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Greg N. — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:37:04 -0000

This is one of those rare moments of genius that just gets it EXACTLY RIGHT, and leaves the reader totallysatisfied. Your description makes me think of the right-wing talk radio character from "The Last Supper."

Nice job, Will.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Jesse Walker — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:57:05 -0000

I am more and more coming to the conclusion that National Greatness Conservatism, like all quasi-fascist movements, is based on a weird romantic teenager’s fantasies about what it means to be a grown up.

Amen.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Brian Moore — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:43:45 -0000

What it comes down to is that people are uncomfortable with the idea of other people (and themselves perhaps) doing what they want in an undirected manner.

Your post goes great with the Dan Klein paper (which I've recently been acquainted with) "The People's Romance."

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

erik — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:20:55 -0000

Spend 15 minutes reading andrewsullivan.com for proof-positive that "liberal individualism" is no recipe for "discerning maturity."

And of course, it's closed-minded and lazy (and also bespeaks a kind of historical parochialism) to chalk it all up to a concern for "power" (the lip-service you pay to other concerns notwithstanding). It's also just weird to think that's the true motivation of people who chose to spend a big chunk of their lives in grad school.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Reality Man — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:14:37 -0000

"National Greatness Conservatism, like all quasi-fascist movements, is based on a weird romantic teenager’s fantasies about what it means to be a grown up."

That might be the best description of it I heard. Then again, it might be giving them too much credit in the sense of "say what you want about national socialism man, at least it's an ethos." Fukuyama pointed out on bloggingheads that in the 1990's the neocons at the Weekly Standard and elsewhere were searching for an enemy under the rubric of "national greatness conservatism" to help Republicans win elections. They chose China over radical Islam before 9/11, but that day changed all that. Then again, NGC is probably in part what makes Brooks feel that he is different from the existential poets and subaltern studies specialists a couple of buildings away at Harvard. He probably thinks real men teach at the law school while weaklings teach poetry.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

Ben A — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:55:27 -0000

Will,

Thanks for the reply. The Storeys would have done better, I agree, had they said that the value of a free market is for enabling human flourishing, rather than human excellence. Phrased that way, do you agree, or would you still value certain aspects of the free market even were evidence to suggest they were not connected to human flourishing?

I am also intrigued by this sentence of yours:

"There is no evidence that commitment to “a cause higher than yourself” is a necessary component to flourishing."

I incline Aristotelean myself, but would confess that the difficulty of defining or describing the qualities that create a flourishing life (beyond a "I know it when I see it" reaction). It is likewise difficult to identify what would count as "evidence" for anything -- creativity, longenvity, subjectively reported happiness -- being an important, or necessary, component of human flourishing. Are there qualities of a life for which you think such evidence exists (and which the quality "devotion to something higher than yourself" lacks)? What are these qualities and what form does the evidence in their favor take?

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

MikeT — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:01:11 -0000

a Duoist,

Be careful in what you mean by fascism being anti-liberal. The liberalism that Mussolini ranted against was classical liberalism, not what we call liberalism today in the United States. In fact, Mussolini would have few issues with the majority of what modern "liberals" advocate.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

John Payne — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:35:39 -0000

You know that the Committee on Social Thought was the department that Hayek worked in, right? I'm sure it's changed since then--apparently for the worst--but it wasn't always this way.

Re: Must… Destroy… Milton Freedman

TGGP — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:42:21 -0000

A defense of "libertarianism in one country" Paulism from a person with no ideals (or "fixed ideas" or "geists") above himself:

LIOC is simply more workable, just as Stalin's "socialism in one country" was in comparison to Trotsky's worldwide revolution. The Anglosphere countries in particular have a long tradition of liberty (usually referred to as "classical liberalism") that is difficult to export or impose on others. Even here the government is incompetent in managing our lives, and when meddling in countries it knows even less about it is all the more likely to foul up. If you really want to spread liberty, it is better to be a "city on the hill" setting an inspiring example for the rest of the world than a Jacobin trying to violently overturn the order in other nations.