All posts by Joel Schlosberg

Why I Don’t Want Bad Takes to Go to Waste

Henry George’s epitaph marks the case he provided for disentangling economic exchange from political privilege, an insight he knew “will not find easy acceptance.” Photo by Mattercore. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

“Bad opinion pieces in papers of record” are getting a bad rap from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The congresswoman took to Bluesky on December 2 to suggest discussing “thinkers we find valuable” and avoiding “linking to bad columns” so that “incentives change” for news outlets chasing attention (and, presumably, ad revenue).

Such voluntary mindfulness avoids the appeal to force in Ocasio-Cortez’s previous intimation that  “one billionaire … shouldn’t be allowed to own so much of the internet.” (Would a flourishing Bluesky be satisfied with a valuation of $999,999,999?) The Dr. Evil a couple years back was not Twitter purchaser Elon Musk but Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, whose holdings included the Instagram where Ocasio-Cortez posted.

Still, that’s halfway to Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan’s maxim that “the cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.” The “better argument” of the other half may well come from a cold, hard look at the “fallacious argument.” Sagan and Druyan note John Stuart Mill’s contention that truth arises from “collision with error,” elaborating that “if we know only our own side of the argument, we hardly know even that; it becomes stale, soon learned only by rote, untested, a pallid and lifeless truth.”

Such pallor might blanch Bluesky’s atmosphere if it drowns out a no-longer-silent majority. Ocasio-Cortez’s November takeaway on the site: “[A]n echo chamber just won a presidential election.”

That interpretation is unconvincing when Trump’s constituency compounded consistently nationwide, amid the ruins of early-2000s interventionist expansionism and a level of economic elitism that made a landlord playing a boss on TV seem like an upstart.

In particular, support for George W. Bush’s war in Iraq was bolstered by Thomas L. Friedman downplaying warning signs in New York Times rather than New York Post columns. Friedman wanted to “take a very big stick” to pop a “terrorism bubble;” Ben Burgis reminds us that outside of Friedman’s own bubble, “what the bubble-bursting meant in practice was that hundreds of thousands of human beings lost their lives.”  And while Marxists like Burgis are blamed for ideological groupthink in academia, he follows Marx in challenging capitalist economics with counterargument rather than dismissal.

Friedman’s “Suck. On. This.” promptly became one of the most infamous examples of his own phraseology doing the sucking.  In 2009, The Spectator‘s Alex Massie observed that laughing at “the sheer gawd-help-us ghastliness found on the Gray Lady’s op-ed page” via Friedman was uniting the blogosphere, sharing a takedown from liberal muckraker Matt Taibbi at the alt-weekly New York Press linked by Reason libertarian Matt Welch, who in turn got it from The Atlantic‘s conservative Andrew Sullivan.

Such post-Bush unity didn’t eventually last in those publications, let alone push more editorial oversight onto Friedman.  But his assertion that “the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist — McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15” can serve to perfectly crystallize a contrasting vision of the sort of market that results when neither burgers nor bombers receive handouts.

New Yorker Joel Schlosberg is a senior news analyst at The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

  1. “OPINION: Why I don’t want bad takes to go to waste” by Joel Schlosberg, The Richmond Observer [Rockingham, North Carolina], December 10, 2024

Protectionism and Preparedness Remain Roads to Serfdom and Slaughter

“Free trade, peace, goodwill among nations”: the Cobden Club summed up their intertwining at the turn of the twentieth century. From the title page of Tariff Makers: Their Aims and Methods. Public domain.

Unlike most advocates of tariffs in the Trump-Biden era, Alexander William Salter is willing to ask “Will Free Trade Bring Peace and Prosperity?” (The Wall Street Journal, October 29). The Rawls College of Business Administration academic even sees said peace as an admirable if uncertain goal, and acknowledges that the answer to the second half of the queston is probably yes.

Yalie JD Vance, and for that matter his high school social studies teacher debate opponent Tim Walz, could use some of that remedial Adam Smith 101. Vance puzzles over “the idea that if we made America less self-reliant, less productive in our own nation, that it would somehow make us better off.”  The “somehow” comes into focus when imagining US states taking Vance’s “we’re going to make more of our own stuff” mentality to heart, with New Yorkers attempting to plant vast tracts of orange groves while Floridians put up ersatz Appalachian ski slopes.

Yet Salter insists that while “tariffs … doubtless make us poorer … they can also make us freer.” The trivialization of free choice in the marketplace used to be the purview of those putting down schools of economics, from James K. Galbraith dismissing what he called the “freedom to shop”  to the book-length slam at Milton Friedman titled Not So Free to Choose. Restricting it makes us not so free, period.

Salter offers the conflicts embroiling the Athenian Golden Age and the modern United States as “counterexamples to the ‘capitalist peace’ hypothesis.” Those same cases were to Bertrand Russell exemplars of how “a recurrent product of commerce” is the need for merchants to cultivate a mindset of understanding “customs different from their own.”

The precarious balance between imperial and commercial power traced historically by Russell need not be left to happenstance.  If war persists even after “it became impossible to ruin others without imperilling one’s own investments,” as Emile De Laveleye noted regretfully in 1871, that devotee of free trader Richard Cobden was prescient to observe how “electricity had done away with distances” when it was newly generated by steam.

As to why “Europe’s economic integration didn’t stop the cataclysm of World War I,” it was the continent’s socialists who were the champions of internationalism at the time. Tom Mann noted in the March 1915 issue of Emma Goldman’s Mother Earth that “the organized Social Democrats of Germany … singularly failed to practice the solidarity they had stood for;” Goldman’s autobiography stressed that non-participation by over ten million workers in that country alone would have had the effect of “paralyzing war preparations.”

Salter urges Americans “to weed out authoritarian rivals from critical supply chains.” The heavy-handedness that ultimately pushes them into rigidity and brittlenes is coming from inside the White House.

New Yorker Joel Schlosberg is a senior news analyst at The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

  1. The Future of Freedom Foundation Daily – November 9, 2024

The Party of Biden Wouldn’t Get Carter

Mark Hamill as Doobie from ABC-TV’s The Texas Wheelers, before he set out for his better-known role on a farm. Public domain.

Jimmy Carter is garnering more attention for becoming a centenarian on October 1 than he did when he was the first former president of the USA to celebrate a 96th birthday. Yet what thin hope I held in 2020 that the Democratic candidate might “follow Carter’s deregulatory path” seems even more distant from a party that will have further lost its way even if it defeats Donald Trump’s second bid at re-election. (A September Wall Street Journal opinion headline noted that “Biden and Buttigieg are Reregulating the Airlines.”)

Tom Tomorrow’s cover illustration for Eric Alterman’s Why We’re Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America found room for philosophical intellectuals like John Stuart Mill and John Dewey to lend support behind Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. 2024 Democrats are less likely to invoke either John than to ridicule opponents as spineless stooges for white supremacy and fascism (charges considered cheaply contemptible when hurled at the Michael Moore stand-in of An American Carol in 2008) or just plain “weird.” The New York Times can only make one of the most popular taunts against Trump’s running mate JD Vance fit to print by referring to it obliquely as “a vulgar, untrue joke.” President Joe Biden and NYC mayor Eric Adams have fallen out of favor for personal failings rather than stale ideas.

Rick Perlstein’s Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976-1980 laments the public’s shift away from New Hollywood “moral ambiguity, dark moods, [and] suffusing skepticism toward establishments of every description” to the “Old Hollywood pastiche” of the original Star Wars at the same time they abandoned the Carter who channeled Reinhold Niebuhr’s suspicion of “a too-simple division of the world into lightness and dark” in favor of the star of Knute Rockne All American. A future historian covering the quadrennial since Perlstein’s 2020 publication would find even less room for nuance. If anything, the lightness projected by a party purportedly devoted to “joy” is tempered by the bad vibes of anxiety threatening to overwhelm it (as literally happened onscreen in this summer’s Inside Out 2).

Yet Perlstein’s division of Hollywood into New and revanchist is itself oversimplified. The novelization of Star Wars portrays an emperor who fails to heed “the cries of the people for justice” not out of malice but due to being isolated from popular opinion by “assistants and boot-lickers he had appointed to high office.” In the spinoff novels published during Carter’s term, Alan Dean Foster described a Luke Skywalker who “reflected grimly [that] if there was one thing he was sure of it was that the callow youth he had once been was dead and dry as dust,” while Brian Daley wrote of a young Han Solo whose seemingly “callous exterior” is realized to be a shield “from the derisions of fools and cowards” by an ally who warns that “in trying to preserve [one’s] ideals, one risks losing them.”

Let’s hope that this galaxy’s liberals learn a similar lesson before they divide the White House against liberalism in order to save it from conservatives.

New Yorker Joel Schlosberg is a senior news analyst at The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. He also enjoys the Lando Calrissian Adventures written for Lucasfilm in 1983 by libertarian author L. Neil Smith.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

  1. “The Party of Carter Wouldn’t Get Carter” by Joel Schlosberg, CounterPunch, October 4, 2024
  2. “The party of Biden wouldn’t get Carter” by Joel Schlosberg, The Newton Kansan, October 4, 2024
  3. “The party of Biden wouldn’t get Carter” by Joel Schlosberg, The Wilson, North Carolina Times, October 4, 2024
  4. “The party of Biden wouldn’t get Carter” by Joel Schlosberg, The Enterprise [Williamston, North Carolina], October 4, 2024
  5. “The party of Biden wouldn’t get Carter” by Joel Schlosberg, The Johnstonian News [Smithfield, North Carolina], October 4, 2024
  6. “The party of Biden wouldn’t get Carter” by Joel Schlosberg, The Butner-Creedmoor News [Creedmoor, North Carolina], October 4, 2024
  7. “The party of Biden wouldn’t get Carter” by Joel Schlosberg, The Wake Weekly [Wake Forest, North Carolina], October 4, 2024
  8. “The party of Biden wouldn’t get Carter” by Joel Schlosberg, Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman [Wasilla, Alaska], October 7, 2024