« The Immigration Bill Advances | Main | Will Guest Workers Harm American Workers? »
June 04, 2007
The Class of 1994
Along with Gingrich, Dick Armey is often lauded as one of those honest, thoughtful, crackling-with-ideas type conservatives who bumrushed Washington in the early-90s and whose intellectual energy we should all sort of miss. Well, Armey is doing some guest-blogging over at Time, and it turns out he's as disappointingly hackish as ever. It's also a bit funny, full of gems like, "In all of these endeavors I have been guided by my highest political value: freedom. This is a good place for me to start. While tyrannies work only for those at the top, the American tradition demonstrates that all people are better off when their political and economic freedoms are protected. Government can only expand its scope of power and authority at the expense of the citizen [blah blah blah]." Reading this, you get a better sense for where the cult of Armey comes from: He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.
June 4, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Like Obama, Gingrich has a horrible voting record on immigration. I'd vote for neither of them.
The marriage of big business and multiculturalism is the worst thing ever to happen to the American worker.
Big business is using legal and illegal third-world immigration to drive down American wages.
And liberals can side with big business on this issue and use "multiculturalism" to appease their conscience.
http://bluedogdemocrats.us/
Please note the Patriot Pledge and join us at the Blue Dog Discussion Forum. Thanks.
.
Posted by: Old-School Democrat | Jun 4, 2007 4:07:10 PM
One might also note that, until very recently, Armey didn't take a single paycheck in his life that wasn't from the government -- whether as an academic or as a congresscritter.
Posted by: charles pierce | Jun 4, 2007 4:07:49 PM
Er, doesn't that apply to 'conservative intellectualism' in general? Big words, sweeping generalities, and a lotta hot air.
Posted by: grape_crush | Jun 4, 2007 4:08:23 PM
ahahahahaha. nice one.
He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.
Funny cause it's true!
Posted by: IMU | Jun 4, 2007 4:12:02 PM
"Reading this, you get a better sense for where the cult of Armey comes from: He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like."
but, but, but isn't that the perfect description of the "thoughtful people" who dominate the American political discourse:
Friedman, Brooks, George Will, Broder, Ignatius, Richard Cohen, Gwen Ifill, Hoagland, Mallaby, Safire, Bennett, Glenn Reynolds, Jonah Goldberg. Is there any substance to our national political discourse? Is there a discourse or just crisis?
Posted by: della Rovere | Jun 4, 2007 4:17:01 PM
That's an excellent description of Armey. On a related point, I have always thought that Newt Gingrich, if his "scholarly" pronouncements remind me of anyone, it would be "The Log Lady" on Twin Peaks. I would like to see a blind side by side comparison of some of their quotes, just to see if anyone can identify which is Newt.
Posted by: tbone | Jun 4, 2007 4:27:42 PM
He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.Great line, Ezra.
Of course, even if Armey were "honest, thoughtful, [and] crackling-with-ideas", the ideas with which he was crackling were directly responsible for the corruption of the Republicans in Congress. For Armey, freedom's just another word for 'government BAD'...and when people who believe government is bad are actually given a government to run, it's inevitable that they'll use it to enrich their contributors and extend their own power.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 4, 2007 4:28:36 PM
In all of these endeavors I have been guided by my highest political value: freedom.
Lines like this take on a whole new gloss when you realize that Frank Luntz spent the 1990s urging the Republicans to characterize everything in terms of "freedom." It's the ultimate focus-grouped buzzword, and if the left had any kind of message machine like what the other side has, no Republican could ever invoke the term again without inspiring giggles.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 4, 2007 4:32:03 PM
Tom DeLay said something very similar in the Jeffrey Goldberg article in the New Yorker-- that "Order, Justice, and Freedom" are what the GOP stands for.
This, of course, has no meaning other than "I like to hear myself talk, and I frequently agree with myself. Yay, me!"
These words only become remotely interesting when they are in conflict-- and DeLay and Armey are among the last people on this planet who will give a thoughtful explanation as to which should trump which in any given situation.
Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg | Jun 4, 2007 4:36:20 PM
that is a great ending line. well played sir.
Posted by: Jake | Jun 4, 2007 4:38:10 PM
Jesus, Ezra, you're a stong man. I wandered over to Swampland, read Armey's regurgitation of the same old Reaganite BS and immediately got a headache. I'm pretty sure I'll have to stay away from there all week.
Posted by: asg | Jun 4, 2007 4:45:19 PM
Dang...I was going to make that line Quote of the Day, but Atrios beat me to it.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 4, 2007 4:51:15 PM
Mr. Armey seems to express himself in a pretty simplistic way, but I find it telling that the word "freedom" immediately inspires you to guffaws.
I realize that's partially due to the word's overuse in propaganda aimed at rubes, but I also tend to think it's partially due to the fact that you just don't really think that any serious person could ever possibly be concerned about something as silly or out of intellectual fashion as "liberty".
Posted by: Fluffy | Jun 4, 2007 4:54:36 PM
> Mr. Armey seems to express himself in a pretty
> simplistic way, but I find it telling that the word
> "freedom" immediately inspires you to guffaws.
> [...]
> you just don't really think that any serious person
> could ever possibly be concerned about something as
> silly or out of intellectual fashion as "liberty".
Thank goodness we have Dick Cheney, David Addington, and John Yoo looking out for us on that one.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Jun 4, 2007 5:00:46 PM
I also tend to think it's partially due to the fact that you just don't really think that any serious person could ever possibly be concerned about something as silly or out of intellectual fashion as "liberty".
Any serious person? Sure. Dick Armey? Ahahahahahahahaha....
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Jun 4, 2007 5:13:15 PM
I find it telling that the word "freedom" immediately inspires you to guffaws.
Correction: I find it telling that an authoritarian GOP hack has the unmitigated chutzpa to use the word "freedom" immediately inspires you to guffaws.
Fixed it for you. Cuz, yeah, it was pretty funny.
You're welcome.
Posted by: DrBB | Jun 4, 2007 5:15:30 PM
Yes Fluffy - Dick Armey believes in the freedom to economically exploit workers, deprive women of the right to choose, rape the environment, and avoid paying taxes - the same four freedoms that FDR chose to celebrate in his famous speech during WWII.
I knew we were in deep, deep, trouble when this clown became majority leader in the 1990s. He was so extraordinarily right wing and had a history of saying absolutely outlandish things during his congressional career, the fact that he was deemed fit for a leadership postion said as much as you needed to know about the Republican Revolution, i.e. Mussolini would have felt pretty comfortable with these guys.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Jun 4, 2007 5:16:30 PM
Sorry: "having the unmitigated chutzpa." Always use preview when fixing someone else's post for them. Spank. But it it is more accurate this way.
Posted by: DrBB | Jun 4, 2007 5:17:10 PM
He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.
That also describes Bill "Slots" Bennett and George F. Will.
Posted by: Steve J. | Jun 4, 2007 5:20:15 PM
"Government can only expand its scope of power and authority at the expense of the citizen"
Perhaps you could explain what part of that statement you disagree with. How does government power ever expand in a way that doesn't infringe on freedom? You can argue that specific tradeoffs are worth it, but I don't think the statement itself is flawed.
Posted by: James Robertson | Jun 4, 2007 5:24:28 PM
Actually, I think you're close, but not quite there on your assessment of Armey. He's representative of classic American anti-intellectualism. People who think he's thoughtful aren't necessarily stupid, but they are intentionally ignorant. Colbert nails this aspect of conservatism with his "thinking with his gut" schtick.
Posted by: William Ockham | Jun 4, 2007 5:29:01 PM
This reminds me of the ill-fated Harriet Miers nomination. I'm sure as far as Dubya is concerned, she's a heckuva lawyer, but when some of the WH memos she had written came out, they were full of stuff like "In the final analysis we must maximize our efforts to increase public confidence" yadda yadda yadda.
Posted by: Dix Hill | Jun 4, 2007 5:35:09 PM
doctor heard a crackling in my lungs a couple of weeks ago.
Did not have pneumonia, but fluid was there. Unmixed with any ideas.
Where do folks get a notion Armey or Gingrich have any idea what an idea is? Nothing more than Artful self promotion by brutes with access to MSM>
Sickness unto death in the lala land of MSM.
Posted by: vox clamantis in red state | Jun 4, 2007 5:38:35 PM
"Big business is using legal and illegal third-world immigration to drive down American wages."
Check out this study that indicates the opposite:
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=737
This nation has married big business and immigration for 150 years (at least). It was when workers had the power to organize that we saw positive movement in wages and living conditions. I would suggest that giving current immigrants legal ways to come out of the shadows and organize will have a net positive benefit for all.
Posted by: Sarah | Jun 4, 2007 5:47:37 PM
"How does government power ever expand in a way that doesn't infringe on freedom? You can argue that specific tradeoffs are worth it, but I don't think the statement itself is flawed."
Posted by: James Robertson | Jun 4, 2007 5:24:28 PM
Actually, Armey said it himself:
"..the American tradition demonstrates that all people are better off when their political and economic freedoms are protected."
But who protects those freedoms of not the government itself? Will Exxon protect your political and economic freedom?
Markets are great, but only if they are well regulated. That's part of the job of government. Read the constitution sometime and think about how much of it is devoted to the regulation of trade. That's something the conservatives don't like to talk about, because to them freedom means the right to exploit.
Posted by: A Hermit | Jun 4, 2007 5:57:26 PM
In fact, Exxon will in general treat me better than the government will. They won't come after me with force if I start riding a bus or a bike, and the worst they can do to me is charge me more money. The government (Mike Nifong, anyone?) can do far, far more damage to me than any corporation can.
Mind you, I'm not in the "take it all down, we need no government" camp - I'm just suspicious of giving government extra power. Just as you worry about the Patriot Act, I worry about a distant bureaucrat deciding what medical care I "really" need. The federal staffer will be no more solicitous to my needs than the insurance company - and since he/she has no fear of being sued, probably less.
Posted by: James Robertson | Jun 4, 2007 6:04:03 PM
James,
Well let's see - expansion of government power that also expands freedom -- the civil rights act of 1964, the National Labor Relations, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Social Security Act, the creation of comprehensive public schooling and land grant colleges, the G.I. Bill -- all of these laws and actions gave greater freedoms to the vast majority of people in the society. In some instances a few business owners lost some of their freedom to exploit people. I know that's near and dear to the Republican ethos, but most of us are pretty happy with that trade off.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Jun 4, 2007 6:11:58 PM
Dear James roberston,
Wrong again. The federal staffer will be *more* solicitous of your needs because the profit margin will not dominate the discussion. Do you know many people who lived to sucessfully sue their insurance company, or whose suit sucessfully saved their life when th eissue was what medical treatments would be "allowed" by those faceless bureaucrats for hire? Because I don't. Speaking as someone who has pretty good insurance, a high level of education, and no shyness about demanding my rights I can tell you that disputing a bill, arguing for coverage of an uncovered medication or treatment, or trying to get coverage when you have been degtermined to have a pre-existing conditition turns out to be very difficult for most people. California's blue cross blue shield, as far as I know, sucessfully waited hundreds of people out and saw them die before they could sucessfully sue to get treatments the insurance co deemed too expensive.
Anbd here's another hting which Ifind hysterically funny about the "don't give govenrment exxgtra power" crowd. While you are ensuring that everybody can't gegt health care because of gthe big bad government none of you guys worry at all about the utter loss of liberty and freedom from search and seizure, spying, loss of haebeas corpus, abuses of credit card companies, red lining by banks etc...etc...etc...
Oh, and even funnier? Exxon and the water companies that privatized water in the third world are only restrained from coming after you and beating the stuffing out of you when you refuse to buy their product by *government regulation.* Exxon and various ogther corporations behave in an utterly dangerous and dictatorial fashion whenever goverment withdraws from regulation. Try reading up on the actual history of global companies and privatization.
Oh, and while I'm on "anogther thing" kick ask yourself whether the privatization of our military in the form of blackwater troops on gthe streets of new orleans made us more able to "sue" for redress or less?
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jun 4, 2007 6:14:18 PM
How does government power ever expand in a way that doesn't infringe on freedom?
For example, the government police power that allows you to freely walk the street without fear of being attacked.
If you want to see what happens when government has no power to impact people's daily lives, check out Iraq sometime. I'd imagine the terrorized citizens of Iraq would be all in favor of expanded government power right about now.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 4, 2007 6:27:05 PM
When has private corporate power ever been used irresponsibly and in a way that has harmed average people? Often you say ---oh, well never mind.
And yes, James, when would private insurers ever try and keep you from getting all the health care you need? They are like the bestest friend you ever had, looking out for you every step of the way.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Jun 4, 2007 6:27:12 PM
Two things:
1) The Civil Rights Act is actually an example of a good tradeoff. We lost some free association rights, and gained ground against prejudice. That's a tradeoff, and one worth making - but it was a tradeoff
2) NLRB - you must be joking. I worked as a teacher, and believe me, the union doesn't help the end user (students). It helps teachers, sometimes at the expense of students. Other unions have similar tradeoffs. Depending on your politics, this is either a good thing or not - but it's a tradeoff.
3) Same goes for the Fair Labor Standards Act. It's a tradeoff, and you could argue the benefit either way.
As to this:
"The federal staffer will be *more* solicitous of your needs because the profit margin will not dominate the discussion. "
Umm, yeah. Next time you get to spend quality time down at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, you keep telling yourself that. People who have absolutely no fear of being fired don't tend to be the best workforce, and federal employees have no fear of being fired. It's the Dilbert "The pay's the same no matter what I do" syndrome writ large. At least in the stupid company, the market will (eventually) get around to punishing them - ask DEC's old shareholders.
And this:
"While you are ensuring that everybody can't gegt health care because of gthe big bad government none of you guys worry at all about the utter loss of liberty and freedom from search and seizure, spying, loss of haebeas corpus, abuses of credit card companies, red lining by banks"
Actually, those kinds of things are exactly why I don't want the feds to have more power. The "war on drugs" is a bigger drain on liberty than the "war on terror" wants to be, and most of our 4th amendment rights have been sacrificed to it.
So let's take a single payer system for health care: Once the govt has all that power, keeping costs down will be the primary driver (you can see that in the UK and in Canada). You want to see regulations coming down telling you things like:
-- what you can't eat?
-- what activities you can't do?
Wait until the govt has to pay for the results of your activities. You might find that far-fetched, but ask yourself this: If you explained to someone in 1965 where the anti-smoking thing would end up by 2007, what would their response be? You might even agree with most of the anti-smoking things, but what if the health ministry wants to take away some food/activity you enjoy?
Posted by: James Robertson | Jun 4, 2007 6:28:36 PM
Well, Charles Peters (the 2nd commenter) seems not to be aware that Armey was a professor at Austin College, a small private Presbyterian college, that does not use state, federal or local governments to facilitate paying its teachers. In fact, I got to know "Dr. Armey" back then. He was a friendly guy, even though his opinions were as wacko then as they are now.
Armey can be distinguished from Gingrich, DeLay, Ney, Cunningham, Lewis, Foley and all the other extraordinarily corrupt Republican Congressmen in that, to my knowledge, Armey was never so personally corrupt. His son Scott is a different story...
As a consequence, Dick needs to be taken on using ideas rather than criminal laws. His lies about Democrats' ideas about health coverage and energy need to be corrected first though if he wishes to be taken seriously.
Posted by: patroclus | Jun 4, 2007 6:43:28 PM
ah the Dick, he was one of the rabid early cultees who were so wrong about the Clinton deficit reduction plan.
http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html
"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating."
—Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."
—Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."
—Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." —Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
__
speaking of dicks, I heard Newt say he may run if he sees the nation is ready for a "citizen candidate."
Cults use/abuse language like that.
Posted by: noodles | Jun 4, 2007 6:45:55 PM
question - why does your posting thingy say, if you leave emial blank, that it requires an emial but it won't be published and yet all you have to do to get a person's posted email address is put your cursor on their name?
Posted by: froodles | Jun 4, 2007 6:51:53 PM
a "citizen candidate."
Gah, the soundbites in which these people talk . . . The other candidates aren't citizens?
Posted by: rea | Jun 4, 2007 7:27:14 PM
"2) NLRB - you must be joking. I worked as a teacher, and believe me, the union doesn't help the end user (students). It helps teachers, sometimes at the expense of students. Other unions have similar tradeoffs. Depending on your politics, this is either a good thing or not - but it's a tradeoff."
James, you seem to fond of using anecdotal evidence as the basis for your arguments. You couldn't see any positive impact on students from your union, so no unions have a positive impact. Someone was rude to me at the BMV, so that proves government doesn't work.
Saying that unions have no positive impact on students is nonsense. Some local unions work well with administration and provide leadership for improving professional development and setting high standards and some do not, and judging the difference between the two should have nothing to do with politics.
Yes, I can see how the CRA was a tradeoff; the government insists that everyone regardless of race should have equal access to goods and services and programs afforded to American citizens, and bigots can no longer legally discriminate against people based on race in these kinds of decisions (you'll notice that it still allows people to "stay with their own kind" when it comes to personal relationships, so I am not sure that we have had to sacrifice all that much). And with unions, the tradeoff is that an employer no longer holds all power in the relationship and in exchange, workers can advocate for themselves in matters that affect them. In each case, the tradeoff is that one empowered group has to share some of that power with a previously powerless group. What you seem to be arguing is that expanding government power is bad unless you happen to agree with the reason for it.
Yes, we must take care with how much power we cede to our government, but we are well short of tyranny when we are talking about the Civil Rights Act or universal health care.
Posted by: jmack | Jun 4, 2007 7:41:53 PM
Holy crap! There's a cult of Armey? Now, Phil Gramm or even Zell Miller I could see if for no other reason than they ooze charisma. But Dick Armey?
Posted by: R. Porrofatto | Jun 4, 2007 7:50:23 PM
Armey's idea of protecting civil liberties is to prevent the introduction of stoplights that photograph cars than run red lights. Freedom to break the traffic laws when no one's looking - the GOP's idea of protecting us from guv-mint tyranny.
Posted by: The Next to Last Poper | Jun 4, 2007 8:01:12 PM
"Government can only expand its scope of power and authority at the expense of the citizen"
Perhaps you could explain what part of that statement you disagree with. How does government power ever expand in a way that doesn't infringe on freedom? You can argue that specific tradeoffs are worth it, but I don't think the statement itself is flawed.
Posted by: James Robertson"
The statement is flawed 1) Because Armey's record clearly demonstrates that the 'freedom' he's talking about is freedom for the very rich to exploit and deny freedom 2) Because increasing government involvement is not necessarily at the expense of the citizen but can in fact be used to prevent the exploitation of and the rights of its citizens. That's what a large part of the New Deal was about and the New Deal did increase the size and scope of government. 'Small' government is an advantage for the already powerful. Armey's career in government and since leaving office has been about cutting taxes on the already powerful and reducing the protection of a safety net, necessary in modern society, for the not powerful.
The Bill of Rights limits some government activity but government is necessary to protect those rights.
Armey's statement is an absolute that is not necessarily true and given his record tells us that his idea of freedom is limited to a select few.
In a democratic society its the governed who determine the scope of government.
Posted by: cal1942 | Jun 4, 2007 8:12:15 PM
So who's going to protect your rights when the car company comes along and buys up light rail interests or bicycle manufacturers or shoe manufacturers and consigns them to the dust bin in order to "entice you" to drive your car more? One thing you can say about gLibertarians is that they firmly deny that monopolies crush free markets (or simply redefine "free market" from "equal access to enter the market and reach suppliers and buyers" to "lack of government intervention in the market")
And almost none of the gLibertarians are part of the "take it all down, we need no government" crowd. They lubs the government enforcing their "natural" property rights and enforcing encorporation/limited liability laws and ensuring the stock market can be trusted well enough to allow corporate interests to pocket large amounts of cash.
Posted by: Tom - Daai Tou Laam | Jun 4, 2007 9:11:25 PM
He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.
That also describes Bill "Slots" Bennett and George F. Will.
Thomas Sowell.
Posted by: Soprano | Jun 4, 2007 9:38:39 PM
The Civil Rights Act is actually an example of a good tradeoff. We lost some free association rights, and gained ground against prejudice. That's a tradeoff, and one worth making - but it was a tradeoff
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The tradeoff was not "loss of free association vs. ending prejudice" is was "increasing freedom and opportunity for most vs. restricting ability of a few to discriminate." It was a huge net gain in freedom, not a loss in freedom in exchange for psychic benefits.
Exercise of proper government action results in greater freedom for the people, not less. A weak government means that people are more afraid, are more vulnerable, and in most cases less free.
Thomas Sowell.
So, so true. But I would say he's smarter than Dick Armey by far.
Posted by: Constantine | Jun 4, 2007 10:12:40 PM
Constantine,
Very well said. Gopvernment action of the right kind can create huge net gains in freedoms. Bigots and exploiters may lose out. Since that's a big chunk of the GOP's constituency, you can see why James might miss this point.
Measuring the intellectual difference between Armey and Sowell though - probably a wste of effort.
Posted by: Klein's tiny left nut | Jun 4, 2007 10:20:15 PM
Old-School Democrat, are you also with the Conservative Exodus Project?
Posted by: begs the question | Jun 4, 2007 11:57:18 PM
I have to agree on the "losing" some free association rights argument by constantine and klien's tiny left nut (a name that cracks me up every time I type it which is more and more frequently these days). Civil rights legislation, especially school desegregation and various other such changes in the law actually *expanded* the right to associate freely across racial lines where previously *the state* had stepped in to *prevent* free association. Whites only drinking fountains? Whites only anything? That is only protecting free association if you assume that whites and blacks were also freely choosing to segregate and all those police etc...were simply window dressing.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jun 5, 2007 6:09:53 AM
Dick Armey. Issat like the KISS Armey?
Posted by: jimmmm | Jun 5, 2007 9:15:50 AM
James:
Given free rein, Exxon would pollute every possible drop of water, every breath of air--and they did just that, until checked by government regulation and authority. Even when proved negligent (Valdez), they used as their defense the liberties individuals expect when they are charged with a crime. Exxon and t heir ilk don't have to use a board with a nail through it to do bodily harm.
I would say that fact alone makes them a pretty pernicious actor in the defense of liberties.
Posted by: jimmmm | Jun 5, 2007 9:24:13 AM
Patroclus, Armey spent most of his teaching career at North Texas State University (UNT, these days). Which, I should hasten to point out, has an economics department of higher quality than his tenure there might suggest.
Posted by: WatchfulBabbler | Jun 5, 2007 9:48:19 AM
aimai,
My nomme de poste was inspired by an actual encounter with Joe (the bad) Klein or Klein le Mal as Atrios might say. I was struck by how incredibly small he was and that he seemed to consciously suck up to the right on all occassions, while heaping scorn on the left for challenging his liberal bona fides. He bristled at my questioning his unctious treatment of Bush and declared that he wasn't going to debate me. I decided that he not only was small in the sack area, but that they were likely disproportionate as well.
The freedom of association argument by the bigot set is a fun one. On the almost 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Loving v. Virginia case (one of the best named cases in history) striking down Virginia's law against interracial marriage it seems an especially ironic argument to be making.
And Jimmmmm, I believe that Dick Armey is one of the few armies with less intellectual firepower than the KISS Armey.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Jun 5, 2007 10:03:09 AM
Dick Armey is another of the Economics Ph.D.'s who are Libertarians, and find that they cannot do research that the academic Economists will publish. After he got his Ph.D. he taught at a small private liberal arts undergraduate school for a while, then was accepted as the head of the Economics Department at North Texas State College. This is a school which offered no graduate degree in Economics above the Masters level. That is, no research done there.
Within months of taking the job everyone in the Department hated his guts. And he still couldn't do research that developed new knowledge which was needed for development of the school reputation. Like all Libertarians, he already knew the answers, so his attempts to do research were attempts to confirm what his ideology told him was true before he started attempting research.
But Denton, TX is a very conservative area, and he fit in politically. Ultimately he ran for Congress, and North Texas State Univ. was delighted to get rid of him, probably almost as happy as he was to leave.
Interestingly, this is very similar to the story of Phil Gramm who was a Libertarian Economics Ph.D. at Texas A&M and for some reason couldn't get any research published - since Libertarians have the answers in advance, why should they try to develop new theory and prove it? Gramm was a failure at Texas A&M, and not liked there either. His situation was much like that of Dick Armey. But the area around Texas A&M was, like Denton, TX, quite politically conservative, so he got elected to Congress, started giving Democratic plans and tactics to the Republicans and found himself ostracized by Congressional Democrats - so he resigned, switched parties and ran again for the House and won. Later he became a Senator. Like Armey at NTSU, Gramm's departure from the Texas A&M Economics Department was met with celebration and delight.
Both are examples of the Peter Principle, with a couple of false promotions thrown in. Both are rather nasty people to be around. Both have sharply improved each institution they departed by their departure.
Both are also examples of the destruction that Ayn Rand has left in her wake in America.
Did I mention that Alan Greenspan is also a Libertarian Goldbug, as is Congressman Ron Paul? A lot of similarities there, all leading back to the false ideology that the Communists of the early USSR gave like pox-ridden blankets to America when they sent Ayn Rand to the U.S.
Posted by: Rick B | Jun 5, 2007 4:48:42 PM
Phil Gramm not liked? The devil you say sir!
I got to flip him off one day here in DC. He was driving like an asshole in his Suburban (shock of shocks) and I noticed the Texas license plates with the Senator vanity tags and my middle finger just would not stay put. I tried to be civil but my digit of contempt was having none of it.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Jun 5, 2007 4:56:26 PM
