Mediaboss Marketing

Duke University historian Nancy MacLean has published a new book, Democracy in Chains, that is getting a great deal of favorable attention from progressive media outlets and is selling quite well online. The theme of the book is that Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan, a founder of public choice economics and a libertarian fellow-traveler, was the intellectual leader of a cabal ultimately supported by Charles Koch intent on replacing American democracy with an oligarchy based on constitutional protections for property rights.

When I first came across this book and interviews with its author, I was immediately skeptical. For one thing, Ive been traveling in libertarian intellectual circles for about three decades, and my strong impression is that Buchanan, while a giant in economics, is something of a marginal figure in the broader libertarian and free-market movements. Sure, public choice theory has provided important intellectual support for libertarian views of government, but Buchanan was hardly the only major figure to work on public choice (which is basically applying economic theory to the study of politics). Many other leading public choice economists were decidedly liberal in their political views; consider, for example, Kenneth Arrow, whose foundational work preceded Buchanans. Even among the more free-market-oriented early public choice scholars, there is my late colleague Gordon Tullock (co-author of the book that won Buchanan the Nobel Prize; Tullock was stiffed because he was not formally trained in economics), George Stigler, Sam Peltzman, among others. Tullocks famous article on what came to be called rent-seeking strikes me as more influential on mainstream libertarian thought than the entire corpus of Buchanans later work.

Buchanans work on constitutional political economy was of great interest to a subset of libertarian-leaning economists, but was sufficiently obscure and idiosyncratic to have had relatively little influence on the broader movement. Ive met many libertarians who were brought to libertarianism by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, Charles Murray, Julian Simon, Randy Barnett and others; Ive yet to meet anyone who has cited Buchanan as their gateway to libertarianism. Brian Dohertys Radicals for Capitalism, the best extant history of the libertarian movement, gives Buchanan approximately the attention Id think he deserves, several very brief cameos, all relating to Buchanans foundational work in public choice.

The other reason I was immediately skeptical of MacLeans take on Buchanan was because her portrayal of Buchanan did not mesh with my personal experience. I only met Buchanan once, at an Institute for Humane Studies gathering for young libertarian academics around 20 years ago. The devil himself (Charles Koch) was there. Buchanan gave the keynote address. What did this arch defender of inequality and wealth talk about? He gave a lengthy defense of high inheritance taxes, necessary, in his view, to prevent the emergence of a permanent oligarchy. Not surprisingly, perhaps, Democracy in Chains fails to note Buchanans strong support of inheritance taxes. [Update: He in fact publicly supported a 100% inheritance tax.]

My confidence in the book did not increase when I saw that MacLean tied the rise of the early libertarian movement to hostility to Brown v. Board of Education, and libertarian ideology in general and public choice theory to the work of John Calhoun, which did not jibe with my own research and experience.

When the book arrived, I eagerly looked for her sources supporting the notion that modern libertarianism owes a massive debt to Calhoun, a theme on which she spends her entire prologue; later in the book, she claims that the libertarian cause traces its lineage to Calhoun. It turns out that she cites two articles noting similarities between Calhouns theories of political economy and modern public choice theory, and also cites to two pages of Murray Rothbards 1970 book, Power and Market. To put the two pages from Rothbard in perspective, I have in front of me a volume with the entire run of the New Individualist Review, a pioneering libertarian academic journal published at the University of Chicago in the 1960s. The index has multiple citations to Mill, Friedman, Hayek, Hobbes, Montesquieu, von Humboldt, Smith, Rand and other classical liberal and libertarian luminaries. Calhoun, meanwhile, does not appear in the index. Not once.

Meanwhile, in Chapter 3, MacLean claims that contemporary libertarians eschewing overt racial appeals, but not at all concerned with the impact on black citizens, framed the Souths fight as resistance to federal coercion in a noble quest to preserve states right and economic liberty. Nothing energized this backwater movement like Brown. MacLean identifies only two such libertarians, Frank Chodorov and and Robert LeFevre. I cant check her citation to LeFevre, because its from private correspondence that I dont have access to. But her citation to Chodorov fails to support her assertion.

The article she cites by Chodorov can be found here. In it, Chodorovpraises Brown: The ultimate validation of the Court decision,which undoubtedly ranks among the most important in American history, lies in the fact that it is in line with what is deepest and strongest and most generous in our historical tradition. Chodorov goes on to point out that merely prohibiting segregated schools wont lead to integration because of residential segregation, and concludes that hostility to integration may lead some southern states to open up publicly-funded education to competitive private schools, which would mean what began as an attempt to evade an unavoidable change in an obsolete system of racial segregation might turn into an interesting educational experiment. Chodorov does note that among opponents to Brown there is a very genuine feeling that education is a matter reserved for the states, but again this is in the context of him praisingBrown.There is nothing in this piece remotely celebrating southern resistance to federal coercion in a noble quest to preserve states right and economic liberty. And there are more subtle errors as well. MacLean portrays Chodorov as being excited that Brown presented the opportunity to do away with the public school system, when in fact he specifically envisioned a larger network of private schools, denominational and non-denominational, side by side with the general public school system.

More to come.

[I wrote this post before I saw co-blogger Jonathan Adlers post detailing various other controversies over Democracy in Chains." I recommend that post, which anticipated a future post I planned.]

Read more:
Some dubious claims in Nancy MacLean's 'Democracy in Chains' - Washington Post

HONG KONG Hong Kong police on Wednesday arrested pro-democracy protesters, some of whom scrambled up a monument symbolizing the city's handover from British to Chinese rule, a day before Chinese President Xi Jinping is due to arrive for the celebrations.

Hong Kong marks the July 1, 1997, handover on Saturday, amid calls for democracy and fears of creeping influence of Communist Party leaders in Beijing undermining the "one country, two systems" formula under which it operates.

The city is under lockdown, with a massive security presence expected for Xi's arrival on Thursday.

About 30 protesters, including student protest leader Joshua Wong, gathered at the six-meter "Forever Blooming Golden Bauhinia" statue on the Wanchai waterside, a gift to Hong Kong from China, in front of the Chinese national flag and hundreds of perplexed Chinese tourists.

The sweet-smelling bauhinia is the official Hong Kong emblem.

They unfurled a black banner demanding full democracy for the city and the unconditional release of Nobel Peace Prize winning activist Liu Xiaobo, who was recently diagnosed with terminal liver cancer.

"Democracy now. Free Liu Xiaobo," the protesters shouted. "We do not want Xi Jinping. We want Liu Xiaobo."

Xi is due to arrive on Thursday afternoon and make a speech before joining celebrations to mark the handover on Saturday, when he will also swear in the citys next leader, Carrie Lam. Police said the demonstrators, including Wong who helped lead the 2014 "Occupy" street protests that blocked key streets for 79 days, were arrested for causing a public nuisance.

"We want to tell Xi Jinping that Hong Kong's prosperity is just a facade," Wong shouted into a microphone as he sat at the foot of the statue. "When democracy is not in sight, we need to take action to confront this system."Before the visit of Xi Jinping, it is time to urge the Chinese president, a hardliner, to release Liu Xiaobo."

Four policemen carried Wong by all four limbs into a police van as he shouted: "Hong Kong people, don't give up. Protest on July 1!"

Right next to the statue, staff were making preparations for the celebrations and lining up hundreds of chairs for guests to observe the flag-raising ceremony on Saturday.A couple of hundred Chinese tourists, gathered for the sunset flag-lowering ceremony, looked confused as they took photos of the protest before the area was cordoned off by the police.

Many asked each other, "Who is Liu Xiaobo?""It will be the 20th anniversary of the handover. Foreigners will be watching. This is not good for the image of Hong Kong," said a 58-year-old tourist from the southern Hainan province who gave her surname as Fu.

Tens of thousands are expected to join an annual pro-democracy demonstration on Saturday.

(This story has been refiled to amend first reference of Xi's arrival to Thursday in third paragraph.)

(Reporting by Venus Wu; Editing by Nick Macfie)

TOKYO An ally of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe denied on Thursday receiving secret political donations from an educational institution at the core of a scandal over suspected favoritism that has sliced Abe's support ratings ahead of a key local poll.

SYDNEY/VATICAN CITY Australian police charged a top adviser to Pope Francis with multiple historical sex crimes on Thursday, in a case that poses a dilemma for a pontiff who has vowed zero tolerance for such offences.

Link:
Hong Kong protesters arrested for democracy protest ahead of Xi's visit - Reuters

Nothing is as it was, nothing is as it seems, and democracy is the biggest victim, argues Bill Jamieson.

Into every life a little rain must fall. But today it is a relentless downpour.

Search in vain for any break in the mist that swirls around us: rising discontent, falling incomes, social division, a Brexit nightmare, a government on the brink, a slowing economy and on almost every evening news bulletin angry disputation and ritual bludgeoning of politicians at the hands of interviewers.

READ MORE: Scots economy facing lost decade as growth stays weak

Truly a deluge has descended, and with no break in sight. So it is time for a reckoning, and I must fess up and put before you a mea culpa, a grand admission for having believed, it seems, absolutely the wrong things for more than 40 years.

Now I have believed in many things over these years, or if not fully believed, largely gone along.

I believed in a steady, if gradual improvement in things; that problems were capable of solution; prudent finance and living within ones means; that I lived in a country with a shared culture, an underlying cohesion and a definable identity.

READ MORE: David Mundell faces fresh calls to resign over 1bn DUP deal

READ MORE: UK may not leave EU says Brexit secretary Michael Russell

Most of all, I believed that we had a democracy that, for all its faults, was capable of amicable change that would ensure its preservation, as it had done for more than 300 years.

Now I am not sure of any of these things any more, or of the continuance of the democratic system as we know it.

That may seem strange when in political conversation today no commitment is expressed more often and more loudly than our regard for democracy. The will of the people must be respected this, founded on the unalienable right of voters by majority vote to determine how we are governed.

But how deep is that respect? And how many have an unshakeable belief that it ought to be so?

Few expressions of democracy in recent years have caused more disputatious mayhem than the outcome of the EU referendum.

This was held to settle a persistent and growing argument over our membership. The referendum, we believed, would clear the air, settle the argument and allow us to move on. I seriously believed this would be the case.

Instead, it has resulted in the most fractious political arguments for decades.

There is no settled opinion on whether indeed we should leave as the referendum majority wished or whether we should opt for a transitional half-way house.

There is even serious disagreement on what it was we thought we were voting for.

I, along with Leavers, thought we were voting for a restoration of sovereignty and control over immigration from the EU.

But did we really grasp the awesome complexity of leaving?

That even on an issue as apparently straightforward as guaranteeing the citizenship rights of EU nationals resident here, the EU would insist their position in the UK was to be under the watch of the European Court of Justice?

This is before the substantive negotiations begin on trade.

Already the Remainers have sown such doubt as to what it is the majority voted for that the will of the people may prove to be no such thing.

It is not the only referendum outcome that has been challenged with the ink hardly dry on the voting papers.

In 2014 Scotland voted against independence. But the result, far from being respected, has now been followed by demands for another referendum, albeit delayed until 2019 when the outcome of the Brexit negotiations are clearer.

So what is the point of having referendums if the governing party doesnt like the result and seeks another one? And how much more respect will be shown to the outcome of this vote if it does not meet the approval of the administration?

Today we are struggling to come to terms with the aftermath of the general election and a hung parliament.

The Conservatives received 13,669,883 votes, or 42.4 per cent, against Labours 12,878,460 votes or 40 per cent. Yet by general belief, Theresa May lost and Jeremy Corbyn won.

The Conservative-voting majority may baulk at this assessment.

But what is now in prospect?

The party has traditionally drawn support from those who believed it would keep taxes down and, at the least, not allow borrowing and debt to rise, lest we return to the same financial debacle as in 2008-9.

But no such programme is likely now.

Instead we are on course for Corbynism Lite.

Frustration over central and local government spending limits, worries over health and welfare budgets and now the urgent need to install fire-resistant cladding on hundreds of tower blocks and public buildings in the wake of the horrific Grenfell Tower blaze will involve remedial work likely to run into billions of pounds.

But public spending and borrowing across the board will almost certainly rise.

And now there is every likelihood that the Conservative government will resort to tax increases.

Yesterday we heard former Conservative Cabinet minister Sir Oliver Letwin MP say that well-judged and careful tax increases would be levied on a large number of people. That is a somersault on previous Conservative declarations. At least we are to be spared ill-judged and careless tax increases.

Whatever happened to the partys long predisposition towards lower taxes and a smaller state or the notion, set out by the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke, that parties represent a body of men united by their joint endeavours upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed?

What is that particular principle, exactly?

Blasted to the four winds, I fear, along with the commitment to a balanced budget.

As for the Bank of England, an institution for which I once had respect, it is hard to keep a straight face listening to the Governor, Mark Carney, as he urges restraint on personal borrowing.

This admonition, it seems, is not to apply to Bank policy, which has slashed interest rates to record lows precisely to encourage spending and borrowing, or to the public finances, where we have a record debt pile of 1.8 trillion. Should I have worried about this? Not a bit, it seems.

More than ever I have come to appreciate the wisdom of the Scots historian Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813), joint professor of civil history at Edinburgh University and judge advocate of Scotland, buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard. A democracy, he wrote, is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a Dictatorship.

As I hear the raucous exchanges every night on television, how wrong I have been on everything, from sound money to low tax; from sovereignty to coherent administration, from respect for the majority to democratic government. Wrong, it seems, wrong on everything. Sing along if you will to Je Ne Regrette Rein. Me? Je Regrette Tout.

Read the rest here:
Bill Jamieson: I'm no longer sure our democracy can survive - The Scotsman

By Matt Stoller By Matt Stoller June 28 at 6:00 AM

Matt Stoller is fellow with the Open Markets Program of New America.

On his way to an early retirement from Congress later this week, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has asked for a housing subsidy for members of Congress. I flat-out cannot afford a mortgage in Utah, kids in college and a second place here in Washington, D.C., he said. Chaffetz showed no indication that he cared about affordable housing when he chaired the committee that oversees the District of Columbia, and he recently mused that if families cant afford health insurance, maybe they shouldnt buy new iPhones; he deserves no sympathy.

But he did point, however unwittingly, to a deep problem with the way we understand political corruption. President Barack Obama also noted it accidentally when he discussed his departing press secretary, Robert Gibbs, noted Gibbss relatively modest pay of $172,000 in the White House in relation to what he would earn elsewhere.

The problem is this:We undervalue our public-sector leaders relative to private sector leaders, and that gap helps entrench and deepen corruption.The issue goes beyond the fact that government work is increasingly a means of much higher pay later on from the private sector. Radically disparate pay for public servants isnt punishing public servants, it is simply setting up a different system of power.

In 1975, you could hire six senators for the price of one CEO of a large corporation. In 1992, you could hire twenty-three senators for the price of a single CEO. By 2000, you could buy the whole Senate, plus five additional senators, for one CEO. Since 2000, that ratio has bounced around, mostly in tandem with the stock market, but the number of senators you could get for just one CEO compensation package has never dropped below 50.

In absolute terms, lawmakers have had their pay cut by 10 percent since 2009. And like most Americans (but not CEOs), they received less compensation in 2015 than they did in 1975. It seems odd to say that members of Congress have more in common with the average American than they do with corporate CEOs, but in this case, it is true. Of course, $174,000 is pretty great compared to most people in a country where the median household income is about a third of that. And it is. But its peanuts relative to CEO pay; the average CEO made$12.2 million in 2015. And the salary for members of Congress is actually less than an average 26-year-old first-year lawyer gets at a top corporate law firm.The differential is often starker with state level legislators. In fact, politicians have actually seen relative pay stagnation along with teachers, social workers, journalists, and most American workers.

This differential shows how much we value our public sector leadership versus our private sector leadership. We are say that CEOs are the essential actors in our culture, while public leadership is a sinecure for the already wealthy.

[We compared growth in CEO pay versus growth in worker pay. Its not pretty.]

We are also contributing to conditions that encourage politicians to view rich business leaders as different than other constituents. In 1975, CEOs were wealthier, but still lived in the same economic world as politicians and regulators. A world of public schools, reasonably priced health care and college, and shared public services meant that money could buy a slightly fancier but not fundamentally different life. Today, however, the wealthy and everyone else inhabit vastly different cultures. Politicians cant help but treat powerful economic actors differently when those people make so much more than they do, a situation complicated by the fact that many politicians real compensation is likely to occur through unofficial channels, like lobbying contracts after they leave office.

This disparity also suggests that were misunderstanding the source of political corruption.Since the 1970s, advocacy groups have argued we must place restrictions on lobbyists and the public sector to root out corruption. In the early 1990s, Ralph Nader encouraged this with a campaign against hiking congressional pay. In 1995, Newt Gingrich continued it by gutting congressional committees and destroying the Office of Technology Assessment, which Nancy Pelosi did not restore in 2007. In his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama often noted his work on an anti-corruption measure to reign in lobbyists. This theory misses half the problem. Private lobbyists are too powerful precisely because public servants are too weak.

In political science parlance, lobbying is known as a legislative subsidy. The work of lobbyists is largely not bribery. Lobbyists write statutes, track process, enact legislative strategy, and work with administrative agencies to make sure the laws are carried out. Its just government work, on a private payroll. And corporate interests are a lot more effective if most Hill staffers are 23-year-olds with second jobs bartending to make the rent. Current anti-corruption models, like underpaying congressman, staff, state legislators and regulators, will simply lead to more power for corporate interests that are only too happy to pay for governing work that favors them.The combined attack on the public sector and its ability to govern, and the dramatic concentration in the control of corporate resources, has led to a dangerously weak and unbalanced political culture.

[A radical idea: Just give CEOs a fixed salary]

But this can be reversed. After all, the trend isnt that old: While Ronald Reagan increased CEO pay relative to government leaders, the real quantum change happened in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, likely because of a legal changes during his administration that linked CEO pay with the stock market. And the 1970s vision of corruption that misconstrues the real problem with diminishing politicians pay and budgets ignores a much older tradition in American society, which is an understanding that inequality leads to an enormous loss of freedom, and de-concentration of power is the solution. As Revolution-era weaver-turned-politician William Findley put it, Wealth in many hands operates as many checks.

If we want to restore a democratic culture, were going to have to not just raise the pay of public servants, but reduce inequality dramatically. We must attack the problem of a two-tiered society. We must go after the concentration of corporate assets through strong competition and anti-monopoly policy so that we dont have a society split between billionaires with rights and powerless peasants living with varying degrees of comfort. Basic public goods quality education, health care, transportation, nutrition must be available to all without the need to incur huge debts. Private sector CEOs perhaps should be able to have more lavish lifestyles than the rest of us, but it should be a matter of living a fancier version of the same life. No one should go broke if they have a medical problem, not just because thats a problem in and of itself, but because that is a route to social corruption.

There is no free lunch. If we want a functioning democracy, we need to pay for a functioning public sector. If public servants are treated poorly relative to corporate CEOs, then we will get bribed and subservient public servants and government via the board room. Public servants, and citizens themselves, will become dependent upon private concentrations of power. If we want to stabilize our society, we must strengthen the public institutions designed to protect our democracy. If we dont, we may not have a democracy for much longer.

See the article here:
How inequality makes our government corrupt and our democracy ... - Washington Post

Listen to the new song "I Will Spite Survive" by Deerhoof featuring Jenn Wasner. The song was first aired on todays Democracy Now!

Pitchfork has called Deerhoof "the best band in the world." The New York Times described them as "one of the most original rock bands to have come along in the last decade."

A message from Deerhoof:

In this world of tyrants and CEOs seemingly hellbent on achieving the termination of our species, perhaps the most rebellious thing we could do is not die. Should we survive the global warming, the lack of healthcare, and the bombs, a more humane future may await us. Maligned for shirking their capitalist duty, it is the younger generations we center. Safeguarding our consciences is only part of the daily challenge, since we also need to navigate corporate-owned electronic media which both aids and saps our energies. Fans of Wye Oak will be thrilled (as we were) to hear Jenn Wasner harmonize with Deerhoof singer Satomi Matsuzaki, while fans of Gloria Gaynor, Bee Gees, or The Bobby Fuller Four may detect homage in the lyrics:

"I Will Spite Survive" You could outlive your executioners but youre on tv. Youre expendable. Sleep at night, if you can stay alive. Stay alive, if you can sleep at night. City breaks, if you can stay awake. Let her dance, all night long!

The voices of reason and humanity are puzzlingly but systematically iced out of our national conversation by politicians and media bought by large corporations. Whether were talking about money in politics, trade deals, surveillance, bank bailouts, healthcare, climate change, Middle Eastern wars, or wealth equality, the mainstream popular view is dismissed as unrealistically 'far left,' while the views of a small dissenting minority are advanced as acceptably "conservative," "centrist," or "liberal." Thats why news outlets NOT owned by large corporations are so lovable, and Democracy Now! may be the most lovable of them all.

"I Will Spite Survive" will appear on Deerhoofs forthcoming album, Mountain Moves (Joyful Noise).

View post:
Song Premiere: Deerhoof - "I Will Spite Survive" (ft. Jenn Wasner) - Democracy Now!