For Goodness’ Sake!
Posted on July 17th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Clark points out a rather odd post from Robert Stacy McCain concerning, of all things, Ross’ new comments policy, which must be the most talked-about comments policy post in the history of the world. Having scrolled through Ross’ comments section more than a few times, which is routinely filled with obtuse, obnoxious attacks on him personally without regard to the merit of his argument, I am amazed that it took him this long to implement a more draconian comments regime. Apparently, the proximate cause of this new policy is that he has acknowledged that Steve Sailer, TAC’s film critic and a regular contributor, was the source of “a passage about the UK’s crime and illegitimacy rates, which appears on page 161 of GNP, draws on data points that I first encountered in an April 2005 column he wrote about the British working class.” This is nothing more than an intellectually and academically honest recognition of someone else’s work that had been left out of his book’s citations by mistake, but it caused a furore because Ross acknowledged that Steve Sailer may, in fact, be worth reading. In some quarters, this is the equivalent of cannibalism, or perhaps worse, since they might grant that cannibalism offers some nutrition. Those of us who have known for many years that Steve Sailer is insightful and smart find the entire thing absurd beyond description, but it has now led to R.S. McCain offering the following guidelines to Ross:
- 1. Stay to the right of the Left. Don’t try to get into a one-upmanship situation where you’re trying to outdo them in multicultural enthusiasm. You can’t win that fight.
- 2. Avoid arguments with Paleos. Those guys play for keeps and (as Joan Jett said) they don’t give a damn about their bad reputations.
- 3. Keep your friends close, and your Neocons closer. This is the flip-side of my advice about the Paleos. Whatever your quarrels with the Neos, avoid making any outright enemies, or next thing you know, you’re an “Unpatriotic Conservative” and NRO will dump you like yesterday’s garbage.
This last point seems the most remarkable, since it plainly acknowledges the culture of intimidation and ostracism that neoconservatives promote as if it were simply a fact of life, rather than a despicable tactic to be repudiated by reasonable people. The essence of this point seems to be: live in deathly fear of your “friends,” who will try to destroy you the moment that you utter a sentence that they do not like. Some friends! The second point is bizarre, since Ross and I have had many arguments over the years and yet somehow Ross has survived and even flourished. Evidently, I do not “play for keeps.” The first point is redundant, since there was never any danger of Ross drifting to the left of the Left.
McCain then goes on to complain about the “Buddhist economics” of Crunchy Cons, which doesn’t even begin to make sense as a label. Aside from the small problem that there is no such thing as “Buddhist economics” (since Buddhists would not be bothered to concern themselves with economics), this line makes complete sense:
When it comes to economics, Mises and Hayek are right and Buddhists are wrong.
Er…okay. Never mind that Crunchy Cons has essentially nothing to do with Buddhism or Buddhist anything. If we ever do encounter a Buddhist economist, we will be sure to tell him that he is wrong. Let us just hope that there are not Buddhist Hayekians, or else this entire nonsensical paradigm might fall apart.
P.S. As part of the general Southern conspiracy against R.S. McCain, I guess I must be aligned with Clark, since I did my undergraduate work at an ODAC school. My college has been called the “Princeton of the South,” so I suppose that proves that we Ivy (and Kudzu) Leaguers stick together.
P.P.S. Proving that he is not crazy, McCain ends his post with these words in an update:
Harvard, New York Times, PBS, AFL-CIO, al Qaeda — part of my short list of institutions that qualify everyone associated with them for automatic hatred.
Okay, so Ross is supposed to be the one who has the problem?
Update: McCain responds, after a fashion. This was the part that I found most amusing:
Dreher, Stooksbury, Douthat — what do they have in common? A contempt for the basic consevative idea that the best economic policy is to let the market take care of itself.
Actually, I’m pretty sure Clark has contempt for the idea that this is a “basic conservative idea,” but he can speak for himself. As anyone who had even glanced at the responses to GNP from me or other “anti-market conservatives” would know, I do not regard Ross “an automatic hero” because of the proposals in the book. The invocation of protectionism at the end of the post is the perfect conclusion to an argument that shows absolutely no engagement with anything Ross has ever said.
Filed under: politics
Re: “Buddhist economics”
McCain intends to criticize Dreher for referring (almost) only to just one economist, Schumacher, who, in Small is Beautiful titled a chapter “Buddhist Economics” (which you may already know). Of course, Schumacher never intended to suggest that Buddhists specifically embrace some economic theory or another; rather, he, if memory serves me (Be kind: Time has passed since I read this invaluable, but incredibly dry text.), simply meant to show that economics, practiced rightly and justly, ought to embrace a holistic approach similar to Buddhist spirituality. Perhaps, even, a spiritualistic (broadly speaking) sort of economics. McCain, in his attempt to dis-credit Rod (and Schumacher and Leo XIII!), seems to ignore this.
Whether we should place much credence in some-one writing at Reason probably lies in question, any-way, and, well, his last name is McCain.
“Buddhist economics” is likely a reference to E. F. Schumacher (Schumacher serving as a sort of proto-Crunchy-Con). He wrote an essay entitled “Buddhist Economics” which ended up (perhaps in modified form) as one of the chapters of “Small is Beautiful”. The essay can be found here:
http://www.schumachersociety.org/buddhist_economics/english.html
Legend among certain circles is that S. was originally going to entitle it “Chestertonian Economics” (or “Catholic Economics”, depending on which version of the story you read), but was persuaded by his publisher to alter the title, so as to appeal to the counterculture. Supposedly, S. stated as much in an interview at some point, but I have been unable to find any actual documentation of it.
Regardless, I am much more sympathetic to the Schumacher-Dreher line than McCain is. But of course, I am a Harvard student with paleo sympathies, so it’s not as if McCain would listen to me anyway.
About “Buddhist economics,” This is from an article and interview by Charles Fager from 1977, Small Is Beautiful, and So Is Rome: Surprising Faith of E.F. Schumacher:
“[E.F. Schumacher] readily owned up to being a Catholic, a certified convert as of five years ago. This item is not mentioned in his book; in fact, one of the most frequently cited chapters, ‘Buddhist Economics,’ almost made it appear as if he were deeply involved in Eastern religions. But wasn’t this chapter, I inquired, really more informed by the Catholic writings and thinkers he mentioned so frequently elsewhere in the book — the papal encyclicals, Newman, Gilson and, above all, Thomas Aquinas?
“Schumacher grinned. ‘Of course. But if I had called the chapter ‘Christian Economics,’ nobody would have paid any attention!’”
Thanks for the comments re: Schumacher. Following Schumacher’s remark, we could rephrase McCain as saying, “When it comes to economics, Mises and Hayek are right and Christians are wrong.” But I am guessing that he wouldn’t say that.
Heh. Looks like there was a small bit of overlapping-Schumacher-comment mania there. Sorry for the redundancy.
Western Confucian: many thanks, for my part, for the actual reference for the “Christian Economics” story. I’ve never been able to figure out where it came from.
Wait, R.S McCain wasn’t engaging in satire? Yikes. I didn’t think that was actually serious.
Oui.
Thanks for the comments re: Schumacher. Following Schumacher’s remark, we could rephrase McCain as saying, “When it comes to economics, Mises and Hayek are right and Christians are wrong.” But I am guessing that he wouldn’t say that.
No, what he is saying is that Papists are wrong.
Is R.S. McCain an idiot? Rarely wish I to make such uncharitable assumptions about any-one, particularly some-one just doing his part in the world of broadly right-wing web-logs, but his post, in part a reply to this, troubles me.
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/07/this-is-not-flame-war.html
“Schumacher was a Keynesian-turned-Buddhist, whose Buddhist views thoroughly inform his disdain for economic growth (see Skousen). If Dreher prefers stagnation to growth, then he must be in very heaven now.”
As I think we’ve made clear, though Buddhism influenced Schumacher, he was, ultimately, Catholic, and never actually adopted Buddhism. Second, I don’t think that McCain quite understands Schumacher’s problems with growth. I don’t know that, as vaguely as I recall the text, he opposed growth per se. I may, how-ever, be mistaken. I feel, though, as if EFS worried more the moral, ecological, and social risks of un-controlled, un-mitigate growth.
“Dreher, Stooksbury, Douthat — what do they have in common? A contempt for the basic consevative idea that the best economic policy is to let the market take care of itself. ”
Is this actually a “basic conservative idea”? I mean, I think that the market is an important force for good — or can be –, but what about Kirk’s permanent things? Furthermore, Rod, in Crunchy Cons . . . clearly expresses that he supports a free market economy.
“Much of my animus toward Douthat is the same animus I exhibited toward Ryan Sager, namely my resentment of 20-something wunderkinden who write books sharing their brilliant new insight that’s going to save the GOP, the conservative cause, and worldwide humanity. Twenty-something know-it-alls are arrogant enough without praise from me, and I certainly don’t intend to sit at their feet worshipfully awaiting their pearls of precocious wisdom.
Expecting humility from Harvard grads would be rather foolish, but the Harvard grad who claims to have special insight into the political views of blue-collar America — well, if that don’t beat all I ever heard! But because Douthat’s suggestions involve a critique of free market economics, he is an automatic hero to other anti-market conservatives.”
Bitter much?
He actually makes, by comparison, the other McCain a less-bitter pill to swallow.
Of course, you’re right that Rod is not an “anti-market conservative,” and neither is Ross, for that matter. In fact, I doubt you could fairly describe Clark that way, but he is certainly more skeptical of the benefits of the market than the others. I noticed the bizarre lumping of Ross with Sager, when the two have nothing in common except, I guess, that they are young. I’m willing to entertain the idea that I misunderstood McCain’s purpose with the original post, and his later update clarifies a few things for me. Even so, I confess that it doesn’t fully make sense to me.