BCT news article – 1/31/09

This page was last updated on February 8, 2009.

Impact of 1930s Works Progress Administration still seen in Beaver County; Bob Bauder, Times Staff; Beaver County Times; January 31, 2009.

Since I started this website in 2004, I’ve pointed out the so-called “news” section of a newspaper, magazine, et cetera must support the op-ed policies of the publication so as not to undermine the opinions expressed in editorials and other homegrown opinion columns. This “news” story is a perfect example.

Over the past weeks we’ve read a number of editorials supporting President Obama’s so-called economic stimulus package. As time as dragged on and we’ve begun to learn what’s in this $1 trillion+ spending bill (including interest), taxpayers are getting ever more restless about it. The purpose of this article is to convince us all this spending will be OK after all.

The article says, “Among the alphabet soup of agencies created during the New Deal, the Works Progress Administration stands out as one of the most successful.” The article doesn’t tell us the goal of the WPA. If the primary goal was to end the Great Depression, it failed. Did the WPA leave behind some good things? Sure, but were those things the best use of taxpayer dollars? We’ll never know.

I’ll address a couple of comments about the article by Carl Davidson, local lefty activist.

CarlDavidson wrote on Feb 1, 2009 11:32 AM:

" Thanks for this, Bob. This is terrific information to reawaken the memories of a few, and to remind others that they didn't do everything by themselves.

That rebuilt elementary school at Five Points was the one I attended, but I never knew that we had FDR and the WPA to thank for Raccoon Creek State Park. I'll keep that in mind for the next neoliberal dogmatist who claims government creates no new value. "

Robin Cox wrote on Feb 3, 2009 10:03 AM:

" Mr. Davidson, what is a “neoliberal?” I ask because the meaning of terms like this tends to depend on the user. "

CarlDavidson wrote on Feb 3, 2009 7:32 PM:

" 'RobinC,' I try to use it properly, meaning a school of economic thought that applies the principles of classical liberalism to today's capitalism.

Roughly, it means get government out of the way and let business do as it pleases--cut back or eliminate most regulations, cut back or eliminate entitlement programs, zero support for the rights of unions, get government out of education, and 'privatize' as much as what's now publically owned as possible.

In brief, 'State all bad, Market all Good.'

It's what deindustrialized Beaver County and, when practiced on Wall St and its supposed watchdogs in DC, created the current crisis.

Within the world of capitalism, its usually opposed by Keynesian 'demand side' economics and 'industrial policy' in government.

Obama is a neoKeynsian industial policy 'demand sider,' while Bush was a neoliberal supply sider.

As for 'RiverRat,' the last version of slavery we saw in this country was very capitalist in nature, and thank goodness, we fought a Civil War to get rid of it. 21st century socialism thrives in many varieties around the world, most with a socialist market economy, with strengths and weaknesses, but none I'd call slavery. "

Since this is the third time in a week I’ve singled out comments by Mr. Davidson (Previous critiques are here and here.), you may think I’m picking on him. That’s not my intent, however. Mr. Davidson simply presented me with some teaching opportunities and I wanted to take advantage of them.

In a previous comment, Mr. Davidson asserted I’m a believer in “neoliberal economics.” Mr. Davidson gave his definition of a “neoliberal” above. One problem with his observation was that what I proposed didn’t match his definition. I suspect that’s why Mr. Davidson didn’t provide his definition of neoliberal without being asked.

In summary, Mr. Davidson’s comment above of 2/3/09 is full of errors and contradictions.

First, classical liberalism is what we refer to today as conservatism. The philosophical underpinnings of classical liberalism and “capitalism” are the same, effective individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. Note and remember that last item. It’s “limited government,” not no government. I wrote about this previously in “Conservatism.”

Second, when Mr. Davidson writes about “zero support for the rights of unions,” keep in mind he believes labor union management “rights” trump those of the individual employee. Mr. Davidson’s idea of “the rights of unions” means labor union management can force a business’ employee to join a union as a condition of employment.

Among other things, Mr. Davidson asserts his view of neoliberalism means “let business do as it pleases.” That would be no government, not limited government.

Third, Mr. Davidson sets up a straw man to attack claiming neoliberalism is “‘State all bad, Market all Good.’” While I’m sure there are some on the fringe who believe this, it certainly isn’t a part of mainstream conservative thinking, even for an “extreme right-winger” like myself. Mr. Davidson sets up this straw man because it’s far easier to attack and dismiss an extreme position than it is to debate one based on fact, history, and logic.

Fourth, I would like to know how Mr. Davidson’s neoliberalism “deindustrialized Beaver County and … created the current crisis.” Government interference (encouraging loans for people who couldn’t afford them) in the mortgage market is to blame for the current mess. Remember, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored enterprises. That’s not Mr. Davidson’s neoliberalism, that’s the Keynesian “industrial policy” he promotes in action.

Fifth, Mr. Davidson asserted President Bush “was a neoliberal supply sider.” Let’s look at that. Both of the so-called Bush tax cuts put more money in the pockets of both business (supply) and consumers (demand.) Mr. Davidson claims “get government out of education” is a hallmark of neoliberalism, yet President Bush increased the federal government role in education with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Mr. Davidson claims “cut back or eliminate most regulations” is another hallmark of neoliberalism, yet President Bush supported – and used his “bully pulpit” to lobby for – the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The purpose of Sarbanes-Oxley was to add and/or tighten business accounting regulations after the Enron, et al scandals. If Mr. Bush really believed “State all Bad,” why did he successfully push for adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare?

The reason I took advantage of Mr. Davidson’s comments is this. If you followed the link above for Mr. Davidson, you learned he is not your average neighborhood lefty. Mr. Davidson has been a leader of leftist activism for over 40 years, dating back to being “a national leader of SDS in the years 1966-68” and working “with several groups [in the 1960s] trying to create a new communist party.” My point is this. If an activist with this much experience must rely on the tactics we’ve seen in Mr. Davidson’s comments to spread his message, doesn’t this demonstrate how empty leftism must be? If there were anything to leftism, an experienced activist like Mr. Davidson should have been able to present comments not so easily shot down by facts, logic, and history. Again, I’m not picking on Mr. Davidson; he just happened to be a good local example of what I see from leftist activists regardless of experience and skill.