Here is the Wikipedia entry for James McGill Buchanan.
George Monbiot of The Guardian reports today about what, accidentally found after Buchanan’s death, has shown the darker side of this George Mason University economist and exposed the dark side of his “public choice” theory.
George Monbiot, The Guardian: A despot in disguise: one man’s mission to rip up democracy
In 1980, he was able to put the programme into action. He was invited to Chile, where he helped the Pinochet dictatorship write a new constitution, which, partly through the clever devices Buchanan proposed, has proved impossible to reverse entirely. Amid the torture and killings, he advised the government to extend programmes of privatisation, austerity, monetary restraint, deregulation and the destruction of trade unions: a package that helped trigger economic collapse in 1982.
There’s your very public demonstration of public choice theory right there.
MacLean says that Charles Koch poured millions into Buchanan’s work at George Mason University, whose law and economics departments look as much like corporate-funded thinktanks as they do academic faculties. He employed the economist to select the revolutionary “cadre” that would implement his programme (Murray Rothbard, at the Cato Institute that Koch founded, had urged the billionaire to study Lenin’s techniques and apply them to the libertarian cause). Between them, they began to develop a programme for changing the rules.
The papers Nancy MacLean discovered show that Buchanan saw stealth as crucial. He told his collaborators that “conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential”. Instead of revealing their ultimate destination, they would proceed by incremental steps. For example, in seeking to destroy the social security system, they would claim to be saving it, arguing that it would fail without a series of radical “reforms”. (The same argument is used by those attacking the NHS). Gradually they would build a “counter-intelligentsia”, allied to a “vast network of political power” that would become the new establishment.
So here we are with our “new intelligentsia” installed in power. No doubt they saw 2016 as the fight to the death between liberalism (what Clinton actually was despite the hedging) and public choice conservatism in which the billionaire class said a radical “No” to the US Constitution.
What has fascinated me about conservatism for fifty years is how much it modeled its strategies and tactics on what it learned about Leninism-Stalinism and its institutions, strategies, and tactics during the propagandizing of the post-World War II Red Scare. The conservative tracts would get almost histrionic about how we are doomed because the cap-C Communists are conducting a campaign of stealth that does this and this and this. And then in the 1970s, the followers of that conservatism were setting up to do the very same things—for capitalism. And coincidentally for power and for wealth.
Well, the game has been exposed. In the 1960s there was a Fifth Column in America. It was “conservatism” through which wealth sought absolute power. And over 48 years struck down one check or balance after another until now the GOP has absolute power in the national government and many state governments.
And in Kansas and other states Buchanan’s public choice theory, crafted to sabotage school desegregation, has created one disaster and era of misery after another. And it still runs on in Europe, having brought Greece to its knees, fractured the European Union, and now taking a second pass at France.
Putin in his grandest days in the Soviet KGB could not have imagined a more clever strategy of destruction than the call for “Pure Capitalism” and “Freedom for Property”. The Bundys, those “sovereign citizens” are just high on Buchananism without realizing it is intended only for the wealthy.
Buchanan and his department did do very well, including getting the books of his African-American colleague Thomas Sowell placed in almost every library in America , often as the only general books on economics.
And Buchanan’s ideas, propagated by the business media, and the conservative mediasphere, permeate most of American conversation about economics and economic policy. The create invisible blinders and fetters that intend to keep the New Deal from ever happening again.
The “Washington Consensus” was designed for economic colonization by IMF outside our borders.
Washington Consensus
Then, about 50yrs ago, it began to colonize inside. A tested and proven game plan…
No, no surprise here. I’ve recognised all the elements for a long time and I based my posts and diaries to counteract the right-wing conspiracists.
The Atlantic Bridge, Atlantic Council, NATO after the fall of communism, white man’s AngloSaxon heritage, the far-right think tanks in not only the US but also the UK and Europe. The aggressive expansion into hostile countries of Eastern Europe.
Quite lucky Brexit happened as it’s like drawing the bridge from continental Europe to the powerful capitalist, militarist UK with its influence on EU institutions. The negotiations will hing on the status of the City of London with its financial links to oligarchs, wealth and the tax havens.
○ Tax havens: The Missing $20 Trillion | The Economist |
○ Britain’s private bankers manage $1.65tn of client assets, second only to Switzerland
○ Brunei Prince who blew through $15 billion
○ Indonesia: How Did Suharto Steal $35 Billion?
The Grenfell Tower fire and UK building regulations have been extensively covered by me in addition to the poor state of schools in London and the pollution. The withdrawal of the Tory government was done with all the theories of Buchanan in mind. Free from the regulations from Brussels and free from the European Court of Justice and Human Rights.
Particular think tanks in London have been on my radar for many years now: Henry Jackson Foundation, Legatum and the support for the German Marshall Fund of the United States. IMO the Open Society Fund of George Soros harbors the same intent under the ideals of human rights and spread of democracy.
Planet Earth is their playground
You might have recognized the elements (as I did as well) but until now I did not know the man (James McGill Buchanan) and the place (George Mason University, Department of Economics) and the motive (undoing desegregation).
To get it truly exposed, we need more than an opinion piece in the Guardian and a diary on a relatively low-readership blog. And his impact on Chile isn’t even mentioned on his wikipedia page.
There is an interesting article on Buchanan at Slate
To get it truly exposed, we need what Buchanan had: a Leninist concept of how to use an ideological project to gain political power. The “Leninist” characterization is not mine, Buchanan and his allies were conscious about it. The details are in MacLean’s book.
The Leninist character was, as I say in the post, not accidental but imitative. And it has been visible in pieces.
The Powell Memo
The use in the W administration of political officers assigned to the executive departments as political commissars.
The use of talking points for propaganda, destroying the nuanced back and forth of previous political debate.
The emphasis on the military and police as the key institutions in society.
I could go on. There are a lot of right-wing “Be scared of the Commies” books that document what they thought were the most effective Leninist-Stalinist strategies and tactics.
You did say that, and other things too, that I would have noticed had I only read your whole post. Sorry about that, I just got excited realizing that someone else was onto reading MacLean.
Interesting that Chile isn’t mentioned on his Wikipedia page. Worth someone’s time looking at the history of the page to see how aggressive his defenders are about his legacy.
To outsiders, Buchanan’s participation in the Chilean conspiracy wouldn’t have been apparent. However, “the Chicago Boys” participation has been observed and detailed (see “The Shock Doctrine”) and Buchanan was most definitely one of “the Chicago Boys” and not an economic VIP when the Chilean mission was undertaken. How important is it that Buchanan framed his capitalist strategy as borrowing from communist means and methods when the means and methods don’t technically differ from what Friedman and others were promulgating?
The BIG kahuna for these guys was Russia. They didn’t even need the torture chambers — austerity and despair was enough for life expectancy to plummet in Russia. And boy do they resent the fact that Putin has been reversing that.
I’m in the middle of reading Democracy in Chains (reviewed in the linked article) now. The links between Buchanan, the foundational neoliberals (Mont Pelerin Society), and the “massive resistance” plans of the old-line Virginia white supremacists of the late 1950’s are mind-blowing. As are the links between the same forces and the Goldwater campaign a few years later. And that’s only the first 1/3 of the book.
Buchanan was the philosophical inspiration for Margaret Thatcher and the Koch brothers.
It makes the discussion from Monday about how “We Need To Stop Arguing About Neoliberalism” seem pretty ill-informed.
Vox invited Mike Konczal to eviscerate Chait. He has no problem recognizing the difference between “the relative merits of public and private provisioning of goods.” Most good centrists have that astigmatism, though. They never see a Commons. Konczal
Well, permeating their tropes throughout the thoughts of their political opponents was part of the “creeping socialism” fear documented in rightwing books of the 1960s. No doubt they designed a “creeping capitalism” strategy not understanding that by its nature capitalism invades all other value systems.
Confusing the neoliberal agenda was the stealth that benefited them. I wonder how original Charles Perry was with his “coining the term “neoliberal”. Wikipedia says it was kicking around with various meanings since the beginning of the 20th century. The Online Etymology site dates it in 1966 without identifying the source.
We do need to stop arguing about neo-liberalism. We also need to stop thinking that there is some third way between markets and government policy actions that mixes a little of each. Governments have always and still do set the limits, privileges, and resources for markets. Markets are not production or consumption but only exchange. (I had a client in the 1990s who tried to organize the corporate workforce as internal markets; it was a disaster. Ronald Coase’s writings would have told him why in advance had he bothered to research his gut instincts.)
Needed some self-study about Buchanan … will do a follow-up with the British ties to the Tories.
The Master Race vs The Bonded – Libertarians
It’s just as any totalitarian system such as Stalinism, Communism or Dictatorship, the tools used are violence, rape, authoritarianism and exploitation of the working class. Where democracy ends, fascism begins. What Buchanan taught Charles Koch is to use the open society to defeat democracy in incremental steps. As the right-wing movement grows from within, make use of external enemies to distract and put blame on disappointments in [foreign] policy.
○ Geoffrey Brennan, The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan, Vol. 10 (The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy) [1985]
○ Free Speech Is No Diversion | The Atlantic |
Thanks for the links.
Btw, has anyone noticed the recent conflation by DNC Dem operatives of present-day Russia and Communist Russia??? Donna Brazil has been deliberately doing it.
The better to skip over and deep-six that in-between period when ‘Democrats’ participated in the plunder of Russia and mask that much of what came after has been a rational response to destruction that they wrought. Also better to mask the fact that neoliberalism is just a go-slower version of the “Shock Doctrine.”
Yes, the selective memories are so comforting…
How Harvard Lost Russia
The Harvard Boys Do Russia
Yes, what does Jeffrey Sachs have to say for himself now? Where is he on austerity?
He’s agin it…
He has supposedly done a 180 and mea culpa.
He has admitted that he was completely wrong. Total conversions are rare, but with Sachs, so far so good. Still, his new socialistic voice is reedy; so, too soon to tell if how solid his new orientation is. IOW, the left should remain wary and never put him on some sort of pedestal.
Neolibs find it almost impossible to look at public debt dispassionately. They all have a buy-in for pay-go.
If so, that reflects their economic/financial sophistication which would be at the level of an ordinary family. Even a dimwit like Trump is by a little savvier than that.
This interesting comment was posted @EuroTrib in diary by Frank Schnittger on Brexit …