Meet the Economist Behind the One Percent’s Stealth Takeover of America

[Sunstone]

Please Note: This thread is posted in the Liberal Only Subforum. If you do not in good faith self-identify as a Liberal, please do not comment in this thread other than to ask genuinely respectful questions.

You might reasonably suspect the title of this thread is click bait.

It's not.

I can honestly say without much exaggeration that I'm linking you here to what might be -- if substantially true -- the single most important and disturbing political article I judge that I've read in the past 365 days. But only if it's substantially true.

Still, I don't even know where to properly begin telling you about it.

The article concerns so many things that are happening -- and perhaps about to happen -- in America that it's almost impossible to fairly summarize it. So, I will simply quote below the first three paragraphs to you, and then let you judge for yourself whether the rest might interest you.

However there might be three quick points that you will want to know to help you decide:

!) The article linked to here was published on Yves Smith's website, Naked Capitalism, which I have found tends to be a pretty safe and trustworthy source for reliable information and insightful commentary, although, of course, not perfect.

2) Despite being more or less implicitly endorsed by Yves Smith, questions have been raised about Nancy McLean's scholarship. She is the author of the book, the review of which I link to in this post. I'm in no real position to fairly assess the accuracy or importance of those criticisms so all I can really tell you at this point is to exercise due caution since they might be significant.

3) The article is long by internet standards, but I urge you not let that daunt you because not only does it seem most likely to me that you'll want to learn all that the article has to say, but it is also written in clear, non-technical English that's reasonably easy to read quickly.​

Last, I'm saying all this not to "sell" anyone on reading the article, but in the hope of interesting as wide an audience as possible in it. I think it could be that important.

Here are the three introductory paragraphs:

Ask people to name the key minds that have shaped America’s burst of radical right-wing attacks on working conditions, consumer rights and public services, and they will typically mention figures like free market-champion Milton Friedman, libertarian guru Ayn Rand, and laissez-faire economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.

James McGill Buchanan is a name you will rarely hear unless you’ve taken several classes in economics. And if the Tennessee-born Nobel laureate were alive today, it would suit him just fine that most well-informed journalists, liberal politicians, and even many economics students have little understanding of his work.

The reason? Duke historian Nancy MacLean contends that his philosophy is so stark that even young libertarian acolytes are only introduced to it after they have accepted the relatively sunny perspective of Ayn Rand. (Yes, you read that correctly). If Americans really knew what Buchanan thought and promoted, and how destructively his vision is manifesting under their noses, it would dawn on them how close the country is to a transformation most would not even want to imagine, much less accept.

Now here's the link itself:

Meet the Economist Behind the One Percent’s Stealth Takeover of America

Some serious questions now:

Do you find it more plausible or likely the Radical Right in America has a movement going or an actually conspiracy of some sort?

How much of a threat do think the Radical Right poses to democracy? If you think the Radical Right poses any threat at all, do you see it as an intentional threat?

Before reading the article were you at all familiar with James McGill Buchanan, his career and activities?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

This is eye-opening and rather shocking from what I've read so far. I can imagine the historian mentioned in the link had a moment similar to the one Gandalf had when he finds Isildur's writings about the Ring.

Spoiler: "The year 51 of the 20th Century. Here follows the account of James Buchanan"

 

[Terese]

Such a demonic bane to America and to the world. I hope the damage he caused will be mopped up in the future.

 

[Sunstone]

This is eye-opening and rather shocking from what I've read so far.

Much the same reaction I had. James McGill Buchanan was simply someone I'd never heard of before, nor the significance of his career and activities. Totally under my radar.

 

[Sunstone]

I hope the damage he caused will be mopped up in the future.

Terese, I fear that issue is very much in doubt at the moment. Without any exaggeration, there is absolutely no guarantee that our side will prevail, and if this news is substantially true, their side is much ahead of us.

 

[Valjean]

This is news?
You're starting to sound like a left wing radical conspiracy theorist, Sunstone. Worse -- You're starting to sound like me.
Democracy in Chains is a good read, but I think Mayer's Dark Money, covering similar material, is the more meticulously researched. I'd recommend both of them.

 

[Sunstone]

This is news?

Actually, the most important part of it was indeed news to me, Valjean, and I'm even a bit surprised you yourself were already on top of it. Until now, I had no reason to believe the actions of the Radical Right in America were other than largely uncoordinated and essentially opportunistic events driven mostly by the whims of half-crazy, unprincipled politicians like Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan, or by popular TV and radio hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. I saw them as destructive, but not as intentionally destructive of democracy.

Then again, I was also not only unaware of the full extent of the support and leadership that billionaires like Charles Koch were lending to the mess, but I had at most come across mere hints any such persons were so intentionally bent on radically limiting democracy.

And of course, I had never even heard of Buchanan, the apparent linchpin in all of this, let alone that he seriously harbored such improbable (in a highly educated man) notions as poor people are subhuman.

My first reaction was disbelief, "This can't be true, for if it's true, it's no less than a conspiracy." And who on earth readily believes in conspiracy stories?

I'm still in some doubt about just how well coordinated a conspiracy this is, if it indeed can be called one. Not knowing much about it, I'm inclined to the view that maybe it's more of movement than a genuine conspiracy.

So, so much of what's really crucial here is indeed new to me.

Worse -- You're starting to sound like me.

LOL! I share your shock and dismay!

Democracy in Chains

is a good read, but I think Mayer's Dark Money, covering similar material, is the more meticulously researched. I'd recommend both of them.

Forgive my mild skepticism, but are you sure they cover the same material? I have not read either book, so I can't give you my own opinion, but I've been reading now of one after another critic placing McLean's work in the "original" category. Is that just critic's license?

Much more important to me, do you have any reason to suspect, if you do, that McLean's scholarship might be seriously flawed?

 

[icehorse]

@Sunstone Thanks for the link, this is more important data to fight the oligarchy.

I would say that "Dark Money" and this article are largely in agreement, perhaps covering slightly different aspects of the same unbelievably serious problem.

To me, the oligarchy has risen to be in the top four issues of our time*, and perhaps it's the one that must be tackled first, because if we lose to the oligarchs, we'll lose the tools we need to battle the others.

*To me the top four issues are: overpopulation, climate change, nuclear weapons, and the oligarchy. Not necessarily in that order.

And to answer the OP, no I hadn't remembered Buchanan, but I suspect he was mentioned in "Dark Money".

 

[Valjean]

Actually, the most important part of it was indeed news to me, Valjean, and I'm even a bit surprised you yourself were already on top of it. Until now, I had no reason to believe the actions of the Radical Right in America were other than largely uncoordinated and essentially opportunistic events driven mostly by the whims of half-crazy, unprincipled politicians like Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan, or by popular TV and radio hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. I saw them as destructive, but not as intentionally destructive of democracy.

Then again, I was also not only unaware of the full extent of the support and leadership that billionaires like Charles Koch were lending to the mess, but I had at most come across mere hints any such persons were so intentionally bent on radically limiting democracy.

Like our primate cousins, I think certain people are just wired as alpha males. Some are actual conspirators, like the Kochs, others are opportunistic and self serving, like politicians -- eminences grises and their henchmen.
Looking back at the history of civilization, most societies had an aristocratic class who owned the society, with a coterie of henchmen, enforcers, soldiers, PR people, and so on. Why should the US be any different?
When Roosevelt introduced his alphabet soup of social programs during the '30s, the "royalists" organized an actual assassination and military coup, which was averted only by chance.

My first reaction was disbelief, "This can't be true, for if it's true, it's no less than a conspiracy." And who on earth readily believes in conspiracy stories?

LOL -- Conspiracy is what distinguishes up from the apes. It's what we do.

I'm still in some doubt about just how well coordinated a conspiracy this is, if it indeed can be called one. Not knowing much about it, I'm inclined to the view that maybe it's more of movement than a genuine conspiracy.

So, so much of what's really crucial here is indeed new to me.

It's a directed, planned movement.
Call it what you will.
When David's bid for VP didn't pan out in 1980, he realized that his campaign to recreate the Gilded Age would have to go stealth. What Do the Koch Brothers Want?

Forgive my mild skepticism, but are you sure they cover the same material? I have not read either book, so I can't give you my own opinion, but I've been reading now of one after another critic placing McLean's work in the "original" category. Is that just critic's license?

Dark Money's subtitle: "The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right." From the flyleaf: "...a network of exceedingly wealthy people with extreme libertarian views bankrolled a systematic, step-by-step plan to fundamentally alter the Americal political system...."
"When Libertarian ideas proved decidedly unpopular with voters, the Koch brothers and their allies chose another path. If they pooled their vast resources, they could fund an interlocking array oforganizations that could work in tandem to influence and ultimately control academic institutions, think tanks, the courts, statehouses, Congress, and, they hoped, the presidency.

I went to the bookshelf after I read your OP and found I actually had two copies of MacLean's book.
PM me your address and I'll mail one to you.
Dark Money you'll have to find on your own.

Much more important to me, do you have any reason to suspect, if you do, that McLean's scholarship might be seriously flawed?

Not "seriously."

 

[Vouthon]

My first impression was that it sounded all a tad "conspiracy theory"-like, and I tend to be wary of claims regarding decades-long, secretive plotting (i.e. in this case to subvert power structures in the interests of an ideology meant to bolster an anti-democratic oligarchic elite). I get reminded of political thriller novels.

And yet, as I read on, the evidence Nancy MacLean has amassed appears to be very persuasive indeed and I honestly cannot believe that I've never heard the name "James Buchanan" before. But I haven't. The whole thing is very sinister.

I can't help but think about the Catholic Social Teachings I've recently been highlighting. In Pope Paul VI's 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio he lamented:

However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society.

These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

This unbridled neo-liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "international imperialism of money."(26)

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

[This] type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day...

Individual initiative alone and the mere free play of competition could never assure successful development. One must avoid the risk of increasing still more the wealth of the rich and the dominion of the strong, whilst leaving the poor in their misery and adding to the servitude of the oppressed.

Populorum Progressio (“On the Development of Peoples”), Pope Paul VI, 1967 #26.​

Buchanan noted in his book The Limits of Liberty, that “despotism may be the only organisational alternative to the political structure that we observe.” That, is chilling (particularly in light of his involvement with Pinochet's dictatorship) and pertains to the tyranny and imperialism spoken of above by the pope back in 1967. Buchanan apparently told his collaborators that “conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential”. Wow. Looks like fact really is stranger than fiction.

There's one thing here, just one thing, that Buchanan and his acolytes (including the Koch brothers) would seem to have got pretty much spot on: the conflict between what he called economic freedom and political liberty is real. Unfettered freedom for billionaires entails destitution, instability, pollution and decaying public services for the rest of society.