- Leon Panetta named as source of ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ scriptwriter’s information
- Mandela service sign language interpreter: ‘He made up his own signs’
- Pope Francis named Time’s ‘Person of the Year’
- Ben Affleck: Fundraising for Democrats started to ‘feel gross’
- Vladimir Putin orders military to boost presence in Arctic
- Brooklyn, N.Y.: ‘Lesbian capital’ of the Northeast
- Elian Gonzalez: It’s America’s fault that my mother died
- India top court rules homosexuality is illegal
- Aaron Hernandez, ex-Patriot, on prison life: ‘I’m way less stressed in jail’
- Man pulled from water believed to be disgraced D.C. cop
TYRRELL: Marketing to market
There is a vexed brouhaha going on between two of my favorite conservatives, Rush Limbaugh and Sen. Tom Coburn of the great state of Oklahoma. It has been caused by a mischief-maker by the name of Jeff Greenfield, now working apparently for CBS.
Mr. Greenfield began his TV career as a mischief-maker on the late William F. Buckley's "Firing Line" and continued it on CNN. Now he interviews personages for CBS, but he has not lost his knack for creating a row ... or simple confusion.
Shortly after President Barack H. Obama took the oath of office, Mr. Greenfield was interviewing Mr. Coburn, whom he stopped in his tracks after the senator genially offered that he wished the new president well and hoped he would "succeed." Mr. Greenfield notified the senator that Mr. Limbaugh, "probably the most prominent conservative commentator in America," did not wish Mr. Obama success.
Mr. Greenfield quoted Mr. Limbaugh as saying, "I know what he [President Obama] wants to do and I don't want him to succeed." That sounds like Rush has gone into kamikaze mode. It sounds downright unpatriotic. Yet it misrepresents what Rush was talking about, and later on his radio show Rush explained his point.
All depends on what President Obama "wants to do," and Rush believes he wants to socialize the economy -- the banks, health care, the auto industry, the works. Rush believes that state control of commerce is, well, the road to serfdom, as Friedrich von Hayek put it six decades ago. Since Hayek's time we have had ample evidence to meditate on the performance of socialism, and such renowned socialist states as India (the soft form of socialism) and China (the rough form of socialism) have discarded it. Both have fashioned their economies around market capitalism and flourished in a way that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.
Capitalism brings prosperity. Since the Reagan Revolution, America has enjoyed a quarter-century of almost unbroken economic growth. There were two brief and shallow recessions, but in modern history there has never been such a period of prosperity.
Now we are in a recession and it appears it will be neither short nor shallow. That is why I have been drawing attention to the original cause of this recession, namely government. It was government, specifically the Clinton administration, that goaded two government instrumentalities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to traffic in subprime mortgages, and traffic wantonly. The junk mortgages were sold all over the world, often to government-regulated institutions. I stand with the newly elected president in admiring government regulation, at least some government regulation. But this economic mess proves that government regulation is not foolproof. The regulators were human and humans fall prey to error, as they did in regulating American banks in the 1990s and more recently.
So once again Rush is right. Socialism is a menace to freedom and to prosperity. If President Obama nationalizes as extensively as some of his supporters advocate, I too will be against him. Fortifying the banking system and buying up troubled assets is wise, and is effective, as was seen in the late 1980s rescue of the troubled savings and loans.
The president's proposed giant stimulus program is another matter. We have tried such programs in the past. They are ineffective, breed corruption, and leave in their wake inflation.
Yet for my part I am willing to give the new president the benefit of the doubt. In his fine and workmanlike speech he spoke out for markets, saying their capacity "to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched."
There was a day not so long ago when liberals denied markets even existed. The great advocate of the mixed economy John Kenneth Galbraith, who late in life identified himself as a socialist, jeered at the very idea of a market, joking that he could not see it, he could not touch it. Well, most educated people now recognize the existence of markets and their indispensability to economic prosperity. I say let us give the new president an opportunity to show us what he knows about markets.
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of the American Spectator and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute.
About the Author
By Donald Lambro
Growth spikes are little more than trend-free anomalies
- Teen thugs in DC run wild -- even while wearing GPS ankle bracelets
- New budget accord saves $23 billion -- after $65 billion spending spree
- VEGAS RULES: Harry Reid pushed feds to change ruling for casino's big-money foreigners
- Obama takes 'selfie' at Mandela's funeral service
- CARSON: Why did the founders give us the Second Amendment?
- Obama hits new poll lows for approval 38 percent
- Gov't Motors: Obama fudges math on auto bailout, $10.5 billion loss for taxpayers
- FITTON: A closer look at the Benghazi lie
- LAMBRO: The dark lining to the silver cloud of Obamanomics
- Somber duty: U.S. presidents in hot demand at Mandela's memorial
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Television commentary, reviews, news and nonstop DVR catch-up by Lisa King Dolloff and friends.
Helping the YOUniverse conspire on your behalf.
A column dedicated to discussing politics, national security, civil liberties, and education.
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow