Explicit Disagreement on Implicit Philosophy

I am a big fan of Tracinski's "What Went Right" series, which is why I created this blog. However, I disagree with his coining of the terms "implicit philosophy" and "implicit knowledge." I think Tracinski has identified two important concepts with these two terms, but I disagree with the implicit nature of each.

Starting with "implicit philosophy," here is a key quote from Part 6:

In developing this theory, I have not meant to deny the role of philosophy in history but to define it, and to define it especially in one key respect. As I hinted in Part 4:

While the examples I cite in this series do not involve the influence of explicitly stated philosophical ideas, it might be objected that they do show the influence of men's implicit philosophy. Yet that is precisely my point, and spelling out exactly how good ideas are grasped implicitly, in what form and by what process, is part of what I want to address.

I consider the influence of implicit philosophical ideas to be the deepest explanation of what shapes the course of history. This is the last big issue we need to address if we are to understand how ideas spread and influence human action.

This is Trancinski's answer to the question: If the world hasn't accepted Objectivism, how is it that the world hasn't collapsed? His answer is: The world has started to accept Objectivism, it just doesn't know it yet (it has accepted it implicitly). Tracinski believes philosophy is an integration of all human knowledge and that Objectivism represents everything humanity has learned over the past five thousand years. As discussed in another post, I believe philosophy is simply the answer to four basic questions.

If philosophy is really just the basics of how to live on earth, any honest observer can figure out at least some of the answers. This view of philosophy can explain why the world hasn't collapsed during the last thirty years even though the people who have had a positive impact are not Objectivists. These people include Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, Steve Jobs, George Mitchell (the father of fracking) and even Mikhail Gorbachev. Not only are these people not Objectivists, they would categorically deny the label. However, they figured out enough proper philosophy to make a real impact on the world.

So if any honest observer can figure out a proper philosophy for living on earth, what does Objectivism add? Objectivism is the first complete and fully consistent system of answers to the four basic questions. All four branches—metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics—are interconnected and Objectivism showed, for the first time in history, how they are connected and what premises they are ultimately based on. With Objectivism, the honest observer doesn't need to figure it all out, he or she only needs to study Ayn Rand.

What Tracinski calls "implicit philosophy" is really just the honest observer's grasp of a correct philosophic principle in a limited context, i.e. not integrated with a complete philosophical system. Despite the limited context, the correct principle does represents a properly formed concept linked to the facts of reality. Take as an example Ronald Reagan's view on taxes which is, briefly: lowering taxes encourages economic productivity which is good for the people and the country. He came to this view from his own experience and simply called it common sense. This one idea put into practice explains a lot of what went right in the eighties and nineties.

I also disagree with Tracinski on what he calls "implicit knowledge":

We rely on implicit knowledge all the time, as a necessity of life, in matters big and small. In ordering food at a restaurant, you rely on implicitly held assumptions about what kind of food is healthy, or about what flavor combinations are likely to be pleasing—assumptions you may go through your entire life without ever having to examine in explicit terms. When speaking or writing, you rely on your subconscious to feed you the appropriate words to express your exact shade of meaning, often without identifying explicitly all of the nuances and associations implicit in a word. Or a scientist working to solve a new problem may carry important implicit conclusions—gained from decades of experience—about the significance of certain types of evidence, or about the proper use of certain mathematical techniques, or about what constitutes proof of a theory. We rely on too many of these implicit ideas to subject all of them to explicit identification and examination—though we can and must examine the ones that are most important to us—yet we cannot function without them.

I believe what Tracinski is calling "implicit knowledge" is really just the subconscious at work, which occurs only after a concept has been properly formed, and it has been reinforced to the point where the recall of that concept becomes automatic, not before the concept has been formed as Tracinski asserts. The three examples he gives are very instructive.

What kind of food is healthy and which tastes good is just knowledge, neither implicit nor explicit. As for taste, when one thinks of a food, the brain immediately recalls an evaluation of that food because it is a direct sensation. When I think of grilled salmon, my brain tells me it is delicious because I've had it many times before. When I think of fried leeches, they don't seem appetizing but apparently they are quite good. I simply have no knowledge of their taste, neither explicit nor implicit. As for health, one must think it through and examine what the ingredients are and then recall the health benefits and risks of each. It is very easy to be misled by marketing about healthy foods, and I'm not sure the experts even know what's really healthy and what's not. I believe most of our ideas on what is healthy—which is brought up by our subconscious—is not reliable knowledge because we are basing it on marketing rather than nutritional science.

This one example of food is an excellent case study in how the brain works. I tried star fruit once, about a year ago. Before I ate it, I had no idea about what it would taste like. I now remember it being sweet at first but then quite sour at the end, but I can't quite remember exactly. It takes a conscious effort on my part to remember what it tasted like. I formed the concept of star fruit by seeing it in the grocery store, handling it when I bought it and then by eating it.  But I have not yet automated the taste, so my subconscious cannot quickly recall that information. On the other hand, I have strawberries several times every month, and I can immediately recall what they taste like. The taste of strawberries has been reinforced so many times in my brain that the subconscious has no trouble recalling the sensation.

Tracinski claims that "implicit knowledge" is similar to (or perhaps the same as) the information that the subconscious mind recalls, but he also claims that "implicit knowledge" is available before concept formation:

A philosophical concept is "implicit" when one has not yet named or defined it, but one has gone through some part of the process necessary to form it. In particular, one has the concept implicitly when one has formed some of the lower-level abstractions that form the basis for drawing a higher-level philosophical conclusion.

The examples Tracinski gives of "implicit knowledge" are all examples of subconscious recall. However, the subconscious can only function after a concept has been formed and reinforced to the point where the information about it becomes automated. If "implicit knowledge" is something that is present before the concept has been formed, the subconscious cannot automatically recall any information about the concept.

As for speaking or writing, Ayn Rand has an excellent discussion of how the subconscious works in The Art of Fiction. She makes the point that a writer must rely on his subconscious to write efficiently in a reasonable amount of time. However, for the subconscious to function well, one's knowledge needs to be stored in an orderly way, with the proper connections to the facts of reality and to the rest of one's knowledge. Ayn Rand did exactly this and was able to write Atlas Shrugged. She makes the point that one must rely on the subconscious while writing but afterwards, "you will be able to give a conscious reason for every word in your description; but you did not have to know the reasons while writing." Tracinski's description of "implicit knowledge" is the same as Ayn Rand's description of the information supplied by the subconscious mind, but she is clear that for ideas brought up by the subconscious, one must be able to "subject all of them to explicit identification and examination" (to use Tracinski's phrase).

My day job is as a scientist in industry working with some good scientists and some bad scientists. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the good ones rely on a methodical and explicit identification of principles that can explain the data, and the bad ones try to use "implicit conclusions—gained from decades of experience—about the significance of certain types of evidence, or about the proper use of certain mathematical techniques, or about what constitutes proof of a theory." These people are very poor problem solvers because they don't know which data are important, which of the many techniques they should use when, or even how to design an experiment that will test—not even prove—their hypothesis. These bad scientists have never explicitly thought about the knowledge they were taught in school, so it is not integrated correctly and they cannot recall it properly with their subconscious.

In summary, I think Tracinski's "What Went Right" is a great series that asks a very important question—How has the world improved even though it hasn't accepted an objective philosophy?—and offers some intriguing answers: the spread of global capitalism, education in science and technology, and an increase in representative government. However, I disagree with his idea of "implicit philosophy" which I believe is just correct philosophic principles in a limited context. I also disagree with his idea of "implicit knowledge" which I believe is simply our subconscious at work and occurs after concept formation, not before. Despite these disagreements, "What Went Right" is certainly worth reading for anyone interested in trying to fix the world.

What Types of Ideas Move History?

Tracinski's "What Went Right" series is all about understanding the course of history and how ideas affect its course. It will be useful to examine exactly which types of ideas move history.

We should start with an understanding of what it means to "move history." History is the study of how humans have lived throughout time, but it is primarily about how well they have lived. For example, as they moved into cities, they became susceptible to great plagues. How did they deal with this? What ideas led to the eradication of plagues? Or another example: after the development of the internal combustion engine, some countries applied this technology to war and conquered neighboring countries (Germany and Japan). This had a dramatic impact on how the people in these countries lived, as well as the people from the Allied countries who fought against them. These two examples show the two main types of ideas that move history: scientific and political.

It is interesting to note that most scientific ideas change the world for the better and most political ideas change the world for the worse, although exceptions exist for both. Here are some examples:

Scientific Ideas (Beneficial):

• Irrigation (ca. 3000 BCE)
• Watermill (ca. 300 BCE)
• Steam engine (1600's)
• Electric motor (1800's)
• Antibacterials (1930)
• Nuclear power (1954)
• Integrated circuit (1958)
• iPhone (2007)

Scientific Ideas (Harmful):

• Guillotine (1792)
• Sarin gas (1938)
• Atomic bomb (1945)

Political Ideas (Harmful):

• Slavery (8000 BCE and perhaps earlier)
• Military conquest (throughout history)
• Dictatorship (49 BCE)
• Sharia law (ca. 600)
• Divine right of kings (1600's)
• American income tax (1861)
• Communism (1917)
• FDR's Freedom from Want (1941)

Political Ideas (Beneficial):

• Magna Carta (1216)
• English Bill of Rights (1689)
• Declaration of Independence (1776)

The history of humanity has been a battle between those that would advance our standard of living through scientific discovery and technology, and those that would control us by restricting our freedom through the power of government. This battle was previously covered in my post, Damn Capitalists!... Damn Communists!.

How does philosophy influence these ideas? For scientific ideas, the scientists and engineers need a proper metaphysics and epistemology, at least where their work is concerned. However, for political ideas—which is the fourth branch of philosophy—the political philosopher relies on the other three branches: ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. Perhaps this is why scientific ideas are more often beneficial; the impact of those ideas is usually immediately obvious and so people accept and implement the good ones (e.g. the iPhone). On the other hand, the impact of a political idea (e.g. higher taxes) is less obvious and requires a clear understanding of a proper ethics to evaluate whether it is beneficial or harmful. In this way, bad political ideas can survive for millennia whereas bad scientific ideas are not widely adopted because either they don't work (e.g. a perpetual motion engine) or they are clearly harmful or dangerous (e.g. flying wingsuits).

Philosophy: Four Basic Questions

Artist's rendering of the Ancient city of Mari, Syria, ca. 2900 BCE

In my summary of Tracinski's "What Went Right" series, I mentioned that I disagreed with his view on what philosophy is. Here is Tracinski's view:

"[Ayn Rand's] philosophy is so crucially needed today. It is needed because it serves the function of philosophy: as a new abstraction that integrates, preserves, and magnifies all of the knowledge produced by the scientists, economists, novelists, businessmen who came before it. It represents the greatest such sum to date, the highest integration yet made of what humanity has learned in the five millennia of human civilization."

This is a grandiose view of philosophy and Tracinski claims it is dependent on knowledge from the specialized sciences. Ayn Rand had a different view:

“Philosophy by its nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment. Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true.” (Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded Second Edition, p. 289)

Ayn Rand gives her view of what philosophy is in Philosophy: Who Needs It:

"Most men spend their days struggling to evade three questions, the answers to which underlie man's every thought, feeling and action, whether he is consciously aware of it or not: Where am I? How do I know it? What should I do? ... [T]here is only one science that can answer [these questions]: philosophy. Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence."

The answers to these questions are the province of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. The fourth branch of philosophy, politics, answers the question: How should I live with my fellow man? Politics studies the fundamental nature of man's relationship to man.

Tracinski believes philosophy is an ever-expanding integration and sum of knowledge acquired by humankind. I believe it is simply the answers to four basic questions about man and existence. If true, then a citizen of the Sumerian city of Mari (shown above) could have figured out a proper philosophy five thousand years ago. Let's see if this is plausible.

Where am I? What kind of a world do I live in? Let's say our Sumerian is a farmer who plants and harvests one of the fields shown. He knows that if he plants the seeds and waters them, his crop will grow. This process is consistent year after year, even though sometimes the plants are bigger and sometimes the fields flood and the crops are ruined. He has observed that the natural world has a set of rules that are constant. He may not know them all, but he has learned enough of them to know that the natural world has rules that don't change. He can also observe that no matter how much he wishes the crops to grow, his mind is powerless to affect the real world simply by thinking. He can refute subjectivity with simple experiments. He has acquired the proper metaphysics: objective reality.

How do I know things about the world? Our Sumerian farmer has learned how to plant and harvest his crops from his elders and when he follows the process, crops grow. But another man, say a witch doctor, tells him he must kill a lamb every third Sunday to ensure his crops will grow tall. He tries this and finds no correlation between killing lambs and the height of his crops. By simply testing different hypotheses in reality and observing the results, he can form the proper epistemology: reason. He doesn't need to know what concepts, abstractions or measurement-omission are to know that ideas need to prove their worth in reality to be validated.

What should I do? What choices should I make to live a healthy and happy life? Our farmer will have learned that the harder he works on his field and the more care he takes to provide enough water, the better the crop. I don't know if he owned the land himself or how he was paid, but regardless of the situation, he could observe that his effort—both physical and intellectual—was directly tied to the amount of food he produced. Even if he wasn't allowed to keep the excess, he could observe that man must make an effort to produce what he needs to live, and this process is good and right. And he will have observed that it was his individual initiative that produced the crops, because only he can generate the motivation to put forth the effort. That is the essence of a proper ethics: individualism and rational self-interest.

How should I deal with my fellow man? Mari was a trading city situated between cities on the Mediterranean Sea and others on the Persian Gulf. Thus, our farmer could observe how trading made both parties richer by taking advantage of the division of labor. He could also observe that by being more productive in his own profession—farming—he could produce excess and then trade that for things produced by others. Furthermore, as is obvious to any child, he could observe that by stealing or killing, one could take the products of others with physical force. But since our farmer knows the effort required to produce his crops, he knows that the city would starve if everyone were allowed to steal or kill. He has thereby figured out the essence of a proper politics: men should deal with each other as traders; killing and stealing are forbidden. (In the earliest known written laws, the Code of Ur-Nammu, the first two offenses listed are murder and robbery.)

Our Sumerian farmer is undoubtedly a rare individual with abilities in logic and introspection very advanced for his time, and perhaps he did not exist. But the point of the above exercise is that the Sumerian farmer had enough information available to him to figure out a philosophy for living on earth. It did not require knowledge of the ancient Greeks, the scientific discoveries of the Enlightenment, or the incredible productivity of the Industrial Revolution. Philosophy deals with fundamental questions of man and existence and can be figured out—from scratch—by any honest, rational individual.

Summary of Tracinski's "What Went Right"

I agree with most of Tracinski's "What Went Right" series. Before going into detail on what I disagree with, it will be useful to summarize the entire series and give a few comments.

Part 1: The Collapse of the Collapse of Civilization

Tracinski reviews the events of the twentieth century that pointed to an impending collapse of civilization: World War I, the Great Depression, Nazism and World War II, Communism and the Cold War, the Counter-Culture Rebellion of the 1960s, and the malaise of the 1970s. The trend was definitely toward a collapse, but for the next 30 years, starting around 1980, things turned around with an economic revival in America and Britain and the fall of Communism in 1989.

Tracinski points out that Objectivist literature, including The Intellectual Activist, did not pick up on the changes of the last thirty years and still predicts doom and gloom. I believe a big part of the non-collapse is due to the number of countries turning toward capitalism which he names: Japan and West Germany after WWII, the Asian Tigers of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea, the former Soviet Bloc countries of Poland, Latvia, Estonia and the Czech Republic, and most recently the turn of China and India toward free market policies. These examples, in addition to the free market reforms of Reagan and Thatcher in America and Britain, are—in my view—the primary explanation of "What Went Right."

Part 2: The Implosion of the Population Bomb

In this part, Tracinski makes the case that non-Objectivists have changed the world for the better, giving detailed examples of Julian Simon exposing the myth of the Population Bomb and Manmohan Singh helping open up the economy of India. This seems like a no-brainer argument, except that many Objectivists (including myself up until a few months ago) have the notion that the only way to "save the world" is for it to accept Objectivism.

I'll add my own example to this list: Ronald Reagan believed in low taxes because he saw that high taxes produced less work when he was an actor:

"I think my own experience with our tax laws in Hollywood probably taught me more about practical economic theory than I ever learned in a classroom or from an economist, and my views on tax reform did not spring from what people called supply-side economics. At the peak of my career at Warner Bros., I was in the ninety-four percent tax bracket; that meant that after a certain point, I received only six cents for each dollar I earned and that the government got the rest. The IRS took such a big chunk of my earnings that after a while I began asking myself whether it was worth it to keep on taking work." [Reagan, An American Life]

Reagan had much more practical experience in economics beyond this one anecdote, particularly his work for GE and the influence of GE vice president Lemuel Boulware.

Part 3: Pajama Epistemology

In this part, Tracinski makes the case that the ideas that change the world can come from a "bottom-up" approach, as opposed to a "top-down" approach from philosophers. Since the actual people who end up changing the world—such as Julius Caesar, Thomas Jefferson or Ronald Reagan—are not actually philosophers, the question is: Where do these people get their ideas? Tracinski says it's a combination of both top-down and bottom-up.

The dominant belief in Objectivist circles is that the ideas come top-down from the philosophers, an idea which is based on a misinterpretation of a passage from Ayn Rand as discussed in this previous post. The basic point of part 3 is that good ideas can come from anywhere, and that good ideas can change history.

Incidentally, the "bottom-up" approach Tracinski writes with is why I subscribe to The Tracinski Letter and not The Objective Standard.  The latter is written with the "top-down" approach which is boring to me because there are very few new ideas—it mostly recycles Ayn Rand's writings which are not as good as the original.

Part 4: The Metaphysics of "Normal Life"

This part is where I got most of my thoughts for my post on Starting with Capitalism. Tracinski cites global capitalism, education in science and technology, and representative government as three institutions that encourage an acceptance of good philosophical principles, namely reason, individualism and liberty. I fully agree; this is my favorite part of his whole series.

A central idea is that people around the world see what we have in America and it compels them to want the same for themselves. They see our lives as "normal" in the sense that this is what's possible to humans, even though it is not how most people have lived throughout history or even how most people in the world live today. I believe the American example is changing the world for the better.

Part 5: The Summit and the Foundation

This is perhaps the most controversial part of Tracinski's series, wherein he gives examples of how philosophy in Ancient Greece and the Middle Ages did not move history, but followed it. I don't have a problem with this relationship between philosophy and history, as discussed previously in this post.

This is, in fact, the central idea of "What Went Right": The world did not collapse into another Dark Ages because people acted on good ideas based on their own experience induced from the bottom up, rather than getting the ideas handed down to them from professional philosophers. This certainly fits with what I've been reading in The Age of Reagan: 1980-1989, where Reagan changed the world based on principles he developed from the bottom up.

In the latter portion of Part 5, Tracinski talks about philosophy "as a new abstraction that integrates, preserves, and magnifies all of the knowledge produced by the scientists, economists, novelists, businessmen who came before it." I disagree with Tracinski on his view of philosophy which will be the subject of a future post.

Part 6: The War Between the Implicit and the Explicit

In this final part, Tracinski first summarizes the first five parts (similar to as I've done above) and reiterates the central idea that history can be moved by ideas developed from the bottom up rather than top-down from philosophy departments. He distinguishes between bottom-up ideas and top-down ideas as implicit or explicit philosophical ideas, respectively. Here is where Tracinski loses me. I believe there is no fundamental difference between an idea learned bottom-up or top-down, it's only a difference in the order of the steps in which one comes to understand the idea.

I ended up disagreeing with most of what Tracinski wrote in Part 6 because I don't like his ideas of "implicit knowledge" and "implicit philosophy." But my full critique will have to wait until a future post.

Tracinski finishes off by describing how bad philosophical ideas must be transmitted top-down through the universities because they cannot be induced bottom-up on their own. I agree with this and like the distinction he draws. It means the right ideas can be learned in two different ways that reinforce each other whereas bad ideas require people in positions of authority to teach them. It bodes well for the future as we develop more ways to spread knowledge.

To summarize, "What Went Right" examines the apparent paradox that the world hasn't accepted Ayn Rand's Objectivism yet it has improved over the last thirty years rather than collapsing. Tracinski's resolution of this paradox is that good ideas—ones that can change the world—can come from the top-down, i.e. from Objectivism, or from the bottom-up by any honest thinker focused on reality. This is a great insight which is important for anyone interested in fixing what's wrong with the world.

How to Save the World

This blog was started so I could put down my thoughts on Robert Trancinski's "What Went Right" series of articles. I believe I finally understand what he is saying, and the next series of posts will comment on his theory. But first, a summary of my views:

What Went Wrong?:  Starting around the beginning of the 20th century and getting a big push from Woodrow Wilson, America turned away from the Founding Fathers' vision of America and turned toward socialism. Up through the 1970s, America went through three waves of liberalism spearheaded by Wilson, FDR and Johnson. Their policies resulted in a weak America, both economically and morally.

The "Standard" Objectivist View:  Ayn Rand, looking at America from the 1930s (FDR) through the 1960s (LBJ) and 70s (Carter), saw an America on the decline. This decline correlated well with the disintegration of philosophy as a serious subject into irrationalism and subjectivism. Ayn Rand predicted further decline for America based on the trends she observed (up until her death in 1982). Leonard Peikoff and others have continued to promote this view.

What Went Right?:  Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher brought back capitalism in the 1980s. Their stand against communism led to the fall of the Soviet Union and laid bare the stark contrast between the two systems. The fall of communism helped the spread of global capitalism; for example, China moved toward a market economy, and Nelson Mandela, as new president of South Africa in 1992, turned the country toward free markets.

How to Save the World:  Promote capitalism. George Reisman has some good ideas on how to do this.

Starting with Capitalism

A common Objectivist view of history is that philosophy departments set the stage by promoting a certain view of metaphysics which then leads to a view of epistemology, ethics and politics. Ayn Rand's position on these four branches of philosophy is shown below. If this is indeed the process which determines history, then to change a culture we need more philosophy professors who promote objective reality and show how it leads inexorably to an acceptance of 1) reason as our only means of knowledge, 2) egoism—or rational self-interest—as our only guide to living a proper life, and 3) capitalism as the ideal system of government. This model, in fact, has been put into practice by the Ayn Rand Institute. I agree that this is one possible way to change a culture.

On the other hand, what if the process also works in reverse? A key point of Tracinski's "What Went Right" series is that by promoting capitalism, we are also promoting egoism, reason and objective reality, as shown below. It may even be that "Starting with Capitalism" is the more efficient method for changing the course of history.

For most Americans, philosophy is a game played by white-haired professors arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Therefore, making a long argument starting from the axiom "existence exists" is not going to get the attention of most people. Americans are much more interested in how they can improve their lives, for instance by purchasing a new house or car, sending their kids to college, or even training for a new job and starting a new career. All of these things depend on a free market and capitalism. The ability to work harder and smarter and have that result in more money and more opportunities is very real to most Americans—much more real than the question of whether or not reality is objective.

But how does capitalism—a system where people are free to work and trade, and where property is protected by the law—promote the other branches of philosophy? Capitalism certainly promotes egoism because each individual is working for his own sake to improve his life and gain and/or keep his values, such as a fancy new car, a better life for his children, or a more fulfilling career. So capitalism encourages selfishness, but to actually be successful means being productive and that requires using ones brain to understand and manipulate things to make something useful for humans, which is another way of saying "to use reason." Finally, to successfully use reason to make or sell a product useful for humans, one needs to focus on the real world and solve real world problems. Businesses succeed by analyzing their market, planning to fill a niche, and executing on their plans rather than praying for success or endlessly chanting mantras. Capitalism requires egoism, reason and objective reality to the point that it becomes second nature to those who fully embrace it.

Having shown that capitalism promotes the proper views in the other branches of philosophy does not mean that all we need to do is to promote capitalism. The links are implicit but it is easy to get confused, especially when philosophy departments and their minions in the mass media and Hollywood are constantly attacking capitalism, egoism, reason and objective reality with false arguments and confusing rhetoric. There is still a need to explain to Americans who embrace the market economy that capitalism is the unknown ideal, that selfishness is a virtue and that reason is our only means to knowledge (in fact, these are three major books by Ayn Rand—follow the links). But perhaps we should start with capitalism, because the more people who are invested in the market economy, the easier it will be to demonstrate the links to the underlying philosophic principles of egoism, reason and objective reality.

The Fourth Wave of Liberalism

I recently finished Steven Hayward's The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Presidents: From Wilson to Obama. While it wasn't as good as Hayward's The Age of Reagan: 1964-1980, it was still an informative and entertaining read.

Hayward takes the approach of rating the presidents based on their job description, which is basically:

• Preside over the military as commander-in-chief
• Execute the laws passed by congress
• Ensure the laws passed are constitutional (if not, veto them)
• Nominate Supreme Court justices

Furthermore, the President must take this oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Hayward's book is important because it reviews each of the presidents starting with Woodrow Wilson and grades them according to how well the performed the job description and upheld the oath they took when they were sworn in. He starts with Wilson in 1913 because it was Wilson who first significantly expanded the job of president beyond the job description laid out in the Constitution. Before Wilson, presidents performed their duty by commanding the military in times of war (e.g. Lincoln, Madison) or keeping the congress in check by vetoing unconstitutional laws (Hayward gives wonderful examples from Madison, Pierce, Buchanan and Cleveland).

I agreed with most of Hayward's ratings for the early presidents. But for the presidents since Reagan, I thought he had a Republican vs. Democrat bias which wasn't supported by the examples he provided. Since this book was published in the election year of 2012, I believe part of the purpose was to get people to vote against Obama and so the later rankings had a partisan bias. Below are my rankings based on his examples and my own understanding of history.

Presidents ranked according to how much they followed the Constitution in preserving liberty in America, including how much the government interfered with the economy. Arrows show the Four Waves of Liberalism according to Charles Kesler.

Calvin Coolidge deserves an A+ because he worked hard to uphold the Constitution and keep the government out of the people's lives. He understood that America is founded on capitalism, and it is the job of the government to protect Americans so they can be free to produce. He famously said:

"After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of our people will always find these are moving impulses of our life."

I believe this is a big part of Tracinski's "What Went Right?" theory of bottom-up, implicit philosophy. If the people are "profoundly concerned" with the process of capitalism, they implicitly need to be concerned with individualism, reason and objective reality, the three underlying philosophical ideas supporting capitalism (more on this in a future post).

Reagan gets an A+ because he took a principled approach to decreasing the size and scope of government. Perhaps the biggest consequence of his principled approach was the fall of communism which, until Obama, deflated the liberal cause and slowed down the advance of the progressive's infringement on our rights.

The four presidents who rate an F in my analysis are also the four presidents who have brought about the Four Waves of Liberalism, according to Charles Kesler. The four waves are, briefly:

1. Woodrow Wilson and the New Freedom: Wilson claimed the Constitution was out-dated and worked to expand the office of the president in violation of the Constitution. He initiated new controls on the economy with the Clayton Anti-Trust Act and the Federal Reserve System.
2. FDR and the New Deal: Roosevelt, following Wilson's lead, went crazy with new expansions of government interference over the economy, including Social Security, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
3. Johnson and the Great Society: Johnson wanted to use the Federal Government to correct all the evils he saw in society, which led to his War on Poverty, included Food Stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, and greatly increased federal funding for education.
4. Obama and Obamacare: Barack Obama and the democratic majorities in the House and Senate rammed through the "Affordable Care Act," better-known as Obamacare, in a strictly partisan vote using back-room deals and threats to get the necessary votes. If Obamacare can be repealed, perhaps that will be the beginning of a trend to repeal the programs in the previous three waves of liberalism.

Overall, Hayward's book is well worth reading, if only to put the current attacks on liberty by the Obama administration into context.  If America can survive the previous attacks from Wilson, FDR and LBJ, we can surely survive Obama.