Chick-fil-A may not represent Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s perception of “Chicago values,” but it sure represents the values of “We the People.” Today, millions of Americans, including the half-a-million members of Concerned Women for America (CWA) will show their appreciation for those values by joining the Chick-fil-A Day of Appreciation. Aside from the fact that every single time that Americans have had the chance to vote on the definition of marriage they have elected to preserve the traditional definition of one man and one woman, Americans love and treasure their First Amendment rights.
Those rights are under assault today with the recent anti-Chick-fil-A efforts by government officials. These officials are not just exercising their First Amendment rights. What we are witnessing is the government using its force to squelch speech, suppress religion and punish anyone who dares live out their Christian beliefs.
For example, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino says he will block Chick-fil-A from opening a facility in his city. “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” he spouted.
In Chicago, Alderman Proco Joe Moreno said he will block the company from building a second store in the city. Councilman Jim Kenney in Philadelphia is telling the business to “take a hike.” Here in Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent Gray says he will oppose the expanded presence for Chick-fil-A in the District, calling it “hate chicken.”
Even the extremely liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recognizes the disturbing nature of these statements. Senior Attorney Adam Schwartz, of the Illinois chapter of the ACLU, told Fox News, “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.” That is crystal clear.
But the dangerous practice that might go unnoticed here is the more subversive part of this anti-Christian bigotry. These city officials are speaking within their capacity as officials. When a mayor makes such a statement on behalf of the city, the consequences are a bit more elusive, yet very real.
Certainly everyone, including a city mayor, is entitled to their opinion, and people can vote with their pocketbooks by going somewhere else to eat their “chikin.” But what is happening here, again, is something our Founding Fathers tried to guard us against —― government using its power to suppress viewpoints and expressions with which it disagrees. That’s something that, just as in this situation, is usually accomplished in a subtle way at first.
How many other businesses got the message not to do business with Chick-fil-A if they want to do business in these cities? It’s been reported that the Jim Henson Co., producers of the Muppets, canceled an agreement with Chick-fil-A, as a result of this controversy. Why now? Chick-fil-A has not changed. They have always supported traditional marriage. Could the pressure applied by government officials have played a role in that decision? Could it play a role in similar decisions moving forward?
When government shows its force, the ramifications are innumerable.
How many business owners who may believe as Chick-fil-A’s founder does about marriage and family now feel that they must be silent if they want to retain their business in these particular cities? Not only that, but these officials’ comments empower others within their administration to apply the same prejudices in their own area of control. The First Amendment is being trampled, and we all lose when our constitutional rights are diminished.
Chick-fil-A posted annual sales of more than $4 billion last year. It employs hundreds of Americans, providing them excellent benefits and a great environment in which to work. This year, it will award $1.6 million in scholarships to its restaurant team members. Keep in mind that this is in a time when national unemployment rate is 8.2 percent. In the District of Columbia and Chicago it is 9 percent and 9.8 percent, respectively.
Chick-fil-A’s WinShape Foundation does incredible charitable work, operating foster homes and camps for disadvantaged youth, among many other endeavors. It’s all born out of the same deeply held religious beliefs that lead them to support traditional marriage — the same beliefs for which it is being singled out and discriminated against by these local government officials.
All Americans should stand with Chick-fil-A today, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, Christians and non-Christians. Freedom breaks through all stereotypes, reaching to the heart of what it really means to be an American.
Washington Times article supports Chick-fil-A day of Appreciation NANCE AND DIAZ: Happy Chick-fil-A Day of Appreciation Americans fight anti-Christian bigotry By Penny Young Nance and Mario Diaz Chick-fil-A may not represent Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s perception of “Chicago values,” but it sure represents the values of “We the People.” Today, millions of Americans, including the […]
This July 19, 2012, photo shows a Chick-fil-A fast food restaurant in Atlanta. (AP)____________ A friend of mine is involved in a Russian Baptist Church in California and he told me that there are 52 Chick-Fil-As in California and none of the 30 in attendence had ever been to one or even heard of them. Since […]
I will be eating there on August 1, 2012. Yesterday I was in Memphis on a business trip and I heard Mike Huckabee’s radio show. On the show he quoted his good friend “Houston Nutt” who told his players not to stoop to antics when they score but to act like they have been there […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 16, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have linked several […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 18, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on June 22, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email July 6, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response, but if I had […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on June 22, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on June 15, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on May 23, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on May 9, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on April 16, 2011. First you will see my letter to him which was mailed around April 9th. […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on April 3, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have linked […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on March 7, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on January 27, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on January 25, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
Science Matters #2: Former supermodel Kathy Ireland tells Mike Huckabee about how she became pro-life after reading what the science books have to say.
Below is a portion of a letter I sent to President Obama that generated a response on May 23, 2012.
This July 19, 2012, photo shows a Chick-fil-A fast food restaurant in Atlanta. (AP)____________
A friend of mine is involved in a Russian Baptist Church in California and he told me that there are 52 Chick-Fil-As in California and none of the 30 in attendence had ever been to one or even heard of them. Since my friend is from Arkansas he knew about Chick-Fil-A. However, all thirty agreed that they were going to google and find where a Chick-Fil-A was near them in southern California and go on August 1st. They all had heard about the news about Boston and Chicago Mayors saying they would not grant business licenses to Chick-Fil-A in their cities and some of them had heard Mike Huckabee intervew Truett Cathy on his tv show. I also read about gay group in Illinois that is going to have a Kiss-In at their local Chick-Fil-A on Friday August 3rd.
I went to Chick-Fil-A this morning at 5:58 this morning at 5:58 am and by the time 6 am rolled around cars were lining up behind me. Once Chick-Fil-A opened I gave them my $4.61 cents and wished them well on this August 1st.
We have to see how it goes today. The liberal Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times contends this will hurt Chick-Fil-A in the long run but time will tell. Brantley railed against the Mike Huckabee inspired August 1 effort to pump up Chick-Fil-A sales:
CONTROVERSY NOT GOOD FOR FRIED CHICKEN: Mike Huckabeeand other militant homophobes may flock in numbers to Chick-fil-A Wednesday (Arkansas homohobes have been eating there daily and braying loudly about it for more than a week now as a show of support for the chain CEO’s support of anti-gay causes, including a group linked to a movement that supported legal execution of homosexuals in Uganda). But new research indicates controversy is not, on balance, good for fast food chains. For every hater that turns out for chicken in solidarity with bigotry, somebody else has been turned off by the publicity. The chain’s favorability rating has dropped sharply. PS FOR HUCK’S HATE TROOPS — There’s been little call for an organized boycott against Chick-fil-A, not even by a local group that plans a silent, peaceful vigil Wednesday near a Little Rock outlet. By all means eat more chicken. And be sure to brag about it. You are sure to have gay friends, relatives, acquaintances and sympathizers who’ll remember you for it. Just as they now remember Chick-fil-A. It’s called branding.
One thing we know for sure and that is the anger is definately on the other side. On the Arkansas Times Blog this morning a blogger named “B Rock Sucks” rightly noted that “Free speech until…… you disagree with a liberal.”
Washington Times article supports Chick-fil-A day of Appreciation NANCE AND DIAZ: Happy Chick-fil-A Day of Appreciation Americans fight anti-Christian bigotry By Penny Young Nance and Mario Diaz Chick-fil-A may not represent Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s perception of “Chicago values,” but it sure represents the values of “We the People.” Today, millions of Americans, including the […]
This July 19, 2012, photo shows a Chick-fil-A fast food restaurant in Atlanta. (AP)____________ A friend of mine is involved in a Russian Baptist Church in California and he told me that there are 52 Chick-Fil-As in California and none of the 30 in attendence had ever been to one or even heard of them. Since […]
I will be eating there on August 1, 2012. Yesterday I was in Memphis on a business trip and I heard Mike Huckabee’s radio show. On the show he quoted his good friend “Houston Nutt” who told his players not to stoop to antics when they score but to act like they have been there […]
With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse.
The first step is to remove all welfare programs and replace them with the negative income tax program that Milton Friedman first suggested.
Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income.
Here is a transcript of a portion of the “Free to Choose” program called “From Cradle to Grave” (program #4 in the 10 part series):
Friedman: After the 2nd World War, New York City authorities retained rent control supposedly to help their poorer citizens. The intentions were good. This in the Bronx was one result.
By the 50′s the same authorities were taxing their citizens. Including those who lived in the Bronx and other devastated areas beyond the East River to subsidize public housing. Another idea with good intentions yet poor people are paying for this, subsidized apartments for the well-to-do. When government at city or federal level spends our money to help us, strange things happen.
The idea that government had to protect us came to be accepted during the terrible years of the Depression. Capitalism was said to have failed. And politicians were looking for a new approach.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a candidate for the presidency. He was governor of New York State. At the governor’s mansion in Albany, he met repeatedly with friends and colleagues to try to find some way out of the Depression. The problems of the day were to be solved by government action and government spending. The measures that FDR and his associates discussed here derived from a long line of past experience. Some of the roots of these measures go back to Bismark’s Germany at the end of the 19th Century. The first modern state to institute old age pensions and other similar measures on the part of government. In the early 20th Century Great Britain followed suit under Lloyd George and Churchill. It too instituted old age pensions and similar plans.
These precursors of the modern welfare state had little effect on practice in the United States. But they did have a very great effect on the intellectuals on the campus like those who gathered here with FDR. The people who met here had little personal experience of the horrors of the Depression but they were confident that they had the solution. In their long discussions as they sat around this fireplace trying to design programs to meet the problems raised by the worst Depression in the history of the United States, they quite naturally drew upon the ideas that were prevalent at the time. The intellectual climate had become one in which it was taken for granted that government had to play a major role in solving the problems in providing what came later to be called Security from Cradle to Grave.
Roosevelt’s first priority after his election was to deal with massive unemployment. A Public Works program was started. The government financed projects to build highways, bridges and dams. The National Recovery Administration was set up to revitalize industry. Roosevelt wanted to see America move into a new era. The Social Security Act was passed and other measures followed. Unemployment benefits, welfare payments, distribution of surplus food. With these measures, of course, came rules, regulations and red tape as familiar today as they were novel then. The government bureaucracy began to grow and it’s been growing ever since.
This is just a small part of the Social Security empire today. Their headquarters in Baltimore has 16 rooms this size. All these people are dispensing our money with the best possible intentions. But at what cost?
In the 50 years since the Albany meetings, we have given government more and more control over our lives and our income. In New York State alone, these government buildings house 11,000 bureaucrats. Administering government programs that cost New York taxpayers 22 billion dollars. At the federal level, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare alone has a budget larger than any government in the world except only Russia and the United States.
Yet these government measures often do not help the people they are supposed to. Richard Brown’s daughter, Helema, needs constant medical attention. She has a throat defect and has to be connected to a breathing machine so that she’ll survive the nights. It’s expensive treatment and you might expect the family to qualify for a Medicaid grant.
Richard Brown: No, I don’t get it, cause I’m not eligible for it. I make a few dollars too much and the salary that I make I can’t afford to really live and to save anything is out of the question. And I mean, I live, we live from payday to payday. I mean literally from payday to payday.
Friedman: His struggle isn’t made any easier by the fact that Mr. Brown knows that if he gave up his job as an orderly at the Harlem Hospital, he would qualify for a government handout. And he’d be better off financially.
Hospital Worker: Mr. Brown, do me a favor please? There is a section patient.
Friedman: It’s a terrible pressure on him. But he is proud of the work that he does here and he’s strong enough to resist the pressure.
Richard Brown: I’m Mr. Brown. Your fully dilated and I’m here to take you to the delivery. Try not to push, please. We want to have a nice sterile delivery.
Friedman: Mr. Brown has found out the hard way that welfare programs destroy an individual’s independence.
Richard Brown: We’ve considered welfare. We went to see, to apply for welfare but, we were told that we were only eligible for $5.00 a month. And, to receive this $5.00 we would have to cash in our son’s savings bonds. And that’s not even worth it. I don’t believe in something for nothing anyway.
Mrs. Brown: I think a lot of people are capable of working and are willing to work, but it’s just the way it is set up. It, the mother and the children are better off if the husband isn’t working or if the husband isn’t there. And this breaks up so many poor families.
Friedman: One of the saddest things is that many of the children whose parents are on welfare will in their turn end up in the welfare trap when they grow up. In this public housing project in the Bronx, New York, 3/4′s of the families are now receiving welfare payments.
Well Mr. Brown wanted to keep away from this kind of thing for a very good reason. The people who get on welfare lose their human independence and feeling of dignity. They become subject to the dictates and whims of their welfare supervisor who can tell them whether they can live here or there, whether they may put in a telephone, what they may do with their lives. They are treated like children, not like responsible adults and they are trapped in the system. Maybe a job comes up which looks better than welfare but they are afraid to take it because if they lose it after a few months it maybe six months or nine months before they can get back onto welfare. And as a result, this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle rather than simply a temporary state of affairs.
Things have gone even further elsewhere. This is a huge mistake. A public housing project in Manchester, England.
Well we’re 3,000 miles away from the Bronx here but you’d never know it just by looking around. It looks as if we are at the same place. It’s the same kind of flats, the same kind of massive housing units, decrepit even though they were only built 7 or 8 years ago. Vandalism, graffiti, the same feeling about the place. Of people who don’t have a great deal of drive and energy because somebody else is taking care of their day to day needs because the state has deprived them of an incentive to find jobs to become responsible people to be the real support for themselves and their families.
_______________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
In the final scene of Manhattan, Woody Allen’s character, Isaac, is lying on the sofa with a microphone and a tape-recorder, dictating to himself an idea for a short story. It will be about “people in Manhattan,” he says, “who are constantly creating these real unnecessary, neurotic problems for themselves” because they cannot bear to confront the “more unsolvable, terrible problems about the universe.” In an attempt to keep it optimistic, he begins by asking himself the question, “Why is life worth living?” He gives it some thought. “That’s a very good question,” he says, “There are certain things, I guess, that make it worthwhile.” And then the list begins: Groucho Marx, Willie Mays, the second movement of Mozart’s ‘Jupiter Symphony,’ Louis Armstrong’s recording of Potato Head Blues, “Swedish movies, naturally,” Flaubert’s Sentimental Education, Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, “those incredible apples and pears by Cézanne, the crabs at Sam Wo’s . . . Tracy’s face.”
This list acts as an important hinge in the film’s narrative, the point at which Isaac suddenly becomes aware of his feelings for Tracy and resolves to go after her. But within this list there is also something greater being communicated, something which, I believe, can be described as the central subject of nearly every Woody Allen film, or, perhaps, what compels him to make films in the first place. Isaac is conveying here a belief in the sheer power of art, its ability to provide a sense of worth to an otherwise empty existence. Art, Woody Allen seems to be saying, is the only valuable response – or the only conceivable response – to the dreadful human predicament as he sees it.
~ ~ ~
“My relationship with death remains the same: I’m strongly against it.”
~ ~ ~
Recently, at the Cannes Film Festival, Woody Allen was asked about what motivates him. He simply laughed and said, “Fear is what drives me.” Work, for Allen, is a wonderful distraction from the “terrible truth” – the ostensible meaninglessness of life, the apparent futility of all human endeavour, the inevitability of sickness, the unescapable prognosis of death. Film-making, like the “unnecessay, neurotic problems” dreamt up by the characters in Isaac’s short story, diverts Allen’s attention away from this reality, from the fear that presents itself when he stops to think about the fact that eventually everybody dies, “the sun burns out, and the earth is gone, and . . . all the stars, all the planets, the entire universe, goes, disappears.” So this fear is the reason for his prolificity, the impulse behind all of his artistic achievements. Manhattan, Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Sleeper all came about, first of all, as distractions, projects that prevented him from having to “sit in a chair and think about what a terrible situation all human beings are in.”
I believe that there is a lot of truth in Woody Allen’s perspective. We distract ourselves constantly, we refuse to think about the meaning of our existence, we skirt around the inevitable. Certainly – and he acknowledges this – Allen is not the first person to have hit upon this truth. It has been recognised by such thinkers as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Freud, Sartre, the Buddha and the writer of Ecclesiastes. And Allen knows, too, that one cannot live in perpetual awareness of this fact. Such a life would be crippling torment. Indeed, it is this very torment that Tolstoy found himself in after having realised that there was “nothing ahead other than deception of life and of happiness, and the reality of suffering and death: of complete annihilation.” After realising, in other words, the sheer absurdness of human existence, the meaninglessness of life without God. In his Confession he writes:
My life came to a standstill. I could breathe, eat, drink and sleep and I could not help breathing, eating, drinking and sleeping; but there was no life in me because I had no desires whose gratification I would have deemed it reasonable to fulfil. If I wanted something I knew in advance that whether or not I satisfied my desire nothing would come of it.
One cannot live like this, says Woody Allen. One must provide oneself with necessary delusions in order to carry oneself through life. He remarks that it is in fact only those people whom he calls “self-deluded” that seem to find any kind of real satisfaction in living, any peace or enjoyment. These people can say, “Well, my priest, or my rabbi tells me everthing’s going to be all right,” and they find their answers in what he calls “magical solutions.” This recourse to the “magical” he dismisses as nonsense.
It is worth comparing Woody Allen’s pessimistic agnosticism with the utopian atheism of someone like Richard Dawkins. Evidently, the former worldview is entirely consistent with non-belief in God, whereas the latter is not. In fact, it is unfounded, false. Dawkins removes God from the picture entirely, yet clings persistently to a belief in life’s meaning, grounding this meaning, it appears, in natural selection. There is a contradiction in Dawkins’ thought: on the one hand, he claims that science “can tell us why we are here, tell us the purpose of human existence,” yet, on the other, he insists on characterising natural selection itself as a blind mechanism, containing “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference.”
Whilst I do not share Woody Allen’s agnostic belief, I can respect his consistency, his willingness to acknowledge an existence without God for what it really is: “a grim, painful, nightmarish, meaningless experience.” His worldview follows naturally from what Heidegger termed the state of human “abandonment,” the absence of God in all human affairs. Dawkins’ worldview, on the other hand, does not . . . It is an embarrassing mishmash of strict empricist and naturalistic belief with what really amounts to a kind of foggy mysticism, a belief system according to which human beings can create for themselves an objective purpose. What he fails to realise is that this purpose is nothing more than a delusion, a mere appearance of purpose. It might get us up in the morning, but, once again, it is no more real than the manufactured neurotic problems of Isaac’s characters.
~ ~ ~
“It is impossible to experience one’s death objectively and still carry a tune.”
~ ~ ~
Let us return to Woody Allen’s seemingly affirmative opinion of art, as exemplified in the final scene of Manhattan. Given his lifelong insistence on the belief that human existence is “a big, meaningless thing,” how are we to make sense of Isaac’s list? Is it really possible to reconcile Woody Allen’s adament nihilism with his invocation of the power of art, its ability to stand firm in the face of such a terrible truth? The point to be made, I believe, is a very subtle one. In that same interview at Cannes, Woody Allen talks about the role of the artist as he sees it. The artist, essentially, must respond to the question that Isaac poses, “Why is life worth living?” Faced with the emptiness of life, she must try to “figure out – knowing that it’s true . . . knowing the worst – why it’s still worthwhile.” Allen is not, I believe, claiming that art can provide objective meaning to life. Such an assertion would conflict with his unswerving pessimism. Instead, he is saying that the essence of art, what animates it, what inspires it to flourish, is a courageous struggle against this “terrible truth.” The artist, he says, must confront the futility of life, look at it in the face, embrace it in all of its hopelessness and despair, and provide humanity with an honest reply. The question, then, is not, ‘Can Woody Allen justify his belief in an objective meaning as embodied in art?’ I do not think that he believes in an objective meaning, a necessary purpose for human existence. Rather, the question becomes, ‘Is it possible for the artist to look squarely at the human predicament and supply humanity with a worthwhile answer?’
This, I want to say, is still not possible. As we have seen with the example of Tolstoy, one cannot live one’s life in a full awareness of its futility, of the imminence of death, of the falsity of one’s happiness, and yet carry on as normal. One would end up utterly debilitated. And if this is indeed how artists have been living for centuries, confronting the inevitable, facing the dismal truth, then art itself becomes an inexplicable phenomenon.
~ ~ ~
“On the plus side, death is one of the few things that can be done just as easily lying down.”
~ ~ ~
The answer is not to appeal to art as something that can provide human existence with objective meaning. Such a ‘faith in art’ would merely beg the question, ‘But why is art so special?’ How can art, if viewed as just another custom, an event within the world, give purpose and value to human life? It remains to be explained how that which is within the world can provide meaning for that which is within the world. Meaning, I believe, can only come from without, from that which transcends the world, and yet instills human existence with significance and worth. It is the purpose of art to direct us to this very transcendence, the groundof being itself. The same higher power, in fact, that Woody Allen – perhaps rightly! – dismisses as “nonsense” in its rigid, institutional form.
Several members of the 70′s band Kansas became committed Christians after they realized that the world had nothing but meaningless to offer. It seems through the writings of both Woody Allen and Chris Martin of Coldplay that they both are wrestling with the issue of death and what meaning does life bring. Kansas went through […]
Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]
Coldplay – 42 Live Coldplay perform on the french television channel W9. In 1992 Woody Allen took up with one of his adopted kids and lived in with her. He was given over to the pursuit of pleasure. Actually he has made that a major focus of his life. In the latter part of his […]
The Bible and Archaeology (1/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy. _________________________- I want to make two points today. 1. There is no […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2 Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee: John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say: Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is […]
Woody Allen interviews Billy Graham on Religion This article below makes we think of the lady tied to the Railroad in the Schaeffer video. Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism (Modern man sees no hope for the future and has deluded himself by appealing to nonreason to stay sane. Look at the example […]
Midnight in Paris Not Dove Family Approved Theatrical Release: 6/10/2011 Reviewer: Edwin L. Carpenter Source: Theater Writer: Woody Allen Producer: Letty Aronson Director: Woody Allen Genre: Comedy Runtime: 100 min. MPAA Rating: PG-13 Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Kurt Fuller, Kathy Bates Synopsis: Midnight in Paris is a romantic comedy that follows a family travelling […]
Woody Allen and the Abandonment of Guilt Dr. Marc T. Newman : AgapePress Print In considering filmmaking as a pure visual art form, Woody Allen would have to be considered a master of the medium. From his humble beginnings as a comedy writer and filmmaker, he has emerged as a major influential force in Hollywood. […]
Woody Allen, the film writer, director, and actor, has consistently populated his scripts with characters who exchange dialogue concerning meaning and purpose. In Hannah and Her Sisters a character named Mickey says, “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.”{7} […]
I have gone to see Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris” three times and taken lots of notes during the films. I have attempted since June 12th when I first started posting to give a historical rundown on every person mentioned in the film. Below are the results of my study. I welcome any […]
On my blog www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching for Milton Friedman also.
Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 3 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]
Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 2 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]
Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 1 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]
Milton Friedman: Life and ideas – Part 04 99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 12) Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday. Here is another tribute below: Perspective […]
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY APPEARS EVERY FRIDAY AND IS HONOR OF THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST MILTON FRIEDMAN. The Power Of Choice By John Beagle An interesting compilation of Milton Freeman as an economic freedom philosopher. Milton makes the case for economic freedom as a precondition for political freedom. The title of this video, The Power of Choice […]
Milton Friedman: Life and ideas – Part 03 99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 11) Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday. Here is another tribute below: About […]
Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday. Milton Friedman – University of Chicago School of Economics ProfessorHere is an essay written to honor the 99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s […]
Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday. Milton Friedman – University of Chicago School of Economics ProfessorHere is an essay written to honor the 99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s […]
Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday. Milton Friedman – University of Chicago School of Economics ProfessorHere is an essay written to honor the 99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s […]
Happy Birthday, Milton Friedman! Author: Jonathan Wood Milton Friedman, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, would have turned 99 on Sunday. Though few individuals have been as deserving of praise, Milton Friedman was “much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas” than the person having them. In that spirit, we […]
Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday. Milton Friedman – University of Chicago School of Economics ProfessorHere is an essay written to honor the 99th anniversary of Milton […]
Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday. Milton Friedman – University of Chicago School of Economics ProfessorHere is an essay written to honor the 99th anniversary of Milton […]
“There is no free lunch” said Milton Friedman (“Friedman Friday” Part 1) Today is the beginning of a new series I am starting: FRIEDMAN FRIDAY APPEARS EVERY FRIDAY AND IS HONOR OF THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST MILTON FRIEDMAN. Milton Friedman – The Free Lunch Myth No Free Lunch, Now We have to Pay January 23, […]
HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth Back in 2004 at a democratic fundraiser, Senator Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters – some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend – to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control […]
HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth (Milton Friedman: The People did not want the Social Security Program) Pat Lynch in his September 3, 2010 article in the Democrat Gazette article notes that “Congressman John Boozman’s plan to privatize Social Security is similar to what President Bush proposed in 2005 and what Congressman Paul Ryan is […]
(Milton Friedman shows in this 9 minute video below how inner city parents have lost their freedom to choose concerning schools and they have suffered because of it) The Arkansas Times has always been on the warpath when the subject of school choice comes up. Paul Hewitt in the Ark Times April 22, 2010 wrote: […]
HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth (Paul Ryan outlines what has happened since the stimulus has been passed) Senator Mark Pryor voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009. Both Pryor and Obama thought the economy could be jump started by […]
HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth Opening Post December 13, 2010 11:36 am My name is Everette Hatcher III. I am a businessman in Little Rock and have been living in Bryant since 1993. My wife Jill and I have four kids (Rett 24, Hunter 22, Murphey 16, and Wilson 14). I have been a […]
The stimulus was a huge failure and I hope everyone who voted for it will be defeated in their re-election attempts. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute predicted it would be a failure back in January of 2009!!!!
But not every politician is blindly ideological like Obama. Vitor Gaspar, Portugal’s Finance Minister, is willing to admit error. Here are some relevant excerpts from a New York Times report.
Unlike Obama, willing to admit mistakes
Mr. Gaspar, speaking to The New York Times last week, has a message for observers who say Europe needs to substantially relax its austerity approach: We tried stimulus and it backfired. Like some other European countries, Portugal tried what Mr. Gaspar called “a Keynesian style expansion” in 2008, referring to a theory by economist John Maynard Keynes. But it didn’t turn things around, and may have made things worse.
Why does the Portuguese Finance Minister have this view? Well, for the simple reason that the economy got worse and more spending put his country in a deeper fiscal ditch.
The yield on Portuguese government bonds – more than 11 percent on longer-term bonds — is substantially higher than the yields on debt issued by Ireland, Spain or Italy. …The main fear among investors is that Portugal is going to have to ask for a second bailout from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union, which committed $103 billion of financial aid in 2011.
President Obama wants Congress to dramatically expand the burden of government spending. This CF&P Foundation mini-documentary explains why such a policy, based on the discredited Keynesian theory of economics, will not be successful. Indeed, the video demonstrates that Obama is proposing – for all intents and purposes – to repeat Bush’s mistakes. Government will be bigger, even though global evidence shows that nations with small governments are more prosperous.
But since politicians probably aren’t capable of dealing with a substantive argument, let’s keep it simple and offer three very insightful cartoons: here, here, and here.
_________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Abstract:July 31, 2012, is the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of the great economist and thinker Milton Friedman. It was Friedman who first suggested that the economic freedom of countries be measured and monitored, and The Heritage Foundation has been doing so since 1995 in its Index of Economic Freedom. Friedman’s most important legacy is unquestionably the improvement in living standards of hundreds of millions of people around the world thanks to the implementation of his theories. Unfortunately, the policies of an increasingly leviathan government have placed America on a path that diverges sharply from its historical quest for greater freedom.At Milton Friedman’s centennial, Americans should renew their commitment to economic freedom, as well as their confidence that a people who are free to choose will ensure their own future well-being.
July 31, 2012, is the one hundredth anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth. Friedman, “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century, possibly all of it,”[1] was the champion of the powerful idea that free markets and individual choice lead society to ultimate prosperity and overall well-being. His contributions to economic theory, and the conviction with which he espoused them, made him truly an extraordinary giant among political and economic thinkers.
Friedman’s ideas and writings earned him the Nobel Prize in economics, but his greatest legacy is unquestionably the improvement in living standards of people around the globe who have benefited from the implementation of his theories, even though they may have never read one of his books, attended one of his lectures, or even heard his name. As Friedman’s ideas have been translated into public policy in countries around the globe, they have served as the invisible hand guiding—no, allowing—millions to pursue their individual dreams, endowed with greater economic and political freedom. In reviewing Friedman’s monumental Capitalism and Freedom five decades ago, The Economist magazine called the book “ideal reading for politicians of either party in this country, not because it would convince them, but because it challenges the reader to sort out his own ideas more fundamentally.”[2]
The Heritage Foundation, whose policy vision is “to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish,” is proud and honored to cherish and spread the legacy of Friedman’s powerful ideas for innovative policy solutions. As Dr. Edwin Feulner, president of The Heritage Foundation, pointed out in a tribute to Friedman in 2006:
Over the last 30 years, Friedman enjoyed a close relationship with The Heritage Foundation. He was the featured speaker at the 1979 dedication of our headquarters building, our 1983 10th anniversary “Heritage 10” celebration, and other occasions. In 1998, I awarded Rose and Milton Friedman The Heritage Foundation’s Clare Boothe Luce Award, our most distinguished honor. Friedman and Heritage have been closely linked in the policy arena for a very long time.[3]
Indeed, many of Friedman’s perspectives and policy ideas are not only far-reaching, but truly enduring throughout generations via his own publications, as well as through others’ countless scholarly researches, whose underlying theses trace back to Friedman’s insights.
The Heritage Foundation’s numerous innovative research publications are no exception. Friedman’s economic, philosophical, and political writing has inspired decades of Heritage work in such diverse areas as welfare reform, competition in education, budget reform, and free trade.
The Index of Economic Freedom: Friedman’s Wisdom Around the World
People across the globe are particularly indebted to Milton Friedman for his role in championing economic freedom, and that effort lives on in The Heritage Foundation’s annual Index of Economic Freedom. Friedman elaborated “the role of competitive capitalism—the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market—as a system of economic freedom.” Indeed, it was Friedman who first suggested that economic freedom of countries around the world be measured and monitored.[4]
The Index,a data-driven policy guide that empirically evaluates countries’ economic policies and demonstrates why economic freedom matters, was first published in 1995. Since then, the Index has continued to echo many of Friedman’s insights on the power of freedom, documenting reform efforts, and monitoring ups and downs of economic freedom around the world. Dr. Kim Holmes, the founding editor of the Index of Economic Freedom, observed that the Index is “not only the first comprehensive economic freedom index, but one that has continued to grow in importance ever since,” offering “many examples of what economic freedom can do.”[5]
To many who have long tracked economic freedom, the years since 2008 have served as a vivid reminder of the continuing struggle between the state and the free market. In times of uncertainty, it may be natural that people will look to their governments for answers. Yet the long-term solutions to our current economic problems do not lie in more government controls and regulations. They lie in a return to free-market principles.
Perhaps the most critical lesson of the past four years of ever-growing government intrusion into America’s free-market system is that the fundamental superiority and value of economic liberty must be steadfastly reiterated, or even re-taught, to many political leaders and policymakers.
The Index offers plenty of evidence of the lasting values of freedom that Milton Friedman so keenly articulated and advocated.
Greater Prosperity. Friedman told an interviewer in 1979:
In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about…they have had capitalism and largely free trade…. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.[6]
As the Index has repeatedly illustrated over the past 18 years, the relationship between economic freedom and prosperity is strongly positive. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is much higher in countries with greater economic freedom. On average, economies rated “free” or “mostly free” enjoy incomes that are more than double the average levels in all other countries, and more than seven times higher than the incomes of “repressed” economies (see Chart 1).
More important, a sustained commitment to economic freedom is critical to ensuring economic growth and prosperity. Not only is a higher level of economic freedom clearly associated with a higher level of per capita income, but countries’ improvements in economic freedom also increase their income growth rates, ensuring economic and social progress (see Chart 2).
Also notably, as Friedman suggested, true economic freedom requires free markets at home and free trade around the world. Trade drives prosperity, providing greater economic opportunity in countries that choose to embrace free-trade policies. On average, economies with the most trade freedom have the highest per capita GDP (see Chart 3).
Promoting Well-Being. Of course, life is not just about money or wealth. As Friedman observed:“It is in the free societies that there has been a far greater development of the nonmaterial, spiritual, artistic aspects of well-being.”[7]
In case after case, Friedman keenly observed that government interventions in free markets are not only futile, but tend to generate the exact opposite outcomes of their intended purpose. He called this unseen force that makes things go terribly and perversely wrong with government social programs the “invisible foot.”[8]
It is economic freedom that effectively improves overall well-being for a greater number of people. The Index has documented various tangible non-materialistic benefits of living in freer societies administrated by limited government.
As Friedman witnessed again and again, not only are higher levels of economic freedom associated with higher material prosperity, greater economic freedom also strongly correlates with overall well-being, which takes into account such factors as health, education, and personal safety (see Chart 4).
Achieving Political Freedom. As Friedman wrote:
Economic freedom plays a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.”[9]
The Index has empirically explored this critical relationship between economic freedom and political freedom or democratic governance. As illustrated in Chart 5, there is a strongly positive correlation between the two, and little doubt that higher levels in either generally have a positive impact on the other.
Entrepreneurial Dynamism. Economic freedom makes it possible for independent sources of wealth to counterbalance political power and to cultivate a pluralistic society. In other words, economic freedom underpins and reinforces political liberty and market-based democracy.As Friedman stated, “The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government.”[10]
As the Index has demonstrated, economic freedom is highly correlated with entrepreneurial activity in the private sector, creating new jobs and increasing opportunities and choices for individuals in advancing their own well-being (see Chart 6). When individuals are allowed to decide themselves how best to pursue their dreams and aspirations, their collective achievements driven by individual choices, not by government mandates, add up to a better society for all.
To put it differently, economic freedom is positively linked to innovation that is often nurtured by free enterprise, not by central planning (see Chart 7). The proven path to revitalizing economic growth is to advance economic freedom by promoting policies that generate a virtuous cycle of innovation, job creation, and productivity growth that, in turn, helps to advance social and economic evolution.
Time to Renew Commitment to Greater Economic Freedom
Milton Friedman was confident that freedom would prevail, as indicated in the conclusion of Free to Choose,a powerful restatement of his beliefs co-authored with his wife Rose:
Fortunately, we are waking up. We are again recognizing the dangers of an over-governed society, coming to understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society. Fortunately, also, we are as a people still free to choose which way we should go—whether to continue along the road we have been following to ever bigger government, or to call a halt and change direction.[11]
Though stated three decades ago, the Friedmans’ keen observations are shockingly relevant to today’s challenging time for America. The reckless and populist policy choices of an increasingly leviathan government have placed the United States on a path that diverges sharply from its historical quest for greater freedom. Worse, the system of competitive capitalism that is responsible for America’s unprecedented prosperity is being replaced by a crony capitalism that encourages the concentration of power that Friedman warned was one of the greatest threats to freedom.
Still, there are signs that, as in Friedman’s day, the American public is waking up, and maybe—just maybe—one can be optimistic that freedom will again prevail in America.
As Dr. Feulner and Heritage Foundation trustee Brian Tracy pointed out in their recent book, The American Spirit, “Our inherent optimism is alive and well in every man, woman, and child in the country, to one degree or another. That optimism is a key component of our future success as individuals and as a nation.”[12]
So, at Milton Friedman’s centennial birthday, Americans should renew this country’s commitment to economic freedom, as well as their confidence that a people who are free to choose will make the right decisions to ensure their future prosperity and happiness.
—Anthony B. Kim is a Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE), and Ambassador Terry Miller is Director of CITE, and the Mark A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Economic Freedom, at The Heritage Foundation.
[Ed. note: Milton Friedman’s views will be further explored in Part II on energy and Part III on political capitalism.]
“Our central theme in public advocacy has been the promotion of human freedom … [It] underlies our opposition to rent control and general wage and price controls, our support for educational choice, privatizing radio and television channels, an all-volunteer army, limitation of government spending, legalization of drugs, privatizing social security, free trade, and the deregulation of industry and private life to the fullest extent possible.”
– Milton and Rose Friedman, Two Lucky People (1998), p. 588.
Today some 150 events are taking place in the U.S. and internationally to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Milton Friedman (1912–2006). I will be hosting a Houston event this evening with presentations by myself and University of Houston economist Thomas Mayor on Friedman’s many contributions that, in sum, opened the door for libertarian thought in academia and within the wider public.
The Wikipedia entry for Friedman begins as follows:
As a leader of the Chicago school of economics, he influenced the research agenda of the economics profession. A survey of economists ranked Friedman as the second most popular economist of the twentieth century behind John Maynard Keynes, and The Economist described him as “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it.”
Many other biographies can be accessed on Friedman; this post will continue with some Friedman quotations of import on various topics except for those to come in Part II (energy) and Part III (political and special-interest capitalism).
The Case for Liberty
“The strongest argument for free enterprise is that it prevents anybody from having too much power. Whether that person is a government official, a trade union official, or a business executive. If forces them to put up or shut up. They either have to deliver the goods, produce something that people are willing to pay for, are willing to buy, or else they have to go into a different business.”
“A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
“The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.”
“I start from a belief in individual freedom and that derives fundamentally from a belief in the limitations of our knowledge [and] from a belief—that nobody can be sure that what he believes is really right. So the most attractive position—is putting individual freedom first.
Results, Not Intentions
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than by their results.”
“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”
“The contrast between the ostensible objectives of government programs and their actual results—a contrast that has been a persistent theme of earlier chapters—is so pervasive, so widespread, that even many of the strongest supporters of big government have had to acknowledged government failure—though their solution almost always turns out to be still bigger government.”
Forced Equality
“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
Tyranny of the Status Quo
“There is enormous inertia—a tyranny of the status quo—in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
Business Behavior
“Competition does not protect the consumer because businessman are more soft-hearted than the bureaucrats or because they are more altruistic or generous, or even because they are more competent, but only because it is in the self-interest of the businessman to serve the consumer.”
“What about the danger of monopoly that led to the antitrust laws? …. The most effective way to counter it is … through removing existing barriers to international trade.”
Bureaucracy
“The first law of bureaucracy—the only feasible way of doing anything is the way it is being done.”
“The period … spent in Washington was … my first involvement in the actual making of government policy…. I came to understand firsthand the pull that Washington has for so many intellectuals … and also experienced the manipulation, dishonestly, and self-seeking that are an intrinsic part of the process. The disinterested pursuer of the public interest and the interested promoter of self are not always easy to distinguish.”
“When you stand before a civil servant, is there any real doubt who is the servant and who is the master.”
“Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own.”
On Government Inefficiency
“I say thank God for government waste. If government is doing bad things, it’s only the waste that prevents the harm from being greater.”
Government: More or Less?
“A government program seems the solution only because government has been blocking at every turn the effective free market solution.”
On Scholarship
“[These] standards of scholarship—attention to detail, concern with scrupulous accuracy, checking of sources, and above all, openness to criticism—… have affected the whole of my scholarship.”
“I have a single rule. What I say to one person, I say to everyone. I never say anything off the record.”
“Sloppy writing reflects sloppy thinking.”
“All learning is ultimately self-learning.”
“The true test of any scholar’s work is not what his contemporaries say, but what happens to his work in the next 25 or 50 years. And the thing that I will really be proud of is if some of the work I have done is still cited in the text books long after I am gone.”
I was impacted in 1980 by the film series “Free to Choose” and I was very impressed by the performance by Thomas Sowell. Today he remembers his former teacher Milton Friedman.
By Thomas Sowell Creators Syndicate Tuesday July 31, 2012 7:00 AM
If Milton Friedman were alive today — and there was never a time when he was more needed — he would be 100 years old. He was born on July 31, 1912. But professor Friedman’s death at age 94 deprived the nation of one of those rare thinkers who had both genius and common sense.
Most people would not be able to understand the complex economic analysis that won him a Nobel Prize, but people with no knowledge of economics had no trouble understanding his books such as Free to Choose or the TV series of the same name.
In being able to express himself at the highest level of his profession but also at a level that the average person could readily understand, Milton Friedman was like the economist whose theories and persona were most different from his own — John Maynard Keynes.
Like many, if not most, people who became prominent as opponents of the left, professor Friedman began on the left. Decades later, looking back at a statement of his own from his early years, he said, “The most striking feature of this statement is how thoroughly Keynesian it is.”
No one converted Milton Friedman, either in economics or in his views on social policy. His own research, analysis and experience converted him.
As a professor, he did not attempt to convert students to his political views. I made no secret of the fact that I was a Marxist when I was a student in professor Friedman’s course, but he made no effort to change my views. He once said that anybody who was easily converted was not worth converting.
I was still a Marxist after taking professor Friedman’s class. Working as an economist in the government converted me.
What Milton Friedman is best known for as an economist was his opposition to Keynesian economics, which had largely swept the economics profession on both sides of the Atlantic, with the notable exception of the University of Chicago, where Friedman was trained as a student and later taught.
In the heyday of Keynesian economics, many economists believed that inflationary government policies could reduce unemployment, and early empirical data seemed to support that view. The inference was that the government could make careful trade-offs between inflation and unemployment, and thus “fine-tune” the economy.
Milton Friedman challenged this view with both facts and analysis. He showed that the relationship between inflation and unemployment held only in the short run, when the inflation was unexpected. But, after everyone got used to inflation, unemployment could be just as high with high inflation as it had been with low inflation.
When both unemployment and inflation rose at the same time in the 1970s — “stagflation,” as it was called — the idea of the government “fine-tuning” the economy faded away. There still are some die-hard Keynesians today who keep insisting that the government’s stimulus spending would have worked, if only it was bigger and lasted longer.
This is one of those heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose arguments. Even if the government spends itself into bankruptcy and the economy still does not recover, Keynesians can always say that it would have worked if only the government had spent more.
Although Milton Friedman became a conservative icon, he considered himself a liberal in the original sense of the word — someone who believes in the liberty of the individual, free of government intrusions. Far from trying to conserve things as they are, he wrote a book titled Tyranny of the Status Quo.
Milton Friedman proposed radical changes in policies and institutions ranging from the public schools to the Federal Reserve. It is liberals who want to conserve and expand the welfare state.
As a student of Friedman back in 1960, I was struck by two things — his tough grading standards and the fact that he had a black secretary. This was years before affirmative action. People on the left exhibit blacks as mascots. But I never heard Milton Friedman say that he had a black secretary, though she was with him for decades. Both his grading standards and his refusal to try to be politically correct increased my respect for him.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.