PDA

View Full Version : David Frum, Neoconservative New Dealer




bobbyw24
03-31-2010, 04:17 AM
by Bob Murphy

In the wake of Ron Paul's straw-poll victory at the CPAC convention, neoconservative author David Frum told CNN's readers that a return to the gold standard was both undesirable and impossible.

Frum and I have gone back and forth on the gold standard in the past, and I don't want to repeat those arguments. In the present article I'll raise new objections focused just on Frum's latest attack on the gold standard.

Frum Confuses Americans With FDR

After downplaying the significance of Ron Paul's win at CPAC, Frum concedes that many Americans have taken to Paul's message of tying the dollar back to gold. Frum thinks that such a quaint view ignores American history. He writes,

G.K. Chesterton observed that you should never pull down a fence until you understand why it was put up.

So let's rediscover why it was that Americans abandoned the gold standard in the first place.

In the first place, it's a bit ironic to use a quip from G.K. Chesterton – the epitome of a wise conservative in the true sense of the word – to support the New Deal's uprooting of the gold standard, which Frum himself acknowledges was considered a bulwark of Western civilization.


In any event, it's very odd to say that "Americans abandoned the gold standard." Let's recall the actual events: Gold was originally the voluntary, market-chosen money (along with silver). Americans were willing to hold paper notes denominated as "dollars" only because they were originally legal claims entitling the bearer to a specified weight of gold (or silver).

Then, in 1933 the newly sworn in President Roosevelt voided Uncle Sam's contractual obligations. He further required that all Americans turn in their gold under threat of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. It was not even legal for Americans to tie clauses of contracts to the world price of gold, until the 1970s.

It wasn't even the case that FDR campaigned on a pledge to end the dollar's tie to gold. Indeed, one of Herbert Hoover's bitter complaints was that FDR caused unnecessary chaos in the financial markets after his election in November 1932 by not explaining what his gold policy would be during Hoover's lame duck session. (In those days new presidents were not sworn in until March 4.)

There are many ways of describing the above history, but "Americans abandoned the gold standard" would not be high on my personal list. By the same token, if a Texan were complaining about outrageous federal taxes, I wouldn't say, "Hey, you should recall why America retained the Confederacy."

David Frum, Keynesian Economist

Let's explore Frum's explanation of why "America" abandoned the gold standard in the early 1930s:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy167.html

stu2002
03-31-2010, 04:52 AM
One shouldn't take any satisfaction in the American Enterprise Institute's firing of David Frum, for shortly after Frum got the boot, AEI hired another former Dubya speech writer -- "enhanced interrogation" enthusiast Marc Thiessen. Jonah Goldberg is also now an AEI fixture... (I can't say that I'm well acquainted with Thiessen's work, but there seems to be a lot of evidence that it's shoddy, if not mendacious.)

And one shouldn't conclude that AEI's firing of Frum proved that the institute is serious about opposing socialized medicine. Though I found Frum's argument in his now-famous "Waterloo" piece rather puzzling, he did hit the mark with this comment about think-tank hypocrisy on healthcare:
[W]e do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Indeed. On the fundamental issue of mandating health insurance, the differences between Obamacare and Romneycare are slight. (My friend Jack Hunter has a good video blog on this.)

Bruce Bartlett has also sounded off on the idea that many "conservative intellectuals" actually liked Obamacare, but decided to bite their tongues
Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
Bartlett argues that the censoring of these scholars marks "the closing of the conservative mind"... which is a pretty Frummy thing to say. If this story is true, it also reveals the degree to which AEI, which was founded by Big Industry in the early '40s to push back against the New Deal, is now honeycombed with welfare-statists and has a rather limp commitment to free enterprise.

But opposing Obamacare politically was important to the GOP and its movement operatives. For here (and perhaps only here) they were presented with an issue around which all aspects of the GOP-conservative movement could rally: the GOP leadership, the Religious Right, the libertarians, the Tea Partiers, even the neocons and country club types -- they all came together on this one.

In turn, if John Boehner had decided to make a deal with Obama -- much like he supported Bush's Medicare extension in 2003 -- all hell might have broken loose, including mass defection from the party. (Which, of course, would have been great!) AEI felt it needed to put the kibosh on anyone who put the coalition at risk.

This is all reminiscent of what David Frum was writing about immigration in 2005, some two years before the grassroots rebellion against George W. Bush and amnesty:
No issue, not one, threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than immigration...There's no issue where the beliefs and interests of the party rank-and-file diverge more radically from the beliefs and interests of the party's leaders.. Immigration for Republicans in 2005 is what crime was for Democrats in 1965 or abortion in 1975: a vulnerable point at which a strong-minded opponent could drive a wedge that would shatter the GOP.

As Sam Francis wrote at the time, Frum was deathly afraid of the damage the immigration issue could inflict on the Republican Party, less so of the damage mass immigration might inflict on Americans.

Whatever the case, Frum got it then, and it's been quite surprising to me that he hasn't gotten it this time around, too -- that he was willing to forfeit the base that supported all his favorite candidates and Middle East wars in hopes of making nice with liberals and being called a "contrarian" by Christopher Buckley.

Whether the GOP will one day actually do something about socialism and mass immigration -- and not just talk about it in hopes of keeping the electoral coalition together -- remains to be seen.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/a-hypocrisy-that-can-t-win-again/

Brian Defferding
03-31-2010, 09:48 AM
Frum certainly has a lot of history re-visioning and misinformation going on regarding his take on monetary policy.

angelatc
03-31-2010, 10:07 AM
Since Frum lost his paying gig, he'll be scrambling around for a while trying to remain relevant. He might land another job, but we can at least hope he fades away into obscurity