Back in 1977 the Communists controlled a third of the world, Democrats controlled the federal government, the big three networks had 91 percent of television viewers, textbooks said the Soviet Union would soon have a larger GNP than the United States, and the federal government’s most recent accomplishments were Vietnam, Watergate, and stagflation.
And in that unpromising environment Ed Crane and Charles Koch decided to create a libertarian think tank. It could have been, as Otter said about that time, “a really futile and stupid gesture.” But some surprisingly positive things began happening right about then.
It’s hard to recall the depression, the malaise that Americans felt in the 1970s. Henry Kissinger was quoted as saying that he thought of the United States as Athens and the Soviet Union as Sparta. “The day of the U.S. is past and today is the day of the Soviet Union. My job as secretary of state is to negotiate the most acceptable second-best position available,” he is supposed to have said. Kissinger denied the quotation, but another leading intellectual-statesman, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, stated a similar view openly in 1976, at the time of the American bicentennial: “Liberal democracy on the American model increasingly tends to the condition of monarchy in the 19th century; a holdover form of government, one which persists in isolated or particular places here and there, and may even serve well enough for special circumstance, but which has simply no relevance to the future. It is where the world was, not where it is going. Increasingly democracy is seen as an arrangement peculiar to a handful of North Atlantic countries.”
But under the surface things were changing. Some of the very weaknesses that led Kissinger and Moynihan to their pessimism had eroded the confidence in government built up by the New Deal, World War II, and the prosperous 1950s. The ideas that Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, and others had been propounding for a generation were taking root with more people. Politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, who had read some of those dissident authors, were planning their challenges to the failing welfare-state consensus.
Even less obviously, the Soviet leaders had lost confidence in the Marxist ideology that justified their rule, a fact that would have profound consequences in the coming decade. And in China, Mao had just died, and his old comrade Deng Xiao-ping was maneuvering for power. His victory would have consequences that no one could see in 1977.
Politics isn’t everything, of course. In 1976 Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak incorporated the Apple Computer Company, on April Fool’s Day. Two other young men, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, had created a company to develop software for the new personal computers, and in 1978 the Microsoft Corporation’s sales topped $1 million. Around 1978 an Atlanta businessman came up with the idea of an all-news cable channel; Ted Turner launched the Cable News Network on June 1, 1980.
Forty years on, the world has changed so much that we may have forgotten what a different era 1977 was. Reagan and Thatcher moved public policy in the direction of lower taxes, less regulation, and privatization. They had an even bigger impact on the political culture in their countries and around the world. They both symbolized and galvanized a new appreciation for markets and entrepreneurship. Reagan’s optimism—along with the mountains of facts painstakingly accumulated by Julian Simon and other scholars—helped to dispel the doom and gloom of the 1970s.
Reagan and Thatcher did little to challenge the welfare state legislatively. But by strengthening the economy and helping more people appreciate the benefits of entrepreneurship and investment, they contributed to a growing demand for reform:
- Economic deregulation (begun under President Carter) made the airline, trucking, railroad, oil, natural gas, telecommunications, and financial-services industries more efficient.
- Tax-rate reductions set off economic booms in both countries, and more people became homeowners and investors.
- Later, after Reagan and Thatcher had passed from the political scene, other advances for liberty took place — from NAFTA and other trade expansions to constitutional protections for Second Amendment rights and equal marriage rights to, slowly, a turn away from marijuana prohibition and the spread of school choice.
- Finally, Americans came to realize that welfare was trapping millions of Americans in dependency. What Jonathan Rauch called a “demosclerotic” political system did not change easily, but in 1996 a welfare reform bill was finally passed.
Abroad, the changes have been even more dramatic. The only thing more certain than death and taxes was that the world was divided into communist and non-communist parts. And yet the changes that began with Deng’s rise to power in 1977-78 and the first stirrings of Solidarity in Poland in 1980 would change the face of the world in little more than a decade.
The end of communism did not usher in nirvana, of course. Russia had a brief spring and then slipped into autocracy and corruption. The other former Soviet republics are in most cases even worse off. The European countries that were once under the thumb of the USSR are doing somewhat better. East Germany is once again simply eastern Germany, part of a prosperous and democratic nation and the home of Europe’s preeminent leader. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic nations made fairly rapid transitions to liberal capitalism, while the southeastern European nations—which had little national experience of democracy or capitalism—have lagged behind.
As for China, its economic development has been astounding. After Mao’s death in 1976, first spontaneously and then with the encouragement of Deng Xiaoping and the leadership, farmers began dismantling the agricultural communes, transitioning to a “responsibility system” with incentives. Agricultural production soared. The resulting surplus in food production allowed workers to move into other lines of work. State-owned enterprises were given more independence, and Chinese citizens were allowed to set up village and even private enterprises. Economic reform accelerated. When I attended the Cato Institute’s first conference in Shanghai in 1988, the huge city had almost no tall buildings. From the 16th floor of the Shanghai Hilton, you looked across miles of hovels to the Sheraton in the distance. There were few stores and restaurants in 1988, and they had little to sell. In 1997, when I arrived at 10 p.m. one night for Cato’s second conference in China, again at the Shanghai Hilton, I took a stroll around the neighborhood. Even at that late hour, I encountered an enterprising people—there were stores, restaurants, fruit stands, bars, nightclubs, farmers selling produce from their trucks. And the city’s skyline, if not yet Manhattan, had certainly blossomed to the scale of Houston. The differences were obvious and dramatic.
But there was another difference as well. At our 1988 conference students and professors wanted to talk about market reforms and democracy; they followed Milton Friedman around like a guru. In 1997 the participants were more subdued; they wanted to talk about business models and market institutions, but they clammed up when the Americans turned the discussion to free speech and political reform. It seemed as if the leaders of China had made a bargain with the people: stop talking about democracy, and we’ll let you get rich. Not the worst bargain in history, but not what we hope for. Today, even as Xi Jinping cracks down on free thought and political criticism, China is far freer than in Mao’s time. As Howard W. French of the New York Times reported in 2008, “Political change, however gradual and inconsistent, has made China a significantly more open place for average people than it was a generation ago.”
As Cato’s Human Freedom Index shows, the extent of freedom varies widely around the world. Markets, trade, access to information, democratic governance, and an end to legal discrimination based on race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation have made much progress. Yet there’s a growing trend toward autocracy and what Fareed Zakaria called illiberal democracy in countries such as Russia, Turkey, Hungary, and Venezuela.
So what are the challenges to liberty as we enter the Cato Institute’s next 40 years? Many, as always. Let me identify just a few:
- Socialism and social democracy. Libertarians and conservatives have worried since the days of Franklin Roosevelt about “creeping socialism” — whether by actual nationalizations in Great Britain and other countries, or by taxpayer-funded “social insurance” programs in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere. Those programs account for an increasing share of GDP in most developed countries, and they seem very difficult to trim or eliminate once recipients come to expect benefits. After the elections of Reagan and Thatcher and the collapse of communism, it seemed that socialism was a relic of the past and that even social democracy was listless. But now with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the British Labour Party and the unexpectedly strong challenge of Bernie Sanders in Democratic primaries, it seems that avowed socialism is making a comeback, perhaps because a generation of voters has come of age without any experience of the failure of state socialism.
- Along with the revival of socialism, the left in the United States and Great Britain has been energized by an accelerating demand that all institutions accept and conform to a particular version of “diversity.” From employment to housing to corporate boards to Hollywood, divergence from proportional representation is under attack. The extension of freedom to gay people in the Supreme Court’s Lawrence and Obergefell decisions and a series of state votes has been followed by a campaign to find and punish every traditionalist baker and florist. Freedom of association is threatened. Although this is a real problem, we should be careful not to exaggerate it, considering how badly freedom of association was harmed in the recent past by Jim Crow and sodomy laws, and by continuing questions about race and criminal justice.
- Threats to freedom of speech. Throughout the past century protections for free speech under the First Amendment have been gradually expanded. For many decades Americans have affirmed to pollsters that they support the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Yet they often find exceptions to the general rule. In the middle of the 20th century majorities thought that atheists and communists should not be allowed to speak. Laws against pornography are often popular. More recently, 40 percent of millennials, far more than older groups, told the Pew Research Center that people should not be allowed to make statements that are offensive to minority groups. Perhaps most disturbingly, some activists at elite universities today reject the very idea of free speech as a standard. Meanwhile, threats of violence are a very direct way of chilling some kinds of speech.
- Autocratic nationalism. It isn’t just Russia and Turkey where liberal principles are in retreat. As Freedom House writes, “The system pioneered by Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán stands as an appealing model for elected political leaders with authoritarian leanings.” And not all those leaders are in currently non-democratic countries. For the first time in two generations Europe is seeing an upsurge of support for right-wing authoritarian movements. Although some of these groups appeal to “freedom,” their definition seems to amount to national sovereignty or even autarky. Political leaders such as Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Frauke Petry in Germany are not advocates of free markets and fiscal conservatism. Their program tends to involve identity politics, anti-elite populism, economic nationalism, opposition to liberal trade and immigration, welfare statism, and a promise of strongman rule that will triumph over the deliberative nature of electoral and parliamentary institutions and “get things done.” Some supporters of President Trump display similar characteristics.
- The underlying theme in all these problems, of course, is a declining commitment to liberal values. For some 300 years liberalism, the philosophy of liberty, has spread from northwestern Europe to more and more of the world and has been applied more fully. The values of individual rights, markets, private property, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of religion, tolerance, pluralism, and limited government have become more deeply rooted. It was the American creed that these truths were self-evident and would eventually be embraced by the whole world. Thomas Jefferson wrote two days before his death, “All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride legitimately, by the grace of God.” A half-century later the Statue of Liberty, a gift from one liberal country to another, was formally titled “Liberty Enlightening the World.” Despite the existence of yet-unenlightened parts of the world and horrors such as communism and national socialism, liberals have maintained an optimistic view that all people do want the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Is that still true? That’s the question we face today. Will the liberal era come to an end, like the Roman Empire or the Dark Ages? Or will we look back a generation or two from now and see nannyism and campus speech restrictions as a passing fad like Prohibition, and right-wing nationalism as a rear-guard response to the real story of the past half century, globalization and its liberalizing influence?
I’m an optimist. Despite all these challenges, it’s still true that around the world, more people in more countries than ever before in history enjoy religious freedom, personal freedom, democratic governance, the freedom to own and trade property, the chance to start a business, equal rights, civility, respect, a higher standard of living, and a longer life expectancy. War, disease, violence, slavery, and inhumanity have been dramatically reduced. Immigration flows are always from less free to more free countries, creating some challenges but also demonstrating a broad preference for liberal societies.
I also think of something Murray Rothbard wrote in 1965:
The liberal Revolution implanted indelibly in the minds of [all people a desire] for the mobility and rising standards of living that can only be brought to them by an industrial civilization….And given these demands that have been awakened by liberalism and the Industrial Revolution, long-run victory for liberty is inevitable. For only liberty, only a free market, can organize and maintain an industrial system, and the more that population expands and explodes, the more necessary is the unfettered working of such an industrial economy.
Socialism doesn’t deliver the goods. Cronyism and tax-and-spend policies reduce economic growth. When people get a taste of growth, they want it to continue. And the economic freedom that leads to growth also gives people a taste for making their own decisions, which tends to spill over into a demand for political, cultural, and lifestyle choices.But I’m not an economic determinist. I believe that ideas have consequences. Free societies depend on an intellectual foundation — both a constitution that constrains power and a consensus both elite and popular around liberty, markets, pluralism, and tolerance. That foundation has to be nurtured, debated, and sustained. Which is why I work at the Cato Institute.
Posted on March 24, 2017 Posted to Cato@Liberty
F. A. Hayek died 25 years ago today. His secretary called Cato Institute president Edward H. Crane, who confirmed the sad news to the New York Times.
Hayek’s life spanned the 20th century, from 1899 to 1992. In his youth he thought he saw liberalism dying in nationalism and war. Thanks partly to his own efforts, in his old age he was heartened by the revival of free-market liberalism. John Cassidy wrote in the New Yorker that “on the biggest issue of all, the vitality of capitalism, he was vindicated to such an extent that it is hardly an exaggeration to refer to the twentieth century as the Hayek century.”
Back in 2010 the New York Times said that the Tea Party “has reached back to dusty bookshelves for long-dormant ideas. It has resurrected once-obscure texts by dead writers [such as] Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” (1944).” I responded at the time,
So that’s, you know, “long-dormant ideas” like those of F. A. Hayek, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, who met with President Reagan at the White House, whose book The Constitution of Liberty was declared by Margaret Thatcher “This is what we believe,” who was described by Milton Friedman as “the most important social thinker of the 20th century” and by White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers as the author of “the single most important thing to learn from an economics course today,” who is the hero of The Commanding Heights, the book and PBS series by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, and whose book The Road to Serfdom has never gone out of print and has sold 100,000 copies this year.
On the occasion of Hayek’s 100th birthday, Tom G. Palmer summed up some of his intellectual contributions:
Hayek may have made his greatest contribution to the fight against socialism and totalitarianism with his best-selling 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom. In it, Hayek warned that state control of the economy was incompatible with personal and political freedom and that statism set in motion a process whereby “the worst get on top.”
But not only did Hayek show that socialism is incompatible with liberty, he showed that it is incompatible with rationality, with prosperity, with civilization itself. In the absence of private property, there is no market. In the absence of a market, there are no prices. And in the absence of prices, there is no means of determining the best way to solve problems of social coordination, no way to know which of two courses of action is the least costly, no way of acting rationally. Hayek elaborated the insights of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, whose 1922 book Socialism offered a brilliant refutation of the dreams of socialist planners. In his later work, Hayek showed how prices established in free markets work to bring about social coordination. His essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” published in the American Economic Review in 1945 and reprinted hundreds of times since, is essential to understanding how markets work.
But Hayek was more than an economist. As I’ve written before, he also published impressive works on political theory and psychology. He’s like Marx, only right. Tom Palmer noted:
Building on his insights into how order emerges “spontaneously” from free markets, Hayek turned his attention after the war to the moral and political foundations of free societies. The Austrian-born British subject dedicated his instant classic The Constitution of Liberty “To the unknown civilization that is growing in America.” Hayek had great hopes for America, precisely because he appreciated the profound role played in American popular culture by a commitment to liberty and limited government. While most intellectuals praised state control and planning, Hayek understood that a free society has to be open to the unanticipated, the unplanned, the unknown. As he noted in The Constitution of Liberty, “Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects will be beneficial is not freedom.” The freedom that matters is not the “freedom” of the rulers or of the majority to regulate and control social development, but the freedom of the individual person to live his own life as he chooses. The freedom of the individual to break old molds, to create new things, and to test new paths is the mark of a progressive society: “If we proceed on the assumption that only the exercises of freedom that the majority will practice are important, we would be certain to create a stagnant society with all the characteristics of unfreedom.”
Reagan and Thatcher may have admired Hayek, but he always insisted that he was a liberal, not a conservative. He titled the postscript to The Constitution of Liberty “Why I Am Not a Conservative.” He pointed out that the conservative “has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.” He wanted to be part of “the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution.” And I recall an interview in a French magazine in the 1980s, which I can’t find online, in which he was asked if he was part of the “new right,” and he quipped, “Je suis agnostique et divorcé.”
Hayek lived long enough to see the rise and fall of fascism, national socialism, and Soviet communism. In the years since Hayek’s death economic freedom around the world has been increasing, and liberal values such as human rights, the rule of law, equal freedom under law, and free access to information have spread to new areas. But today liberalism is under challenge from such disparate yet symbiotic ideologies as resurgent leftism, right-wing authoritarian populism, and radical political Islamism. I am optimistic because I think that once people get a taste of freedom and prosperity, they want to keep it. The challenge for Hayekian liberals is to help people understand that freedom and prosperity depend on liberal values, the values explored and defended in his many books and articles.
Posted on March 23, 2017 Posted to Cato@Liberty
Posted on March 1, 2017 Posted to Cato@Liberty
“The legacy of the Rio Olympics is a farce,” writes sports columnist Nancy Armour in USA Today. She continues:
The closing ceremony was six months ago Tuesday, and already several of the venues are abandoned and falling apart. The Olympic Park is a ghost town, the lights have been turned off at the Maracana and the athlete village sits empty…. the billions that were wasted, the venues that so quickly became white elephants, the crippling bills for a city and country already struggling to make ends meet…
She notes that more and more cities are realizing that Olympic games are glamorous but not economically sound. I made that point two years ago when Boston withdrew its bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympics:
Columnist Anne Applebaum predicted a year ago that future Olympics would likely be held only in “authoritarian countries where the voters’ views will not be taken into account” — such as the two bidders for the 2022 Winter Olympics, Beijing and Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Fortunately, Boston is not such a place. The voters’ views can be ignored and dismissed for only so long.
The success of the “10 people on Twitter” and the three young organizers of No Boston Olympics should encourage taxpayers in other cities to take up the fight against megaprojects and boondoggles — stadiums, arenas, master plans, transit projects, and indeed other Olympic Games.
I cited then some of the evidence about the impact of the Olympics on host cities:
The critics knew something that the Olympic enthusiasts tried to forget: Megaprojects like the Olympics are enormously expensive, always over budget, and disruptive. They leave cities with unused stadiums and other waste.
E.M. Swift, who covered the Olympics for Sports Illustrated for more than 30 years, wrote on the Cognoscenti blog a few years ago that Olympic budgets “always soar.”
“Montreal is the poster child for cost overruns, running a whopping 796 percent over budget in 1976, accumulating a deficit that took 30 years to repay. In 1996 the Atlanta Games came in 147 percent over budget. Sydney was 90 percent over its projected budget in 2000. And the Athens Games cost $12.8 billion, 60 percent over what the government projected.”
Bent Flyvbjerg of Oxford University, the world’s leading expert on megaprojects, and his co-author Allison Stewart found that Olympic Games differ from other such large projects in two ways: They always exceed their budgets, and the cost overruns are significantly larger than other megaprojects. Adjusted for inflation, the average cost overrun for an Olympics is 179 percent.
In the latest edition of Cato Policy Report, Flyvbjerg examined “the ‘iron law of megaprojects’: over budget, over time, over and over again.”
Brazil has great resources, great ambitions, and great problems, including a vast corruption scandal that has taken down numerous public officials including President Dilma Rousseff. But the lives of its people will not improve through grandiose projects. Brazil needs financial reform, tax and regulatory reform, fiscal reform, and more. Megaprojects are not the road to prosperity.
Posted on February 23, 2017 Posted to Cato@Liberty
Two years ago on Presidents’ Day (which is legally Washington’s Birthday) I talked about my book The Libertarian Mind at the National Constitution Center (video). As part of that appearance I wrote about America’s libertarian heritage in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Where better than Philadelphia on Presidents’ Day to talk about liberty and reviving the American tradition of freedom and limited government.
Thomas Jefferson said that when he wrote the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776, he had no book or pamphlet at hand but simply set down “an expression of the American mind.” With its foundation on the equal and inalienable rights of all people, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the Declaration also reflects the libertarian mind.
Indeed, the principles of the Declaration are so closely associated with libertarianism that the Chinese edition of my previous book, Libertarianism: A Primer, features a cover photograph of the famous room in Independence Hall, complete with Windsor chairs and green tablecloths.
Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom. It has, in different form throughout history, inspired people who fought for freedom, dignity, and individual rights — the early advocates of religious tolerance, the opponents of absolute monarchy, the American revolutionaries, the abolitionists, antiwar advocates and anti-imperialists, opponents of National Socialism and communism….
I believe that the simple, timeless principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, and free markets — are even more powerful and more important in the world of instant communication, global markets, and unprecedented access to information, a world that Jefferson or Madison could not have imagined. Libertarianism is the essential framework for a future of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Posted on February 20, 2017 Posted to Cato@Liberty
Americans seem starkly split today on a wide range of issues. That’s in large measure because the federal government has grown so much in size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness that we battle fiercely over who will exercise that power. Conservatives spent eight years deploring the Obama administration’s use and abuse of executive power through executive orders, regulations, and even guidance letters from the depths of the bureaucracy. Now liberals are aghast at those awesome powers falling into the hands of the Trump administration.
That makes 2017 a perfect time for thoughtful Republicans and Democrats to come together on measures to restore constitutional balance and rein in executive power. The latest edition of the Cato Handbook for Policymakers, released this week, provides a roadmap that addresses these issues and more.
For example, many policymakers may worry about the danger that President Trump could embroil the U.S. in another war. They could start by reaffirming the constitutional requirement that Congress decides when Americans go to war. They should also debate a new authorization for military force in the Middle East—one that is not a blanket grant of power — and a new War Powers Act with real teeth.
Democrats and Republicans can surely agree that important decisions ought to be made by the people’s branch, not by any president alone.
Domestically, Congress should remind the executive branch of the very first words of the Constitution: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Congress must stop writing grand, vague laws and leaving all the rulemaking to regulatory agencies. Congress has just rediscovered the Congressional Review Act, under which it can repeal regulations issued by agencies. Now it should consider legislation such as the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which would require Congress to hold an up-or-down vote on all major regulations before final issuance.
Devolving power from Washington to states and local communities can also help to ease conflicts ranging from gun rights and school locker rooms to environmental protection. While Education Secretary Betsy DeVos may have stated the problem awkwardly, it’s true that the people of Manhattan and Montana have different attitudes and experiences regarding guns. Maybe they should be able to set different rules. In 2016 the Department of Justice and the Department of Education issued “guidance” to the 13,500 school districts across the United States on how they should manage access to locker rooms and bathrooms in 99,000 public schools. Instead of a rule issued by faceless bureaucrats in Washington, why not let the people of the 50 states and thousands of communities talk through that issue and come to their own evolving answers?
The issue that may have decided the 2016 election is the widespread sense that our economy is not working as well as it should. Even before the recession, Americans feared that their children might not live as well as they did. This slow growth matters most to those who are not yet well off.
Economic woes can generate misguided policy proposals, from repeated “stimulus” programs that add to the national debt to closing off trade and investment that create jobs. Before blocking imports and creating a backlash that will also block American exports, Congress should take a hard look at the ways current U.S. law may be limiting investment and job creation. As a first order of business, the new Congress should order a comprehensive audit of the regulatory, tax, and policy environments to identify redundancies, inefficiencies, and systemic problems that artificially raise the cost of doing business in the United States.
There ought to be bipartisan agreement on undoing what we might call “regressive regulation”—regulatory barriers to entry and competition that work to redistribute income and wealth upward. Such policies at the state and local level include restrictive zoning that raises the price of housing and occupational licensing laws that restrict entry into professions ranging from teeth-cleaning to cab-driving. At the federal level Congress should take a hard look at the over-extension and abuse of copyright and patent law, and at trade and immigration restrictions that raise costs for consumers and businesses.
Another area where solutions would help is in the healthcare reform debate, which has gone on for years. For 70 years, government has been assuming greater control over consumers’ health care dollars, either by giving workers’ earnings to employers or by spending that money itself. Government decides what kind of health insurance we get, where we get it, and how doctors will practice medicine—and more patients end up falling through the cracks. The Affordable Care Act didn’t do anything to take us off that path. We need to make healthcare higher quality, more affordable, and more secure by putting patients in charge of their health care dollars and decisions.
Sometimes the best thing Congress can do on an issue is nothing. But the 80 chapters and hundreds of recommendations – ranging from corporate taxation reform to surveillance restrictions to a more restrained foreign policy—in the Cato Handbook demonstrate that a determined Congress could significantly improve American governance. And Democrats and Republicans can surely agree that important decisions ought to be made by the people’s branch, not by any president alone.
Posted on February 17, 2017 Posted to Cato@Liberty
As government workers – though only about a third of private-sector office workers – get a day off Monday for Presidents’ Day (legally, though not in fact, George Washington’s Birthday), I thought I’d offer some reading about presidents.
First, my own tribute to our first president, the man who led America in war and peace and who gave up power to make us a republic:
Give the last word to Washington’s great adversary, King George III. The king asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.”
“If he does that,” the incredulous monarch said, “he will be the greatest man in the world.”
Then, of course, Gene Healy’s book The Cult of the Presidency, which argues that 200 years after Washington, “presidential candidates talk as if they’re running for a job that’s a combination of guardian angel, shaman, and supreme warlord of the earth.” Buy it today, in multiple formats.
Gene updated that argument with a short ebook, False Idol: Barack Obama and the Continuing Cult of the Presidency. As they say, start reading in minutes!
And then you can read my short response to Politico’s 2010 question, “Who were the best and worst presidents?” I noted:
Presidential scholars love presidents who expand the size, scope and power of government. Thus they put the Roosevelts at the top of the list. And they rate Woodrow Wilson – the anti-Madisonian president who gave us the entirely unnecessary World War I, which led to communism, National Socialism, World War II, and the Cold War –8th. Now there’s a record for President Obama to aspire to! Create a century of war and terrorism, and you can move up from 15th to 8th.
Hmmm, maybe it would be better to just read a biography of George Washington.
Posted on February 16, 2017 Posted to Cato@Liberty
Join us for a special briefing to celebrate the release of the 2017 edition of the Cato Handbook for Policymakers. This invaluable resource sets the standard in Washington for reducing the power of the federal government and expanding freedom to all Americans. Each chapter provides analysis of the critical issues of the day and provides policy recommendations for staffers interested in individual liberty, free markets, and peace.
And while clearly dedicated to advancing a market-liberal policy agenda, the Cato Institute has always carefully avoided partisanship. It has been our position that, with some exceptions, Republicans, Democrats, and independents all share the same basic policy goals of peace, prosperity, and personal liberty. It is in that nonpartisan spirit that we invite staff and representatives from both parties to join us as we launch this eighth edition, introduce some of the key contributors, and chart a path toward a better tomorrow.
Posted on February 16, 2017 Posted to Cato@Liberty
Posted on February 7, 2017 Posted to Cato@Liberty
President Donald Trump has tried to court executives of technology companies. Before he even took office, he hosted the heads of such companies as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Tesla at Trump Tower.
But now his policies on trade and immigration are generating strong pushback from the tech industry. Silicon Valley executives sharply criticized Trump’s executive order temporarily barring entry from nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries. Under public pressure, Uber founder Travis Kalanick left Trump’s business advisory council, and competitor Lyft has reportedly pulled its ads from Breitbart, a website formerly led by Trump strategist Steve Bannon. Several firms and executives also announced millions of dollars in donations to the ACLU to fight the order and to immigrant aid organizations.
Immigrants have been crucial to the development of the technology industry in the past 50 years.
No company wants to annoy the president of the United States, especially one who gleefully denounces firms and executives and threatens to use his power to hurt them. So when big companies take on Trump so openly, we know they must view his policies as a real danger to their operations.
In an industry desperate to find engineering talent, Silicon Valley executives may also be particularly sensitive to their employees’ generally liberal views on social issues such as abortion, gay rights and immigration. They know that skilled employees want to work for a company that shares their values.
Immigrants have been crucial to the development of the technology industry in the past 50 years, from Andy Grove and An Wang in the early years, to Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Sergey Brin and Sundar Pichai of Google, Pierre Omidyar of eBay and Omid Kordestani of Twitter. Not to mention Apple founder Steve Jobs, the son of a Syrian immigrant.
Indeed, more than half of the country’s $1 billion startup companies had at least one immigrant founder, according to the National Foundation for American Policy.
Tech firms are even more worried about a draft of an executive order that would revamp the work-visa programs technology companies depend on to hire tens of thousands of high-skilled immigrant employees. The draft order would promise to “prioritize the protection of American workers,” but technology companies say they can’t find enough Americans with the skills needed for software design.
Now tech executives are drafting a formal letter objecting to the policy. An early version of the letter says, “Our ability to grow our companies and create jobs depends on the contributions of immigrants from all backgrounds.”
Tech companies also strongly support expanded international trade, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Trump withdrew from on his first full weekday in office. “45 million American workers, 105,000 in (Silicon Valley) alone, should be crying (over) this executive action today,” said Carl Guardino, president of Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
For years, many tech companies tried to ignore Washington. Microsoft in Seattle, Apple and Google in Silicon Valley, went about their business, developing products, selling them to customers, and — happily, legally — making money. But it seems that every successful company eventually finds out that it can’t just work on improving its products and serving consumers. Sooner or later, it’s going to have to deal with politicians and regulators sniffing around its business.
Trump’s number one promise was to create more jobs in the United States. But his trade and immigration restrictions will encourage US companies to outsource research and engineering projects to countries such as Canada, Ireland, and India.
When the federal government restricts trade, limits companies’ ability to hire the best employees and levies the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, it hurts US companies’ growth. When it also launches antitrust investigations of successful companies such as Microsoft, Google and Apple, companies feel they have no choice but to get involved in politics and lobbying.
And that’s a shame, because the most important factor in America’s economic future — raising everyone’s standard of living — is not land, or money, or computers; it’s human talent. And we all lose when some part of the human talent at America’s most dynamic companies is perted from productive activity to protecting the company from political predation and destructive policies.
Posted on February 3, 2017 Posted to Cato@Liberty