David Boaz

The award of the Nobel Prize in Literature to liberal writer Mario Vargas Llosa engendered much praise from libertarians and very little criticism that I've noticed. But I wasn't reading the Swedish newspapers, where, according to Cato senior fellow Johan Norberg, lefties went ballistic at the awarding of the prize to a non-leftist:

In Sweden’s biggest newspaper, Aftonbladet, three writers ripped him to pieces on the first day after the announcement of the Nobel Prize. One wrote that the prize was a victory for the Swedish right; one said it was a victory for the Latin American authoritarian right; one accused him of being not just ‘neo-liberal’ but also ‘macho’ (what Vargas Llosa did not know is that it is only acceptable for female authors to write about sex nowadays; when men do it, apparently, it is chauvinist and distasteful). Aftonbladet’s Martin Ezpeleta even claimed that the prize was a victory for racists, because Vargas Llosa once wrote an essay attacking the ideology of multiculturalism. That the same essay also called for a more open immigration policy meant nothing to Ezpeleta – until others called his bluff and he quietly omitted the charge of ‘racism’ from his article and pretended that it had never been there.... The attempts to portray Vargas Llosa as a supporter of the authoritarian, conservative right in Latin America are just embarrassing. The only piece of evidence in the Aftonbladetarticle was that he supported Sebastián Piñera in Chile’s last presidential election – which doesn’t make sense in any way since Piñera is a moderate, democratic politician who has attacked the authoritarian tradition of Chile’s right and voted against Pinochet in the referendum on his rule in 1988. Vargas Llosa’s attempt to hold all rulers to the same standards is what makes the claim that he betrayed the left so revealing. A lot of intellectuals have condemned rightist dictatorships in Peru and Chile, and a lot of intellectuals have condemned leftist dictatorships in Cuba and Nicaragua, but few have, like Vargas Llosa, condemned them both....

Marie Arana, the Peruvian-born former editor of the Washington Post's Book World, writes a thoughtful and moving analysis of Mario Vargas Llosa's work that has just been awarded a Nobel Prize. She explores at some length Vargas Llosa's political views and whether they might have prevented him from winning the prize much earlier. But there's one word that curiously doesn't appear in her article. Curious, because it's a very common word, the word that describes his political philosophy, a word that he himself uses frequently. You may want to read the article and see if you can find the missing word before reading further here. Arana writes:

When asked by an editor several years ago why the prize had eluded him, he replied with a wry smile that he was hardly the politically correct choice.… According to the Nobel committee, he has won the award "for his cartography of structures of power and his trenchant images of the individual's resistance, revolt, and defeat." For years, the gossip was that Stockholm would never recognize him because his politics were conservative, though many of his positions -- on gay rights, for example -- have been to the left of center.… For all his bracing work decrying totalitarian strongmen, Vargas Llosa is no radical revolutionary. He has been described as an intransigent neoliberal, a man with unshakable convictions that his country and people need strict economic discipline, membership in the world market and tough austerity measures at home.

What's the missing word? Give the article one more read. Read more...

The biographer of the great libertarian science-fiction novelist Robert A. Heinlein will speak at Cato on October 21. I liked Michael Dirda's Washington Post review of the book:

Picture a Saturday morning during one of those endless summers of the late 1950s and early '60s. A boy climbs on his red Schwinn bicycle and rides like the wind to the public library, then to several drugstores and thrift shops. He is on a mission. He is looking desperately for a book, any book, by Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988), the greatest science-fiction writer in the world. The greatest? Back then, few adolescent sf readers would have seriously questioned such a cosmic truth. Isaac Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy" was certainly cool (Hari Seldon! Psychohistory!), and Ray Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles" could be poetic, scary and ghoulish almost at the same time, and, yes, Alfred Bester's "The Stars My Destination" just might be the single best sf novel of them all, but Heinlein was . . . Heinlein.... [William H.] Patterson even asserts -- and will presumably discuss more fully in Vol. 2 -- that Heinlein "galvanized not one, but four social movements of his century: science fiction and its stepchild, the policy think tank, the counterculture, the libertarian movement, and the commercial space movement."

I hope you can join us on October 21, or watch it streamed on the web.

From Greg Mankiw:

Friedrich Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." Bill Clinton, 9/21: "Do you know how many political and economic decisions are made in this world by people who don't know what in the living daylights they are talking about?"

I'll be speaking at three Students for Liberty conferences this fall -- first this weekend in Philadelphia, where they say they're expecting 180 attendees, and then in New York and Berkeley. Other speakers at the nine regional conferences include Richard Epstein, Patri Friedman, Tom Palmer, Barry Goldwater Jr., and Gary Johnson. The conferences are open to both students and non-students. Better yet, non-students can donate via Paypal to cover the costs of penniless students! Check out the program.

Free-marketers often point to the varying success of pairs of countries -- the United States vs. the Soviet Union, West vs. East Germany, Hong Kong and Taiwan vs. China -- to illustrate the benefits of markets over planning, regulation, and socialism. Some even point out the closer but real differences in GDP per capita between the United States and Western Europe. In his 1984 book Endless Enemies (p. 380) Jonathan Kwitny added the less familiar pairs "Morocco versus Algeria, Malaysia versus Indonesia, Thailand versus Burma, Kenya versus Tanzania." Now Rama Lakshmi reports in the Washington Post that we can see the results of two systems of political economy in one country:

It didn't take long for the first athletes arriving in New Delhi last week for the upcoming Commonwealth Games to catch a glimpse of modern India's two faces. Their gateway to the country was the capital's gleaming new international airport terminal, built by a privately led consortium and opened in June four months ahead of schedule. But the official wristbands that the visitors were handed at the airport turned out to be an emblem of India's famous red tape and government inefficiency. When the teams reached the athletes' village, the police guarding the facility refused to recognize the IDs, saying that the Games Organizing Committee had not sent the required authorization order. The jet-lagged athletes stood about under a tree for hours with their luggage, calling their embassies for help, and the problem was not finally resolved for four more days. To observers, the incident illustrated more than just the well-documented sloppiness that has marked India's preparations for the Games. It also underscored the gap that has emerged between a government rooted in a slower-moving, socialist era and a private entrepreneurial class that is busy building global IT companies, the world's largest oil refineries and spectacular structures such as the $2.8 billion airport terminal. "It is about two aspects of the India story," said Rajeev Chandrasekhar, an entrepreneur and member of Parliament. "India's private sector has been exposed to competition and therefore has developed capability. Accountability is firmly built into the entrepreneurial mind-set. But the government structure is a relic of the colonial past and continues to plod along."... For the Delhi [airport] project, [Grandhi Mallikarjuna]Rao said, his company worked with 58 government agencies. "Our nation is in the process of transition from a command-and-control economic system to a more efficient market-driven structure," he said. "It will take some time till this transition is complete."

Given all this history, the interesting question is why some people in the United States want to continually transfer such vital functions as energy and health care from the competitive, accountable, capable entrepreneurial sector to the slower-moving, plodding, command-and-control bureaucratic sector. (Of course, the already-government-influenced health care and energy industries are not the most entrepreneurial sectors of the economy. But as the examples above demonstrate, even imperfect markets work better than government direction. Nor are the government-run local schools very competitive or accountable, but they are more so than they will be under tighter federal control.)

Charles Krauthammer calls same-sex marriage "the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history." Really? Some might say that ending "till death do us part" was more radical. And maybe ending the requirement that the bride promise to "love, honor, and obey." And how about the end of polygamy? Polygamy was probably the most common marital system in the broad sweep of human history, but now it is virtually unknown in the Western world; indeed, ahistorical conservatives warn that allowing two people of the same sex to make a vow of marriage could lead to polygamy. More currently, I would suggest that the truly radical redefinition of marriage is the revolution over the past generation in the idea that people should marry before they cohabit or have children. Barely a generation ago cohabitation simply wasn't acceptable; now it  is just assumed. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy is celebrated on the cover of People and no one seems to much care. In 2009, for the first time, more 25- to 34-year-olds were unmarried than married. A writer as smart as Krauthammer should be able to see that that gay liberation and gay marriage are a product, not a cause, of the unprecedented redefinition of sex, marriage, and childrearing. But like socially conservative politicians, Krauthammer is not about to confront his friends, colleagues, and fans by denouncing that radical redefinition of marriage. Sensing discomfort with rapid social changes, he shouts "Look over there!" Reducing the incidence of unwed motherhood, divorce, fatherlessness, welfare, and crime would be good for society. But it's not easy to figure out what to do. That's why social conservatives point to a real problem and then offer phony solutions.

Matt Ridley's new book, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, is garnering rave reviews. Ridley, science writer and popularizer of evolutionary psychology, shows how it was trade and specialization of labor--and the resulting massive growth in technological sophistication--that hauled humanity from its impoverished past to its comparatively rich present. These trends will continue, he argues, and will solve many of today's most pressing problems, from the spread of disease to the threat of climate change. The Cato Institute has now presented three different looks at the book, with a review in the Cato Journal, another in Regulation, and an event at Cato with Matt Ridley himself. Powell on Ridley My colleague Aaron Powell published the first Cato review of The Rational Optimist with a piece in the Fall 2010 edition of the Cato Journal (pdf).

What The Rational Optimist makes clear, in perspicuous prose and enchanting storytelling, is that, just as biological evolution populated the world with the wondrous variety of life, exchange allowed one of those species to achieve a wondrous standard of living that will only improve and become more uniform as we trade and invent.

Powell doesn't find the book flawless, however. He identifies two problems that weaken Ridley's argument, the first dealing with the "circular and unconvincing" nature of his claim that trade caused our human ancestors to achieve humanity. The second concern is broader. Powell writes,

It would be easy to get the impression Ridley is Pollyannaish. If nuclear annihilation, super flus, and starvation are nothing to be worried about, what possibly could be? Unfortunately, Ridley’s response to this critique is less convincing than it could be, for he fails to adequately draw a line between when an anticipated disaster is real and when it’s just pessimism writ large.

Henderson on Ridley David R. Henderson reviews the book in the latest issue of Regulation (pdf). Like Powell, Henderson enthusiastically endorses the style and substance of Ridley's book, though without identifying the weaknesses highlighted in the former review. His only point of contention with The Rational Optimist is a "jarring misstatement" regarding trade and value. Henderson writes,

Given the important role of trade in Ridley’s theory, and given his obvious understanding of trade, it is surprising that he makes a jarring misstatement: “For barter to work,” he writes, “two individuals do not need to offer things of equal value. Trade is often unequal, but still benefits both sides.” The correct statement is: “For barter or trade to work, individuals must offer things of unequal value.” If I valued what I give up the same as what I get in return, there would be no point in trading. Trading is always an exchange of unequal values.

Henderson goes on to defend Ridley against the negative appraisal his book received in the New York Times. That review, written by famous foreign-aid critic William Easterly, attacked The Rational Optimist for its take on Africa and for failing to "confront[] honestly all the doubts about the ‘free market.'" "Really?" Henderson responds. "All the doubts? I do not know if such a book could be written with the requisite amount of evidence and have under 3,000 pages." Ridley on Ridley And then, of course, there's the source himself. In May, Ridley spoke at a Cato Institute book forum about The Rational Optimist. He discussed the core arguments of his book and concluded (optimistically) that technology and trade have now made it possible to stop trying to keep the world from getting worse, and instead focus on making it better. As with all Cato events, full video and audio are available for download on www.cato.org. Or watch it right here:

P. J. O'Rourke, Cato's H. L. Mencken Research Fellow, is touring the country to talk about his new book, Don't Vote: It Just Encourages the Bastards. He'll be doing these Cato events:

September 30                 San Francisco, Palace Hotel October 7                         Los Angeles, Beverly Wilshire October 13                      Dallas, Ritz-Carlton October 14                     Houston, Four Seasons October 28                    Washington, Cato Institute

Pretty swanky digs for a guy who once wrote Holidays in Hell. And sorry, San Franciscans -- obviously I should have posted this a week ago. But if you're a Cato Sponsor, you read about it in Cato Policy Report and you got an invitation. You can find more book signings and media appearances at www.pjourke.com.

This morning's question at Politico Arena is:

The New York Times reports that despite two decades of public health initiatives Americans still aren’t eating enough vegetables. Healthy eating is a priority of First Lady Michelle Obama. Should those of us with less than Olympic-calibre physiques heed the first lady's dietary advice? Does this smack of Big Brother -- or more precisely Big Sister -- wading into personal decisions? Could voluntary preferences on food issues morph into government mandates?

Of all the "Washington elites" they surveyed, I was almost the only one to express skepticism about the First Lady's and the New York Times's expectations for the rest of us:

I was struck by that New York Times article on Saturday. The headline is "Told to Eat Its Vegetables, America Orders Fries." We Americans are just a constant trial to our elites. We cling not only to our religion and our guns but to our French fries. The government has TOLD us to eat vegetables, and yet we persist in eating tasty food. Soon we may be sent to our rooms without supper. And then the reporter wrote, in this news story, "Despite two decades of public health initiatives, stricter government dietary guidelines, record growth of farmers’ markets and the ease of products like salad in a bag, Americans still aren’t eating enough vegetables." America to the New York Times reporting staff: We'll decide the proper tradeoff between taste, price, nutrition and so on. "Enough vegetables" is a subjective decision, not a fact. More fundamentally, Why is it any of the federal government’s business how fit we are? We don’t need a national nanny. The federal government has an important role in our society. Its primary function is national security, and it hasn’t been doing a very good job. It should focus on that. Americans know that first they say you “should,” and the next thing you know they want to make it mandatory. Already people are talking about taxing junk food. And they’re filing suit against fast-food companies. We teach our kids to take responsibility for themselves and to Mind Your Own Business -- the government should take that advice. A lot of this is old-fashioned American Puritanism -- the idea that anything you enjoy is bad for you-- so they tell us don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t eat, recycle, practice safe sex, ride that bicycle. A subversive page editor at the New York Times inserted a pull quote (in the print edition) reading "Besides, the taste, trouble and cost, what's the problem?" Exactly. We Americans are sorry for being such a disappointment to the first lady and the New York Times. But not that sorry.