I’m quite interested in the nexus of traditional anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, the seeming randomness of American fascist economic thinking, and the anti-intellectualism of American conservatism. Let’s discuss that this week.
For years, conservatism, Republicanism have been steeped in the market utopianism of anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, leading to such policy recommendations as eliminating regulations, ignoring market failures and exogenous interpersonal equity issues. The essential starting point for anti-democracy sentiment on the part of many conservatives, Republicans is the determination voters, democracy, must be prevented interfering with, or distorting, market results. However, there have long been some inconsistencies suggesting that although conservatives, Republicans support the rhetoric of market utopianism, bad economics in the conservative style, they either don’t really understand it or don't sincerely support it. Recently, Republicans have added to their now long-standing opposition to the free movement of labor and capitol support for tariffs and even for explicit pork barrel crony capitalism, in which government is meant to selectively support some firms, oppose others. Something odd seems to be happening on the right wing as far as popular economic rhetoric and I propose it rather ironically may involve a reaction against academic economists promoting or at least not effectively countering anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style.
I propose a useful way to think of the anti-intellectual, anti-expert, anti-education component of the low end of American fascism as a Revolt of the Less Smart People is as an implicit declaration they know they are not well served by the policies economic "experts" put forward. That is, I would suggest their evident anti-intellectualism may importantly involve an inchoate rejection of even the rhetoric of bad economics in the conservative style and market utopianism, which they may have noticed evinces little concern for the welfare of the less smart. In an effort to acknowledge this burgeoning cynical attitude toward the economic rhetoric that has served them so well for so long, conservatives and Republicans have started to jettison it piecemeal, hoping to find random economic policies attractive to the less smart. This attempt by conservatives, Republicans to rhetorically capture disdain for economic experts is becoming more public and obvious, involving not just the rhetoric of bad economics in the conservative style but economics generally including empirical forecasting. This new rhetoric is not based, one supposes, on a sincere interest in the welfare of the less smart any more than did the previous rhetoric of market utopianism and bad economics in the conservative style. It’s an issue strictly about words, rhetoric.
I suppose as far as the less smart are concerned, random economic nonsense from a trusted authoritarian figure may appear at least as good and maybe better than any coherent policy of the sort an expert, intellectual, technocratic, educated, academic economist may advance. Their hatred for liberalism and “leftist” views on economics, their ignorance of the underlying issues in ethics and economics, possibly their embarrassment at potentially playing for the wrong team, makes any realignment toward different experts, academics impossible for them. One supposes the only practical alternative many conservatives see as they come to reject their own economic “experts” touting bad economic rhetoric is nihilism, the wish to just burn it all down, or the adoption of an essentially irrational, emotion-based cult of personality. Here again we have the distinctive bifurcated aspect of 21st century American fascism, in which some know exactly what they want, authoritarian fascism with economic issues addressed by technocrats and ethical arbiters, while others seek only anarchism, nihilism, unreason.
We must address anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style and its false, manipulative, dishonest presentation of normative economic issues, break the association of that rhetoric with experts, education, academics. It’s a broader issue than just economics.
