Forfatterarkiv: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

The Boys from Pointe du Hoc

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 6. juni 2007. 3 svar

Denne Punditokrat er en gammel sentimentalist, og jeg kan godt lide mindedage–mestendels de glade og symbolsk højstemte. Jeg bliver glad, når de markeres, og ærgerlig når de glemmes–og forbandet på mig selv, når jeg f.eks. glemmer at tænde lys i vinduet 4. maj.

I den forbindelse tænkte jeg i dag en del over, at jeg (der i disse dage befinder mig i smukke Cambridge) reelt havde overset, at det i går var Grundlovsdag derhjemme i Danmark. Men så blev jeg mindet om, at i dag sådan set også er en anden, værdig mindedag: D-Dag. Det er i dag 63 år siden, at De Allierede gik i land i Normandiet, og i det store billede er det en af de dage, der klart må regnes som ikke bare en af de vigtigste i det 20. århundrede men en af de afgørende i frihedens historie.

Men det betyder også, at det i dag er 23 år siden, at præsident Ronald W. Reagan holdt en af sine bedste taler. Måske ikke den mest ideologiske, men klart en af de smukkeste, mest sentimentale (i ordets bedste betydning) og mest velskrevne–og selvfølgelig skrevet af Peggy Noonan. Talen, kendt som “The Boys from Pointe du Hoc”, blev holdt foran rækker med overlevende “Rangers” fra D-Dag, og den findes hér på audio (under datoen June 6, 1984) og hér som tekst. Her er et par uddrag:

“We’re here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

… The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

… [But not] all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They’re still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

… Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for.”

Ugens citater: Wall Street Journal om avisfilosofi

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 6. juni 2007. Skriv et svar

Det se r ud til, at en af Punditokraternes yndlings-aviser, Wall Street Journal, er ved at skifte hænder.  Bancroft-familien er vistnok ved at sælge Dow Jones & Co. imperiet til Rupert Murdoch.  Det kan der vist både være godt og skidt ved, men på ledersiden i dagens udgave er der ihvertfald en artikel , der handler om dette og avisens filosofi, og her er to-tre gode citater.

Det første er fra en af avisens første debatredaktører, den eksil-skotske, fhv. liberale politiker, William Peter Hamilton:

“Don’t believe the man who tells you there are two sides to every question. There is only one side to the truth.”

Avisen har–i modsætning til stort set alle andre amerikanske aviser–ikke anbefalet en præsidentkandidat siden Herbert Hoover, fordi man bevidst foretrækker at rose eller kritisere kandidaternes ideer og specifikke forslag i.f.t., hvad der er avisens udgangspunkt. Som avisens tidligere chefredaktør, William Grimes, sagde, da Truman i 1948 angreb den for at være “Republikanernes bibel”: “our loyalties are to the economic and governmental principles in which we believe and not to any political party.”

Og hvad var og er de så? Det svarede Grimes på i en leder, “A Newspaper’s Philosophy,” 2. januar 1951:

“On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical.”

Det er sgu’ da en Punditokrat-avis!

Sullivan gør status

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 28. maj 2007. 36 svar

Det er en svær tid, vi lever i. 

Med fare for at bringe blodtrykket op hos et par af mine gode Punditokrat-kolleger, kan jeg her i en højhellig Pinse ikke rigtigt andet end linke til denne tankevækkende sammenfatning af status quo for krigen mod terror, foretaget af Andrew Sullivan.  Denne er næppe rundhåndet overfor ethvert synspunkt, men den er tankevækkende.  Og Sullivan er hverken en venstrefløjsaktivist eller en hr. hvem-som-helst–udover at være en af de mest læste bloggere i verden, er han en engelsk Tory (selverklæret “libertarian conservative”), med stærke sympatier for Hayek og hvad vi ville kalde klassisk liberalisme. 

Muhammed, Danmark & ACLU

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 25. maj 2007. 3 svar

Kender man lidt til amerikanske forhold, og er man grundlæggende positivt indstillet overfor klassiske frihedsrettigheder, så må man næsten også per definition have et lidt ambivalent forhold til den amerikanske borgerrettighedsorganisation, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).   Blandt mange amerikanske konservative (men ikke alle–mere her) er den afskyet, fordi den bliver opfattet som en “left liberal, bleeding heart” organisation, hvis medlemmer er “bløde”, når det gælder den nødvendige retshåndhævelse.  Men blandt mange andre–klassisk liberale som venstreorienterede–er der en stor respekt for, at organisationen ofte tager slagsmål til fordel for klassiske frihedsrettigheder.

Denne punditokrat har ihvertfald altid selv haft et lidt ambivalent syn på ACLU.  Jeg har fundet det fremragende, at de ihærdigt har forfægtet habeas corpus, ytringsfrihed, adskillelse af kirke og stat, o.s.v.  Men jeg har også fundet deres læsning af den amerikanske Bill of Rights lidt selektiv–de har sjældent gjort meget ud af det 2. forfatningstillæg, selvom det altså sådan set også er en borgerrettighed, og mens de mange kommunister, som var med til at stifte ACLU godt kunne lide adskillelse af stat og kirke, gik de aldrig meget op i, at religionsfrihed også betyder retten til at udøve ens religion.

Og med den politiske korrektheds fremmarch i 1980erne og 1990erne var det næsten forudsigeligt, at denne også på et tidspunkt kunne få ACLU til at tippe endnu mere i den retning, som jeg ihvertfald ikke værdsætter.  Netop det emne var forleden omtalt i detaljer på Wall Street Journals debatsider, i kronikken “The American Liberal Liberties Union”, hvori advokaten Wendy Kaminer argumenter, at ACLU er ved at blive ret selektiv på ytringsfrihedens front–og midt i det hele dukker Danmark og Muhammedkrisen op.   Her kommer et langt uddrag:

“ACLU Defends Nazi’s Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters,” the humor magazine The Onion announced in 1999. Those of us who loved the ACLU, and celebrated its willingness to defend the rights of Nazis and others who had no regard for our rights, considered the joke a compliment. Today it’s more like a reproach. Once the nation’s leading civil liberties group and a reliable defender of everyone’s speech rights, the ACLU is being transformed into just another liberal human-rights group that reliably defends the rights of liberal speakers.

This transformation is gradual, unacknowledged and not readily apparent, since evidence of it lies mainly in cases the ACLU does not take. It’s naturally easier to know what an organization is doing (and advertising) than what it is not doing. But a review of recent free-speech press releases turns up only a handful of cases in which ACLU state affiliates defended the rights of conservative, antigay or otherwise politically incorrect speakers. And lately the national organization has been remarkably quiet in several important free-speech cases and controversies.

One of the clearest indications of a retreat from defending all speech regardless of content is the ACLU’s virtual silence in Harper v. Poway, an important federal case involving a high-school student’s right to wear a T-shirt condemning homosexuality. Of course, the ACLU doesn’t speak out on every case, but historically it has vigorously defended student speech rights, as its Web site stresses. It is currently representing a student in a speech case before the Supreme Court, Morse v. Frederick (involving the right of a student to carry a nonsensical “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at an off-campus event). The ACLU pays particular attention to the right to wear T-shirts with pro-gay messages in school, proudly citing cases in which it represented students wearing pro-gay (as well as anti-Bush) T-shirts. This year, the ACLU awarded a Youth Activist Scholarship to a student who fought the efforts of her school to bar students from wearing T-shirts that said “Gay, Fine by me.”

So in 2004, when Tyler Chase Harper was disciplined for wearing a T-shirt declaring his religious objections to homosexuality, civil libertarians might have expected the ACLU to protest loudly. Mr. Harper was barred from attending classes when he wore the antigay T-shirt to school on an official “Day of Silence,” when gay students taped their mouths to symbolize the silencing effect of intolerance. Represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, he sued the school district. That same year, the ACLU initiated the first of two actions against a Missouri school that punished students for wearing “gay supportive T-shirts,” eventually securing a promise from the school to “stop censoring,” the ACLU Web site boasts. Mr. Harper, however, was unsuccessful in his quest to stop school censorship. In a patronizing, antilibertarian decision in which Judge Stephen Reinhardt stressed the imagined feelings of gay students, the Ninth Circuit rejected Mr. Harper’s First Amendment claims. (There was a sharp dissent from Judge Alex Kozinski.)

… The Harpers didn’t need representation from the ACLU. But the organization frequently speaks up for the rights of people it does not represent, like Guantanamo detainees, and often files amicus briefs in important civil liberties cases. Given its focus on student rights and religious liberty (one of the ACLU’s priorities), it’s hard to explain the ACLU’s apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper’s First Amendment rights–unless you consider the content of his speech. 

This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs. But conservative students might be grateful for the ACLU’s absence. Consider its intervention in a successful federal court challenge to an unconstitutional speech code at Georgia Tech, brought by the Alliance Defense Fund in 2006 on behalf of two conservative religious students. The ACLU of Georgia filed an amicus brief proposing a substitute but still overbroad “antiharassment” policy that included a prohibition on “injurious communications . . . directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs.” In other words: Students should be punished for sharply criticizing or satirizing each other’s beliefs if their remarks are deemed “injurious.”

Og så til Danmark:.

“The ACLU was even AWOL in one of the most visible and frightening free-speech controversies in recent years–the Muhammad cartoons, which many condemned as “hate speech.” When Muslim groups violently protested the cartoons (first published in the Danish press), when American newspapers declined to publish them for fear of reprisals, and when the U.S. State Department condemned their publication–the ACLU exercised its right to remain silent. In fact, its press office actually advised ducking questions about the cartoons that might arise during discussions of torture at Abu Ghraib. A set of talking points from the press office recommended responding to questions about the cartoons by exhorting the U.S. government to “demonstrate . . . that it is taking the Abu Ghraib images seriously.” (This was later spun as an effort to stay on message about abuses at Abu Ghraib.)

Not until an ACLU donor complained about this silence on the cartoon controversy, and questions about it were
raised before the ACLU bo
ard, did ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero speak up–quietly. He mentioned the controversy in a relatively obscure dinner speech to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He sent a letter to the University of Illinois urging it not to discipline student editors who published the cartoons in a campus paper. In a letter to the ACLU board, Mr. Romero both denied and defended the ACLU’s relative silence: “With regard to the cartoons, rather than put out a hortatory statement that no one would read (except insiders) but might make us feel good about ourselves, we have tried to engage in thoughtful forums and discussions that relate to the issue. Speaking out on an issue involves more than slapping a paragraph together and posting it on a website.”

…

Why did the ACLU avoid issuing a loud and clear public statement decrying violent efforts to suppress the Muhammad cartoons? Its silence may have reflected growing sympathy among ACLU leaders and supporters for restricting what many liberals condemn as hate speech. “Take hate speech,” Mr. Romero remarked to the New York Times in May 2006. “While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.” (He was commenting on a proposal to bar board members from criticizing the ACLU–a proposal that was amended only after being exposed in the Times.) “

Kronikøren leverer flere lignende eksempler og sammenfatter:

“This is not the same organization that once took pride in its costly, principled decision to defend the rights of neo-Nazis to march in a community of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Ill. Of course the ACLU hasn’t definitively abandoned its defense of speech: Large, national organizations change incrementally. But people should no longer depend on the ACLU to defend what they preach (especially at a cost), if it disapproves of what they practice.”

En god karakter

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 22. maj 2007. 10 svar

Jeg skal i den grad–både her og i Groft Sagt-spalten–afholde mig helt og aldeles fra at blande mig i den hidsige debat foranlediget af lektor Klaus Kjøllers udtalelser om, at nogle yppige kvindelige for- og bagdele kan resultere i højere karakterer ved en eksamen. Hvis du er ansat som forsker, har du lige så meget brug for at blande dig i den debat, “like u need a hole in yo head”–for nu at citere en anden med interesse for kvindelige former.

Men for denne blogs kræsne læsere, hvoraf en stor del er bekendt med “Den østrigske økonomiske skole”, skal jeg ikke undlade at benytte lejligheden til at fortælle, hvad jeg som studerende hørte, da jeg (1992-94) deltog i det hæderkronede Austrian Economics kollokvium ved New York University, der i sin tid blev etableret af Ludwig von Mises. Det er nemlig en historie om en af Mises’ mange talentfulde og begavede elever, den glorværdige østrigsk-amerikanske økonom, professor Fritz Machlup (1902-83).

Machlup var lige fra sine unge dage i Wien noget af en suave og pigeglad charmør–så meget at han i en kendt anekdote om, hvordan de liberale (og mestendels jødiske) østrigske økonomer fabulerede om, hvad de mon allesammen skulle lave, når de engang var tvungent i eksil udenfor Østrig.  Herforestillede de sig, at de alle ville blive nødt til at arbejde som noget andet end økonomer, f.eks. på en restaurant i Sydamerika ; Machlup blev tilskrevet rollen som danser og gigolo. (Hans kone, Mitzi, skulle være go-go girl, Hayek tjener og Mises dørmand, o.s.v.)

Interessen for det smukke køn blev åbenbart ikke mindre med årene. Da Machlup nærmede sig firserne og var i en slags halv-pensionist stilling ved NYU, insisterede han som en af de første dér på, at de studerende skulle aflevere deres eksamensopgaver uden eget navn på. Det var åbenbart meget sjældent dengang. Han var bange for, hvordan hans viden om og sympatier for specifikke studerende kunne resultere i, at han gav dem uretfærdigt høje karakterer. Det var her ikke så meget det politiske, det ideologiske eller det rent paradigme-mæssige, han tænkte på …:

“Zere are soooo many lovely girls, and I just cannot help giving zem a gut grade …”,

–skal han (efter sigende) have sagt, eller ihvertfald noget i den stil. Om historien er korrekt, ved jeg ikke, men ihvertfald illustrerer den en slags “rationel institutionalisme”, og hvis Kjøller har ret (altså i en strengt kausalvidenskablig forstand!), er den ihvertfald endnu et godt argument for at nedprioritere mundtlige eksamener til fordel for (om muligt) anonymiserede skriftlige ditto.

Mugabonomics

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 21. maj 2007. 10 svar

Som allerede omtalt af vores ærede redaktør , synes Venezuelas folkevalgte diktator, den socialistisk-nationalistiske (eller var det omvendt?) Hugo Chavez, nu at ville konkurrere på internationalt plan. Nærmere bestemt virker han forhippet på at ville gøre Robert Mugabe og Fidel Castro rangen stridig som en af dem, der hurtigst kan køre en–i det store billede–relativt velfungerende udviklingsøkonomi i sænk. Han bruger også Mugabes metoder, herunder vilkårlige besættelser af private gårde. Her er mere fra Wall Street Journals artikel:

“Now Mr. Chavez is taking his revolution to the Venezuelan countryside. “We must end latifundios,” he said in a televised speech in March, referring to large agrarian estates. “The people order it, and we will do it, whatever the cost.” Then he announced the seizure of a land area larger than the state of Rhode Island.

Since coming to power, The Chávez government has handed over 8.8 million acres, an area bigger than Maryland, for use by the poor. While much of this was state-owned land that was either idle or leased to ranchers, some 4.5 million acres were “recovered” from private owners, Mr. Chávez said recently. In some cases, the government compensated them. In most others… it has simply turned a blind eye to land invasions.

The government bills land reform as a way to make Venezuela self-sufficient infood. But so far, the effect has been to undercut production of beef, sugar and other foods, as productive land is handed over to city dwellers with no knowledge of farming. Established farmers and ranchers, fearing their land may be seized next, are cutting investment in their operations to a minimum.

The chaos in the countryside has contributed to shortages in basic items like milk and meat, a paradox in a country enjoying an economic boom traceable to high oil prices. Also spurring the shortages are price controls on certain foods that keep them prices below the cost of production. Meanwhile, 19%-plus inflation–as oil revenue floods the economy–spurs panic buying: purchasing price-controlled and other goods the shopper might not immediately need for fear of having higher prices in the future or not finding the items at all.

“You get up at dawn to hunt for a breast of chicken all over town. Housewives are in a foul mood.” says Lucylde Gonzalez, a Caracas homemaker, who says she hasn’t seen an egg in a week.”

Kunne man forestille sig, at nogen ville brokke sig over det? Ja, men så må de jo se, om de kan få fat i en journalist fra de medier, som ikke i samme anledning bliver frataget deres sendetilladelser.

President Thompson? VI

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 18. maj 2007. 5 svar

 

Ok, det kan være, at jeg er begyndt at lyde så varieret som en hakket plade, men her kommer altså mere af Peggy Noonan og mere om Fred Thompsons præsidentkandidatur … Take it or leave it. Her fra hendes klumme i dagens Wall Street Journal:

The Man Who Wasn’t There

Fred Thompson isn’t yet running, but he’s running a great campaign.

 

“Having watched the second Republican debate the other night, it’s clear to me the subject today is Fred Thompson, the man who wasn’t there. While the other candidates bang away earnestly in a frozen format, Thompson continues to sneak up from the creek and steal their underwear–boxers, briefs and temple garments.

He is running a great campaign. It’s just not a declared campaign. It’s a guerrilla campaign whose informality is meant to obscure his intent. It has been going on for months and is aimed at the major pleasure zones of the Republican brain. In a series of pointed columns, commentaries and podcasts, Mr. Thompson has been talking about things conservatives actually talk about. Shouldn’t homeowners have the right to own a gun? Isn’t it bad that colleges don’t teach military history? How about that Sarkozy–good news, isn’t it? Did you see Tenet on Russert? His book sounds shallow, tell-all-y.

These comments and opinions are being read and forwarded in Internet Nation. They are revealing and interesting, but they’re not heavy, not homework. They have an air of “This is the sound of a candidate thinking.” That’s an unusual sound.

Most illustrative was what started this week as a small trading of barbs with provocateur Michael Moore, whose general and iconic dishabille is meant to show identification with the workingman, though in America workingmen bathe. Mr. Moore was back from Cuba, where he made a documentary on the superiority of Castro’s health care system. Mr. Thompson suggested Mr. Moore is just another lefty who loves dictators. Mr. Moore challenged Mr. Thompson to a health-care debate and accused him of smoking embargoed cigars.

Within hours Mr. Thompson and his supposedly nonexistent staff had produced a spirited video response that flew through YouTube and the conservative blogosphere. Sitting at a desk and puffing on a fat cigar, Mr. Thompson announces to Mr. Moore he can’t fit him into his schedule.

Then: “The next time you’re down in Cuba . . . you might ask them about another documentary maker. His name was Nicolás Guillén. He did something Castro didn’t like, and they put him in a mental institution for several years, giving him devastating electroshock treatments. A mental institution, Michael. Might be something you ought to think about.”

You couldn’t quite tell if Mr. Thompson was telling Mr. Moore he ought to think more about Cuba, or might himself benefit from psychiatric treatment. It seemed almost . . . deliberately unclear.

Right now Mr. Thompson has the best of both worlds, an air of fearlessness and nothing on the line. He hasn’t committed. He’s not in. He can take a chance and be himself because he’s not afraid, and he’s not afraid because he has nothing to lose.”

Hvis ikke andet, så er det da ikke det værste, man kan sige om en præsidentkandidat–og hvis han vil tale til og om Michael Moore på dén måde, så får han gerne min stemme mod HRC. Hvis jeg havde én.

 

Update: Mere om Thompsons ikke-kandidatur og hans slagsmål med Michael Moore.  Om sine embargo-belagte cubanske cigarer: “As to the cigars, they are the result of the generosity of a friend of mine who gives me a few from time to time. We intend to see to it that they are destroyed over the next few months.”

Ugens citat: Henrik Dahl om "centrum-venstre psykosen"

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 17. maj 2007. 3 svar

Den tidl. SF’er, sociologen Henrik Dahl har hos Kommunikationsform et langt essay om “Centrumvenstrepsykosen”, i fire lange indlæg: I, II, III, IV (hattip: Kim Møller fra Uriasposten, igen via Ulla Nørtoft Thomsen og Dansk-Politik. Herfra to citater …

“Centrum-venstre – og ikke mindst centrum-venstre kommentariatet – har pådraget sig en psykose. Det lever i sin egen virkelighed, hvor u-landsbistand er en vindersag. Hvor man på udlandsrejser skal være flov over at være dansker. Hvor Danmark er præget af islamofobi og fremmedhad. Hvor muslimerne i Europa har fået samme status, som jøderne havde i Tyskland i trediverne. Hvor islamisme ikke er en totalitær magtfaktor i mellemøsten. Hvor Søren Krarup og Jesper Langballe bestemmer stort og småt i dansk indenrigs- og udenrigspolitik. Hvor man som noget helt nyt stemmer vigtige reformer igennem med spinkle flertal. Hvor statsministeren i ethvert af sine vågne øjeblikke pønser på at afskaffe velfærdsstaten. Hvor Danmark er blevet koldt og nyliberalt. Og hvor der nu på sjette år bliver skåret dramatisk ned på alle offentlige udgifter.

At tro eller hævde den slags, er psykotisk. Et udtryk for, at virkeligheden ikke gør det mindste indtryk på ens tankevirksomhed.”

[…]

“Kun de færreste i centrum-venstre har nogensinde fattet, hvad der ramte dem i 2001 og 2005. De fleste fabler om højredrejning og en eller anden hulemand, der som en anden Alien vil bryde ud af Anders Fogh Rasmussens bryst på et tidspunkt. Det er nonsens.”

Cowen & Copenhagen

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 16. maj 2007. 6 svar

På initiativ af vores punditokrat emeritus, professor Nicolai Foss, er den kendte amerikanske “østrigske” økonom Tyler Cowen, fra George Mason University og MarginalRevolution.com , i de kommende dage i landet for at besøge Handelshøjskolen i København (CBS). I den forbindelse finder to arrangementer sted, som nok kan have interesse for de af denne blogs læsere, som er interesserede i økonomi og frihed, og som bor i hovedstadsområdet. Her kommer lidt fra CBS’ foromtale:

“Det er en af økonomiens tunge drenge, der gæster Copenhagen Business School den 21. Maj: Tyler Cowen er verdens mest læste forum for økonomer på Nettet.

Cowen’s centrale interesse er sammenhængen mellem kunst, kultur, og økonomi, og hans berømte analyser om emnet kobler til andre af tidens store problemer så som globalisering, frihandel og offentlig politik. Cowen er inviteret til Danmark af to af CBS’ forskningscentre med interesse i kultur, økonomi og globalisering, Center for Strategi og Globalisering og imagine.. Creative Industries Research. Cowen vil holde to foredrag på CBS den 21. maj: Klokken 11 taler han om The Creative Destruction of Cultures og kl 13.30 taler han om Subsidizing the Film Industry: Pros and cons. Ved foredraget kl. 13.30 vil professor, dr. Christian Hjorth-Andersen (Økonomisk Institut, Københavns Universitet) diskutere Cowen’s synspunkter ud fra et dansk perspektiv.

Cowen’s mest kendte bøger omfatter What Price Fame?, der analyserer stjernedyrkelsen i kulturlivet, samt In Praise of Commercial Culture, der diskuterer fordele og ulemper ved kommercialisering og globalisering af kulturlivet samt behovet for offentlig kulturstøtte.

Cowen er selv en aktiv forbruger af amerikansk og global kultur, og Washington Post har udgivet hans populære guide til byens mest spændende etniske spisesteder.”

Tid: Mandag 21. maj kl 11 og 13.30
Sted: Copenhagen Business School, Kilen, Kilevej 14A, lokale Ks.48 (stuen)

Bestikkelsesstaten

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 10. maj 2007. 10 svar

Hermed lidt genbrug af min faste klumme fra Berlingske Tidende–i dette tilfælde fra i lørdags:

Kommentar: Bestikkelsesstaten

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

En velkendt vending er, at »vi kan jo ikke leve af at klippe hinandens hår«. Den bruges ofte som et argument for, at i sidste ende bliver borgerne i et samfund kun rigere, hvis de foretager en egentlig værdiskabelse, snarere end at man blot bytter sammenlignelige tjenesteydelser med hinanden.

Selv i en verden, hvor traditionel fremstillingsvirksomhed gradvist er blevet erstattet af vidensbaserede tjenesteydelser, er der noget intuitivt sandt i udtrykket – og så kan det alligevel synes som om, at det er noget helt andet, der præger vores moderne velfærdsstat.

Så tænk i stedet lidt over denne metafor: Lad os antage, at vi sætter ti mennesker ned i en rundkreds. En 11. person går derefter rundt og indsamler fem kroner fra hver. For hver gang han er nået turen rundt, har han så en formue på 50 kroner – af dem tager han selv de ti kroner og smider resten vilkårligt i skødet på en af de ti andre. Den heldige vinder føler sig gevaldigt heldig. De ni, der sidder i rundkredsen og intet får, synes måske, de har tabt lidt, men tænker: »Visse vasse – det var jo kun lidt håndører, og vi får måske puljen næste gang«. For hver gang spillet kører en gang mere, er der en del, der taber lidt, én enkelt, der får en del – og så én, der skummer fløden. Men i det lange løb bliver alle andre end ham, der fordeler pengene, fattigere.

Hvis det lyder som et uattraktivt spil, som ikke kan få mange tilhængere, så er det dog alligevel nok en proces, der på mange punkter ikke er så langt fra, hvad en stor del af den danske velfærdsstat anno 2007 i virkeligheden handler om fra først til sidst. En meget stor del af de ressourcer, der år efter år indkræves som skatter, bliver efterfølgende udbetalt til de selv samme betalere igen, i form af serviceydelser og overførselindkomster. Netop dét, vil mange mene, er indbegrebet af velfærdsstatens eksistensberettigelse: Alle betaler, og alle får noget. Det gør naturligvis, at stadigt større dele af befolkningen med tiden kommer til at synes godt om systemet: Har man selv betalt meget, vil man også gerne have meget igen, når chancen byder sig. Det er det, som selv en socialdemokrat som Mogens Lykketoft har anerkendt som »bestikkelses«-elementet i velfærdsstatens måde at fungere på: Hvis man som venstreorienteret gerne vil have flest mulige til at støtte en stadigt større socialisering af samfundet, gælder det bare om at give så mange som muligt en kontant, personlig interesse i at støtte denne proces i almindelighed. Man skal gøre dem alle afhængige – også dem, der reelt kunne klare sig selv.

Pointen er imidlertid – ligesom i metaforen – at mange af deltagerne i det danske velfærdslotteri i længden ikke selv får noget ud af det system, som de er med til at finansiere. De ville være lige så godt stillet, hvis de som udgangspunkt fik lov til at beholde en lidt større del af deres indkomst – og så til gengæld fik ansvaret for at finansiere de udgifter, de selv har brug for. Hvorfor skal et ægtepar, hvor f.eks. manden er professor og kvinden advokat, og som derfor næppe hører til landets trængende, alligevel både betale høje skatter og så samtidigt modtage børnecheck, subsidieret børnepasning og skolegang til deres børn og en dag også folkepension?

At der ikke er tale om et helt trivielt spørgsmål fremgår af studier foretaget af de to økonomer Vito Tanzi fra den Internationale Valutafond og Ludger Schuknecht fra den Europæiske Centralbank. Tager man tal fra midten af 1990erne for et dusin OECD-lande lå de offentlige udgifter som andel af bruttonationalproduktet på nøjagtigt 50 pct., spændende fra f.eks. 32,9 pct. (USA) til 68,3 pct. (Sverige). Men Tanzi og Schuknecht har vist, at en ekstremt stor del af de offentlige udgifter i virkeligheden bliver betalt af skatteydere, som efterfølgende får penge retur i form af overførsler m.v. For den samme gruppe lande andrager dette beløb i gennemsnit 31,8 pct. af BNP. For Danmarks vedkommende var udgiftstrykket 59,3 pct., mens den del, der indbetales og tilbagebetales, var 31,3 pct. Tanzi og Schuknecht argumenterer således, at man i Danmark reelt ville kunne halvere de offentlige udgifters omfang – sænke dem til 28 pct. af BNP – uden at det i virkeligheden betyder andet end, at folk får lov til at slippe for at betale de skatter, som de alligevel efterfølgende får tilbage i form af overførsler.

At det forholder sig sådan, burde få de fleste rationelle mennesker til at spørge sig selv, om der er noget ravruskende galt med den måde, man har indrettet samfundet på. Så er spørgsmålet bare, hvad ham, der går og samler pengene ind, og som bestemmer, hvem der skal være så heldig at få puljen smidt i skødet, synes?

Ugens citat: Peggy Noonan om Reagan og Republikanernes kandidater

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 7. maj 2007. 1 svar

Forleden var der den første offentlige debat mellem størstedelen af de Republikanere, som søger nomineringen som partiets kandidat til præsidentvalget i 2008.  Debatten, der bl.a. talte John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney og Ron Paul, fandt sted på invitation af Nancy Reagan, i Ronald Reagan Presidential Library i Simi Valley.

Det havde Reagans tidligere taleskriver, Peggy Noonan, som emne i sin ugentlige klumme i Wall Street Journal forleden, og der var bl.a. denne fine, tongue-in-cheek passage, hvor hun beskrev, hvordan kandidaterne mødtes på Reagans hjemmebane:

“They stood earnestly in a row, combed, primped and prepped, as Nancy Reagan gazed up at them with courteous interest. But behind the hopeful candidates, a dwarfing shadow loomed, a shadow almost palpable in its power to remind Republicans of the days when men were men and the party was united. His power is only increased by his absence. But enough about Fred Thompson.”

Esping-Andersen om dansk forskning, lykke & velfærd

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 4. maj 2007. 1 svar

Jeg er på det rent forskningsmæssige plan ikke nogen sådan voldsomt stor beundrer af den eksilerede danske velfærdsstatsforsker Gøsta Esping-Andersen, som er forfatter til bl.a. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990) og derfor er meget populær herhjemme, især blandt moderat venstreorienterede samfundsforskere. Men måske jeg til tider har gjort manden (som jeg iøvrigt desværre aldrig har mødt) lidt uret–og måske nogle af mine forskerkolleger har gjort ham mere ret, end de selv reelt kunne tænke sig. Ihvertfald har Weekendavisen i denne uge en artikel, “Mr. Velfærdsstat taler ud”, om og med manden. Han er til hverdag professor i Barcelona men har lige været på besøg ved Ålbrg Universitet, hvor de har udnævnt ham til adjungeret professor. Heri kommer der et par betragtninger om dansk forskning, som denne pundit-professor kunne have lyst til at klippe ud og klistre på min kontordør på universitetet–i stedet kommer de her, og så må vi håbe, de læser dem i Ålborg, hvor de næppe kan falde i udelt god jord:

“En ting der slår mig meget er, at både dansk politologi og dansk psykologi har været meget navlebeskuende. De har været rettet mod Danmark uden at være særlig komparative. Meget ofte skrives der på dansk, for det skal være meget traditionelt i Danmark, ikke? Det andet er, at socialvidenskaberne i Danmark – især sociologien – i gamle dage var fanget af det her overteoretiske, filosofiske af marxistisk tilsnit. Det gjorde, at de fag næsten ingen interaktion havde med socialforskere og samfundsforskere uden for Danmark. De havde isoleret sig totalt i et lille lukket miljø. En anden årsag kan have noget at gøre med, at samfundsfagene i Danmark ikke har haft nogen stærk økonomisk træning. Det gør, at den internationale samfundsvidenskabs bedømmelse ofte ser det som lidt sjusket arbejde.”

Ikke overraskende, men godt at høre. Og så iøvrigt disse andre ord om den danske velfærdsstat, der så til gengæld overraskede mig lidt, og som næppe heller helt er, hvad de ventede at høre i Ålborg:

– Danmark er atter blevet udråbt som ‘verdens lykkeligste land’ i en ny international undersøgelse. Det fremgår, at tillid, faste normer og kendskab til hinanden er meget afgørende for at lykke kan opstå. Lykke er altså ikke specielt et spørgsmål om indkomstudjævning – eller hvordan?

“Undersøgelser viser systematisk, at Danmark ligger i spidsen. Jeg tror, at hvis du havde lavet samme type studier for 50 år siden, ville de nok være kommet til samme resultat. Der er mange, der nok vil prøve at argumentere, at det skyldes en god velfærdsstat, at folk stoler på hinanden og er glade. Men om det er velfærdsstaten, der har skabt den her tiltro og glæde – eller om det er omvendt – det ved vi jo ikke. Men jeg tror, at man kan argumentere for, at Danmark historisk ligesom Sverige og Norge har været meget homogen og fået et ret solidarisk samfund sammenlignet med næsten alle andre samfund, vi kender.”

– En stor indvandring påvirker jo homogeniteten. Påvirker en sådan indvandring så også lykken?

“Det er der ingen tvivl om. Det er et stort argument, især blandt økonomer, at grunden til, at USA har sådan en meget dårlig og ugenerøs velfærdsstat, er de store skel, der er i det amerikanske samfund på grund af immigration og raceproblemer. Når ingen stoler på hinanden, kan der ikke skabes et solidaritetssamfund. Det er derfor, de ikke har skabt den type universelle velfærdsstat som i Danmark, hvor folk som regel kan stole på, at når der er indgået en aftale, så overholder alle den. Da Stauning begyndte at oprulle ideerne til en folkepension, der skulle være universel og lige for alle, der lå den solidaritet allerede i den danske kultur. Det var et homogent samfund, hvor folk levede tæt på hinanden og i småsamfund. Der var ikke så brutale klasseskel som i andre lande, og der var ikke store etniske, religiøse og kulturelle skel. Det gjorde, at et universelt velfældssamfund – ligesom i Sverige og Norge – blev ret logisk og let at tænke sig som et alternativ.”

President Thompson? V

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 30. april 2007. 1 svar

Her kommer så lidt mere om Fred Dalton Thompsons mulige præsidentkandidatur … Ikke-kandidaten har nu fået sit eget radioprogram og tilhørende blog, og det kunne jo godt tyde på en vis fremtidsinteresse udover skuespillerkarrieren. Hos britiske The Times mener man, at Thompson er den nye Reagan (hvilket vælgerne omvendt bestemt ikke mener, at G.W. Bush er), og Stuart Rothenberg, der er kendt som en af de mest seriøse og mest uafhængige kommentatorer af amerikansk politik, har i sin nye klumme, “Is Fred Thompson coming to the GOP’s rescue?”, bl.a. dette at sige:

I’ll admit that I have had a hard time warming to the idea that former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), whom I first saw as minority counsel during the Senate Watergate hearings and whose TV and movie credits include “Die Hard 2,” “The Hunt for Red October” and “Law & Order,” would run for president. And it seemed, at least initially, even more difficult to imagine him as the Republican nominee next year.

But try as I might to dismiss the idea of a Thompson candidacy, I no longer can do so. It isn’t that the former Senator from Tennessee is such a good fit for the role of presidential candidate. It’s simply that none of the other cast members is a perfect fit either.

As every political analyst on the planet has observed for months, all of the top-tier GOP hopefuls face serious obstacles on the road to Minneapolis, and there clearly is a vacancy in the race for a mainstream conservative who doesn’t have a reputation as a troublemaker within the party.

Thompson surely has assets both in the race for the Republican nomination and in a general election, the single most important being that he both looks and sounds like the president of the United States of America. Don’t dismiss the “he sure looks like a president” factor. It’s important.

But I’m not certain whether the former Tennessee official truly fills the vacancy in his party’s presidential field that was created when conservative Sen. George Allen’s (R-Va.) political career imploded. For now, at least, many conservatives seem to think that Thompson is acceptable, though I’m not sure how deeply they have looked into his record.

Anyway, Thompson didn’t offend conservatives when he was a Senator and he doesn’t have a pro-choice, pro-gun-control record, which makes him more acceptable to conservatives than either Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) or former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. More recently, he has substituted for longtime radio commentator Paul Harvey, where he has sounded, according to one Republican observer, “like a conservative Southerner.”

Still, Thompson’s appeal is less about who he is and more about who he isn’t.

… Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who now chairs the Virginia GOP, recently told me that criticism of Thompson is not always on the mark, and some of it is reminiscent of criticism aimed at former President Ronald Reagan.

“He is easygoing and amiable,” says Gillespie, who is offering his advice to all candidates and emphasizes that he does not now have a candidate in the Republican race and will stay neutral throughout the contest for his party’s nomination. “And he is kind of laid-back. But Fred has been successful on a number of fronts.”

… Thompson has not yet decided whether to run, though some of his allies have been sounding out consultants about their availability, should he decide to go forward.

A Thompson run would be a serious, possibly fatal, blow to the prospects of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who hopes to emerge (against either McCain or Giuliani) as the “conservative alternative.” Thompson would be a rival for that role, and the announcement of his candidacy would create at least a temporary boomlet that would eclipse Romney if the former governor had not already increased his standing in key polls.

Thompson’s announcement about whether he will make the race could come at any time, though nothing appears to be imminent. He actually may be better off delaying his entry until around the Iowa Straw Poll in August, bypassing an event that maximizes the importance of organization, which he doesn’t have and probably can’t create in a few months.

Anyway, I’m not dismissing Thompson anymore. Nature abhors a vacuum, and Fred Thompson may well have the ability to fill the one that exists in the GOP contest.”

Meningsmålere mener noget lignende.

Update: En anden London-avis, The Telegraph, har også fået øjnene op for potentialet i Thompson. I en artikel forleden hed det bl.a., at Reagans gamle støtter nu støtter Thompson:

“Ronald Reagan’s closest allies are throwing their weight behind the White House bid by the late president’s fellow actor, Fred Thompson.

The film star and former Republican senator from Tennessee will this week use a speech in the heart of Reagan country, in southern California, to woo party bigwigs in what insiders say is the next step in his coming out as a candidate.

A key figure in the Reagan inner circle has now given his seal of approval to Mr Thompson, best known as a star of the television crime drama Law and Order.

As deputy chief of staff, Michael Deaver was a key member of the “troika” of aides who kept the Reagan White House on track. With the chief of staff James Baker and special assistant Ed Meese, he was the master of image and presentation.

Mr Deaver sees the same raw material in Mr Thompson as was perceived in Ronald Reagan, describing him as someone “that could really make a difference”. He added: “He is very popular in his party. He could change this whole thing and turn this primary system upside down.

“As Ronald Reagan used to say, after he stole a line from Al Jolson, ‘Stay tuned, you ain’t seen nothing yet’.”

… Mr Deaver voiced the view of many Republicans that the current crop of declared candidates is unsatisfactory. Of the front runner, the former New York mayor Rudi Giuliani, he said: “His popularity may be a mile wide and an inch deep. I’m sure that lead will shrink.”

Mr Deaver’s intervention is significant. He is very close to Mr Reagan’s widow, Nancy, and is seen as the keeper of the Reagan flame.

Clark Judge, a White House speechwriter for Mr Reagan, said: “Fred Thompson, like Ronald Reagan, is a man of tremendous substance. There is a sense in the party that none of the candidates is quite ‘it’.”

Mr Reagan, he said, had “embodied the mission of the party – entrepreneurial growth, limited government and a strong national defence. Whoever can bring that mission into this age will be the nominee. And it may be Fred Thompson.” Roger Stone, who was a Reagan campaign strategist, said: “The president Americans want is, in fact, the guy they see on Law and Order: wise, thoughtful, deliberative, confident without the cockiness of George W Bush, urba
ne yet country. Fred Thomp
son communicates all those virtues.”

… Mr Thompson has shown that he recognises the importance of assuming the Reagan mantle. He is on record as saying: “Ronald Reagan believed in something. How much we need that today. He showed what can be done if you have the will to push for tough choices, and the ability to ask the people to accept them.”

Mr Reagan himself, asked whether his training as an actor had prepared him for the presidency, once replied: “I don’t see how any fellow that wasn’t an actor could do this job.”

Americans need not wait for Mr Thompson to win next year’s election to see him in the Oval Office. He plays President Ulysses S Grant in the film, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, which opens next month.”

Update II: Og New York Times har idag en laaaanng og grundlæggende ikke-negativ artikel.

Econ-Edutainment

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 25. april 2007. 2 svar

Jeg fik mig et ret godt grin i går, da jeg via en af vore læseres hjemmesider forvildede mig ind på en video med en kort forelæsning af økonomen Yoram Bauman, Ph.D. (University of Washington), som kalder sig selv “verdens første og eneste ‘stand-up economist'”. Videoen af hans forelæsning, “Mankiw’s Ten Principles of Economics, Translated”, der på nørdet vis tager p.. på Greg Mankiws grundbog (“Principles of Microeconomics”), er her (fra YouTube), og den er faktisk ret sjov–selvom resten af hans hjemmeside afslører, at han vistnok er en politisk aktivist med forsmag for “tree hugging” og rygeforbud, hvilket antyder en vis mangel på morskab.

PS. Min helt, P.J. O’Rourke, er åbenbart en af inspiratorerne.

Så se dog noget "Bullshit!" II

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 24. april 2007. 8 svar
Denne punditokrat har tidligere prøvet at lokke læserne til at se magikerne Penn & Tellers “Bullshit”-serie på TV3+.  Hvis det ikke er lykkedes endnu, så kan jeg kun sige, at man i så fald gik glip af et storslået afsnit i går aftes om “The War on Drugs”.  Jeg er måske personligt mindre overbevist end d’herrer om narkotikas manglende negative effekter, men deres gennemgang af hvilke indgreb i borgernes frihed og andre drastiske og negative konsekvenser narkotikapolitikken indebærer, er ihvertfald svær at argumentere imod.  (Her er et link til YouTube’s tre dele af aftenens afsnit.)

Showet sluttede med en opsummering af programmets punkter i form af en “spoof” på en kendt amerikansk anti-narkotika reklame, men her med Penn, der i en bulldozer repræsenterende staten, kører henover en række æg, hvor hvert af disse er påskrevet en grundlæggende frihedsrettighed, som den amerikanske “Bill of Rights” angiveligt skulle sikre.  Klippet findes her. 

Meget mere frihedsorienteret end dét, bliver dansk TV næppe.

Principfaste kynikere til højre, generøse racister til venstre?

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 23. april 2007. 4 svar

Er amerikanske højreorienterede kyniske og nærige med offentlige midler?  Det ville nogle måske tro.  Men er ditto venstreorienterede nok mere “ekspansive” men samtidigt i virkeligheden mere racistiske?  Hmmm.  Noget kunne tyde på det.

Indenfor de senere år er “laboratorie-eksperimenter” vundet meget frem indenfor samfundsvidenskaberne–især økonomi og politologi mens metoden naturligvis har lange rødder indenfor f.eks. sociologi og psykologi.   Dette blev mest synligt markeret i 2002 med Nobelprisen i økonomi til den gode (noget-mindre-end-minimalstats-)liberalist Vernon Smith, men en anden som ofte laver sjove, eller ihvertfald tankevækkende, eksperimenter er kommunikationsforskeren Shanto Iyengar fra Political Communication Lab på Stanford University.

Iyengar lavede sidste år i samarbejde med The Washington Post/washingtonpost.com et eksperiment i kølvandet på “Hurricane Katrina”, hvor han bad 2.300 deltagende “forsøgskaniner” læse en nyhedsartikel om et menneske, der var blevet ramt af orkanen.  Nogle fik en avishistorie om en “hvid” amerikaner, mens andre fik identiske versioner af historien men hvor personens oprindelse var latin-amerikansk, asiatisk eller afrikansk.  Forsøgspersonerne blev herefter spurgt om, hvor megen hjælp de syntes den nødlidende person skulle have fra det offentlige.  Totalt set ville deltagerne give mindre til “sorte” end til “hvide”:

“[The] study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.

As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered — and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) “Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. “However, their position is ‘principled’ in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues.”

Se, det var jo interessant, al den stund at det går ganske meget kontra den almindelige visdom.

Vi kender ikke Iyengars egen politiske observans, men han kommer fra et af de mest “højreorienterede” universiteter i USA–hvor forskerne indenfor samfundsvidenskab er ca. tre Demokrater/grønne/etc. for hver Republikaner/libertarianer.  Han vil ifølge Washington Post ikke gå så langt som at kalde de venstreorienterede forsøgspersoner for racister:

“I wouldn’t put it quite so starkly,” said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats “less principled” rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected …

Iyengar said he’s not surprised by the latest findings: “This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime” with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. “Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white.”

President Thompson? II

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 3. april 2007. 12 svar

Den amerikanske konservative kommentator Robert Novak (alias “The Prince of Darkness”) er enig med mig & Punditokraterne: D.v.s. Law & Order-skuespilleren, fhv. senator Fred D. Thompson rykker og kan rykke mere:

“I met Fred Thompson in 1974 as Howard Baker’s 31-year-old minority counsel on the Watergate investigation. I considered him cool, careful and conservative. He still is, and that is how he would run for president, which appears in the offing.”

Thompson ligger nu på ca. 10 pct. af stemmerne i meningsmålingsgennemsnittene hos RealClearPolitics. com, og hos Intrade.com handles han til knap 20, hvilket reelt er på niveau med McCain og klart foran alle andre Republikanske kandidater end Giuliani.

Selv den ene af Berlingske Tidendes to USA-korrespondenter er nu blevet opmærksom på Thompson–sådan cirka to uger efter vi skrev om ham her på stedet. Men de har jo også travlt med så meget andet vigtigt og seriøs journalistik.

Ugens citat: Noonan om Reagan og Republikanerne

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 24. marts 2007. 17 svar

Den tidligere taleskriver for Ronald Reagan, for George H.W. Bush og–en gang eller to–for George W. Bush, Peggy Noonan (som jeg er en stor fan af og mange gange har citeret her på stedet), giver i sin faste klumme i dagens Wall Street Journal smæk til de nuværende Republikaneres administration af Reagans parti:

"[This past week's Time magazine cover] had a picture of Ronald Reagan with a tear drawn in, to illustrate a piece on the current Republican Party. Actually it was a good piece in that it suggested a simple truth: The portion of the Republican Party that is based in and lives off the American capital has lost its way. They used to stand for conservative principles and now they stand for–well, whatever it is they stand for. I've written the past few years that the modern Democratic Party has been undone in part by its successes, that it achieved what it worked for in terms of Social Security, the safety net and civil rights, and that a great coalition has now devolved into a mere conglomeration of interest groups. I don't see why Time shouldn't similarly indict the Republicans. I think many of us would agree both parties seem like exhausted little volcanoes, and that they are driven more by hunger than belief.

 The Time story turned the discussion again to Reagan and the shadow he casts, and that's what people are talking about: What would Reagan think, what would Reagan do? So let's posit the obvious. Reagan was great, a one-man hinge of history. He led and encouraged a national effort to rethink the relations of the individual and the federal establishment, to rethink what was owed to and legitimately expected of the state. He increased our security by increasing our strength and removing from the historical stage an evil ideology that had become an evil empire. "The Soviet Union fell." It didn't fall, somebody pushed it.

Here we should stop, for here things become confused. There seems to be a temperamental difference between the two parties regarding their heroes. Democrats are inspired by their greats (FDR, JFK) and spooked by their failures (McGovern, Carter). Republicans ignore their failures (who talks about Hoover?) and are spooked by their greats.

And when you're spooked by someone, or have been beaten by someone, resentment creeps in.

Democrats look back and think Reagan was magic, or rather had some strange and secret magic. The smile, the charm, the humor–that's why he looms! It was Mike Deaver and the balloons! It was his optimism! But Reagan never said he was optimistic. He wasn't "optimistic," he was faithful and practical. He said we could turn around the economy and beat communism. Then we did it. Which left everyone feeling optimistic.

Reagan should be an inspiration for every person in politics who stands for something at a cost and because it is right.

But he should inspire, he shouldn't demoralize. Republicans should stop allowing the media to spook them with his memory. Democrats should stop resenting him and dreaming up new reasons behind his success.

For Republicans especially he should be a reorienting memory. He was modern conservatism. If they are for more government, more spending, a more imposing state, what are they?
For Democrats he should function as a reminder that ideas and philosophy count, that they give politics meaning.

Republicans should take heart from his memory but not be sunk in him or spooked by him. Life moves. Reagan's meaning cannot be forgotten. But where does it get you if it's 1885, and Republicans are pulling their hair out saying, "Oh no, we're not doing well. We could win if only we had a Lincoln, but they shot him 20 years ago!" That's not how serious people talk, and it's not how serious people think. You face the challenges of your time with the brains and guts you have. You can't sit around and say, "Oh what would Lincoln do?" For one thing it is an impractical attitude. Lincolns don't come along every day. What you want to do with the memory of a great man is recognize his greatness, laud it, take succor from it, and keep moving. You can't be transfixed by a memory. Hold it close and take it into the future with you.
…

Doesn't matter what you call yourself, matters who you are. Reagan wasn't magic. He was serious, farsighted and brave about the great issues of his time. Republican candidates could try that. If they did, it would have a secondary benefit. They'd start respecting themselves instead of merely being full of themselves. This would help them stop being spooked."

Til grin for egne penge?

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 22. marts 2007. 22 svar

De af os, som må placeres i den frihedsorienterede ende af det ideologiske spektrum, står nogle gange overfor et besynderligt paradoks, eller ihvertfald et dilemma:  Vi afskyer ineffektivitet og spild i det offentlige–fordi det trods alt er borgernes penge og frihed, det går ud over.  Men hvis vi hjælper til med at gøre det offentlige mere effektivt, så …  Ja, fuldfør selv sætningen og tanken. 

For at udtrykke dilemmaet i Ayn Randske termer: Skal man vælge at være en Hank Rearden, som tror på, at han kan gøre noget godt for sanmfundet (i hans tilfælde ved at være et moralsk og produktivt menneske i en verden, der er gået bananas), eller skal man være en John Galt, der arbejder på at "trække stikket ud" (uanset de kortsigtede konsekvenser)?

Problemet bliver naturligvis kun endnu større for de mange af os, som på den ene eller den anden måde ender i enten det offentlige som ansat eller som aktive i politik–eller for den sags skyld i tænketanke.  Tag f.eks. udliciteringer: Det leder givetvis til en bedre udnyttelse af skattekronerne–men det er så skattekroner, som givetvis bliver brugt på noget andet snarere end skattelettelser (plus det skaber et nyt net af halv-private særinteressegrupper med en asymmetrisk interesse i en ekspansion af det offentlige, eller ihvertfald i at modarbejde en mindskelse).  Eller tag skattevæsenet: Er det bedst, at dét er monstrøst ineffektivt og baseret på uigennemskuelige og arbitrære principper, eller at det er monstrøst effektivt og baseret på gennemskuelige og lidt mindre arbitrære principper?  Skal man foretrække, at éns sagsbehandler i skattevæsenet er en tumpe eller et geni?

Jeg har ikke noget endegyldigt svar på dét dilemma, men vi er ved at være fremme ved dagens emne.  Her kommer nemlig lidt genbrug fra min "Groft Sagt" i dagens Berlingske omhandlende den store, dyre kampagne, som SKAT p.t. kører for at få flere, bedre, højtuddannede medarbejdere, "der vil være med til at opbygge verdens førende skatteforvaltning og sikre en effektiv og retfærdig finansiering af fremtidens offentlige sektor" …:

Dyrt grin

De er nu lige godt nogle finurlige fætre derinde hos det upassende benævnte organ SKAT. De vil ikke bare gerne have nogle flere medarbejdere (og hvem vil ikke altid gerne det?) – nej de vil også vise, at de både har humoren og pengene til at annoncere efter nogle humoristiske medarbejdere. Så kan de få endnu mere gemytlig tant og fjas, for slet ikke at tale om pengene til at finansiere det med.

Vi taler naturligvis om den ganske dyre annoncekampagne med »personlige« annoncer fra SKAT, som i denne tid er svær at undslippe, og hvor man i noget, der skal ligne billet mrk.-rubrikker, søger efter 400 »udadvendte talknusere«, med »mod på samvær med ligesindede« og »udgangspunkt i ærlighed og nationaløkonomi« og »med interesse for store tal. Meget store«. »Foto-svar er ikke et krav«. Jo, jo, selvironien er tyktflydende og sofistikeret. Herfra hæftede vi os dog særligt ved en enkelt formulering, der enten afslører manglende selvironi, eller at der har sneget sig en enkelt lille anarkist ind i skattevæsenet: »Et sundt og afklaret forhold til økonomisk kriminalitet«.

Under alle omstændigheder er det som skatteborger en ganske særlig fornøjelse at se éns skattekroner blive anvendt så kreativt og produktivt – og så endda under en borgerlig-liberal regering. Man får næsten associationer til replikken i filmen »De Grønne Slagtere«, hvor Ole Thestrup beskriver hjortens sørgelige vej fra fritgående vildt til pølse: »Man kan vel nærmest sige, at der er noget mytologisk ved at dræbe et dyr, og så håne det ved at stikke det op i dets egen tarm bagefter«.

Spørg Atilla II

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 20. marts 2007. 4 svar

Vi har tidligere beskrevet de trængsler, som den tyrkiske liberale professor Atilla Yayla har måttet gennemgå, fordi han i vinter kom til at sige politisk ukorrekte ting om “Kemalismen” og Tyrkiets evne til at tilpasse sig vestlige værdier om frihed, konstitutionalisme og markedsøkonomi.  Nu er der lidt nyt i sagen.  Her er en artikel fra den amerikanske Chronicle of Higher Education:

Friday, March 16, 2007

Turkish Professor Faces Charges for Cmments About the Nation’s Founder

By AISHA LABI

Turkish professor faces charges for comments about the nation’s founder.

A professor of politics and political theory at Gazi University, in Ankara, Turkey, was charged on Wednesday with insulting the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the modern Turkish republic.

The charge follows comments made by the professor, Atilla Yayla, during a public panel discussion in November in which he referred to Atatürk as “that man.”

If convicted, the professor could be sentenced to up to three years in prison.

In a telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Yayla said he had spoken at the November gathering, in the coastal city of Izmir, about his view of civilization as a unifying and universal principle, and had questioned official descriptions of modern Turkey’s early, single-party period from 1925 to 1945 as “very progressive.”

He had commented, he said, that according to his research, “the first period is not as progressive as it is claimed to be.”

“‘In what respects?’ I was asked. I said in respect to freedom of opposition, of association, religious freedom, and other freedoms, it was not as progressive as some people have claimed.”

Mr. Yayla courted further controversy with his observation that, especially as Turkey pursues membership in the European Union, the country’s iconographic fixation on Atatürk might seem puzzling. “Europeans will ask us why everywhere there are statues of this man and in every state office we have the same man’s photos,” he told the panel.

A local newspaper billed those comments as traitorous, and the matter gathered steam as national news outlets picked up the story.

Administrators at Gazi University began an investigation of Mr. Yayla, both for the content of his comments in Izmir and for having attended the conference without first seeking permission to travel. “We are required to take permission when we leave Ankara,” Mr. Yayla said, although he explained that such leave is usually sought and granted informally. He did not miss any classes as a result of the weekend trip, he said.

While it investigated, the university temporarily suspended him and cut his salary by one-third.

Aybar Ertepinar, the vice president of the Turkish Council of Higher Education, a government-financed body that oversees the country’s universities, said that while he thought the university’s actions against Mr. Yayla might have been “overdone,” those steps were within the scope of the rector’s authority.

“The rector has the right to suspend a person about whom there is an investigation going on,” Mr. Ertepinar said.

He said he thought Mr. Yayla’s comments had been inappropriate, but added, “I also consider it as his freedom of speech to say what he did.”

As far as the council is concerned, Mr. Ertepinar said, the issue has been resolved. “The university has closed the matter, Professor Yayla is back to his office, teaching and doing research, and academically there is nothing, I believe, following the present situation.”

Mr. Yayla said he still feared that he would lose his job, especially if convicted. He said he has been told his trial is scheduled to begin on April 30.

Turkish prosecutors have pursued similar charges against other writers and academics in recent years and, although those cases have not resulted in prison sentences, they have fueled an atmosphere in which extremist nationalists enjoy disproportionate influence in public discourse.

Ozlem Caglar-Yilmaz is the general coordinator at the Association for Liberal Thinking, a think tank in Ankara that Mr. Yayla helped to found. Ms. Caglar-Yilmaz thinks that Mr. Yayla’s trial could prove an important turning point for Turkey. “There are already many academics who have been severely critical of this era and Atatürk,” she said. If the prosecution fails, she said, popular opinion could follow: “People would feel more free to question this era.”

Jo, jo, Tyrkiet er helt klar til EU …