harvard

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: It's time for the Right to become smarter in places where we're typically uncomfortable.

Hat tip to Jon Henke who tweeted this post from Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute:

I don’t know whether this belongs in the comic-relief category or the future-threats category, but the Harvard Law School is having a conference to analyze the “free market mindset.” The basic premise of the conference seems to be that people who believe in limited government are psychologically troubled.

The conference schedule features presentations such as “How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community” and “Addicted to Incentives: How the Ideology of Self Interest Can Be Self-Fulfilling.” The most absurd presentation, though, may be the one entitled, “Colossal Failure: The Output Bias of Market Economies.” According to the description, the author argues that the market “delivers excessive levels of consumption.” Damn those entrepreneurs for creating so much wealth!

I came out of Harvard with an undergraduate and graduate degree. This is one of the few times where I was shocked and not surprised at the same time when I read the introduction to this conference:

What is it about free markets that proves - and still continues to prove - so alluring to economists, scholars, and policy-makers alike?

The March 7 conference to take place at Harvard Law School, brings together leading scholars in law, economics, social psychology, and social cognition to present and discuss their research regarding the historical origins, psychological antecedents, and policy consequences of the free market mindset. Their work illustrates that the magic of the marketplace is partially an illusion based on faulty assumptions and outmoded approaches.

Fortunately, there are a few folks at Harvard, like economics professor Robert Barro, who keep people honest. Here's what he says in a recent Tax Foundation podcast:

The economy did very well for the next several years after the tax cuts of 2003. And it's very unfair that Obama has blamed that program for part of the current financial collapse. There's really no linkage between the tax rate cutting program of 2003 and the financial and housing collapse we've seen in recent months.

Yes, the concept of this conference at Harvard Law School is crazy. But there's a larger point to be made here. On this blog, we've talked a lot about the way forward for conservatives and the GOP. When it comes to elections, the argument has been made that we have to reach out to new places (places that we have ignored) to grow our base and communicate a new conservative message: urban areas, African-American churches, ethnic community meetings, etc. When it comes to public policy, the argument has been made that we need use principles of old to come up with new solutions for new times and new crises.

The point is that we must argue for our free market principles and new solutions in places where we feel most uncomfortable: i.e. the academic arena. We can't be afraid of taking on the liberal supermajority in academia, nor should we be afraid of trying to cultivate conservative intellectuals at colleges and universities. It isn't enough to have think tanks that act as safe havens of intellectual freedom for conservatives. And sure, we need to find creative ways to explain the complexities of the free market. The fact is that (1) more conservatives need to welcome intellectual thought and debate, and (2) more conservatives need to take the fight to the academic world. The Right needs to make itself relevant in places where it is currently seen as irrelevant, instead of sticking to places where we feel comfortable.

Oddly enough, I say this on the eve of the biggest kumbaya/"singing to the choir event" for the Right: CPAC.

Is our country more concerned about change, or trust?  

One might conclude that with McCain's recent insurgence in the polls, he is winning the change game.  Yet, are the voters who have moved to McCain -- since the choosing of Sarah Palin for VP -- convinced that he will bring about more change?  

Or do they like the air of authenticity that the ticket embodies vs. the urban, blue-blood, highly polished, Washington-insider ticket of Obama-Biden? 



I propose that voters' "change"-ing opinions of John McCain have to do with the likeability of Sarah Palin.  Her small town values and family life, and a "you go girl!" response to her mastery of unexpected challenges, win over voters.  Not just because she's a woman, but also because she's not an Ivy-league educated CEO or lawyer from the glamorous regions of America.

The undecided Midwest -- suburban and rural -- voters can trust Sarah Palin (she's real), and thus trust McCain by association. 



Compare the McCain-Palin ticket then to the Obama-Biden ticket.  The majority of American voters are likely to gravitate towards the service to country ideals more closely aligned with the Midwest and West, the ideals summed up in the "Country First" theme recently touted by the McCain campaign.  
Compare that to the lack of understanding, and even fear, that most Americans feel towards the self-serving inner-city and inner-Congress wheeling and dealing associated with the Northeast and big cities.  



Simply, McCain is from Arizona and Palin is from Alaska; Barack Obama is from Chicago, Illinois and Joe Biden is from Delaware.  McCain began his adulthood by risking his life many times for the security of our country.  Obama began his career in Harvard Law School and then spent a few years as a "community organizer;" he's on his way to career politician-hood. 

Palin did not attain political success due to overt political ambition.  She had pure intentions of serving her family and community, and then her town and her State. She is a "real" person.  Biden, by comparison, has spent nearly his entire adulthood as a member of the most exclusive club in the nation: the U.S. Senate.

Fair or not, the perceptions Americans have of the two presidential tickets are accurate ...  because they are the perceptions of the two presidential tickets. 

With trust in government at an all-time low, which bona fides are more Americans inclined to place their faith in?   



I’ve heard time and again from women regarding McCain's pick of Palin that it's quite "presumptuous" of McCain to count on women to “vote for Palin just because she's a woman."

Ok. So these women, from metropolitan areas outside Washington, DC, Chicago, Houston, Boston and Los Angeles don't need to vote for her.  Most of them wouldn’t have voted for McCain anyway.

Yet, if women, and men (yes, they like her too!), from the Midwest and West are more enthusiastic about McCain, and if they turn out rather than sit out, it’s all over. Make room for McCain-Palin in the White House. 

...and eat arugula because spinach prices are too high.

Proving that the dumbest people you've ever met holds a Harvard degree, Obama's latest flight of fancy to Elitistland came today from Missouri.

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.""

I wish this site came with a Dumb Obama smiley.  He actually made the connection that just by inflating your tires, you won't need to drill.  Nevermind that he provides no data to back that up, but he belittled our energy problems.  McCain campaign, fire up the Youtube, you got another ad coming.