Skip to main content

Andrew Sullivan's Fantasy World

  • Author:
  • Updated:

By Ben Cohen

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Andrew Sullivan. His blog
'The Daily Dish' is perhaps the finest one man show online, and he has
contributed significantly to making blogging a respectable profession.

Sullivan's writing is beautifully clear, passionate and painfully
honest, and one day, I'd like to be able to write like him. His
perspective as a British, gay, conservative in America makes him one of
the most interesting talking heads around, and I for one, could not go
a day without reading him.

Sullivan's stern shift away from Bush Republicans has given him a
home amongst liberals, but his brand of libertarian republicanism is
far from the progressive thinking found on pages like these.

Last Friday on 'Real Time' with Bill Maher, Sullivan stated
emphatically (and rather loudly over Naomi Klein) that the current
crisis on Wall St "Does not validate Noam Chomsky, this validates Ron
Paul'. Sullivan bared his oft concealed bullying Republican fangs,
trashing the 'big government' liberal guests and claiming victory of
his traditional conservative views. On his blog on Monday, Sullivan
posted a youtube clip of Ron Paul titled 'Ron Paul was right', saying
'I've never been prouder that I endorsed the only truth teller in this
circus of lies'.

Sullivan's argument (and Ron Paul's for that matter) was as follows:
The general population is responsible for the crisis on Wall Street.
They took loans they could not afford to pay back to compensate for
declining wages from the 1970s onwards. 'No one is ever forced to take
out a loan they cannot repay,' stated Sullivan "If we actually had
capitalism.... If we actually had fiscal conservatism, none of this
would have happened."

According to Sullivan, small government, free markets and personal
responsibility are the keys to economic growth and prosperity, and
neither the current incarnation of the Republicans or Democrats
understand this. Markets function well by themselves, and the less
government has to do with them, the better.

Sullivan's Friedmanesque world view is interesting, and his critique
of the bastardized corporate socialism espoused by the Bush
Administration is right on the money. But the free market conservatism
he believes in works only in a fantasy world that has never, and will
never exist.

Naomi Klein, author of the brilliant 'Shock Doctrine' attempted to
set Sullivan straight, likening his views to idealists on the extreme
left. 'Where is this ideal capitalism of which you speak?' she asked.
But Sullivan was having none of it, asserting as fact that capitalism
was the best way to create economic growth ever discovered.

The problem is, capitalism in its raw form (a la Milton Friedman) is
a totally mythological creature that has nothing to do with practical
economics. The history of western economic growth is predominantly that
of massive protectionism, central planning and government spending. As
Cambridge professor Ha Joon Chang writes:

Most of today's rich countries deployed tariff protection
for extended periods in order to promote their infant industries. Many
of them also actively used government subsidies and public enterprises
to promote new industries. Japan and many European countries have given
numerous subsidies to strategic industries. The US has publicly
financed the highest share of research and development in the world.
Singapore, despite its free-market image, has one of the largest public
enterprise sectors in the world, producing around 30 per cent of the
national income. Public enterprises were also crucial in France,
Finland, Austria, Norway, and Taiwan.

One of the biggest protectionists
in U.S history was Ronald Reagan, the so called champion of free market
economics. In 1984, White House Chief of Staff, James Baker, bragged
that Reagan had 'imposed more import relief than any president since
Herbert Hoover.'

It is the dirty secret that small government conservatives refuse to accept.

In an ideal world, I too am a small government, fiscal conservative.
I believe a mammoth state intervening in people's lives and businesses
can be harmful, immoral and counter productive. But we live in a highly
industrialized modern nation with hundreds of millions of people
reliant on infrastructure and efficient planning. Without government,
this falls apart (as we have seen under Bush), and therefore I regard
myself practically as a big government liberal. We need a state, and we
need it to work properly.

The argument as I see it, comes down to how resources are
distributed by the state. Sullivan believes the state should not
penalize the rich and tax away their money. I believe that most people
with enormous wealth got that way with a great deal of help from the
government, and should pay more tax out of gratitude and patriotism. Bailouts are common
in U.S corporate history, and most profitable industries have been
nurtured by the state at some point in time. Take the internet for
example, a project funded largely by the tax payer, on which Sullivan makes a very nice living.

Perhaps he should think about that before railing against
redistributive government policies, as in his alternative universe,
'The Daily Dish' would probably not exist. And that would be a world
not worth living in.