Higgs Is Just a Pessimist
By Robert Higgs • Wednesday December 16, 2009 8:58 PM PDT • 17 Comments
“Higgs is just a pessimist” — how often I’ve come across expressions of that sentiment during the past twenty-five years! In certain circles, I have become the butt of jokes – some good-natured, some not – by virtue of my alleged pessimism.
Okay, maybe I am somewhat pessimistic. My wife, who is confident that she knows more about me than I know about myself, says so, and I am certainly not going to take issue with someone who possesses superior knowledge. But my reputation as a pessimist stems not from the kind of knowledge that my wife possesses in special measure, but from my writings over the years about the growth of government and related matters.
In this context, I have been rather puzzled by many of the accusations of pessimism, because whereas I have always tried to rest my expectations on my knowledge of what happened in the past and my understanding of why those events occurred, those who dismiss or depreciate my prognostications seem to me to be lapsing into wishful thinking – groundless optimism, if you will.
When my book Crisis and Leviathan was published in 1987, several reviewers took issue with it on the grounds that my forecast – which occupies less than one page at the end of the book – was unduly pessimistic, especially in view of the great transformation that some of them imagined had been wrought by the “Reagan Revolution.” What provoked this bizarre focus on three paragraphs in a book of 372 pages? After disavowing any pretense of knowing the future, I wrote that if human society survives (which is always iffy, given the combination of technological power and moral infirmity), we do know one thing:
We know that other great crises will come. Whether they will be occasioned by foreign wars, economic collapse, or rampant terrorism, no one can predict with assurance. Yet in one form of another, great crises will surely come again, as they have from time to time throughout all human history. When they do, governments almost certainly will gain new powers over economic and social affairs. Everything I have argued and documented in the preceding chapters points toward this conclusion.
For years afterward, I would tell those skeptical of my thesis – people who were convinced that Big Government was gradually being diminished – that the gains in freedom (which, even at the time, I considered to be more than offset by contemporaneous losses) would be swept away overnight at the onset of the next great crisis. When 9/11 occurred, I had occasion to put my views to the test. Was I wrong then? When the current recession came to a head in the financial debacle of September and October 2008, I had another occasion to put my views to the test. Was I wrong then?
I’m not gloating. It’s possible that my views are altogether cockamamey and that the huge spurts of government growth after 9/11 and again after the financial debacle have occurred for reasons that simply appear to validate my views. I don’t think so, however: too many of the details fit my scheme. But consider again the matter I raised at the beginning of this essay: was I right (or apparently right) about these events only because these are bad developments, and such developments always seem to confirm the expectations of ex ante pessimists?
In my years as a basketball player, we used to say after a bad shot fell through the hoop that it’s better to be lucky than good. Have my well-confirmed expectations about the post-crisis events of the past decade been simply lucky, rather than soundly based?
In my work on the growth of government over the past three decades, I have always rested my conclusions on a combination of facts and theory. I may be wrong about the facts, although those who have disputed my views have not so much claimed that I got the facts wrong as that I misinterpreted them or that I committed sins of omission. I may also be wrong about the theory, but my theoretical views have seemingly proved their mettle in a variety of applications, in their details and their broad contours, and in one historical episode after another in the modern (post-Progressive) ideological era. In sum, I don’t believe that my views on the evolution of the U.S. politico-economic order ever did, or now do, simply express my psychological tendency toward pessimism.
So, it has always irritated me when my arguments were dismissed or depreciated on the grounds that “Higgs is just a pessimist.” Such a reaction strikes me as a sort of ad hominem fallacy. You might as well say that Higgs is wrong about the growth of government because he’s a jackass (a trait I am neither confirming nor denying).
This past week, however, we have seen President Barack Obama awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and seen him use the occasion to present the same-old-same-old pseudo-justifications for enlarging the foolish war in Afghanistan and for perpetuating global U.S. hegemony. As if that shameful travesty were not more than enough insult added to our injuries, we have seen Ben Bernanke named Time magazine’s person of the year, in the wake of the Fed’s having placed the U.S. economy in the kind of jeopardy that it has not suffered since World War II. If you wanted to invent news items to illustrate the black absurdity of our political and ideological situation, you could not have come up with nastier ones.
These sorts of events rarely come as a surprise to me, however: they fit nicely into the analytical narratives I’ve been writing for decades about where the country is heading and why. But, as always, I may be wrong. So, to keep up your spirits, I recommend that you ask some well-established experts what they think. Chances are that they will reassure you. After all, as everybody knows, Higgs is just a pessimist.
If you’re black, the past two centuries have seen an enormous increase in your liberty. If you’re female, the past century has seen an enormous increase in your liberty. If you’re gay, the past half century has seen an enormous increase in your liberty. Even more recently? What if you’re an Eastern European, or a Southeast Asian?
Abominations such as chattel slavery, human sacrifice, and torture were once openly practiced and considered downright normal by the average person. Yes, they still occur occasionally, but must be covered up, and it is an open question whether the recent disgraces involving, for instance, torture, represent a trend or the much freer flow of information in the world.
In the 1940s, over 100,000 Americans were rounded up and sent to concentration camps with nary a protest. Now, such action against a much smaller number of foreigners IS protested. That is progress (yes, not enough). Conscription? Inevitable then and unthinkable now.
I love reading Bob Higgs: his history is interesting, informative, and wonderfully sourced: quality and integrity is evident throughout. But is it not possible that devoting a lifetime to the study of government might cause someone to see the world only in terms of the big events (which are almost always negative events), overlooking all of the quiet, incremental improvements that are occurring every second of every day whenever any two people are engaged in a voluntary transaction?
There is no doubt that government has slowed the progress of society and the advance of peace, prosperity, and fredom, and sometimes reversed it temporarily. But our ability to equate the admitted travesty of recent government behavior with the days of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, or Lincoln and Wilson, for that matter, is a triumph of imagination rather than logic. What Bush got away with pales in comparison to what Wilson got away with, with even less of a real threat to the US then than now. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is no more absurd than Teddy Roosevelt’s. Today’s practice of torture no more pervasive than during the War in the Philippines.
Adam Smith saw no chance of free trade being adopted as a policy in his country, a half century before it was, partially as a result of Smith’s own brilliant writings. Personally, I suspect Bob Higgs will have a similar fate. So be a pessimist if you will, Bob, but please keep on writing as if what you’re saying might improve the future. Because I think it will. And know that we love you nearly as much as your wife does.
Even though you’re such a damn pessimist.
Less Antman | Dec 17, 2009 | Reply
Pessimistic or prescient? “Peace Prize” to a Commander in Chief who expands war....Orwell was right as well...
Greg Farrington | Dec 17, 2009 | Reply
Dr. Higgs:
Your pessimism, or whatever it is, is well warranted. I started reading your work (Crisis and Leviathan; Against Leviathan) about six months ago. I’m not an economist (my bailywick being theology), but I have a pretty keen eye for observation. There’s a saying out here in the heartland about something that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck is in all likelihood a duck. I’m not sure if a duck is a perfect metaphor or simile for leviathan, but it’s close enough as far as I’m concerned.
I started my journey as a skeptic. I can’t say that I’m a true believer now, but I’ve come many a mile down the road.
Here in conservative Kansas, where common sense (whatever that means) is supposed to reign supreme, everyone is re-hashing the talk about throwing the rascals out and voting the right people into office (whatever that means). In my conversations with them I try to remind them that at this time of the year those of us who are so disposed should be casting our thoughts to baby Jesus. They tell me I can continue to cling to fables if I like, but they will continue to live in the real world of the ballot box and the politician who will “set things right.”
I’ve come to the conclusion that my “fable” is the one thing that actually makes sense.
As I said, I’m still thinking your work through. If it’s any comfort to you, I’m every bit as pessimistic as you and intend to remain that way. Not that I don’t harbor hopes, mind you. The Parousia comes to mind, but, thankfully, I can’t make that happen any more than my votes can make Leviathan relent. About the best I can do is to live my live peacefully as Holy Writ admonishes me to do and resist the urge to do the things the politicians tell me I should.
Maranatha!
Phil Dillon
Emporia, Kansas
Phil Dillon | Dec 17, 2009 | Reply
>> “Yet in one form of another, great crises will surely come again, as they have from time to time throughout all human history. When they do, governments almost certainly will gain new powers over economic and social affairs.”
Bingo! ;-)
Speedmaster | Dec 17, 2009 | Reply
Robert,
Consider this: “The only thing worse than being wrong is being right and no one is listening.”
***********
Being the pessimist that you might be, you are too shrewd and vigilant not to know that there are people all over the world that are in your corner of the ring. From this reader’s view you are an invigorating beam of light. Truth does best in light. Pessimists are far closer to “reality” (truth) than the optimist. Heed: stay a pessimist and hammer till the truth appears! You have an army of people that reside quietly, appreciating your talents. Remember this:
Ne Molesti Te Deprimant,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +2:00 CET
Capt. A. | Dec 17, 2009 | Reply
Higgs in not JUST a pessimist- he is not even a pessimist, and he is not an optimist. I would say he is a realist.
richard smith | Dec 17, 2009 | Reply
Trouble is, time and time again, research shows that the pessimists are more realistic. Optimists are burying their heads in sand!
safariman | Dec 17, 2009 | Reply
Dear Dr. Higgs,
The premise of Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” has long been ridiculed as far-fetched. Recently, Amity Shlaes wrote an article for a San Diego newspaper dedicated to “Road to Serfdom”, basically summing up how Hayek’s thesis has not come true. Although your own thesis is not exactly the same as Dr. Hayek’s, they are nevertheless similar. They both suggest that over the long-run government grows.
One of the “weaknesses”, at least as far as persuasiveness goes, is the fact that the United States has remained relatively free, despite around two hundred years of history. Even despite the massive growth of government during the American Civil War, the rise of the Progressives during the early 20th century, the fascism of the New Deal and the rise of the military-industrial public-private complex, we remain a society that is freer than many others with much less history behind them.
The “weakness” is only that you did not pretend to establish a time line, and so people who expect your thesis to become immediately true are turned down. We both know that establishing any sort of a time line is impossible and dishonest, but most people have not come to accept this truth. I think that over the long-run your thesis has proven, and will continue to prove, to be true.
That said, what do you believe factors in regards to the relatively slow pace of the growth of government since the early 1900s. That is, perhaps intervention in the economy has grown, but socially we remain relatively free. Despite the despotism of FDR, we have yet to have a Hitler or Franco. Why do you think this has been?
P.S. Writing this, I feel insufficient because all the literature that I’ve read of yours, Crisis and Leviathan is not included. I will definitely correct this mistake in the near future.
Jonathan Finegold Catalán | Dec 17, 2009 | Reply
I was taught 2 + 2 = 4. Seems to me Higgs is using the same arithmetic, only applied to a social science. IF that makes us pessimists, so be it. The risk is cynicism. My thoughts and opinions are shaped by world events and structures: I wasn’t born a skeptic. I see no cynicism in Higgs’s writings, but rather very careful reasoning of the steps that can lead us to yet another crisis.
alzurzin | Dec 17, 2009 | Reply
Pessimistic crotchety curmudgeon ;)
If Bob were in Las Vegas he would be the house, because when it comes to predicting the future outcomes of anything to do with our bloated governmental structure and it’s self serving servants, pessimism is a sure bet.
By the way Bob, a signed copy of Crisis and Leviathan would make a nice Christmas present...just sayin.
Michael Hunley | Dec 17, 2009 | Reply
Less,
You are right in that, in terms of rights under the law, blacks and women have come a long way over the last couple hundred years. But consider this: government has generally succeeded in eliminating overt discrimination on the basis of gender and race, but it has by no means solved the more fundamental problem, the exploitation by those in power of those who have less political power. Only the politically weak are no longer organized by race or gender. Here is a good example: Among the weak are the young and unborn who have been stolen from relentlessly (and on an accelerated basis) and for whom the bill is rapidly coming due. This bill will manifest itself in reduced career opportunities and a lower standard of living for generations to come. In other words, it is still a bit premature to raise the “Mission Accomplished” banner.
D. Saul Weiner | Dec 20, 2009 | Reply
To all the people here who say things like, “The state has grown, but we’re actually more free”, you are missing the point. The government tomorrow could begin sending a decent number of people to concentration camps, start conscripting people, start abducting and torturing more people including American citizens, start disarming citizens, and Heaven forbid start taxing away half its citizens’ produce.
It is a question of power. The government is too powerful to face significant resistance, even if its actions are clearly unconscionable.
We do not live as we choose because we are free but because our master is temporarily docile. It only acts marginally because it enjoys the system as is. Most of its actions are lip service and obfuscation, not attempts to legitimately change the way things are operating.
Just because the nuke in the basement hasn’t blown up recently doesn’t mean it is impotent and can be simply ignored.
If you can think of something you should be legitimately free to pursue but what cause a conflict with the government which you can’t overcome, you are not free. This includes keeping what you earn, practicing business without a license, etc.
bob | Dec 21, 2009 | Reply
If one expected the evolution of society in America, or anywhere else for that matter, into one that fits the imagination of the Anarcho-libertarian, it is perhaps best to be a pessimist: someone who subscribes to “the doctrine that reality is essentially evil” or “that evil overbalances happiness in life” or someone with “an inclination to emphasize adverse aspects, conditions, and possibilities or to expect the worst possible outcome” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary). But as Less Antman has pointed out above, life has gotten better over the years and centuries both materially and in terms of individual freedoms. Compare marginal tax rates in the U.S. now to what they were during the 1960s, for example. Sure enough, when crises arise the role of government in society will tend to get stronger. Politicians respond to people’s fears and the urge to be taken care of or to be “protected.”
However, to live a pessimist is to live without hope. Hope that people are capable of learning anything new. Hope that research documenting the path to past errors in policymaking would help to inform people about how to avoid them. I consider such an inclination a rather sad state of being. I don’t think realism demands it. Indeed, history also shows that reversals of government power are possible.
I wouldn’t engage in research and teaching if I were a pessimist. What would be the point? Institutions like the Independent Institute also might as well close shop!
James Ahiakpor | Dec 22, 2009 | Reply
If one expected the evolution of society in America, or anywhere else for that matter, into one that fits the imagination of the Anarcho-libertarian, it is perhaps best to be a pessimist: someone who subscribes to “the doctrine that reality is essentially evil” or “that evil overbalances happiness in life” or someone with “an inclination to emphasize adverse aspects, conditions, and possibilities or to expect the worst possible outcome” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary). But as Less Antman has pointed out above, life has gotten better over the years and centuries both materially and in terms of individual freedoms. Compare marginal tax rates in the U.S. now to what they were during the 1960s, for example. Sure enough, when crises arise the role of government in society will tend to get stronger. Politicians respond to people’s fears and the urge to be taken care of or to be “protected.”
However, to live a pessimist is to live without hope. Hope that people are capable of learning anything new. Hope that research documenting the path to past errors in policymaking would help to inform people about how to avoid them. I consider such an inclination a rather sad state of being. I don’t think realism demands it. Indeed, history also shows that reversals of government power are possible.
I wouldn’t engage in research and teaching if I were a pessimist. What would be the point? Institutions like the Independent Institute also might as well close shop!
James Ahiakpor | Dec 22, 2009 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
Sometimes being correct is a real burden. After reading “Against Leviathan,” I’m afraid it’s a burden that you will have to bear, regardless of how “pessimistic” other less astute minds may find your views to be.
shill | Dec 23, 2009 | Reply