Ten Fallacious Conclusions in the Dominant Ideology’s Political Economy
By Robert Higgs • Saturday July 28, 2012 9:56 AM PDT • 12 Comments
The dominant ideology does much to shape people’s views about what is happening in social affairs, why it is happening, and what if anything ought to be done about it. Ideology exerts its force in large part through what we might call its power of predisposition, that is, its default conclusions that, on examination, amount to little more than leaps of faith.
For the past century in the United States of America, the dominant ideology has been progressivism. This belief system has not been static, of course, and its specific elements, emphases, and outlooks have changed substantially since the early twentieth century. For example, whereas the early progressives were generally racist, hard imperialist, and eugenicist, today’s are generally multiculturalist, soft imperialist, and more inclined to favor killing off the human race (to save the environment) than to improve it by eliminating the biologically “inferior” people. Nevertheless, through all its emotional and intellectual ups and downs, progressivism has retained one central element: its abiding faith that the state can and should act vigorously on as many fronts as possible to improve society both here and abroad.
An economist notes in particular that progressive ideology now embraces the following default conclusions:
- If a social or economic problem seems to exist, the state should impose regulation to remedy it.
- If regulation has already been imposed, it should be made more expansive and severe.
- If an economic recession occurs, the state should adopt “stimulus” programs by actively employing the state’s fiscal and monetary powers.
- If the recession persists despite the state’s adoption of “stimulus” programs, the state should increase the size of these programs.
- If long-term economic growth seems to be too slow to satisfy powerful people’s standard of performance, the state should intervene to accelerate the rate of growth by making “investments” in infrastructure, health, education, and technological advance.
- If the state was already making such “investments,” it should make even more of them.
- Taxes on “the rich” should be increased during a recession, to reduce the government’s budget deficit.
- Taxes on “the rich” should also be increased during a business expansion, to ensure that they pay their “fair share” (that is, the great bulk) of total taxes and to reduce the government’s budget deficit.
- If progressives perceive a “market failure” of any kind, the state should intervene in whatever way promises to create Nirvana.
- If Nirvana has not resulted from past and current interventions, the state should increase its intervention until Nirvana is reached.
The foregoing progressive predispositions, and others too numerous to state here, provide the foundation on which the state justifies its current actions and its proposals for acting even more expansively. Progressives see no situation in which the best course of action requires that the government retrench or admit that it can do nothing constructive to help matters. They see the state as well-intentioned, sufficiently capable, and properly motivated to fix any social and economic problem whatsoever if only the public allows it to do so and bears the costs.
It follows that progressives desire a change in the state’s size, scope, and power in only one direction, regardless of past and present conditions and regardless of whether previous attempts to implement progressive panaceas have succeeded or failed—indeed, if honestly assessed, virtually all of them have failed, on balance. Progressive faith in the state, however, springs eternal.
It is a great misfortune for modern Western countries, and many others as well, that serious challenges to this currently dominant ideology do not exist. The political parties compete for office, each seeking to direct more of the state’s plunder to its supporters, but the ideological differences between the competing parties is almost entirely superficial. All politically potent parties believe in a powerful, pervasively engaged state. They differ only in regard to which specific individuals should steer the Leviathan.
Tags: Economics, Liberty, Politics, Regulation, The State 
I wonder what has to happen for people to change their biases? We’ve certainly been here before with Monarchy — what changed then?
A Country Farmer | Jul 28, 2012 | Reply
Interesting scenario. Two things. 1.Economic: What happens when the money runs out? When the money becomes worthless because of inflation? When the shelves are empty in the stores because of shortages? When taxes dry up because the “rich” have been looted or stopped producing or just moved off shore? When the nation’s treasury pays what taxes they do collect just on paying off debt. What is happening in the West is the recreation of the old Soviet Union. What will also happen in the West is the recreation of a Soviet style economic police state. Its inevitable. Its happening while we speak. 2nd. In the end,Progressive and socialist ideology is all about power. Obtaining power and keeping power,by whatever means. In the end it will lead to either revolution or a stack of corpses. Probably both.
libertarian jerry | Jul 28, 2012 | Reply
Yeah – it’s time to scrap the system and start over.
Alter or abolish... we’re beyond the ability to alter the system to bring it back within the folds of the constitutional limits. It’s time to cut the head off the beast, and create a new God that will turn into another devil in a few hundred years.
It’s been more than a few generations since the blood of tyrants has been spilled to ensure liberty for those oppressed. And while I believe we may have mentally transcended the need for bloodshed, I fear that emotionally, many have not.
Mike Pohlable | Jul 29, 2012 | Reply
You also left out Ron Paul the only person running against the system.
He has his faults, as all people do, but he’s the only person available that’s in governmental office – willing to run for the office of president – that can, and does, speak out and have people listen.
Not enough, but some. And I can only hope that this is his legacy.
Mike Pohlable | Jul 29, 2012 | Reply
An American revolution will never happen. People are not willing to risk what the founders did. But there is a way to revolutionize our government. Its very simple actually. VOTE.
Until people quit voting for the “least of two evils”, our situation will never change. Its time for people to quit being driven by short term profits and return to being driven by the desire to live free. “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”–B. Franklin
pdxxjjeep | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
I DO find it funny when someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum starts out by assigning their OWN definition to the opposition. BTW, I find it equally humorous regardless of which side it comes from. Labels (especially those of a political nature), whether those of Party OR philosophy, are pretty much useless over time. Example: the “liberals” of the 60s, still recalling the McCarthy “witch-hunts” of the 50s, made “Free Speech” a basic tenet. Fast Forward to today, and instead of Free Speech, you have Politically Correct as the mantra. By the same token, at 1 time it was the “conservatives” that cared about conservation, unlike today.
“more inclined to favor killing off the human race (to save the environment)”? PLEASE!!! Give me a BREAK
Scott | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
While I agree with the identification of the listed fallacies, simply citing “an economist” as the source is insufficient. Who provided the list, and have the provided refutations for each one?
Michael Chance | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
Brilliant, Professor!
I have printed off your list and will try and learn it off by heart to quote to all those (and there are many of them this side of the pond) ‘Progressives’ when appropriate.
John Harrison | Jul 31, 2012 | Reply
That is indeed the $64 Trillion question (and rising). Sadly, I know of NO one who knows the answer, myself included. It’s not as if the right philosophy doesn’t exist or that we lack answers to important questions. But how to get [the majority? the influencers? X?] to look at them and agree those answers are correct and should be implemented is anybody’s guess.
It’s relatively easy to say what went wrong. It has (so far) proved impossible to figure out how to fix it.
Jeff Perren | Jul 31, 2012 | Reply
Sorry for the lack of context. My comment was in response to A Country Farmer, but the Reply function apparently doesn’t thread replies.
Jeff Perren | Jul 31, 2012 | Reply
Mike Pohlable,
Ron Paul is running against “the system” on the platform of preserving the foundation of the evil system itself.
pdxxjjeep, did Ben Franklin trade liberty for security?
Paul Trombley | Aug 1, 2012 | Reply