Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com

Frequently in economics, the views of a specific theorist are exploited for the interests of various political factions. The most salient examples are economic theorists are labeled as “free market” economists. Conservatives generally celebrate Adam Smith as a defender of unfettered commerce but conveniently ignore his concern for the blight of the poor. Smith was too multidimensional to be distilled to a simplistic bumper sticker slogan. The great F.A, Hayek suffered from a similar syndrome as many Conservative and Libertarian pundits disregard the nuances of his work and paint him as radical. However, there are also instances of the intellectual advances of various theorists being embellished by their opponents for partisan purposes. For example, the moderate and subtle rationalizations of James M. Buchanan are characterized as extreme libertarianism. Nancy Maclean is unacquainted[1] with the work of Murray Rothbard!

The inaccurate framing of economic theory for political interests is not limited to right-of-center economists. Many left-wingers exaggerate the beliefs and postulations of their favored economists, the most conspicuous example being the abuse of John Maynard Keynes [2]. Yes, in the eyes of most Conservatives and Libertarians, Keynes had a flawed perception of market processes. Although, he was not communist. Keynes still had some semblance of a pragmatic filter, which placed constraints on his sanguine view of consumption. Keynes did believe that after the end of an economic downturn, deficits should be eliminated. Therefore, Keynes did not advocate for a policy of perpetual deficit spending, most likely would take issue with the massive debts amassed by the United States over the past couple of decades.

It wouldn’t be outlandish to examine the embellishment of Keynesian economics for political gain from the precepts of Bruce Yandle’s Bootleggers and Baptists (1983) coalition paradigm. A political relationship between various factions of policy advocates where some supports sincerely believe in the normative intention of the policy (the Baptists). In contrast, the tacit beneficiaries (the Bootleggers) merely ride the coattails of the moralistic advocates (either silently or vocally alongside the Baptists). The support for various stimulus policies would have its share of Bootleggers and Baptists to defend “stimulus spending”. The most recent examples are the Obama-era stimulus programs (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) and multiple rounds of COVID stimulus allocations. Often, Keynesianism is justified when it becomes politically suitable to do so. The most recent examples of economic stimulus initiatives exemplify this point quite well. This observation becomes more striking when you consider that the convergence of our monetary and fiscal policy has amounted to a hand-selected bastard-breed mutation [3] of Keynesian economics and Monetarism. The conception of this flawed system is being spurred by policymakers trying to select the most politically advantageous characteristics of both economic philosophies.

We could consider the founder of Keynesian economics the Baptist of stimulus spending policies. As Keynes envisioned stimulus spending as being a temporary remedy amid an economic downturn. Despite his good intentions, Keynes failed to recognize the political incentives to politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats, activists, and even ordinary voters; factors that only serve to reinforce one of Milton Friedman’s most enduring dictums “There is nothing more permanent than a government program”. While stimulus initiatives come and go, policymakers still keep implementing them as a remedy to soothe economic turmoil. Stimulus policies were adopted with little regard for the implied discipline advocated for by Keynes. After all, he was still an economist and was not ignorant of the discipline’s conceptual pillars. Stimulus spending is an unsound policy, but he never intended for it to be at the regular disposal of politicians and lawmakers. Dating back to the observations of Niccolò Machiavelli, politics is a game of perception, not one of technical proficiency. Conversely, economics is ideally a positive social science unconcerned with popular opinion.

Moral values always enter the equation whenever we enter the realm of actual decision-making, even in economic decision-making. Unfortunately, the line between economic science and public perception is often blurred, especially by the adroit manipulation of politically savvy elected officials, activists, lawmakers, and activists. Promising ever-larger transfer of “free” goods and services to the voting public. Applying the principles of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, voters believe they have made out like bandits. Thereby, forming a mutually beneficial feedback loop of voters believing they have won and political actors presented in a positive light; as being defenders of the common man. Elected officials portrayed as advocates for the “little guy” helps establish social currency with the voting public. Social currency dovetails nicely with a politician’s incentive to remain in their position of political power.

Foot Notes:

  1. Maclean is aware of Rothbard’s work to a superficial extent, but if she sincerely understood his work, she would not be portraying Buchanan as a radical.
  2. The author is not an exponent of Keynesian economics.
  3. Despite the intense debate between Keynesians and Monetarists, both have their commonalities.

16 thoughts on “Bootleggers and Baptists: XLIX- Keynesianism, Stimulus, and Political Manipulation

        1. Trust me ,I am no friend of Keynesianism. However, that is an interesting collection of essays. How many collections include contributions of Mises and Arthur Burns in the same volume? I would assume not too many. There’s a couple that certainly looking looking intriguing; since the Mises institute publishes under the Creative Commons it will be free!

          Thanks for the link! Any essays you personally recommend?

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Thanks for understanding. I listened to the below podcast link during this past week; it discusses various IP rights related to NFTs (Non-fungible Tokens) in the crypto space.

          I apologize for throwing more content at you, but many of these NFT collections have some interesting IP models.

          Liked by 1 person

  1. My default feelings towards the proposals of most politicians are those of suspicion and distrust. But that’s because I’ve discovered a smoke screen where others think they’ve found a wall. The manipulative machinery of lofty rhetoric, emotional appeals, and disguised intentions. It’s Plato’s allegory of the cave ; that is, can you free yourself from the enslaving force of illusions? It’s the “preacher’s” residual message in the book of Ecclesiastes : “vanity of vanities, all is vanity!”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree with your observations. Political messaging is analogous to interacting with a salesman; except political actors are trying to sell you on ideas and decisions.

      Taking Enrique’s points into consideration, perphaps I was being too charitable by giving Keynes the benefit-of-the-doubt. One thing that is above debate is that political actors have utilized Keynesian economics as a means to their own aspirations. There are probably are pundits that sincerely believe in the effectiveness of stimulus policies; but there are plenty of ticks and leeches along for the ride.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Great points! I like the salesman analogy.

        Perhaps contrary to Enrique, I enjoy when you are charitable towards thinkers you disagree with. It seems to add another layer of intellectual honesty to your work.

        And I understand the position of the earnest defender, but what puzzles me is the motivation(s) of the “ticks and leeches.”

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Got it!

    Also, I wanted to correct something I commented earlier :

    “Perhaps contrary to Enrique, I enjoy when you are charitable towards thinkers you disagree with. It seems to add another layer of —> credibility <— to your work.”

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.