David Brooks rousts me from my Sunday torpor
In the past 24 hours I had to go from presenting a paper at the inaugural meeting of the International Political Economy Society to spending the night with my son at his Cub Scout campout. In other words, I’m wiped. So I ordinarily wouldn’t bother to blog today… until I saw David Brooks’ column devoted ...
In the past 24 hours I had to go from presenting a paper at the inaugural meeting of the International Political Economy Society to spending the night with my son at his Cub Scout campout. In other words, I'm wiped. So I ordinarily wouldn't bother to blog today... until I saw David Brooks' column devoted to Milton Friedman. Brooks accomplishes a unique two-fer in this column, simultaneously infuriating me on one point and making me agree with him on another. So, in order... the part of the column that is utter horses%&t: [Friedman's] passing is sad for many reasons. One is that from the 1940s to the mid-1990s, American political life was shaped by a series of landmark books: "Witness," "The Vital Center," "Capitalism and Freedom,""The Death and Life of American Cities," "The Closing of the American Mind." Then in the 1990s, those big books stopped coming. Now instead of books, we have blogs. The big books stopped coming partly because the distinction between intellectual movements and political parties broke down. Friedman was never interested in partisan politics but was deeply engaged in policy. Today, team loyalty has taken over the wonk's world, so there are invisible boundaries that mark politically useful, and therefore socially acceptable, thought. Oh, please, spare me the crap about how today's deep thoughts fail to rival those of the past. Brooks listed five books to cover five decades. Here are five books from the past decade that would meet his criteria (note I am far from endorsing the content of these books -- but they're big in the sense that their arguments cannot be ignored): Samuel Huntingon, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Virginia Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies. James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds. Jacob Hacker, The Great Risk Shift. I did this without breaking a sweat. If I actually glanced over to my library or checked out my book club recommendations, I could probably come up with twenty more. To paraphrase Gloria Swanson -- books are big, it's the politics that got small. Oh, and it's not the blogs either -- the last three authors in that list either have blogs or have interacted with them on a regular basis. At the same time, Brooks got me to nod with this pararaph: His death is sad, too, because classical economics is under its greatest threat in a generation. Growing evidence suggests average workers are not seeing the benefits of their productivity gains--that the market is broken and requires heavy government correction. Friedman's heirs have been avoiding this debate. They're losing it badly and have offered no concrete remedies to address the problem, if it is one.
In the past 24 hours I had to go from presenting a paper at the inaugural meeting of the International Political Economy Society to spending the night with my son at his Cub Scout campout. In other words, I’m wiped. So I ordinarily wouldn’t bother to blog today… until I saw David Brooks’ column devoted to Milton Friedman. Brooks accomplishes a unique two-fer in this column, simultaneously infuriating me on one point and making me agree with him on another. So, in order… the part of the column that is utter horses%&t:
[Friedman’s] passing is sad for many reasons. One is that from the 1940s to the mid-1990s, American political life was shaped by a series of landmark books: “Witness,” “The Vital Center,” “Capitalism and Freedom,””The Death and Life of American Cities,” “The Closing of the American Mind.” Then in the 1990s, those big books stopped coming. Now instead of books, we have blogs. The big books stopped coming partly because the distinction between intellectual movements and political parties broke down. Friedman was never interested in partisan politics but was deeply engaged in policy. Today, team loyalty has taken over the wonk’s world, so there are invisible boundaries that mark politically useful, and therefore socially acceptable, thought.
Oh, please, spare me the crap about how today’s deep thoughts fail to rival those of the past. Brooks listed five books to cover five decades. Here are five books from the past decade that would meet his criteria (note I am far from endorsing the content of these books — but they’re big in the sense that their arguments cannot be ignored):
Samuel Huntingon, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Virginia Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies. James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds. Jacob Hacker, The Great Risk Shift.
I did this without breaking a sweat. If I actually glanced over to my library or checked out my book club recommendations, I could probably come up with twenty more. To paraphrase Gloria Swanson — books are big, it’s the politics that got small. Oh, and it’s not the blogs either — the last three authors in that list either have blogs or have interacted with them on a regular basis. At the same time, Brooks got me to nod with this pararaph:
His death is sad, too, because classical economics is under its greatest threat in a generation. Growing evidence suggests average workers are not seeing the benefits of their productivity gains–that the market is broken and requires heavy government correction. Friedman’s heirs have been avoiding this debate. They’re losing it badly and have offered no concrete remedies to address the problem, if it is one.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
