Henry Farrell and Steven Teles write,
MacLean is not only wrong in detail but mistaken in the fundamentals of her account.
I have met both Farrell and Teles, at dinners organized by Teles and Brink Lindsey, for “liberaltarians.” The liberaltarian project always seemed to me to be quixotic, but it did demonstrate overlap between (some) progressives and libertarians on a few economic issues, particularly related to Public Choice. Farrell and Teles strike me as coming more from the liberal camp as opposed to the libertarian camp. But because they are receptive to Public Choice ideas, some progressives might consider them to be heretics.
Historian Andrew Seal writes,
Some of my colleagues and I at the Society for US Intellectual History Blog and I are planning a roundtable to discuss Democracy in Chains as a work of intellectual history, in large part because we feel that the critiques of MacLean’s work have not adequately engaged with its core arguments and because these critiques often seem unfamiliar with the “best practices” of intellectual history.
For me, the central issue is scholarly ethics. I expect that when it comes to history, many books will be written that have narratives that are controversial and have flimsy support. That is acceptable.
The ethical issue is whether the historian has an obligation to make the effort to elevate truth above narrative. Did Nancy MacLean make that effort, as Seal’s use of the phrase “best practices” implies?
For example, I could wish to create a narrative that tries to portray Dr. Martin Luther King as a racist, and I could do so while staying within ethical boundaries. It might not be very persuasive, of course. But if I quote Dr. King as saying “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will…be judged by the color of their skin” (i.e., leaving out the word “not”), then that is unethical. That seems pretty clear to me. And it seems to me that MacLean’s conduct comes pretty close to that, yet I do not see it condemned outright as unethical by Farrell and Teles, much less by Seal.
Let me put it this way: if MacLean’s actions do not constitute easily-recognized and serious violations of the ethics of the history profession, then that profession has no ethics. And historians on the left ought to be thinking about whether that is what they want.
Two weeks ago, Don Boudreaux said
Whether we see far-left historians join in the harsh critiques of MacLean’s book -especially on the core ethical issue – is the test of Davies’ claim. So far, it isn’t looking too good.
Please forgive the tangent, but issues like this always make me wonder what kind of general attitude towards the output of these fields I should try to cultivate in my children. A radical and almost cynical and jaundiced skepticism seems too much, especially at a young age, but it seems increasingly justified to encourage a lot of doubt in the accuracy of claims and the integrity of authors.
Just wait until they are 10.
>Issues like this always make me wonder what kind of general attitude towards the output of these fields I should try to cultivate in my children
I struggle with this as well. My daughter will head off to college in a year. I find myself talking about how to think about a topic as much as the topic itself. Hitting the appropriate balance between cynical and credulous is tough. It doesn’t help that the older I get the more I empathize with that crotchety bastard that sits on the park bench.
You told her to think exactly what the professor thinks until the final exam is over, right?
The liberaltarian project always seemed to me to be quixotic, but it did demonstrate overlap between (some) progressives and libertarians on a few economic issues, particularly related to Public Choice.
I still say that Democrats should embrace some of the Carter era deregulation of airlines, phone company and beer (which to be honest probably took 20 minutes of Carter’s time) as part of our message. There was a lot consumer friendly deregulation during Carter that helped build to the Reagan Revolution. I think some health deregulation, moving 401K away from employers, and urban housing are good to put forth.
Although given the movement of airlines the last 10 years, I am not sure it would be most winning history though. I just think the airline market is always going to be a few big players.
Whoa whoa whoa, slow down there Usain. You want Democrats to embrace something a democrat did 50 years ago?
It was 40 years ago not 50!!!!! And it probably deregulated a lot of markets for consumer benefit that helped set up the Reagan Revolution who deregulated markets more on company benefit. Additionally, in terms of alternative histories, if Reagan (or even Ford) won in 1976 does he hire Robert Bork and not Judge Greene on the AT&T case? Bork was a lot more sympathetic to monopolies and the break up of AT&T was a huge national monopoly at the time. It was not a cut and dry decision here. (I also wondered why Reagan did not push back on the AT&T breakup but I suspected that in 1982 Reagan had bigger battles than supporting a large monopoly.) Anyway, it is arguing Carter did some good ideas even though being President was over his level of competence.
In terms of modern Democratic ideas, Elizabeth Warren is pursuing a bill to allow certain hearing aids to be sold OTC versus a doctor prescription. It is unbelievably small potatoes in the scheme of things, but it is an example of consumer deregulation Ds can pursue.
I was teasing of course.
Every year that goes by I become a bigger Carter fan.
If you can get Elizabeth Warren’s ear and have her only pursue those common cause ideas with some credible commitment, I’d become a supporter. But I don’t think she is mature enough to go for that.
Yes, in terms of history I think my favorite piece of legislation was deregulating the sale of beer equipment across state lines. I bet Jimmy Carter did not spend more than 20 minutes on the legislation and it ended up on Page 20 of the WaPo but with this deregulation a bunch beer nerds started craft beer breweries without a clue it be big 40 years later!
No, don’t expect much from Elizabeth Warren I believe the company selling these hearing aids is based in Massachusetts so they heavily lobbying here.
Not that lobbyist are all evil but she only understands because she hears their side of the story.
Something that happened to Ron Paul was everyone cried bloody murder that he would end the Fed and bring all the troops home, as if those were actually things to wring hands over.
What they never did was actually listen to him when he said he had no intention of doing those things if the voters essentially elected him just to be the adult I’m the room, not pursue his full vision.
I get the sense Warren is kind of the opposite of this.
Why is it, do you think, that dems/libs/progressives seem to have largely desensitized to government-sourced oppression?
Several Points:
1) Young liberals don’t remember the 1970s or Reagan Revolution or the Clinton years. How many Bernie Bros complained about the Clinton administration without understanding the economy was the best state ever. They have not worked in an economy where average wages can rise! (I graduated college in 1992 when we had S&L crisis dress rehearsal and I did not think wages would rise in 1992.)
2) In terms of racial relations, they tend to forget how tough assimilation is in the long run and it was a lot worse in 1990 or 1965. Hell I lived through the Rodney Kings and nobody was claiming the crime rates was just starting have historical drops.
3) Conservatives have not dealt with stagnant wages nor we live an economy that is not easy on families or communities. I find exceptionally weird that white communities are being hit with the drug epidemic. I read JD Vance on the Rust Belt and he sounds like an African-American activist in the 1980s.
4) I think there is a lot to be done with secondary education although liberals are too college focused and conservative love vocational training in jobs without private sector activity.
5) The ideas of housing deregulation is very hard to understand and it is driven by local/state governments.
6) In the final point, I believe we are entering a 1950 economy where we have slower growth controlled by low labor supply. (Look at economic and employment numbers from the 1950s! The boom was the 1960s.)
I always assumed the liberaltarian thing was a political strategy.
Isn’t the social science gag great? Write an attack piece, get invited to give talks by your political allies.
I’m also constantly reminded of the politicallyr biased, unfair, and logicslly flawed treatment of Reinhart and Rogoff.
Researchers make spreadsheet errors all the time. But rarely do they share their data with their critics to be victims of selection and observation bias.
It is possible this writer (MacLean) is being given too much attention.
From her application for an NIH grant (which she got for $50,00):
“Through an accidental discovery followed by extensive archival and other original research, I have unearthed ties between states’ rights activists and leading free-market economists that emerged in the late 1950s and traced their subsequent history of alliance building with sometimes surprising partners over the ensuing half century. Where existing works on neoliberalism begin in the 1970s with crises of profitability and public finance, my work excavates the pre-history of early and ongoing anti-democratic **motives** and goals.” [** supplied]
Parsing that:
Her “work” EXCAVATES ongoing anti democratic motives and goals.
As commented elsewhere:
Pre-commitment to confirmation bias can lead to something more like digging in one’s own outhouse.
There is little doubt what will be found.
It was the NEH NOT the NIH. Not being pedantic, just helpful.
My Error
I only mention it because it makes it sound so much worse if the NIH is goofing around like this.
I am also loathe to pile onto her as I believe researchers do this all the time and don’t deserve negative (or positive) attention and notoriety resulting mostly from political polarization.
She may have misquoted every other person in her book, but we don’t care enough about those other guys.
I’d rather criticize or support everyone else involved EXCEPT her.
One risk being that they will either scapegoat the individual or defend her, while avoiding grappling with the institutions and incentives.
Historical narratives are about the pursuit of robustness against a collection of facts. Not a collection of facts themselves, but how well it will continue to predict and hold up when new facts are added and at what point does the narrative or theory break down. Very strong historical theory require a significant amount of new facts, of exceptional quality, before their explanatory power breaks down – and never in the case of historical truth.
In this case, IF the addition of one more sentence from the primary source you are quoting completely discredits your theory (plus the people who wrote it are still alive in a few cases, and seem quite upset with being misquoted); well, it has less robustness than say, theories involving the faking of the moon landing or Aliens building various landmarks. Remind them that history is a serious discipline, even a science at times, and while making things up might sell very well, it’s not worthy of the time of intellectual discussion.
Huh?
Arnold,
Sorry to jump on with an OT comment, but I can’t resist sending this to you — more confirmation of the null hypothesis:
http://www.isegoria.net/2017/07/i-may-be-screwing-this-person-over/
(in this case, it might be even worse than that — the intervention seems to have caused harm!)