Farrell, like a lot of writers in the 1930s -- heck, like a lot of Americans in the 1930s -- dabbled in Communism. It was understandable; the nation was in the grip of the Great Depression and Marxism promised an alternative to capitalism. As the economy recovered after World War II, however, most Americans moved back to the political center. (Some stayed on the Left, though, while others -- like John Dos Passos, for example -- drifted to the Right.)
And that reminds me of my own political journey, from libertarianism to wherever-the-heck-it-is-I-am right now.
In the 1980s and '90s, especially, I was a Libertarian -- with a capital "L." (I was actually a member of the Party for a short time. Do you think there's a Blacklist in my future?)
After growing up in a Republican household and reading The Conscience of a Conservative in high school, I became a staunch Reaganaut in the 1970s. I cast my first vote ever for the former governor of California in the Minnesota caucuses in 1976. (Ironically, it was also my last. By 1980 I found myself voting for John Anderson in the general election instead of Reagan. Foreshadowing? Anderson was famous for saying, "How do you cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget? Easy; you do it with mirrors." And he was right.)
After college, in the 1980s, I went to work in the financial markets and learned Rule # 1: The Markets Are Always Right. (Rule # 2 is, of course: When in doubt, refer back to Rule # 1.) This was reinforced by my professors in business school; the efficient market hypothesis essentially said the same thing, i. e., markets reflect all known information.
But I had nagging doubts. Why, if markets were so efficient, was the stock market so mispriced on the eve of the Crash of '87? And why was it that some people, like George Soros and Warren Buffett, were able to make above average returns year in and year out?
But believing that the Markets Are Always Right was so comforting, especially for someone who was an agnostic. There must be order in the universe somewhere, I thought. So the free market philosophy --and libertarianism -- became my new religion. It was so elegant -- everything fit together perfectly. (I also devoured Ayn Rand at this time.)
But ... I evolved, as everyone does. And I learned sometime in the '90s that the universe isn't all Black and White, as I had thought; it exists, instead, in shades of gray. While it would indeed be comforting if everything fit together perfectly, it just doesn't. As much as we would like to make sense of the universe, I've learned that it's a mysterious place, and the truth is that we go to our graves knowing very little about it.
So I approach the world now with a great deal more humility.
Too bad the same can't be said about Ron Paul and his followers.
Which brings me back to James Farrell and the Communists of the 1930s -- I think.
The one thing that Ron Paul's libertarianism has in common with Marxism is that it's an ideology -- an overarching system of belief that has an answer for everything. It indulges our desire to explain the universe by dividing reality into black and white, good and bad, right and wrong. It simplifies everything. In short, it's simplistic.
And that goes partly to explain Paul's appeal to young people -- his politics are idealistic. (I also thought of George McGovern last night, who took second place in the New Hampshire primary in 1972. He also had a young following.)
I tried, recently, to explain to my godson, who's in his early twenties and a Paul supporter, that when you're young you think you can Change the World. I know I did. (So did George McGovern's followers; they later became investment bankers.) But then, one day you wake up in your forties or fifties and reality sets in. You realize that you're not going to be on this earth forever. And you also come to realize that the world Is What It Is. In other words, things evolve, or change glacially. So instead of "revolution," you settle for tweaking society around the margins.
Overthrow the existing system? Bring about a libertarian society? Abolish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?
News Flash: Ain't Gonna Happen.
Just as the Communists didn't bring about revolution in America, neither will Ron Paul.
So instead of Changing the World, how about just solving problems, like the Affordable Care Act. (I know what you're thinking: I knew he was going to bring it back to that.) But it's a good example. The health care system was broken: costs were bankrupting the country even as fewer and fewer people had insurance. While Paul and his supporters would have you Reinvent the Wheel, President Obama and the Democrats were more realistic: Just fix the problem. (Like Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts.)
So I watched Ron Paul speak last night, and he got more and more eccentric as he went on. "Abolish the Fed!," he ranted at one point. Really? And after Romney's boilerplate speech, nervous Republicans everywhere must have been thinking: Pull the plug on this guy! He looks crazy!
But Paul and his supporters aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Sure, Mitt Romney has this thing in the bag, but Paul is going to show up at the convention this summer with a small army of delegates. It will be fascinating to see what happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment