Update (September 2, 2010):

More links will have to wait for a few days.  Business calls…and a friend who has been around a long time gives advice:

“Actually I have a sense of deja vu all over again. You are encountering
the same old enemies: misrepresentation, straw men, name appropriation,
and bait and switching that have been around forever. La misma mierda siempre.

As a wise lady once said,

“Rather than forcing the country to change, a far simpler and humbler strategy is to let the country go whichever way it wants, and get out of its way. I’m not a cynic. I’m not telling you to stand on the sidelines and egg both sides on. I’m not telling you to forget your native soil or your community. I’m suggesting that it might be easier for you to defend them from abroad. And I’m suggesting that you start making yourself a foothold abroad. Just in case.”

Every good trader has an exit strategy.”

Time to take my own advice?

ORIGINAL POST

A friend of The Bell who also posts with insight here  responded to my previous post on the WSJ’s piece on the Austrians. I’ve chosen to place his response with a new post and address his points one by one, as I think there’s a degree of misunderstanding behind them. He starts with a cite from my post below:

“The rest of Mises-on-the-web is to be swept under the carpet, along with Jon Stewart shows, raucous blogs, politicians, hard-money cranks, stock-tipster and other vulgar riff-raff.”

(Lila: quoted from my original post)

Comment from Bell associate:

You seem to be implying that the Journal article was explicitly intended to do help this. We do not believe that this was the explicit intention of those who were involved in the article. Horowitz says it was not, and he is closely associate with Boettke and spoke to the reporter.

Lila’s Response:

Your argument here changes. Only your first line seems accurate to me. I AM implying that the Journal article is a deliberate positioning. Your next line slides from “implying….and intending” – which was what I said, to “explicit intention..those involved…Horowitz…Boettke..”.

Respectfully, this is a straw man. I never attacked Boettke in anyway, except to say he’s not the name most associated with Austrian economics.  My entire argument was directed against the WSJ. As for Kelly Evans, I didn’t even mention her or impute any motives to her. The positioning of an article does not even have to involve the “explicit” knowledge of the author. I’ve seen some of my own arguments reused in different contexts to accomplish ends exactly opposite what I intended them for. I have previously written about positioning by editors, where I think the author did not “intend” what the positioning in fact accomplished.

The logic in this comment is weak on other counts. Because a friend says something does not make it so. One would expect Boettke’s friends to say something positive about a positive article about their friend, right? Besides, as I said, neither Boettke…or even Evans…is the target of my criticism. My very first comment on the Bell article indicates who the target is: WSJ’s editors.

Comment from Bell Associate:

Some more thoughts for you, Ms. Rajiva:

1. The Bell pointed out that the WSJ article was motivated either by willful ignorance or antipathy on the part either of the writer or editor(s). We rejected the idea that the article was vetted by the CIA or (implicitly/explicitly) composed by GMU/Boettke et. al. We think statements by the Boettke’s group (see Horowitz’s feedbacks on the second Bell feedback thread) substantiate this point.

LILA:

Where did I say the piece was “vetted by the CIA” or “implicitly/explicitly/ composed by GMU Or Boettke”? This is a puzzling statement…

What I wrote was that the CIA has a large presence on campus, especially at DC-area universities. That the Mercatus Center and other groups in libertarian circles in the Beltway are funded by the brothers Koch, and that this “Kochtopus’ sets the limits of what can be said at those institutions. I also cited a quote from one of the Kochs themselves to Brian Doherty. (Note what the Jane Mayer piece misses. I don’t endorse The New Yorker’s positions just because I read its research). In fairness to the Kochs, here is their response from their website and here is the response of Nick Gillespie, editor of the libertarian magazine Reason which is funded by the Kochs, as Gillespie discloses in his piece.

I then cited a credible article. “The Mighty Wurlitzer” (Daniel Brandt, Namebase.org, 1997), which quotes CIA director Bill Colby that intelligence interventions into the media are frequent and explicit. I cited this as part of a general discussion of how paradigms are set, boundaries are policed, polite discourse is monitored, and the integrity of intellectual exchange is subverted. To reduce that informed position to the ranting of a tinfoil hat conpiracist is not fair.

COMMENT

2. Since we’ve pointed out on numerous occasions that a control of the dialectic involves setting artificial boundaries, your point about rhetoric is well taken.

LILA: Indeed you have pointed out many useful things and The Bell’s point(s) are ALL well-taken.

I believe I’ve said so many time. I said this piece was an “excellent catch.”.

What I said wasn’t intended to undermine The Bell’s analysis, but to supplement it. I think The Bell operates outside this country and might not have the first- hand and by now quite lengthy interaction with subversion that many activists have had.

Having encountered the “usual suspects” at work manipulating the record over and over and over, forgive us if we don’t stand around waiting when we see something afoot. We anticipate it…. and are only surprised when it doesn’t occur. Wake me up when the WSJ does NOT reposition something to support its agenda. Wake me up when the MSM develops some integrity.

COMMENT

But as we pointed out, this is ONE article. We are not willing to identify it yet as a new, full-fledged promotion – a dominant social theme of the elite, or even a sub dominant social theme. Why not? Compare it to the decade long global warming campaign that involved thousands of media outlets, books, articles and think tanks plus the establishment of a UN-based authority, legislative agendas, global conferences, etc.

LILA:

Let me quibble with you on this. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was shown to be trumped up. The rest, I suspect to be trumped up as well, but don’t know for sure. Climate-change itself is real enough. The question is if human beings are the prime culprit, and if so, can anything be done about it which wouldn’t be counterproductive.

Other than that, no quarrel with this. The Bell has performed a first-class service to the public and we love you for it.

COMMENT:

To elaborate: Elite campaigns work on a massive scale.

LILA

Aware of this. Have been studying propaganda since 1993 at university, written dozens of research papers [May 3. Addition: unpublished] (some book-length) on the subject..and have two other books on the subject [May 3. Addition: of mass thinking],

COMMENT

They cannot do otherwise. Here at The Bell, we will wait for more indications (in the mainstream media) before deciding if this constitutes a new promotion – a generalized, mainstream media attack on the Mises Institute and Rockwell.

LILA:

IMHO, there is no need for a “new” attack because the old one never stopped. The Bell operates outside the country and may well not be fully aware of how long the campaign against the Miseseans has gone on.  It isn’t some recent invention, nor is it solely “personal antipathy”. There seems to be more to it, as even a sensitive observer can discern. Besides that,  I have heard some of the details from at least one of the horses’ mouths….

COMMENT:

4. One can also make the point that the creation of Boettke’s group is itself a promotion, an intellectual lie because they apparently endorse a softer view of libertarianism and Austrian economics. This conclusion is based on Lew Rockwell’s recitation of events as regards the antipathy of the Kochs toward Mises and the conclusions that can be drawn, both implicitly and explicitly. But Horowitz has just stated that the Boettke group is just as “radical” as Mises et al. There are shades of gray.

LILA:

You are right to look for as much evidence as possible. The less emotional and the more rational the debate, the better. But again, the issue – at least for me – is not about how “radical” Boettke is or isn’t. He might be very well be more radical than I am. I’m no radical. I’m a middle-class moralist who doesn’t admire Marc Rich or irresponsible corporations or charming speculator-rogues. I have no special gripe with teachers or postal workers. I think Dr. Block’s arguments are initially plausible but wrong…disagree with Stephen Kinsella [May 3, Correction: N. Stephan Kinsella] on IP…consider a lot of Miseans unnecessarily shrill, nativist, and not necessarily the least abrasive people in town (although, have you read the language of some of their critics?). I’m sure Peter Boettke and Steve Horwitz are fine human beings. That is not the issue.

The issue is intellectual honesty in public discourse, the incessant revisionism of the media, and whether this particular piece was evidence of an intentional campaign against the Mises folks, a campaign that seems to be intelligence-connected. That seems so in my mind and in the mind of at least one other person who of all people would know.

COMMENT

5 Boettke writes: “But again, I am myopically focused on publications — refereed publication; SSCI ranked journals preferred; or elite university presses.” Is this so terrible? Take the Austrian perspective to formal academia, so long as it is not watered down – and Horowitz says it isn’t. Even if it does depart from the Mises/Rockwell perspective, that doesn’t mean it’s merely paid propaganda? We disagree with Rothbard’s idea that private fractional reserve banking is a criminal enterprise (with resultant criminal consequences). We think the market ought to decide, which is apparently what Boettke thought in 2007.

LILA:

Nobody said anything about Boettke’s research. Boettke isn’t the issue. No one claims his research is “paid propaganda”.

COMMENT

6. Yes, there are shades of gray in the larger debate in our view. In fact, the Kochs and Boettke have a right to back a Hayekian view of Austrian economics, whatever that means, as an alternative to Mises – within a private context. Even Mises wasn’t perfect.

LILA:

I’ve never said Mises was perfect. Or that Boettke has no right to interpret him as he wants. In fact, I’ve often criticized Rothbardian positions…and have wanted to create a middle-way between them and more statist positions. I’m much less doctrinaire than The Bell.  If you read my blog, you’ll see that you’re attributing to me positions I don’t hold. I support LRC in this fracas not because I like their positions (or their outfit) in any unqualified way, but because their version of events seems accurate to me. It has nothing to do with my personal likes. In fact, I can fairly state that I doubt I would get on with several people at LRC and am quite sure I would get on well with the crowd at WSJ and with Ms. Kelly Evans….and with Mr. Boettke and Mr. Horwitz.. if I knew them. There is nothing personal in any of this.

COMMENT

7. The private sector is a great place to exchange viewpoints. The PROBLEM is the use of both public and private mechanisms to create fear-based promotions that end up with legislative conclusions that use the force of law to shape what should be private interactions.

LILA

No quarrel with this

COMMENT

8. One article, in our view, does not constitute a fear-based promotional campaign. Nor does it set the parameters for the larger debate. One article does not do that.

LILA

Yes, one article would not. But this isn’t one article. This positioning and revisionism in relation to the Mises institute has been repeated ad nauseum. And it is the Mises people who have been proved right, more often than not.

COMMENT

If the Kochs are working in concert with a generational familial conspiracy to undermine the Mises Institute, one article is not going to do it. Not one article.

LILA

Again – these aren’t my words.  And, as I also said, it’s not one article.

COMMENT

9. We see no signs of a full-fledged, power-elite PROACTIVE promotional campaign. For the most part, the stance of the elite has not changed yet. The strategy is to ignore the Institute, Rockwell, et. al.

LILA

You’re entitled to your views and they are good ones. They’re very well -presented and sophisticated and are very judiciously expressed. It’s my view, however, that you underestimate what’s going on. I hope I’m wrong and you’re right.

COMMENT

10. One article does not set the parameters for an Austrian dialogue – though it is certainly a thoughtful point. But will need to see more than one article in one newspaper before we are willing to conclude that there is a significant shift in how the elite intends to deal with the problem of the growing mainstream acceptance of free-market  thinking.

LILA

You are right. But you yourself daily point out dozens of similar machinations about supply-side economics and the Tea Party. And you’re ignoring several links posted citing the Kochs’ own comments, showing the influence of intelligence on GMU, and other valid evidence.

COMMENT

You write: “[Boettke’s response] substantiates my earlier comments at Swiss libertarian newsletter The Daily Bell that yesterday’s WSJ piece about the Austrians had everything to do with defining the academic boundaries of what Austrian economics. Our response (if the above is not clear enough): If this single, terrible article is the best that an intergenerational familial banking conspiracy can do to combat the Mises Institute, the power elite has a big problem.

LILA

“Intergenerational family banking conspiracy” are not certainly not my words. I notice Tibor Machan’s recent piece also defended the Kochs. He’s entitled to. And I’m entitled to draw my conclusions. No offense.  Dr. Machan’s personal opinions, like Mr. Boettke’s friends opinions, are not really evidence of anything, except that the Kochs also have friends and supporters who take their part and so has Boettke. By the way, NO OFFENSE/innuendo is intended by this comment in any way. I enjoy reading his pieces.

COMMENT

Of course they DO have a big problem, and not just with Mises. But we will wait a while before concluding that a new front has been opened against Rockwell. We do not see it yet. We will wait for another article, interview, etc. – and then more. We will look for signs of a continued, mainstream media promotion. Without the mainstream you do not HAVE a promotion. Not an elite promotion. One article does not a promotion make. Nor does it redefine the terms of an argument. One article cannot do that. Only a full-scale promotion can, one that involves numerous resources, media outlets, etc.

LILA: One article does not make a promotion, true. But over the last 3 years, I’ve collected dozens/scores of articles by academic libertarians (see here and here) doing the same thing to the Mises Institute  folks, I have seen enough evidence to suit me. Many journalists apparently think they’re fighting the good fight against racism or sexism or anti-Semitism by attacking the Mises folks….as they also did with Rothbard. And as they believed they were doing when they revived various innuendos about Ron Paul .

The day the WSJ publishes an article accurately citing the Mises folks by name for their contributions (love ’em or hate ’em), treating their output and accomplishments fairly and even-handedly, is the day propaganda in the US will give way to journalism.

Do I think Mises is being revived? Actually, yes. But I think the revival is being positioned so as to cut the Mises Institute and Mises.org out of it, along with all the other positions/people believed to be associated with them…

That is, Mises will be repositioned in a way more acceptable to academia. I have no quarrel with that, since that is partly my interest, which is why I try to take into consideration issues of gender, race, and language that libertarians (including The Bell) scorn as PC.

My issue – contra The Bell – is not with Boettke or Kelly Evans – but with the WSJ’s intellectual honesty about Austrian economics.

On that question, the case has long ago been decided.

Update 5:

I’m posting below the money quote from Dr. Boettke’s response. It substantiates my earlier comments at Swiss libertarian newsletter The Daily Bell that yesterday’s WSJ piece about the Austrians had everything to do with defining the academic boundaries of what Austrian economics. The rest of Mises-on-the-web is to be swept under the carpet, along with Jon Stewart shows, raucous blogs, politicians, hard-money cranks, stock-tipsters and other vulgar riff-raff. As these things go, it’s a fair enough statement..albeit a bit sniffy. Professor Boettke proposes peer-review and refereed journals as the gold-standard of intellectual truth.

“I have no doubt that many individuals are doing a better job spreading Austrian ideas in the popular imagination, and I am sure that there are individuals that are producing better scholarship as judged by my peers in the economics profession.  I never claimed otherwise. And, in fact, I have always tried to claim that judgments are always best left to one’s peers, rather than self-assessment.  And, I would like to add, I have tried to be fair in my own judgments of others within the Austrian movement and give credit where credit is due.  But again, I am myopically focused on publications — refereed publication; SSCI ranked journals preferred; or elite university presses. Again, this is all because of the advancement of Austrian ideas in the scientific literature of economics, not in the popular imagination. Perhaps advancing the ideas in the popular imagination requires something different than my admittedly myopic perspective.  I don’t know, but I am betting that for my purposes and that of my students we are going to keep pushing the academic mission.  I don’t want to show up on the Daily Show, nor do I want to appear on the Tonight Show, and I certainly do not want to run for political office. I also don’t offer investment advice by predicting the next downturn in the economy or anticipating the next upswing.  That is not the business I am in.  Others have a comparative advantage in such activities, I don’t.

I have also repeatedly claimed that I do not want to get involved in internet wars, nor do I believe that internet contributions on blogs, etc. are really helping us in the task that I do care about exclusively — advancing the cause of Austrian economics within the economics profession and academia.  I might be wrong.  In fact, I am somewhat caught in a contradiction because I am using blogging to try to pursue my goals of academic advancement of Austrian economics.  My only “defense” is that I try to cultivate a different type of conversation on this blog than what takes place on other Austrian oriented blogs, but I don’t always get what I would like in terms of the discourse.”

Here’s what I said in a comment at The Bell yesterday:

“Perhaps you analysis is erroneous there, because you assume
those distortions are aimed at bamboozling well-read and savvy readers. They aren’t.
They’re intended to establish the boundaries of polite discourse, beyond which it will/should not stray. These boundaries will establish where academic writers will go and who will or won’t be referenced…from wikipedia to journals.

The rewriting is also directed toward popular debate. People’s attention spans are short, most have only recently heard of Austrian economics, and if the WSJ can trade on its reputation to redirect such discussions to its own precincts, there’s nothing to lose.

By the miracle of self-referential citation compounded by google and wikipedia and the tendency of all debates to “move on,” history is constantly being revised in all things, petty and large.

There are only so many people who are spotting and undoing this kind of false history, and they can’t get to all of it fast enough and often enough to undo it completely.”