Making a Mockery of the End Times: Foibles of the Apocalypsy

Making a Mockery of the End Times: Foibles of the Apocalypsy

I often proudly refer to myself as a cynic, which connotes a lack of faith in humanity and its collective abilities. I should note that this lack of faith extends to humanity’s ability to destroy itself. Thus, while some people may foresee a great unraveling or the beginning of the end looming on the horizon, I’ll merely think, “nah…we’ll find some way to screw it up.”

As a matter of perception, this perspective has come in handy as of late. The post-9/11, post-nuclear world of the 21^st century is inundated with fear. We are literally drowning in deep-felt concern that our natural resources are about to expire, that we will blow each other off the face of the Earth, that our souls are in danger of damnation. The litany of worries never seems to end. Fortunately, there’s a very simple solution: doubt and ye shall be set free.

The ‘new apocalypsy,’ as I like to call it, spans several branches and disciplines, from foreign relations to ecology to theology, but is marked by a set of common characteristics. First and foremost is the identification of a recent phenomena and its subsequent presentation (accurately or not) as part of a trend. Next is the argument that the trend is escalating and the problem is in fact direr than it had been before. Then, once a general pattern has been established, the dots are connected: this can only lead to one thing – the End. Lastly, a ray of hope is offered in the form of an ‘unless,’ as in ‘unless this course of action is pursued…’

Apocalypsy as a propaganda technique is neither new nor subtle, but I’ll be damned if it isn’t effective. By hyperinflating the urgency of an issue, it draws the public’s focus onto it and away from other issues that may be of concern. Further, playing upon fear of mass extinction greatly increases the chance your proposed solution (your ‘unless…’) will be taken seriously where it might not have been otherwise. All anyone has to risk in the process is their credibility. But, as we shall see, this is less of a hindrance than one may think.

Debunking the apocalypsy can be done one of two ways. The lazy way would be to simply shrug off any catastrophic claim as baseless and inaccurate. In my view, this is not the way to go. Improbable does not translate to impossible and those who walk around with their head perpetually nestled in the clouds are likely to miss whatever is right in front of them. Doubt, not dismissal will set you free.

The second method is as simple as bothering to ask a few questions. Fallacious claims tend not to hold up well when exposed to rigorous inquiry and doomsayers are easily peeved by even the most innocuous of interrogatories. These questions can roughly be divided into several categories: credibility, historicity, probability and accuracy.

Credibility pertains not only to the person offering the theory, but to the theory itself. The extent to which defeated ideas are repackaged can be surprising. To give one example, unfounded concerns about overpopulation and mortality keep popping up every now and then. When Thomas Malthus raised them in the 19^th century, he was shouted down by a coterie of economists, socialists and Catholic intellectuals (!). When Paul Ehrlich made a slew of erroneous predictions in “The Population Bomb” (life expectancy of 42 by 1980, anyone?), Julian Simon famously and rightfully took him to task. Just recently, University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka has forecast a 90% mortality rate is imminent. You’d figure after awhile, disproved theories would simply stay disproved, but that appears to be too much to ask.

Historical accuracy is another thorn in the side of the doomsayers. They are mindful of the fact that we tend to have short attention spans and forget things quickly. Energy activists, for instance, have been hammering home the idea that we have to break our dependence on foreign oil ASAP or we’re screwed (underlying implication: go green). They point to climbing gas prices and the “all-time high” price of crude, but there’s plenty that they don’t tell you. Namely, oil prices now are well below their all-time high in inflation adjusted dollars. Factor in the big I and the price of crude peaked during the Carter administration. And that was before we entered an era of sports cars and SUVs which, gasp, didn’t drive us to extinction.

Statistical accuracy can also be used to puncture phony claims of pending demise. One recurring theme among commentators and critics is America’s “culture of violence.” In the media-blaming frenzy that erupted after the Columbine shootings, much was said about the level of savagery in American society. But if anyone bothered to examine statistical trends in national crime data over the past 10-20 years – particularly homicide rates – they might find something surprising. Turns out we are getting LESS violent.

The final criteria, probability, is often the most difficult to work with. After all, nobody can predict the future. But with common sense and a little look at the numbers, anyone can avoid being suckered by a failed prophet. One point that’s been hammered countless times by politicians of all stripes is America’s vulnerability to terrorism and the urgent need to do something about it. And while it may be callous and shortsighted to dismiss that concern, neither do we need to be buying rolls of duct tape in bulk. Consider that, at their worst, terrorists were able to kill 3,000 Americans in a single day of carnage. That may seem like a lot until you realize our population at the time was more than 281 BILLION. Look at those numbers then ask yourself what the odds are of you or someone you know being destroyed by an act of terrorism, much less America as a whole.

Despite the ease with which it is debunked, apocalysm is very much in vogue. It transcends partisanship, crosses party lined and gives any nut with an agenda a platform on which to stand. Of course, that platform is held up only by the collective fear of the audience (that means you guys). Thus, in order to nullify the rhetoric, all one need do is not give into its lures and approach all claims with a skeptical mind.

Apocalysm needn’t be as onerous and blatant as a Bible-thumping preacher shouting about the end of days. Respected environmentalists, policy experts and commentators have all been known to go off the deep end, whether the topic is sustainable growth, the ‘New World Order’ or “moral decay.” If you’re like me, you’ve learned to laugh it off. But if you haven’t reached that point, take your time. It’s not like the end of the world is coming…is it?

Marx's Last Laugh and the Limits of Nationalism

Marx’s Last Laugh and the Limits of Nationalism

Let it not be said that history doesn’t have a sense of humor. Years after his demise, some of Karl Marx’s deepest held desires have been fulfilled – thanks largely to those who regard themselves as stalwart anti-Marxists. I refer to Marx’s contempt for civil society: the cultural, religious and social institutions that exist apart of the state. In Marx’s view of utopia (and, to a lesser extent, the ‘totalitarian democracy’ of Jean-Jacques Rosseau and the French Revolution), civil society is transformed into political society. There is little-to-no room for institutions to exist apart from the state. Likewise, the same is true of people: the state and the masses are identified as one.

Not surprisingly, this contemptuous attitude toward civil society has had more than its share of detractors. And yet, it continues to find its takers. The fascist and hardline nationalist movements that have arisen over the years seem to be quite taken with it, despite their ostensibly anti-Marxist, pro-tradition orientations. In Hitler’s Third Reich, to use an extreme example, civil society as it existed was essentially abolished and reconstructed to suit the Nazi regime. You could not simply be a person living and working in Germany, you were (often via coercion) linked with the state. If you weren’t pro-Nazi you weren’t, for intents and purposes of the ruling elite, German…even if you could trace your lineage to Otto the Great.

Softer forms of this kind of mentality have persisted to the present day. It is not without its advantages, either as a political maneuver or an earnest societal goal. In the former, linking the identity of the people with the government that rules over them places critics of that government in a precarious “us versus them” predicament. In the latter, attempting to link people via a common denominator (race, religion, cultural heritage, etc.) seems the perfect pathway to peace. In theory at least, a homogeneous society will be subject to less civil strife, the enormous cost of making that society homogenous notwithstanding.

Whatever the motivations of these ‘transformationists,’ they have proven miraculously inept in keeping civil society down. Civil society, after all, is more a force of human nature than a simple switch that can be flipped. It grows, changes, adapts and evolves. Thus, attempts to exercise excessive control over it will almost always backfire. You can use force to compel human action, but no government can expect to permanently change the thoughts and attitudes of its subjects en masse.

As evident as this lesson seems, it has yet to be taken to heart by the leaders of this nation, both past and present. Consider the current warping of the term ‘anti-Americanism.’ In the truest sense, this should refer to unfettered hatred of the American people and their institutions. Instead, it’s been cheapened to equate to criticism of the government and its policies. Playing directly into Marx’s hands, administration apologists have steadfastly decimated the once-important distinction between political and civil society.

Why is this distinction important, you ask? Well, in the run up to the War in Iraq and at numerous times thereafter, a great amount of hostility was shown by Americans to Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime. Does this make us guilty of flagrant ‘anti-Iraqism’? Not hardly. After all, our mission over there was undertaken, at least in part, to benefit the Iraqi people by ridding them of a genocidal tyrant. Our contempt was for the political, rather than the civil, infrastructure that existed at the time.

Similarly, while we may denounce the stifling, belligerent theocracy in Iran, we are quick to come to the aid of the Persian people when a massive earthquake strikes. Being that we are capable of drawing the distinction between civil and political society abroad, we should be equally capable of drawing it at home.

That capability begins with admitting that even the most caustic critics of the current administration are NOT, prima facie, America-haters. Bush critics, war critics, political dissidents et al tend to be aware of the fact they are living in a country that affords them the ability to express and advance their views and are often grateful for it. Rejecting Bushism doesn’t equate to rejecting America as a whole, just as spewing venom at Bill Clinton a decade earlier did not make one the embodiment of all things un-American.

So then the question remains: who DOES hate America? The true culprits come in several flavors. There are those, such as Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who legitimately hate American civil society, deeming it hedonistic, sinful and overindulgent, if not downright Satanic. Ironically, these types tend to enjoy a certain degree of coziness with political society as it exists today.

There are also those, exemplified by Ward Churchill and ignorant foreign critics, who not only conflate civil and political society, but insist on castigating the former for the latter’s transgressions. To attempt to hold individual Americans responsible for action undertaken by the CIA 30 years ago is to cruelly deny those Americans their right to an identity apart from that of their government.

Reclaiming civil society also realizes accepting that there are, will be, and should be things that are beyond the state and its control. You have the right to find your neighbor’s purple house tacky. You don’t have the right to make the city repaint it for him. The day that the tolerances, preferences and prejudices of civil and political society are made to be one and the same is the day Marx’s cold dead hand can raise its fist in victory.

Diversixploitation: Manipulating Multiculturalism Ruins Movies

Diversixploitation

Manipulating Multiculturalism Ruins Movies

The world recently mourned the loss of Gordon Parks, a multitalented artist/musician/author who rose to prominence composing powerful photo essays for Life magazine. Among Parks’ other achievements was the original film version of Shaft, an adaptation of Ernest Tidyman’s novel about a heterodox black detective. Parks’ film was, at the time, somewhat groundbreaking in that its protagonist managed to be awash in a sea of clichés both black (Panthers-style radicals and old-school Harlem gangsters) and white (Mafiosos and police bureaucrats) without being defined by either of them. John Shaft, as portrayed by Richard Roundtree, was a three-dimensional character: a wisecracking, tough-talking solo operator in the mold of Philip Marlowe, only hip and socially conscious as well. Ironically, despite the perception of increased tolerance over the past 30 years, there is little room for a character such as Shaft (complex black male lead) in today’s Hollywood.

With some notable exceptions, the status quo of today’s film industry is one of subtle racism fueled by the desire to conform to politically correct archetypes. Consider, for instance, the recent trend of racial diversification/racial inversion in film remakes. On the surface, this seems like an unmitigated positive. After all, the film industry in the first half of the 20^th century was notoriously whitewashed and full of one-dimensional stereotypes. Why, therefore, would remaking a film with a more diverse cast be a bad thing?

To answer this, I direct your attention to a pair of pitiful examples from last year: the Cedric the Entertainer/Mike Epps version of The Honeymooners and the Bernie Mac/Ashton Kutcher version of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (shortened to Guess Who).

The original Honeymooners was a popular television series in the mid-1950s that eventually became the basis for The Flintstones. The show featured scheming bus driver Ralph Kramden, his wife, Alice, and their neighbors/friends, Ed and Trixie Norton.

On the surface, little changed in the remake save for the skin color of the principals. Cedric plays scheming Ralph to Epps’ Ed Norton. The characters names and occupations are roughly the same, as is the setting (New York City). Despite this, the movie was a colossal failure.

This really should come as no surprise, if for no other reason than Cedric and Epps are not Jackie Gleason and Art Carney. They aren’t even close. This isn’t a knock on Cedric’s talent – his “Eddie” character in Barbershop was hysterical, but there he was paired with a competent director and allowed to improvise. In The Honeymooners, he was limited to reinterpreting a character more or less perfected by Gleason over the course of a television run. Given those expectations, it was almost inevitable that he (and the surrounding production) fall significantly short.

Why, therefore, was this monstrosity made? The answer, in my opinion, lies in diversixploitation: the phenomenon of making/remaking lousy films with racially/ethnically/sexually diverse casts for the purpose of drawing in diverse or diversity-receptive viewers. In other words, if a slick producer makes the lead a black guy, maybe some blacks and white urban teens will be more likely to see movie (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Beneath the politically correct veneer of multiculturalism lays a very bigoted profit motive which, ironically, often fails to turn a profit.

Diversixploitation is both an updated version of and antidote to blaxploitation, a controversial 70s film trend. Blaxploitation films, though often made by white filmmakers, were often specifically designed to lure black audiences into theaters. They were also crude, poorly made and laden with offensive race and gender stereotypes. Eventually they generated so much backlash that the NAACP came a’gunning and the genre died off by the end of the decade. But what those critics failed to realize at the time was that the genre, though rooted in clichés, gave black actors both a chance to work and a chance to show off their abilities. Richard Roundtree made Shaft an icon, Ron O’Neal turned Superfly into more than a common drug dealer and Pam Grier’s Foxy Brown was actually, in some ways, a positive female role model. Thus, these actors and characters managed to survive the blaxploitation moment and live on in the cultural imagination.

Diversixploitation, like its 70s counterpart, aims for targeted audiences, revels in clichés and is notably cheap on the quality end. However, whereas blaxploitation actually provided opportunities for black actors and filmmakers, diversixploitation seems content to confine them for petty amusement.

That brings us to the second example, Guess Who. The original film had what was at the time an edgy theme: white college girl brings home somewhat older black fiancée to wealthy, supposedly open-minded parents expecting their approval. It had a top-flight cast (Sydney Poitier, Kate Hepburn and the final appearance of Spencer Tracy) and, despite the social issues raised, didn’t drown in preachy self-seriousness.

The remake, on the other hand, eschewed social significance in favor of cheap laughs. Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher, stepping in for Tracy and Potier, bring nothing to the roles save for the ability and willingness to make jackasses out of themselves. Sadly, this is one of the few cases where a remake would have had something to offer. Guess Who could have given us a look at how older blacks, having lived through anti-miscegenation laws, view interracial romances among their children. Instead, the film doesn’t seem to want to say anything more than “OMFG! He’s a white boy! Let’s crack some jokes, y’all.” If that isn’t exploitation, I don’t know what is.

None of this is to say, of course, that including more diverse casts in remakes is a bad thing. Indeed, quite the opposite can be true – provided the actors involved are allowed to actually do some acting and aren’t merely token representations of a society hung up on the need for diversity.

A good example is the 1997 version of 12 Angry Men. Directed by William Friedkin, it hewed closely to the stellar original of 40 years prior, albeit in a way that seems notably less dated. The jury, for instance, isn’t all white. However, instead of simply changing races arbitrarily for the sake of diversity appeal, the afro-American actors involved are given an opportunity to do something with their characters. Case in point: Mykelti Williamson stepped into the racist juror role initially inhabited by Ed Begley Sr. But since casual overt racism is thankfully out of fashion these days (covert is another matter), Williamson had to improvise. He ended up playing the bigoted juror as a quasi-Nation of Islam type and did so effectively. In the wrong hands, a more diversified remake could have been ’12 Angry Black Men and the Token White Defendant.’ But because the film included a stronger selling point than ‘look, there’s black people!,’ what we are left with is a quality film that rivals the original.

Likewise, Four Brothers – John Singleton’s loose reworking of The Sons of Katie Elder – succeeded because it played to the strengths of its participants rather than exploiting their racial differences to fill seats. Singleton didn’t try to turn Mark Wahlberg into John Wayne (he was instead allowed to stay loose and crack jokes), nor did he attempt to have Andre Benjamin try become “Dean Martin, only black” Instead, he left the characters free to do their own thing while focusing on the themes of a classic western: brotherhood and frontier justice (or, in this case, street justice).

Diversixploitation and its associated maladies – tokenism and stereotyping (including, and, perhaps especially, the ‘positive’ variety) have, fortunately, met with significant backlash. The Wayans Brothers and the South Park guys (Trey Parker and Matt Stone) regularly make a mockery of the politically correct need for token characters. Minority filmmakers have refused to play into the expectations that they make minority-centric films for targeted, minority-centric audiences. Taiwanese-born Ang Lee, in case you missed it, has been knee-deep in superheroes (Hulk) and gay cowboys (Brokeback Mountain) these past few years. Even Crash, with its heavy-handedness and somewhat confused message, managed to throw a monkey wrench into the diversixploitation cookie-cutter.

Suffice it to say, some will deny that diversixploitation exists or insist that it is a necessary remedy to years of minority under/misrepresentation in film. But if that’s the case and there is nothing wrong with arbitrary and shallow diversification efforts, then why not make the next Shaft a Jewish white guy?

The Ongoing Crucifixion of Kobe Bryant

Sometimes, a star burns so bright that there is an instinct among the masses to grab and tear at it in hopes that they too will become illuminated. Such is the fate of L.A. Lakers guard Kobe Bryant, who has been vilified by former teammates, the sports media and unruly fans in every way imaginable.

For example, when Bryant scored a whopping 62 points against the Dallas Mavericks, he was criticized for resting the fourth quarter. When he poured in a jaw-dropping 81 against the Toronto Raptors– good for the second-most in any game in NBA history – the pundits pointed to his high shot count and paltry assist total as proof of his selfishness.

At the time of the Shaquille O’Neal’s trade to Miami, Bryant’s detractors were quick to tell us that he was nothing without Shaq. And when he continued to play at a high level after the big man’s exodus, they blasted him for being unable to lead his team to victory (never mind the coaching changes, the mediocre supporting cast or the fact that O’Neal, playing with the ubertalented Dwayne Wade in Miami, couldn’t secure a title either). It seems that there is nothing that Bryant can do right, which should say more about his critics than it should about him.

First, a caveat: Bryant probably is, as Phil Jackson claimed in his book, a difficult player to coach. Jackson would know, having coached the likes of Dennis Rodman in the past. But when offered the chance to coach Bryant a second time, Jackson took the cash and came out of retirement. So let’s not mistake ‘difficult’ with ‘Terrell Owens-level cancer’ just yet.

Bryant is also a selfish player on the court, which would make him no different than many others in the league. Allen Iverson had the same reputation, even while putting up 30+ points a game. Now that A.I. has learned to pass, he no longer gets bashed by the critics. But the 76ers aren’t contenders anymore than the Lakers (and possibly even less so). The moral here: if you can put up points and you’re stuck with mediocre teammates who won’t help you win, then forget trying to make them better and start shooting the lights out.

So why are people so down on Bryant? Some blame him for putting pressure on Lakers management to ship Shaq out of L.A. This, they claim, exacerbated the Lakers’ fall from contention. The facts, however, point to other culprits. At the time of the trade, Jerry West, the architect of those Lakers championship teams, was long gone and Phil Jackson had recently thrown in the towel. Gary Payton was unhappy, Karl Malone was contemplating retirement and the draft prospects were bleak. In other words, the team was already falling apart.

Shaq also played as big a role in the trade as Bryant did, if not a bigger one. After all, it takes two to have a war of words and the animosity Bryant had toward him was more than reciprocated. Shaq was also seeking an extension at the time and willing to raise hell if he didn’t get one. Given his inability to stay healthy, the Lakers didn’t want to give him anything long-term (they did, however, throw a generous short-term offer his way, which he rejected). Plus – and this is far too often dismissed as idle chatter on his part – the big man actually demanded a trade. With or without Bryant, he would have been gone. Trading him when they did at least enabled the Lakers to get something of value (Lamar Odom) in return.

Of course, when they aren’t blaming him for the Shaq trade, Bryant-bashers will point to his off-court behavior: namely, sexual assault allegations. And while these allegations are to be taken seriously, it would appear that a double standard is at play. Bryant is not Ruben Patterson, the Portland Trailblazers forward who attempted to rape his child’s babysitter and has a reputation as a violent thug on and off the court. Nor is Bryant NFL players Ray Lewis and Leonard Little, both of whom have been implicated in various forms of homicide and both of whom, inexplicably, have better reputations than Kobe.

Perhaps the number one reason why Bryant is vilified is that he no longer fits today’s “new” NBA. Bryant came into the league in the mid-to-late 1990s, a time when individual prowess reigned supreme. A whole generation of brash young players wanting to be the next Michael Jordan stormed the NBA, and the league, the fans, and the media were there to stroke their egos. This was the era of the marijuana-toking Portland Jailblazers, led by technical foul king Rasheed Wallace. This was the era when high-flying Vince Carter and Big Dog Glenn Robinson could make All-Star teams despite having no defensive commitment and no sense of team chemistry, respectively. This was an era when outright headcases like J.R. Rider could still find employment on the basis of sheer scoring ability alone.

And in this NBA, Bryant fit perfectly. Coming directly from high school, he was young, inexperienced, a touch immature, but God was he talented. Most who revile him now were perfectly happy to buy into him then. Everyone was too busy anointing him the next prodigy to point out his shortcomings. If you take a snapshot of Bryant in 2000, you would see a player destined to be among the greatest who ever played the game.

But then a funny thing happened. The Lakers dynasty collapsed. Injuries and diminished production made talented-but-troublesome players more of a pain than they were worth. Teams like the Spurs and the Pistons began winning championships. The NBA, in other words, had changed.

It is debatable what lead to this transformation, but what has become abundantly clear is that it does not favor players like Kobe Bryant. The stars of the new NBA are Tim Duncan, a fundamentally skilled big man with a bland personality, Ben Wallace, a hard-working defender with little offensive game and Steve Nash, a team-oriented, pass-first point guard. All three are a far cry from the electrifying dunkmasters of just a few short years ago.

This change, coupled with Commissioner David Stern’s new get-tough stance (which has included, to date, a controversial dress code and very stiff penalties for players who venture into the stands), have resulted in making Bryant a pariah. The message to him is clear: either change your game and your attitude or you will continue to be vilified. Never mind what your scoring average is (nearly 36 points as of this posting, best in the league and a career high as well), how many rings you have (3) or how suspect your teammates are (Kwame Brown, anyone?), if you are not with the program, you’re a goner.

Need more proof? Ask yourself: five years ago, would the Pacers have benched then traded Ron Artest – an absolute demon on the court despite his attitude – or would they have tried to placate him and smooth things over?

I can’t really say I miss the attitude of the old NBA. Watching a bunch of near-30 millionaires gallivanting about like mischievous adolescents is enough to make your eyes roll and your stomach turn. But as much as it’s fallen out of favor now, that NBA was supported by Stern, by fans, by the sports media. For them to turn around now and attempt to disown it is an exercise in hypocrisy. So go ahead, boo Bryant. Call him selfish. Try to drag him down. But just remember: his celebrity is a child of your making.

A Libertarian Defense of the New Deal

From the day he replaced Al Smith as governor of New York, Franklin Delano Roosevelt has enjoyed an unparalleled cachet among progressives. Up until recently, that alone was enough to make him an object of scorn in conservative circles, but the current crop of neoconservatives has fallen in love with FDR’s foreign policy approach and “national greatness” rhetoric. That leaves libertarians and a dwindling number of paleoconservatives to sully his legacy but I, for one, find myself not entirely up to the task. FDR might have been America’s most statist president, but the New Deal legislation for which he is best remembered has some components that even a libertarian can like.

Let it be said from the start that I don’t intend this to be a defense of the New Deal in its entirety. What transpired during FDR’s reign – literally thousands of pages of regulations added to the federal register and the creation of a behemoth bureaucracy that, by and large, still stands today — is indefensible by almost any measure of classical liberalism, as is the postwar expansion of New Deal programs that followed (damn you, LBJ). I’ll further qualify this defense by pegging it to the harsh realities of the era: namely, the Great Depression. That said, while it certainly brought about an unprecedented change in governance, I don’t buy the notion that the New Deal is somehow to blame for all the socioeconomic woes that beset America in the years that followed.

First and foremost, there can be little doubt that the New Deal was preferable to a socialist insurrection. If the idea of an American-style Bolshevik uprising seems far-fetched, I invite doubters to revisit the political and economic conditions of the great depression. Faith in the free market was shot. Herbert Hoover’s ham-handed government response was derided as ineffective. A number of prominent leaders, from Huey Long to CIO boss John Lewis, were calling for reforms that were far more radical than what ultimately came to pass. FDR might not have “saved capitalism from itself,” but he certainly did co-opt these malcontents and head off the problem before it got out of control.

And yet, some still find it prudent to blast him for having given in. Conveniently, they neglect to mention what they would have done in his place. Given the public attitudes at the time, staying the course and waiting for the market to correct itself was not a politically viable option. Inaction would have only bred further unrest and utilizing heavy-handed tactics and police-state conditions to put down the unrest would have only exacerbated the problem.

Libertarians have been able to point to what should have been done before the Depression to soften the impact (namely, monetary reform and repealing restrictive tariffs), but I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory explanation as to what should have been done during the Depression itself. “Wait it out” may be the correct prescription in the long haul, but it does precious little good while people are starving.

That said, the New Deal can also be defended on the grounds that it produced better consumers. While libertarians (and Austrian School economists in particular) have attacked the notion that the New Deal ended the Depression. Fair enough (albeit inconclusive due to the outbreak of WWII). But what of the New Deal’s role in creating the middle class?

The postwar years saw the dual marvel of prodigious economic growth and expansion coupled with a system of support services that had previously been nonexistent. And, while it is likely that those who were able to make money before the Depression would have been able to do so after as well, there were a considerable number of individuals who would have had a hard time making ends meet, let alone prospering like they did.

The Depression, lest anyone forget, wiped out savings and left plenty of people without any capital whatsoever. Individuals without capital cannot buy, spend or save. In other words, they don’t contribute to the economy.

What the New Deal did was provide individuals whose savings had been eliminated with capital, in the form of the WPA and other job creation programs. Granted, this came at a high cost to the taxpayer, but in absence of it a.) there would be no one to fuel the economy on the lower levels and top-down investment would have led to a slow turnaround and b.) a good portion of those costs would exist anyway in policing/locking up all the shiftless bums patrolling the streets because they can’t find work.

Those who automatically dismiss the New Deal as government overkill usually neglect to consider these secondary effects, and, in doing so perpetrate a sort of reverse Broken Windows theory (ignoring hidden benefits rather than ignoring hidden costs). If the New Deal had the result of helping the economy, then I can’t write it off anymore than I could write off N.Y. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s “overreaching” when it has the effect of restoring investor confidence in the wake of stock scandals.

Third, I draw a distinction between New Deal programs as they existed at that time and the expansion of these programs that occurred afterwards. Social Security is a prime example of why such a distinction is necessary. The program was designed explicitly for poor old folks at a time in which poverty among seniors exceeded 50%. The Supreme Court decision made note of these circumstances, referring to them as “a crisis so extreme.”

Clearly, the program at the time was not Social Security as it exists today. If anyone at the time had promoted the idea that the government would attempt to fund the retirement of most Americans, the idea probably would have been ridiculed as untenable and the Court probably would have voted the other way. You can blame the New Deal for creating what led to our current retirement quagmire, but you shouldn’t confuse the two.

Of course, one could also exalt the New Deal for giving breaks to stellar talents such as Arthur Miller via the WPA, but doing that would require looking at how many mediocre and forgettable talents taxpayer dollars were spent on. No, the bottom line here is that, for all the ire it raises (even 60 years after the fact) among free market folks, the New Deal was a desperation move, not a Faustian bargain. Yes, there is a lot there to be disdainful of, but if you look hard enough, you’ll also find a few things to like. And lest anyone forget, things could have turned out much, much worse. We could all be calling each other “comrade.”