"The only way America succeeds is if businesses are succeeding. The reason we've got a[n] unparalleled standard of living in the history of the world is because we've got a free market that is dynamic and entrepreneurial...That free market has to be nurtured and cultivated."
Speaker-elect John Boehner? No. Milton Friedman? Nope. Thomas Sowell? Strike three.
President Obama said it. The day after the the midterm election, in his televised news conference, he said it. And, much to my surprise and delight, he did not appear to throw up a little in his mouth right after the words, free market. (Although, there was a significant pause there somewhere. Could be a slight case of acid reflux...)
Begin at the 46 minute mark. Comments follow the video:
Explanations for such a public statement from a president who gives every indication of a deep hostility to an unplanned free market can abound. Let's entertain just three:
1. Timing. It was said the day after the midterms. The Tea Party influence on the results was significant, what, with all this talk and rally signage about socialism and free markets. With all this talk of compromise and working together, it makes sense to pretend you've just read the dust cover to one of von Mises' tracts. (It was Mises who said
, "The people of the United States are more prosperous than the inhabitants of all other countries because their government embarked later than the government in other parts of the world upon the policy of obstructing business.") So It could just be prudent political posturing, or at least reflexive lip service. 2. Politics. Surprise! Related to #1, and probably interchangeable with it, he felt the calculating urge to drop a little homage to free marketeers on the Hill. (All four were probably listening.)
3. He actually believes it or at least acknowledges the historical fact that our prosperity and standard of living are the result of the level of freedom we've always enjoyed. The progressive Left can indeed acknowledge so much and still embrace a radically different vision for the future of American society. After all, who should be running the fate of the country, hordes of unorganized and uncoordinated free people pursuing their own self interests or the wiser-than-thous with Ivy League degrees? That's a no-brainer, depending on who you're talking to, of course.
Actually, after considering all three possibilities I really don't care what the motivation for saying was. Yes, forget all that conjecturing.
The important matter is that he said it. Just as importantly is the fact that only the most strident outspoken socialists publicly denounce capitalism, individual freedom, and constitutional limitations on government that protect so much. In America one still has to at least pay lip service to that whole freedom thing, and most times pay lip service to that whole Constitution thing, too. As has been stressed here and will be stressed again and again, we have much reason for---dare I use the term---hope that politicians still feel the political urgency to give a public tip-of-the-hat to freedom. This belies what their advisers and pollsters and focus groups tell them: "Americans are still hung up on being the freest people in the world. Demagogue over it, prevaricate around it, bulldoze your way over it, but you have to deal with it."
This is still the home field for freedom. If we want to be the visiting team we can move to Europe and slug away there.
I wanted to discuss what follows these words, comments about the financial crises, health care, and BP but am running long. Just remember to ask: How free is the market in health care, the financial markets, and petroleum? But that's for another Chalk Talk.
