The Evolution of Laissez Faire: Free Market Economics in Political Theory and American Thought

Leonard O Goenaga

The Evolution of Laissez Faire: Free Market Economics in Political Theory and American Thought

I. Intro

• Opening Statement: Defining Laissez Faire
• Thesis Statement

II. Outline

III. Body

• Laissez Faire in the 18^th Century
• Thought 1: The Founding: Thomas Jefferson (18^th Century)
• Thomas Jefferson

ú  Declaration of Independence

ú  First Inaugural Address (1801)

• Laissez Faire in the 19^th Century
• Thought 2: Free Labor: Abraham Lincoln (19^th Century)
• Lincoln’s letters  
• Thought 3: Social Darwinists (19^th Century)
• Herbert Spencer
• Andrew Carnegie, “The Gospel of Wealth”
• William Graham Sumner, What the Social Classes Owe Each Other
• Laissez Faire in the 20^th Century
• Thought 4: Progressive Backlash and the Mixed Economy (20^th Century)
• The Decline of American Laissez Faire
• Progressivism
• Wilson, FDR & Croley
• Thought 5: Defense of Laissez Faire (20^th Century)
• Milton Friedman
• Ayn Rand & Objectivism

IV. Summary

• Summary statement of areas of Thought.
• Laissez Faire and the future of the 21^st Century
• Thought 6: The Future of Laissez Faire: Conservative and Libertarian Movements (21^st Century)
• Reagan Conservatism
• Ron Paul & the Young Libertarian Movement

V. Conclusion

• Restated Thesis
• Concluding Statements

Traditionally, laissez faire is coined from a French phrase meaning, “allow to do”. It is known to represent a strain of economic and political thought that calls for minimal government intervention in the private sector, characterized by a ‘hands off’ approach by the government, in hopes of having private sector solutions for private sector problems. Although the original source of the phrase is disputed, the first sign of its usage is claimed to be from the Marquis d’Argenson, whom claimed  “Laissez faire,” in his 1736 Memoires (Keynes, II). Whatever the source, and there are several claims to it, laissez faire has been popularized throughout the ages. It has specifically been heralded as a rallying cry for different political groups and leaders throughout American history, from founders such as Jefferson, to current political leaders such as Ron Paul. It is this evolution of the term, and the continual passage of its importance from generation to generation, that this paper will explore. This paper will follow the passage of the torch of laissez faire throughout the 18^th, 19^th, 20^th and 21^st centuries, focusing on how it has been seen at the Union’s founding (Jefferson), the Free Labor movement (Lincoln), the Social Darwinist period (Spencer, Carnegie, Sumner), the Progressive backlash (FDR, Croly, Wilson), the revival of laissez faire in the 20^th century (Friedman, Rand), and finally conclude with an analysis of laissez faire’s future.

During the nation’s founding, few had such effect on the development of this new government than Thomas Jefferson. Having been an important thinker, and the writer of the Declaration of Independence itself, Jefferson makes a good starting point in our exploration of laissez faire. Perhaps Jefferson best exemplifies the goal of laissez faire in the statement “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” (Dolbeare 49). It is this Jeffersonian emphasis on the individual that makes laissez faire possible, and the quote itself hints at greater free-market sources: such as political theorist John Locke. The tradition of Jeffersonianism is grounded in the idea of sacred individualism, or the importance of preserving the individual as having precedence over government. This involved the establishment of individual rights, individual responsibility, and civic participation. This liberal individual-focus is perhaps where we can best draw Jefferson’s connection with laissez faire. Free markets themselves cannot function with a weighted understanding of the importance of the individual. As Jeffersonianism calls for a rejection of big government, so does laissez faire. The two stand on similar soil, necessitating both a small government and individual responsibility to properly function. It is no wonder that in various writings do we find elements characteristic of laissez faire. In his First Inaugural Address (1801), we find several portions emulating free-market ideas. One in particular perhaps best summarizes Jefferson’s tone: “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities,” (Dolbeare 151). The element of laissez faire found within the quote speaks for itself. This tone of free-market and individual-focus continues throughout Jeffersonian thought, and with the close association between Jeffersonianism and laissez faire, one will likely find them joined at the hip throughout their political evolution.

Next in line within the progression of laissez faire minded thinking is Abraham Lincoln. It is of interest that again, we find Jeffersonian ideals standing side by side with those of free market capitalism. Lincoln appears to have been incredibly influenced by Jefferson’s notions of individual liberty and freedom in the form of the Free Labor movement. It is of no surprise, given the ideals set in Jeffersonianism that someone like Lincoln would take them to their logical conclusions, which resulted with the emancipation of the slaves. This newfound freedom is also easily associated with laissez faire principles. One may wish to argue that a government stepping in to force the emancipation of slaves upon its member states appears to be interventionalist, and thus anti-laissez faire, but I would disagree. Laissez faire principles imply a genuine equality amongst the labor force. The ideals of a ‘hands off’ economic approached it rooted upon the principle that men are equal in their ability to work, create, and compete. A general air of freedom scents the ideas of laissez faire, as it necessitates a freedom from government interference, and freedom of the individual to work. Thus, I would argue that a government allowing such an institution as slavery, which clearly degrades an economic atmosphere of free competition, is a government intervening upon the market. Following this line of reasoning, I am inclined to see Lincoln in agreement. Lincoln argued that the Constitution was to be regarded as the law of the Union, while the Declaration to be it’s guiding spirit. We’ve already expressed the laissez faire qualities of Jefferson, the document’s author, and knowing a genuine Jeffersonian spirit existing within Lincoln (see Letter to Boston Republicans 1859), we see further ground for a laissez faire friendly mindset. Within Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address (1865), we are given a hint of his laissez faire convictions. The dilemma is the argument of possibly deporting black laborers, in fear that this newfound group would overrun white laborer’s occupations. In a true laissez faire fashion, Lincoln rejects any government interference, responding that to “reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor,” (Dolbeare 246). Lincoln states that occupation levels will remain the same, and shares derived theoretical principles of wages shared by classical liberals. Instead of advocating that the government step in and assure public anxiety, Lincoln calls for the market to run it’s own course, rejecting any intervention amongst the newly liberated workforce. Clearly, this hints at laissez faire presuppositions. What then, is the importance of Abraham Lincoln in the discussion of laissez faire? Most importantly, Lincoln took the necessity of freedom needed by laissez faire, and advocated by Jeffersonianism, to its logical conclusion and beyond social traditions such as slavery, resulting with a freed workforce that brought the actual laborers closer to the ideals stressed in free market capitalism. It would be difficult to relate laissez faire to free market capitalism, if the laborers in the market are hardly free.

Given the gains laissez faire had experienced in the early and mid 19^th century, we now find it at it’s peak in the form of Social Darwinism. During this era in the late 1800s, laissez faire was probably given its greatest economic setting and ideological foothold in the form of the industrialization of the U.S. and the intellectuals of Social Darwinism. The environment itself benefited from the ideas of a free market. The economy was shifting from being agricultural based, to industrial. Population rates and immigration soared in number, giving rise to a greater potential workforce for the budding industries. In addition, populations were urbanized, leading businesses to compete for labor, as well as buyers. The rise of tycoons of the like of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others were standards of the time, and competition was exceptionally fierce. For these reasons of industrialization, population booms, and the rise of big business, it is no wonder we find an accompanying ideology to spur along justified growth. Social Darwinism found within its roots the ideas of Englishman Herbert Spencer. Having coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” within his Principles of Biology (1864), Spencer adapted the ideas of natural selection as contained within Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, and molded them to an economical setting. Survival was now fought amongst big businesses, producing the strongest and most vital industries above the others. Individuals such as Carnegie ran with the philosophical setting, arguing in The Gospel of Wealth for the moral and fiscal benefits such competition produced within man. One other intellectual who adapted the ideas to the industrialized setting, and considered the intellectual leader of Social Darwinism in America, is William Graham Sumner. In his What the Social Classes Owe Each Other, Sumner stressed individualism, free trade, inevitability of inequality, and the struggle of survival as a good. In a full throated argument against hand-outs, and the sanctity of a man’s hard earned work, Sumner summarizes the Social Darwinist’s laissez faire battle-cry where, in What the Social Classes Owe Each Other, he states that “rights do not pertain to results, but only to chances. They pertain to the condition of the struggle for existence, not to any of the results of it; to the pursuit of happiness, not to the possession of happiness…each has a right to acquire and possess property if he can,” (Dolbeare 285). It is for these arguments, clearly pro free-markets that we may point to Social Darwinism within the late 1800s as the peak of implemented laissez faire within the United States. It is also interesting that from this peak we also find its future drought.

Following the high laissez faire experienced during the era of Social Darwinism comes its first great challenge. Until the 20^th century, laissez faire had remained lightly challenged, but greatly accepted. The inherited liberal tradition of Locke and Adams, as well as leaders like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Social Darwinists, and others, cemented this tradition. However, from the Social Darwinist’ shadow, and in rebellion to them, came laissez faire’s first and greatest challenge: Progressivism and the Mixed Economy. Evolving from the Populist movements of the 1890s, and such popular notions as found in Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward, Progressives began to interpret the ‘pursuit of happiness’ differently. Feeling as if the cut-throat capitalism found in industrialism was overly brutal, Progressives started to question the meaning of democracy, and how to improve its quality. Herbert Croly, in The Promise of American Life (1909), perhaps best summarizes the progressives’ intent, where he states that:

The democratic principle requires an equal start in the race…the chance which the individual has to compete with his fellows and take a prize in the race is vitally affected by material conditions over which he has no control…[yet] with the aid of exceptional strength and intelligence he may overcome the odds against him and win out. (Dolbeare 373)

Progressives such as Croly, Roosevelt, Brandeis and Wilson thus called for a bigger government to deal with bigger business and to thus even the playing field for those whom they saw as at a disadvantaged start (“there shall be two masters, the great corporation and over it the government of the United States,” [Wilson, Dolbeare 395]). The results came in the form of Progressivism and it’s associated welfare state. A Hamiltonian government meant to enact good was called back into the picture, to again compete with its rival: the laissez faire allied Jeffersonian model. Progressivism called for a rejection of Social Darwinism, an equal start (in the form of welfare benefits, income taxes, free education, etc.), public ownership of industries, civil rights, trust busting, and other associated policies. This style of government had its greatest gains in power given the rise of FDR and the crash of the Great Depression. With the economy in a crisis, unchecked laissez faire was perceived as being the cause of the market burst, which resulted with progressivism seeing a boom. FDR and Wilson implemented various progressive policies, calling for ‘new societies’ of equality and welfare benefits. Perhaps the injury to laissez faire is echoed best in the words of Woodrow Wilson, where in his The Meaning of Democracy (1912), he states “America is not now, and cannot in the future be, a place for unrestricted individual enterprise,” (Dolbeare 393).

Although laissez faire saw a serious low-point in the form of the interventionalist policies surrounding the Great Depression, as well as the Keynesian critique of Laissez Faire and the resulting developments that turned the state into a mixed economy, there was no shortage of it’s support. Perhaps the greatest 20^th century economist that idealized defense of laissez faire and free markets was found in Milton Friedman. A leader of the popular Chicago school of politics, Friedman advocated a minimized role for the government in the economy, putting emphasis on private sector solutions for private sector problems. He rejected the Keynesian blame of laissez faire policies for causing the Great Depression, and although formerly a Keynesian himself, Friedman argued that it was actually too much government that caused and prolonged the market meltdown. Friedman developed the macroeconomic policy of monetarism, which focused on the connection between the supply of money and inflation. Friedman denounced the role of the government in micromanaging the private market, arguing that the private sector would respond to the government’s efforts, thus nullifying any intended response. In addition, he argued for a natural rate of employment, and theorized that Keynesian policies would lead to stagnation (which they did). One cannot underestimate the importance Friedman has had on bringing a justification to laissez faire on economist grounds; bringing successful economic theory attached to the ideas of free market capitalism. His ideas have been popular amongst conservatives and libertarians, and have idealized an intellectual movement that has reshaped the study of economics, as well as having influenced leaders from Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher, and such free-market success stories as the Chilean Economic miracle. For these reasons, it is no wonder that even such critiques as Princeton University economist Paul Krugman claims he is “the best spokesman for the virtues of free markets since Adam Smith,” (Krugman 1).

Another interesting area that vehemently defended laissez faire within the 20^th century comes from the direction of Ayn Rand and the associated school of Objectivism. Ayn Rand was a Russian-born screenwriter (having written the popular novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which still sells yearly in the 100,000’s), philosopher, and rational individualist who heavily advocated a return to 19^th century capitalism. Similar to the Social Darwinist of the 19^th century, Ayn called for a purification of the economy in the form of laissez-faire capitalism, and designed an entire school of thought focused on such a purpose. This school, known as Objectivism, focused on rational egoism in ethics, calling for a rejection of the supernatural, as such ideas as religion and mysticism called for unproductive self-sacrifice. This school called on man to entertain his reason for selfish pursuits, seeing a purified form of rational selfishness as an engine to successful economics and government. To Ayn, individuals “must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life,” (Rand 3). Clearly, such a quote recalls images of the self-motivated motifs of Social Darwinism, and one cannot be blamed for doing so. Perhaps Ayn wished to reinstall such an economic perspective in the modern setting by reviving it with new justification via her philosophical school of Objectivism. Her thought of perfecting the self-interested capital-driven man echoed earlier sentiments of Sumner, Carnegie and Spencer, as they all hoped to underscore the utter importance capitalists had in society (seen in her book Atlas Shrugged, which details the effect of industrialist and entrepreneurs going on strike and leaving the U.S. to establish a free economy, resulting with a collapse of U.S. society). In summary, Ayn Rand, although overlooked academically, is important in that she was not only a leading voice in the justification of laissez faire in the form of a philosophical school dedicated to individual-based egoism, but also in the development of one of the standard-bearers of traditional laissez faire capitalism in the current era: the modern Libertarian movement.

From these two great thinkers arose the future defenders of laissez faire policies: those of conservatives and libertarians. Although two cuts from the same cloth, and seemingly allies, the modern Conservative and Libertarian movements draw distinctions. However, both share in being greatly inspired by such free-market advocates like Friedman and Ayn Rand. The Conservative movement sought to rebuttal the effects of progressive economic policy, and given the renewed intellectual vigor of such individuals as Friedman, laissez faire found an invigorating voice in Ronald Reagan. Campaigning for free markets, Chicago type economic policy, ‘Reaganomics’, and individualism, Reagan led a conservative revolution that brought with it laissez faire ideals. Within his threefold conservative approach (free markets, strong national defense, and traditional family values), Reagan was able to push back some of the progressive economic changes. Fiscal conservatism till this day carries much weight within the modern conservative movement, and although damaged by large Republican spenders such as Nixon and the Bush’s, laissez faire is still considered a foundational position. In addition to Conservatives, modern Libertarians have grounded themselves even closer to laissez faire ideals. A strand of American ‘conservatism’, Libertarianism derives its influences from such thinkers as Friedman, Ayn Rand, Goldwater, and others. Its approach is similar to those of the conservatives, yet it denounces traditional socially conservative stances, as well as adapting non-interventionalist foreign policies. This renewed movement is best currently personified in the form of Representative Ron Paul, a severely fiscal-minded libertarian who champions laissez faire policies. A former 2008 contender for the republican candidacy, Ron Paul led a ‘revolution’ amongst libertarians, bringing about a lively grassroots styled campaign amongst dedicated youth.  Perhaps it is in this surge of youthful libertarian interest, as well as the tradition of Reagan-type conservatism, that laissez faire policies will find its future’s voice.

With the start of the 21^st century, it is interesting to guess where laissez faire will go, and how future generations will interpret it. Given its rise and fall between the 19^th and 20^th century, it begs the question, given the current political climate, whether the 20^th to 21^st century will have similar experiences. At the moment, the U.S. government is experiencing its worst economic woes since the Carter years. In addition, laissez faire principles have been nearly trampled on, as the government has already secured over 200 billion in ‘bailout’ funds for the banking sector. In addition, ignoring numerous other car companies who met their demise in the 20^th century, the ‘Big Three’ U.S. automakers are now pleading with the government for loans (GM, Ford, and Chrysler). Such bailouts of big business go both against the tenets of ‘survival of the fittest’ of the Social Darwinist era, as well as the anti-corporate attitude of Wilson and others. One is thus left with the impression that laissez faire is again experiencing a renewed debate on it’s existence in the economy. Having analyzed laissez faire within the 18^th, 19^th, 20^th, and 21^st centuries, and having explored such instrumental thinkers as Jefferson, Lincoln, Spencer, Croly, and others, we are left curiously looking for the free market’s future. Will the torch finally be extinguished by these modern economic problems and government’s interventionalist bailouts? Will this crises finish where Progressives and the Great Depression left off? Or will the environment bring about renewed discussion, and a possible rediscovery of laissez faire as the answer to the economy’s problems? It all too eerily emulates the Great Depression, and how Progressives blamed Hoover and an unchecked laissez faire economy (Hoover was hardly a non-interventionalist). This renewed Jeffersonian versus Hamiltonian narrative leads us to ask: Where then, is laissez faire to go? Perhaps the torch will be passed to the youthful hands of this libertarian ‘revolution’, or fortified within the fortress of old southern conservatism. Or perhaps the torch has finally met its match.

Works Cited

Dolbeare, Kenneth M., and Michael S. Cummings. American Political Thought. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2004.

Keynes, J.M. “’The End of Laissez Faire.’” PanArchy.og. Winter 2008.  12 Dec. 2008 <http://ww.panarchy.org/‌keynes/‌laissezfaire.1926.html>.

Krugman, Paul. “The New York Review of Books, Volumn 54, Number 2.” NYBooks.com. 2 Feb. 2007. The New York Review of Books.  10 Dec. 2008 <http://nybooks.com/‌articles/‌19857>.

Rand, Ayn. The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought (The Ayn Rand Library, Vol V) . New York: Penguin Group, 1990.

Total Public Debt, as of April 2nd, 2008

Total Public Debt, Outstanding, as of 4.2.09:

$11,110,654,357,209.33

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

 

So Democrats, how do we cut this debt, let alone the future

 

$8,000,000,000.00+

yearly interest payments on the debt…?

 

Your share of the public debt: $36,000.00+

 

Enjoy…?

Obama and the Budget, Heritage Foundation

 

Obama's Budget and National Debt

“During his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama promised the American people a “net spending cut.”1 Instead, he signed a “stimulus” bill that spends $800 billion, and he has proposed a budget that would:

• Increase spending by $1 trillion over the next decade;
• Include an additional $250 billion placeholder for another financial bailout;
• Likely lead to a 12 percent increase in discretion­ary spending;
• Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over pre-recession levels;
• Raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade;
• Raise taxes for 3.2 million taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
• Call for a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) law despite offering a budget that would violate it by $3.4 trillion;
• Assume a rosy economic scenario that few econo­mists anticipate;
• Leave permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers; and
• Double the publicly held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5 trillion after inflation).”

Federal Spending Per Household Under Obama's Budget

“President Obama has framed his budget as a break from the “failed policies” of the Bush Admin­istration. Actually, his budget doubles down on President George W. Bush’s borrow, spend, and bail­out policies. For example:

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.[3]
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.[4]
  
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.[5]
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.[6]
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.[7]“

Obama's 1.7 Trillion Tax Increase

“Analysts have described President Obama’s budget as a repudiation of the past 25 years of economic pol­icy. In doing so, the President has rejected the most prosperous economic period in American history.

Between 1953 and 1982—a period of high tax rates, spending growth, and applied Keynesian eco­nomics—the economy was in recession 21 percent of the time, inflation reached 13 percent, interest rates hit 19 percent, and the stock market grew only 5.4 percent annually.

However, beginning around 1982, tax rates were dramatically reduced, and federal spending began decreasing as a share of the economy. In the 26 years following this major policy shift, the economy has been in recession only 10 percent of the time (including the current recession), inflation has never topped 5 percent, interest rates have never exceeded 12 percent, and the stock market (despite increased volatility) has soared 7.0 percent annually, even including the recent 50 percent drop.[25]

The United States has created enormous wealth over the past 25 years. For President Obama to pro­pose returning to economic policies of the Carter Administration, which brought stagflation and mal­aise, is unfathomable. Lawmakers should reject this budget and instead reduce tax rates for families and entrepreneurs, restrain runaway government, and reform unaffordable entitlements.“

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2249.cfm

 

Projected Budget Deficit

S&P 500 in the Great Depression, compared to the current recession

S&P 500 Comparison, 1930s Depression and Current Recession under President Obama

Watch this.

‘Job Creation’ Bill? More Like Chorizo Wrapped in Bacon and Dipped in Melted Lard.

Take from my Facebook, in response to an argument regarding the proposal:

Reaching across party lines? President Obama had a meeting with Congressman, which was great! However, he merely heard what they said, and did not listen. It is unjust to say Republicans have had any real opportunity to draft this massive pork-filled legislation. Obama listened to them, and that was it. Pelosi barred Republicans from any real role in this fiasco, and I couldn’t be any more happier. May the project rest upon the Democrats, whether they reak the rewards of its success or it’s failures.

The only bipartisanship within this thing was in opposition, and for good reason. Obama had a serious opportunity to provide incentives via lobbying democratic congressmen, to gain Republican votes.

Yet what did we end up with? Change? No. We ended up with a bill that racks up the spending for liberal federal governmental spending projects. Projects that add little job growth, or no real profit returns.
Obama could have really lent an olive branch by including incentives for Republicans.

However, this wasn’t the case. Obama had a genuine chance to impliment requests Republicans made to him when they met, but what was his response? Paraphrasing his words: ‘I won, I trump you on that one’.

Obama had a genuine opportunity to ‘change the way Washington works.’

Is this real change? The only change here is that now Democrats are in power, and Republicans are possibly returning to their small government roots (Thank God!). Democrats are using the guise of an economic rescue package to fulfil 40 years of liberal-dream projects. The worst thing is they are passing it off as a stimulus package.

In the words of the Wall Street Journal’s analysis “Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus“.

There is no change in the way Politics is played in Washington. This is Democrats getting back at Republicans. This is reflected by not a single Republicans voting for it. Such a polar divide

in the voting shows me that much.

Obama had an opportunity to gain Republican support on the bill, and instead the opposite occured. If anything Republicans were unified against it. Why? Because Democrats won and now they have power to muscle such. That is no change. It is the same throne with someone else sitting on it.

As for this ‘Blame Rush’ and ‘Blame Republicans’ nonsense… This is exactly what I predicted. Pelosi, in her fanatical liberal ways, is muscling her new power, with Reid doing the same. She successfully barred real Republican participation, and similiar to what occured with Clinton in his early years, Congress is so far muscling Obama.

Whether Obama truly desires real change in the way things are done, it didn’t happen, and I would blame Pelosi more than Obama, as at least the man opened dialouge with Republicans (even if he didn’t actually lobby for any suggested changes).

So we are left asking. What is this bill? Obviously a great opportunity for Obama has been rendered nuertered by Democrat ‘leadership’ in the House. So what are we getting with this?

You said we need to flood the market with money. Even if such were the case, is this Bill doing that? Or is it throwing money at liberal projects? Thank goodness some muck was tossed aside, but how much more remains? Can we look at this greasy bill and determine with clarity that it is a pro-job growth and stimulate bill?

Democrats are using the same weapon of fear republicans did. ‘If we don’t pass this tomorrow, our economy will fail!’. How irresposible is it to pass trillions of debt upon the American people, and to rush it forward (this equally critiques both sides of the aisle)?

What’s in this bill?

“This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.”

Here we Go:

-$1,000,000,000 for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years;
-$2,000,000,000 for child-care subsidies;
-$50,000,000 for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts;
-$400,000,000 for global-warming research and another
-$2,400,000,000 for carbon-capture demonstration projects.
-$650,000,000 on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
-$335,000,000 for STD Prevention. We all know how many jobs this creates…

“Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There’s another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.” Can we say less than 7%?

“Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren’t likely to help the economy immediately.”

That’s $.12 out of every dollar… Let alone so many of these projects are debatable in how efficient they are, and the type of job’s they create.

“Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?”

We are talking about tends of thousands of dollars of burden placed upon the backs of families. We’re talking a commited tax burden of $10k on Families, or $20k+ on families with kids under 18. Families who may not benefit from the billion of these liberal projects. This is simply what I have said: Liberals taking advantage of the situation.

In the words of Emmanuel last November: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

The Bill even goes on with more wasteful spending. How do we rush such bacon-covered chorizo, and then try to turn against Republicans, and demonize them by saying they are the problem? They are trying to do what a House is supposed to: reveal to the public where their money is going to.

Seriously, if you support this bill, justify how do all these projects stimulate and create jobs?

“Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?”

THIS IS NOT A JOB CREATING BILL. IT IS FIRST AND FOREMOST A DEMOCRACT LIBERAL SOCIAL SPENDING BILL.

One only needs to really look at it to determine such. It is IMMORAL to try and pass this to the public as a job creation bill…

“Another “stimulus” secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments — that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There’s $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren’t job creators.”

The Change Obama talked about was clarity and unity. The public is not being made aware of what their money is going to, except by the people who such lefties as MoveOn.org are trying to

demonize: talk show hosts.

Obama first fails on finding any real unity thus far on his first massive spending bill. I would argue he fails secondly on not even being the source to communicate all these financial commitments. Instead, he asks us not to listen to Rush, smiles while eating $100 steaks, and tells us this Bill is a Job Creation Bill.

One needs to only look at the numbers, and arrive to the same conclusion the Wall Street Journal did.

This is beyond pork. BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

1. “Oh, and don’t forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That’s more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that “No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools.” Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.”

   Do not come along and say that Republicans were part of this process. As the New Testament tradition went, you would go and proclaim the Gospel in a village, and if they reject you, then dust your sandles on the way out. The Republicans have dusted their sandles, and have been clearly rejected by the Democrats on the Hill.

   We can conclude no more than this:

1. Job-Creation Projects are a simple minority of this bill.
2. The real intention is to increase the baseline of spending, with money going to every democratic liberal wishlist program derived over the last 40 years.
3. There has been no Real Republican role in this.
4. This is no greater change of how Politics is in Washington, just a change in who is running the system. As I said before, Pelosi and Reid will bully Obama as has happened before.

I conclude with the WSJ’s summary:

“This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living — or dead — Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, “We won the election. We wrote the bill.” So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.“

Cited:

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

Interested where you can Read this Pig-fat?

http://readthestimulus.org/

The Political Pendulum: Where Do Conservatives Go From Here?

The Political Pendulum: Where Do Conservatives Go From Here?

By Leonard O Goenaga, LeonardOoh.com

10-5-08

 

I had a wonderful experience yesterday. Obviously, it occurred before the election results streamed in. This wonderful experience was waking up early morning, besides my wife, to garner together the Goenagas to vote. The interesting experience was in this: My father, a Cuban American (and a proud one at that), had received his U.S. citizenship early this year and was now voting in his first presidential election.

 

Here I was, standing in line with my mother, father, and wife, participating in a Democratic process within the most beautiful and successful country in the world. A country that opened its arms to my family members: individuals who were being persecuted by Castro for political positions and beliefs.  

 

Here I was, within the warm embrace of family, country and democracy. To deny it the title of blessing would be a shame…

 

After the months upon months of lively discussions, deepened debates, and prolonged late-night arguments, I filled in my voters sheet besides my father and his booth; two generations proudly participating.

 

As sorry as I am for the results of the election, there are several lessons to be learned. First I must ask myself, did I expect Obama to win? Sadly, I knew for a sizable amount of time that Obama would claim his victory, although by no means would that prevent me from pursuing and fighting! A man shows his inwards most against the odds.

 

McCain simply ran a less than average campaign. Obama was impressively organized, and politically creative. The Republican Party was divided, as can be seen in the 53% of Republicans who did not vote for McCain during the primaries. In addition, as impressive as McCain may be, and surely nothing short than an American Hero, he is not highly inspiring. To add to this the damage of the Republican brand, the division of Libertarians and the angst of Conservatives, the Financial Tsunami, and worse of all the ‘Bush Factor’, I cannot say I’m surprised he lost. Surely disappointed, but hardly surprised.

 

So where do we go from here? First I lay out the only real benefits I can see in the election of President-elect Obama.

 

1)      Regardless of whether one claims Obama is a post-racial candidates (and I consider myself post-racial), the election of a black President will heal some racial wounds. It sets a good global example.

2)      I hope, with all my heart that Obama succeeds in this: Healing the black family. The black community has some serious concerns in regards to their family structure (as most Americans, just on a higher level). Although some may wish to credit the corrosion of the black family to a class divide, the real issue is can Obama help that structure? Black families are in trouble. Looking at the number of single mothers, the absence of fathers, the ‘rap and hip-hop culture’, children born out of wedlock, and other factors, I hope that the example of Obama’s family can be a model for the black community.

3)      The historic step from slavery, to abolition, to the Presidency of a Black African American President is monumental. This should not be undermined, regardless of political partisanship.

 

At the moment I can think of no more benefits fitting besides those two (and historic they are). Surely those are things anyone can hope for (no pun intended), regardless of political affiliation.

 

So, Conservatives, where do we go from here? First, remove this false mentality of this being a severe blow to Conservatism. By no means was this the Conservative candidate (as can be seen in stimulus packages, bail outs, etc). Neither was the ending of the Bush legacy a blow to conservatism (‘Compassionate Conservatism’ hardly echoes true fiscal small government Conservative policies, as can be seen in Bush’s government expansion).

 

In addition, the electorate does not vote on mere ideological grounds. Surely, the Democrats are extremely polarized to the left (liberal President, liberal VP, liberal Speaker, liberal Committee chairs, etc.) Some argue that we are no longer a center-right country, but a center-left. I would say that is incredibly immature. The voters did not vote on a mandate for leftist political policies. On the contrary, Obama ran as a moderate with center-right bait (tax cuts), and hardly was the populist centrist who campaigned the same Obama who served his state and federal Senate as a far left democrat. Citizens voted not for leftist ideological liberalism, but for the candidate. 

 

We must ask ourselves this important question: With such a polarized government, which Obama will we see govern? This campaigned populist ‘centrist’, or the man before the campaign? If the latter, with the vanished ‘moderate democrats’, and the resulting left-aligned Democrats in power, what can we expect? More of the same democrat taxes, social-spending increases, and other ‘entitlement’ programs? Can we expect more of the same welfare-state policies?

 

In addition we must ask ourselves this: Given the financial crises and the status of the economy, are such classic left-democratic policies beneficial, let alone possible? Can he provide a 95% tax cut to the middle class (including already 40% who don’t pay taxes), while the baby boomers are creeping in greater numbers into retirement? With the stagnating economy, the retirement of baby boomers collecting social security, a massive national debt, a stunning bailout and stimulus package, trillions of debt, and the burden placed on payroll taxes to cover social security costs, are these left policies Obama pursued in the past possible?

 

Also, what of national security? I believe it to be an immoral error of the left to make terrorism and the real threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism appear as just a scare tactic from ‘evil president Bush’. With this sad mentality, the error of Americans in forgetting and growing comfortable (shown understandable by their individual concerns), and Obama’s calls to cut weapons development and nationals security spending, where will we be?

 

If there is a benefit in all this, and I know the waters are murky, it is here: Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. If they can succeed, by all means God Bless them! However, if these are the same democrats who have pursued the same policies all of their lives (ignoring campaign promises), then we could only arrive to two solutions: Reign in social spending (which will hardly happen), or increase taxes to an amounts similar in Europe, thus increasing stagnation (if not depression), and unemployment (which further leads to an increase in the need of welfare-benefits, which means more taxes to pay for those benefits, which means greater strain on the economy, etc.). I believe we can understand which of those two solutions has been preferred by these types of polarized democrats.

 

So we conclude in this: surely Republicans have taken a hit, but to call this the end of conservatism is foolhardy. FDR, Johnson and Kennedy welfare-state liberalism is still alive in the leaders of the Democrat Party, so why have the foolish belief that Conservatism has taken its deathbed, when the last president and this candidate can hardly be conservative ideals?

 

It is common for conservatives to rally to the Reagan battle-cry, but I find it no more fitting than now. With the current problems, and the poor practiced solutions of the democrats, perhaps this is prized soil to plant the next Conservative movement; to win one for the Gipper. The above-mentioned problem’s solutions are best found in conservative principles: small government, strong natural defense, individualism, capitalism, service, and freedom.

 

The only way to purify gold is to first melt and form it in the furnace. Afterwards, it reaches its opulent value. It took the furnace of Carter to produce the gold of Reagan, so what next?

 

Allow the democrats their victory, and pray for our new President. It was hard fought and hard won. Rest assured in the knowledge of history, in the performance and faith of principle, and the expected transfer of power from party to party.

 

Rest assured knowing that the Political Pendulum sways.

 

 

The Evolution of Laissez Faire: Defining ‘Let Be’ Economics and Politics from Thomas Jefferson to Modern Libertarians.

Leonard O Goenaga

Question 2: The Evolution of Laissez Faire: Defining ‘Let Be’ Economics and Politics from Thomas Jefferson to Modern Libertarians.

I. Intro

· Opening Statement: Defining Laissez Faire

· Thesis Statement

II. Outline

III. Body

· Laissez Faire in the 18^th Century

o Thought 1: The Founding: Thomas Jefferson (18^th Century)

§ Thomas Jefferson

ú Declaration of Independence

ú First Inaugural Address (1801)

· Laissez Faire in the 19^th Century

o Thought 2: Free Labor: Abraham Lincoln (19^th Century)

§ Lincoln’s letters

o Thought 3: Social Darwinists (19^th Century)

§ Herbert Spencer

§ Andrew Carnegie, “The Gospel of Wealth”

§ William Graham Sumner, What the Social Classes Owe Each Other

· Laissez Faire in the 20^th Century

o Thought 4: Progressive Backlash and the Mixed Economy (20^th Century)

§ The Decline of American Laissez Faire

§ Progressivism

§ Wilson, FDR & Croley

o Thought 5: Defense of Laissez Faire (20^th Century)

§ Milton Friedman

§ Ayn Rand & Objectivisim

IV. Summary

· Summary statement of areas of Thought.

· Laissez Faire and the future of the 21^st Century

o Thought 6: The Future of Laissez Faire: Conservative and Libertarian Movements (21^st Century)

§ Reagan Conservatism

§ Ron Paul & the Young Libertarian Movement

V. Conclusion

· Restated Thesis

· Concluding Statements

Traditionally, laissez faire is coined from a French phrase meaning, “allow to do”. It is known to represent a strain of economic and political thought that calls for minimal government intervention in the private sector, characterized by a ‘hands off’ approach by the government, in hopes of having private sector solutions for private sector problems. Although the original source of the phrase is disputed, the first sign of its usage is claimed to be from the Marquis d’Argenson, whom claimed “Laissez faire,” in his 1736 Memoires (Keynes, II). Whatever the source, and there are several claims to it, laissez faire has been popularized throughout the ages. It has specifically been heralded as a rallying cry for different political groups and leaders throughout American history, from founders such as Jefferson, to current political leaders such as Ron Paul. It is this evolution of the term, and the continual passage of its importance from generation to generation, that this paper will explore. This paper will follow the passage of the torch of laissez faire throughout the 18^th, 19^th, 20^th and 21^st centuries, focusing on how it has been seen at the Union’s founding (Jefferson), the Free Labor movement (Lincoln), the Social Darwinist period (Spencer, Carnegie, Sumner), the Progressive backlash (FDR, Croly, Wilson), the revival of laissez faire in the 20^th century (Friedman, Rand), and finally conclude with an analysis of laissez faire’s future.

During the nation’s founding, few had such effect on the development of this new government than Thomas Jefferson. Having been an important thinker, and the writer of the Declaration of Independence itself, Jefferson makes a good starting point in our exploration of laissez faire. Perhaps Jefferson best exemplifies the goal of laissez faire in the statement “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” (Dolbeare 49). It is this Jeffersonian emphasis on the individual that makes laissez faire possible, and the quote itself hints at greater free-market sources: such as political theorist John Locke. The tradition of Jeffersonianism is grounded in the idea of sacred individualism, or the importance of preserving the individual as having precedence over government. This involved the establishment of individual rights, individual responsibility, and civic participation. This liberal individual-focus is perhaps where we can best draw Jefferson’s connection with laissez faire. Free markets themselves cannot function with a weighted understanding of the importance of the individual. As Jeffersonianism calls for a rejection of big government, so does laissez faire. The two stand on similar soil, necessitating both a small government and individual responsibility to properly function. It is no wonder that in various writings do we find elements characteristic of laissez faire. In his First Inaugural Address (1801), we find several portions emulating free-market ideas. One in particular perhaps best summarizes Jefferson’s tone: “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities,” (Dolbeare 151). The element of laissez faire found within the quote speaks for itself. This tone of free-market and individual-focus continues throughout Jeffersonian thought, and with the close association between Jeffersonianism and laissez faire, one will likely find them joined at the hip throughout their political evolution.

Next in line within the progression of laissez faire minded thinking is Abraham Lincoln. It is of interest that again, we find Jeffersonian ideals standing side by side with those of free market capitalism. Lincoln appears to have been incredibly influenced by Jefferson’s notions of individual liberty and freedom in the form of the Free Labor movement. It is of no surprise, given the ideals set in Jeffersonianism that someone like Lincoln would take them to their logical conclusions, which resulted with the emancipation of the slaves. This newfound freedom is also easily associated with laissez faire principles. One may wish to argue that a government stepping in to force the emancipation of slaves upon its member states appears to be interventionalist, and thus anti-laissez faire, but I would disagree. Laissez faire principles imply a genuine equality amongst the labor force. The ideals of a ‘hands off’ economic approached it rooted upon the principle that men are equal in their ability to work, create, and compete. A general air of freedom scents the ideas of laissez faire, as it necessitates a freedom from government interference, and freedom of the individual to work. Thus, I would argue that a government allowing such an institution as slavery, which clearly degrades an economic atmosphere of free competition, is a government intervening upon the market. Following this line of reasoning, I am inclined to see Lincoln in agreement. Lincoln argued that the Constitution was to be regarded as the law of the Union, while the Declaration to be it’s guiding spirit. We’ve already expressed the laissez faire qualities of Jefferson, the document’s author, and knowing a genuine Jeffersonian spirit existing within Lincoln (see Letter to Boston Republicans 1859), we see further ground for a laissez faire friendly mindset. Within Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address (1865), we are given a hint of his laissez faire convictions. The dilemma is the argument of possibly deporting black laborers, in fear that this newfound group would overrun white laborer’s occupations. In a true laissez faire fashion, Lincoln rejects any government interference, responding that to “reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor,” (Dolbeare 246). Lincoln states that occupation levels will remain the same, and shares derived theoretical principles of wages shared by classical liberals. Instead of advocating that the government step in and assure public anxiety, Lincoln calls for the market to run it’s own course, rejecting any intervention amongst the newly liberated workforce. Clearly, this hints at laissez faire presuppositions. What then, is the importance of Abraham Lincoln in the discussion of laissez faire? Most importantly, Lincoln took the necessity of freedom needed by laissez faire, and advocated by Jeffersonianism, to its logical conclusion and beyond social traditions such as slavery, resulting with a freed workforce that brought the actual laborers closer to the ideals stressed in free market capitalism. It would be difficult to relate laissez faire to free market capitalism, if the laborers in the market are hardly free.

Pinochet’s Authoritarianism; Between Might and Right

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Boronat

CPO3055

10 March 2008

Pinochet’s Authoritarianism; Between Might and Right

Whenever September 11th is mentioned in the United States, Americans always conjure up images of the flaming twin towers, as well as the other atrocities and acts of terror that marked that day in eternal sadness. Although this image is surely to also be recalled in Chile, they may also think of another important event full with its own violence; September 11 1973. It was on this day that Pinochet and the Military Junta he was a part of staged a Coup d’etat against the Allende administration, shelling the Capital building and later leading to Allende’s own suicide during the bombings. This earlier September 11 was to have its own dramatic influence on the Chilean nation, leading to the rise of the Authoritarian ruler Pinochet and the various human atrocities he would commit in the name of defending the Chilean constitution from Communist influence. This paper will explore the rise of the Authoritarian ruler Pinochet, the impact his childhood may have had on his rule, his regime’s mixture of economic remodeling and civil rights-ignoring, and finally conclude with an exploration on Pinochet’s brand of authoritarianism.

Before one dabbles into the middle of the coup and the economic reforms, it is best to explore the leader’s beginnings to seek out any signs that may illuminate his methods of rule. “Pinochet was born on November 25, 1915, in Valparaiso, Chile’s principal port city, which is located about eighty miles northwest of Santiago. Pinochet lived a relatively mild childhood, having a family lineage of ‘small or medium-sized landowners who raised cattle,’ ” (Burbach 21). He wasn’t particularly within the class of Chilean elites, and his family would have been classified as part of the average middle class. In 1933, after continuous support by his mother to do so, he entered Military School. He studied here at 17 for about four years, where he then graduated with a rank of Second Lieutenant within the infantry. After another round of Infantry school in 1940, he met his future wife, Lucia Hiriart Rodriguez, who was a character of her own, and they later had five kids; three daughters and two boys (Spooner 18). Pinochet later attended War school, and after obtaining the ranking of Officer Chief, he decided to go back and teach at the Military School while acting as a T.A. at the War Academy. In 1956 Pinochet was chosen with a group of individuals to organize the War Academy in Ecuador, and later returned to Chile in 1959. After other successes, he was appointed as sub-director of the War Academy in 1963. By the year 1969, he was promoted to Brigadier General and Commander in Chief of the IV division (Spooner 24). After more successes and rises in rank, he was appointed as General Chief of Staff of the Army in 1972. Finally, Allende appointed Pinochet as the Commander in Chief of the Chilean military on August 23, 1973 (Reel & Smith 1). A day before Pinochet’s appointment as Chief of Staff the Chilean Chamber of Deputies of Chile (the lower bicameral house of congress) released a resolution declaring that Allende had violated the constitution through his administration. It is from this stage in his career, having promised to defend the Chilean Constitution as a man of the Army, that we find him joining the Junta, which led rise to his political career. With a brief summary of his earlier years and his military career addressed above, we will now look into certain childhood traits that may hint to his authoritarian style of rule.

As mentioned before, Pinochet was raised in a normal family structure.  He had heavy influence from his mother, even going as far as being her personal favorite. We also find in his military career that “he had virtually no political persona that the world knew of before September 11. His writings prior to 1973 are largely devoid of political discussion,” (Burbach 22). Without any political ideologies to explore for authoritarian influence, we can look into his childhood for certain behaviors. One sign of his authoritarian persona was the bully role young Augusto took on. He had a history of chasing the poorer kids after school with his cadre of fellow bullies, and also later admitted that his brothers and sisters “ ‘were afraid of me because I acted like an ogre’,” (Burbach 22). An interesting similarity that Pinochet shares with the authoritarian rulers De Gaulle and Chiang Kai Shek’s are their childhood fascinations and interests with military games. Like De Gaulle and Chiang, Pinochet “would make believe he was a soldier, marching around, beating on a tambour and blowing a trumpet,” (Burbach 23). He would also play with various toy soldiers, even going as far as changing the guard before he slept (Burbach 23). This fascination with the military led to his interests in a military career, and like the rejection Chiang and De Gaulle faced in military school Pinochet was rejected twice from military school due to poor grades, but was accepted the third time he applied. Here at the military school Pinochet learned the important lesson of discipline, and basically grew to become a man.

Pinochet also had an interesting fascination with histories strongmen, and identified with them. Looking back at WW2, Pinochet sided with the Germans, and had a certain reverence for Rommel and his tactical expertise in North Africa (Burbach 25). His personal favorite strongman was that of Napoleon, which Pinochet overlooked his inflicted sufferings and instead claimed admiration for Napoleon being a great strategist, analyst, and patriot (Burbach 25). According to Patricia Lutz (an individual who consulted four of Pinochet’s psychiatrists), Pinochet displayed “no emotional commitment or empathy with others’ outside of his immediate family. He believed only in himself…and this enabled him to make the argument ‘If we don’t get them, they will get us.’ ” (Burbach 27). This all sounds vaguely familiar with Chiang Kai Shek’s own paranoia tendencies and his continuous efforts to distant himself from others and rely solely on his own efforts. With the similar childhood fascination of the military and a reverence for histories strongmen, we man now move on to the start of Pinochet’s political career, and begin to expose the links between his childhood and his style of Authoritarian rule.

On September 11 1973, Armed Forces overthrew Allende’s government in a coup d’etat, shelling the La Moneda presidential palace. It was during this intervention that Allende supposedly committed suicide. Here the presidential Republic period of Chile ended (1924-1973). The Junta, which sponsored and executed the coup, found justification in claiming that the Allende administration were planning a self-coup, which the Junta called ‘Plan Zeta’. Leading to this coup where several internal and external factors. Oppenheim exposes three important internal factors, which contributed to the chaotic scenario and resulted with the opening for the coup,

These include (1) seditious right-wing actions, especially the vitriolic propaganda campaign against Allende, along with the paramilitary and terrorist activities of Fatherland and Liberty; (2) the actions of the Christian Democratic Party, which initially vacillated between the right and the Left, but whose anti-Communism and perceived self-interest made it side, finally, with the right; and (3) divisions within the Popular Unity coalition itself, whose public debates weakened the government’s ability to govern and left it vulnerable to opposition criticism that was inefficient, incapable of governing, and too radical. (Oppenheim 95)

In addition to the three internal factors highlighted by Oppenheim, the US played a significant external role. In this role, “the US government countenanced, supported, and encouraged acts designed to subvert the democratic process in Chile, thereby legitimizing seditious activities by the domestic opposition,” (Oppenheim 95). This all set the stage for the Junta’s coming. The military Junta was established after this coup, and consisted of General Pinochet from the Army, Admiral Jose Toribio Merino from the Navy, General Gustavo Leigh of the Air Force, and General Cesa Mendoza from the Carabineros, or national police. This Junta worked as both the Legislature and the Executive, and suspended the Constitution and Congress. It was on December 11, 1974 that “Pinochet…takes the title of president of the republic” and the Junta is later given only a legislative role (Reel & Smith 1).

Having discussed Pinochet’s upbringing, his childhood, the factors leading to the coup and the Junta, we can now dabble into the actual regime. In the beginning, the Presidency was planned to rotate among members of the Junta. However, Pinochet ends up retaining the title, and later declares himself Supreme Chief of the Nation on June 27, 1974. He later changed this title to President on December 17 1974; a title that he maybe thought gave more legitimacy to his rule (a usual authoritarian practice). Later a plebiscite regarding a new Constitution was given on September 11 1980, and “Pinochet is sworn in as president according to the newly written constitution,” (Reed & Smith 1). Pinochet’s regime later returns to civilian rule in 1990 when “Pinochet hands over [the] presidency, [but] remains army commander” (Reed & Smith 1).

Having an overview of his regime, we may now look into his two most controversial topics, his civil rights abuses and his economic reform. During his reign Pinochet was known for various human rights atrocities. “According to a government report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, his government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973,” (Reel & Smith 1). One such operation of political murder was known as Operation Condor. This was a series of political assassinations and joint intellectual anti-left ventures by various rising authoritarian powers in South America. Operation Condor lead to various purges of left-wing intellectuals and political activists, and was lead in Chile by Pinochet’s secret police (The DINA).

Another controversial topic besides Pinochet’s political cleansing is his economic reform; also know by some in the West as the ‘Chilean Miracle’. Pinochet’s economic reform focused on a group of University of Chicago trained economists, known as the Chicago Boys, who “imposed a neoliberal monetarist program that was reasoned and highly inflexible,” and that focused on revolutionizing the previous internal-focused system (Huneeus 272). “The Chicago Boys rejected this state-centered model completely,” and instead focused on “an export oriented, market driven economy with substantinal foreign investment meant development, not dependency, which had been the earlier premise,” (Oppenheim 125). Although debate over the overall success of the Chicago Boy’s modernizing reforms are hotly debated, it stands out that “other Latin American dictators failed to manage their economies successfully, but Pinochet set up conditions friendly to growth, and his main economic institutions continue to function in Chile today,” (Huneeus 272).

Having overviewed all these different factors that made up his childhood and his regime, we may now analyze what made Pinochet’s Regime authoritarian. Carlos Huneeus lists five solid reasons that explain how Pinochet fits into the Authoritarian mold,

First…the regime was characterized by the use of violence applied by security services, the military, and the police…Second, the political order became very stable, based on a low level of institutionalization and the enormous personalization of power in the figure of General Pinochet. The regime also enjoyed the institutional participation of the armed forced through the governing junta and the presence of hundreds of the armed forces through the governing junta and the presence of hundreds of officers in the major position of authority… Third, the concentration of authority and power in General Pinochet turned him into the central figure… Fourth, Chile’s authoritarian experience brought about profound economic transformations, led by a group of technocrats known as the Chicago Boys…Fifth, Pinochet’s time in power did not end as the result of conflicts and divisions in the military due t the failure of economic management or defeat in war…[but] ended according to its own institutional rules, established in the 1980 constitution, with General Pinochet’s defeat in the 1988 plebiscite. (Huneeus 1-2)

In addition to these five factors that Huneeus uses to define Pinochet as Authoritarian, we can further compare it to the bureaucratic-authoritarian models of the day. These “were essentially nondemocratic regimes that repressed and controlled the popular sectors in order to carry out programs of economic growth utilizing market mechanisms, in close collaboration with technocrats,” (Oppenheim 102). The political scientist Guillermo O’Donnell first coined this term, and he used it to show why economically advanced South American countries were falling prey to prolonged military rule (Oppenheim 102). “In essence, bureaucratic-authoritarianism was nondemocratic and exclusionary, built on the three-pronged cooperation among high level military, civilian technocrats, and foreign capital,” (Oppenheim 102). In addition to Huneeus’ five reasons, and Guillermo O’Donnell’s applicable bureaucratic-authoritarian definition, another authoritarian aspect is that of the use of fear and the “systematic use of torture and persecution against perceived leftist subversives in an effort to ‘cleanse’ their nation,” (Oppenheim 103).

Although we clearly see that Pinochet’s regime was authoritarian in its use of violence, focus of power on a single individual, adherence to an institutional time restraint, and the mentality of modernizing the economy and protecting the Constitution, the Chilean regime differs dramatically from the normal Bureaucratic-Authoritarian model in that instead of a military institutional rule, we find the dictatorship of Pinochet (Oppenheim 103). Unlike Argentina and Brazil under military rule, Chilean power remained in the hands of Pinochet and was never really shared with the other members of the Junta. With this difference in the bureaucratic-authoritarian model, we may call it as it is; an authoritarian dictatorship with heavy elements of Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism, complete with the systematic use of fear and force, the focused empowered rule of the individual, the adherence to a timeframe in which to rule, and the mentality of ridding communism, protecting the Chilean Constitution, and modernizing the economy.

In Conclusion, having explored Pinochet’s life and rule, we conclude that his government was Authoritarian with heavy bureaucratic-authoritarian influence. Although his rule was rough and led to future civil prosecution for its abuses, “to his supporters, Pinochet was a patriot who saved his country from political and economic chaos under the threat of communism, restored order and led it into a period of unprecedented prosperity,” (Reel & Smith 1). As to the validity of this belief, like most authoritarian regimes that claim to modernize a state and prevent it from spiraling into communism, it will be left to history to decide if this is in fact is true.