Re: [pr-x] Neoliberal think tanks and the harm they do

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [pr-x] Neoliberal think tanks and the harm they do

 
Mike Lebowitz sent me the following. I agree that the "dirty dozen" of neo-liberal foundations have been crucial, but their lobbying (etc.) has fallen on fertile ground: in the 1970s, the US and other rich capitalist countries faced the problem that social democracy and the warfare/welfare state didn't work as well as before (as shown by falling profit rates), so that some new version of capitalist governance was needed. Neo-liberalism was also popular because it fed the profit cravings of a lot of "entrepreneurs."

Jim

>http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/jun03_behan.shtml
>
>Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel      June 4, 2003
>
>The free-market Al-Qaeda:
>
>Neoliberal think tanks and the harm they do
>
>by Richard W. Behan
>
>The 'neoliberal' conviction is held so strongly by twelve right-wing
>philanthropic foundations that starting in the 1960s they set out in
concert
>to overturn a century's accumulation of progressive public policy. The
>things we hold and share in common-our culture and public knowledge;
public
>services; public spaces; public lands-are the things that define us as
the
>American people.
>
>Slowly, silently, but deliberately, they are becoming private assets
and
>services, private spaces, and proprietary knowledge, to be turned not
to
>public benefit but to corporate profit. Much that was once public and
free
>has been captured and commercialized, turning the vibrant body politic
>increasingly into a mundane body economic.
>
>This is not happening by chance. It results from a small group of
>"free-market" ideologues who consciously set out 40 years ago to
achieve
>precisely this state of affairs, investing hundreds of millions of
dollars
>to advance their ideology.
>
>Known today as "neoliberalism," it is now global in its reach,
assaulting in
>like manner societies around the world. We have on our hands a worldly,
>Free-Market Al-Qaeda, indulging in violence that is neither physical
nor as
>spectacular as that of its fanatically religious counterpart, but it
may be
>far more consequential.
>
>Dating at least to the publication of Milton Friedman's Capitalism and
>Freedom in 1962, a messianic conviction has taken hold in some quarters
that
>governments suppress individual freedom and markets maximize it. The
idea
>dates from the late 1800s, and that's why the movement to advance it is
>known as neoliberalism-but the referent word here is "liberty" (as in
>"libertarian"). Neoliberalism has nothing to do with progressive
political
>thinking: it is archconservative to the core.
>
>The conviction is held so strongly by 12 right-wing philanthropic
>foundations that they set out in the 1960's and in concert to overturn
a
>century's accumulation of progressive public policy. Convinced the
nation
>was drifting into socialism, they sought wherever possible to replace
>government mechanisms of "command and control" with "market solutions."
>
>The foundations are the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the
Carthage
>Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, the Charles G. Koch, David H. Koch
and
>Claude R. Lambe charitable foundations, the Phillip M. McKenna
Foundation,
>the JM Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Henry Salvatori
>Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Smith Richardson
>Foundation.*
>
>In a beautifully orchestrated program, these foundations-we could call
them
>the Diligent Dozen-spent hundreds of millions of dollars to advance the
>neoliberal agenda, creating what has been called a "hegemony of market
>theology." By the logic of the Political Economy Research Center,
public
>libraries 'lose money,' too-and so for that matter does the Department
of
>Defense.
>
>How successful have they been? The most conspicuous and powerful
>beneficiaries of this effort are the Heritage Foundation, the American
>Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Institute, all in the nation's
capital,
>and all funded by the Diligent Dozen-since 1985 alone, with more than
$88
>million. These three think tanks have crafted or influenced virtually
the
>entire programs of both domestic and foreign policy for the George W.
Bush
>administration.
>
>President Bush's brother, Jeb, serves on the Board of Trustees of the
>Heritage Foundation. Vice President Cheney's wife, Dr. Lynn Cheney, is
a
>senior staffer at the American Enterprise Institute, and twenty other
AEI
>staffers now serve in the Bush administration. The Cato Institute, the
>champion of privatizing Social Security, was proud to include on its
board
>of directors Mr. Kenneth Lay, the personal and corporate patron of
Governor
>and President Bush, and the sometime CEO of Enron.
>
>Across the country are hundreds of other neoliberal organizations, a
>comprehensive interlocking network, funded by the Diligent Dozen. They
focus
>on a wide range of policy matters, including the federal lands.
>
>The American Recreation Coalition, apparently, provided the lobbying
muscle
>for the controversial Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in 1996, but
the
>ideology and a continued trumpeting of support come straight out of the
>Diligent Dozen-and in particular, two organizations in its neoliberal
>network far from Washington DC.
>
>One of these, The Thoreau Institute, directed by Mr. Randal O'Toole,
has
>received more than $200,000 from three of the foundations since 1997.
For
>years Mr. O'Toole has been preaching the theology of the market,
sermonizing
>rhapsodically about the virtue of recreation user fees on the federal
lands.
>
>
>The other organization, funded by nine of the Diligent Dozen, is the
>Political Economy Research Center of Bozeman, Montana. It has been
granted,
>since 1985, more than $4 million. The champion of "free market
>environmentalism," this is the group that aggressively advocates
privatizing
>the federal lands-for the bizarre and absurd reason that they "lose
money."
>
>
>The various receipts collected do indeed fall short of annual
>appropriations, as PERC claims. However, that can be seen as "losing
money"
>only by assigning a profit objective for the federal lands, and then
doing
>some Arthur Anderson bookkeeping. (In this case, failing to account for
>externalized benefits.)
>
>Since Yellowstone National Park was created 131 years ago, the
statutory
>objectives for the federal lands have been exactly otherwise than
profit,
>and for appropriations to be unmatched by income is fully anticipated
in any
>public enterprise. By the logic of the Political Economy Research
Center,
>public libraries "lose money," too-and so for that matter does the
>Department of Defense. Assets enjoyed in common are the essence of
>community, whether we speak of a public library, a state university, a
>community theater group, or the national parks. When such things are
>privatized, corporate commerce gains and community is diminished.
>
>Mr. Terry Anderson, PERC's director and co-author of its privatization
>report, "How and Why to Privatize the Federal Lands," seems unable to
>comprehend federal lands as anything but commercial enterprises that
should
>turn a profit. This is not simple myopia, and it is not peculiar to Mr.
>Anderson.
>
>Mr. Anderson has offered on public lands to members of the Bush
>Administration, where his urge to privatize the parks is warmly
appreciated.
>Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton reads from the same neoliberal
page as
>Mr. Anderson. She has undertaken what appears to be an incremental
>privatization of the National Park Service, beginning with its
personnel.
>She proposes to eliminate almost three-fourths of the full-time
positions in
>the Park Service, shifting them to the private sector.
>
>Neoliberalism either doesn't see or doesn't care that "marketizing" and
>privatizing means corporatizing. Common property becomes not just
private,
>but corporate property. And deregulation favors corporate interests by
>definition. So the policy tools of neoliberalism encourage and expand
the
>corporate domination of markets, and there is no better example of the
>result than the social disaster created by Enron.
>
>The fundamental premise of neoliberalism is that free markets ensure
>efficiency in resource allocation and management. But the "free market"
so
>cherished by neoliberals and so conceptualized by Adam Smith 200 years
ago
>has long since vanished. Markets are no longer driven by the free
bargaining
>of willing participants, but by policy: frequently by public policy
achieved
>through corporate lobbying, and always by corporate policy, if only in
>administered prices. Only the truly devout or the tragically deluded
will
>deny the reality of corporate-dominated markets-which have themselves
become
>mechanisms of "command and control."
>
>Neoliberalism is the positivist force pushing the market into every
sphere
>of public agency and concern. And by no means is it limited to the
United
>States. Susan George's A Short History of Neoliberalism describes how
>neoliberalism has in fact become global, so to characterize it as a
secular
>Al-Qaeda is not to exaggerate. Neoliberalism either doesn't see or
doesn't
>care that marketizing and privatizing means corporatizing. Common
property
>becomes not just private, but corporate property.
>
>Al-Qaeda is an international sect of religious fanatics bringing
>'enlightenment' to the infidels, and doing violence routinely in the
name of
>righteous ideology.
>
>Neoliberalism encompasses an international sect of ideological
fanatics,
>too. The success of the 12 US foundations was matched in the United
Kingdom
>by the Adam Smith Institute, and privatization, deregulation, and the
manic
>stimulation of global "free trade" are pursued, thanks in large part to
>strongarming from the IMF and World Bank, in neoliberal governments
around
>the world. Arundhati Roy describes, in her graceful book, Power and
>Politics, the socially disastrous results in India.
>
>Neoliberalism, too, does routine violence in the name of righteous
ideology,
>but not to buildings, ships, or airplanes. Neoliberalism does violence
to
>public life, to "publicness."
>
>Publicness takes many forms. Community is one. Assets enjoyed in common
are
>the essence of community, whether we speak of a public library, a state
>university, a community theater group, or the national parks. When such
>things are privatized, corporate commerce gains and community is
diminished.
>
>
>Democracy is another, perhaps ultimate, form of publicness. As the
>empowerment of people to govern themselves freely, as they and they
alone
>see fit, it should be sacrosanct. It is not.
>
>Much has been written about the corporate purchase of the U.S.
government
>with campaign contributions. Democracy is under corporate assault, and
>everywhere the attack draws strength from neoliberal dogma and
initiatives.
>
>
>These initiatives-marketizing, privatizing, deregulating-are not as
sudden,
>dramatic, and terrifying as airplanes crashing into buildings, but over
time
>the violence they do is far greater-to the commons, to community, to
>democracy.
>
>* See Covington, Sally, "How Conservative Philanthropies and Think
Tanks
>Transform US Policy," Covert Action Quarterly, Issue #63, Winter, 1998.
See
>also the website of Mediatransparency: www.mediatransparency.org.
>
>This essay, published here with permission of the author, was prepared
for
>the 2003 Public Interest Environmental Law Conference, University of
Oregon
>School of Law, March 6-9, 2003. Richard W. Behan's current book is
Plundered
>Promise: Capitalism, Politics, and the Fate of the Federal Lands
(Island
>Press, 2001). His forthcoming book is Degenerate Democracy: A Primer on
the
>Corporate Seizure of America's Agenda.
>
>Richard Behan holds a Ph.D. in Wildland Resource Science at the
University
>of California, Berkeley, and for 12 years taught natural resource
policy at
>the University of Montana.