kohenari:

Corey Robin gives us a pretty damning portrait of Friedrich von Hayek’s support for Augusto Pinochet’s notorious regime, looking closely at a piece in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology—”Preventing the ‘Abuses’ of Democracy: Hayek, the ‘Military Usurper’ and Transitional Dictatorship in Chile?” by Andrew Farrant, Edward McPhail, and Sebastian Berger:

Farrant et al demonstrate that Hayek’s support of Pinochet was not contingent or begrudging—an alliance of convenience due to Pinochet’s embrace of free market economics—but was rather the product of two longstanding ideas and commitments.

First, a belief that welfare/socialist states of modern democracies have a tendency toward totalitarianism. This has been the subject of some debate over at Crooked Timber, but Farrant et al show just how consistently Hayek held this belief throughout his career ….

Second, a belief in the virtues of temporary dictatorships as a means of saving these totalitarian-bound democracies from themselves ….

As Farrant et al note, Hayek’s faith in the stewardship of good dictators flies in the face of his own warnings against trusting in the good intentions of government bureaucrats—not to mention his admonitions against an earlier generation of liberals and leftists, who were prepared to accept the allegedly temporary dictatorship of the Bolsheviks as a way station to the future.

Robin then takes things one or two steps farther, connecting Hayek and Carl Schmitt:

[I]t seems to me, in the course of defending Pinochet and Salazar—and the whole idea of temporary dictatorship— Hayek was prepared to entertain an even deeper betrayal of his own stated beliefs. As he said to Sallas in 1981, when any “government is in a situation of rupture, and there are no recognized rules, rules have to be created.” That is what a dictator does: create the rules of social and political life. (Again, Hayek is not referring to a situation of civil war or anarchy; he’s talking about a social democracy in which the government pursues “the mirage of social justice” through administrative and increasingly discretionary means.)

Yet Hayek is famous—arguably most famous—for his notion that the rules of social order are neither known nor made; they are tacit and inherited ….

How one squares Hayek’s praise of dictatorship with his conception of a spontaneous order, I’m not yet sure. But with his vision of an unmoved mover knowingly and forcibly creating rules, by design, from a lawless firmament (not to mention his conception of democratic drift), Hayek puts himself within the orbit of Carl Schmitt, with whom he maintained a running dialogue, and who famously described the moment when a new order is brought into being—a new order of rules and routines—as a “an absolute decision created out of nothingness,” as the moment when “the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism [the democratic state] that has become torpid by repetition.”

Robin’s complete blog post is here; it will be interesting to keep an eye on the comments there to see if Hayekians find a way to rally to his defense.

Just a quick thought: Ugh, Hayek.

kohenari:

Ta-Nehisi Coates’ entire piece on Ron Paul’s infamous racist and anti-Semitic newsletters is well worth reading; he brings together quotes from the newsletters, Paul’s one-time public defense of those quotes, and then Paul’s more recent attempts to distance himself from those quotes.

But if you don’t have the five minutes, here’s what I take to be the centrally important paragraphs, especially given the unusual (and unusually prominent) brand of Ron Paul fanaticism that seems unwilling to even entertain the idea that Paul might hold (or might ever have held) racist beliefs or opinions: 

Racism, like all forms of bigotry, is what it claims to oppose—victimology. The bigot is never to blame. Always is he besieged—by gays and their radical agenda, by women and their miniskirts, by fleet-footed blacks. It is an ideology of “not my fault.” It is not Ron Paul’s fault that people with an NAACP view of the world would twist his words. It is not Ron Paul’s fault that his newsletter trafficked in racism. It is not Ron Paul’s fault that he allowed people to author that racism in his name. It is anonymous political aids and writers, who now cowardly refuse to own their words. There’s always someone else to blame—as long as it isn’t Ron Paul, if only because it never was Ron Paul.

This is not a particular tragedy for black people. The kind of racism which Paul trafficked is neither innovative nor original. Even his denials recall the obfuscations of Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens. But some pity should be reserved for the young and disgruntled, for those who dimly perceive that something is wrong in this country, for those who are earnestly appalled by the madness of our criminal justice policy, for those who have watched a steady erosion of our civil liberties, and have seen their concerns met with an appalling silence on the national stage. That their champion should be, virtually by default, a man of mixed motives and selective courage, is sad.

Some people will continue to attempt to explain all of this away — they’ll continue to suggest that libertarians, unlike normal human beings, simply can’t be racist — but I think it’s increasingly difficult to either explain it or ignore it. When you write things or allow other people to write things in your name, those things stick around rather than vanish after some amount of time. When those things are racist and anti-Semitic, with a dash of conspiracy theory thrown in too, then they definitely stick around.