January 12, 2022
It’s Wednesday and I have been digging a bit into what appears to be a growing coalition opposing lockdowns, mask wearing, vaccine rules, and vaccinations in general. The claims are that none of these things work and that the economy is better off without them. I am not writing today about these matters (I have in the past) but rather about the nature of these coalitions. One of the things that has held back progressive causes in the past is the tendency of social democratic type interests to adopt the mainstream macroeconomics, which not only limits what they can do but exposes them to accusations that the government will run out of money and cause inflation if they have ambitious programs. The pattern of progressive interests aligning with non-progressive voices is thus not new. I am seeing it again in the context of the public health debate, which, in part, explains why our world is in such a Covid-mess. It isn’t all bad today – there is some nice music to finish, being Wednesday.
Why are the progressive left mixing with the dark right on Covid?
Coalitions form in all walks of life as people seek ways to gain voice and power. Sometimes, they make sense, bringing together parties that are mostly alike but choose for their own reasons to remain as separate entities. They work well together though and justify the coalescing of interests.
Other times it is more about raw desire for power or naivety.
I wrote yesterday about the ‘rainbow coalition’ that has formed in Germany – with the SPD teaming up with the right-wing FDP.
FDP promotes deregulation, privatisation and ‘sound finance’, whereas the SPD, historically, at least, was more progressive and interventionist.
In this Covid era, I am seeing weird coalitions form to promote the anti-vax, anti-lockdown, and anti-mandate messages.
There are those who purport to represent the ‘Left’ position, lecturing us about how lockdowns and vaccine requirements are a betrayal of the progressive cause and only fascists would support them.
They regularly provide social media support for others, who by any assessment, are on the neoliberal right, who also oppose lockdowns and mandates (including being required to wear masks).
Several of these characters, who regularly receives social media support from ‘socialist’ commentators, are involved in the creation of a new ‘academic’ (ha) venture at a little-known college in Michigan – Hillsdale College – called the “Academy for Science and Freedom”.
The ‘Academy’ (ha) claims in its press release that its mission is to engage in a “free exchange of scientific ideas … in the pursuit of truth” and was inspired by the “worst public health fiasco in history”.
What is Hillsdale College?
This Politico article (May 12, 2018) – The College That Wants to Take Over Washington – tells us that Hillsdale College is a breeding ground for young, right-wing, Christian conservatives.
Just the type that progressive socialists would dream of forming a coalition with!
The College ‘cosied’ up to the Trump Administration and its president was a strong Trump supporter and advertises for funds on Fox News.
It provides a conduit for conservative politicians – speechwriters and other administrative roles.
Its former president, was a vocal critic of “big government” while pushing a conservative Christian morality. He came unstuck, as many of these types do, when his daughter-in-law committed suicide after allegations that she was having sex with him over a 19 year period. There were question marks about whether she actually committed suicide.
His successor had come from a ‘think tank’ that promoted the construction of a ‘conservative citadel’ which advocated anti-government messages.
This Politico article (July 21, 2021) – Trump ally Hillsdale College pitches 1619 Project counterweight – tells us that Hillsdale College, had deep ties with the administration of Donald Trump and was involved in pushing his “patriotic education” venture, which among other things, contains teaching material where students would learn about American history and race and:
… “resurrect and reinforce in students that they ought to judge, vcalue, and treat people differently” base on skill color …
The curriculum also takes a sympathetic tack on slaveowners.
So not the sort of place that progressives would find succour within.
In my database archives, I dug out this article from December 15, 2015 – Koch brothers supersize higher-ed spending – which reported that the conservative, right-wing brothers were expanding their already considerable financial support for selected US higher education institutions, as an exercise in building:
… a massive organizational network fighting to enact deregulatory government policies and elect conservative political candidates … [and] … promoting free markets and laissez-faire capitalism in the United States.
The brothers also attach “certain strings to their contributions”:
… such as control over curriculum, and more recently, obtaining personal information about students.
Hillsdale College was a beneficiary of Koch money.
Fast track to 2022 with the Omicron variant of Covid spreading fast around the world and causing havoc.
We learn that Hillsdale and the Koch Network has become involved in opposing public health measures designed to attenuate the spread of the virus and rising death rates.
Researchers associated with the US-based – Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) – which investigates “the corruption that undermines our democracy, environment and economic prosperity”, published research showing that a Koch Foundation was bankrolling the new venture at Hillsdale College.
The article (December 22, 2021) – How The Koch Network Hijacked The War On COVID – reports that the “public health fiasco” that the new centre is attacking include:
… government pandemic measures like mask and vaccine mandates, contact tracing, and lockdowns.
It has recruited several fringe academics including “Scott Atlas, Jay Bhattacharya, and Martin Kulldorff” – who are “connected to right-wing dark money attacking public health measures.”
Some of this trio authored the “Great Barrington Declaration”, which advocated letting the virus rip so that we gain “herd immunity”.
Millions have already died from Covid, who would not have died any time soon, otherwise.
The Hillsdale College venture is an attempt to make respectable and legitimise the on-going and well-funded attack on public health policies.
Charles Koch has been a highly visible critic of the health measures designed to attenuate the spread of the deadly virus. His motivation is obvious – his private company is “the largest privately held fossil fuel company in the world” and the health measures certainly cut our usage of the products that make him profits.
All sorts of undesirable, right-wing organisations are part of this campaign to override health measures and let the virus rip.
We learn that:
Groups funded by the Kochs and their colleagues also turned to a more insidious form of combat adapted from Tea Party strategies: building an academic and intellectual network that would create and promote its own “science” to attack COVID mitigation policies.
The Great Barrington Declaration advocated a sort of segmentation of the population into those that would be ‘free’ (to get the virus) and those – the “vulnerable” – who would remain behind closed doors away from the virus.
The question of how sick and frail aged care citizens can survive without interacting with the rest of the ‘free’ population was never solved.
Their proposal also runs counter with the idea of social solidarity.
If we are all in this together then we should all share the costs – even if the threats of the virus are different (which is not yet conclusively known).
The CMD articles notes that while the ‘Declaration’ appeared to have “academic legitimacy” and was unveiled at a “conference hosted by the auspicious-sounding American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)”, the reality was that it:
… arose out of the world of right-wing dark money and corporate interests, and many of its signatories aren’t verified. AIER … is a Koch-tied libertarian think tank …
AIER also receives funding from “anti-regulation” groups and is deeply tied up with the Mont Pelerin Society and “the Koch-backed Cato Institute”.
Among its “trustees” are those “known for … defense of sweatshops” for low paid workers.
Jay Bhattacharya, whose Tweets are regularly re-tweeted by so-called progressive socialists, was part of the Hoover Institution, which received significant funding from the Charles Koch Foundation and “the dark money fund Donors Trust”.
Donald Trump promoted the ‘Declaration’ as did Boris Johnson.
A widespread array of medical professionals considered the ‘Declaration’ should be disregarded – some said it was unethical.
One epidemiologist said:
Never in the history of public health has anyone suggested infecting the entire population with a pathogen with which we have no long term experience as a strategy for managing a pandemic.
My view is that the ‘natural immunity’ approach is grossly irresponsible.
The lockdowns definitely reduce the spread of the virus and in some circumstances, such as the island continent of Australia, virtually eliminated the virus until incompetent quarantine policies exposed us to global trends.
Australia could have maintained a zero Covid position indefinitely until more was known about the virus.
We were largely free of the virus and our economy was recovering.
The problem was not the lockdowns that delivered that state but the fact that the penny-pinching federal government did not provide sufficient income support to the low-paid workers and their families.
There was no reason for any worker to lose income while the lockdowns contained the virus.
Yes, our ‘freedoms’ were curtailed, which was hard.
But there is no freedom in death.
The problem on the progressive side of politics was not that they supported the restrictions but that they were not vocal enough in demanding that governments (or when they were in government) provided adequate income support for workers.
They supported governments handing out cash to the top-end-of-town but went along with policies that failed to provide adequate support, for example, in Australia to casual workers or workers who were forced to isolate with the virus (either with it or as a close contact).
I don’t support one rule for some and another for others, which is the essence of the ‘Declaration’.
I consider public health is about defending us against disease.
It is a strange mutation of public health that governments are encouraged to abandoning that defense, and, instead allow a disease that we are still in the dark about, to run rampant in the population.
Public health is not about making people sick.
Public health is not about putting profits into the hands of capital.
And I noted way back in March 2020, that I didn’t see the so-called trade-off between the ‘economy’ and ‘public health’.
After the conservative NSW and Federal governments set us on the latest ‘living with Covid’ freedom path, allegedly to allow the businesses to return to normal and the rest of us to adjust the disease, the sort of policies that the ‘Declaration’ advocated, we have seen:
1. A massive proliferation of disease.
2. Overwhelmed health systems across the nation.
3. Rising death rates.
4. AND, a faltering economy as people avoid shops, events, nightclubs, eating venues etc. The decline in consumer spending in Sydney since it ‘opened’ up has been dramatic.
5. The dramatic rise in infections has devastated the supply chain – with workers off sick and supermarkets running out of food across the nation. It is difficult to get simple items (for example, fresh vegetables) in some areas at present because the delivery systems have broken down because the drivers are sick.
The ‘living with Covid’ plan of the right-wing libertarians has been a disaster.
We were much better off when our state governments pursued a zero Covid strategy.
Yes, we could not fly abroad.
Yes, we had to wear masks.
But it was a global pandemic and freedom is relative in that context.
I find it alarming that so-called progressives are now teaming up with these deniers.
As to the centre at Hillsdale College, one commentator concluded that:
They have no interest in science … They have been wrong about the pandemic time and time again. They use their stature as ‘experts’ to push for policies that are indifferent to ongoing mass death.
MMTed MOOC – Modern Monetary Theory: Economics for the 21st Century
In March 2020, we ran the MOOC and around 3,600 participants enrolled.
We are now in a position to offer the course again in early 2022 for all those who have been asking me for a chance to complete the program.
So, MMTed – invites you to enrol for the edX MOOC – Modern Monetary Theory: Economics for the 21st Century.
It’s free and the 4-week course starts on February 9, 2022.
The course is offered through the University of Newcastle edX program.
Learn about MMT properly with lots of videos, discussion, and more.
For – Further Details.
Music – Fortune Teller
With all this Covid uncertainty, I think we need a – Fortune Teller.
This deserves to be called ‘classic’.
It was written by – Allen Toussaint – masquerading as Naomi Neville and was released in 1962 as a B-side by American R&B singer – Benny Spillman.
In between when I left high school and started university, I worked for some months in a factory doing labouring work.
I used the funds to buy stacks of LP records.
One of them was the – Got Live If You Want It! – which was released in 1966, which was not one of their better productions.
While Fortune Teller was track 2 on the album, it was actually recorded at Decca Studios in London and the crowd screaming was added. Bill Wyman said the track had “crowd atmosphere added”.
The single version of the song (which I had previously purchased) was pure.
You might also like the Australian cover by the terrific band – The Throb – which was released in February 1966. Their long hair at the time shocked mothers around Australia but gave teenagers like me something to aspire to!
You can watch that – HERE.
That is enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2022 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.
Published at bilbo.economicoutlook.net
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
