Column on Zakaria: Cheerleader of Regulation

Zakaria: Cheerleader of Regulation

Tibor R. Machan

Over a decade ago I read an essay in The New Republic on the topic of
business ethics written by the then Harvard graduate student Fareed
Zakaria. It was insightful and lacked the standard ingredient of
mainstream discussions of the ethical dimensions of business, namely,
business bashing. Quite the contrary. It was refreshingly free of cant.

I sent a note to Zakaria asking him if he may be a champion of the free
market and his response indicated that my suspicion was right. Since then
I have sent him emails now and then and have on occasion received
replies. He has since then written several books and one of these, The
Future of Freedom, was especially poignant in distinguishing between
liberal and illiberal democracies throughout history and around the globe
in our time. Genuine supporters of the free society have always insisted
that while democracy as such may have the virtue of inclusivity, it can be
just as tyrannical as more direct command systems unless restrained by a
well crafted constitution.

When a couple of months ago Zakaria became host of CNN’s public affairs
program "GPS" (which stands for "Global Public Square")–not long after
giving up hosting Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria for PBS, another
good program focused on foreign affairs–I was hopeful that finally
someone has emerged in mainstream media who will not join the cheerleaders
of contemporary mercantilism, of the ubiquitous government intervention
in the market place. And for a while this hope seems to have been
fulfilled. Zakaria didn’t immediately join with the rest of the statists
on the tube, even if he wasn’t quite the Harvard (JFK School) educated
version of John Stossell.

Alas, then came the current financial debacle which, of course, was
precipitated by the federal government which had been ordering various
institutions under its command to lend money at very cheap rates, to go
easy on folks who couldn’t or wouldn’t cover their debts, especially in
the housing market (where over the last five decades, at least, a policy
of populism has prevailed, with low interest rates and little collateral
for many borrowers and with incentives such as mortgage interest
deductions). This is when I would have liked and indeed expected to see a
courageous journalist speak up about how it is the perversion, corruption
of the free market that has produced the mess. Sadly, it wasn’t to be.

After I returned from a lecture tour in Europe this last summer, I started
checking out Zakaria’s new CNN program and gradually learned that the host
has joined with the rest of the government-loving commentators, such as
The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, claiming that what is needed to
deal with the problem is, you guessed it, more government intervention.
In his column for the September 29 issue of Newsweek, the international
edition of which he himself edits, Zakaria intoned as follows:

"As of this writing, we don’t know the details of the plan that is being
crafted by Henry Paulson [US Secretary of the Treasury] and Ben Bernanke
[head of the Federal Reserve] to restore confidence in the U.S. financial
markets. It is impossible to know that it will work. But the
administration and the Federal Reserve were right to intervene in a large
and systemic manner. Modern capitalism depends on credit, and credit
depends on confidence. By the middle of last week, fear was pervasive and
no one was ready to lend money to anyone for any purpose. [This is plain
wrong–I have personal knowledge that proves it!] It turned out that only
government intervention could change this psychological paralysis. The
lesson of the almost 100 (smaller) financial crises of the past three
decades is that only government intervention can stabilize the system when
it chokes."

Of course, the system choked because of government intervention,
because of the easy money policies of the past several decades, because of
the politically motivated efforts of the likes of Bill Clinton to gain
favor with the electorate by doling out almost entirely unsecured loans to
every Tom, Dick, and Harry who came asking for something he could not
afford. That is not a market phenomenon but one typical of the mixed
economy’s welfare state. Free markets did not produce the current crisis
and it will do no good, in the long run, to continue with government
interference which is always subject to the pressures identified in public
choice theory, namely, politicians and bureaucrats engaging in
self-dealing and being mostly ignorant as to what is needed to sustain
and, when necessary, restore confidence in bona fide markets.

Maybe the pressure from colleagues and other cheerleaders of government
meddling in people’s lives was too much for Zakaria to resist. Or maybe he
has just signed up to championing a bad set of economic ideas for some
other reason. In any case, he has now joined the group whose complicity in
promoting the political economy of the mixed economy brought about the
mess we are in now.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s