Paul Marks has seen spotted the true historical template for Tony Blair…
For some time now I have been puzzled by the fact that although Mr Blair has followed ‘left wing’ policies of ever more government spending, taxes and regulations he is widely seen as “free market”, “really a Conservative”, “very right wing” and so on.
I must stress that not only the ‘usual suspects’ (Marxists and other such) have used such language, but quite a few pro-free market and even libertarian people.
What I have tried to do is find people in history who have followed statist policies and still got a reputation as free market folk.
President Hoover comes fairly close. Herbert Hoover, as Commerce Secretary in the 1920’s, worked endlessly to increase the budget and powers of his department and showered President Harding and President Coolidge with bad advise (which, thankfully, they mostly ignored – indeed President Coolidge is supposed to have said “no one has given me more advise than Herbert Hoover – and all of it bad advise”),
As President, Herbert Hoover went along with big tariff increases and demanded that large companies keep up wage rates at a time when both prices and output were falling (thus ensuring vast unemployment) – and yet Herbert Hoover (“The Forgotten Progressive”) is widely seen as the free market man that President Roosevelt reacted against.
However, President Hoover was faced with the worst depression in American history (caused by a credit-money boom that he had nothing to do with creating) – and this is likely to warp the judgement of most men. Also Herbert Hoover was a man of strict honesty in his dealings with businessmen – which does not fit in with the cozy image (however false it may be, my dear libel lawyers) of Mr Blair and those known (however wrongly) as his friends.
I think that I have found a closer match for Mr Blair – someone who may indeed have served as a role model for him.
Louis Phillippe “King of the French” from 1830 to 1848:
Louis Phillippe was a ‘People’s King’ rather than ‘King of France’ you see, the son of the Duke of Orleans. His father had helped finance the French revolution and voted for the execution of his kinsman King Louis XVI, and has himself later been executed by his own comrades. Louis Phillippe came to power after a strong media campaign had helped whip up public hatred for King Charles X. For example, the newspapers pointed out that the military attack on the pirates of Algiers (who had terrorised Europe for centuries and even struck at American shipping – hence President Jefferson’s attack on them) was bound to fail. The wicked King Charles X was throwing French lives away.
When the attack on the pirates was successful the newspapers denounced the wicked King Charles X for (they claimed) taking credit for an attack that everyone had supported.
Such stories of (as we say today) the “sleaze” of the previous regime helped put Louis Phillippe in power. When Louis Phillippe became King there were payments of large “loans” to various media people who had helped undermine Charles X – but this is, no doubt, pure coincidence.
This was not the only increase in government spending under the rule of Louis Phillippe. For example there was a increase in spending on “education, education, education” (as is said today) – with a lot more government schools being set up. There were also some highly complicated “public-private partnerships” (again to use modern language) in the area of railways.
Louis Phillippe also followed a policy of high tariffs, but all this has never stopped historians (of all political points of view) describing the regime of Louis Phillippe as very free market, indeed laissez-faire (this is based on various free market speeches made by ministers of the regime – truly ‘spin over substance’).
Intellectuals even try and explain how the French tolerated such wicked free market stuff for so long. As the history text book from my school days (sadly long ago) put it “the selfish policy of laissez-faire” was only tolerated because half the people in the corrupt French assembly were connected to companies subsidized by the government.
I think most people will be able to see why I am as puzzled by the free market reputation of Louis Phillippe as I am the free market reputation of Mr Blair (although I would not claim that John Major resembles Charles X – King Charles X, for all his faults, was a man of courage and honour).
It is true that there were some people (such as Frédéric Bastiat) who saw the regime of Louis Phillippe for what it was – but most people (then and now) saw it as a free market government.
I profoundly hope that people at least see through the administration of Mr Blair (and I think I see signs that this may be happening) – and that the collapse into a period of chaos that came at the end of the government of Louis Phillippe does not happen in Britain.
Paul Marks
An interesting article (along similar lines) about Herbert Hoover can be found here.
I suspect Coolidge might have spelt 🙂 advice differently.
The Orleanist monarchy has always struck me as being one of the more effective administrations of the 19th century. Whilst Louis Phillippe was rather ineffective, he did represent a liberal and constitutional monarchy, supported by the bourgeosie, that contrasted well with other regimes.
Considering the excesses of the state in the French revolution or the breach of property rights in the Second Empire (Napoleon III and Hauptmann), he surely comes out rather well.
Perhaps a better example would be to compare Blair with Witte of Russia in the 1890s, another example of state promoted “modernisation”, with factories instead of schools.
I never check my spelling (or grammar) when writing blogs (as this is not a formal setting. I apologise if this offends anyone. My typeing is not very good either (so I am never quite sure if the key I hit was the one I intended to hit).
On Philip Chaston point “supported by the bourgeosie” – that is not the sort of language I like. It implies that there are different groups in society that have different long term interests (which I deny). No doubt Mr Chaston denies it also.
I have no problem with the SPEECHES of the Misters of the 1830-1848 regime – my problem is with the line of policy they followed.
Monarchy of 1830-1848 compared with the Second Empire. Well better on not taking over property in Paris, but worse or such things as free trade.
One person wrote pointing out that I neglegted to point out the overseas policy of the 1830-1848 regime.
It is true that I did not point to the support for the collectivist tryant in Egypt (a man who nationalised everything in sight and really did try to “modernise” his country by controlling everything) – I apologise.
I agree that Witte was a bad Minister (although he did have his good side).
Howver Mr Blair supports more government money for schools just as much as he supports more regulations – both lines of policy are bad.
I believe that Witte supported both of these things as well (although you may be able to correct me here).
“It implies that there are different groups in society that have different long term interests (which I deny).”
Unless you mean something different than you said, then this is almost tautological, and history is repleat with examples of it. A good example is bigots of the 1950s and 1960s vs. blacks of the same time period. The bigots plainly had some kind of interest in keeping the Jim Crow laws intact, and the civil rights activists had an interest in getting them repealed (and getting some kinds of anti-discrimination protection). American farmers are generally in favor of NAFTA and GATT, while steel producers are opposed to them. It’s not hard to multiply this list substantially.
Am I missing something? What do you mean, exactly?
Yes, bourgeosie here is historical shorthand for the fusion of the post-revolutionary professional classes and the land-owning backbone, similar to the British squirearchy. Not to be confused with the aritocratic element: a marriage of the ancien regime and parvenu Napoleonic survivors.
It’s an acceptable term describing middling classes. ‘Class interest’ from the marxist tradition has not appropriated the word, but you allow it to do so, if you avoid using it in different contexts.
Witte’s process of state-led modernisation was derived from Friedrich List and acted as a substitute for the import-substitution policies that failed so miserably in Latin America.
Therefore, he set tariffs up and built railways in order to unify the Russian market and increase economic growth, thereby raising urban prosperity.
However, this did not work because the Russian peasantry did not own property on an individual basis until the Stolypin reforms.
Even his role in 1905 bringing in civil reforms did not outweigh this economic nonsense.