Quote of the Day

"One of the biggest problems is judging policies and programs by their intentions, rather than their results."
- Milton Friedman

I was watching a video of Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman (hmm... note to self: start finding "cool shit" to do with my time.), and in the middle, Friedman drops this gem of a quote. It was one of those instances where a person asks a question, and rather than answering the question directly, the response attempts to cut through and address the ideological basis supporting the question.

Now, Friedman is a Chicago school economist, and his thinking is seminal in the evolution of neo-Conservative thought (globalization of free market trade, World Bank, destablizing and exploiting foreign economies, "capitalism is a necessary condition for freedom," you know- shit like that.). In the 1970's Friedman was proclaiming the perils that poor people in the US would suffer if the minimum wage was raised. (Right? Raising the wage rate increases the number of people willing to apply to and compete for a particular job. Employers will choose more skilled workers; leaving those who are the most poor (i.e. the least skilled) unemployable, and therefore worse off because of the wage increase.) Lot's of challenges with this argument structure, but in a nutshell that's the claim.

When I think about the application of Friedman's economic arguments, I'm stuck in the 1980's and the fucked up lot of poor Black people during the reign of Reaganomics. (VooDoo, no?)

But, Friedman is a very interesting figure to me. Nobel Prize aside, I think he has some interesting things to say. In the interviews I've seen of him where he interacts with the public, there seem to be moments where he isn't propagandizing or spinning his ideas, but putting forward what he thinks is "Truth".

It's strange to catch those moments from a neo-con paragon, but Friedman has them.

He offers insights and criticisms that appear to be fair-handed and valid from both sides of the table. It makes me wonder if this is a quality of what we define as "Truth;" the ability to critique and evaluate my claims just as well as yours. An even-handed and balanced "fairness" within a critique or argument that can used as a tool or weapon just as readily by all sides; is that "true"? Is that desirous?

Friedman's quote made me think of the Welfare to Work programs, the shift from AFDC to TANF, and other similar programs designed to "purge the rolls" of public resource recipients; programs that Friedman's thinking is used to support. These programs are framed as assistance to these families, and to the American public as well. And, most of the discussion from supporters comes in the form of elucidating the program's intentions.

Is it possible to have a conversation about a program or policy's results absent the contextualization that comes from its intentions? It's the intentions that determine whether the outcomes are a success or a failure. So, an attempt to divorce intent from outcome, or even to focus on outcomes absent intent, may be as farcical as "maintaining objectivity".

Ultimately, what I think I'm learning from Friedman's quote is that our social conditioning leaves us prey to manipulation in this space. Therefore, when supporting an idea, program, or policy and confronting opposition, argue your idea on the basis of it's intent.

"When defending an innocent client, argue the letter of the law. When defending a guilty client, argue the spirit of the law."