<<<	speeches
Anachronistic views of key figures Samuel Brittan: Speech at John Smith Institute 11/07/06 In the early 19th Century, when Oxford and Cambridge undergraduates were not allowed to debate current politics, they tried to get round the prohibition by reading contemporary controversies into historical debates, such as the rights and wrongs of the 17th century Civil War. I am sorry to see people doing the same today with far less excuse. Almost anything by Professor Iain McLean is worth reading and this applies to his new book on Adam Smith from which I have already learned a lot. But I regret that he has fallen into the trap of trying to classify Adam Smith on a left- right axis and regarding him as nearly a modern social democrat. I am doubly sorry because I believe that the left right axis, which is based on the sitting of deputies in the French revolutionary assembly of 1789 is the bane of present day political discussion. At the same time, another professor, Deepak Lal. has written a book giving an extreme neo-liberal point of view - going far beyond anything I for one would advocate - and has called it Reviving The Invisible Hand. It has been publicised as telling us what Adam Smith and David Hume would be saying if they were alive today. This is really preposterous. Issues at the centre of debate in the second half of the 18th century are difficult to translate into today’s party political terms. It is like asking whether Keynes would be a Keynesian or Marx a Marxist. The question assumes that these gurus could have lived for a couple of centuries, retaining the intellect of their prime yet sticking to their original doctrines in new conditions. I came across this problem myself in writing an article for the Financial Times magazine on John Stuart Mill (June 13, 2006). There is a really a better case for calling him a man of the left than there is for Adam Smith. His tortuous and reluctant condemnation of the monopolistic and coercive activities of trade unions set an unfortunate precedent for later intellectuals anxious to maintain their progressive credentials. He showed no such restraint in calling the Tories “the stupid party“. And he regarded the competitive struggle for wealth and fame as a passing phase in the progress of industrial civilisation - as Keynes was to do after him. Yet many of his pronouncements would irritate modern social democrat. He supported unilateral free trade and condemned any idea of state provision - as distinct from state finance - of education with a vigour that would embarrass most British Conservatives or American Republicans. On very specific issues the doctrines of a past sage can still be the starting point of modern analysis, eg Adam Smith’s four principles of taxation or David Hume on “is“ and “ought“. You can also sometimes try to place a historical figure in a modern context by looking at certain personal attitudes or doctrines which have an echo today. If I wanted to make a case for Mill being a man of the left I would move away from economics and hark back to the letters that appeared regularly in the press in the 1950s and 1960s from Bertrand Russell, A.J. Ayer and a varying cast list of signatories protesting against some violation of civil liberties or some harsh act of foreign policy. Mill would have undoubtedly topped the list of signatories as he lived in that period. But beyond that, it is anybody’s guess where he would stand in today’s arguments about state activities. Indeed the whole discussion only works by identifying the political right with extreme laissez faire, which is not true today and was even less true when Smith and Mill wrote. Indeed the tearing down of state barriers to competitive markets was then regarded as a progressive cause, the arch example being the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1845. It has long been known that people on any side of a political debate can quote scripture for their purposes. You can quote Marx on the virtues of capitalism, Keynes on the virtues of individualism and the Bible or the Koran on anything you like. The writings of these gurus are what the French call “rich“. In other words they cover a wide span of beliefs which are not necessarily of one piece. Finally suppose that some super-geneticist were able to ascertain from a sample of Smith DNA and other material what Smith’s political allegiance would be today, what would that demonstrate? Are members of either the John Smith or the Adam Smith Institute so uncertain of their views that they would immediately abandon them on an appeal to authority? It would be more sensible for them to adjust their opinion of their hero so that it falls a little short of idolatry.
<<<	speeches
Published on www.samuelbrittan.co.uk Contact - samuel dot brittan at ft dot com