Ian Fletcher misses mark in new article - "Why Is the American Left So Ineffective In Economics?"

Author of "Free Trade Doesn't Work," Ian Fletcher just released an article by the title of "Why Is the American Left So Ineffective With Economics" and can be read here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/why-is-the-american-left-_b_1142615.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

While throughout the course of the article, Fletcher makes some interesting points which may cause one to do further research on said point, the majority of the article is generalization without any actual numbers.

Fletcher starts with this - "Anyone who's still in a state of denial about the thesis implied by the title of this article can stop reading right here. I'll just assume it's obvious enough that we can take it as a given."


Those are the first two sentences in the article. "I'll just assume it's obvious enough that we can take it as a given." For someone whom believes to specialize in economics, I find that statement to be almost laughable. Without any numbers, any data to back up this generalized claim, we can just take it as a given? Sorry, that's not going to persuade me. Unlike certain economists ::ahem::, I like my opinions to be backed up by numbers from credible sources. Perhaps that's just the philosopher in me...or something... 


Fletcher goes on to state that there are four major reasons why the American left has become so ineffective in economics. These reasons are:


1) "The first reason is the gentrification of the left. If you compare who runs the Democratic party on a day-to-day basis with who ran it in 1932, or even 1962, there's been nearly a clean sweep of old-school ethnics and working-class people and their replacement with yuppies."


2) "...it has exchanged equality as its primary goal for diversity."


3) "Since the Democrats decided in 1981, under Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Tony Coelho, that they could seek (and get) corporate money on the same scale as the Republicans, there has been a yawning gap between the interests of those who finance the party and its nominal ideological commitments."


4) "...most leftists find economics boring."


Fletcher goes on to state:


- "So if yuppies don't like something, it won't happen."


- "The real problem is that diversity intrinsically tends to reduce human solidarity. Solidarity is the emotion people feel towards others that makes them care about the fate of people who would otherwise be strangers. It is thus an essential basis of any political tendency that would impose policies designed to reduce economic inequality. (It's no accident this is a word unions talk about all the time.)

Without solidarity, people don't hate each other. They just don't care. Not really, whatever they may say. Solidarity comes from having something in common with other people, and the less people have in common with each other, the more American society devolves to a model of pure individual self-interest."

- "This gap doesn't exist for the Republicans, who genuinely believe in the pro-corporate policies they impose, and this is a big part of why that party is more effective. It isn't condemned to talk out of both sides of its mouth at once."

Like I said, this article is filled with generalizations, theories, without any concrete facts to back up said theories and generalizations. Does the author make some decent points? Who's to say? Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn't. Even without the numbers, he fails in any logical attempt to validate his talking points. He resorts to fallacy over logic. 

Most lefties find economics boring? Says who? Is there a poll which showcases that? Any proof whatsoever? Would the judge convict lefties due to this amount of "evidence"? 

If yuppies don't like something, it won't happen? Again with the exaggeration and absolutism. Considering President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have received the image of giving in to Republicans more times than not, Fletcher's assertion seems a bit off to me, especially when comparing that to the GOP's typical solidarity on issues. No tax increases, even on just the top 1-2% of Americans? Nope. 

Speaking of "solidarity," that bit about Fletcher claiming that people don't care much about the fate of those different from them is a little unnerving considering the fact every single person is different in one way or another and if we look hard enough, chances are we all share at least one thing in common with each other. So, since he was talking about diversity, what was he pointing to? Blacks? Latinos? Muslims? Homosexuals? All of the above? A person may be of a different skin tone than myself, a different religion or a different sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean I should care about their fate any less than someone whom is of the same ethnicity, religion and/or orientation. Considering we're all members of this country and all contribute to make it function, I can't understand this argument. Perhaps I'm in the minority on this one, but if true, I feel it's pretty sad. 

If Fletcher wants to build any traction with his talking points, he'll need to write more than an op-ed piece, which is all this was. There was no data. There was no logic. There were just opinions, assumptions, generalizations and fallacies. With that kind of reasoning, perhaps Fletcher should put his economics "specialty" behind him and go into politics himself.