Is the Tarshis textbook any good? In all my travels the most faithful-to-Keynes economist in the U.S. seems to be P. Davidson.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:16 PM, michael perelman <[email protected]> wrote: > Right wing economists had plenty of help from businessmen-trustees, > political pressure, and propaganda. Fred Lee has done a wonderful job > documenting this sad history of repression of economists. There is a good > history about the repression at the University of Illinois > > Solberg, Winton U. Solberg and Robert W. Tomilson. 1997. "Academic > McCarthyism and Keynesian Economics: The Bowen Controversy at the University > of Illinois." History of Political Economy, 29: 1 (Spring): pp. 55-81. > > They describe how Howard Bowen and some distinguished Keynesians tried to > build a distinguished program, but ran into resistance from some > conservatives in the department. They drummed up right wing political > support for their protest, causing all the Keynesians to depart. > > > Here is a short section from The Confiscation of American Prosperity > regarding Samuelson > > McCarthyism, of course, began well before McCarthy took center stage. > Richard Nixon rose to national prominence with his own pre-McCarthy > McCarthyism. > However, this new wave of anticommunism was successfully blacklisting > academics, > government officials, entertainers, and just ordinary people. > Paul Samuelson, whom I mentioned earlier, became a prominent target. > Samuelson's Keynesian-oriented book had become the most popular introductory > book in the United States after the right wing succeeded in pressuring > schools to withdraw support for Lorie Tarshis's earlier textbook. The > Veritas > Foundation was a leader in this effort (Leeson 1997, 125). A commentator in > the > right-wing Educational Reviewer asked: "Now if (1) Marx is communistic, (2) > Keynes is partly Marxian, and (3) Samuelson is Keynesian, what does that > make > Samuelson and others like him? The answer is clear: Samuelson and the others > are > mostly part Marxian socialist or communist in their theories" (MacIver 1955, > 128). > Later, long after becoming the first American to win the Nobel Prize for > economics, > Samuelson recalled, "having tasted blood in trying to root the Tarshis > text out of colleges everywhere, some of the same people turned toward my > effort" (Samuelson 1997, 158). Samuelson succeeded at defending his work, > but > at a serious cost. In a 1977 lecture, Samuelson described how he felt > compelled > to go to great lengths to make his book less controversial: > if you were a teacher at many a school and the Board of Regents of your > university > was on your neck for using subversive textbooks, it was no laughing > matter.Many > months were involved in preparing mimeographed documentation of > misquotations > on the part of critics and so forth. Make no mistake about it, intimidation > often did work in the short run. . . . My last wish was to have an > intransigent formulation > that would be read by no one. . . .As a result I followed an Aesopian policy > of paying careful attention to every criticism of every line and word of my > text. . . . In a sense this careful wording achieved its purpose: at least > some of my > critics were reduced to complaining that I played peek-a-boo with the reader > and > didn't come out and declare my true meaning. (Samuelson 1977, 870--72) > > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA > 95929 > > 530 898 5321 > fax 530 898 5901 > http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
