One of the more enduring contradictions still living in the American intellectual scene is the presence of a strong conservative movement that is intellectual in thrust  a bookish conservatism  and the enduring stereotype that the right wing is nothing more than the stupid faction. This contradiction is so engrained that more than a few conservatives actually thrive on it, in the same way a bodybuilder considers himself a weak wimp for being able to bench press only 200 lbs.

You probably know that this leads to a different trap. If a young intellectual pursues excellence using that kind of self-castigation as a motivator, he or she will wind up being called elitist for their pains. Its a sad fact that an educated brain doesnt produce the same hormonal reactions in the average person as the sight of 16-18 biceps do.

I found that, when dealing with a hoax, the best strategy is two-stage: first, examine yourself for any significant traces of such stupidity; then, when they have either not been found or have been eradicated, go after the critics. There is something to the charge of stupid Tory, and it relates to the common perception of Adam Smith.

Smith is, of course, the founder of economics as a discipline. His place in history is so secure that a group of alternative economists, the Rothbardian Austrians, can get away with labeling old Adam the founder of Kirk-mans economics and hand the prize of the founder of the discipline as a science to Richard Cantillon, which Rothbard himself did in his two-volume history of economic thought. (Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, ch. 12.) Rothbard was, of course, an excellent scholar, right up to his passing away in 1995, but the implications of the work of Cantillon, Turgot and the rest of the Team Bourbon crew being both buried in the Terror and being rendered infamous as Ancient Rigime propaganda didnt seem to have occurred to him. Had Adam Smith stuck to plain moral philosophy, and not turned his pen to economics as a discipline, modern economics would have been buried as thoroughly as the Machiavellian school of thought was in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Adam Smith succeeded in implanting economics as a social science into the canons of the world; Cantillon did not.

(A Rothbardian would naturally object by noting that Antoine Laurent Lavoisier was also consigned to the damned, with The Republic has no need of scientists as his executioners last words, but chemistry as a discipline was well- established at that time, so his execution did not impede its development as a science. What would have happened if the Glorious Revolution in England had been as bloody as the Civil War of forty years earlier and Newtons head was chopped on a sour apple tree trunk with the republican send-off: we have no need of your royalist apologia for the body universal? Would he have gotten general recognition as the founder of modern physics nonetheless, or would the gentleman that didnt get his neck introduced to a Claymore sword be the one to have gotten the prize?)

Nevertheless, there is a reason behind the superior smirks on the face of left wingers as they deliver the standard judgement of our intelligence, and its found in Smith himself: the Smithian that considers him-or herself to be pro-business has made the gross error of confusing Smith with his critics. The only school of economics that is unapologetically pro- business is mercantilism.

Heres a quick tip sheet of what mercantilists believe:

1. The conception of mutual gains from trade is a nice ideal, good for home, hearth and mothering of the kids, but the progress of real-world exchange shows a clear tendency towards gains being made at the other partys expense. This is consistent with how real people in real bargaining sessions behave, Mothers murmuring to the contrary notwithstanding.
2. Since bargaining is the process by which goods are exchanged, any school of economics that doesnt recognize this ubiquitous presence of win- lose transactions is not living in the real world. Because of the Smithians somewhat lovable insistence that this obvious pattern of negotiation doesnt have a long-term impact on price movements, laissez-faire bears the same relation to real-world economics as a love novel does to serious literature.
3. Because of the near-omnipresence of less than gentlemanly negotiations throughout the world, the balance of trade acquires a real economic significance, just as an individuals bargaining weaknesses, or need, is relevant as a disequilibrating force at the level of everyday negotiations. A nation with an unfavourable balance of trade will impede the march of prices towards equilibrium because the other nation can push the price of the relevant good out of equilibrium in their favor; this follows from the deficit of negotiators strength (or surplus of need) that a long-term trade deficit signifies. A march towards equilibrium is dependent upon roughly equal bargaining strength at the negotiating table, a necessary feature of trade which Smithians always dismiss out of hand.
4. This being noted, it is a nations duty to strive for a favorable balance of trade. As prefaced above, such strivings will equilibrate into every nation having a balance of trade of roughly zero, which means that equilibrium in trade is being reached. It is at that point that Smiths refined economics can come into play - not in todays environment.

Now for the test. Try buttonholing someone that considers themself to be pro-business and slipping them those four assumptions above. I suspect that youd get a nod from them, and perhaps the flashing of an Adam Smith tie with a wink.

Such a test is a clear, brute indication of the mess that todays Adam Smithian find him- or herself in. Lets take a look at how Smiths conclusion that laissez-faire leads to maximization of wealth gets his followers in a practical snarl.

When the average Babbitt hears Smiths conclusion, he immediately relates it to himself. Immediately and somewhat alogically translating wealth maximization into the phrase wealth for all, he reaches the conclusion that laissez- faire means more wealth for him, and his friends. It is the conclusion of this kind of soul which leads to the correlation that laissez-faire is good for business.

A Smithian that feels obliged to enter the stream of politics would have no problem with such a non sequiter. Sure, sure; laissez-faire is good for business. Its also good for the consumers, too.

This is the bargain that is struck. But note that, if the practical man at the other end of the table is a mercantilist, we have a bargain of mutual misunderstanding: the Smithian thinks that the businessman is a jolly good supporter of government neutrality in the marketplace, while the Babbitt has pegged the Smithian as a mouthpiece he can use.

Why? Because the mercantilistic Babbitt believes that orthodox Adam Smithism is for wusses. A real man would be a zero-summer, outside of the ears reach of teacher.

Hence the left-wing mans penchant for howling at the sight of Adam Smith devotees as he recalls his Marx-taught dictum that an advocate of laissez-faire is nothing more than a business mouthpiece on call for a class that is at heart mercantilistic. He knows very well that the root of the stupid Tory sting is the sight of a bunch of Adam Smithians not having the courage to say that laissez-faire means neutrality, not encouragement.

Whatsa matter, right wing? Afraid that the truth is gonna cut into your sales?

Now you know why this hurts. Instead of reaching for the business vanguard, we wound up hooking the vain guard!

If its any consolation, the socialists have struck exactly the same bargain with the workers. What gets left out of the understanding of mutual advantage in their negotiations is that the worker usually forgets the proviso that intellectuals work hard too. All they see in this is, if you guys are such hard workers, then you certainly have nothing against being shipped into a mans job.

Now dont you?