The Only Republican in San Francisco

Coupla Romney quickies

Looks like Mitt Romney has signed up one of my favorite bloggers, Greg Mankiw, to join his PAC. Actually, it's a bit blogocentric to characterize him that way. He's a prominent Harvard economist and former Bush adviser. Tomato, tomahto.

As I've said before, Romney is my top pick for 2008. He's not just a doctrinaire fiscal conservative, like your humble host, but someone who actually has made government succeed under conservative principles.

Now, while I would not underestimate him, I suspect he won't be the presidential nominee in 2008. He's got the management and the economics right, which are my focus. But he has no foreign policy experience, and our times are defined by foreign policy.

I think a likely ticket will be McCain/Romney. McCain plays the hawkish elder statesman and Romney the domestic whizkid, who spends 8 years learning the ropes of the executive branch. That would put him on the ticket in 2016, or perhaps 2012 if McCain decides he is too old.

I am not incredibly impressed with McCain, personally. He is a nanny-stater, which is to say that he thinks gov't should be relatively activist. The most prominent example of this, of course, is McCain-Feingold. Newt Gingrich had a few words on that today.

Friedman passes away

Well, he was no spring chicken, and it amazed me that such a towering figure was still alive and engaged during my lifetime. Milton Friedman passed away today at 94. Here is a nice article from the NYT, read the whole thing.

As far as I can gather, he lived right up the hill from where I am sitting. From the FT article:

Both his admirers and his detractors have pointed out that his world view was essentially simple: a passionate belief in personal freedom combined with a conviction that free markets were the best way of co-ordinating the activities of dispersed individuals to their mutual enrichment.

This fundamental conviction led him to many conclusions that might or might not fit within traditional party lines and ideologies. More than anything, he believed that people and societies do better to the extent that we make our own decisions. And, he believed that the primary source of limitation is the state.

This means that he was an advocate for things like drug legalization, and even "sweatshops". His ideas are the basis of what we call a "libertarian" today, and were the underpinnings of the Reagan revolution.

He called himself — and perhaps coined the phrase — a "classical liberal" and I prefer that description to this day. He means it to say that he prefers to maximize personal and economic liberalization. He would go a step further to say that these are one in the same. Sadly, what we call a "liberal" today is more like a parochial, gov't-loving traditionalist. Friedman, in our time, was a radical.

I have also admired not just his academic prowess but his belief that he needed to communicate these ideas. His passion was natural and thorough, and he also had a great gift for persuasion. Check out these videos to see what I mean.

------

A few more links: from Steven Levitt (Freakonomics guy):

He was truly a revolutionary thinker. People do not realize how revolutionary because so many of his ideas that were thought to be crazy when he suggested them eventually came to be seen as obvious: school choice, a volunteer army, etc.

...and also from Megan McArdle (aka Jane Galt, aka incognito Economist blogger).

------

Update: Join me in requesting that PBS rebroadcast his Free to Choose series, which originally appeared in 1980. If you are in the Bay Area, here is KQED's contact page. Here is the national PBS feedback page, which includes a link to local affiliates.

Here's the DVD.