In 2010, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway released The Merchants of Doubt, an account of the actions of the fossil fuel industry and their agents to sow doubt in the public mind about the reality and danger of climate change. Their book had a powerful effect on how the public understands the politics of climate policy, and it set the stage for numerous legal actions to hold the "merchants of doubt" responsible for the current and accumulating harms of climate change. Law suits are slowing making their way through state courts around the country. If these cases succeed, the transition toward a clean and reliable energy economy will be much accelerated.
Among the questions raised by The Merchants of Doubt was how four scientists, who were the leading figures challenging climate action, could deny the scientific consensus regarding the fact and danger of climate change. Oreskes and Conway concluded that they were entranced by the ideology of "the free market." How did this ideology become so powerful? The Big Myth provides a powerful case that it was the result of a decades-long public relations effort by American business and industrial associations.
The propaganda effort began in the early decades of the 20th century when the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), founded in 1895, fought progressive era regulations to restrict child labor, establish workers' compensation relief systems, and empower unionization. They were, of course ultimately unsuccessful, but their opposition demonstrated the necessity of government regulation to protect the interests of ordinary citizens from exploitation by business and industrial elites.
Later, in the 1920s, the nation's privately owned electrical grids were failing to bring electricity to rural areas. This led to a drive for "rural electrification" legislation that would create a rational electrical grid system serving urban and rural regions alike. The effort was opposed by the National Electric Light Association (NELA), an association of electric utilities founded in 1885 and which later became the Edison Electric Institute. NELA was successful until New Deal legislation finally established the Rural Electrification Administration and imposed regulations to expand access to electricity. Here we see government action, as opposed to unregulated market forces, being responsible for creating the conditions for expanded economic prosperity.
The danger of regulations, unionization, and government planning alleged by NAM and NELA was, of course, said to be the slippery slope leading to socialism. They argued that once government intrudes in one sector of life, it will inevitably intrude in every sector. Oreskes and Conway point out that this reveals the false dilemma that lay behind the propaganda: economies must either be laissez faire or entirely controlled by a central authority. The business propagandists never acknowledged that there are countless ways to organize an economy between these two poles.
Despite the massive market failure that produced the Great Depression, business and industry lobbyists doubled down on their commitment to unregulated capitalism and resisted New Deal efforts to restore economic stability and security. Out of this, NAM developed what Oreskes and Conway call the "indivisibility thesis," i.e., that political, religious, and economic freedom were "indivisible." This meant any assault on the prerogatives of the private sector was also (or ultimately) an assault on political and religious freedom. Later, this "tripod of freedom" was boiled down simply to the inseparability of "democracy" and "free enterprise," though Billy Graham continued to promote a connection between religious freedom and "free markets."
Business leaders created several organizations, most notably NAM's National Industrial Information Council (NIIC). These organizations were established to propagandize in favor of unregulated capitalism. Edward Bernays, the founder of modern public relations, was enlisted for support. The NIIC played a major role in the the campaign to shape public opinion through films, slide shows, newspaper advertisements, direct mail, billboards, posters, pamphlets, window displays, and other media. In the late 1930s, NAM produced an extremely popular radio program, The American Family Robinson, which promoted "free market" fundamentalism. In the 1940s and 1950s, NAM, with the assistance of Hollywood, was responsible for numerous films and news reels.
Also in the 1930s, Laura Ingalls Wilder was publishing her "little house" books, particularly Little House on the Prairie. These books contained an intentional and not-so-well-disguised severe libertarian message. The message was in large part due to the editorial influence of Wilder's daughter, Rose Wilder Lane. Lane is considered among the three most important founders of the modern libertarian movement, along with Ayn Rand and Isabelle Paterson or "the three furies" as William F. Buckley dubbed them.
Oreskes and Conway also provide an interesting account of General Electric's television series General Electric Theatre, hosted by Ronald Reagan. General Electric Theatre, airing weekly from 1953-1962, provided well-produced and engaging stories that promoted unregulated capitalism. Reagan's involvement with the program is widely recognized as what transformed him from a supporter of Roosevelt and the New Deal to the "anti-government" ideologue that he became.
Much of the public relations efforts on behalf of unregulated capitalism came from business interests. As this would easily be seen as self-serving, business leaders sought academic economists to give their ideology independent credibility. Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman served this purpose. The careers of each were made possible by financial support from libertarian business interests despite strong opposition from the profession. It is noteworthy, though, that the economic views of each were far less austere than how they were promoted by their patrons. For example, Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom, was republished in a dumbed-down version in Reader's Digest in 1945, where any recognition of the important role of government in economic affairs was edited out. A similar redaction of pro-government passages in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations was done by George Stigler for the University of Chicago Press in 1957.
One reoccurring theme in The Big Myth is that claims that a "free market" will better provide for economic prosperity and general social well-being are belied by the historical facts. Instead, the unregulated capitalism has led to numerous significant market failures (especially the climate crisis), and that nearly all of the material and technological advances that make our lives safe and comfortable today have been the result of either direct government action or public-private partnerships initiated by the public sector. Oreskes and Conway make a powerful case that the popular admiration of "free markets" is a product of special business and industrial interests working for their private gain without regard for the well-being of workers and consumers.
The Big Myth is a massive work (565 pages, including bibliography and index). This review provides only a slim sample of the history of the "free market" propaganda that has shaped so much of our discourse today. It is a brilliant, extensive study that deserves anyone's attention who is interested in the controversies over the present day organization of our political and economic institutions.
