Economists are slippery bunch. In public fights over policy, many folks claim economic theory proves that markets are paragons of efficiency and that the government should mostly butt out – and economists often aid and abet this line of attack. Exhibit A: the efforts under President Clinton to loosen banking regulations, which made the 2008 financial meltdown a hell of a lot more likely. But when you confront economists about the failures of their profession, aside from a handful like Paul Krugman or Dean Baker most of them will say, that’s a very simplistic view of economics. What about all the behavioral economists whose books get rave reviews? Or economists who talk about how institutions really work? Or the folks who have disapproved the Efficient Market Hypothesis in Finance? That’s all true, and yet somehow that much more complex view of the economy never filters back to the big public debates.

So I was happy when I found this quote from international development economist Dani Rodrik that nicely sums up the verbal dance done by many economists.

Let a journalist call an economics professor for his view on whether free trade with country X or Y is a good idea. We can be fairly certain that the economist, like the vast majority of the profession, will be enthusiastic in his support of free trade.

Now let the reporter go undercover as a student in the professor’s advanced graduate seminar on international trade theory. Let him pose the same question: Is free trade good? I doubt that the answer will come as quickly and be as succinct this time around. In fact, the professor is likely to be stymied by the question. “What do you mean by ‘good?’” he will ask. “And good for whom?”

The professor would then launch into a long and tortured exegesis that will ultimately culminate in a heavily hedged statement: “So if the long list of conditions I have just described are satisfied, and assuming we can tax the beneficiaries to compensate the losers, freer trade has the potential to increase everyone’s well-being.” If he were in an expansive mood, the professor might add that the effect of free trade on an economy’s growth rate is not clear, either, and depends on an altogether different set of requirements.

A direct, unqualified assertion about the benefits of free trade has now been transformed into a statement adorned by all kinds of ifs and buts. Oddly, the knowledge that the professor willingly imparts with great pride to his advanced students is deemed to be inappropriate (or dangerous) for the general public.

Ditto for the other place many folks encounter economics: intro economics courses.

In our zeal to display the profession’s crown jewels in untarnished form – market efficiency, the invisible hand, comparative advantage – we skip over the real-world complications and nuances, well recognized as they are in the discipline. It is as if introductory physics courses assumed a world without gravity, because everything becomes so much simpler that way.

Part of the reason why economists play this game is because it’s a hell of a lot harder to come up with a coherent framework if you take all of the non-market cheerleading facets of economic theory seriously – especially if you’re not comfortable doing economics without lots & lots of math.

But it’s also part of a larger ideological play. I don’t mean that somewhere there is a small cabal of high priest economists plotting world economic theory domination as they stroke the cat sitting on their lap. But if you’re going to push for a myth about how the economy works that is so obviously not true, you do need some way to accommodate that reality. And treating reality as if it’s too dangerous for lesser mortals is a damn good way to do it.

I’ve been doing a little thinking about how to talk about values and choice. For the hell of it, I decided to see how Republican Party websites do it. Most of them were cookie-cutter, negative, and pretty boring — cut taxes, cut government regulations, and cut wasteful spending. The Texas Republican Party put a little more thought into building a positive vision. There was plenty I don’t agree with, such as:

Rugged Individualism
The entrepreneurial spirit of the individual that continues to solidify Texas as a world economic power….

Honest Compassion
A society assisting those in need rather than a government trying to solve every problem by just throwing more money at it.

But I was surprised at some of the language that did work for me. For example:

Opportunity For All
The opportunity to chart one’s own course start a business, chase a dream, or build a life regardless of gender, race, or religion.

The most interesting piece was on Limited Government:

A government that promotes policies to unlock individual potential and unleash economic growth. Government that does not try to be all things to all people.

It’s a clever way of trying to have it both ways. They admit government plays a critical role. And who other than Stalin would say government should be all things to all people?

In contrast, although the Oregon Republican Party talked about individuals — “Our political party has a common belief of personal freedom” — when it came down to brass tacks, they came down in a very different place.

Protecting our environment

Oregonians share a common interest in protecting the scenic beauty and livability of our great state. The Republican Party believes there is a balance between the environment and our natural resources. Healthy sustainable forests leads to a vibrant wood products industry that provides family wage jobs. Clean water flowing in our rivers and ocean estuaries benefits us all through tourism, recreation and fisheries industry jobs. We must use a common sense approach to balance these issues.

A nice job of saying they care about the environment without saying much else.

The one thing that struck me after reading a bunch of these sites is that using language like “choice” is a bad way to go. Although making choices can be one of the most profound things we do, it’s easy to end up sounding trivial, like deciding between Cheerios and Raisin Bran. These sites don’t make that mistake. When they talk about choice, they use much more powerful language, such as “unlocking individual potential” or “chart one’s own course” or “personal freedom.” Something I can definitely learn from them…

Two interesting clips from Rachel Maddow’s show last week on talking about government.

From an attack ad by Republican Sue Lowden, who’s trying to unseat Harry Reid:

Harry Reid‘s big government health care plan will raise taxes, put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, weaken Medicare, kill jobs, push us further into debt. I‘m Sue Lowden and I approved this message, because government-run health care is wrong.

Plenty of politicians contradict themselves. And Republicans have been able to get away with attacking “big government” in one speech while accusing the Democrats of trying to cut Medicare in another speech. But when you get to the point where your rhetoric is contradicting itself in the same ad, you’re headed for trouble — if the Democrats force the issue.

Meanwhile, when Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, who’s challenging corporating-luvin’, union-hatin’, public-option-flip-floppin’ Blanche Lincoln, was asked by Rachel Maddow how he’s different from Blanche Lincoln, he showed how smart Dems talk about government:

I’m running for United States Senate to put Washington back on the side of middle-class Arkansas families.

Instead of getting stuck arguing is he for or against more government, Halter puts it back on his opponents — who do you think government should be for or against?