Книжка "Democracy in chains" подверглась нещадной критике - автора, маститого историка, критиковали за то, что она не разбирается в экономике, и за то, что она поддается конспирологии. Удивительным образом, практически все критики были каким-то образом связаны с Кохом и зависели от его финансирования.
"In the end, though, the critics discredited themselves. Researchers at Greenpeace and UnKoch My Campus produced a media tracker of all the hostile coverage. After checking IRS 990 forms, they revealed that 92 of 101 critical pieces about the book came from Koch-funded faculty or operatives who failed to disclose that financial relationship, a plain violation of Ethics 101." http://neatoday.org/2019/04/05/nancy-maclean-democracy-in-chains/
В критике от либертарианского Cato Institute для объяснения "public choice theory", главной теории Бьюканена, привлекаются сериалы House of Cards и Veep .
There’s nothing especially radical about this theory. In fact, when Buchanan won the Nobel Prize, some in the media wondered why it was really necessary to give the Nobel to someone who had the ground‐breaking insight that politicians are self‐interested! Of course public choice theory is more sophisticated than that, but it is also true that we see its basic ideas as part of our nightly entertainment. The popular British TV series Yes, Minister was written with the explicit intent of illustrating public choice theory’s understanding of the political process. Shows such as House of Cards and Veep also give us a perspective on politics that nicely aligns with the insights of public choice. The characters in those shows are self‐interested, if not often egomaniacal. They want to get reelected, so their behavior is partially dictated by an awareness of voter preferences, as well as an acute understanding of what voters are oblivious to. In fact, they often like it when voters are unaware because it allows them to work in the shadows. Deals are struck with special interests, and others are stabbed in the back. Meanwhile, characters, such as Veep’s Selina Meyer (Julia Louis‐Dreyfus), offer public‐interest justifications for legislation that viewers know are mere rhetorical smokescreens for the real rationale: the trading of political favors that occupies the days of most politicians. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/democracy-chains-deep-history-radical-rights-stealth-plan-america-nancy
Независимо от мотивации их создателей, эти сериалы несомненно способствовали подрыву доверия американцев к правительству. Но помогли Джулии Луи-Дрейфус стать ведущей на съезде демократов.
"In the end, though, the critics discredited themselves. Researchers at Greenpeace and UnKoch My Campus produced a media tracker of all the hostile coverage. After checking IRS 990 forms, they revealed that 92 of 101 critical pieces about the book came from Koch-funded faculty or operatives who failed to disclose that financial relationship, a plain violation of Ethics 101."
http://neatoday.org/2019/04/05/nancy-maclean-democracy-in-chains/
В критике от либертарианского Cato Institute для объяснения "public choice theory", главной теории Бьюканена, привлекаются сериалы House of Cards и Veep .
There’s nothing especially radical about this theory. In fact, when Buchanan won the Nobel Prize, some in the media wondered why it was really necessary to give the Nobel to someone who had the ground‐breaking insight that politicians are self‐interested! Of course public choice theory is more sophisticated than that, but it is also true that we see its basic ideas as part of our nightly entertainment. The popular British TV series Yes, Minister was written with the explicit intent of illustrating public choice theory’s understanding of the political process. Shows such as House of Cards and Veep also give us a perspective on politics that nicely aligns with the insights of public choice. The characters in those shows are self‐interested, if not often egomaniacal. They want to get reelected, so their behavior is partially dictated by an awareness of voter preferences, as well as an acute understanding of what voters are oblivious to. In fact, they often like it when voters are unaware because it allows them to work in the shadows. Deals are struck with special interests, and others are stabbed in the back. Meanwhile, characters, such as Veep’s Selina Meyer (Julia Louis‐Dreyfus), offer public‐interest justifications for legislation that viewers know are mere rhetorical smokescreens for the real rationale: the trading of political favors that occupies the days of most politicians.
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/democracy-chains-deep-history-radical-rights-stealth-plan-america-nancy
Независимо от мотивации их создателей, эти сериалы несомненно способствовали подрыву доверия американцев к правительству. Но помогли Джулии Луи-Дрейфус стать ведущей на съезде демократов.
Here we go! 🎉 #DemConvention pic.twitter.com/CKC75T2mjB
- Julia Louis-Dreyfus (@OfficialJLD) August 21, 2020
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment