Dogmatismo, fundamentalismo e ideologia

Steven Horwitz escreve:

Let's look at the record of the last three years:

TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] = Failed.

QE1 [Quantitative Easing 1]= Failed.

QE2 [Quantitative Easing 2]= Failed.

Stimulus = Failed.

Non-existent budget cuts/debt ceiling increase = Failed, at least in S&P's eyes.

Each of these has involved more government activism and each has failed. Yet each one is followed by more government and more claims of disaster if government doesn't act. And those who support such activism continue to claim that those of us who object to it and argue that freeing markets is the better route are "dogmatists," "ideologues," and "fundamentalists."(...)

At what point does an Administration who loudly pledged to really bring a scientific mindset to policy making wake up and realize it is in the throes of unscientific dogma? At what point do the media, politicians, and the left-liberals stop acting like the religious fundamentalists they rightly excoriate and decide that there is no evidence for their position? And at what point do they stop the psychological projection of calling free marketeers "dogmatists?"

Unfortunately, I think the answer to all of those is "never," but it's worth pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.

Austrians and fellow travelers have had the right explanation of what got us in this mess and all of our warnings about the ways more government wouldn't solve the problem have largely been on target as well. The sad satisfaction of watching this slow-motion car crash is cold comfort as our fellow citizens continue to suffer because the intellectual clerisy engages in the worst sort of state idolatry and interventionist fundamentalism, refusing to shake off their dogma in the face of mounting evidence of its massive error.

Each passing day tests my deep reservoir of optimism.