Oops!

This was already covered some time ago, but I want to bring attention to it again, because I believe it to be one of the tersest and more remarkable rejections of conservative "economics" ever penned by a conservative. The occasion was a letter supporting government pork – no, literal government pork, the kind that comes from pigs. As a very small part of the stimulus package to goose (not a literal animal reference, in this case) the dismal economy, the federal government purchased millions of dollars of pork for distribution to food banks and other institutions. Why? Well, we'll let Michele Bachmann explain it herself, because she really did a stellar job of it:

On Oct. 5, 2009, Bachmann wrote Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack praising him for injecting money into the pork industry through the form of direct government purchases. She went on to request additional assistance. "Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed by the producers in Minnesota, and I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries, such as making additional commodity purchases and working to expand trade outlets for these and other agricultural goods," Bachmann wrote.

I want to dissect this bit by bit, because in this one sentence, Michele Bachmann has managed to decimate the case for economic conservatism. We can conclude only one of two things: that Bachmann explicitly rejects the economic notions of her ultraconservative ideology, or that she simply doesn't know what they are. Your guess is as good as mine.

"Your efforts to stabilize prices ...

Here, we see that Bachmann believes that stabilizing commodity market prices is a reasonable function of government. We cannot even make it through the first few phrases before the the most fundamental, sacrosanct tenet of market conservatism is rejected: the government does have valid business interfering with the free market. Not just interfering with the market, mind you, but coming up with a desired price for a market-traded commodity, and manipulating the free market so that desired price is arrived at.

... through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products ...

How should prices be stabilized, and how should the government interfere with the market? Via direct government purchasing. This places government as active player in the market – it is about as interventionist as one could get. Note that the government purchase here is not because the government suddenly had the need for millions of pounds of pork (though that food was distributed to places that could effectively use it), but strictly as a means towards price manipulation.

... are very much welcomed by the producers in Minnesota ...

Her constituents recognize and support the marketplace intervention.

... and I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary ...

As does she. Not only supports it, but requests additional government intervention!

... to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries ...

Ah! Now this is interesting.

The only sensible goal for a direct government manipulation of the marketplace would be to bend that market towards a greater national good. But why on earth would the government take actions to manipulate or "stabilize" a commodity price? What national good could be served?

Bachmann identifies one readily: to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries. Implicit to this is a presumption that yes, there are critical industries in a nation. We can suppose that the reason that the pork industry is critical is as a source of food for the nation; it may also itself help to prop up related industries, such as the feed markets, in turn stabilizing prices of other foodstuffs. But whether or not the any one industry is critical here is not as interesting as the presumption – or, rather, admission – that such industries do exist, and that government intervention to support those industries is not just valid, but "welcomed."

One could easily make the case that American manufacturing is a critical industry, or at least as critical as pig meat: was Bachmann a supporter of the multiple government interventions on behalf of the automotive industry? Rather than looking it up and being perhaps disappointed, let us simply assume that she was.

All right, moving on: to support these critical industries, government manipulation of the marketplace is desired and noncontroversial. Among the specifically praised methods...

... such as making additional commodity purchases ...

... is, as we saw previously, government purchasing of products strictly as a means of price support. Note that this is in some ways the very definition of government "stimulus", or at least the most interventionist method of stimulus. The government is taking some market action that would not be necessary in usual times, but due to the fragility of a specific market sector, is deemed necessary now.

... and working to expand trade outlets ...

Another marketplace intervention! Granted, an obviously pro-business one, which fits well within the confines of conservative ideology of government as facilitator of business interests. Nevertheless, Bachmann certainly seems eager to double down on her requests for government assistance...

... for these and other agricultural goods."

... not just in the pork markets, but "other" agricultural markets.

What to make of all this? First of all, it means that Michele Bachmann is a Keynesian. No, Michele, not a Kenyan: a Keynesian, an adherent to an economic theory loathed by conservatives but recognized as common sense by most others, and which supposes the need for government policy interventions in otherwise free markets. This very nearly makes Bachmann a Communist, according to her own party: luckily, Tea Party conservatives can count on the remarkable vapidity of their supporters in order to dodge such sticky political contradictions.

If we are to believe Michele Bachmann, however, the matter is clear: she believes in active government intervention in the free market. Not just believes in it, but is eager to thank the parties that make it possible. She embraces the idea that government intervention should be aimed at assisting "critical" industries. And she recognizes the stimulus effect of those direct interventions, at least within the targeted industries.

For one meager sentence, that is quite the bundle of liberalism. Especially for the presidential candidate being declared the arch-conservative of the group!

