Why Kamala Harris Is The Poster Child For Economic Collectivism

More than 70 years ago, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote “God and Man at Yale.” In the book, Buckley provides numerous examples of how collectivism was being taught in economics classes at Yale at the time. While the sheer number of examples often comes across as redundant, they serve Buckley’s point and overwhelm readers with a sense of urgency. The collegiate educational system was in need of reform or it would produce a generation of improperly educated individuals. Unfortunately, as the voice crying out in the desert, Buckley’s warning went mostly unheeded. As a result, we have for the last 40-some years lived in an increasingly collectivist society.

The word “collectivism” might seem anachronistic, but it is precisely the word Buckley used to describe this form of education. He wrote “God and Man at Yale” to bring awareness to educational corruption not just at Yale but, as he correctly assumed, at universities across the country. It is only logical to worry about the intellectual corruption being foisted upon the younger generation by their professors. I doubt as many people were concerned about this in the 1950s as they are today. Buckley foresaw the long-term consequences of what was being taught. Today, we long for a return to how education used to be — before drag queen story hour and teachers telling their kindergarten students about their sex lives. After reading “God and Man at Yale,” however, one can very clearly see how education devolved from the top down.

Buckley begins his economics section of the book by stating that the university encourages its students to seek “cradle-to-grave” security by teaching it indirectly through its curriculum. The recipient of such collectivist economic doctrine, will naturally try to bring about an environment where community-run production and equal distribution of wealth are the pillars of society, affording that “cradle-to-grave” security.

One of the textbooks used by the university was written by Theodore Morgan. Regarding income tax, Morgan says, “a tax of 42-49 percent on incomes between $20,000 and $100,000, and a tax of 75-99 percent on incomes over $100,000.” Morgan also thinks that there should be no exemption from capital gains tax. It is important to note that the economics classes Buckley is criticizing are for the most part entry level. It would be different if these were advanced theoretical classes with eight students in attendance. Unfortunately, actual class attendance was in the hundreds per semester.

Buckley continues his examples with another textbook review. This one is titled “Economic Analysis and Public Policy” by Bowman and Bach. These two authors were met with much justifiable criticism from Buckley. The authors state:

To set the responsibility for attaining and maintaining full employment on the shoulders of individual consumers or individual businessmen, is absurd.

They then go on to describe four powers that are unique to the government. Bowman and Bach maintain that these powers allow the government to control the economy in ways that private industry cannot. The first of these powers is the power of compulsion. Bowman and Bach believe that the state should use this to their advantage and forcibly redistribute income and restrict production of certain goods and services.

In relation to this, Theodore Morgan says:

high taxes for redistribution… If necessary, let the government guarantee full employment.

Buckley concisely responds by stating:

it must be realized that unemployment is never a problem if freedom is to be the sacrificial offering; unemployment is unknown to the Soviet Union.

Buckley, later into his writing, cites these and other economists who believe that deficit spending is not only good, but that there should be no limit to it. He cites Paul Samuelson, author of “Economics, An Introductory Analysis”:

In short, there is no technical financial reason why a nation fanatically addicted to deficit spending should not pursue such a policy for the rest of our lives, and even beyond.

This same kind of curriculum Buckley describes can be found in universities across America today. When considering the type of economic policies Kamala Harris proposes, one can only imagine the type of economic doctrine her professors preached from the classroom pulpit.

Harris has proposed a $25,000 housing assistance program in addition to taxpayer funded healthcare. These would only create the type of environment that Yale students were taught to pursue in the 1950s. The “cradle-to-grave” society that I mentioned earlier. This would lead to more deficit spending which, as quoted above, Samuelson promotes.

Harris also runs her campaign on the collectivist idea of the redistribution of wealth. Every author cited by Buckley wrote about the wonderful effects the redistribution of wealth can have on a society. Harris aims to achieve this redistribution by using the same method espoused by Theodore Morgan. That tool being higher capital gains tax and higher income tax.

Harris also seeks to ban price gouging which would allow even more government encroachment into private industry, another goal unanimously preached among economic collectivists.

William F. Buckley Jr. published his book “God and Man at Yale” in 1951. He wanted to warn society in general of the current curriculum at Yale and more broadly, universities across America. His call went mostly unheard. As a result, we are now faced with the threat of a president who is the poster child for economic collectivism. We must not be so complacent. We must take back the education system. If not, there will be many more presidents as bad or worse than what Kamala Harris might be. 

C.S. Lewis perfectly encapsulated this idea, “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.”

* * *

Calvin Morgan is the president of the Young Americans for Freedom Chapter at Wichita State University. He works as an assistant plant manager at a fertilizer manufacturer in Wichita, Kansas.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

More than 70 years ago, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote “God and Man at Yale.” In the book, Buckley provides numerous examples of how collectivism was being taught in economics classes at Yale at the time. While the sheer number of examples often comes across as redundant, they serve Buckley’s point and overwhelm readers with a sense of urgency. The collegiate educational system was in need of reform or it would produce a generation of improperly educated individuals. Unfortunately, as the voice crying out in the desert, Buckley’s warning went mostly unheeded. As a result, we have for the last 40-some years lived in an increasingly collectivist society.

The word “collectivism” might seem anachronistic, but it is precisely the word Buckley used to describe this form of education. He wrote “God and Man at Yale” to bring awareness to educational corruption not just at Yale but, as he correctly assumed, at universities across the country. It is only logical to worry about the intellectual corruption being foisted upon the younger generation by their professors. I doubt as many people were concerned about this in the 1950s as they are today. Buckley foresaw the long-term consequences of what was being taught. Today, we long for a return to how education used to be — before drag queen story hour and teachers telling their kindergarten students about their sex lives. After reading “God and Man at Yale,” however, one can very clearly see how education devolved from the top down.

Buckley begins his economics section of the book by stating that the university encourages its students to seek “cradle-to-grave” security by teaching it indirectly through its curriculum. The recipient of such collectivist economic doctrine, will naturally try to bring about an environment where community-run production and equal distribution of wealth are the pillars of society, affording that “cradle-to-grave” security.

One of the textbooks used by the university was written by Theodore Morgan. Regarding income tax, Morgan says, “a tax of 42-49 percent on incomes between $20,000 and $100,000, and a tax of 75-99 percent on incomes over $100,000.” Morgan also thinks that there should be no exemption from capital gains tax. It is important to note that the economics classes Buckley is criticizing are for the most part entry level. It would be different if these were advanced theoretical classes with eight students in attendance. Unfortunately, actual class attendance was in the hundreds per semester.

Buckley continues his examples with another textbook review. This one is titled “Economic Analysis and Public Policy” by Bowman and Bach. These two authors were met with much justifiable criticism from Buckley. The authors state:

To set the responsibility for attaining and maintaining full employment on the shoulders of individual consumers or individual businessmen, is absurd.

They then go on to describe four powers that are unique to the government. Bowman and Bach maintain that these powers allow the government to control the economy in ways that private industry cannot. The first of these powers is the power of compulsion. Bowman and Bach believe that the state should use this to their advantage and forcibly redistribute income and restrict production of certain goods and services.

In relation to this, Theodore Morgan says:

high taxes for redistribution… If necessary, let the government guarantee full employment.

Buckley concisely responds by stating:

it must be realized that unemployment is never a problem if freedom is to be the sacrificial offering; unemployment is unknown to the Soviet Union.

Buckley, later into his writing, cites these and other economists who believe that deficit spending is not only good, but that there should be no limit to it. He cites Paul Samuelson, author of “Economics, An Introductory Analysis”:

In short, there is no technical financial reason why a nation fanatically addicted to deficit spending should not pursue such a policy for the rest of our lives, and even beyond.

This same kind of curriculum Buckley describes can be found in universities across America today. When considering the type of economic policies Kamala Harris proposes, one can only imagine the type of economic doctrine her professors preached from the classroom pulpit.

Harris has proposed a $25,000 housing assistance program in addition to taxpayer funded healthcare. These would only create the type of environment that Yale students were taught to pursue in the 1950s. The “cradle-to-grave” society that I mentioned earlier. This would lead to more deficit spending which, as quoted above, Samuelson promotes.

Harris also runs her campaign on the collectivist idea of the redistribution of wealth. Every author cited by Buckley wrote about the wonderful effects the redistribution of wealth can have on a society. Harris aims to achieve this redistribution by using the same method espoused by Theodore Morgan. That tool being higher capital gains tax and higher income tax.

Harris also seeks to ban price gouging which would allow even more government encroachment into private industry, another goal unanimously preached among economic collectivists.

William F. Buckley Jr. published his book “God and Man at Yale” in 1951. He wanted to warn society in general of the current curriculum at Yale and more broadly, universities across America. His call went mostly unheard. As a result, we are now faced with the threat of a president who is the poster child for economic collectivism. We must not be so complacent. We must take back the education system. If not, there will be many more presidents as bad or worse than what Kamala Harris might be. 

C.S. Lewis perfectly encapsulated this idea, “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.”

* * *

Calvin Morgan is the president of the Young Americans for Freedom Chapter at Wichita State University. He works as an assistant plant manager at a fertilizer manufacturer in Wichita, Kansas.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

“}]]