ADAM SMITH’S AMERICA

The iconic economist has become all things to all people over time, from Friedman-esque libertarian to anti-capitalist crusader.

Adam Smith (1723-1790), writes Harvard fellow Liu, was one of the brightest stars of the Scottish Enlightenment, with broad interests that ranged from law and rhetoric to philosophy and economics. Today, scholars are more inclined to link his notion of “moral sentiments”—that is to say, the bonds of social contract that make people want to conduct themselves honestly in business—to developments that he would spell out in The Wealth of Nations. The “invisible hand” evoked therein is one complexity. Another involves what Smith deemed self-interest, which, Liu suggests, does not mean dog-eat-dog but instead something approaching the golden rule: Trade fairly and freely with me, and I will do so with you. Yet his name has been hijacked as “shorthand for the virtues of free markets and the vices of government intervention in economic affairs.” The Founding Fathers put Smith’s ideas to work in constructing federalism precisely because they “appealed to enlightenment sensibilities about how to understand the governing dynamics of man in society.” For reasons of his own, Thomas Jefferson seems to have preferred French economists such as Jean-Baptiste Say, while Smith’s near-contemporary Alexander Hamilton “borrowed Smith’s distinction between ‘dead’ and ‘live’ stock to illustrate how banks did more than circulate precious metals.” Liu argues that Smith’s largely laissez faire attitudes did not mean a complete lack of government intervention, but the Chicago school of economics distorted his message in order to prove that self-interest meant, above all else, the “narrow desire for wealth.” Even if Chicago, the Heritage Foundation, and other right-leaning entities have tried to seize him for their cause, Liu examines the possibility that he may be “closer to the values of the contemporary left”—thus are the many ambiguities in his work.

A bracing study not just of Smith’s ideas, but also of how scholars and activists have used (and misused) them.