1. If you follow the various branches threads, there's a good conversation here between @D_Kuehn, @Undercoverhist @Econ_Marshall & others about ongoing debates in history of economics, history of conservatism, & history of racism.https://twitter.com/D_Kuehn/status/1130486961255399424 …
-
-
4. But the reaction to MacLean also felt, to me, like it was tendentious, based often on a desire of historians of economics (and libertarian allies) to protect their turf from encroachment by outsiders (social historians, historians of conservatism).
Show this thread -
5. The fact is that Chicago economics & public choice economics were never purely pristine academic exercises but deeply intertwined modern American right. Figures like Friedman, Stigler & Buchanan were political actors & operators as well as scholars.
Show this thread -
6. Even if you disagree with MacLean's conclusions, it's important to acknowledge that her project (integrating history of economics with history of political movements, backed by archival research) needs to be done. I hope future scholars continue down this path.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Will take a look.
End of conversation
-
-
-
MacLean' s book was a disgraceful and dishonest, ideological attack on a widely respected and well-established school of thought.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.