My econ class relies on the apparently best-selling Principles of Economics by Mankiw. Of course, he is a Keynesian economist (though he is a conservative, supposedly).
Now I read that apparently he is too pro-market for the students out there:
http://chronicle.com/article/Economists-Push-for-a-Broader/130094/
What? Mankiw is listed as the example of a New Keynesian in the Murphy-Smith debate. He is pro-intervention. Perhaps he doesn't preach about regulations, ceilings, and floors, but monetary policy by necessity touches on all aspects of economic life.
This is just that ridiculous OWS walk out from a few weeks ago, in which students, seeking to be taught introductory economics, nonetheless felt they knew enough to declare that Mankiw was not teaching economics correctly. From student accounts, the first few weeks of his class are primarily about the history of economic thought and basic microeconomics: supply and demand, assumption of rational actors, etc. I believe it's a two-part class that gets into macro and talk of regulation, market failure, Pigouvian taxes (Mankiw established the informal Pigou Club), etc. as the course goes on. But since Mankiw (who I read only conducted three of the four lectures prior to the walkout) talked about Smith without immediately talking about Marx, he's a free market ideologue with a narrow view of economics. It was a stupid protest and the criticism largely misses the point.
As the article reports Mankiw saying: "Critiques of mainstream economics should be presented after students have had a standard introductory course and be aimed at sophomores, he said, which would attract more economics majors."
Mankiw is a New Keynesian and did work on Bush's CEA and has advised Romney. He is a conservative. And despite all the above, that Mankiw is Keynesian does not mean he is anti-free market or can't be "biased" towards free market solutions. He still believes the market allocates resources more efficiently than government, that regulations should be minimal, etc. While those of us here may find a huge gap between our beliefs and Mankiw's, it's not crazy for a socialist or even run-of-the-mill democratic socialist to see a much, much larger gap in beliefs between themselves and Mankiw.
Well, I suppose the difference between socialism and his ideology is quite large... I got a bit ahead of myself there...
Same reason the Infoshoppers and Revlefters think the IMF and World Bank are crypto anarcho-capitalist institutions, that the Guardian thinks the pro govt healthcare, anti gun, pro "progressive" taxation Economist magazine and David Cameron are solid righties and that many criticisms of modern economists is that they are "neoliberal ideologues" and aren't statist enough.
Kind of like the difference between the Red Guard and the rank and file Maoist CCP, or the Brownshirts and the NSDAP. Or, for a more modern, non political example, between Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson.
What? So Cameron is considered left wing around these parts?
He's pushing to make gay marriage legal in the UK, something which even Obama and John Kerry balked at (they merely wanted federal civil unions, and Obama's faltered even on that front).
He supports the same sort of UN plans against global warming that Greenpeace do. It's not far off Obama's policies, either.
Until recently, he was more pro-EU than Tony Blair, and I suspect his recent switch is due to pure political pragmatism rather than a change of heart (the various EU nations falling like dominoes economically, for one).
In virtually every conceivable manner, he and most modern Western "conservatives" are on the extreme left historically, be it Merkel's antinational, leftwing Protestant upbringing, the neocons with their "global democracy" baloney (something more than a little similar to the Trotskyite doctrine of global communist revolution from which the neocons sprang, as pro-Cold War liberals in the fifties and sixties) or the Swedish Democrats.
It doesn't get much better even if we go by relatively recent political standards, those of the last half century or so. Cameron and the Conservatives are certainly well to the left of Thatcher, and probably even to Major. Culturally, most Western political parties are a thousand kilometres to the left of even the most ardent Reds in the fifties. Just compare Tony Blair's New Labour to the Old Labour of Harold Wilson.
Modern liberalism and conservatism are effectively the offshoots and descendants of Progressivism and, to a lesser extent, Wilsonianism, which in turn take their roots from the classical liberals, who were often regarded as extreme leftists in their day for their populist, anti monarchical spirit and rhetoric. Effectively, both are simply different wings of the core Western ideology of social democratic internationalism; monarchists, traditionalists, Burkeans and nationalists hold negligible influence in the corridors of Western power and are routinely mocked by the Establishment media or demonized as "far right fascists".
That's one half of the old "throne and altar" of conservatism. As for the altar, even in comparatively religious America, the media and most senior bureaucratic (unelected) positions are hardly held by Bible-thumpers. Even the Evangelicals, themselves the children of the left-wing Pietists and Calvinists that spawned the Progressives, are moving ever leftward, towards a more Sojourner/"social justice"/"liberation theology" type of Christianity. Just compare Mike Huckabee to Jerry Falwell.
I don't know what the general populace around here thinks, but those are certainly my views on the matter.
Wenzel covered Mankiw pretty well at EPJ:
HOT: Greg Mankiw Students Walk Out of His Class
Mankiw : Print Money, Here, There, Everywhere
Mankiw : I Follow Keynes and Friedman, and Am Clueless About the Business Cycle