For decades Conservatives and Libertarians have been fighting a war of ideas. The purpose of this war was to prove the failure of certain Liberal policies. If such proof could be found, the Liberal policies would be discredited and, more importantly, discarded. New, sound policies would then be implemented – and, presumably, these new policies would be of a Conservative or Libertarian bent. Think of welfare reform as an example.
Another example was Keynesian economic theory. This was recently quoted by Professor Mankiw:
John Cochrane, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, says that among academics over the last 30 years, the idea of fiscal stimulus has been discredited and in graduate courses, it is "taught only for its fallacies."
New York University economist Thomas Sargent agrees: "The calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research."
I think this is correct. So, what does it mean that the "consensus" response to the crisis has followed this discredited path?
It means that fighting a war of ideas is a giant waste of time. It doesn't matter if Conservatives or Libertarians win the war of ideas – they will still lose. (Even the welfare reform victory is in jeopardy. Obama has pledged to cut taxes for 95% of the population. Since only about 50% of people pay income taxes, one wonders how taxes can be cut for the remaining 50%. Apparently they will "get a tax refund." Normally, this type of payment would be called welfare. The war of ideas has been lost to strategy of renaming something.) Keynesianism became a part of the Liberal religion/ideology. It is now impervious to economic evidence.