Read's Law; L. E. Read

This "law" has no meaning, of course, until we identify the point of reference for "higher." And the height to which I aspire is freedom; that is, no restraint 1 Yale Brozen, Professor of Business Economics, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago. See THE FREEMAN, June, 1968, p. 328. 2 Benjamin A. Rogge, Professor of Po litical Economy, Wabash College.

1969 READ'S LAW 609 against any creative action. In other words, freedom is my idea of high; socialism, statism - call it what you will - is my idea of low. Without resort to the above point of reference, my "law" would have to be stated something like this: "N0 politician, after getting into office, can remove any more restraints against freedom than he promised to remove. in his campaign speeches." Let me relate how handy this "law" is. Over the years, I have known numerous aspirants for high office who, in private, endorse the freedom philosophy all the way - no exceptions! I am led to be lieve, "There's my boy!" Later, as I hear or read his campaign speeches, I find nary a word about the. socialism he intends to repeal -if elected. Indeed, only his polit ical label seems to distinguish him from his socialist opponent. If such a candidate is sufficiently art fulat vacillation, he's elected.

Then, friends of mine hopefully ask: "What achievements for free dom are you looking forward to from so-and-so?" I respond by re peating Read's Law: "No politi cian can fly higher in office than he flew while getting there." My questioners chuckle, reflect on the campaign speeches, and draw their own conclusions. I have an swered them accurately without a single disparaging or offensive reference to so-and-so. No per sonal attack - just an incontro vertible fact revealed! Bear in mind that my claim has to do only with an inability to fly higher, not lower. An officeholder's "ceiling" is set by his campaign speeches; he can descend to any level. I recall the campaign pre tensions of an aspirant to our highest office. He flew higher than anyone since Grover Cleveland. But once in office, he fell into a sideslip and never pulled out of it. Let me explain how I discovered Read's Law. The campaign man ager of a candidate was my close personal friend. Because his man's speeches were socialistic, I was critical. "Why, he believes the same as you and I do," came the reply. "He has to say what he's saying to get elected. Once in of fice, he will practice what we be lieve." The contention was that his candidate would fly higher in office than he flew while getting there. But no one was able to prove that untenable thesis; when the last vote was in, the candidate had lost.

The Truth Must Prevail This experience led me to three important conclusions. The first is that no officeholder can ever over throw any socialistic practice un less there is an enormous consen610 THE FREEMAN October sus that it be done away with; otherwise, the practice is too tightly woven into the social fab ric to be cast out by some political trick. Ridding our society of TVA or Social Security, for instance, is utterly impossible unless there be a general agreement for repeal. The candidates who never mention repeal in their campaign speeches make no contribution whatsoever to a new consensus. So, they have mustered no support for it, what ever their private views may be. They can never fly any higher than they flew while getting there! They are impotent. On the other hand, if they had been elected be cause of their advocacy of repeals, they would then have a. popular mandate to so perform.

Second, the candidates who pre tend privately to believe in free dom principles and who run for office on other than a clear-cut freedom platform, do not under stand these principles; they do not know them! Conceded, they know about them and can recite the ideas quite impressively - as can actors. The reason that so many of us are deceived in our private talks with these men is that we cannot see into their minds as to whether or not they really apprehend the ideas behind their words. We can only know for sure what they believe when we see them in action - in their cam paigns. Candidates who thorough ly apprehend freedom principles would not - indeed, could not - do other than uphold them. When one knows a principle, its observation and practice is second nature. 3 Finally, let politicians who pri vately say they are for freedom, but who publicly espouse socialism in order to get elected, be faithful to their public pronouncements.

Freedom will fare better this way. Exposing the fallacies of socialism and explaining the principles of freedom cannot possibly be achieved except through fidelity. Truth can never be found by those or among those who practice dis simulation. Devotees of freedom have every thing to gain and nothing to lose when campaign promises, regard less of how socialistic, are faith fully kept. We need only remind ourselves that no politician can ever fly higher in office than he flew while getting there. Further more, the advancement of freedom is not a matter of who wields political power over creative ac tions; rather, it depends upon the disassembling of such power. " 3 See "When Freedom Becomes Second Nature," Notes from FEE, November, 1969.