Rhetorical Economist, Economics Rhetorician
|English: Image of Deirdre McCloskey "for Public Use" as stated on her website http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/main/pr.php (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
If I could suggest some books, as I do for my students:
- McCloskey, Deirdre N. If You're So Smart: The Narrative of Economic Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. (ISBN: 0226556719)
- McCloskey, Deirdre N. The Rhetoric of Economics (Rhetoric of the Human Sciences). Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998. (ISBN: 0299158144)
- and… McCloskey, Deirdre N. Economical Writing. Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland, 1999. (Optional)
She dares to critique the big names in rhetoric and philosophy, doing so deftly. She also pays homage to one of my favorite scholars, Wayne C. Booth, in many of her works. Booth's study of the "Rhetoric of Fiction" (and a book of the same name) is foundational for those of us interested in how narratives shape the audience experience. To apply Booth the economics? That thrills me.
While McCloskey is, first and most quantitatively, an economics wonder, I call her a rhetorician with the utmost respect. She is a rhetorical economist.
I am not an economist, though I do often wish I had the degree. Instead, I am a rhetorician deeply passionate about economics. I devour economics texts, histories, biographies, and even Federal Reserve white papers. The math is fascinating, the models wondrous… if deeply flawed. And that is why I don't mind being a rhetorician of economics. If I can help explain economics, especially "conservative" and "libertarian" economic theories, using any of my writing skills, that would be rewarding.
|Ayn Rand (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
As I have written, libertarianism is often attacked and mocked without any concern for the actual philosophy. Shout "Ayn Rand!" and the debate is over. Libertarians are soulless creatures with faith only in the free market. McCloskey offers an alternate narrative. While she doesn't embrace the Austrian School in economics (she is decidedly Chicago), she does not mock (too often) the experiences and ideals of the great Austrian proponents.
McCloskey reveals a great many weaknesses in the Keynesian rhetoric (and models). She reminds us that quantitative analysis can be "right" and still miss a great many variables. Or, it can be "right" for no good reason. Good math doesn't always equate to good theory or good policy.