2. NUCLEAR WAR. The economic rationality derived from forms of market fundamentalism and economic science ripen conditions for nuclear war.

The American business model can be well described as consisting of components relating to self-interest, market fundamentalism, the minimal state, and low taxation. Turn to the distinguished economist/business thinker John Kay and the celebrated objectivist/writer Ayn Rand for such accounts. They have been chosen because their writings are important and influential. They agree in describing the American business model as consisting of these four components. But they differ in their evaluative descriptions of the utility of the American business model. Kay explains what he describes as “the blind faith” (Kay, Citation2010, p. 44) that now constructs the American business model. Rand and her followers describe the American business model as part of objectivist philosophy and a guide to life.

John Kay explains the American business model in his The Truth About Markets (Citation2003) and in other publications, such as Obliquity (Citation2010). He writes that the claims about the American business model are indeed of four kinds. The first is that “self-interest rules—self-regarding materialism governs our economic lives” (Kay, Citation2003, p.44). The second is market fundamentalism—markets “should operate freely, and attempts to regulate them by social or political action are almost always undesirable” (Kay, Citation2003, p. 44). The third is the minimal state—the economic role of government should not extend much beyond the enforcement of contracts and private property rights. Government should not itself provide goods and services, or own productive assets. The fourth and last claim is “low taxation—while taxation is necessary to finance these basic functions of the minimal state, tax rates should be as low as possible and the tax system should not seek to bring about redistribution of income and wealth” (Kay, Citation2003, p. 44).

Rand endorses all four of Kay’s characterizations of the American business model. The first is that self-regarding materialism should govern our lives. Rand celebrates in her nonfiction and her novels what she considers the central importance of self-interest for the entrepreneur and the nonentrepreneur. Her heroes John Galt and Henry Rearden, in particular, could have been named after CEOs like Steve Jobs or Henry Ford (to the extent that they are objective and rational, self-serving, and uninterested in altruism—as defined by Rand). They could also have been named after the entrepreneurs who exist in the world of models within microeconomic theory. Rand’s sympathy with the economic is suggested by such comments as that “the great values to be gained from social existence are knowledge and trade” (Rand, Citation1961b, p. 107).

The second of Kay’s characterizations of the American business model is market fundamentalism. Market fundamentalism understands the “free” market as a self-organizing system and the best device for allocating resources. Market fundamentalism was especially advocated (as noted below) within the Chicago School of Economics, by thinkers like Milton Friedman (Citation1994, p. ix). Rand embraces market fundamentalism.

The third of Kay’s characterizations is the minimal state. Rand agrees, and Big Government is (for her) what exceeds its proper purpose. As Galt makes clear in Atlas Shrugged,

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. (Rand, Citation1957, p. 231)

About governmental functions and their privatization, Rand thought it was inappropriate for government to require (for example) inoculations against disease, and in fact, that government has no right to license physicians and dentists (Mayhew, Citation2005, pp. 12–13). She asserted that it is inappropriate for a government to control air and water pollution for the sake of public health, and she added, “the government’s only proper role is protecting individual rights” (Mayhew, Citation2005, p. 8). Rand indicated that government should not establish building codes. She wanted to privatize the roads, favoring the idea of allowing people to buy any and all roads. The proper functions of government, for Rand, are the police, the army, and the courts (Mayhew, Citation2005, p. 7).

The fourth of Kay’s characterizations of the American business model’s claims is low taxation. Rand would agree. About taxation, Rand holds that taxation should be voluntary in a proper government (i.e., one that is not a Big Government). A “program of voluntary government financing would be simply sufficient to pay for the legitimate functions of a proper government,” writes Rand (Citation1964, p. 118). “In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary” (Rand, Citation1964, p. 116).

A comment should be added about the term “American business model” used in this article and in the literature. It is not a model that is confined to the United States. For example, one might hope to hear discussion of the Australian business model (which is also an ABM), and so on for other countries. As and if the business world succeeds in further dominating the world of governments, a worldwide term might well seem ever more appropriate. Meanwhile, the American business model does not emphasize that there are, indeed, different kinds of market economies, as Chang (Citation2010, Citation2014) and others have emphasized. It does not recognize that property rights and the nature of corporations are social constructs; they are not fixed by nature.

Rand considered the claims made by the American business model to be well-founded, as a guide to life should be. On the contrary, John Kay concludes that the American business model is based on blind faith. As he writes

In the century before the fall of the Berlin Wall, socialism defined the language of political economy. Not just for its supporters, but also for its opponents. Today, the situation is reversed: the vocabulary of the political right frames the terms of the economic debate. Globalization and privatization have displaced capital and class as terms of discourse …. The model fulfills the same need for simple, universal explanations once met by Marxism. (Kay, Citation2010, p. 44)

The American business model is more than a mere model. It is like a war-fighting strategy, a war game, a set of battle tactics. And are not counter-tactics to be learned by those who oppose the full dominance of the American business model?

For an account of the American business model as a battle plan, turn to the Powell memorandum (Powell, Citation1971)—written on August 23, 1971, two months before President Nixon nominated Lewis Powell for the Supreme Court. It was addressed to the director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is not claimed that this memorandum is the sole cause of the American business model as a war plan. For instance, credit (or discredit) has to go to personalities like President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (who responded with TINA—“There is no alternative”). Credit also has to go to other aspects of the bio-psycho-social-poetic-mythic way that thoughts are constructed, to money, and also (as Michel Foucault would add) to power considerations.

The Powell memorandum is often said to have inspired the creation a number of institutions friendly to the American business model, like the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org), the Manhattan Institute (http://www.manhattan-institute.org), the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org), Citizens for a Sound Economy, now Americans for Prosperity (http://americansforprosperity.org), FreedomWorks (http://www.freedomworks.org), and Accuracy in Academia (http://www.academia.org), as well as the proactive involvement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (https://www.uschamber.com) in a wide-ranging series of activities, and the appointment in corporations of vice-presidents charged with defending against (and attacking) opponents of what, in effect, is the American business model. Why would it not be useful now for those opposed to the American business model to adopt a parallel and contrary battle plan?

To facilitate consideration of the battle-plan in Powell’s memorandum and to suggest what might now be considered for a parallel and contrary battle plan, listed below are twenty-five of the action points made by Lewis Powell (Citation1971). They concern comments on initiatives by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and by businesses themselves relating to:

[Paragraph integrity broken]

Recognizing the desirability of creating “think-tank” institutes. Recognizing the sources of the attacks against the business culture. Recognizing that the foundations of the pro-business culture are under attack. Recognizing that corporations are currently not aggressive enough. “Why not fight back?” (Powell, Citation1971). The first essential is that business should approach this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management. Each corporation should have an executive vice-president assigned the task of countering the attacks against the business culture—as part of the significant first step. Recognizing that university social science faculties are unreliable. The chamber, as one counter, should hire a staff of personnel highly qualified in the social sciences. The chamber should evaluate textbooks. The chamber should seek equal time on the college circuit. The chamber should urge balance in faculties at universities. The chamber should have courses in schools of business. The chamber should evaluate secondary school activities, and conduct an active pro-business program for such schools. The chamber should utilize staffs of scholars to influence the public. Television should be “kept under constant surveillance—including news analysis” (Powell, Citation1971). Radio and press should also be challenged to present affirmative business information. Books, paperbacks, and pamphlets should be monitored. Businesses should devote 10 percent of their annual advertising budgets to paid pro-business advertisements. Businesses should be alert to the neglected political area, like pro-business lobbying. The chamber should retain pro-business spokespersons. The chamber should adopt a more aggressive attitude. There should be more generous support from business to the chamber for pro-business activities. People should recognize that this is not just an economic problem. It is also about freedom. The chamber and businesses should start to implement these changes with a complete study.

[Paragraph integrity maintained]

Frankly, the Powell memorandum is not at all scholarly. But it is a call to action. It is replete with assertions like the following: “No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack” (Powell, Citation1971, p. 2). “It [is] crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack—not by Communists or any other conspiracy but by misguided individuals parroting one another” (Powell, Citation1971, p. 3). “The threat to the enterprise system … is a threat to individual freedom” (Powell, Citation1971, p. 3). But a virtue of the Powell memorandum is that it does suggest a battle plan for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and for corporate America. And it seems to have been a near-winning strategy.

Yes, public administration (associations, theorists, high-level practitioners, and others) should start developing a parallel and contrary battle plan directed against the American business model, inspired by intelligence from the Powell memorandum. Public administration should start to implement such a counter-attack plan, including a rewriting of Justice Powell’s last recommendation, which specifies that the “the chamber and businesses should start to implement these changes with a complete study.” Simultaneously, public administration (e.g., theorists, academic programs, high-level practitioners, and others) should start to foster recommended counter-attacks against claims 2–5, discussed below, relating to the kingdom of myth, American business model rhetoric, economic literature, and academic program requirements.

Public administration should strive to counter not only the ideology but also the mythic dimensions of capitalism, as described, say, by Hughes (2004, pp. 126–152). Public administration should also make use of hermeneutics and deconstruction in addressing the power that comes from myths—including the modern myth that only the ancients relied on myths.

Public administration—especially its theorists—should attempt to kill the king, including (as this article argues, and as discussed in Farmer, Citation2005) the enemy king. Let’s imagine that both kingdoms are co-ruled by myth and other powerful kinds of governing ideas. For this, we can vow to clean up our own disciplinary king (or cave or our own stable); for example, we can do so while remaining with the governing idea of being neutral and traditional. It is suggested—on the other hand—that we go further and focus on the enemy king, especially because the kings of capitalism are more powerful. For one thing, we could extend our focus to macro public administration rather than micro public administration and activities like preparing students for entry-level and mid-level work in bureaucracies. Hughes claims that “as capitalism entrenched itself in American life, capitalism drew its legitimacy from all the [American] myths” (2004, p. 126). So does the American business model. According to Hughes, these myths include the notions of America as Nature’s Nation, as the Chosen Nation, as the Christian Nation, as the Millennial Nation, and as the Innocent Nation. Writing about the Myth of Nature’s Nation, for example, he states

Americans who benefited from the capitalist system could hardly imagine viable alternatives. Because it seemed so natural, so thoroughly in keeping with “the way things are meant to be,” it was easy to imagine that the capitalist system was rooted squarely in the self-evident patterns of “Nature and Nature’s God.” The myth of Nature’s Nation, therefore, probably did more to legitimate American capitalism than any other single factor. (Hughes, 2004, p. 126)

It is suggested that public administration counter-attackers focus on the hermeneutics and the deconstruction of the economic theorizing that serves as subtextual support of the American business model— theorizing of both economic “science” and “the” economic system. For targets of the hermeneutic approach, consider Chang’s comments on the treatment of “work” in economic science and the dubious character of the New Financial System (Chang, Citation2014, pp. 201–226). For instance, he claims, “Despite the overwhelming presence in our lives, work (in economic theory) is a relatively minor subject. The only major mention of work is, somewhat curiously, in terms of its absence—unemployment” (Chang, Citation2014, p. 252). Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen (Citation2014) would join Piketty and other economists in pointing toward the growing disparity between rich and poor. We should certainly recognize more fully a philosophy of hermeneutics aimed at elucidating understanding and meanings—rather than behavior and causes. We might even try more thinking as play and aim for post-traditional theorizing. We might aim to incorporate in public administration what we can learn from a multiplicity of non–public administration disciplines, for example, what has been discussed (Farmer, Citation2010) as epistemic pluralism. Eleven perspectives are illustrated—including the business, economic, political, critical theory, poststructural, psychoanalytic, neuroscientific, feminist, and ethical. We might also, in public administration, counter-attack with counter-rhetoric, as suggested in the following two examples. The first is the development of a counter-symbol to Big Government; and Big Economy and Big Governmentality (existing in an unregulated free market) are examples that have been suggested and analyzed within public administration (Farmer, Citation2014). The second example might be a counter-symbol in the choice of a book title; for example, the phrase “superhighway to serfdom” referring to an expressway that starts with the excesses of private enterprise, unregulated by government too small. The choice of the words “superhighway” and “serfdom” would relate to the neoliberal message in Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.

Let us include focus, as an available method, on deconstruction. Deconstruction has been characterized as a good reading of a text, where text is not limited to the written text (e.g., cops and criminals can read a street better than we can; soldiers can read a battlefield; etc.). J. Hillis Miller, in his The Ethics of Reading, writes, “Deconstruction is nothing more nor less than good reading as such” (Miller, Citation1987, p. 10). In all our texts, binary opposites (male-female, right-wrong, etc., where Derrida explained that one is read as superior) and metaphors limit the way that we think and understand. So deconstruction would include such activities as reversing the order of precedence in binary opposites. Derrida indicates that the meaning of the text comes from the reader, not from the writer. Additionally, it has been pointed out that the fleeting meanings of deconstruction do not represent a loss of meaning. Surely the fleeting meanings constitute a superabundance of meaning—of words that mean many things and of statements that remind us of other statements; and multiple meanings are not necessarily contradictory. Miller continues to claim that “neither [Derrida and De Man] has ever asserted the freedom of the reader to make the text mean anything he or she wants it to mean” (Miller, Citation1987, p. 10). But I agree that at the beginning, Jacques Derrida can seem deterring.

To suggest the utility of this approach for public administration counter-attackers, let’s begin (but not complete) to deconstruct a list of ten ways in which Derrida considers the world to be out of joint, which will include the ruthless economic war between countries. Let’s try a wind-up and a throw, the first of many such throws that are required. Derrida might deconstruct Shakespeare’s Hamlet’s dead father’s comment (as a wind-up), and then what Derrida does say (the pitch) about our own economic (and other) world being out of joint

First, the wind-up: Deconstruction (for Derrida, Citation1992, Citation1994) is justice. The deconstruction in this case involves worrying about a comment by Hamlet’s father’s ghost that “the time is out of joint.” Possible texts, subtexts, and subsubtexts can be examined. Time could refer to temporality, or history, or the world (today), for example. To the extent that Hamlet’s father’s comments are related to Derrida’s listing of the ten contemporary plagues, it turns out that the ghost need not be read as talking about something being rotten in pre-1605 Denmark but also about something being rotten in the twenty-first-century world. Derrida earlier mused that being out of joint could signify what disturbs the order of things, what calls for the law (or public policy or even public administration) to be off its hinges. Hamlet’s problem is that he is the ghost’s heir, and Derrida points out that Hamlet rightly (in Derrida’s view, but not necessarily ours) complains that he was born to set it right in the form of vengeance, sanction, and balance—just as we are the heirs of Wilson and many generations. Hamlet himself, Derrida notes, is out of joint because of his mission (an imported ethical imperative?) to right wrongs.

Derrida considered that all texts should be deconstructed (see Culler, Citation1983). Curiously, perhaps, and as a beginning for another example, the Shakespearean text that serves as the epigraph to this article can be readily deconstructed. “Cry ‘Havoc!’ ” could be read with its ordinary meaning or (especially in those days) as giving the military permission to pillage and cause chaos. “Dogs of war” could be read as referring to mere dogs, or to fierce soldiers, or (as in the prologue to Henry V, l. 7) to the hounds “famine, sword and fire.”

Second, the pitch: the ten ways in which Derrida (Citation1994, pp. 100–101) describes the world as being out of joint are as follows:

Unemployment, and underemployment

Massive exclusion of homeless citizens from participation in the democratic life of states

Ruthless economic war between countries

Inability to master contradictions in the concepts, norms, and reality of the free market

Aggravation of the foreign debt

The arms industry and trade

The spread of nuclear weapons, now uncontrollable

Interethnic wars

The growing power of phantom states like the mafia

The present state of international law, where the UN Charter depends on an historical culture (e.g., sovereignty) and there is dominance by certain states

Shouldn’t more macro public administration theorists attempt deconstructing—or even “thinking as play”—with the wind-up and the pitch? As we could play with this list, the connection between the wind-up and the pitch seems loose, and the list appears ad hoc and uneven. Perhaps this is because the list focuses on outcome situations, rather than (in the manner of Michel Foucault’s characterization of anti-fascism) on individual behavior. Could the macro public administration theorist add to—or subtract from—the list. For example, items that occur to me as excluded from such a list of plagues is the exploitation of women, the oppression of the poor, the ecological destruction of nonrenewable resources, the emphasis on being employed, drug addiction, escalating population level, species extinction, and so on. But I agree that Derrida does say that he could add to his list, and that there is an obvious subtextual “message” in the choice of the “religious” number ten for a list of plagues.

Public administration should pay greater attention to the American business model’s rhetoric. Is the American business model truly a guide to the good life, and is it supported by philosophical and ideological claims? No and yes! Attention already has been paid to rhetoric within economic theorizing (e.g., see Farmer, Citation2005; McClosky, Citation2002).

The warring American business model narrative should be recognized as involving not only myths but also intertwined subtexts and allied texts—academic and unacademic, written and behavioral. Examples of such American business model allies include the ideological cover given to anti-government (or big government) by the economics of market fundamentalism, and by such aggressive business-oriented rhetoric as is embodied in (say) objectivist philosophy. Other examples of allies are some private corporations, rich persons, business schools, think (and nonthink) tanks. Some such corporations and people contribute to mammoth-scale lobbying that purchases and occupies much of the territory of government, governmental policy and politics (e.g., see Hacker & Pierson, Citation2010). Public administration should be willing to study and engage enough of its economic, ideological and rhetorical contexts, and public administration should develop its own allies in such counter-measures.

Ayn Rand’s objectivism has the consequence of “branding” or selling (falsely, in fact) the American business model as something that reflects “deep” or “substantial” philosophy. A war-conscious public administration theorist should see the utility in counter-attacking such a claim. Rand’s objectivist philosophy, despite its fragility in analytical terms, is robust in stimulating emotional support. Such cheerleading—male and female—is “valuable,” as it helps to cover up the cognitive weaknesses in the American business model. At the same time, the popularity of the American business model, in return, provides rhetorical support to Rand’s objectivism. Rand’s philosophy is explained in a number of her nonfiction publications, including the following. For her objectivism as a system of philosophy, see Rand’s “This Is John Galt Speaking” (Rand, Citation1961a, pp. 142–242.) Her ethics is explained in her The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism (Rand, Citation1964). And her theory of knowledge is found in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Rand’s philosophy is also explained by groups like the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI; https://www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, California, and by the Ayn Rand Society within the American Philosophical Association (http://www.aynrandsociety.org). Both her ideas and her life are included in movies, e-form, books, and more. Rand’s philosophy—which underlies her cheerleading of the American business model—is indeed explained and implied (as indicated earlier) in the speeches of Howard Roark (the star of the novel The Fountainhead) and John Galt (the hero of the novel Atlas Shrugged).

Rand summarizes her philosophy of objectivism in terms not only of ethics but also of metaphysics, epistemology, and politics. It is self-interest for ethics. It is objective reality for metaphysics, reason for epistemology, and capitalism for politics. Rand gave this summary in 1962, standing on one leg (as requested by a questioner at a sales conference at Random House). The simple translation that Rand added is not helpful in terms of philosophical substance and of rationality, but it may have utility for some in terms of rhetoric. For objective reality, “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed,” or “Wishing won’t make it so”; for epistemology, “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too”; for ethics, “man is an end in himself”; and for politics, “Give me liberty or give me death” (http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/introducing-objectivism.html, retrieved March 1, 2013).

Turn to Rand’s ethics—and her ethical egoism, which claims that the highest moral purpose of an individual’s life is the pursuit of that individual’s own rational self-interest and own happiness, and that opposes altruism. Rand’s ethics should be seen in the context of the rest of her philosophy, but for space reasons, discussion of the non-ethics part of her philosophy is abbreviated. For her, people are heroic beings with their personal happiness as the moral purpose of their lives and with productive achievement as their noblest activity. For her, the ideal political and social system is market fundamentalism. Neither Howard Roark nor John Galt would do anything but primarily for himself. So Roark of The Fountainhead explains that the “first right on earth is the right of the ego …. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes” (Rand, Citation1961b, p. 96). The Good Samaritan was misguided unless that good deed was done primarily for himself. In The Virtue of Selfishness (Citation1964, p. vii), Rand explains that she interprets the selfishness that she advocates not as evil but as “concern with one’s own interests.” By contrast, she characterizes altruism as “an unspeakable evil” (Rand, Citation1961b, p. 111). Every person must exist for his own sake, and “objectivist morality would consider [helping others] enormously immoral” (Rand, Citation1961b, p. 119).

Asher claims that Rand’s view of the human condition is unrealistic. He objects that Rand’s ethical doctrine cannot claim objective certainty, and that its fatal flaw is reliance on “psychological egoism, a naïve and weak viewpoint” (Asher, Citation2011, chap. 1). In making this objection, it is reasonable for Asher to claim that the burden of proof rests with Rand if she wants to assert her doctrine and to draw large consequences from it. He is right that the doctrine of rational self-interest is not a rational certainty, and that it is false to suggest that rational logic proves her ethical position to be the only possible ethical stance.

Asher advances three overlapping arguments. The first (Asher, Citation2011, chap. 2) stresses that the “self” always involves our group—as well as our individual—identity. This is related to the view that each person’s actions and thoughts are socially shaped. It raises the claim that, in my view, human individuals do not create themselves independent of their social construction—in independence of what Cornelius Castoriadis (Citation1997, p. 9) calls our magma. (Castoriadis describes the institution of each society’s magma of social imaginary signification as shaping what can be constituted in that society. As he indicates, each “society, like each living being or species, establishes, creates its own world, within which, of course, it includes itself.”) Asher’s second counter-argument is what he characterizes as an empirical case against egoism, and this is that a “purely individual-driven system cannot reproduce the complex patterns of actual life” (Asher, Citation2011, chap. 3). His third is, as he puts it, that the possibility of our conscious sense of self is “not bound to our physical sense of self at all, and that our selves are composite identities that include even the physical presences of our loved ones” (Asher, Citation2011, chap. 4).

There is much in Rand’s metaphysics that is, at least, not cogent. Rand’s metaphysics makes claims about existence, consciousness, and identity. Her opening axiom is that existence exists, and she considers that this demonstrates the primacy of existence (the primacy of reality). Existence exists, and is the perceptual base of all knowledge, for example; existence has primacy over consciousness, which must conform to existence. For her, this demonstrates (although it is not clear why it should) that the universe is independent of consciousness (of any consciousness); the result is that she asserts the perceptual basis of all knowledge. Existence exists, and she asserts that this entails that things are what they are, and that such things possess a specific nature—a specific identity.

Let us illustrate the depth difficulty in this metaphysics. The natures of existence and reality have been discussed long and deeply in philosophy, and Rand does not seriously engage these philosophers. Yet it is the case, and reflected in such long and deep discussion, that for “the most part, philosophers have not known how they should use ‘existence’ or ‘being’ or ‘reality’ when confronted by problems concerning, for example the relation between possibility and actuality” (Buchler, Citation1966, p. 4). In other words, it requires cogent argument to be convincing that all things real must be existent. On the same lines, there has also been disagreement about whether the real refers to “what exists” or “what basically exists” (Hamlyn, Citation1984)—the furniture, or the ultimate furniture, of the universe. Rand avoids such complexity.

Rand’s epistemology (summarized as reason) also advances claims that are difficult to maintain, such as that about rationality. (Others may wish to focus on the dubious claim that all knowledge is ultimately based on sense perception.) Rand’s objectivist philosophy celebrates what she considers rationality. So she has Galt exclaim that “happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values, his joy is nothing but rational actions’’ (Rand, Citation1961b, pp. 162–163). She would not accept the view from psychoanalysis or from neuroscience that our decisions, actions, and behaviors result, at least in part, from the unconscious. Nor would she accept the view from neuroscience, for instance, that individuals are primarily not rational people with emotions; they are primarily emotional people, with rationality. Nor would she accept the claim from neuroscience that “the conscious mind is not at the center of the action in the brain; instead it is far out on a distant edge…” (Eagleman, 2011, p. 9). She accepts the emphasis in mainstream economic theory that makes the assumption of economic man—that he is utterly self-interested and utterly rational.

Ayn Rand explains (strangely) that the only philosophers to have identified important philosophical truths are “Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand” (Mayhew, Citation2005, pp. 148–149). Sorry, Plato, Kant, Heidegger, et al.; return to your caves!

Public administration should join in contributing to the co-shaping of economic literature, recalling that economics is a fundamental support for the American business model. Because economics is more straightforward than it seems, public administration thinkers should venture outside their disciplinary boxes and attempt to contribute to co-shaping economics itself. Distinguished economists like Thomas Piketty and Ha-Joon Chang (mentioned earlier) have recommended that noneconomists should participate in doing economics. In his monumental Capital in the Twenty-first Century, for instance, Piketty claims, “Indeed the distribution of wealth is too important an issue to be left to economists, sociologists, historians, and philosophers. It is of interest to everyone, and that is a good thing” (Piketty, Citation2014, p. 2). In his Economics: The User’s Guide, Chang argues for noneconomists to become what he calls economic citizens. He claims that “You should be willing to challenge professional economists …. The economy is too important to be left to the professional economist alone. I would go one step further and say that the willingness to challenge professional economists—and other experts—should be a foundation of democracy” (Chang, Citation2014, pp. 331–332). He adds that economics is “easier than you think … [and] far more accessible than many economists would have you believe” (Citation2014, pp. 333–334). That public administration thinkers should become involved in economic theorizing has also been discussed in the public administration theory community. For instance, notice the recommendation that “non-economists should contribute more to the supply of economic theory, and especially to the foundations of economic theorizing …. Non-economists should be more than mere buyers of economic theory …. Macro public administration theorists … should turn even more to analyze whether economic theory is right about governmentality” (Farmer, Citation2014, p. 99).

Let us turn to the contention that the effects of economics and of the American business model extend significantly not only to the economic but also to the noneconomic sphere and to growing commercialization. That the American business model and the economic extend beyond their spheres, consider two written testimonies. One is from Michael Sandell (Citation2012), who wrote What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, and the other is Stephen (Citation2012), who wrote How Economics Shapes Science. For the false claim that economics settles almost everything, see Freakonomics: The Hidden Side of Everything (Levitt & Dubner, Citation2005). Against such claims, Sandell points to the limits of markets, giving examples. To repeat only four examples: Is it moral for lobbyists to pay homeless people $20 to stand in line for them overnight at Capitol Hill? Is it moral to encourage reading in underachieving Dallas schools by paying children $2 per book? Is it moral to pay announcers for uttering branding slogans at ball games when a batter hits a run? Should we allow corporations to pay for the right to pollute?

For the claim that commercialization is growing, consider the universities. Stephan describes universities as having embraced the “shopping mall model,” and she documents how scientific research is influenced. She comments

In many ways universities in the United States behave as though they are high-end shopping malls. They are in the business of building state-of-the-art facilities and a reputation that attracts good students, good faculty, and resources. They turn around and lease the facilities to faculty in the form of indirect costs on grants and the buyout of salary. In many instances, faculty “pay” for the opportunity of working at the universities, receiving no guarantee of income if they fail to bring in a grant. (Stephen, Citation2012, pp. 228–229)

For an example of a direct influence of the American business model on scientific results, note Stephan’s discussion as to why it is disadvantageous for research to reject a central hypothesis—because it reduces the chance of follow-up monies. As Stephan puts it, “The system discourages faculty from pursuing research with uncertain outcomes. Lack of success can mean that one’s next grant may not be funded” (Stephen, Citation2012, p. 229). Other impacts are also noted, such as that “universities have found ways to minimize economic risk. They have hired faculty in non-tenure track positions and have increased the proportion of adjuncts they hire” (Stephen, Citation2012, p. 229). Concluded a university president about his own university, in a message entitled Unleashing the Innovation Ecosystem, “we have the potential for much more—particularly in shaping an environment right here … that will unleash our potential to become a global hotbed for entrepreneurship, innovation, and commercialization” (Sands, Citation2014, p. 2).

All public administration academic programs should require their students to study not only the relative advantages of regulating an economy but also economics itself, encouraging students to recognize that the American business model is less than fully validated by economic science. The study of the relative advantages of regulating an economy should focus primarily on macro considerations. For example, there is a macro approach on the deregulation side offered by Rand’s and other writings. There is a macro approach, significant on the regulation side, offered in such publications as Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole (Barber, Citation2007). And there is more macro literature, such as The Big Rip-Off: How Business and Big Government Steal Your Money (Carney, Citation2006).

Because the appeal of the American business model is considered fully “validated” by economic science, public administration academic programs (as some do) should require their students to study economics and encourage them to recognize that the American business model is less than so validated. For a first issue, the market fundamentalism in the American business model is not “the” conclusion of the discipline of economics. That is, it is not the conclusion of the entire discipline of economics. This is mentioned because it is often assumed that the American business model represents (as it were) “economics speaking.” For a second issue, there is a substantial literature holding that economics is not a science. Attempts to brand the American business model as validated by economic science should be resisted and counter-attacked.

For the first issue, the American business model’s market fundamentalism is not validated by the conclusions of the whole field of economics. It is true that the American business model is consistent with an economic dialect that embraces neoliberalism, the Hayekian, the Chicago school of market fundamentalism—what has been termed the freshwater school of economics; however, the saltwater dialect is a different matter. The saltwater reference is to economists affiliated with university locations without a freshwater lake, like Lake Michigan. Such market fundamentalism is in the sense of the free market analyzed by Friedrich von Hayek (Citation1944). It was indicated above that such a spontaneous and self-organizing market is seen as the best device for allocating resources. Such fundamentalism is not at all the principal, or the only, approach of economic theorists.

The neoclassical grouping (including freshwater and saltwater) is the largest school in economics, and it is divided on policy recommendations relating to the role of government and to the free market. See the listing by Chang (Citation2014, pp. 80–122) of nine schools of economics—classical, neoclassical, Marxist, developmentalist, Austrian, Schumpeterian (and neo-Schumpeterian), Keynesian, institutionalist, and behaviorist; he could have added others, neuroeconomics, for example. He describes only three as recommending such policies as the free market—the classical, the Austrian, and part of the neoclassical. Within the neoclassical divided grouping, there are indeed conflicting views on the so-called free market.

For support of a contrary neoclassical economic dialect, consult the best-known economics textbook during the past sixty-seven years, written by Nobel Prize winner Paul A. Samuelson and William B. Nordhaus, Economics (Citation2010 and earlier in 2005, 2001, 1998, 1995, 1992, 1989, 1985, 1980, 1976, 1973, 1970, 1967, 1964, 1963, 1958, 1955, 1953, and 1948). See their chart “Government Can Remedy the Shortcomings of the Market” (Samuelson & Nordhaus, Citation2010, p. 40) and the chapter “The Modern Mixed Economy” (2010, pp. 25–44). See the Centrist Proclamation in the nineteenth edition (2010, pp. xvi–xvii). Samuelson and Nordhaus assert that their textbook “proclaims the value of the mixed economy—an economy that combines the tough discipline of the market with fair-minded governmental oversights.” Referring to the center as positioned between the left of socialism and the right of market fundamentalism, Samuelson and Nordhaus (Citation2010, p. xvi) assert that “the follies of the left and the right both mandate centrism.”

For the second issue about the description of economics as endorsing the American business model with the authority of economics being a science, public administration students should also take on the large literature that reflects on the idea that economics is not a science—including, for example, titles like The World in the Model (Morgan, Citation2012) and The Puzzle of Modern Economics: Science or Ideology? (Backhouse, Citation2012). They may include reflection on the literature (e.g., Chang, Citation2014; Heap, Citation1999; Hoover, Citation2003) that mathematics does not a science make. They may reflect on, say, the comment by Jonathan Schlefer in his Assumptions Economists Make (Schlefer, Citation2012, p. 24) that “economists’ insistence that their discipline is like physics sounds a little nervous. Did you ever hear a physicist boast to the world that physics is like economics?” They may also reflect on the comment by the great economist Joseph Schumpeter (Citation1954, p. 10) that

the frontiers of the individual sciences … are incessantly shifting …. There is no point in trying to define them either by subject or by method. This applies particularly to economics, which is not a science in the sense in which acoustics is one, but rather an aggregation of ill-coordinated and overlapping fields of research in the same sense as is medicine.

Recall that at one point, public administration itself was often called “administrative science.”

This article makes five claims for public administration theorists, associations, academic programs, high-level practitioners, and others. The first and major claim is that the American business model is more than a mere model. It is a war-fighting strategy, a battle plan. This was illustrated in the 1971 Powell memorandum, written for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by a man soon to be appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Should not public administration learn from the fighting strategy of the Powell memorandum? The second claim is that public administration should counter-attack the kingdom of myth, including the use of hermeneutics and deconstruction. The third claim is that public administration should counter-attack the American business model’s rhetoric. The fourth claim is that public administration should counter-attack by seeking to contribute to the economic literature. On the co-shaping of economics, it is noted that distinguished professional economists, like Thomas Piketty (Citation2014) and Chang (Citation2014), have encouraged noneconomists to participate in developing economics—and not to leave economic science to the professional economists. The fifth claim is that all public administration academic programs should counter-attack by requiring their students to study not only the relative advantages of regulating an economy but also economics itself, encouraging students to recognize that the American business model is less than fully validated by economic science.

Public administration needs to fight back against the American business model. Each of Justice Powell’s twenty-five recommendations should be adjusted in defense of government and directed against the warring anti-government forces.

No thoughtful person can question that American public administration and governmental system is under broad attack …. It [is] crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack … by misguided individuals parroting one another. (Powell, Citation1971, p. 2)

To continue to revise Powell’s words, “Why not fight back?” Indeed, sometimes theorists have to do more than merely theorize; sometimes they have to let slip the dogs of war.