PRESTOPUNDIT

THE AP vs. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Schwarzenegger in his convention speech said, "I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector [of Austria]." He also said, "When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes." If Schwarzenegger did visit the Soviet sector of Austria, then he did see tanks in the streets and Soviet communist control of the much of that sector's economy, as I indicated in this posting earlier. Now the AP has dug up folks in Austria to "prove" Schwarzenegger is a liar. How? By pointing out that the British sector of Austria where Schwarzenegger lived was not controlled by the Soviet communists. Get it? Well, I don't either. But note well, the AP fails to quote directly from Schwarzenegger -- and fails to report that Schwarzenegger specifically says that he had travelled to the Soviet sector. And as to Austria being socialist or not, I refer you again to my earlier posting and to this:

From 1945 until 1966 Austria was governed by a coalition of the Socialist and People’s parties. The number of positions each party received depended on its share of votes in parliamentary elections. This framework was extended to the economic sphere, as the state, industry, labor, and agricultural interests developed a partnership and created a modified market economy. Prosperity rested in part on nationalized industries, such as electric power plants and oil refineries; the government also controlled the banks.

The nationalization of industry and banking isn't a Milton Friedman thing, it's a socialist thing. In fact, the former is exactly the kind of thing which happened in Britain when the Labour Party socialists took power in 1945. That's what socialists do when they "modify" a market economy -- they create large sectors of socialism within it. If truth be told, the communists in the old U.S.S.R. could do no more. And I'm a bit surprised that an academic would insist -- as one does in the AP story -- that free countries and socialist countries are mutually incompatible things. Most academics for decades have insisted just the opposite. But perhaps the Her Professor does have an point there after all ..

Harvard smartie Matthew Yglesias thinks he's been vindicated. It looks like Atrios didn't read Schwarzenegger's speech either, but calls him a liar anyway. And Timothy Noah does a MoDo on Schwarzenegger and says Schwarzenegger "implied" things no sane person would infer. Good job, Tim.

UPDATE: Jan Haugland points out that the historians quoted in the AP article must not have read Schwarzenegger's speech, and adds this:

The historian may be forgiven, at least partly, for not having read the context of the speech when journalists presented him with his former countryman's words. But those left-leaning journalists who presented this can hardly be ignorant of the fact that historical facts support Schwarzenegger's version. His part of the country were not run by the Soviets, but he could (and, he says, did) travel to the parts that were.

Another criticism is that Austria wasn't run by socialists just after World War II, like Schwarzenegger said it was. The conservatives, historians say, were in power both after the war and just before he left for the US. This is a matter of cultural translation. Somebody will have to tell me how the conservatives are in Austria, but I know that Norway is a social-democratic country whether it is run by the Labour party, which calls itself socialist, or the coalition of Christian-Democrats and Conservatives that are currently in power. The non-socialists, who actually call themselves bourgeois parties (!), differ on some policies, but none oppose the state controlled welfare state we have. That is a socialist country, and I would not be surprised if Schwarzenegger is correct in considering all the major parties in Austria, then and now, socialist, at least by American standards.

UPDATE: Powerline has more, including a picture. Posted by Greg Ransom