Ideas MUST be important if...

Lord Keynes said so:

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good and evil."

-J. M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, pp. 383-84.

With that, I agree with Peter Boettke here that someone will rise up and meet the challenges of the day, whether it be today, or tomorrow, or 428 years from now. And ideas are the way to go about it. Let us remember that ideas are not fixed relative to specific issues and concepts, but instead ideas are just as much influenced by time and place. This precludes the notion that the pool of ideas is fixed and once we're out of heroes, we're out of luck. No way.

Digressing a bit, when our more mainstream friends ostensibly are "for" the free market, but then turn around and write columns about how public vouchers for private schooling is a good idea, they're actually undermining the very cause they claim to support. Statism on the rocks with a splash of 7-UP is still statism. To substitute some mild form of statism to move in the general direction of freedom is a dangerous game; what if your idea does help the cause of publicly funded education? Who have you really helped, in the long run?

Advocating a particular policy specifically for the short term, as is characteristic of politicians, is exactly what we must divorce ourselves from. Hayek said it best, but let me paraphrase: Society's ethical principles are relatively fixed in the long-run; however, we must set forth to demonstrate to our peers that such principles are often in tumultuous conflict, and will not remain static; the pursuit of such contradictory goals will harm even greater values. So, in trying to realize semi-statism, we are only shooting ourselves in the foot, maybe blowing it off completely.

My point is, consistent ideas change the flow of events. Today, half-hearted apologists for Uncle Sam aren't ebbing the tide of things, but make it only worse. The men garnished with the most support are always those who are committed to a firm set of principles relative to their time. It is how this country was founded, it is how political philosophers and economists go down in the history books, and it is why we can turn on the radio every day from noon to three, expecting to hear one of the greatest voices of today. I believe this is the consequence of consistent ideas.