James Sherk: Heritage Foundation huckster, hack and homophobe

James Sherk is the "Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy" at the Heritage Foundation -- which means he writes about how workers are abusing the Family Medical Leave Act, how card check will terrorize hapless workers, how really workers are capitalizing on productivity gains, how the job market doesn't suck as much as you think it does and, really, workers should just accept their lot because we're in the best of all possible worlds.

Sherk's latest claim to fame was a think piece claiming that UAW at the Big Three really do make $70 an hour -- contra the UAW and others, who say that the figure includes retiree costs.

Is  Sherk right? It's an infinite universe, so anything's possible, including a Heritage fellow discovering "truth." That said, the Brawler's standard reaction to anything out of Heritage or the AEI is distrust lest verified. Facts are fungible things in the hands of the think-tank wannabe wonks whose work is not conducted in the spirit of free inquiry. As former Heritage vice presidentBurton Pines said in a 1986 Atlantic story:

"We're not here to be some kind of Ph.D. committee giving equal time," says Burton Pines, a vice-president of Heritage. "Our role is to provide conservative public-policy makers with arguments to bolster our side. We're not troubled over this. There are plenty of think tanks on the other side."

That "standard" remains intact.

But could Sherk be an exception to the rule, a guy who will follow the truth wherever it leads and publish it no matter whether it suits the interests of his paymasters. Upon further review: Doubtful. He's a huckster and he's a hack. On top of it, he's a homophobe. Which may not affect his analytic abilities per se but does suggest the kind of ideologue we're dealing with.

1. James Sherk is a hack. How much do employees of Japanese auto plants in the U.S. make? With James Sherk it depends on when you ask -- or upon the objective of the piece. In November James Sherk said "over $80,000 a year in total compensation -- hardly cheap labor."  But last year James Sherk said they make almost $100,000 before overtime.

Japanese car companies provide their employees with good jobs at good wages. The typical hourly employee at a Toyota, Honda or Nissan plant in America makes almost $100,000 a year in wages and benefits, before overtime. Those wages seem more than fair, and they're set in a far more open market than the UAW would want to see.

Which means Sherk is a) innumerate and can't determine what they make or b) thinks that $80,000 is "almost $100,000", an extremely sloppy, if not outright dishonest, formulation.

Or:  Sherk realized it's not smart to say workers at Japanese auto plants make "almost $100,000" when you're arguing that UAW workers -- working for US-based companies -- are overpaid at $130,000.

Either way, numbers are slippery things in the hands of James Sherk.

2. James Sherk is a hack. In between interning at Heritage and working full-time at Heritage, James Sherk was a senior fellow at some ludicrous outfit called the Evangel Society of Thought. Sherk -- who majored in economics at the right-wing Hillsdale College and received an MA in economics at the University of Rochester -- penned a variety of economic think pieces for said society. One of them was "The Fall of Keynes" in which Sherk wrote:

Yet within a decade and a half, Milton Friedman had consigned most of them [Keynes's ideas] to the ash heap of economic history. Keynesian orthodoxy passed from complete domination of the American economics profession in the 1960’s to near irrelevance as Friedman’s revolutionary monetarist theories and empirical research systematically demolished the Keynesian paradigm. (Brawler's bold)

Those lines were laughable at the time Sherk wrote them (2002) and certainly would have raised eyebrows at any economics department. ("Keynes is irrelevant? Really?")  They've aged even worse. But they make for a good  ideological rant.

3. James Sherk is a homophobe. Speaking of Keynes: If you're a serious economist (like,say James Sherk) writing about Keynes, how do you open your essay? By saying Keynes was a big gay homosexual! From the same essay:

Before one can understand Milton Friedman’s critique of Keynesian economics, one must first understand the origin of Keynesian thought and its dominant position in economic thought during the 1950’s and 1960’s. During his years in Cambridge, John Maynard Keynes belonged to a secret society called the “Apostles.” This organization strongly opposed Victorian morality and its values. It advocated the moral superiority of homosexuality, and, until his marriage in 1925, Keynes frequently engaged in homosexual acts, even with young boys. Keynes believed in living for the moment, in doing what feels best regardless of abstract notions of right and wrong.[i] Keynes once declared that “I remain, and will always remain, an immoralist.”[ii]

Is it overreaching to suggest Sherk is establishing a subtext of activist government=gay?

James Sherk had another piece titled "Why Christians should vote." One reason: Keep down the gays!

The issue of homosexual marriage illustrates the consequences of this progressive vision. Christians know that God established marriage between one man and one woman and condemns homosexuality as a sinful abomination on par with adultery, idolatry, and theft.

Progressives see nothing wrong with homosexual behavior and see no reason why they should not re-order society by allowing homosexuals to marry. Three Democrats campaigning for president support full gay marriage and the remaining six favor creating legal civil unions between homosexuals, which would grant homosexuals all the legal incidents of marriage, withholding only the formal name marriage. By contrast, President Bush opposes both these initiatives. A servant of Christ should carefully consider the implications of voting for any of the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004. While the government cannot reshape a homosexual's heart - only Christ can - Christians should oppose using the government to extend special legal recognition and protection to such abhorrent behavior, or using the coercive power of the state to redefine and reshape the institution of marriage.

The same essay says: "Even though they may not realize it, the guiding philosophy of the Democratic Party denies the existence of God." Who knew?

Next year,as fights emerge over card check and other progressive reforms, Sherk's smiling face will appear on MSNBC and other networks, doing his best to appear to be a reasonable person. When in fact he puts the nut in wingnut.

Comments

[Missy]

Hey I stumbled upon this as I was just wondering what this "hack" was up to. I've known him personally...and honestly, if he says something, I tend to then think the opposite to be the right/true thing. Born with a silver (more like platinum) spoon in his mouth he is the perfect example of hatred hiding in "morality" clothing. Hates the poor, hates the gays, hates anything not exactly like him. When I hear friends who are lower middle class moralists spouting out political views similar to his conjured up but some related think tank I try to remind them how these people have no interest in them, their families, or their well-being....but I guess sometimes people don't get it. But don't get me wrong, I hate what he produces, but I don't hate the person...because I have a soul.

[JA Hayes]

James Sherk is a jerk! He can't help it...he was born with a silver FOOT in his mouth!

[A Landrigan]

To me it sounds like you libs would rather we all just take your word for the gospel truth. I read these quotes and, if the facts about Keynes are true, I find it difficult to understand your complaint. If some right wing nut job white supremacist came up with an economic theory, you would eviscerate it not on its merits but on the immorality of its creator. Just as you look askance at Sherk's views because of his beliefs, others too might look askance at Keynes' theories because of his beliefs. The road travels both ways.

[Sheridan]

Brawler,
Thanks for the research. Sherk's a bigger jerk than I thought.
Landrigan - I think Brawler slammed Sherk based on Sherk's innaccuracies, Sherk's claim that Keynes is irrelevant to economics and then Sherk's use of Christian dogma to attack Keynes.
I hope you didn't equate the morality of a white supremacist with the morality of a homosexual