From a reader:

Let me preface this comment by noting that I have not read your book and therefore may have missed part of your argument. I do, however, disagree with your contention that the left is entirely to blame for statist corporatism. You write:
“If you understand the right-wing or conservative position to be that of those who argue for free markets, competition, property rights, and the other political values inscribed in the original intent of the American founding fathers, then big business in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and New Deal America was not rightwing; it was left-wing, and it was fascistic.” I think this definition of conservatism is too restrictive to accurately describe the movement’s historical roots, particularly in the context of corporate subsidies. After all, the 19th century Republican Party was defined in part by its fealty to import tariffs, a policy designed to protect big business from foreign competition. Modern Republicans are equally enamored with hand-outs to powerful industries: Romney recently defended agricultural subsidies on the grounds that they were necessary for “food security,” and the only major Republican candidate to reject ethanol subsidies in Iowa was John McCain. The corporatism of the left tends to be filtered through the rhetoric of social justice, but this is a difference in emphasis, not policy.

Me: I pretty much agree entirely. To say that the Democrats have prostituted themselves to corporatism should not in any way be interpreted as me saying that there aren’t plenty of whores in the GOP’s saloon. Going back to the 19th century GOP, however, isn’t really fruitful since the GOP was a very different party back then. But, I agree that even today, politicians across the political spectrum favor corporatist policies. Would that the GOP was actually the conservative party when it came to, say, agricultural subsidies. Let me just concede the point that both parties have corporatist operational majorities. But the idea-generating bases of the two parties have very different views of how government and business should interact. The Cato Institute is considered rightwing on economics precisely because it wants to sever the incestuous, rent-seeking, relationship between business and government. The Urban Institute, meanwhile, at best seeks to “modernize” the relationship between business and government, which is to say they believe the two should cooperate more, not less.

Or think of it this way: If George Will could organize our economic affairs, business and labor would “cooperate” with government less. If EJ Dionne could organize our economic affairs, business, labor and government would be “strategic partners.”