In The Long Run: Keynes and the Legacy of British Liberalism
Was John Maynard Keynes a Keynesian? The third volume of Robert Skidelsky's magisterial biography answers this question by arguing that the economist's legacy is the promotion of, not opposition to, classical British liberalism.
Walter Russell Mead is Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"You will read your Political Economy in my absence," Miss Prism says to the Reverend Canon Chasuble in Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest. "The chapter on the Fall of the Rupee you may omit. It is somewhat too sensational."
It was, in fact, the management of the Indian rupee that occupied John Maynard Keynes at the dawn of his career, and many chapters in the life of this distinguished economist and public servant were considered too sensational for his first biographer, Roy Harrod, to address. Now with John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Freedom, 1937-1946, the third and last installment of his monumental biography, Lord Robert Skidelsky has brought us as close as we are ever likely to get to the whole Keynes, rupees and all.
THE ECONOMIST AS A YOUNG MAN
His was a very English life. At Cambridge, Keynes was one of the enfants terribles whose mix of philosophical idealism, undergraduate homoeroticism, and cynical disengagement from the certainties of their Victorian grandparents shocked the Edwardians and pointed to the vast cultural and social changes ahead. After helping to blaze the trail later traipsed by such bright young things as Evelyn Waugh, W. H. Auden, and Christopher Isherwood (and, for that matter, the double-agent Guy Burgess), Keynes plunged into the artistic and cultural mix of the storied Bloomsbury group, where he enjoyed the company of such betes noires of the British establishment as the author Lytton Strachey and the painter Duncan Grant.
What Bloomsbury regarded as the shades of the prison house began to close in about the growing Keynes during World War I, when he forsook the fashionable antiwar stance of many of his friends to serve in the British Treasury, ultimately accompanying the British delegation to the 1919 Versailles conference. His coruscating and still controversial account of the conference, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, remains one of the great landmarks in the history of the twentieth century and continues to shape debate over the relationship between the two great European wars of the era.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
WHEN Hitler marched into Poland, he informed his subjects that since he came to power he had spent no less than 90 billion marks on war preparations.
Unlike Margaret Thatcher in 1981, British Prime Minister David Cameron has appeared totally unprepared for the social unrest that his spending cuts have inevitably unleashed. The result: ugly class politics are back in Britain.
IN ANY attempt to form an opinion of future changes some concept of normality is an intellectual necessity. For men of my generation, men born before 1890, there is an almost irresistible tendency to take as normal the position in the twenty years before 1914. This is especially the case when one considers a subject like that here discussed -- the economic position of the United Kingdom. We are apt to think of the First World War as a disturbing influence; of the difficulties of the inter-war period as marking the abnormality of that period; of the late war as another disturbance!

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.