Abstract:
When Adam Smith advocated a specific approach for political discussion in regard to the
public opinion, he recommended and utilized strategic yielding and caution when
necessary. The approach involves a willingness to mull through and respect the
surrounding views and can lead one to moderation or fudging of extreme views or simple
non-disclosure of extreme views. According to Smith, one needed to consider
accommodating his more extreme views given the prejudice of the public. Beliefs and
attitudes that would cause uproar or conflict were carefully treated and not brashly put
forth. Prudence called for political figures or philosophers to obscure, hedge, conceal, or
temper their radical beliefs. Smith related the approach to that of the Athenian official
Solon who put forth laws that attempted to be “the best that the people can bear.”
However, the cautious nature of Smith’s approach has gone overlooked in modern
literature. Smith’s caution is being taken for mild to moderate interventionist support and
thus many are claiming the father of economics has many ideas aligned with established
modern policies of the welfare state and the regulatory state. While the works and ideas
of Adam Smith remain foundational to modern economics the interpretation of Smith is
changing. This dissertation examines Smith’s measured words and cautious approach to
public policy and defends the interpretation of Adam Smith as a strong proponent of
liberty.
