MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Jennifer Lawrence, Libertarian Feminist?

The star was spotted wearing a "We Should All Be Feminists" T-shirt and carrying a book with Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises on it.

Being Classically Liberal/FacebookBeing Classically Liberal/FacebookActress Jennifer Lawrence is in the news this week for a number of reasons, including her impromptu performance at a Vienna strip club and her stepping out in a $700 Dior T-shirt that proclaims "We Should All Be Feminists." The Daily Mail even devoted a whole article to the shirt, noting that "the 26-year-old actress beamed as she left the set of her film Red Sparrow with her dog—and a balloon—in tow." But the Mail fails to note the other thing that J-Law was spotted carrying: a book with famed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises on the back cover.

The Facebook group Being Classically Liberal first noted Lawrence's reading material yesterday, suggesting that perhaps she had picked up the von Mises book Socialism thinking it took a positive view of the subject. Lawrence—star of a slew of recent hit movies, including Joy, The Hunger Games, and American Hustle—has been outspoken in her criticism of conservative politicians (The Daily Beast even deemed her "Hollywood's Next Big Power Liberal").

But some crowdsourced sleuthing revealed that Lawrence's book isn't by von Mises but about him and other Austrian School economists. The book—Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan—was written by New York University professor Kim Phillips-Fein and looks at the rise of free-market economics in post-New Deal America and the role that businesses played in shaping mid-20th Century conservatism.

"Starting in the mid-1930s, a handful of prominent American businessmen forged alliances with the aim of rescuing America—and their profit margins—from socialism and the 'nanny state,'" says the publisher's blurb for the book. "Long before the 'culture wars' usually associated with the rise of conservative politics, these driven individuals funded think tanks, fought labor unions, and formed organizations to market their views."

So does this mean Lawrence is rethinking the reflexive Hollywood hate for free-market capitalism? It's probably a bit too soon to roll out the libertarian welcome mat just yet; for all we know, Lawrence is reading Invisible Hands as some sort of resistance manual, or doing research for a role in an exciting new film about economic theory. (OK, probably not that last one.) But, hey, you know what they say: Once you go Austrian School...

No? Nobody says that?

Whatever, look, Jennifer Lawrence is holding a book with Ludwig von Mises on it! Happy weekend, y'all.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Once you go Austrian School...

    That gives me a bumper sticker idea: Austrians Do It Praxeologically

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    D Is D

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Once you go Austrian school, your influence is minuscule.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Once you go Austrian school, it's just you and your deductive tool.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Once you go Austrian school, feelings of unease are the rule.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Once you go Austrian school, you'll use STOV to justify peeing in the pool.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    I can go all day, people.

  • Cyto||

    Didn't read the book. But the blurb you posted makes it sound like it is an anti-libertarian anti-free-market screed, written to decry the abuses of our wealthy, union-busting task masters.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    People who've read it say it's not

  • Cyto||

    So, since there was no cliff notes, I ran to amazon to check the reviews.


    This is a top flight history book of how big money sought to fight the New Deal. It took them forty years, and they won when Ronald Reagan became president. The author weaves a wonderfully researched tale of the backroom deals, the big money that created the right-wing grass roots background, and the propaganda used to wage war against labor unions and the 1960s counterrevolution.

    So one die-hard new dealer liked the book as a chronical of all that is evil in the world. Then there is this:

    Freedom lovers will resonate with this historical account of an effort to resist the abandonment of the voluntary society.

    So what to make of this? A book about the big money behind the conservative movement to overturn the new deal that the left and the right both like?

    I'm gonna say we've got a black swan. An actual scholarly history book that isn't so drastically ideological that it can be easily dismissed.

  • Cyto||

    So reading that back, it might seem that my first quote isn't unambiguously left wing. So here is the rest of that review:

    She assumes the corporate elite (perhaps parasites is a better term) won and rolled the New Deal back. Sure they largely killed the labor unions, and they still fight hard against Social Security and unemployment insurance. But the New Deal is otherwise untouched because to do so would bring about a popular revolution that would throw the bums out for another forty years, just like the next recession, or the one after that, will.

    No, the New Deal is still strong and virtually untouchable despite the massive amount of money funding propaganda against it.

    Now that we've fixed that bit, we can address the issue of "review articles" in science. My comment here is an example of the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) that is the review article. I'm (badly) summing up a bunch of perhaps badly done or even false reviews. So take it for what it is worth.

  • ||

    that would throw the bums out for another forty years, just like the next recession, or the one after that, will.

    They'll be blamed for the next recession that happens when they're out of power, too!!

  • Mickey Rat||

    That being said, it does not seem like you can draw any conclusions about about the ideological leanings of someone who reads it. The tee shirt is a ridiculously overpriced banal platitude.

  • Cyto||

    Nothing says "fight capitalism" like a $700 Che Guevara T-shirt.

  • ||

    I used to work with a woman who commuted from one of the most exclusive and expensive parts of Marin County in her Lexus SUV proudly bearing her Che Guevara keychain.

    She said she would make sure to listen to NPR on her commute to remind her that "oh yeah - there's bad stuff that happens in the world, and people should be aware of that."

  • IceTrey||

    Remember when feminists burned their bras?

  • SIV||

    FAKE REVIEWS

  • SparktheRevolt||

    Not according to the reviews of it on Goodreads

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/.....ible-hands

    https://i.imgur.com/OZlAMdS.png

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    People who've read it say it's not

    It's not a screed but more of a lament?

  • DanO.||

    Barf

  • CooterBrown||

    DanO, cuckoltarian feminist?

  • DanO.||

    That's your mom.

  • CooterBrown||

    God damn it dude. I don't cry about your bullshit like everyone else here, since I know you're just trolling. But for fuck's sake, you're just not FUNNY. I know you're the hot new troll around here, but you really need to step your game up.

  • rudehost||

    Trolls in general are not funny or engaging or charming. If they were they wouldn't be so desperately trying to get attention from random strangers. This case is not an exception that proves the rule.

  • CooterBrown||

    I see your point, but consider his shtick. Donald Trump has to be the easiest target in fucking history, yet Danny boy yet to get a second chuckle out of me in like half a year.

  • barfman2017||

    *barf*

    She's obviously doing opposition research.

  • ||

    Oh, please. Clearly it's the dog's book.

  • ||

    Ninety nine dreams I have had...

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Everyone's a superhero, everyone's a Captain Kirk...

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    I'd influence her environment, if you know what I mean.

    Also, how long until someone tells her what the book is about, and she is soon seen reading a love letter to Keynes?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    And I'd let Katniss Everdeen use my arrow, if you catch my drift.

    Speaking of that role, that entire series of movies are probably the most libertarian-ish sci to appear on a big or small screen since Firefly.

    It's possible that her involvement in those films has influenced her enough to be at least suspicious/cynical about the kind of big government progressive technocratic dystopian "utopia" led by the likes of a President Snow.

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    I have not read the books or watched the movies because I am an adult*, so I will take your word for it. However, I am going to doubt she came to an epiphany because of the movie, but maybe she has met someone who introduced her to different ideas, and encouraged her to read on different subjects**, which would be cool.

    *ZING!
    **SHE'S JUST LIKE US?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    I remember a hit piece from some hack whining about The Hunger Games being creepy libertarian propaganda, because they glorify resisting the government, or something.

    Firefly/Serenity occasionally gets the same whining.

    (Disclaimer: I haven't actually gotten around to either of these. I am worst libertarian.)

  • MarkLastname||

    The reality is, most authors/filmmakers who make things about resisting authority will never realize that they're closer to the antagonists of their works than the protagonists. They just identify anti-authoritarianism so thoroughly with their political tribe that they could literally start wearing brown uniforms and armbands and goosestepping through the street and they wouldn't put 2 and 2 together. Today the state *is* the revolution.

  • MarkLastname||

    Case in point, I bet Joss Whedon would have an aneurysm if he heard his work was 'mistaken' for having libertarian themes.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    You are gonna have to turn in your LP membership card, buddy.

  • Libertarian||

    Did she buy that shirt in Venezuela? It wouldn't surprise me if t-shirts were $700 there.

  • ||

    Due thanks to you, Els, for introducing a gossip - society - section.

    From what I've seen of J. L., including how she relates to men, she is accessible to conservative and classically liberal thought and preferences.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    All Feminists Matter? Well this just went sideways.

  • lap83||

    Has she renounced her "equal pay" bullshit?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I believe my pay should be equal to Jay Z's.

  • lap83||

    How do you live with yourself knowing that some actresses can't afford mansions with more than one swimming pool?

  • ||

    You drink by the pool.

  • GILMORE™||

    Celebrities are important.

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    Yes they are.

  • Banake||

    They are our new secular religion.

  • Banake||

    They are our new secular religion.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It might be some character prep. She has to have her Russian character passable as an agent of an authoritarian regime and what better way then to understand those who opposed socialism.
    Red Sparrow- CIA

  • CE||

    She's playing Dagny Taggart in the new big budget production of Atlas Shrugged.

  • DanO.||

    Isn't there a site named after Mises which claims Mises was an anarchist?
    Are libertarians anarchists?
    Discuss.

  • CE||

    Yes, and it's more popular than this site.
    Yes, the real ones.

  • DanO.||

    Whoa. Can of worms opened, followed by violent protests.
    Or not.

    BTW, I've read Human Action. Not anarchist. Capitalist.

  • Juice||

    I've read Human Action.

    Uh huh.

  • DanO.||

    Sitting right there on my shelf. Which makes me more "libertarian" than 99.99% of Reason's chat-puppet "libertarians."

  • ||

    *

  • MarkLastname||

    So, does the copy of Capital on my shelf make me an honorary commissar in the Resistance or something?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If you read the story of my life, it would be titled Human Inaction.

  • DanO.||

    Coming never: Human Inaction II -- The Procrastinator

  • Eman||

    That's pretty funny

  • IceTrey||

    Isn't capitalism anarchic?

  • Longtobefree||

    I will take door number three; the book, like the dog and the balloon, is a prop.

  • josh||

    She's reading...that's where it begins. Let's leave it at that.

  • DanO.||

    John told me that all hot actress are leftists, not because they are, but because he'll never, ever be able to fuck them.

  • josh||

    Half of life is preparing for disappointment.

  • DanO.||

    the reflexive Hollywood hate for free-market capitalism

    Hollywood's one and only concern is making money. If producers and investors could turn a profit churning out Mises and Hayek bios, they would. If they could make money pumping out endless Toy Story sequels, they would (and do). "Hollywood" is only as ideological as the bottom line. The fact that the world prefers the products Hollywood makes says everything about the culture at large and little about "Hollywood," except that they are wholly willing to produce what the public wants. Sounds kind of capitalistic to me.

  • MarkLastname||

    Yes we are all aware that they are hypocrites, thanks.

  • JeremyR||

    I'm skeptical about that actually. Religious movies are a pretty big draw, but mostly they've ignored that area, leaving it open for the Mel Gibsons and Kevin Sorbos of the world.

    They also gleefully made dozens of anti-American movies during the GWB era, almost none of which made money

  • jack sprat||

    "Once you go Austrian School..."

    Actually I do say that.....

  • MarkLastname||

    She's a young feminist Hollywood actress. No, she is not a libertarian. She is a leftist; she supports socialized healthcare, affirmative action, higher taxes, mandatory gay wedding cakes and employer provided coverage for birth control, etc. we can be sure of it.

    Sad as it may be that knowing two or three things about a person tell you 95% of their political beliefs nearly to a certainty, but it's true.

  • DanO.||

    You're like a 50-year-old parrot who has spent his whole life with Rush Limbaugh.

  • MarkLastname||

    See Dan, this is why you're no fun. This is just a total non-sequitur. What does Rush Limbaugh have to do with demographics predicting one's beliefs? I'm in my 20s and I have honestly never heard Limbaugh' voice (who the fuck even still listens to the radio?).

    Try to at least be entertaining. Hihn is putting you to shame in that department.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Try to at least be entertaining. Hihn is putting you to shame in that department.

    That burn was so savage, it could host a nationally syndicated sex advice column.

  • josh||

    "Sad as it may be that knowing two or three things about a person tell you 95% of their political beliefs nearly to a certainty, but it's true."

    People like to think they can because it's a shortcut to classifying others as quickly as possible so you can either claim them as one of you own or ignore everything else they say. Don't let the simplicity of the political class fool you, most people are more layered than they get credit for. Speaking from personal experience, guessing and being right isn't the same as calling it a science.

  • MarkLastname||

    But people tend to self select and be changed by their environment. If someone movies into a community or starts working an industry where a belief they don't share is widely held, they are very likely either going to end up being coverted or leaving. Maybe my experience has colored my take on it: I work in academia and it's very honegenous (at least among people who talk openly about politics).

  • ||

    If someone movies into a community or starts working an industry where a belief they don't share is widely held, they are very likely either going to end up being coverted or leaving.

    There's definitely truth in that, and I had the same experience in academia. I was somewhat shocked at how narrow the range of acceptable political views was, and how clear it was that expressing views outside of that range could jeopardize your career (I was in grad school in the humanities in Northern California from 1996-2004, when/where I think things may have been particularly extreme).

    One of the things I noticed, though, was that what was common to that range of opinion was the acceptance of the basic premises underlying a taxpayer-funded, government-administered intellectual/cultural institution, and those were exactly the premises I always had a hard time swallowing.

    I was very miserable there, and left for a private-sector construction company, where I am much happier. Those who could accept those premises stayed.

  • ||

    She has nice tits

  • GruffaloCrumble||

    Free market capitalism isn't giving all your rights away to corporations or like what we've been doing so far economically (including what's infected the Republican party.)
    We need to find a new name for that, 'cause it's not fascism, socialism or any other ism I know.
    I think just about everyone has had enough of big business and rich folks telling the rest of us how to live.

  • ||

    IMHO, "Crony Capitalism" does the job fairly well.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Yes, because protecting any individual rights (such as free speech or property rights) that might ever benefit any individuals who own, run, or work for a corporation is the same as "giving away my rights" to them. Sigh.

    I, for one, have had enough of big government and their cheerleaders in media and academia -- many of whom also happen to be rich -- telling the rest of us how to live, and using "big business and rich folks" as a bogeyman to scare us into compliance.

    Maybe if we limited the powers of the government, they wouldn't have so many protection rackets to run, and so many favors to sell? Just a thought.

  • Johnimo||

    Maybe that old "osmosis" theory will bring Jennifer Lawrence into the Libertarian fold. I occasional slept with my textbooks in college 'cause I spent most of my time down at the Green Onion in Fort Collins drinking 3.2% Coors beer. Oh well, I tried! I had a great time ... got busted hopping the freight back out to campus .... ah, the glory that was Rome.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Hm, interesting idea. Do you think staring at those hacked topless pics of Jenlaw counts?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    "Once you go Austrian School..."

    ...you crave some human action?

  • Ted Levy||

    Just a note...Lawrence's role in Joy was that of a dedicated entrepreneur. Her role in the Hunger Games was that of a freedom fighter who in the end kills the new head of state. Her comments a year or so back about making less than male actors was clearly directed at herself--that she needed to do better at pricing her worth--and NOT a "women make 77cents on the dollar" diatribe. Lawrence in interviews has always struck me as intelligent. So MAYBE her reading about Mises is good news.

  • nicmart||

    "There's no such thing as an intelligent actor." — Truman Capote

  • IceTrey||

    James Woods has an IQ of 180.

  • nicmart||

    Don't get your hopes up about Lawrence.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....60bf769e58

  • MarkLastname||

    Yeah, it's beyond wishful thinking to think that girl was different.

    As a rule, rich feminists should not be expected to be decent people. Anyone who thinks making 18 million a year for playing make believe instead of 24 million is a bigger 'gender issue' than tens of thousands of nonviolent men being raped routinely in prisons across the country has at least one screw loose.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Lawrence trailed off, looked around the room with her trademark goofy grin. "I had a point and then I lost track. I started wondering if my nipples were out."

    She has potential. Just needs to think beyond her stupid caught up with false but popular causes environment that infects most of the entertainment business.

  • Banake||

    To be honest, I never liked her. It's not because we agree on something (not feminism), that I'll start to like her.

  • stellapalmer4545||

  • CZmacure||

    She's a young feminist Hollywood actress. No, she is not a libertarian. She is a leftist; she supports socialized healthcare, affirmative action, higher taxes, mandatory gay wedding cakes and employer provided coverage for birth control, etc. we can be sure of it.

    Sad as it may be that knowing two or three things about a person tell you 95% of their political beliefs nearly to a certainty, but it's true.
    My recent post: SiteSync Review

  • Hemlata singh||

    Yes, she is the role model for girls. Good to see her in the feminist t-shirt. Check out our recent blog post about 50th birthday greetings. Thanks!

  • CZmacure||

    I used to work with a woman who commuted from one of the most exclusive and expensive parts of Marin County in her Lexus SUV proudly bearing her Che Guevara keychain.

    She said she would make sure to listen to NPR on her commute to remind her that "oh yeah - there's bad stuff that happens in the world, and people should be aware of that."
    My recent post: Hijackrr Review

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online