I am genuinely interested in learning why Keynesianism is better than the Austrian School of economic thought.
Here's a few reasons I think it's not -
1) Our economic policy is based on The Theory of Economic Integration, which was written in 1961 by World Bank advisor Bela Balassa. When people like Dr. Robert Pastor and Vicente Fox talk about "deepening economic integration", this is what they are referring to.
Balassa condensed the concept into 6 steps, the first two being free trade agreements like GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA etc. The third is a customs union which Dr. Pastor has advocated on CNN. The 4th is a common market, the 5th is a monetary union (surprise) and the 6th is complete economic integration, or the creation of supranational states (e.g. failed Treaty of Lisbon).
Thus when Barack Obama says he sees no evidence of a "North American -- uhhhh uhhhh what'd you call it -- oh Union" and then immediately follows with a statement regarding NAFTA, you wonder if he is either very clever or tragically ignorant. (To clarify, NAFTA is the first step in creating political unions, which exist on every continent except North American and Antarctica. It's like saying, I lit the match but I don't know how the fire started.)
2) Before Economic Integration, this idea was known as the Open Conspiracy. This was the title of a book written by HG Wells. It essentially said that the answer to world peace was world government. Wells was a member of the Fabian Society, which believes in a gradual transition to socialism rather than revolutionary. Wells later wrote a book, The New World Order on the same idea.
Fabian politicians today include Tony Blair (a member) and Bill Clinton, who have both promoted the Third Way which is a mix of socialism and capitalism.
Watch the DLC roundtable with Clinton and Blair as they gush about the Third Way -- http://www.connectlive.com/events/dlc/dlc-apr...
If you research the Third Way, it largely refers to Fabian Socialism. The Fabian Society published a book entitled The Third Way by Tony Blair.
In 1936, David Rockefeller wrote his senior thesis at Harvard on Fabian Socialism. Thus it is this idea -- the Open Conspiracy / The Third Way / Economic Integration / A New World Order -- that is the agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
The CFR's Think Tank is called The David Rockefeller Studies Program, he is their Chairman Emeritus and their headquarters in NYC is a former Standard Oil Executive's residence.
Thus, through the Federal Reserve's monetary policies, the CFR creates a climate for economic integration by debasing the currency via military Keynesianism. This planned crisis is merely a justification for deeper economic integration.
Maybe it's good or maybe it's not, but we should at least accept it's real. Vicente Fox has only said repeatedly on TV and in speeches and in his autobiography that he believes we should create a EU-styled North American Union. And this is enabled by the Federal Reserve's policies and stated clearly in the CFR's publications.
3) None of this is evil per se, it's actually intellectual and inevitable to try to social engineer society on such a level for legitimate benefit. However, starting in the early 1900s, the intellectuals in the US conceived that war was the greatest way to change society thus how do they start wars -- infiltrate the State Dept (verified in Carnegie Archives NYU, House of Representatives Archives etc).
If you look at the leadership of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the State Dept, you can see its mirrored. They believed world peace (via the League of Nations and later the UN) was possible through war and therefore provoked wars. Even better, creating a military industrial complex that compounds a never ending defense sector is useful for debasing the currency in order to achieve the 5th step of economic integration.
You can deny this but all of it is well documented. And perhaps it is good. But at least lets debate it. Globalization is bigger than the CFR and David Rockefeller. There are alternative ideas for globalism than this endless war for collectivist change.
Of course, it was Thomas Jefferson who founded the Democrat party. He was against Big Government, a Central Bank and a National Debt. He was a deist but recognized that the classic liberal philosophy (i.e. Jeffersonian Republicanism) was perhaps divine in nature (see the Indefinite Perfectibility of Man, William Godwin & Adam Weishaupt).
Jefferson didn't believe Jesus was the son of God but he was aware that Jesus represented the ultimate political philosophy of the Indefinite Perfectibility of Man. As Jefferson wrote: "Wishaupt believes that to promote this perfection of the human character was the object of Jesus Christ. That his intention was simply to reinstate natural religion, & by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern ourselves. "
Thus, it seems like your party's founder and Jesus himself would be very against Keynesianism.