I can't really evaluate the article on economic terms, but it fails miserably in its knowledge of history. If we are to believe prof. Straubhaar, in the 20th century "[t]he United States rose rapidly from virtually nothing to become the most politically powerful and economically strongest country in the world", by following the economics of some fuzzily defined American Way where "every man was responsible for himself -- in good times and bad. No one could count on government assistance".
Then the good professor argues for a return to these good old times. The historical reality begs to differ. Far from being "virtually nothing", the US manufacturing output was the first in the world as early as 1890:
But maybe this economics professor wasn't referring to economic output? Let's look at the principles that guided Franklin Delano Roosevelt, under whose leadership the US became acknowledged as a military superpower as well:
"Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth"
A complete opposite from the article's description of an ideology where "no one could count on government assistance"!
In conclusion, the article's premises are based on a very shaky foundation and expose a shocking ignorance (for an economics professor, at least) of US history. And if the foundation is bad, I don't think the rest of the edifice hold up very well either.