Ross Douthat has a post that concludes in a way that makes me glad he'll be one of the columnist I'll be arguing against over at the NY Times. (For a far more critical take, check out Armanda Marcotte over at Pandagon or the critics Delong cites. I think that social conservatives make up a large enough section of the country that there should be some place for them on op-ed pages. That said, if there's one the critics find that's a better writer or more trustworthy than Douthat, then they should feel free to name said person.)
I'd quibble a bit with the wording. I personally would substitute "alleviation of suffering" for "ease of life." I tend to think Americans could use more vacation time, but I think work itself is very important. Below a certain number of hours, let's say 40 per week, including unpaid domestic work and volunteering, we'd be better off increasing the amount of satisfaction than further cutting back the time spent. People tend to go a bit nuts when they're outright idle for prolonged periods.
Second I question the term voluntarism. I think it should be qualified to resource voluntarism or something like that. Economic necessity can be as great a compulsion as laws and taxes. Also, regulating sexual morality doesn't really seem to be consistent with general voluntarism.
The other principles could all use elaboration, but I think as is they describe things pretty well.
On this one, I proudly stand with the European approach. I also think that Chait easily has the better argument than Charles Murray (here's one of many take downs of his Bell Curve book) for the degree that his favored policies are based on empiricism. Last time I checked, the American approach just plunged the globe into a devastating recession and America continues to be the only OECD nation that doesn't manage to offer some form of universal health care. It does come down to what you prefer at some point, but many of our policies are so bizarre and counter productive that there's nearly pareto optimal European alternatives available.
So why aren't we doing something that would benefit postively most everyone? Because those it wouldn't benefit would be at the top and even if it doesn't hurt their income it would decrease their relative status. Yglesias explains:
In the US and in Europe, income level is fairly predictive of voting behavior and this is neither a coincidence nor the reflection of an abstract disagreement about the value of “voluntarism.” It reflects the fact that politics is, among other things, a concrete contest over concrete economic interests. In a broad sense, both the American and European models work quite well compared to living standards enjoyed in other parts of the world. But in comparison, the models work differently for different kinds of people because different people have different interests. I don’t think, for example, that America’s high child poverty rate reflects American preference for “service to one’s family” over “ease of life.”
The rich, not the poor, are more likely to vote their values (see Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State). That holds with traditional religious stuff but I think it might also explain the fervor of some rich egalitarians. But I think Douthat gets at some of the competing values that are being weighed by the upper middle class. Note that he says "service to family" not "well being of the family." There's a difference between the two. If individuals have access to resources they need to survive without relying on the family, they're likely to value service to family lower, aren't they? Strictly speaking, we're also talking service to traditional gender roles as well, I didn't quibble with that above because I think even in the defenders formulation we're obviously talking about patriarcy. In any event, their offering a pattern of service, we're working towards results. This strikes me as very favorable philisophical ground to argue on.
Recent Comments