I think societal problems are simply too complex to rely on private charity alone.
Nob is right. Some people just need help and people are too hung up about this.
I think private charity worked in a less technologically advanced world because we knew less. We could not diagnosis many diseases and people born with disabilities either had very short lives or were sent off to a vastly inhumane place like Bedlam. Or until very recently were lobotomized.
Now we can treat serious illness and disability and give people better chances at a life of dignity and decency. The problem is that these treatments are often very expensive and continuous or at least last a long time.
We also lead very busy lives because of a modern and post-Industrial economy that does not allow us to work close to home or check in at home during the day. My mom said that she used to have lunch at home during elementary school. Where does this happen in the U.S. today? I've heard it still happens in Germany (though there school system is very different and there is still a strong culture of the "The Good German mother does not work").
During the initial healthcare debates, Tom Coburn, the ultra-conservative Senator from Oklahoma, was confronted by a woman at a townhall. The woman's husband had a disease or stroke that left him very seriously brain-damaged I believe. The husband now needed near constant supervision/treatment that his wife could not provide because she had to work. Senator Coburn answered with some plattitudes about neighbors helping neighbors.
This is bullshit. People don't generally have that sort of time. This is how I often lose respect for many conservative and/or libertarian arguments on the benefits of small government. It simply ignores the complexities of modern life! It is a hodge-podge of wanting it both ways. Conservatives want our modern economy that demands long hours and longish commutes while also praising a utopian village and small town community mentality where everyone helps each other. You can have one or the other but you can't have both.
Again as Nob said above. Some people just need help, a lot of help. The problems are often too complex for private charity to handle alone and government is the best way to handle these problems. I don't see why small government is something to be cherished in the face of the complexity of modern life. Do you really think that private charity can help the mentally ill poor?
However, when it comes to "real women" in your life not knowing the term, I think that is a sign of internet culture.
I imagine that the number of people who participate seriously in internet forums and communities is rather small over all. A lot of people probably would still see doing so as being a waste of time. Perhaps I am wrong. Lots of people probably read Jezebel and other sites but how many people take the linguistics and terminology from their sites and subcultures and import them to everyday life.
Mansplaining is one of those terms that is easy to use or accuse someone of doing on the Internet but harder in real life. The other great internet thing that gets over used is accusing someone of privilege or a first-world problem.
There also seems to be a lot of connection to the term and geek culture. A lot of women talk about sexism in the gaming community (maybe geek culture overall) because a lot of guys want it to be their own treehouse.
This is a good answer. However a lot of Evangelicals have managed to make consumerism fit sort of nicely with their churches. Even Ross Douhat at the NY Times bemoans many mega-churches for being theologically shallow despite their social/cultural conservatism. Most mega-Church preachers try and stay away from the ascetics and/or fire and brimstone stuff.
Our psychological issues with consumer culture are interesting. You also see a lot of upper-middle class college students earnestly railing against consumerism and accusing their parents of being corporate sheep. I think that a large aspect of the DIY-Etsy crowd (aka as the people who make 9 dollar jars of jam and haute food truck cuisine) are a reaction against corporate life and consumerism. Or at least making it more about a hand-crafted product instead of mass produced stuff.
The problem is that consumerism is sort of at the heart of what it means to have a vast middle-class. The Victorian Industrialists made their enormous wealth by taking luxury products (tea, coffee, bananas, chocolate, soap, etc) and making them affordable and accessible to the masses.
To answer the consummerist problem from the left or right is going to cause a vast change in what it means to be middle class.
The great irony is that most of the conservative elite went to the same institutions that they decry.
Eric Cantor also went to MIT and Columbia. Mitt Romney went to Harvard Law and Business School and spent sometime at Stanford as an undergrad. Alito went to Princeton. Thomas to Yale Law, Scalia to Harvard Law, etc.
I think elitist or elite is a word only used by the other side. If you go to the elite schools and end up Republican, you are okay, a survivor of the temptations. If you end up liberal, you are a member of the elite regardless of income or job.
Isn't more of a traditional culture war than a class war?
I suppose class and culture are interlinked but I try to keep class war meaning wage, working condition, and economic issues.
But that was a good catch to use smart in the archaic way of meaning "cosmopolitan" or "fashionable" like The Smart Set. H.L. Mencken would have a field day at the Value Voters summit. In fact, you can probably see a lot of comparisons between our politics/culture wars and those of the 1920s.
What do you mean that something has gone wrong with modern life?
I think that there is plenty wrong (largely in terms of social and economic justice) but if you are talking about the stuff that gives the Value Voters heebee jeebees, that stuff is largely a boon. There has always been pre-marital sex and probably a lot of it, now we are not ashamed of it. There has always been homosexuality and people with gender issues. As we learn more, society and culture changes.
I am also more concerned with the Bachmann's of the world than the Limbaughs. Though I think there are a lot of true believers.
And I agree with your first paragraph with the idea that a lot of these people think that something went wrong and are wondering what it is. Though I think it is mainly confusion over the complexity of life and the grayness of life and wanting to view the world like children with rose-colored glasses. They yearn for a world that never existed.
There have always been people who did this in American politics. A large aspect of right-wing populism is anti-Intellectualism.
Hence the right-wing economic populism that evokes blue-collar imagery and praises manual/physical labor. The talk about a job being something you can have pride in usually meaning that it worked the bones tired. There is a strong implication that any job that requires intellectualism or office work is not something one can be satisfied about. Santorum tried this before with his remark about how Obama was snobby for wanting everyone to go to college which was incorrect anyway.
Yeah, I saw that too and have been puzzling over it since.
It basically goes back to the Protestant Revolution (despite Santorum's Catholicism, his religious dogma is very much anchored in the Protestant Revolution). There has always been an anti-Intellectualist aspect to the idea of not needing an intermediary to understand the bible.
I think this translates into a broader anti-Intellectualism. These people are simply resentful of needing to listen to any sort of educated elite. And they think education is what makes someone elite, not riches. Hence the Koch brothers being non-elite but an actor/waiter in Brooklyn being elite.
I think this is going to create more extremism, not less.
You are going to see a lot of GOP on GOP races and DEM on DEM races.
In a GOP v. GOP race will they go after Democrats or try and convince the Democrats to stay home by each playing "more Republican than thou" Same in a DEM v. DEM race.
My guess is that both parties are going to play "More than thou"
I care about institutions and process but you are right that every now and then some tinkering needs to be done.
Perhaps this is because I believe in Tikkun Olam, "to mend the world" but tinkering is necessary. If a process always or often leads to an unjust result than the process is broken and needs to be tinkered with or scraped entirely.
The Death Penalty process is a prime example of a broken process that leads to inequity or the doctrine of immunity if it causes politicians and other government officials to act unjustly.
Process is not always going to lead to just or good results but it should not completely fuck up either or be loop-sided to one particular side.
Yeah but as Mike said those were probably urban legends. I was going to add a line that said "Even if he though they were mistakes" but decided against it.
Even if he thought they were mistakes, I think the U.S. benefited from what the right-wing saw as a mistakes. I am still a Warren Court person and sometimes judicial action (while not democratic) is necessary to push for social change.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “How Entitlements Crowd Out Private Charity”
I think societal problems are simply too complex to rely on private charity alone.
Nob is right. Some people just need help and people are too hung up about this.
I think private charity worked in a less technologically advanced world because we knew less. We could not diagnosis many diseases and people born with disabilities either had very short lives or were sent off to a vastly inhumane place like Bedlam. Or until very recently were lobotomized.
Now we can treat serious illness and disability and give people better chances at a life of dignity and decency. The problem is that these treatments are often very expensive and continuous or at least last a long time.
We also lead very busy lives because of a modern and post-Industrial economy that does not allow us to work close to home or check in at home during the day. My mom said that she used to have lunch at home during elementary school. Where does this happen in the U.S. today? I've heard it still happens in Germany (though there school system is very different and there is still a strong culture of the "The Good German mother does not work").
During the initial healthcare debates, Tom Coburn, the ultra-conservative Senator from Oklahoma, was confronted by a woman at a townhall. The woman's husband had a disease or stroke that left him very seriously brain-damaged I believe. The husband now needed near constant supervision/treatment that his wife could not provide because she had to work. Senator Coburn answered with some plattitudes about neighbors helping neighbors.
This is bullshit. People don't generally have that sort of time. This is how I often lose respect for many conservative and/or libertarian arguments on the benefits of small government. It simply ignores the complexities of modern life! It is a hodge-podge of wanting it both ways. Conservatives want our modern economy that demands long hours and longish commutes while also praising a utopian village and small town community mentality where everyone helps each other. You can have one or the other but you can't have both.
Again as Nob said above. Some people just need help, a lot of help. The problems are often too complex for private charity to handle alone and government is the best way to handle these problems. I don't see why small government is something to be cherished in the face of the complexity of modern life. Do you really think that private charity can help the mentally ill poor?
"
A plus
On “Mansplain to Me”
Katherine explained mansplaining very well.
However, when it comes to "real women" in your life not knowing the term, I think that is a sign of internet culture.
I imagine that the number of people who participate seriously in internet forums and communities is rather small over all. A lot of people probably would still see doing so as being a waste of time. Perhaps I am wrong. Lots of people probably read Jezebel and other sites but how many people take the linguistics and terminology from their sites and subcultures and import them to everyday life.
Mansplaining is one of those terms that is easy to use or accuse someone of doing on the Internet but harder in real life. The other great internet thing that gets over used is accusing someone of privilege or a first-world problem.
There also seems to be a lot of connection to the term and geek culture. A lot of women talk about sexism in the gaming community (maybe geek culture overall) because a lot of guys want it to be their own treehouse.
On “10 Fun Facts from the Values Voter Summit”
Rufus,
This is a good answer. However a lot of Evangelicals have managed to make consumerism fit sort of nicely with their churches. Even Ross Douhat at the NY Times bemoans many mega-churches for being theologically shallow despite their social/cultural conservatism. Most mega-Church preachers try and stay away from the ascetics and/or fire and brimstone stuff.
Our psychological issues with consumer culture are interesting. You also see a lot of upper-middle class college students earnestly railing against consumerism and accusing their parents of being corporate sheep. I think that a large aspect of the DIY-Etsy crowd (aka as the people who make 9 dollar jars of jam and haute food truck cuisine) are a reaction against corporate life and consumerism. Or at least making it more about a hand-crafted product instead of mass produced stuff.
The problem is that consumerism is sort of at the heart of what it means to have a vast middle-class. The Victorian Industrialists made their enormous wealth by taking luxury products (tea, coffee, bananas, chocolate, soap, etc) and making them affordable and accessible to the masses.
To answer the consummerist problem from the left or right is going to cause a vast change in what it means to be middle class.
"
The great irony is that most of the conservative elite went to the same institutions that they decry.
Eric Cantor also went to MIT and Columbia. Mitt Romney went to Harvard Law and Business School and spent sometime at Stanford as an undergrad. Alito went to Princeton. Thomas to Yale Law, Scalia to Harvard Law, etc.
I think elitist or elite is a word only used by the other side. If you go to the elite schools and end up Republican, you are okay, a survivor of the temptations. If you end up liberal, you are a member of the elite regardless of income or job.
"
No, they really do believe this stuff.
"
Will we know what you are pining for now.
"
Isn't more of a traditional culture war than a class war?
I suppose class and culture are interlinked but I try to keep class war meaning wage, working condition, and economic issues.
But that was a good catch to use smart in the archaic way of meaning "cosmopolitan" or "fashionable" like The Smart Set. H.L. Mencken would have a field day at the Value Voters summit. In fact, you can probably see a lot of comparisons between our politics/culture wars and those of the 1920s.
"
What do you mean that something has gone wrong with modern life?
I think that there is plenty wrong (largely in terms of social and economic justice) but if you are talking about the stuff that gives the Value Voters heebee jeebees, that stuff is largely a boon. There has always been pre-marital sex and probably a lot of it, now we are not ashamed of it. There has always been homosexuality and people with gender issues. As we learn more, society and culture changes.
"
I am also more concerned with the Bachmann's of the world than the Limbaughs. Though I think there are a lot of true believers.
And I agree with your first paragraph with the idea that a lot of these people think that something went wrong and are wondering what it is. Though I think it is mainly confusion over the complexity of life and the grayness of life and wanting to view the world like children with rose-colored glasses. They yearn for a world that never existed.
"
There have always been people who did this in American politics. A large aspect of right-wing populism is anti-Intellectualism.
Hence the right-wing economic populism that evokes blue-collar imagery and praises manual/physical labor. The talk about a job being something you can have pride in usually meaning that it worked the bones tired. There is a strong implication that any job that requires intellectualism or office work is not something one can be satisfied about. Santorum tried this before with his remark about how Obama was snobby for wanting everyone to go to college which was incorrect anyway.
"
Yeah, I saw that too and have been puzzling over it since.
It basically goes back to the Protestant Revolution (despite Santorum's Catholicism, his religious dogma is very much anchored in the Protestant Revolution). There has always been an anti-Intellectualist aspect to the idea of not needing an intermediary to understand the bible.
I think this translates into a broader anti-Intellectualism. These people are simply resentful of needing to listen to any sort of educated elite. And they think education is what makes someone elite, not riches. Hence the Koch brothers being non-elite but an actor/waiter in Brooklyn being elite.
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
On “On why I registered to be a Republican this morning…”
I think this is going to create more extremism, not less.
You are going to see a lot of GOP on GOP races and DEM on DEM races.
In a GOP v. GOP race will they go after Democrats or try and convince the Democrats to stay home by each playing "more Republican than thou" Same in a DEM v. DEM race.
My guess is that both parties are going to play "More than thou"
On “Waxing Un-American”
What is going on in Dover?
"
I care about institutions and process but you are right that every now and then some tinkering needs to be done.
Perhaps this is because I believe in Tikkun Olam, "to mend the world" but tinkering is necessary. If a process always or often leads to an unjust result than the process is broken and needs to be tinkered with or scraped entirely.
The Death Penalty process is a prime example of a broken process that leads to inequity or the doctrine of immunity if it causes politicians and other government officials to act unjustly.
Process is not always going to lead to just or good results but it should not completely fuck up either or be loop-sided to one particular side.
On “American Ambassador To Libya Killed”
You beat me to it.
This is bad, very bad. It is going to fuel into anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism
"
Except probably not:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/
"
I find the politics of the Middle East to be absolutely depressing for the reasons of this episode.
Everything seems to be a perfect cluster of provoking reaction.
Christian and Jewish Extremists release a film showing that Islam is nothing but violence and thuggery.
Then there are riots and violent reactions which seem to prove the point.
Sigh....
On “What Progressive Conservatism Looks Like”
Care to share a link for the t-shirt?
On “Sweden: Conservatopia”
I am personally rather tired of arguments from Conservatives that just seem to amount to:
1. Americans are different.
2. Hence, America can't have a welfare state like every other developed nation
On “What Progressive Conservatism Looks Like”
And Nixon probably regretted apponting Blackmun.
"
You just want to see if you can pass the Miller test.
"
Would you like somewhere to lie down?
Something to drink?
"
I meant that more as a joke than anything else. I have a hard time getting other people to see mid-century art film with me.
Though my favorite will always be Truffaut. J'Adore Truffaut
"
Yeah but as Mike said those were probably urban legends. I was going to add a line that said "Even if he though they were mistakes" but decided against it.
Even if he thought they were mistakes, I think the U.S. benefited from what the right-wing saw as a mistakes. I am still a Warren Court person and sometimes judicial action (while not democratic) is necessary to push for social change.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.