"The densest of the medieval centuries - the six hundred
years between, roughly, A.D. 400 and A.D. 1000 - are still widely known as the
Dark Ages. Modern historians have abandoned that phrase, one of them writes,
"because of the unacceptable value judgment it implies." Yet there
are no survivors to be offended. Nor is the term necessarily pejorative. Very
little is clear about that dim era." - William Manchester, A World Lit Only by Fire, p. 3
Thus the historian begins his study of the late medieval period culminating--and closing--with Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe. There is seemingly little evidence that the Dark Ages will be returning anytime soon, if not in the pejorative sense--the resurgence of barbarism--certainly in an absence of information about our own era. Indeed, with the continuous communication provided by the Internet in the Age of Twitter, it seems a jest to suspect that they could ever return, at least in this sense.
I offer a few points by way of consideration. But first, we should be aware that the mere accumulation of data doesn't exclude a lack of clarity about the world in which we live. Actually, the immense quantity of data makes it necessary to search among the chaff for the useful wheat. This is a difficult task, the demands of which should not be understated.
For now I'll give but two indicators for my tentative proposal. We start with a paradox: politics becomes more important, even as its utility becomes increasingly dubious. It's totally unclear what either political party is capable of achieving at a federal level, yet this has only increased the fervor with which we seek to elect the right people. This is partially because the State touches every aspect of society, but it's also because very few of our institutions have maintained a healthy existence apart from it. Marriage is doing very badly, we've abandoned traditional religion for worrisome heresies, we even bowl alone.
Politics works no better than our other institutions--in fact, it has probably fared worse--but it has become, to borrow a colloquialism, too big too fail. But because it does not work, we relate to it in ways that are hard to rationalize. The most common technique is to ghettoize ourselves among those who agree with us. Both the left and the right are guilty of this--as are libertarians, and probably socialists, too. This last presidential election provided an interesting example.
Nate Silver, a stat geek, calculated the chances that either candidate would win the presidential election. As the probably of an Obama reelection increased, the right turned on Silver, insisting that he was a partisan hack, and that polls that showed that Romney was dead even were far more accurate. We all know what happened: Silver was vindicated and the right graciously admitted as much. I kid; our politics are too poisonous for charity. The right insisted--what else?--that massive voter fraud had prevented Romney from winning.
I'm actually sympathetic to this assessment, in some respects, only: 1) I'd like to see some proof of the accusation; and 2) if the Democrats are capable of stealing elections so easily, and without negative ramifications, why on earth should anyone devote any time or money to the political process?
It will be interesting to see what historian make of this particular period. This disengagement from reality is, I argue, an indication that the Dark Ages may not be so far away as we think.
The second indicator again involves politics, specifically the issue of gun control. No one has offered an explanation that I have seen as to what laws would have prevented the CT tragedy. And, in fact, focusing on this sort of tragedy makes little sense. Only a small portion of gun deaths occur when someone decides to gun down children at a school; such crimes are the apotheosis of outliers.
Now, the mere presence of guns is clearly not the cause of crime, as our most thinly populated states are rife with firearms. A far better explanation for gun deaths can be had by examining the demographic data. The link explains what everyone knows, but what no one can say: certain groups of people commit violent crimes at a higher rate.
For now, these explanations are still available to us, but when one considers the sheer number of imbeciles who believe, with apparent seriousness, that guns are the real problem, one begins to realize that our own grasp of reality may be far more tenuous than it appears. Which is not to say that the Dark Ages are upon us, only that dimness seems to be encroaching on our ostensibly enlightened time.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
The decline of debate
Steve Sailer has an excellent post up over at his blog. He writes:
Much of the intellectual progress the world has made over the millennia is due to men managing to turn argument into sport rather than either a test of popularity or of physical strength.
Two points here: 1) this attitude is rare, both historically, in that few periods of time have treated disagreements as other than a personal affront; and 2) men here should be read in the exclusive sense, i.e. excluding women. Anyone who has attempted to discuss things with women is familiar with their tendency to personalize every issue.
This second point is made more clear when Steve continues, quoting Alastair Roberts:
Granted immunity from this process [of debate as sport], sensitivity-driven and conflict-averse contexts seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers. Even the good ideas that they produce tend to be blunt and very weak in places. Even with highly intelligent people within them, conflict-averse groups are poor at thinking. Bad arguments go unchecked and good insights go unhoned and underdeveloped. This would not be such a problem were it not for the fact that these groups frequently expect us to fly in a society formed according to their ideas, ideas that never received any rigorous stress testing.
For confirmation, I suggest reading the sycophantic drivel bouncing around the echo chamber of your favorite feminist blog. It would be unfair to blame women entirely for this; many men are similarly ill-equipped to handle the rigors of debate. Still, I think we could fairly categorize the sensitivity-driven approach as feminine, while debate as sport is essentially masculine.
Roberts does a good job of highlighting the shortcomings of the feminine approach. I think it would be instructive to examine some of the benefits to the masculine alternative. The fact that ancient Greece and ascendant Britain perfected this model of discourse is probably not an accident. One may still find it this type of discourse in strange corners of the Internet, and in small circles of people, if one is fortunate enough to know enough holdouts to the dictates of the Zeitgeist, it has become exceedingly rare.
This is all very befuddling to me because I have a hard time imagining that debate could be anything other than sport. Taking offense over a difference of opinion is, in my estimation, petty and absurd. This would not be the first time I have discovered that what I perceived as transparently true is almost universally doubted, but it is unfortunate all the same. Sailer, who no doubt came to this realization many decades before me, is to be commended for expressing so clearly what I had only half grasped:
In general, the contemporary mode of emotionalism and herding is the human default. The great ages of intellectual progress via debate were rare social constructs, and it's not surprising that they easily break down.
Much of the intellectual progress the world has made over the millennia is due to men managing to turn argument into sport rather than either a test of popularity or of physical strength.
Two points here: 1) this attitude is rare, both historically, in that few periods of time have treated disagreements as other than a personal affront; and 2) men here should be read in the exclusive sense, i.e. excluding women. Anyone who has attempted to discuss things with women is familiar with their tendency to personalize every issue.
This second point is made more clear when Steve continues, quoting Alastair Roberts:
Granted immunity from this process [of debate as sport], sensitivity-driven and conflict-averse contexts seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers. Even the good ideas that they produce tend to be blunt and very weak in places. Even with highly intelligent people within them, conflict-averse groups are poor at thinking. Bad arguments go unchecked and good insights go unhoned and underdeveloped. This would not be such a problem were it not for the fact that these groups frequently expect us to fly in a society formed according to their ideas, ideas that never received any rigorous stress testing.
For confirmation, I suggest reading the sycophantic drivel bouncing around the echo chamber of your favorite feminist blog. It would be unfair to blame women entirely for this; many men are similarly ill-equipped to handle the rigors of debate. Still, I think we could fairly categorize the sensitivity-driven approach as feminine, while debate as sport is essentially masculine.
Roberts does a good job of highlighting the shortcomings of the feminine approach. I think it would be instructive to examine some of the benefits to the masculine alternative. The fact that ancient Greece and ascendant Britain perfected this model of discourse is probably not an accident. One may still find it this type of discourse in strange corners of the Internet, and in small circles of people, if one is fortunate enough to know enough holdouts to the dictates of the Zeitgeist, it has become exceedingly rare.
This is all very befuddling to me because I have a hard time imagining that debate could be anything other than sport. Taking offense over a difference of opinion is, in my estimation, petty and absurd. This would not be the first time I have discovered that what I perceived as transparently true is almost universally doubted, but it is unfortunate all the same. Sailer, who no doubt came to this realization many decades before me, is to be commended for expressing so clearly what I had only half grasped:
In general, the contemporary mode of emotionalism and herding is the human default. The great ages of intellectual progress via debate were rare social constructs, and it's not surprising that they easily break down.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Feminist lunacy
Feminism is one of the shibboleths of our time; criticism of it cannot be brokered. Mere skepticism is often enough to reveal oneself to be afraid of women who do more than make sandwiches and have babies. Yet it must be denounced as the grave threat to civilization that it is.
At heart, feminism is at war with biology, for nature is a cruel mistress who imposes desires within us based on our sex, desires that cannot be eradicated even after years of indoctrination in the schools. Concomitantly, the other great enemy of the feminist is the nuclear family, for the family provides a constant reminder of the complementarity of the sexes, thereby compelling our embittered sisters to recall that biology has not yet been overthrown.
Here we find a good example of the feminist--hat tips to GL Piggy and Heartise--bereft of logic or common sense, arrogantly adamant that reality must be as she wishes it to be:
The show [MTV's Teen Mom] does not attempt radical advocacy, but it does understand that the most fundamental patterns in American life can’t be covered up. Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.
The argument, so far as one exists, is that because marriage is increasingly unpopular, it is no longer normal, so we must normalize these poor imitations of that vital social institution. A cursory examination of the findings of the social scientists would reveal that single parenthood is disastrous for children. See: anywhere. But we already knew this. The reason children of single mothers were mocked as bastards was to emphasize that having a child out of wedlock was an anti-social and harmful act. Once the child had been born, mother and relations would do their best to raise the child, but no one would consider pretending that this was some newfangled ideal.
In the future, it would appear that we will all be bastards. Which is reasonable shorthand for the ways things worked in our pagan and barbarian past. The writer may console herself with the pleasant thought that if she plays her cards well, she may find a spot in the harem of a powerful male.
There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family.
This is what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of values: the virtues become vices, and the vices become virtues. There is so much idiocy here that it's hard to cut through, it helps to change out single motherhood for other anti-social behaviors, as, for instance: There is nothing wrong with sharing needles. Thus does a feminist "argue". Note that in cases where it is obvious, no lies are necessary: There is nothing wrong with assisting at a homeless shelter--where, I hesitate to add, unwed mothers form a sizable portion of the... home disabled, I think we're supposed to call them.
We get to the heart of the matter in that last sentence: "there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family." Feminism advocates irresponsibility in that it insists that women have the right to do as they please--full stop. Yet with rights, come duties. My right to private property carries with it a duty to use that property virtuously. Single mothers possess a duty to their bastard spawn; before becoming pregnant, they have a duty to refrain from sexual intercourse if they will be unable to provide for that child in a responsible way, which is to say, if they are unmarried.
As an aside, these duties apply to men as well. But women have always been the sexual gatekeepers since the consequences of poor choices fall disproportionally on them. Such facts were readily understood before the Great War on Biology.
Single parenthood depends on a generous welfare State, which takes from the productive members of society, and redistributes these wages to single mothers. Since feminists have no inclination to actually live autonomously, they have replaced the horrid husband with the State. Instead of supporting a wife and children, a productive man must hand over a portion of his paycheck to women he does not know, to care for children he did not sire.
Sometimes, one gets the impression that our present societal arrangement must be a Swiftian satire.
The consequences of the subsidization of irresponsibility are twofold. First, marriage will continue to be looked upon as a luxury good: the underclass will have children without bothering to marry; the upper classes will continue to tie the knot at expensive ceremonies; they may even have a child or two. For more on this, see Charles Murray's excellent book: Coming Apart. This bifurcation is very bad for the underclass, a point which should become clear once the EBT allowance is cut by a bankrupt Government.
Second, productivity will decline. The economic progress that we take for granted depends on a small portion of men--and yes, they are mostly men. Beneath these men of genius, are a large number of, again, mostly men, who, while not responsible for giant leaps of progress, help in their own small way. They do their job diligently and honestly, partially because of their bourgeois virtues, but also because they either wish to attract a mate for whom they can provide, or, because they have a mate for whom they are providing. If men become disinterested in this--as the asinine essayist thinks they should, and as some men are thinking, though for completely different reasons--productivity will necessarily decrease. Men will work only to provide them with what they need.
This should cause our feminist to tremble with fear, for we are much closer to our civilization's end than her blissful ruminations on the destruction of the family would suggest. Then again, if she realized the relationship between the family--those little platoons of which Burke wrote--and civilization at large, she wouldn't be a feminist.
At heart, feminism is at war with biology, for nature is a cruel mistress who imposes desires within us based on our sex, desires that cannot be eradicated even after years of indoctrination in the schools. Concomitantly, the other great enemy of the feminist is the nuclear family, for the family provides a constant reminder of the complementarity of the sexes, thereby compelling our embittered sisters to recall that biology has not yet been overthrown.
Here we find a good example of the feminist--hat tips to GL Piggy and Heartise--bereft of logic or common sense, arrogantly adamant that reality must be as she wishes it to be:
The show [MTV's Teen Mom] does not attempt radical advocacy, but it does understand that the most fundamental patterns in American life can’t be covered up. Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.
The argument, so far as one exists, is that because marriage is increasingly unpopular, it is no longer normal, so we must normalize these poor imitations of that vital social institution. A cursory examination of the findings of the social scientists would reveal that single parenthood is disastrous for children. See: anywhere. But we already knew this. The reason children of single mothers were mocked as bastards was to emphasize that having a child out of wedlock was an anti-social and harmful act. Once the child had been born, mother and relations would do their best to raise the child, but no one would consider pretending that this was some newfangled ideal.
In the future, it would appear that we will all be bastards. Which is reasonable shorthand for the ways things worked in our pagan and barbarian past. The writer may console herself with the pleasant thought that if she plays her cards well, she may find a spot in the harem of a powerful male.
There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family.
This is what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of values: the virtues become vices, and the vices become virtues. There is so much idiocy here that it's hard to cut through, it helps to change out single motherhood for other anti-social behaviors, as, for instance: There is nothing wrong with sharing needles. Thus does a feminist "argue". Note that in cases where it is obvious, no lies are necessary: There is nothing wrong with assisting at a homeless shelter--where, I hesitate to add, unwed mothers form a sizable portion of the... home disabled, I think we're supposed to call them.
We get to the heart of the matter in that last sentence: "there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family." Feminism advocates irresponsibility in that it insists that women have the right to do as they please--full stop. Yet with rights, come duties. My right to private property carries with it a duty to use that property virtuously. Single mothers possess a duty to their bastard spawn; before becoming pregnant, they have a duty to refrain from sexual intercourse if they will be unable to provide for that child in a responsible way, which is to say, if they are unmarried.
As an aside, these duties apply to men as well. But women have always been the sexual gatekeepers since the consequences of poor choices fall disproportionally on them. Such facts were readily understood before the Great War on Biology.
Single parenthood depends on a generous welfare State, which takes from the productive members of society, and redistributes these wages to single mothers. Since feminists have no inclination to actually live autonomously, they have replaced the horrid husband with the State. Instead of supporting a wife and children, a productive man must hand over a portion of his paycheck to women he does not know, to care for children he did not sire.
Sometimes, one gets the impression that our present societal arrangement must be a Swiftian satire.
The consequences of the subsidization of irresponsibility are twofold. First, marriage will continue to be looked upon as a luxury good: the underclass will have children without bothering to marry; the upper classes will continue to tie the knot at expensive ceremonies; they may even have a child or two. For more on this, see Charles Murray's excellent book: Coming Apart. This bifurcation is very bad for the underclass, a point which should become clear once the EBT allowance is cut by a bankrupt Government.
Second, productivity will decline. The economic progress that we take for granted depends on a small portion of men--and yes, they are mostly men. Beneath these men of genius, are a large number of, again, mostly men, who, while not responsible for giant leaps of progress, help in their own small way. They do their job diligently and honestly, partially because of their bourgeois virtues, but also because they either wish to attract a mate for whom they can provide, or, because they have a mate for whom they are providing. If men become disinterested in this--as the asinine essayist thinks they should, and as some men are thinking, though for completely different reasons--productivity will necessarily decrease. Men will work only to provide them with what they need.
This should cause our feminist to tremble with fear, for we are much closer to our civilization's end than her blissful ruminations on the destruction of the family would suggest. Then again, if she realized the relationship between the family--those little platoons of which Burke wrote--and civilization at large, she wouldn't be a feminist.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Election redux
It's been almost two weeks since the Most Important Election Ever(TM). After years of campaigning and some $6 billion spent on the presidential race alone, nothing has changed. President Obama gets another term; he and his Democratic Senate will have to contend with a Republican House. Three cheers for gridlock!
Armchair quarterbacks like to look at the data set an election provides and extrapolate forward to come up with trends. For instance, because the Republicans lost this presidential election, they are destined to wander for decades in the political wilderness. This argument is based on the demographic reality: to wit, minority groups vote heavily for Democrats, and as these minority groups are growing as a share of the electorate, Republicans will never win another election again.
This argument assumes that Mitt Romney could have been an effective nominee, if only the electorate were different. In a sense this is true, as one could hypothetically restrict the suffrage to ensure Republican victory. But this lets Romney off the hook far too easily. Given our electorate, the Republicans could have run a better nominee. The demographic angle is important, but it's also worth discussing the larger problem facing the GOP. The party no longer seems to know what it stands for.
I base this on the evidence that of the nominees for the Republican party, Romney was arguably the best standard bearer--and he was a very bad one. I'll refrain from my usual insistence that Ron Paul ought to have been the nominee; plainly, the party faithful aren't interested in sound money and non-interventionism. Paul articulates a coherent vision, but it's not one the party is interested in embracing at this moment in history. There's a lesson here to be sure: it's possible that a GOP that wasn't wedded to the warfare state would do better in the polls, but the neo-con establishment isn't even willing to consider such heresy.
The reason Romney was such a mediocre nominee is that, like his party, he lacked principles. He had taken both sides on virtually every important issue; his flip-flops made John Kerry seem like a paragon of consistency. During the race for the Republican nomination, he ran to the right when confronted with his liberal stances on everything from abortion, to guns, to healthcare. In the debates with the President, he ran back to the middle, in the process, revealing himself to be a duplicitous panderer. Only an abysmal performance by the President in the first debate--and an amusing overreaction from the panicked leftist media--prevented the election from being a landslide. In hindsight, it was never really much of a race.
As an aside, less discussed was the inconsistency of Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan. Ostensibly a fiscal hawk, Ryan had voted for every spending increase during the Bush presidency. The debt crisis would have eventually sapped the surplus, but Medicare Part D and an expensive war in Iraq accelerated the trend. The Republican refusal to see the Bush years as the disaster they were still hurts the party. Clinton's appearance at the Democratic convention reminded Americans of better times, thereby helping Obama. Bush, meanwhile, was far away from his party's convention. Like Jimmy Carter, the electorate sees Bush II as a hapless loser.
Back to the story: Romney's defeat is somewhat surprising in that, by all accounts, Obama has been a lousy president. His policies have managed to obscure the nature of our recession, but a meaningful recovery has failed to materialize. But one does not switch horses midstream without a compelling reason. Romney failed in this respect. His vague bromides to leadership and job creation simply weren't persuasive.
This is partially because the GOP has but one answer to the issue of jobs. For Republicans, it's always 1980, and there's nothing that can't be fixed with a good tax cut. I'm not enthusiastic about paying taxes, but it's simply not the case that cutting taxes always leads to job growth. Cutting income tax, moreover, has limited appeal for those who do not pay income tax. At present, our overwhelming debt is the largest obstacle to economic growth. Neither party possesses a credible plan to reduce it, let alone pay it off.
The best Romney could offer by way of fiscal responsibility was the possibility of a balanced budget during the last year of his second term. Colloquially, the Republicans were peeing on our legs, insisting that it was raining. If this is the best the GOP can do, I can't see the point of having a conservative party. It may be that anything more radical would be unpalatable to the American people, but when faced with two profligate parties, the citizens were behaving rationally in voting for the man who promised them more things. For if the debt matters, we are doomed--with either party. But if the debt doesn't matter, why would we not allow the government to spend as much money as possible?
Until the Republicans can make a coherent case against debt, and offer a practical program to reduce it, they offer nothing to fiscal conservatives. Naturally, the take away has not been to reexamine the ideological underpinnings of the movement, but to flout neo-con Marco Rubio as the Great Hispanic Hope to turn the party's electoral fortunes around. Not for nothing is the Republican Party called the Stupid Party.
Armchair quarterbacks like to look at the data set an election provides and extrapolate forward to come up with trends. For instance, because the Republicans lost this presidential election, they are destined to wander for decades in the political wilderness. This argument is based on the demographic reality: to wit, minority groups vote heavily for Democrats, and as these minority groups are growing as a share of the electorate, Republicans will never win another election again.
This argument assumes that Mitt Romney could have been an effective nominee, if only the electorate were different. In a sense this is true, as one could hypothetically restrict the suffrage to ensure Republican victory. But this lets Romney off the hook far too easily. Given our electorate, the Republicans could have run a better nominee. The demographic angle is important, but it's also worth discussing the larger problem facing the GOP. The party no longer seems to know what it stands for.
I base this on the evidence that of the nominees for the Republican party, Romney was arguably the best standard bearer--and he was a very bad one. I'll refrain from my usual insistence that Ron Paul ought to have been the nominee; plainly, the party faithful aren't interested in sound money and non-interventionism. Paul articulates a coherent vision, but it's not one the party is interested in embracing at this moment in history. There's a lesson here to be sure: it's possible that a GOP that wasn't wedded to the warfare state would do better in the polls, but the neo-con establishment isn't even willing to consider such heresy.
The reason Romney was such a mediocre nominee is that, like his party, he lacked principles. He had taken both sides on virtually every important issue; his flip-flops made John Kerry seem like a paragon of consistency. During the race for the Republican nomination, he ran to the right when confronted with his liberal stances on everything from abortion, to guns, to healthcare. In the debates with the President, he ran back to the middle, in the process, revealing himself to be a duplicitous panderer. Only an abysmal performance by the President in the first debate--and an amusing overreaction from the panicked leftist media--prevented the election from being a landslide. In hindsight, it was never really much of a race.
As an aside, less discussed was the inconsistency of Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan. Ostensibly a fiscal hawk, Ryan had voted for every spending increase during the Bush presidency. The debt crisis would have eventually sapped the surplus, but Medicare Part D and an expensive war in Iraq accelerated the trend. The Republican refusal to see the Bush years as the disaster they were still hurts the party. Clinton's appearance at the Democratic convention reminded Americans of better times, thereby helping Obama. Bush, meanwhile, was far away from his party's convention. Like Jimmy Carter, the electorate sees Bush II as a hapless loser.
Back to the story: Romney's defeat is somewhat surprising in that, by all accounts, Obama has been a lousy president. His policies have managed to obscure the nature of our recession, but a meaningful recovery has failed to materialize. But one does not switch horses midstream without a compelling reason. Romney failed in this respect. His vague bromides to leadership and job creation simply weren't persuasive.
This is partially because the GOP has but one answer to the issue of jobs. For Republicans, it's always 1980, and there's nothing that can't be fixed with a good tax cut. I'm not enthusiastic about paying taxes, but it's simply not the case that cutting taxes always leads to job growth. Cutting income tax, moreover, has limited appeal for those who do not pay income tax. At present, our overwhelming debt is the largest obstacle to economic growth. Neither party possesses a credible plan to reduce it, let alone pay it off.
The best Romney could offer by way of fiscal responsibility was the possibility of a balanced budget during the last year of his second term. Colloquially, the Republicans were peeing on our legs, insisting that it was raining. If this is the best the GOP can do, I can't see the point of having a conservative party. It may be that anything more radical would be unpalatable to the American people, but when faced with two profligate parties, the citizens were behaving rationally in voting for the man who promised them more things. For if the debt matters, we are doomed--with either party. But if the debt doesn't matter, why would we not allow the government to spend as much money as possible?
Until the Republicans can make a coherent case against debt, and offer a practical program to reduce it, they offer nothing to fiscal conservatives. Naturally, the take away has not been to reexamine the ideological underpinnings of the movement, but to flout neo-con Marco Rubio as the Great Hispanic Hope to turn the party's electoral fortunes around. Not for nothing is the Republican Party called the Stupid Party.
Saturday, November 03, 2012
On birthrates
A deeply troubling report was released by the CDC. CNS News summarizes:
More than 40 percent of all babies born in the country last year, the report said, were born to unmarried women.
This is very bad news. Although this rate didn't change substantially from the previous year, we'll need to see a significant drop before optimism is warranted. Anecdotally, there are no doubt plenty of good single parents, but they face almost insurmountable obstacles in trying to raise children without help. The evidence is clear: single parenthood is disastrous for children.
So naturally we're going to spend much of our time arguing over whether or not the 1-2% of the population that is homosexual should be allowed to get married. It's almost as America is a ridiculous nation.
The report continues:
However, among women 35-39 years old, [the birthrate] increased from 45.9 per 100,000 to 47.2. Among women 40-44, it increased from 10.2 to 10.3. And among women from 45-54, it held steady at 0.7 per 100,000.
These gains aren't substantial. I could run the numbers to prove it, but that would require me to remember something from statistics, a class which I attended infrequently. But if there is a story here, it's that Americans continue to have children later in life. There are some very obvious reasons why this is a bad idea: younger people have more energy and are more durable, etc., but there's also a demographic angle that merits investigation.
Birthrate is useful metric, but it conflates dissimilar goods through the crudeness of its model. A child born to a teenager is not the same as a child born to a forty year-old. We can make this clear if we take two extreme sample populations: A, in which the women have, on average, 2 children, at an average age of 20; and B, in which the women also have, on average, 2 children, but at an average age of 40.
For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume that the children arrive precisely at the average date--so there is no variation in our sample, and everyone is, evidently, having twins. This assumption is absurd, but it helps the model, and it doesn't detract from the point I wish to convey. We'll also assume that people die precisely at the age of 80, and for the same reasons.
If we start each population with 100 people, and if I did my math right, the populations look like this over a century's time:
Even though the birthrates are the same, population A is growing, while population B will remain stable at 200. Now, the average progressive would look at this model and be amazed at the responsibility of population B--and be horrified at the rabbit-like behavior of population A. If it prevents them from having children, so much the better.
But the salient point is that not all births are created equal. This is as heretical as it is logically sound. A society thrives when its citizens are married before they have children, but it also thrives when these married people have children at a younger age. Or, anyway, the population increases, which means that there are more younger works to pay into the bankrupt Social Security fund, and to pay taxes to fund Medicare and so forth. And to maybe even help the economy grow.
It's important to pay attention to the birthrate, but the crude statistic can be misleading as well. Just as GDP reflects the economic state of the country in question, so the birthrate gives some idea as to the nation's long term sustainability. But only some idea.
More than 40 percent of all babies born in the country last year, the report said, were born to unmarried women.
This is very bad news. Although this rate didn't change substantially from the previous year, we'll need to see a significant drop before optimism is warranted. Anecdotally, there are no doubt plenty of good single parents, but they face almost insurmountable obstacles in trying to raise children without help. The evidence is clear: single parenthood is disastrous for children.
So naturally we're going to spend much of our time arguing over whether or not the 1-2% of the population that is homosexual should be allowed to get married. It's almost as America is a ridiculous nation.
The report continues:
However, among women 35-39 years old, [the birthrate] increased from 45.9 per 100,000 to 47.2. Among women 40-44, it increased from 10.2 to 10.3. And among women from 45-54, it held steady at 0.7 per 100,000.
These gains aren't substantial. I could run the numbers to prove it, but that would require me to remember something from statistics, a class which I attended infrequently. But if there is a story here, it's that Americans continue to have children later in life. There are some very obvious reasons why this is a bad idea: younger people have more energy and are more durable, etc., but there's also a demographic angle that merits investigation.
Birthrate is useful metric, but it conflates dissimilar goods through the crudeness of its model. A child born to a teenager is not the same as a child born to a forty year-old. We can make this clear if we take two extreme sample populations: A, in which the women have, on average, 2 children, at an average age of 20; and B, in which the women also have, on average, 2 children, but at an average age of 40.
For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume that the children arrive precisely at the average date--so there is no variation in our sample, and everyone is, evidently, having twins. This assumption is absurd, but it helps the model, and it doesn't detract from the point I wish to convey. We'll also assume that people die precisely at the age of 80, and for the same reasons.
If we start each population with 100 people, and if I did my math right, the populations look like this over a century's time:
| Year | A | B |
| 0 | 100 | 100 |
| 20 | 200 | 100 |
| 40 | 400 | 200 |
| 60 | 800 | 200 |
| 80 | 1500 | 200 |
| 100 | 2800 | 200 |
Even though the birthrates are the same, population A is growing, while population B will remain stable at 200. Now, the average progressive would look at this model and be amazed at the responsibility of population B--and be horrified at the rabbit-like behavior of population A. If it prevents them from having children, so much the better.
But the salient point is that not all births are created equal. This is as heretical as it is logically sound. A society thrives when its citizens are married before they have children, but it also thrives when these married people have children at a younger age. Or, anyway, the population increases, which means that there are more younger works to pay into the bankrupt Social Security fund, and to pay taxes to fund Medicare and so forth. And to maybe even help the economy grow.
It's important to pay attention to the birthrate, but the crude statistic can be misleading as well. Just as GDP reflects the economic state of the country in question, so the birthrate gives some idea as to the nation's long term sustainability. But only some idea.
Dawson on education
One of the testaments of a good book is the ability to endure, to be read with relish, not merely by the author's contemporaries, but by those not yet born. Christopher Dawson's The Crisis of Western Education is such a book. Since there is only one substantial Amazon review, I may put together my own later, but for now I'd just like to offer a few very illuminating quotes from the book.
The great problem of the present age is whether the new structure of American society can continue to develop in this way, like a sociological skyscraper... For it is an abnormally expensive economy which uses up both human and natural resources more rapidly than anything hitherto known. Yet even in the past we see how the relatively simple urban development of the Mediterranean world proved too expensive for the peasant economy of those lands to maintain it indefinitely. p. 73
Dawson's perfectly sound observation would be political heresy today. Jimmy Carter's infamous malaise speech expressed the same concerns, but the Americans drubbed him out of office for the immodest Reagan, who promised more growth, neglecting to mention that it would come courtesy of the national credit card.
The Democrats have learned from Carter's mistake: they, too, now promise indefinite prosperity. American still refuse to consider that there may be limits to economic growth--ironically enough, during a time in which the economy has not grown for roughly a decade, if not longer. Yet Dawson's point remains a sound one.
[Universal education] is moreover a continually expanding force, for when once the State has accepted full responsibility for the education of the whole youth of the nation, it is obliged to extend its control further and further into new fields: to the physical welfare of its pupils--to their feeding and medical care--to their amusements and the use of their spare time--and finally to their moral welfare and their pschyological guidance. pp. 85-6
The seed of the welfare state, indeed, the totalitarian state, was planted with a step so seemingly benign. Yet once the State had taken on the role of educating the citizenry, a role formerly handled, however unevenly, by the religious element of society, it was only a matter of time before it had arrogated to itself other functions of that society. Hence the churches today, and above all the Church, are seen as, at best, inconsequential wastes of resources, and, at worst, almost, but not quite, treasonous.
More to follow...
The great problem of the present age is whether the new structure of American society can continue to develop in this way, like a sociological skyscraper... For it is an abnormally expensive economy which uses up both human and natural resources more rapidly than anything hitherto known. Yet even in the past we see how the relatively simple urban development of the Mediterranean world proved too expensive for the peasant economy of those lands to maintain it indefinitely. p. 73
Dawson's perfectly sound observation would be political heresy today. Jimmy Carter's infamous malaise speech expressed the same concerns, but the Americans drubbed him out of office for the immodest Reagan, who promised more growth, neglecting to mention that it would come courtesy of the national credit card.
The Democrats have learned from Carter's mistake: they, too, now promise indefinite prosperity. American still refuse to consider that there may be limits to economic growth--ironically enough, during a time in which the economy has not grown for roughly a decade, if not longer. Yet Dawson's point remains a sound one.
[Universal education] is moreover a continually expanding force, for when once the State has accepted full responsibility for the education of the whole youth of the nation, it is obliged to extend its control further and further into new fields: to the physical welfare of its pupils--to their feeding and medical care--to their amusements and the use of their spare time--and finally to their moral welfare and their pschyological guidance. pp. 85-6
The seed of the welfare state, indeed, the totalitarian state, was planted with a step so seemingly benign. Yet once the State had taken on the role of educating the citizenry, a role formerly handled, however unevenly, by the religious element of society, it was only a matter of time before it had arrogated to itself other functions of that society. Hence the churches today, and above all the Church, are seen as, at best, inconsequential wastes of resources, and, at worst, almost, but not quite, treasonous.
More to follow...
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Books and mortality
I recently read Joe Queenan's mostly good--but not, alas, astonishing--One for the Books, which has had the unfortunate result of leaving me quite depressed. I'd like to put together a review, but in the interim, I offer several thoughts.
First, books, like every other good and noble thing in our wretched civilization, are dying, Infernal electronic readers, which Queenan admirably rails against, are taking over in what remains of our now mostly illiterate culture. He's a self-confessed Luddite, but he's also only a few thousand books from his death bed, whereas I remain similarly entrenched in my opposition to technology with, fortunately, hopefully, a much larger number of books ahead of me. I cannot be certain that I shall be able to get them, either, which provides the rationalization for the otherwise indefensible rate at which I acquire books.
Second, readers are probably not any better than everyone else. I confess to looking down on those who read less than me, though, since this is most everyone, I immediately feel awful for giving into the sin of intellectual pride. I know more than I would have were I not a voracious devourer of books, but I cannot say that I am a better person for it. Moreover, in exchange, I find the world outside of books--which is to say, the real world--that much less interesting. The unfortunate result is that I then read more books, and deal ever more precariously with the vastly overrated real world.
Third, readers are impressed strongly with the sense of their own mortality. Queenan measures his life by the number of books he has read. I've not quite come to that, but I am aware that I will not be able to read everything I hope to read before I slip this mortal coil. This results in a nature that tends toward the macabre, but I do not think that it can be helped.
So I suppose what we have learned is that while it is difficult to explain why spending all one's free time reading is a productive usage of that time, there's no way that we readers would alter our habits in the slightest. It's entirely possible that we have been afflicted with some horrible disease, but as it is less harmful, surely, than drugs and alcohol, we shall be left alone for the time being. Which is precisely what we desire.
First, books, like every other good and noble thing in our wretched civilization, are dying, Infernal electronic readers, which Queenan admirably rails against, are taking over in what remains of our now mostly illiterate culture. He's a self-confessed Luddite, but he's also only a few thousand books from his death bed, whereas I remain similarly entrenched in my opposition to technology with, fortunately, hopefully, a much larger number of books ahead of me. I cannot be certain that I shall be able to get them, either, which provides the rationalization for the otherwise indefensible rate at which I acquire books.
Second, readers are probably not any better than everyone else. I confess to looking down on those who read less than me, though, since this is most everyone, I immediately feel awful for giving into the sin of intellectual pride. I know more than I would have were I not a voracious devourer of books, but I cannot say that I am a better person for it. Moreover, in exchange, I find the world outside of books--which is to say, the real world--that much less interesting. The unfortunate result is that I then read more books, and deal ever more precariously with the vastly overrated real world.
Third, readers are impressed strongly with the sense of their own mortality. Queenan measures his life by the number of books he has read. I've not quite come to that, but I am aware that I will not be able to read everything I hope to read before I slip this mortal coil. This results in a nature that tends toward the macabre, but I do not think that it can be helped.
So I suppose what we have learned is that while it is difficult to explain why spending all one's free time reading is a productive usage of that time, there's no way that we readers would alter our habits in the slightest. It's entirely possible that we have been afflicted with some horrible disease, but as it is less harmful, surely, than drugs and alcohol, we shall be left alone for the time being. Which is precisely what we desire.
Monday, October 22, 2012
The foreign policy of fools
Tonight is the third and final presidential debate, the topic of which is foreign policy. Had the Republicans nominated Ron Paul--or the Democrats, Dennis Kucinich--we might well see an actual debate. Actually, if Paul was running against Kucinich, we wouldn't see many fireworks, but at least the heads of Bill Kristol and Max Boot might explode.
As it stands, both Obama and Romney are interventionists, to put it mildly. While the President has drawn down some of the armed forces from Iraq, he increased the number of soldiers in Afghanistan. Twelve years later, we're still mired in that graveyard of empires. One would think that this would be a position on which the president could be challenged. Yet the Republicans, in their boundless stupidity, have nominated a hawk who thinks that Obama was wrong in deescalating the war in Iraq. The President's Nobel Peace Prize remains an immense joke, but in this race, he is actually the peace candidate.
Consider: the President recognizes the power of the executive branch to assassinate American citizens. Romney, no doubt looking forward to using this power for himself, has yet to raise an objection to such a grotesque violation of our basic human rights. If the American people are fortunate, perhaps this will be discussed in tonight's debate, but even if the moderator mentions this policy, we will be wholly unable to do a thing to alter it.
Instead of substantial debate over a very important topic, we'll be compelled to endure a tedious discussion over precisely how much leadership--and what kind--will best ensure that we may continue to meddle in the Middle East without experiencing too much blowback.
The American people are tired of war. We should never forget that warfare has a significant moral dimension; the bombs we drop extinguish lives, a large percentage of which belonged to civilians, innocent of the crimes perpetrated by our enemies. Regrettably, too many Americans are inured to the death and destruction that resides thousands of miles away. Surely our leaders would tell us if they were responsible for the death of innocents.
However, the costs of war hit home in other ways. The government is not in the habit of increasing taxes in order to help fund its bloated military, now bogged down in wars that will cost, when all is said and done, several trillion dollars. Instead, the dollar is debased. As a result, food and gas prices continue to rise. Americans must sacrifice for the good of our benevolent government.
We're not going to hear about this in tonight's debate, but what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex is an immense drain on the nation's economy. Precious resources go to produce weapons of destruction which we unleash on the world. From the purvey of a defense contractor, war means more contracts. But while these welfare queens make fistfuls of cash due to the fact that we spend more money on the military than every other country in the world combined, the Americans who do not work for the bloated warfare sector become poorer.
A country of responsible citizens wouldn't tolerate military pork in an age of austerity. But history is replete with examples of bankrupt nations going to war, in part to distract its citizenry from trouble at home. The depressing fact about tonight is that Obama is likelier to declare war on Iran than he is to offer real cuts to what is deceptively called defense. Even more depressingly, the President is probably the lesser evil in this horrible race to the bottom.
As it stands, both Obama and Romney are interventionists, to put it mildly. While the President has drawn down some of the armed forces from Iraq, he increased the number of soldiers in Afghanistan. Twelve years later, we're still mired in that graveyard of empires. One would think that this would be a position on which the president could be challenged. Yet the Republicans, in their boundless stupidity, have nominated a hawk who thinks that Obama was wrong in deescalating the war in Iraq. The President's Nobel Peace Prize remains an immense joke, but in this race, he is actually the peace candidate.
Consider: the President recognizes the power of the executive branch to assassinate American citizens. Romney, no doubt looking forward to using this power for himself, has yet to raise an objection to such a grotesque violation of our basic human rights. If the American people are fortunate, perhaps this will be discussed in tonight's debate, but even if the moderator mentions this policy, we will be wholly unable to do a thing to alter it.
Instead of substantial debate over a very important topic, we'll be compelled to endure a tedious discussion over precisely how much leadership--and what kind--will best ensure that we may continue to meddle in the Middle East without experiencing too much blowback.
The American people are tired of war. We should never forget that warfare has a significant moral dimension; the bombs we drop extinguish lives, a large percentage of which belonged to civilians, innocent of the crimes perpetrated by our enemies. Regrettably, too many Americans are inured to the death and destruction that resides thousands of miles away. Surely our leaders would tell us if they were responsible for the death of innocents.
However, the costs of war hit home in other ways. The government is not in the habit of increasing taxes in order to help fund its bloated military, now bogged down in wars that will cost, when all is said and done, several trillion dollars. Instead, the dollar is debased. As a result, food and gas prices continue to rise. Americans must sacrifice for the good of our benevolent government.
We're not going to hear about this in tonight's debate, but what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex is an immense drain on the nation's economy. Precious resources go to produce weapons of destruction which we unleash on the world. From the purvey of a defense contractor, war means more contracts. But while these welfare queens make fistfuls of cash due to the fact that we spend more money on the military than every other country in the world combined, the Americans who do not work for the bloated warfare sector become poorer.
A country of responsible citizens wouldn't tolerate military pork in an age of austerity. But history is replete with examples of bankrupt nations going to war, in part to distract its citizenry from trouble at home. The depressing fact about tonight is that Obama is likelier to declare war on Iran than he is to offer real cuts to what is deceptively called defense. Even more depressingly, the President is probably the lesser evil in this horrible race to the bottom.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Brooks and Henry on feminism
John Quincey Adams's grandson Henry is famous in his own right, most notably for two of his books, Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres as well as The Education of Henry Adams. Adams was known for being melancholic about the future of the American experiment, and while this attitude is commoner now, it was quite irregular for a man who lived and wrote towards the close of the nineteenth century.
At present, I'm reading The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma, which is ostensibly written by Henry Adams. Actually, his brother Brooks wrote a piece about Henry which comprises more than a third of the book. It is with this introductory piece that I plan on dealing, as it contains a number of perceptive observations concerning the problems inherent in feminism.
The quote is from an essay of Henry's which is printed in full later in the book; the rest is Brooks:
"The mere act of reproduction, which seems to have been the most absorbing and passionate purpose of primitive instinct, concerns history not at all." ...Certainly it does not concern the modern feminist, who repudiates such an instinct as unworthy of a civilized and educated modern woman, and by so doing announces herself as incapable of performing the only function in modern society which has the least vital importance to mankind.
These astounding sentences were first published in 1919. The brothers Adams were well ahead of their time, though perhaps not as much as we might think. The Great Depression and the Second World War postponed the sexual revolution which had begun during the Roaring Twenties. It was only after a return to peace and an increase in prosperity that the revolution could pick up where it had left off decades before.
More importantly, Brooks Adams hones in on the essential flaw in the feminist dogma; its devotees abdicate responsibility when it comes to "performing the only function in modern society which has the least vital importance to mankind." Civilization is completely capable of surviving, and even thriving, without female doctors or lawyers. It cannot do so, however, if its women refuse to become mothers. It is no less true for being oft repeated: demographics is destiny. It would be difficult to suggest a more idiotic policy than encouraging the best and brightest women to pursue careers at the expense of becoming mothers, leaving such horror to the unwed underclass. I half suspect future historians may believe that the vastly underrated film Idiocracy is actually a documentary.
Later on, Brooks takes up his theme again:
Since the great industrial capitalistic movement began throughout the modern world toward 1830, the modern feminist has sought to put the woman upon a basis of legal at which she would be enabled, as it was thought, to become the economic competitor of man. At length, after nearly a century as one of the effects of the recent war, she seems to have succeeded in her ambition. So far as possible the great sexual instinct has been weakened or suppressed. So far as possible it is now ignored systematically in our education. Woman is ashamed of her sex and imitates the man. And the results are manifest enough to alarm the most optimistic and confiding. The effect has been to turn enormous numbers of women into the ranks of the lower paid classes of labor, but far worse, in substance to destroy the influence of woman in modern civilization, save in so far as her enfranchisement tends to degrade the democratic level of intelligence. The woman as the cement of society the head of the family and the centre of cohesion has for all intents and purposes ceased to exist. She has become a wandering isolated unit rather a dispersive than a collective force.
There's a lot to unpack here, but we'll give it a shot. First, as Brooks notes, granting women legal equality with men was not an insignificant and helpful gesture, but the base on which all else was built. This is important, because while there are numerous critics of feminism, few seem to realize the drastic actions which would be necessary to undo the damage. It is not enough to simply suggest that more women stay home with their children. And, in actuality, seeing how these things tend to over-correct, women fifty years hence may well look bad fondly at the freedom afforded to their predecessors living in the times of Adams.
Women's movements tend to occur in times of economic growth, if not decadence. I'd like to do more research to confirm this in, say, Imperial Rome or Renaissance Italy, so for now it remains a tentative hypothesis. Yet Adams observes that what was brought forth in a time of prosperity resulted in women degrading themselves to work in "the ranks of the lower paid classes of labor." We would need to update this rhetoric to more accurately reflect the way things are today, but as a piece of historical data, it's an arresting observation.
The snide swipe at the degradation "of the democratic level of intelligence" is too amusing to pass over. I earnestly await the movement which seeks to limit the suffrage. But then again, I'm hoping we can deprecate democracy in favor of hereditary monarchy, rendering such limitations superfluous.
Lastly, contrary to feminist rhetoric, traditionalists or anti-feminists do not hate women: we contend that women's liberation has been bad for men as well as women, and certainly for society at large. This point is made fairly clearly by Henry Adams in his book on the Middle Ages: but there is much dignity in women who pursue a vocation as a mother. No doubt there are women who would fit awkwardly, if at all, into the institution of marriage. But this was no excuse to treat the exception as a rule.
In summary, feminism was a bad idea one hundred years ago, and it is a bad idea now. Adams doesn't even mention, because he could not know, that feminism would pile up a body count that would make Hitler envious. That feminism will endure in the short run is as certain as that its infertile philosophy dooms it in the long. It would be pleasant to think that we could restore something from just before Adams time, but I think it likelier that sexual relations in the future will proceed along pagan lines. And no, feminists, that will not be pleasant, not in the slightest.
At present, I'm reading The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma, which is ostensibly written by Henry Adams. Actually, his brother Brooks wrote a piece about Henry which comprises more than a third of the book. It is with this introductory piece that I plan on dealing, as it contains a number of perceptive observations concerning the problems inherent in feminism.
The quote is from an essay of Henry's which is printed in full later in the book; the rest is Brooks:
"The mere act of reproduction, which seems to have been the most absorbing and passionate purpose of primitive instinct, concerns history not at all." ...Certainly it does not concern the modern feminist, who repudiates such an instinct as unworthy of a civilized and educated modern woman, and by so doing announces herself as incapable of performing the only function in modern society which has the least vital importance to mankind.
These astounding sentences were first published in 1919. The brothers Adams were well ahead of their time, though perhaps not as much as we might think. The Great Depression and the Second World War postponed the sexual revolution which had begun during the Roaring Twenties. It was only after a return to peace and an increase in prosperity that the revolution could pick up where it had left off decades before.
More importantly, Brooks Adams hones in on the essential flaw in the feminist dogma; its devotees abdicate responsibility when it comes to "performing the only function in modern society which has the least vital importance to mankind." Civilization is completely capable of surviving, and even thriving, without female doctors or lawyers. It cannot do so, however, if its women refuse to become mothers. It is no less true for being oft repeated: demographics is destiny. It would be difficult to suggest a more idiotic policy than encouraging the best and brightest women to pursue careers at the expense of becoming mothers, leaving such horror to the unwed underclass. I half suspect future historians may believe that the vastly underrated film Idiocracy is actually a documentary.
Later on, Brooks takes up his theme again:
Since the great industrial capitalistic movement began throughout the modern world toward 1830, the modern feminist has sought to put the woman upon a basis of legal at which she would be enabled, as it was thought, to become the economic competitor of man. At length, after nearly a century as one of the effects of the recent war, she seems to have succeeded in her ambition. So far as possible the great sexual instinct has been weakened or suppressed. So far as possible it is now ignored systematically in our education. Woman is ashamed of her sex and imitates the man. And the results are manifest enough to alarm the most optimistic and confiding. The effect has been to turn enormous numbers of women into the ranks of the lower paid classes of labor, but far worse, in substance to destroy the influence of woman in modern civilization, save in so far as her enfranchisement tends to degrade the democratic level of intelligence. The woman as the cement of society the head of the family and the centre of cohesion has for all intents and purposes ceased to exist. She has become a wandering isolated unit rather a dispersive than a collective force.
There's a lot to unpack here, but we'll give it a shot. First, as Brooks notes, granting women legal equality with men was not an insignificant and helpful gesture, but the base on which all else was built. This is important, because while there are numerous critics of feminism, few seem to realize the drastic actions which would be necessary to undo the damage. It is not enough to simply suggest that more women stay home with their children. And, in actuality, seeing how these things tend to over-correct, women fifty years hence may well look bad fondly at the freedom afforded to their predecessors living in the times of Adams.
Women's movements tend to occur in times of economic growth, if not decadence. I'd like to do more research to confirm this in, say, Imperial Rome or Renaissance Italy, so for now it remains a tentative hypothesis. Yet Adams observes that what was brought forth in a time of prosperity resulted in women degrading themselves to work in "the ranks of the lower paid classes of labor." We would need to update this rhetoric to more accurately reflect the way things are today, but as a piece of historical data, it's an arresting observation.
The snide swipe at the degradation "of the democratic level of intelligence" is too amusing to pass over. I earnestly await the movement which seeks to limit the suffrage. But then again, I'm hoping we can deprecate democracy in favor of hereditary monarchy, rendering such limitations superfluous.
Lastly, contrary to feminist rhetoric, traditionalists or anti-feminists do not hate women: we contend that women's liberation has been bad for men as well as women, and certainly for society at large. This point is made fairly clearly by Henry Adams in his book on the Middle Ages: but there is much dignity in women who pursue a vocation as a mother. No doubt there are women who would fit awkwardly, if at all, into the institution of marriage. But this was no excuse to treat the exception as a rule.
In summary, feminism was a bad idea one hundred years ago, and it is a bad idea now. Adams doesn't even mention, because he could not know, that feminism would pile up a body count that would make Hitler envious. That feminism will endure in the short run is as certain as that its infertile philosophy dooms it in the long. It would be pleasant to think that we could restore something from just before Adams time, but I think it likelier that sexual relations in the future will proceed along pagan lines. And no, feminists, that will not be pleasant, not in the slightest.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
Of mole hills
The world's laziest blogger--copyright applied for--is back. Like millions of other Americans, I watched the presidential debate on Wednesday night. The near unanimous verdict, with which I concur, was that Romney won by looking and sounding presidential, while President Obama lost by appearing tired and flat. I have nothing to add to this.
However, I do want to take a look at Romney's insistence that he would cut funding to PBS. For while the challenger was better prepared than the empty suit our President appeared to be, there remains a deep lack of seriousness that pervades and perverts our presidential politics.
PBS accounts for just .012% of the federal budget. It's true that it makes little to no sense to fund something so inconsequential at a time when the nation is bankrupt. At the same time, PBS's paltry nature makes it one of the best uses of our taxpayer money: I'd much rather subsidize Sesame Street than be compelled to pay for the bombs that rain down on Pakistanis.
I remain convinced that our debt is, or rather, ought to be, the most important issue in this election. Obama seems to have no idea how we are to balance our budget. Yet, for all his talk about how it is immoral to pass debt along to our children, Romney's pollyannish plan is to simply grow our way out of debt. Obama is in no position to ask, but I wish someone would find out what Romney plans to do if the economy remains stagnant well into his first term. At that point, will he try to cut funding for other programs? Will he reconsider his plans to increase military spending?
Or will we continue to bicker over Big Bird?
However, I do want to take a look at Romney's insistence that he would cut funding to PBS. For while the challenger was better prepared than the empty suit our President appeared to be, there remains a deep lack of seriousness that pervades and perverts our presidential politics.
PBS accounts for just .012% of the federal budget. It's true that it makes little to no sense to fund something so inconsequential at a time when the nation is bankrupt. At the same time, PBS's paltry nature makes it one of the best uses of our taxpayer money: I'd much rather subsidize Sesame Street than be compelled to pay for the bombs that rain down on Pakistanis.
I remain convinced that our debt is, or rather, ought to be, the most important issue in this election. Obama seems to have no idea how we are to balance our budget. Yet, for all his talk about how it is immoral to pass debt along to our children, Romney's pollyannish plan is to simply grow our way out of debt. Obama is in no position to ask, but I wish someone would find out what Romney plans to do if the economy remains stagnant well into his first term. At that point, will he try to cut funding for other programs? Will he reconsider his plans to increase military spending?
Or will we continue to bicker over Big Bird?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)