« A Memory of Sports, Sex and Shame
Connecting Dots Between Child Abuse & The Sexual Assault of Women on Campus »
Quote of the Day
From an excellent Adam Gopnik essay in The New Yorker on whether America is in decline:
Despite their title, the authors seem, for instance, determined to avoid the obvious point that one American who shares their outlook and ambitions in almost every detail — who hates partisan wrangling, doubts the wisdom of big foreign wars, proposes a faith in a brisk mixture of private enterprise and public guarantees, accepts the priority of rebuilding our infrastructure — is the President of the United States. If he’s been frustrated, it’s not because of some vague “systemic” political paralysis. It’s because, as he has been startled to discover — and as Friedman and Mandelbaum will also be startled to discover, if they ever get that third party up and running — there is another side inexorably opposed to these apparently good things. The reason we don’t have beautiful new airports and efficient bullet trains is not that we have inadvertently stumbled upon stumbling blocks; it’s that there are considerable numbers of Americans for whom these things are simply symbols of a feared central government, and who would, when they travel, rather sweat in squalor than surrender the money to build a better terminal. They hate fast trains and efficient airports for the same reason that seventeenth-century Protestants hated the beautiful Baroque churches of Rome when they saw them: they were luxurious symbols of an earthly power they despised. Friedman and Mandelbaum wring their hands at “our” unwillingness to sacrifice our comforts on behalf of our principles, but Americans are perfectly willing to sacrifice their comforts for their ideological convictions. We don’t have a better infrastructure or decent elementary education exactly because many people are willing to sacrifice faster movement between our great cities, or better-informed children, in support of their belief that the government should always be given as little money as possible.
The reasons for these feelings are, of course, complex, with a noble reason descending from the Revolutionary War, and its insistence on liberty at all costs, and an ignoble one descending from the Civil War and its creation of a permanent class of white men convinced that they are besieged by an underclass they regard as the subsidized wards of the federal government. (Thus the curious belief that a worldwide real-estate crisis that hit the north of Spain and the east of Ireland as hard as the coast of Florida was the fault of money loaned by Washington to black people.) But the crucial point is that this is the result of active choice, not passive indifference: people who don’t want high-speed rail are not just indifferent to fast trains. They are offended by fast trains, as the New York Post is offended by bike lanes and open-air plazas: these things give too much pleasure to those they hate. They would rather have exhaust and noise and traffic jams, if such things sufficiently annoy liberals. Annoying liberals is a pleasure well worth paying for. As a recent study in the social sciences shows, if energy use in a household is monitored so that you can watch yourself saving money every month by using less, self-identified conservatives will actually use and spend more, apparently as a way of showing their scorn for liberal pieties. (Presumably, you could construct a similar experiment running toward the left, with the goods at play carbon footprints or local produce or the like.) The kind of outlook that Friedman and Mandelbaum assume is somehow natural to mankind and has been thwarted here recently — a broad-minded view of maximizing future utility — has, from a historical perspective, a constituency so small as to be essentially nonexistent. In the long story of civilization, the moments when improving your lot beats out annoying your neighbor are vanishingly rare.
Simon Owens is a journalist and media consultant. You can read his blog, follow him on Twitter, or email him at simon.bloggasm@gmail.com
36 Responses to “Quote of the Day”
This was really on point and I’d share it if I thought some of the people I know who really need to read it would be able to understand it! Mr. Gopnik can cough of some dense prose sometimes!
I do find it really disturbing that we are at such a point in our history where we do not believe in progress. It’s profound and Gopnik alludes to the point that liberals can be just as bad. All the more reason we need a Moderate Call-to-Arms. And, I get that such a thing is completely counter to what being a Moderate is.
What an absurd oversimplification. California may or may not get its high-speed train. If we don’t, conservative curmudgeonly glee will be far down the list of reasons. Closer to the top will be opposition from people who don’t want a train screaming by their house at 220 MPH, and people who believe there are better ways to spend $100B.
I’ve actually been seeking some articles on conservative group think and came across this one. My attempts at understanding what appear to be radical statements of ideology have been raising troubling questions of intent and ramifications few have been addressing. For example, most articles cite Rick Perry’s 53 second pause, not the fact he would eliminate three agencies/department (and Ron Paul five). Thanks for the article. More food for thought.
“there is another side inexorably opposed to these apparently good things”
And we will eat your babies if left unguarded.
Moreover, Republicans would euthanize the elderly rather than support them, just as they would work unto death your children again if they could only eliminate these anti-business laws that prevent profit!
Profit is the God the Republican party trusts.
Well said, Allen. it is patriots like you who will eventually burn them at the stake. Ah, the smell of burning Reps in the morning.
Great start, terrible finish.
If the alien god Mork From Ork came to earth and offered America free fast trains from coast to coast, the far right would not say no. If we had to halfsies the cost, they probably would say no.
It is a question of what we spend our tax dollars on and how much.
We simply don’t want to spend more money on educating our children. With all of our jobs going overseas…why bother? What does the 1% get from it?
Lovin the duck & allen show.
You’re conflating two different thing here, NIMBYism and Pissing off the DFHs.
It doesn’t matter what is being built whether it’s a wind farm of Cape Cod or a new mall down the street, all Americans of a certain wealth & income level will fight it. The fear that their property might lose some value overrides all other concerns.
Building a new six lane highway that goes nowhere, a new pipeline that will never pay for itself, a new Nuclear Power Plant or starting a war with some third world shit hole will get support from the conservatives for no other reason that it pisses of the DFHs.
Since pissing off the DFHs is their primary goal in life, they would turn it down without a second thought.
These are people who would rather see crops rot in the fields rather than see an undocumented emigrant picking them for below minimum wage. These are people who would rather destroy their educational systems, their healthcare systems, their infrastructure and see their way of life destroyed rather than throw an extra couple of bucks in the community pot for fear that some undeserving minority might get something for nothing.
Yes, that was what Mr. Gopnik wrote. No doubt there are a few conservatives for whom it’s true. But let’s just say that neither of you has substantiated the claim with respect to a broad set of them.
8 Billion Loan Guarantee for a Nuclear Power Plant (that will likely never get built): Not a peep from Republicans, they know it pisses off the DFHs.
500 Million loan Guarantee for a solar company:
First rate sh*t fit, DFHs like solar power, it’s benefits are distributed and don’t straight go to big corporate pockets.
The Right’s support of Nuclear power is entirely based upon the fact that it pisses off the DFHs.
BTW California hits renewable energy milestone: 1 gigawatt of solar power installed to date
“Lovin the duck & allen show.”
Thanks a lot. You figure out how to take that.
That’s exactly what neither of you has backed up. What evidence is there that they support nuclear power for that reason and not some other?
The whole premise seems absurd. For instance, we already spend more money on public education than any other nation in the world, with mediocre results, and yet the only solution is still to spend more money?
Maybe if the government reformed its broken systems rather than constantly expanding them, people would be more trusting of it.
Maybe if the government reformed its broken systems rather than constantly expanding them, people would be more trusting of it.
Yup
Something like that. According to nationmaster.com we rank 4th in primary school spending. But on their literacy metrics, we rank between 14th and 18th.
Liberals’ theory is that if we spend even more, we’ll get better results. They don’t say how, exactly. But it clearly isn’t by hiring better teachers, as they will swear to their last breaths that the teachers we have are top-notch.
1) Nuclear power is the most expensive power source available and requires massive government subsidies.
2) No self respecting insurance company will insure Nuclear Power Plants, so Uncle Sam does.
3) The operation of a Nuclear Power Plant is so dangerous that government has to regulate every aspect of operations.
4) The waste byproducts are so dangerous that storage has to built at government expense to store said wast e for a few centuries.
So in short we have an industry that requires massive government subsidies and regulation, things that conservatives keep telling us they are against but in case of Nuclear Power they thoroughly support.
What other conclusion can one come to other than: if it’ll the DFHs, we’re for it.
A) The K-12 education system is run by the states, not the federal government.
B) Proximity to the Canadian border is the single largest determinant in the quality of an educational system in the US.
C) Fixing the educational System would require centralizing at the State level & changing it’s financing mechanism from property taxes to some form of State Tax and redistributing said moneys from wealthy communities to poorer & needier ones.
D) States with no unions have even worse educational outcomes than States with unions(Mass vs Mississippi).
Since most states are not going to follow suggestion C, since that would imply giving money to undeserving minorities, our school systems are unlikely to improve.
Perhaps they support it because we need the electricity?
Bumper sticker from the 1980′s
Go ahead and eliminate nuclear power. Let the bastards freeze in the dark.
Not a big supporter of nuclear energy (due to costs–both in production and intangibles), but to suggest that the only reason R’s support it is to get others riled up is really stretching the truth.
Assuming that we need the electricity, there are far cheaper, more efficient, less dangerous ways of producing it that require almost minimal government regulations.
Really?
Explain to me why members of a political party whose “core principles” are supposed to be small government & no regulations are supporting an industries that requires “Big Government” & massive regulations to work.
I understand why the utility companies would be in favor of Nuclear Power, it’s massively subsidized by Uncle Sam, highly centralized and monopolistic, it’s practically a license to print money, but why would Joe the Plumber who has no financial interest at stake support it?
Great, what are they? According to a DOE table, natural gas is the cheapest, followed by hydro, coal, and onshore wind. All of those have significant environmental drawbacks of their own.
Natural Gas (cleaned up and environmentally safe)should be the bridge to small modular Nuclear.
bad numbers again from the business folks that ruined our economy
From EPI, non partisan group briefing report on world education spending:
“We will begin our study by comparing education expenditures
expressed as a percentage of national income (Gross Domestic Product).
This is a common method used for international comparisons which allows
us to avoid the distortions caused by fluctuating exchange rates. Also,
education expenditures expressed as a percentage of national income
provide a measure of the national effort which each country directs toward
education.”
our rank in nationmaster… 37th
that being said, there are systems that do spend less and have much better performance. So what we need is more and better spending.
Shannon, business folks *are* the economy.
I don’t think % of GDP is the right way to assess education spending, as it tends to be small countries that come out on top. Nationmaster’s top five: Cuba, Vanatu, Lesotho, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Yemen. Not exactly inspiring models for the US.
In any case, I’m happy to spend more if we’ll get results from it. So how will more spending translate into results?
Going back again to the original article: I wonder if the author has his history right.
Is it really desire for liberty that stopped us from public investment? I’m not convinced. Inmy own understanding of history, it’s more like:
1) the influence of big business. Established big businesses will lobby for a continuance of their own market, hence the endless building of highways and subsidies for oil exploration. Anything new & better is in direct competition to their business and they will do whatever it takes to keep their business, including influencing government spending & legislation.
2) the inability of the government to efficiently and successfully build anything. Until somewhere around the 70′s or so, the Feds could do quite a lot, largely because of the availability of labor & material. As time went on, labor costs went up, raw materials became less plentiful, talent went to corporations, and bureaucracy went through the roof. That’s why there are no real, lasting government-funded constructs since somewhere in the 70′s/80′s. Hoover Dam is a long way back, folks.
About the only thing “liberty” related is the resistance to eminent domain. Otherwise, it’s all business and incompetence.
Onshore wind energy to reach parity with fossil-fuel electricity by 2016
Damn those DFHs, looks like they were right again.
Barky,
No, it’s the fear that some undeserving minority gets something for nothing.
I call it the “I’d rather eat sh*t than give a nickel to a negro”.
That short sentence explains the entire politics of the former confederate states, and by extension of the Republican Party.
About what, Q? I don’t think anyone disputed that the more wind/solar/etc we build, the cheaper it will get. I’ll bet the same is true of nuclear, too.
The question is scale. If you want wind turbines to supply a large fraction of our electricity in the future, we’re going to need a lot of them. They need to go in windy places, they create turbulence, they’re ugly, and they shred birds. Getting one on every street corner is going to meet some resistance.
@QF
Explain to me why members of a political party whose “core principles” are supposed to be small government & no regulations are supporting an industries that requires “Big Government” & massive regulations to work.
The answer is that desire for small government is only one component of overall GOP decision-making. Actually your example of the GOP supporting a big government project runs counter to the point of the original article which is that the GOP is against bullet trains because it’s a big government program. As your example shows the GOP is willing to support big government depending on the program (the other obvious example being the Dept of Defense). Both major parties love big government when it comes to programs they like.
About supporting alternative energies…
Reagan took down the solar panels on the White House in 1980, and for the last thirty years the Republicans, being the puppets of Big Oil, have done all they could to slow down or stop the development of alternative energy.
As for the esthetic of wind turbines, having seen quite a few of them over the years, I don’t think they are all that bad looking.
As far as asking people if they would rather have a couple of dozen wind turbines in the neighborhood or a Nuclear Power that’s a no brainer.
If the worst happens and a few turbines fall over, killing a few cows and some people, you pay off the insurance and rebuild, on the other hand if the worse happens to a Nuclear Power Plant, you condemn a large area (dozen of square miles) to be fallow for the next couple of centuries, a few thousand people to die from nasty cancers followed by a clean up that is going to cost tens of Billions.
BTW, the cost of designing and improving Nuclear Power Plants is mind boggling which is why only large wealthy government can afford to do it, whereas the cost of redesigning and improving wind turbines is minimal, and anyone with a few million dollars can easily reverse engineer the latest and most efficient designs.
The other two components being pissing off the DFHs and making sure that the undeserving minorities (AKA Not Real Americans™) don’t get something for nothing.
The other two components being pissing off the DFHs and making sure that the undeserving minorities (AKA Not Real Americans™) don’t get something for nothing.
If you can’t think of any other concerns this conversation isn’t worth having.
There’s always killing brown people who don’t worship God in the correct way and taking their stuff.
But that does fall under the “pissing off DFHs” rubric.