Or maybe we could call this manufactured outrage III.
Phil Gramm recently said that there was no recession, and that we are a nation of whiners. Now, leaving aside the predictable how dare he say that reaction, does he have a point?
In a word, yes. It isn't that some people aren't experiencing real hardship. But if we look at our current economic troubles compared to the seventies, we see that we've got things pretty easy. Inflation and unemployment are both more tame than they were. The destruction of wealth through decreasing home values might be a real problem, but if you don't plan to move and can handle your mortgage payments, you're not really suffering. And if you've been renting all this time because you couldn't afford to buy, well, now is your chance.
The fact is, a lot of our problems--high gas prices, mortgage troubles--are caused by decisions we made. If you decided to live 50 miles from where you work, and you bought a car that gets 12 miles to the gallon to make that commute, well, you did that to yourself. If you bought a house you couldn't afford assuming that real estate always goes up, that was your mistake. Being hungover is not the same as being sick.
This is the irony: If our problems were caused by forces beyond our control, we might simply chalk it up to misfortune and get on with it. But instead, since much of our suffering can at least in part be traced to our own choices, we whine in order to avoid having to take responsibility for our actions. In so doing, we avoid having to changes in how we live.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
In defense of flip-flopping
From what I hear regarding the Presidential campaign, about the worst thing a candidate can be accused of is flip-flopping.
I do not understand why flip-flopping is a bad thing. There are many reasons to change an opinion of an issue. New information, new insights, being exposed to a new argument are all good reasons to change a position.
Indeed, someone who had never changed his or her position on any issue of substance is most likely brain deal. I am not going to turn this blog into a Bush Bash Blog, there's hardly any need for that and anyway in a few months, he'll be irrelevant. But his failures can be traced to his inability to evolved his positions. Rather than re-evaluate policy, Bush tended to get rid of people who challenged his beliefs.
I know there's a belief out there that equates flip-flopping with lack of principles. But our highest commitment should not be to our principles, merely because they are ours. Our highest commitment should be to the truth. Perhaps that is the problem. Given the way in which relativism has captured our way of thinking, perhaps people do not understand that a commitment to truth demands adjusting beliefs, and from time to time, abandoning them in light of new evidence. If there is no truth, I guess there is no reason to ever change a belief.
The other issue is the possibility that someone changes a position on an issue because it is politically expedient to do so. Again, I fail to see the problem here. We live in a democracy, and politicians ought to respond to political pressure. The system is often at its best when that happens.
I do not understand why flip-flopping is a bad thing. There are many reasons to change an opinion of an issue. New information, new insights, being exposed to a new argument are all good reasons to change a position.
Indeed, someone who had never changed his or her position on any issue of substance is most likely brain deal. I am not going to turn this blog into a Bush Bash Blog, there's hardly any need for that and anyway in a few months, he'll be irrelevant. But his failures can be traced to his inability to evolved his positions. Rather than re-evaluate policy, Bush tended to get rid of people who challenged his beliefs.
I know there's a belief out there that equates flip-flopping with lack of principles. But our highest commitment should not be to our principles, merely because they are ours. Our highest commitment should be to the truth. Perhaps that is the problem. Given the way in which relativism has captured our way of thinking, perhaps people do not understand that a commitment to truth demands adjusting beliefs, and from time to time, abandoning them in light of new evidence. If there is no truth, I guess there is no reason to ever change a belief.
The other issue is the possibility that someone changes a position on an issue because it is politically expedient to do so. Again, I fail to see the problem here. We live in a democracy, and politicians ought to respond to political pressure. The system is often at its best when that happens.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Manufactured Outrage II--The Obama Magazine Flap
Oh, there's no shortage of this stuff. Manufactured outrage isn't the exclusive province of left, right, middle, or apathetic. It's everywhere. Frankly, if I were starting this blog over again, I'd probably just call it manufactured outrage. I'd start a second blog on the topic, but I have enough trouble updating this one.
Anyway, yes, the Obama campaign reaction to the New Yorker cover was only the most recent example of manufactured outrage. The cartoon may have missed the mark, being a little too clever. And I won't even say the flap shows a lack of a sense of humor, since that line is pretty tired too. It's the idea from the Obama folks that they probably believed they could score points by getting indignant about it. I suppose, given how easy it is to manufacture outrage these days, they may have figured that by getting worked up about it, they could take these issues off the table as it were.
But to be offended by a cartoon is something fit only for fanatical Muslims.
Anyway, yes, the Obama campaign reaction to the New Yorker cover was only the most recent example of manufactured outrage. The cartoon may have missed the mark, being a little too clever. And I won't even say the flap shows a lack of a sense of humor, since that line is pretty tired too. It's the idea from the Obama folks that they probably believed they could score points by getting indignant about it. I suppose, given how easy it is to manufacture outrage these days, they may have figured that by getting worked up about it, they could take these issues off the table as it were.
But to be offended by a cartoon is something fit only for fanatical Muslims.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Manufactured Outrage--The War on Christsmas
Yeah, I know, it's been too long since my last post. You might think this blog is on hiatus. It's not. Of course, I've probably lost the small readership I have, but I'll just start over again. And why am I posting about Christmas in July? Maybe it's because I bought someone a Christmas present yesterday. Shh. Don't tell.
Manufactured outrage, the way in which media take something small and blow it out of proportion, or the way in which people with an ax to grind feign outrage over something, or failing that, make up something and then get outraged over it is all over the place.
The War on Christmas is to me the perfect example of this. Where is this war? Who is behind it? Oh, but it's real, look, there's even a campaign out there, "It's ok to say Merry Christmas". I was unaware it was ever not ok to say that. Though I pretty much hate Christmas, I was unaware of a war on it. Had I been aware, I would have signed right up. Not bought presents for so-called friends and family, told my daughter that Santa Claus was fake, not participate in the forced fun of Christmas festivities. Yes, I would have been on the front lines if there were such a war. I would have been a Navy Seal in the war against Christmas, had I only known.
The funniest thing about this war on Christmas bullshit is that it clearly has nothing to do with baby Jesus. When I was a kid, various religio-puritan types would prattle on about the true meaning of Christmas. On the left, they would complain about the consumerism, on the right, they would talk about keeping Christ in Christmas. The effect of this phony war on Christmas, however, is to get people to forget all that. If you're not buying crap you can't afford for other people, you're in league with the forces of political correctness or some crap like that.
Manufactured outrage, the way in which media take something small and blow it out of proportion, or the way in which people with an ax to grind feign outrage over something, or failing that, make up something and then get outraged over it is all over the place.
The War on Christmas is to me the perfect example of this. Where is this war? Who is behind it? Oh, but it's real, look, there's even a campaign out there, "It's ok to say Merry Christmas". I was unaware it was ever not ok to say that. Though I pretty much hate Christmas, I was unaware of a war on it. Had I been aware, I would have signed right up. Not bought presents for so-called friends and family, told my daughter that Santa Claus was fake, not participate in the forced fun of Christmas festivities. Yes, I would have been on the front lines if there were such a war. I would have been a Navy Seal in the war against Christmas, had I only known.
The funniest thing about this war on Christmas bullshit is that it clearly has nothing to do with baby Jesus. When I was a kid, various religio-puritan types would prattle on about the true meaning of Christmas. On the left, they would complain about the consumerism, on the right, they would talk about keeping Christ in Christmas. The effect of this phony war on Christmas, however, is to get people to forget all that. If you're not buying crap you can't afford for other people, you're in league with the forces of political correctness or some crap like that.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
No new posts?
Well, I haven't been posting. I was visiting family, and I got back to Arkansas about a week ago, and since then, well, I haven't done all that much.
The Presidential election is in its especially pointless phase. I have no views on VP selections, or on flag lapel pins, ore anything else going on.
I'm going to start reading Hayek soon. Maybe that will be worth a blog entry or two.
I will say I've been listening to some 20th century classical music, which I'm enjoying. Stravinsky and Reich. Tomorrow, it's Schoenberg. But I don't really know enough about that to blog about it, other than to recommend taking some time and listening to some great music carefully if you're interesting in something new and interesting.
The Presidential election is in its especially pointless phase. I have no views on VP selections, or on flag lapel pins, ore anything else going on.
I'm going to start reading Hayek soon. Maybe that will be worth a blog entry or two.
I will say I've been listening to some 20th century classical music, which I'm enjoying. Stravinsky and Reich. Tomorrow, it's Schoenberg. But I don't really know enough about that to blog about it, other than to recommend taking some time and listening to some great music carefully if you're interesting in something new and interesting.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Cosmpolitans v. Populists, 2008 Election
A few posts back, I proposed a new way of understanding the fundamental cleavages in American politics, and that we were moving away from the convenctional liberal/conservative splite to something I describe as a cosmopolitan/populist split.
Like any characterization, it will obscure much that is important--you will find for instance, environmnetalists and anti-environmentalists in both camps. And social issues confound things even more. However, the issue is whether the simplification helps understand something that is really happening. And I want to suggest that at this time, my characterization is at least as useful as the old liberal/conservative characterization.
If we look at 2008, we might find some interesting ways the cosmopolitan/populist can help us understand the Presidential election.
In terms of issues, we have a fully committed cosmopolitan in the person of John McCain. On just about every issue, he stands for more integration of the United States with the rest of the world. Indeed, his troubles in some conservative quarters have a lot more to do with his cosmopolitanism than any so-called liberalism. His position on immigration is the most obvious example. But he is also committed to free trade. We see it in his background as well--he was born on a US installation in Panama.
Obama, by contrast, presents a less clear picture. In terms of style, and certainly in terms of his background, he's more cosmpolitan than McCain. His appeal has been to cosmopolitans, and he's struggled mightily to appeal to populists. The whole clinging to guns and religion dust up shows that he does not understand who the populists are, and it might show that he does not take them seriously. Yet he's a declared skeptic regarding free trade. And the Rev. Wright is clearly a populist as well, though of a different sort. If he can find a way of using that kind of rhetoric--championing those who feel left out--in a broad, post racial way, he'll be very tough to beat. If he can somehow manage to articulate populist anger, he'll win. But it will be tough. Bill Clinton was a master, but no other Democrat not named Clinton has ever managed to be persuasive.
Clinton was the populist candidate. Her defeat was in no way however a defeat of populism. Indeed, what we'll see is two candidates working hard to capture the populist vote. At this point, McCain sounds the more convincing populist, but it remains to be seen if he can continue to do so.
I think it will be tough. We're not seeing any tangible benefits from Iraq. And, in many ways, Democrats have more experience managing this kind of problem than the Republicans do. McCain's speech today championing small business and criticizing big business in the context of his economic policies probably won't convince many populists that he understands their issues. And in the end, McCain's style is that of a cosmopolitan. His military background may address an important element of American anxiety, but if the economy remains troubled over the summer, and he remains committed to maintaining current troop strength in Iraq, much of that will erode. Especially if Obama is able to address the anxiety felt by many Americans and give them reason to hope.
Like any characterization, it will obscure much that is important--you will find for instance, environmnetalists and anti-environmentalists in both camps. And social issues confound things even more. However, the issue is whether the simplification helps understand something that is really happening. And I want to suggest that at this time, my characterization is at least as useful as the old liberal/conservative characterization.
If we look at 2008, we might find some interesting ways the cosmopolitan/populist can help us understand the Presidential election.
In terms of issues, we have a fully committed cosmopolitan in the person of John McCain. On just about every issue, he stands for more integration of the United States with the rest of the world. Indeed, his troubles in some conservative quarters have a lot more to do with his cosmopolitanism than any so-called liberalism. His position on immigration is the most obvious example. But he is also committed to free trade. We see it in his background as well--he was born on a US installation in Panama.
Obama, by contrast, presents a less clear picture. In terms of style, and certainly in terms of his background, he's more cosmpolitan than McCain. His appeal has been to cosmopolitans, and he's struggled mightily to appeal to populists. The whole clinging to guns and religion dust up shows that he does not understand who the populists are, and it might show that he does not take them seriously. Yet he's a declared skeptic regarding free trade. And the Rev. Wright is clearly a populist as well, though of a different sort. If he can find a way of using that kind of rhetoric--championing those who feel left out--in a broad, post racial way, he'll be very tough to beat. If he can somehow manage to articulate populist anger, he'll win. But it will be tough. Bill Clinton was a master, but no other Democrat not named Clinton has ever managed to be persuasive.
Clinton was the populist candidate. Her defeat was in no way however a defeat of populism. Indeed, what we'll see is two candidates working hard to capture the populist vote. At this point, McCain sounds the more convincing populist, but it remains to be seen if he can continue to do so.
I think it will be tough. We're not seeing any tangible benefits from Iraq. And, in many ways, Democrats have more experience managing this kind of problem than the Republicans do. McCain's speech today championing small business and criticizing big business in the context of his economic policies probably won't convince many populists that he understands their issues. And in the end, McCain's style is that of a cosmopolitan. His military background may address an important element of American anxiety, but if the economy remains troubled over the summer, and he remains committed to maintaining current troop strength in Iraq, much of that will erode. Especially if Obama is able to address the anxiety felt by many Americans and give them reason to hope.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Road Trip!
Yes, travel is more expensive than it used to be. Nevermind that. The family is taking its annual pilgrimage to visit family in NJ. And, we believe that the car trip is a time honored tradition every family owes to its children. So, we'll leave early tomorrow. Planned departure time is 6:30, but realistically we'll be on the road about 7.
We'll go through Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, a bit in W. Virginia and Maryland, Pennsylvania, to NJ. We're going to my 20th college reunion in Pennsylvania on the way. We'll take two days to get to the reunion, enjoying picnic lunches and cheap motels on the way.
I can hardly wait. I'll gas up before we go, and while that won't be cheap, it's just part of the deal.
Bon Voyage!
We'll go through Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, a bit in W. Virginia and Maryland, Pennsylvania, to NJ. We're going to my 20th college reunion in Pennsylvania on the way. We'll take two days to get to the reunion, enjoying picnic lunches and cheap motels on the way.
I can hardly wait. I'll gas up before we go, and while that won't be cheap, it's just part of the deal.
Bon Voyage!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
