I’ve suddenly realized what I disliked so vehemently about the NYT article I linked to yesterday. It’s that it nodded approvingly at this characterization of progressives and conservatives:
The linguist George Lakoff suggests that the political right conceives of society as a family ruled by a strict father, whereas the left thinks of it as a family guided by a nurturant parent.
It’s not just the clumsy circumlocution. I think that statements reflects an utter lack of understanding of the United States and what makes us tick. It’s confusing us with Britain or France or Germany.
Families are based on kinship ties, either ties of blood or ties of formal adoption. Being American isn’t based on kinship. It’s more like a religion, as G. K. Chesterton understood a century ago: America is the only nation founded on a creed. Rejecting that creed is like rejecting the creed of a religion. If you reject it, you’re not trying to make the religion better. You’re trying to start a different religion.
Nurturant? Really?
America is the only nation founded on a creed. Rejecting that creed is like rejecting the creed of a religion. If you reject it, you’re not trying to make the religion better. You’re trying to start a different religion.
I’m always amazed that people just don’t understand this. This should be implicit to anyone’s understanding of the nation after about sixth grade and should be explicitly understood by ninth grade.
Or a more “secular” way to look at it is this: Most countries, like France or Germany, are Nation-states. The USA, by contrast, is a political union.
@Andy
That’s a good way to state it.
You guys don’t think there is some truth to this? What about the laws banning certain kinds of foods? Removal a playground equipment for fear of injury and/or death (an exceedingly rare event when talking about death) while at the same time hand wringing about childhood obesity. Zero tolerance laws/regulations. The bans on smoking outdoors. Sex offender registries. Look at the current knotted panties about the energy drink Monster. Or how about the security kabuki at airports now?
Yeah, sure we aren’t as bad as the UK, France or Germany, but there are indeed examples that support the notion that the government is here to provide for and take care of the rest of us. Hell, you can see it with the idea that it is the government’s job to get the economy going again.
“Hell, you can see it with the idea that it is the government’s job to get the economy going again.”
This takes your argument too far. We have a system in which the economy cannot recover without government assistence. It’s simple mechanics.
What I think is that to conceive of America as a family is an error.
Ben,
Talk about taking things too far. Simple mechanics, sure.
Here is the problem Ben, nobody knows how to “get the economy going again” via a government policy. If we did, we wouldn’t be in the state we are currently in…well unless you are implying that various government officials really are truly horrible people….dammit now I’ll have to reconsider this.
Dave,
So, America is forever like it was 90 years ago? Our government has had a massive change in regards to both size and scope from when Chesterton wrote his book. Sure, that creed is still what sets America apart, but I think it is also slowly being undermined.
No but if anything we’re less of a family than we were a century ago. Without either a creed or national identity all that’s left is squabbling for advantage.
At this point I’ll remind you of the post by Barry Ritholtz that you linked to, approvingly IIRC, awhile ago about the true battle here in the U.S. is not really Right vs. Left, but collective vs. individual. Corporation vs. the person.
I’ve argued before we are moving more and more towards America; of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.
“I’ve argued before we are moving more and more towards America; of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.”
Amen. Read William Gibson or Neal Stephenson.
Steve
@Steve Verdon,
I have no particular attachment to “the state”, nor a desire to see it grow. But we have a system monetized by that state and dependent on its currency for commerce. I can see no way around this other than returning to a pre-industrialized debt-obligation/barter system hybrid. To my knowledge a commonly accepted currency has never existed without state power to enforce it.
From 1837 to 1866 the United States had a system of private currency. During this period currency was issued by banks or corporations. A number of other countries have or have had systems of private currency including the United Kingdom (I believe that private currency is legal in England now), Switzerland, and in Sweden. The Swedish system of private currency persisted successfully into the 20th century.
These systems were not “pre-industrialized debt-obligation/barter system” hybrids. The Swedish version was particularly successful—more stable than present state systems.
I’m not advocating such systems. I’m just pointing out that they have existed.
Schuler, can you recommend one or two good books on the history of he US currency system? If you can’t answer off the top of your head don’t bother looking anything up – I can do that on my own. But it’s something I’ve been meaning to look into for a while now.
I think you might mean 1837 to _1862_ was the period of free banking in America. The Legal Tender Act of 1862 created tha national greenback. There was also the National Banking Act of 1863. Basically, the Civil War and the election of a number of former Whigs, then Republicans, created or re-created a national banking system.
I’ve not read much good about the free banking period, but one shouldn’t be surprised by that.
Sadly, no. I took a banking course about 50 years ago.
Dave,
You’re missing the point. There are many private currencies today, namely the entire repo market. But those are not accepted universally, only in limited financial circles. I am unaware of any system which has privately monetized without government power behind the process.
Sadly, no. I took a banking course about 50 years ago.
You keep getting older!
But thanks anyway. I’m just gonna have to look it up on my own.
We the People …
Well, 45 years ago. 50 is such a nice, round number.
Well, 45 years ago.
You just got younger, congratulations!
50 is such a nice, round number.
Of course, such inexactitudes are a sign of diminishing capacities, so now you’re getting older again. Man, I’ve just been getting whipsawed around here lately.
Ben,
We are talking past each other.
I’m not arguing against fiat money, or that the government engage in some sort of monetary policy. What I am suggesting is that the government does not have any special insight into “getting the economy” going again and as such maybe they should stop trying so hard (and quite possibly f-cking things up–e.g. the Great Depression).