I think I’m going to tentatively award the Line of the Day to David Brooks. From his New York Times column criticizing the Senate Democrats for their strategy:
When Democrats get all excited, they go into a hypnotic trance and think the entire country is the Middlebury College faculty lounge.
There are any number of wry comments in the piece. Read the whole thing. There’s also one serious observation:
The Democrats are the party that believes in government. It doesn’t do them any good to make the federal government look dysfunctional.
Fortunately, they don’t have to try. The strongest argument against technocracy is technocrats. And this:
Racially tinged conflict has been the defining feature of the Trump era. Most of the outrage has been caused by the president picking at the nation’s wounds. But by now both parties have racial identity wings, which believe that political life is inevitably a power competition between identity groups. Both parties build their coalitions by magnifying racial identity and exploiting racial difference.
But there are some of us who are uncomfortable with the whole identity-politics drill. We believe that while racism is the central stain on American history, racial conflict is not inevitable. By reducing inequalities, by integrating daily life, we can eventually make our common humanity more salient and our racial difference less so. We believe that America has already made strides in this direction and that it’s everyone’s responsibility to make racial diversity a creative spark and not a source of permanent hostility.
Although this view is roughly congruent with mine, I suspect the details are different. I think that governmental attempts to maximize welfare or economic inequality will inevitably fail. I’d rather see the emphasis on maximizing freedom.
Maximizing freedom? Okay, let’s see–a UBI, universal health care, a federal guaranteed jobs program, and what else? Let’s throw in free education too.
And regarding the shutdown, the Democrats misplayed the screw-up they were given, but it’s going to be forgotten pretty quickly. I do think that Trump is kind of stuck–Schumer is probably the person most like Trump in the Senate. They’re both catty guys and Schumer probably is able to be amused and tolerant with monomaniac NY real estate people. Trump’s a racist but he’s not going to be bitter if DACA passes and dark skinned people on television are crying and celebrating. He’ll love it–it’s all for him! As far as he understood it, the deal was good.
But Cotton and Miller represent the base and the base is going to put its fist through the television when that happens. Whatever gains they might get in return will be nullified in a second. The GOP has been dangling immigration reform in front of people who see immigrants from afar and in their dreams. Blocking chain migration is not going to change the fundamental layout of what they see or their dreams.
A federal guaranteed jobs program could potentially contribute to freedom as would reforms in at will employment. I’m not convinced about universal health care or a universal basic income. And try implementing them without serious border control. Education K-12 is already free. I’m not convinced that “free” higher education would contribute to freedom.
I would say education K-12 is not free in certain places. It’s just paid for in housing prices.
And having universal health care and a universal basic income would supply a positive in that an employee would not be dependent on a day to day basis on employment. Being stuck at a job is allegedly good for employers, but it’s allows for the worst practices to be tolerated. Basically it’s really a great thing for terrible or mediocre management.
And I honestly don’t think there are that many people who would, if they had the chance, simply chose to use a UBI to write poetry or screenplays or do nothing at all. Maybe I’m wrong, but most people want some sort of structure and routine.
“I would say education K-12 is not free in certain places. It’s just paid for in housing prices.”
Nothing is free actually, the cost will be borne somewhere.
I think a universal basic income is a terrible idea. It will kill the low end of the labor market which would have a number of bad effects and greater income inequality would be one of them.
I don’t know whether most people want structure and routine. I think most people need it but want it? If most people wanted it, I would think that there would be significantly more voluntarism among able-bodied unemployed people than there actually is.
One of the many problems is that the structure and routine that people may seek out may not be of a socially constructive nature.
“If most people wanted it, I would think that there would be significantly more voluntarism among able-bodied unemployed people than there actually is.”
A point I’ve made for years. It’s awfully easy for policy gurus to don the mantle of Robin Hood, or for recipients of aid to develop a sense of entitlement. Much more rare for people to demonstrate their sense of responsibility.