Family . . . who needs 'em?

A few days ago, I asked what it would mean to live in a culture with no family. Gabriel Rossman offers this fascinating analysis:

Who needs brothers, sisters, brother-in-laws, sister-in-laws, nieces, nephews, and cousins? It’s not as if we can’t substitute non-familial friends. There are two problems with this. First, family ties are unique in that they can’t be replaced (you can stop talking to your brother, but you can’t recruit a new brother to replace him) and this makes them very important in low trust societies. It could be that a lack of relatives could drive people to trust strangers of necessity and you’ll have a decline in corruption, or it could be that they just won’t trust anyone, transaction costs will go way up, and nothing will get done. Second, in the United States non-kin strong ties are rapidly disappearing as people are basically discussing serious issues only with their spouses and parents. While I’ve seen no evidence that this change is also occurring in low fertility countries, if it is then the “mass society” nightmare scenario of atomized individuals wasn’t wrong, just ahead of its time.

Comments

I'm convinced that people today have fewer friendships than in past generations. My father (b. 1926) was more social than most people his age, but not remarkably so, and probably had at least ten people whom he could have considered close friends. He was by no means unusual for his generation. Today, most middle-aged and younger people are lucky to have two or three close friends.

Posted by Peter | October 17, 2007 9:49 AM

Social ties are loosening and lessening because more of us work alone, and more of us can entertain ourselves without involving outsiders (Can you say television and internet?).

I actually think that as families get smaller, we might see a reemergence of outside social interactions, but they may take different forms than in the past (Second Life rather than bowling leagues, for example). However, we will lose something vitally important as our family relations reach their minimums- blood really is thicker than water.

Posted by Yancey Ward | October 17, 2007 10:29 AM

I come from a small family that's always been geographically dispersed. I do value my remote family's opinions, but often they have little understanding of the context of where and how I live. It's just the way it is in a mobile society. I think this has made me more willing and able to seek and keep good friends which often continue when they become (inevitably) long-distance bonds as well.
I think this has also made me more aware of where U.S. society might also be lacking in this regard. I travelled a lot throughout Europe and I'm always amazed at how well familial and non-familial bonds are holding up there in the face of the same trends occurring here.
In London, which has really become the equal of New York as a financial center, my good friends encompass many people of varied backgrounds, and, remarkably, none of them have a UK passport. Their future mobility has been no hindrance to establishing long-term bonds which has opened up many doors throughout Europe. Frankly, I can't say that my friends here, as good as some of them are, have really opened up anything new for me professionally.

Posted by Michael W | October 17, 2007 11:11 AM

Second, in the United States non-kin strong ties are rapidly disappearing as people are basically discussing serious issues only with their spouses and parents.

This sounds suspiciously like a wild generalization from personal experience.

Posted by asg | October 17, 2007 11:33 AM

ASG - Perhaps, but there's lots more evidence that suggests that we don't have the same reliance on familial ties as we had 20, 30, and especially 50 years ago. Mobility and education account for much of that loosening, but what does it mean for economies with low-trust of family outsiders as this trend comes upon them?

Posted by Michael W | October 17, 2007 11:45 AM

asg,

Actually it's based on analysis of several thousand cases from one of the most respected surveys in social science. It didn't come through in this post, but in the original post on orgtheory I provided a non-gated link to this journal article:
McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, Matthew Brashears. 2006. "Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades." American Sociological Review 71:353-375.

Posted by Gabriel | October 17, 2007 11:46 AM

Gabriel: I thought about the same issue that asg raised, and my problem is that it is enunciated somewhat vaguely.
When I hear "low trust society" I immediately think of the Arab world where kin is everything and you pretty much assume all people outside your clan are out to get you. In higher trust societies, where sober people are comfortable with total strangers in an airport bar, adults are having less friends because of many reasons, one of them is that raising children has become incredibly time consuming in just these last 40 years. And the geo-sociology of suburbia encourages and reinforces many of said trends.

Posted by Sandro | October 17, 2007 12:38 PM

Sandro,

Good questions. I'm not an expert on trust (I mostly study diffusion) but my understanding is that in practice it's based on survey questions in the World Values Survey. On the issue of space and child-rearing, the McPherson team didn't look at this but I believe that these variables are in the GSS data so it should be possible to test it.

Posted by Gabriel | October 17, 2007 1:34 PM

Among apes - it is only among bonobos that sons and daughters build a life-long bond with mothers. Otherwise all cooperation is based on friendship (the highest good if one is to trust the Ancient Greeks).

If we were wolves - kinship would be almost everything. But we are not. We are apes and hence the tribe is everything. Given modern times (and especially given our population growth) this faces us with a big challenge in itself. We cannot afford to compete with every other tripe anymore and we cannot afford to think only 1 generation in advance. E O Wilson:

The human species is, in a word, an environmental abnormality. It is possible that intelligence in the wrong kind of species was foreordained to be a fatal combination for the biosphere. Perhaps a law of evolution is that intelligence usually extinguishes itself. This admittedly dour scenario is based on what can be termed the juggernaut theory of human nature, which holds that people are programmed by their genetic heritage to be so selfish, that a sense of global responsibility will come too late.

Individuals place themselves first, family second, tribe third and the rest of the world a distant fourth. Their genes also predispose them to plan ahead for one or two generations at most. They fret over the petty problems and conflicts of their daily lives and respond swiftly and often ferociously to slight challenges to their status and tribal security.

But oddly, as psychologists have discovered, people also tend to underestimate both the likelihood and impact of such natural disasters as major earthquakes and great storms.

The reason for this myopic fog, evolutionary biologists contend, is that it was actually advantageous during all but the last few millennia of the two million years of existence of the genus Homo. The brain evolved into its present form during this long stretch of evolutionary time, during which people existed in small, preliterate hunter-gatherer bands. Life was precarious and short. A premium was placed on close attention to the near future and early reproduction, and little else.

Disasters of a magnitude that occur only once every few centuries were forgotten or transmuted into myth. So today the mind still works comfortably backward and forward for only a few years, spanning a period not exceeding one or two generations. Those in past ages whose genes inclined them to short-term thinking lived longer and had more children than those who did not.

Prophets never enjoyed a Darwinian edge. The rules have recently changed, however. Global crises are rising within the life span of the generation now coming of age, a foreshortening that may explain why young people express more concern about the environment than do their elders. The time scale has contracted because of the exponential growth in both the human population and technologies impacting the environment.

Exponential growth is basically the same as the increase of wealth by compound interest. The larger the population, the faster the growth; the faster the growth, the sooner the population becomes still larger.

With people everywhere seeking a better quality of life, the search for resources is expanding even faster than the population. The demand is being met by an increase in scientific knowledge, which doubles every 10 to 15 years. It is accelerated further by a parallel rise in environment-devouring technology. Because Earth is finite in many resources that determine the quality of life – including arable soil, nutrients, fresh water and space for natural ecosystems – doubling of consumption at constant time intervals can bring disaster with shocking suddenness. Even when a non-renewable resource has been only half used, it is still only one interval away from the end.

Ecologists like to make this point with the French riddle of the lily pond. At first there is only one lily pad in the pond, but the next day there are two, and thereafter each of its descendants doubles. The pond completely fills with lily pads in 30 days.

When is the pond exactly half full? Answer: on the 29th day.

One promising development among all social animals is that when children, especially females, reach puberty - a natural urge develops to leave the tribe behind in order to avoid incest (inbreeding or as we call it in pets and among Nazis: purebreds)

This means that we have, what Einstein hopes for, hidden inside us. We need strangers, foreigners and aliens in order to grow stronger genetically in the long run. From the New York Post, 28 November 1972:

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.

The best thing one can do to facilitate one's connection with the rest of the world is not to go out and help others in need but to simply stop and limit consumption habits that destroy the future for everybody. Helping Indians with malaria is honorable - but stopping to destroy the only life-support-system we have, imo, is much wiser?

In one case - we eat from the Tree of Knowledge and decide who should receive our help. In the other - we do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge and do not help but also do not break any natural laws. Which approach is more sustainable and allows for less wishful, virtual, metaphysical thinking? It should not be an either or in theory - but today it is - and one side always wins.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 17, 2007 2:37 PM

The best thing one can do to facilitate one's connection with the rest of the world is not to go out and help others in need but to simply stop and limit consumption habits that destroy the future for everybody.

But if you are entirely self-regarding, focused only on your own consumption, how can you consider that any kind of "connection with the rest of the world?" You've just defined your entire world as yourself!

This is why Republican/conservative rugged individualism and social Darwinism is so repugnant to liberals. By focusing so narrowly on me and what I"ve got and who's infringing on my space, because as a rugged individualist that's how I maximize my happiness, I necessarily completely discount you and what you've got and who's infringing on your space. Why should I care about you? In my view, you're a fool if you don't try to screw me over (as a rugged individual yourself, it's your duty); that being the case, knowing that you're as much out to take my stuff as I am to take yours, my best course is to get there first. Get mine, then do everything in my power to keep it (and increase it).

That way lies horror (QED). You cannot develop any sense of "connection with the rest of the world" without empathy and understanding of the situation the rest of the world faces. One way you do that is to learn about the malaria problems of India and the damage we are doing to our ecosphere. If you are not a sociopath and have any sense of ethics and morality, this knowledge will stir awareness of the world beyond yourself.

To try to tie this back to Megan's post, Yancey (who I rarely agree with) makes a great point. In the past it was through dealing with extended families that this awareness of others was primarily awakened. Being family and tribe-centric wasn't so problematic when those groups encompassed large numbers of people; taking into account and maximizing the well-being of dozens is quite a different conceptual level than maximizing the well-being of three or four. I differ with conservatives on the means to "solve" this problem; simply banning abortion will not magically result in larger families and a resurgence of "family values." But I think it is true that we have not yet found an adequate substitute for the social awareness engendered by being part of a large, close family. Maybe blogs might fill part of that function.

Posted by liberalrob | October 17, 2007 4:13 PM

The uniquely successful society that we have created by empowering individuals does not imply that all Americans belong to the "me" generation!

The magical irony of capitalism is that it turns the incredible energy of the "me" to the benefit of the "we".

Clearly, one of the hallmarks of "civilization" is the amount of trust one can place in a stranger. In most places in the US, the assumption is that passersby will not harm you, that merchants will not cheat you, that the police don't need a bribe, even when you're traveling. Generally, over our history, this level of trust has increased. Consider the perceived risks with entering a random diner during the '30s versus today's fast food chains. It may not be great food, but your expectations are generally met.

The Internet brings us into contact with a much wider circle, many of whom live in low-no trust environments, and bring that worldview with them. The level of trust online has to be about zero, because the circle is so big.

Blood ties seem fated to continue to wane in number and importance, while it seems reasonable that offline and perhaps eventually onine ties may strengthen. Certainly, to the extent that you can become familiar with those in your online world, trust can grow.

Posted by Larry | October 17, 2007 4:55 PM

liberalrop

But if you are entirely self-regarding, focused only on your own consumption, how can you consider that any kind of "connection with the rest of the world?" You've just defined your entire world as yourself!

I meant: "think globally - act locally"
That is all!

Eg.

In this particular case - Africa suffers tremendously under the Common Agricultural Agreement of the EU (farm subsidies). Africa remains poor because and has less incentive to open up economically and hence politically. Malaria catches on because of that. It would be easier to open markets and to make them transparent at home before advocating open markets abroad? Or what can YOU, liberalrob, do to help children in Zimbabwe? You can write angry letters to the embassy and tell your congressman to educate Zimbabwe on the benefits of a free society but what else if not control you own turf? Consumption? Is that not more worth as a sign of true empathy than the letters alone?

And regarding growing the family - I am not certain that with 6 billion people on the planet we should consider this before we consider how to feed them? We are not hoarding - are we?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 18, 2007 12:09 AM

Basically, the low fertility people get pushed aside by other ethnic groups with strong kin networks.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 18, 2007 7:18 AM

Steve

...low fertility people get pushed aside by other ethnic groups with strong kin networks.

who gets "pushed" aside by whom and how? this sounds spooky?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 18, 2007 10:59 AM

You can write angry letters to the embassy and tell your congressman to educate Zimbabwe on the benefits of a free society but what else if not control you own turf? Consumption? Is that not more worth as a sign of true empathy than the letters alone?

No. My reducing my own consumption does absolutely nothing (at best the effect would be vanishingly small) for the children of Zimbabwe. However my angry letters to my Congressman might (indeed, should) raise his awareness that the children of Zimbabwe are a concern of his constituents, and as a result he might introduce legislation giving educational aid to Zimbabwe. He would do this because if nothing else he wants me to vote for his re-election. That's the theory underlying the American system of government.

The conservative view would be that the children of Zimbabwe are the responsibility of the parents of Zimbabwe; if they are ignorant and backward it is because they have chosen to remain that way instead of embracing our example, which is freely available for them to emulate if they so chose. It is not our responsibility to educate the children of Zimbabwe; and some would even say that there is nothing wrong with exploiting their poverty and desperation for our own benefit.

who gets "pushed" aside by whom and how? this sounds spooky?

Sailer's referring to the racist concept that brown/poor people with their higher birthrates and larger families will take over the culture from white/rich people unless we get busy boinking. It's logical, but racist in that it implies that the new majority would be undesirable.

Posted by liberalrob | October 18, 2007 1:25 PM

And regarding growing the family - I am not certain that with 6 billion people on the planet we should consider this before we consider how to feed them? We are not hoarding - are we?

Not strictly in the sense PETA means. "Hoarding" in their definition is keeping large numbers of animals out of vanity (and not being concerned with their health). Advocates for large families are generally motivated either by Sailer's racist breeding theories or by the desire to maintain the tradition of the large family that came from the pre-industrial agricultural culture (and also from the Judeo-Christian religious imperative to "be fruitful and multiply"). It is somewhat like animal hoarding if you think about it objectively (and certainly the Republican attitude of rugged individualism and social Darwinism makes their advocation of large families fit the PETA definition even more closely) but not as extremely psychopathic.

Posted by liberalrob | October 18, 2007 1:39 PM

liberalrob

before we continue our discussion I'd like to clear up some terminology that confuses me. In many posts (to me) - you include something like:

"This is why Republican/conservative rugged individualism and social Darwinism is so repugnant to liberals."

or

The conservative view would be that the children of Zimbabwe are the responsibility of the parents of Zimbabwe;..

or

..certainly the Republican attitude of rugged individualism and social Darwinism..

I am never sure who you address with those claims? I am also not sure if many of those claims are true? Hell, I am not certain at all what a Republican or Democrat stands for? I thought that they are just clowns - and the one who looks less fake and somewhat more real wins? But I never would have suspected that there are some hidden ideologies behind the 2 camps? With both parties I cannot see which ideologies they support? I can more precisely predict the weather and the stock market than ideologies of the politicians? Anyway - I assumed that having an ideology as a politician is prohibited by law anyway? Or how do you explain what the papers write about..?

As an open libertarian I am used to being attacked from both sides. From the right I am usually attacked for wanting to cut farm subsidies and wanting to establish free market economics (ironic - hah?).. From the left I am often attacked for my animal rights position (individual rights) etc and for wanting free markets. In fact - neither Republicans nor Democrats represent free markets or ecological thinking? Which presidential candidate promised to cut/change the farm bill????

But I do not see how your claim about the linkage between Darwinism and the Republicans holds true? Are they not overly religious? I have yet to meet one who actually read or understood Darwin (I also doubt that any democratic politician has read and understood Darwin)? Maybe Clinton could quickly look him up on wikipedia and then integrate some of it into a speech that she learns by heart?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 18, 2007 3:09 PM

No. My reducing my own consumption does absolutely nothing (at best the effect would be vanishingly small) for the children of Zimbabwe. However my angry letters to my Congressman might (indeed, should) raise his awareness that the children of Zimbabwe are a concern of his constituents, and as a result he might introduce legislation giving educational aid to Zimbabwe. He would do this because if nothing else he wants me to vote for his re-election. That's the theory underlying the American system of government.

Do you understand my point that simple math dictates that unless you reduce your emissions and animal products - we would require two more earths? There is no getting richer for Africans unless we change too... I am for BOTH - are you?

It is btw funny that most people who are actively helping African children with money time and other resources from the West are also the ones who claim that we should reduce our ecological footprint in order to help future generations. Most who complain that we should either help only children at home or only those abroad usually help nobody! (Like the argument with animal rights - why do you not help humans? Excuse me - that question is at the root of all human problems??)

BTW - I read this great quote from Joe Montana today (who has heart problems as most American who eat what they eat).

Thirteen years after retirement Montana says he feels good... because he's taking care of himself. He's even eating foods that never touched his plate during his meat and potatoes playing days.

"I would never have ordered a veggie burger before, but I just love a good veggie burger now," he says. "It's strange how your tastes change when you put your mind to it."

Great, isn't it? If Joe Montana can change from meat to veggies - so can we. Save our grace, safe our children - enjoy yourself in the process! Clint Eastwood for president - I keep saying it!

PS: Glad you got my point regarding hoarding ;-)

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 18, 2007 3:12 PM

I am never sure who you address with those claims?

I am addressing the reader, whether that be you (who inspired my response) or whoever is following the thread. My intent is to educate you on these concepts, with the hope of pointing out to you why I think you (and others) are (or would be) mistaken to hold them.

I am also not sure if many of those claims are true?

Unfortunately I can't do much to help you there, as I am a biased observer. :-)

I am not certain at all what a Republican or Democrat stands for? I thought that they are just clowns - and the one who looks less fake and somewhat more real wins?

Then how do you explain our past two elections? The fake clown got elected both times.

There is no precise, definitive definition of what is a "Republican" and what is a "Democrat." There are only a collection of tendencies to support one or another approach towards government. The Republican of today tends to believe in free-market, laissez-faire capitalism, explicit regulation of aspects of individual choice in accordance with Judeo-Christian religious tradition (in both public and private behavior), foreign policy that emphasizes military strength as a basis for negotiations, and domestic policy that emphasizes personal responsibility as opposed to government assistance. Democrats tend to believe in government regulation of capitalism to control its negative effects, regulation of public behavior based on Enlightenment values rather than religious ones (and minimal intrusion into private lives), foreign policy emphasizing diplomacy rather than military saber-rattling, and an expansive social safety net for those who fall on hard times. Of course these are only a few highlights (and I'm sure Republicans have a different view).

Anyway - I assumed that having an ideology as a politician is prohibited by law anyway?

I assume you are joking. Everyone has an ideology, even if that ideology is apathy. Politicians are no different. They may vary in the degree of venality in their ideology (how much of their positions are what they actually believe versus what they just say they believe so they can get elected) but they do have one.

But I do not see how your claim about the linkage between Darwinism and the Republicans holds true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

The Republican/conservative claim that government should have no (or at best tightly restricted) responsibility towards the poor and/or less fortunate of society is part and parcel of Social Darwinism and Individualism. Their position is that it is up to the individual alone to improve their station in life; as successful members of society themselves, having worked hard and/or been talented enough to achieve high status, they should not be "penalized" for their success through high taxation that "redistributes" any part of their good fortune to the lower classes. If the lower classes are poor, it is because they either have not worked hard enough or simply are not talented enough to merit achieving wealth and status. They deny virtually any possibility that barriers to achievement exist that compel the poor to be poor; and those who fall into poverty from relative comfort must simply start over again on their own resources. In this way, the most worthy and elite individuals will naturally rise to the upper strata of society; and as a corollary, the most worthy and elite individuals will be found there now. That is Social Darwinism.

Do you understand my point that simple math dictates that unless you reduce your emissions and animal products - we would require two more earths?

But simple math doesn't dictate that. If I blew my brains out tomorrow I would cease ALL emissions and use of animal products; and the effect on the global levels of emissions and animal product use would be statistically nil. In contrast, if I managed to inspire my Congressman to pass legislation controlling emissions (and that legislation became law), my effect would be quite significant. Because not only would *I* be reducing my emissions, so would the entire country. Do you now understand MY point?

Most who complain that we should either help only children at home or only those abroad usually help nobody!

Probably that's because they have some other agenda than actually helping children.

If Joe Montana can change from meat to veggies - so can we.

I tried a veggie burger a while back and it was awful. But veggie breakfast sausage patties are OK. (The Morningstar Farms ones; the Safeway store brand are hideous little cow-patties tastewise). What can I say, I like beef. I also like chicken, turkey, and fish. That's not going to change.

Posted by liberalrob | October 18, 2007 8:17 PM

Second, in the United States non-kin strong ties are rapidly disappearing as people are basically discussing serious issues only with their spouses and parents.

Are any of us part of the same nuclear family? If not, and the Rossman hypothesis is correct, then this issue isn't serious. Why are we discussing it?

Posted by michael | October 18, 2007 10:53 PM

"Are any of us part of the same nuclear family? If not, and the Rossman hypothesis is correct, then this issue isn't serious. Why are we discussing it?"

'Serious' in this case means serious personal issues: problems with spouses/significant others, doubts about the course of one's life, and other things that it takes a high level of trust to discuss freely.

Posted by Pio | October 19, 2007 2:32 AM

liberalrob

I do not have much time to reply.. but I would like to add that I like your vibe? We might not agree on some or even many issues - but I like your attitude.

PS: Nobody I know gave up beef, chicken and fish because they did not like it anymore... there are usually other reasons involved that were more important than mere taste and habit. The good thing is that we have plastic brains and that taste can change more quickly than many suppose?

Talk to you later!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 19, 2007 1:29 PM

liberalrob

I am back with a long one on donkeys vs elephants, individual vs group, clowns vs uebermensch, destination vs journey, "&" vs "vs", etc.. (weekend typing and reading yeah...)

Although I know most of the arguments you present - I do enjoy hearing your side. And although I assume that you know my arguments in advance as well - here is my side of the story.

Q: I am not certain at all what a Republican or Democrat stands for? I thought that they are just clowns - and the one who looks less fake and somewhat more real wins?
A: Then how do you explain our past two elections? The fake clown got elected both times.

First of all – my description of politicians as clowns was obviously a humorous one. I understand the value our democratic process. Politicians are by definition urged to be somewhat popular and are therefore easily labeled as entertainers. They, as all people, need to promote their calling (or lack of it), their ego and their cause. To me – being a clown is on top of it – something positive.

I think that most politicians and candidates in the US are actually good people and not all too fake. By fake I mean the God like image that was oftentimes the ideal of tyrannical worldviews such as Communism or the Nazis. Under both worldviews – showing weaknesses was regarded as a weakness. Hitler, Lenin and Stalin were all very focused on coming across to the public as an uebermensch? They practiced politics like the Germans used to play soccer (it has changed somewhat). A “no mistake” strategy. I prefer the way that Brazilians play – they make more mistakes than anybody else, get more scores against them and yet win most of their games as they also score more often than anybody else.

Being human to those tyrants was weakness but this worldview (religious/mechanical) reaches every individual. When my sister worked for a law firm in Moscow after the fall of Communism – the receptionist still sounded as if somebody was bothering her when she picked up the phone. Once I call in on a Friday afternoon – she picked up and sounded friendly and happy for the first time. I couldn’t help it and asked what the reason was for her transformation. “Oh, nothing, the partners have all left on a company trip and there is nobody here…”. What? It should be the other way around but it was not. The partners expected the receptionist to be somewhat rude in order to sound “professional”. Or at least - that is what she was expecting of them. WTF?

I personally think that Putin as a successor to Yeltsin was somewhat of a regress? Yes, Putin shows more self-restraint and hence makes Russians proud. But I prefer a Yeltsin, a Clinton and a Bush any day? It may well be that Russia needs a Putin to rid her of corruption. But together with the uebermensch comes the believe to control more than one should (not what Nietzsche had in mind anyway)?

What I liked most about Bush during his first election was in fact that he had difficulties talking. That he fought this weakness off by not taking it too seriously etc? In fact – before 9/11 – he was not taking himself very seriously and therefore I did prefer him to Gore, who somehow reminded me too much of “I know it all”. A treat that I share with him and that I do not like about myself.

But compared to other political systems around the world – American Democracy allows for the clowns to win. They all are clowns. And I like it and hope it does not change! It did change after 9/11 when Bush thought that he had to act tough. There was no margin of error and doubt and weakness and even admitting errors became unpatriotic. America had lost its religion? The polarization was not helped by the reaction of the left as it put the blame so high that admitting mistakes became the equivalent to admitting one was a Nazi?

But back to clowns – I am taking back what I said about Hillary Clinton. She is too much a of an ideological and social butterfly to my taste and I do prefer Barak but she is a good enough clown to represent the American Idea! I am actually quite happy with the range of candidates. Even hawks like Giuliani are clownish and enough compared to Putin. They all understand diversity. Even if they tried – they could not keep up an uebermensch image – Americans would not allow it.

Please bear in mind that I was a child when I reached the West. Compared to eastern dictators – Western candidates, left and right, seem like twins to me. They will fight over their differences but still hold together when it comes to the core (even if it does not feel that way during everyday business. I know that for some Americans - having the wrong guy in power seems like the end of the world sometimes. But change and new balance happens relatively quickly...).

I agree, obviously, with your neat summary regarding the current labels applied to Republicans and Democrats. But I am generally surprised that there is not enough discussion regarding how Republicans are not very Republican and Democrats not very Democrat?

The Republicans introduced the democratic farm bill. The Democrats under Clinton were pushing for a smaller government. Bill Clinton was no fan of diplomacy when he, against UN Resolution, “invaded” former Yugoslavia and put Milosevic in jail – who later died.

All democratic candidates are believers. Back in the days – I was certain that Clinton was agnostic but was emotionally intelligent enough to know that admitting this was political suicide. But I am not so sure anymore. I actually do believe that many believe in an universe beyond ours which makes me wonder why the complexity of the only one we know off for certain is not mind-boggling enough. Or why there is a tendency to think “wow – if this universe is so complex beyond comprehension – there must be something even more incomprehensible and even more complex somewhere..” What? This instills the fear in me that some humans, no matter where they are on Earth, think that we can actually know everything about this universe and therefore seek the supernatural. But this is a sad testament to the human juggernaut theory, created in the image of God and explains our blindness to environmental destruction and regarding animals.

cont...

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 20, 2007 9:00 PM

...

I think it is important to note that Republicans and Democrats differ in degree and not kind. There are no absolutes here that either side holds. There are tendencies as you describe. We also often confuse goals and approaches. I think it is wrong to claim "health care" to be the concern of the left. What we mean is that Government Health Care is the concern of the left – but not health care per se. It does not help the modern discussion that such confusion persists.

And when you talk about individual vs group effort. This is never an either or discussion between the right and the left as some people describe it. Both Republicans and Democrats believe in The Democratic Republic. This means that there will always be a government and government regulations.

It is also NEVER individual vs group. The question is rather – is it more efficient to achieve certain results by empowering the individual or the group? As a libertarian – I obviously believe that the total sum of wellbeing is most efficiently raised when we empower the individual and not the group and only then distribute.

If blacks had been recognized as human individuals – they would not have needed Civil Rights to protect the “black” group. In other words – same goals, different methods. The methods distinguish the left from the right and never the goals!

Social Darwinism by itself, btw, is not a political ideology and both parties believe in its working or do not. You cannot claim that the left believes less in gravity? It does not tell us anything about policy making. It does observe that the free and wild produces more life than the suppressed. But that does not mean that there are no laws in nature and no distribution happening. It is always dirty compared to the clean ideals of some monolithic worldviews but that is nature to us - we distinguish between weeds and crops not nature as we have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. Happily ever after may be a great goal - but how to get there...?

Oftentimes my difficulty in understanding you stems from the fact that you sound rather absolute in your labels. I know that you agree that these are only perceived tendencies but still... Eg. When you mention the Republicans it really sounds as if you claim that the majority of them do not want to help those individuals who eg really cannot afford but need health care?

The second reason why I struggle with your arguments is that I have studied economics and there one learns to forget some intuitions about “fairness”. Soon one agrees with Henry Thoreau that not what is perceived as fair is good but what is wild. The same goals of fairness can usually be achieved more efficiently – hence sustainable – with limited government intervention. Statist policies tend to have some short-term advantages at best for the group addressed but are weak compared to free market policies in the mid and long-run.

Statist policies feel intuitively fair as you see a direct hand stretching out to the victims but we have to abandon our (religious) worldview that we know how to micromanage everything (see the ecology) and really know how to do good in the long run. That is the implication of Statism – micromanagement. No trust in the people and the creation.

The biggest irony and why I claimed that ideology seems to be forbidden by law among parties is this: when it comes to economy – the Reps are for individualism. When it comes to civil liberty – the Dems are for individualism (gay, atheist). When it comes to the environment and animals – nobody is for individualism and everybody is for statism.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 20, 2007 9:10 PM

...

There is a very interesting Harvard Morality Test that determines if you tend to support individual ethics or group ethics.
http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/

E.g. You are a father of five. A crazy man takes your family hostage and claims that you can save your family if you play a game with him. If you sacrifice one of your children – he will spare the rest. If you do not kill one of your children yourself – he will kill everybody. What do you do? Etc. It is rather spooky and Harvard refuses to publish what they currently believe the findings indicate in detail. (I just tired to take the test and it seems to stop after only one question. Bug?)

But simple math doesn't dictate that. If I blew my brains out tomorrow I would cease ALL emissions and use of animal products; and the effect on the global levels of emissions and animal product use would be statistically nil. In contrast, if I managed to inspire my Congressman to pass legislation controlling emissions (and that legislation became law), my effect would be quite significant. Because not only would I be reducing my emissions, so would the entire country. Do you now understand MY point?

In other words. You will only stop to practice rape and slavery for certain if somebody convinced your government first to restrict or even prohibit it? I too believe in the democratic process but that implies that the individual counts first. Grass-roots, walking the talk first is what democracy is about. Every political system applies government pressure one way or another.

I was referring to the fact that if every individual on the planet consumed as much as you do today – we would need two more mother Earths. You are borrowing from the future right now – as are millions of others. You want the others to stop first before you consider changes? Fair enough – but I hope you are NOT a school teacher ;-) I want my kids to learn how to quite smoking by themselves and not waiting for big government to prohibit their fat asses. WTF? America is about individuals taking faith, free will and the goodness of autonomy into their own hands and then using the democratic process. Not the other way around?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 20, 2007 9:16 PM

Social Darwinism by itself, btw, is not a political ideology and both parties believe in its working or do not. You cannot claim that the left believes less in gravity? It does not tell us anything about policy making.

It absolutely does. A Social Darwinist will oppose any policy that attempts to "redistribute wealth" to those who are in need. He objects to such handouts as corruption of the work ethic; if one is poor, they should simply work harder. If they remain poor, it is either because they made a choice to do so (through poor decision-making with regards to career) or because they are simply unsuited intellectually (i.e. they are too stupid to be rich). He also sees such "redistribution" as "theft" of his own hard-won gains: let those who feel a desire to help the less-fortunate do so with their own resources, it is a violation of his property to seize it against his will for any purpose. While Republicans may deny the undercurrent of Social Darwinism in their policy positions (indeed, it is so obviously repugnant I would hardly expect them to celebrate it, though in fact some do), the fact remains that Social Darwinism is a major component of their thinking.

When you mention the Republicans it really sounds as if you claim that the majority of them do not want to help those individuals who eg really cannot afford but need health care?

If they would take the time to rationally examine the policy positions they are supporting, I think it would be clear to them that that is exactly what they are doing. They will swear up and down that they are compassionate and caring and want only what is best for all Americans; but when you get down to cases, they oppose virtually any measure proposed to accomplish any benefit for the poor. They expect the magical market fairy to somehow determine that the poor should be taken care of, when in fact it has been clear for hundreds of years that the market cares not one whit for those who have no money and therefore do not participate in it. Or they expect charitable organizations to magically shoulder the entire load, when as we can see today even with significant government support they are incapable of dealing with problems such as homelessness. In any case, what their policy boils down to is someone else taking care of the poor, not them. And that thinking is completely in line with Individualism and Social Darwinism.

Statist policies tend to have some short-term advantages at best for the group addressed but are weak compared to free market policies in the mid and long-run.

The free market has no conscience. The free market has no compassion. The free market is cold calculation, equations of supply and demand dictating winners and losers; and the losers lose utterly. Relying on the free market to establish the Good Society is, in my opinion, silly. The free market will not work toward establishing the Good Society because it has no conception of what that is. All it knows is winners and losers. If you are trying to establish the Good Society you must have compassionate treatment of losers, and the free market gives you every incentive to ensure that losers are eliminated from the equation completely. Any attempt to deal compassionately with losers is, in the eyes of the free market, inefficiency: wasted resources that instead should be committed to winners.

In other words. You will only stop to practice rape and slavery for certain if somebody convinced your government first to restrict or even prohibit it?

That is a primary thesis of Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government. Absent a duly-constituted government restraining me, there is no guarantee that I will not engage in whatever behavior my personal strength permits. If I am strong enough to overcome any other individual, who will stop me?

America is about individuals taking faith, free will and the goodness of autonomy into their own hands and then using the democratic process. Not the other way around?

That worked as long as there was a frontier to move to if things became intolerable wherever you were. Those days are gone now. The primary motivation of individuals is to take care of themselves first; and in a world of declining resources it seems only prudent to want to secure as much of those scarce resources as you can to yourself and your family, and prevent any of it from being taken away. In that environment, charity becomes a luxury less and less indulged; and with increasing emphasis on selfishness (indeed, selfishness being held up as a virtue), and no frontier to escape to, the plight of the poor becomes bleak indeed. The only compassionate solution, then, is to exact some proportion of the resources of those more successful and use it to improve the lot of the less so. There is NO OTHER WAY to achieve what we all want, a compassionate society where individual freedom is maximized while at the same time collective responsibility is not forgotten.

Posted by liberalrob | October 22, 2007 12:25 PM