Madame:
Yes,
speaking for the voiceless would be the LIBERAL stance, but it’s not precisely clear
to me that it would be the LIBERTARIAN one. Btw, your analysis of the overall situation,
and how manipulation slips another powerful tendril in, is brilliant!
The latter
part of your post made me wonder: So we become more like children in one
particular way when we get older, and are often most adult like when we DIDN’T
care so much about being “right.” Good
food for thought!
So
much is piling up in the queue, and my responses to JC’s additional questions
and comments (which I’ll do here from now on rather than the comments section)
are close to ready to go, yet all is pre-empted today because I am moved to
respond to something. Thomas Sowell has created a minor buzz
with this recent piece of his: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/09/12/depending_on_dependency
Thomas Sowell is an intelligent man, one of the
more brilliant minds in
conservatism today.
He's also open about his bias, and, like Paul
Krugman the economist on the
liberal side, it sometimes clouds or shades his
views a bit much.
This is one of those times.
On to Sowell's points, PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH:
Paragraph one is his interpretation, and he chose
that interpretation because
he wanted to make a point. First point he
goes astray on: Delegates to
conventions, although they are the most
enthusiastic, are not necessarily
representative of the larger group. But
regardless, many observers of both
conventions thought diversity and family concerns
elicited the most enthusiasm
at the Democratic one. Democrats did convey
the Biblical principle at their
convention that "we are our brother's
keeper," but Sowell's intimation about
Democrats saying that "Republicans don't want
to help the poor, the sick, and
the helpless" is misleading, as those
sentiments were directed primarily at
Republicans in positions of influence and power
(politicians, big business,
and the uber-wealthy).
Paragraph two: Correct. It should be applied
to all "sides," including his own.
Paragraphs three and four are a convoluted mixture
of assumptions and
interpretations. Sowell is falsely (and he's
smart enough to know that)
classifying people into simple
"either/or" categories, when people's views and
sentiments are usually far more mixed and complex
than that. Few people
prefer ALL economic decisions (What about
infrastructure? Defense?) to be
made solely by individuals in the market and/or by
the market itself (it
sounds good though!), and effectively none prefer
politicians to make all
those economic decisions. He's framing the
discussion, and slanting the
expectations, to get the reader to emotionally get
on the thought train he
wants to take us on. He's just more intelligent
and subtle about it than a
Sean Hannity (or even a Niall Ferguson) in doing
so. And showing difference
here is further directional because people's
beliefs and emotions divide far
more starkly on social/cultural lines than they do
on economic ones (social
liberals and economic conservatives are often one
and the same people, for
example). The larger fallacy, however, as
was discussed in my analysis of
paragraph one, is conflating the rank and file
Republicans (the 90+%) with the
power centers of the Republican party, as those
two often display different
actions (in many things).
Regarding paragraphs five and six, Lincoln, et al
(2008)'s study on religious
giving showed the great impact that religion has
on giving (although it
accounts poorly, in my opinion, for the trend that
Protestants often give more
than Catholics), and Arthur Brook's study
indicated this extends to more than
just religious giving. Religion is a far
greater determinant of giving and
volunteering (including time) than political
affiliation, as giving and
volunteering for religious conservatives and
religious liberals are virtually
identical. It is, of course, inescapable
that numbers-wise there are more
conservatives who are religious than liberals who
are religious, something to
be expected at least for the reasons that
conservatives tend to value
tradition, institutions, and organization more so
than liberals (and liberals
tend to have more and more varied interests, which
also detracts from those
liberals' time and focus). However, one must
distinguish between those who
attend church because they sincerely believe in
the principles (intrinsic
motivation) vs. those who attend church for their
own social gain (extrinsic
motivation). If someone gives in order
to--in this life or the next--receive
some reward or avoid some punishment, it's not
"charity," but Brooks would
count it as such.
Brook's 2006 study, which I can only presume that
is what Sowell is referring
to, as Sowell didn't specify, has been criticized
both for cherry-picking and
for hazy research on those who do not identify as
either liberal or
conservative (and Brooks, as president of the
long-time pro-business,
right-wing--although not as right-wing as
Heritage--think tank American
Enterprise Institute, could hardly be considered
unbiased, and furthermore,
has been categorized--fairly or unfairly--as
another child of liberal parents
who rejects his upbringing and becomes a zealous
convert for the other side).
Furthermore, no provision was made for
complexity--those who identify
themselves as socially liberal but economically
conservative, for example.
Even the "scholarly" review I read on
Brooks' book gave the hint of bias, as
it was from an employee of Baylor, which is a
private, religious university in
Texas. The review emphasized, concerning
charitable giving, selecting a few
people (like George W. Bush, a Texan) who looked
good in certain years, and
selecting a few others (Gore and Kerry) who looked
bad in certain years.
While I think Gore, and to a lesser extent Kerry,
probably deserve much of the
lambasting, the comparison is statistically
misleading, because the years of
comparison only overlapped occasionally, and were
woefully incomplete (Bush's,
for example, was compared only for a three year
period; Kerry for a five year
period). Brooks could have been more
rigorous in analysis of statistics
gathering, and his neglecting to include margin of
error in his stats is
disturbing from both an accuracy and scholarly
aspect.
In what may be one of the most important finds
from the book, the working poor
give more of a percentage of their income than the
middle and upper classes.
Of course, this will not surprise those who remember
the story of Jesus and
his disciples observing the giving at the temple.
While many gave large sums,
Jesus said the old woman who gave two small coins
gave the most, because,
unlike the others, who gave from their want, she
gave from her need. It would
also not surprise Steinbeck, who showed us in The
Grapes of Wrath that poor
people help other poor people the most.
For paragraph seven, Sowell's statistics on Reagan
and FDR are cherry-picked.
They do show what he says, albeit barely, but they
compare apples and oranges
about tax rates, as well as the years themselves
are cherry picked, both of
which make his assertions very misleading.
Sowell is basing his assertions on
Brooks, and Brooks' methodology has all sorts of
problems. For instance,
Brooks asserts that one can measure
"caring" by monetary giving of total
income, rather than of disposable income, and this
creates a number of biases,
first and foremost that this definition creates a
bias favoring relatively
rural conservatives with low rent or mortgages,
who often grow some or most of
their own food, who probably have low tax rates,
etc. and against liberals
concentrated around universities and urban areas.
As to paragraph eight, Sowell is conveniently
forgetting that the 19th
century, let alone the 18th century, was so noted
for its economic
exploitation of the masses that it spawned what
would be occasionally
wholesale revolt against a capitalism that not
only bred dramatic economic
inequality but very often bordered on economic
slavery. Marxism and Leninism
did not spring out of a vacuum. To hold that
period up as some paragon of
philanthropy is worse than rose-colored
glasses--it is the smoke of deception.
For paragraph nine: Here is where Sowell gets some
of the best support from
the Brooks' book. The working poor not only
give more of a percentage of
their income than the middle and upper classes,
but they also give more of a
percentage of their income than those on
government assistance (especially
those on longer-term government assistance), and
that lends support to
conservative contentions that too much government
assistance fosters BOTH
dependency and less generosity--a bad combination and a bad trend that needs
addressed to restore national character. However, WHY so many qualify for
assistance is, unfortunately, NOT addressed when conservatives talk about these
things.
It should also be noted that this government assistance, while it has
spiked for unemployment
assistance, job training, and other poverty
avoiding things during this
lingering structural recession, is NOT (by any
stretch) what drives large
budget spending and large deficits. As
percentages of the overall budgets,
this government assistance is minimal (unless
Medicaid and Medicare are
included). Even if you cut out ALL safety
net spending (outside of Medicaid
and Medicare), the federal deficit would still be
several hundred billion
dollars.
Paragraphs ten through thirteen: This is a
conservative fear and suspicion,
but it's one that may have some validity.
It's just that there hasn't been
enough research done on it to know if it has
validity, rather than just have
appeal to conservative emotions. The
criticism from independents, of course,
is that conservatives do not give valid alternatives
to any such dependency,
but instead merely seek to cut off avenues of
social relief-- or worse, effect
policies and actions that cause the need for
social relief in the first place.
And Sowell's ascribing of insidious motives to
both FDR and Obama--two
presidents largely left Great
Recessions/Depressions by their Republican
predecessors--is at best undemonstrated and at
worst belied by those men's
statements and actions. I get Sowell's angst
about the New Deal culture--even
agree with some of his angst--but he'll have to do
a lot better to convince me
that that angst is about a lot more than just
partisan displeasure and
plutocrat service.
Paragraphs fourteen through sixteen: The numbers
of people on food stamps and
similar assistance have been going up nearly
continuously (yet few are asking
the real question--why is there such a need?)
since the early days of the
George W. Bush administration, despite that
administration's frequent efforts
to discourage. The Obama administration
obviously no longer discourages it,
and furthermore, after receiving reports of food
hardship among increasing
numbers of Americans, sought to address it.
Once again, this arouses the
suspicion and ire of conservatives, who feel that
liberals are not only
helping their base (poor people) feel they care,
but are trying to institute
dependency, and this MAY be the case. Once
again, as in paragraphs ten
through thirteen, more evidence of reason/motive
and focus is needed. When we
have that, we can make a determination, but not
until then.
Sowell ignores cognitive dissonance and
contradiction. For instance: How many
conservatives denounce social programs, yet love
the fact their parents (and
aunts and uncles and anyone they are spared from
taking care of) get Social
Security, Medicare and Medicare drug programs?
And shouldn't it be recognized
that charitable assistance can take a form that
Brooks would not measure as
"giving" or
"volunteering"--for example, helping a friend or family member out
time-wise or monetarily-wise? More factors
that Brooks did not address:
Charitable giving may actually perpetuate (put a
temporary band aid on) a
societal ill, while progressives who seek change
are actually trying to be
more effective. Cynics would say that the
conservative view wants to maintain
the overall status quo (harsh and inequitable as
it may be), which charity can
do, while the liberal view seeks real and lasting
(but upsetting to the
traditionalists of the status quo) change.
If liberals are working
hard--spending their time, talent, and
treasure--at getting the SYSTEM to
change, this would not count in Brooks'
measurement of "giving" or
"volunteering."
Sowell stokes the fires of caustic revulsion to
ALL taxation, something
Republicans play heavily on to get people to vote
against their own economic
interests and for the economic interests of
plutocrats. It doesn't play to
this historian. The idea that people pay ALL
of their taxes unwillingly, that
they have no sense of duty and dues paying to their
community, state, and
country, is a relatively recent right-wing concept.
Sowell makes the ideological mistake--as do many
in this polarized and inward
looking society--of thinking there is only one way
to something. I might
suggest he travel a bit more to the Scandinavian
countries, where there are
democracies that generally rate highest on the
honesty scale, high on the
happiness scale, yet have socialist/capitalist
hybrid economies, pay very high
taxes, and are also very secular. There's
some cognitive dissonance for both
him and Brooks.
Sowell's and Brooks' ideological or plutocratic
crusade against the estate tax
(or, as they have called it to incite the
ignorant, the "death" tax) is more
self-serving nonsense not supported by the facts.
Three of the wealthiest men
in history--Carnegie, Gates, and Buffett--have
favored the estate tax for the
very reasons of avoiding concentration of wealth
and power in the hands of the
highly corruptible and arrogant descendant few.
The conservative crusade
against the estate tax is a red herring designed
to grab the attention of the
average person, whose descendants will likely
never be subject to even the
small percentage it starts at when the level is
reached, because the level is
so high (millions of dollars). And what
small taxes do hit at that level
come into play precisely at the moment when that
person no longer needs the
wealth (dead, after having use of the full wealth
during his or her life) AND
that person's spouse is also dead (because spouses
inherit all of their
husband's or wife's estates with no taxation).
But the most searing criticism
of Brooks on this is his claim that eliminating
the estate tax would cause
heirs to "likely give much of it away,"
for that is belied by actual
disposition of inherited wealth. Brooks
himself in his book cites statistics
that show a $20,000 inheritance generates on
average $82 in donations.
SUMMING UP:
Brooks' book, of which Sowell bases most all of
his arguments on, is FAR
better and far more scholarly than the trash put
out by the Coulters or
Limbaughs of the world. Brooks is a thinking
conservative, and open to some
demonstrations of contradictions in his data.
The author makes a case that
paying lower taxes and giving more is better than
paying higher taxes and
having the government give more. Although
the supposition is not sufficiently
examined in my opinion (the look at the Scandinavian countries is not sufficiently done),
and
might come down to just preference, it is a plausible argument, and the
author has
submitted some facts and indicators in support of his position.
Private charity IS often
better than government welfare for a number of
reasons, but the situation is
more complex than Brooks presents. And I
believe he knows it. And so does
Sowell.
Is it good to give? Yes. For both the
giver and receiver. And the society.
Do I think there are number of liberals who are
hypocrites when it comes to
what they say and what they actually do? Yes.
Does that including "giving"
and "volunteering?" Certainly. As
a note, something downplayed in the book
but there nonetheless: nonreligious conservatives
were the LEAST
giving/volunteering of ALL the groups Brooks
looked at.
Sowell could have given us his source (Brooks) in
the piece he (Sowell) wrote,
but he didn't. A cynic would say he left it
out for two reasons: 1) he
counted on the propensity of busy Americans to NOT
research or fact check
things, and furthermore, most of his intended
audiences already agreed with
him, and 2) he knew the sourcebook, now 6 years
old, has been criticized
heavily--criticisms for which Sowell has no answer.
So Sowell's piece comes down to a mixture of
truths, half-truths, biased
interpretations, and slantings. Part and
parcel of what's wrong with American
politics--and what's wrong with both parties.
For some detailed critiques of Brooks' book, of
which Sowell based nearly
everything he said, see here: http://www.facebook.com/ProfessorandHousewife?sk=notes
.jpg)
