The WSJ Starts the Whining

Immediately upon the Democrats taking over power today, the Reliable Republican News Corps has come out swinging. Apparently, Democrats are supposed to be bipartisan and "debate" bills in the House and Senate now that they have power. It is almost too obviously ironic that as soon as Republicans lose power, their media cronies begin bitching about how the other side should be accommodating and nice to the now-Minority party, accommodations not granted to Democrats during the period of time Republicans have controlled the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court (though the last is admittedly d irrelevant to legislation except in an indirect sense).

How lovely. I could not make this up if I tried -- the WSJ is a parody of itself, and so whiny...

Modifying the Framework, Amd. I

In response to a criticism by e-mail, the framework ought to be revised. In brief, the concept of "neutral among belief systems" is specious and vague both normatively and positively. But primarily it is just redundant.

Furthermore, on reflection I think that these vague outlines in this Framework get to the heart of the "values" and objectives of Modern American Liberals (MALs) but do not induce serious disagreements from all Modern American Conservatives (MACs). Rather, on at least some counts, MACs will disagree with the methodological wisdom and efficacy of how the MALs may choose to implement these goals, even if the goals themselves are not disputed. But that is not the case for all matters -- particularly the social safety net (I.c.) which MACs typically reject as conflicting with Individual autonomy (I.a.) because the taxation and redistribution necessary to achieve the safety net must reduce individual autonomy and freedom of action.

New Framework:

ModAmLiberalism
I. Human dignity and autonomy
a. All human beings of any color, creed, lifestyle, etc. are
ultimately "ends" in any system of governance.
b. Fairness of opportunity is more important than "leveling" or pure equality.
c. Safety Net (a bare minimum of food, healthcare, education and housing for everyone, most especially for children)

II. Open Society / Govt. Rationality
a. Government must justify coercion with rational, fallible explanations / justifications that are non-sectarian.
b. Transparency of "public" actions (by Government or large
corporations that may as well be part of the "system" of governance
due to their power, authority, and favored status)

III. Scientific Rationalism
a. The idea that science's assumption of fallibility comports more
with the above goals than sectarian government does. An assumption of privileging claims that can be falsified over claims that cannot (most religious claims) in terms of explaining government policies.
b. Self-analysis, self-criticism, metacognition as being necessary for
a working and accountable system of Democratic self-government. Hence a commitment to a very high level of freedom of speech and association, and of course THOUGHT.

* We have to ask now, if the social safety net concept (I.c.) is not more of a policy implementing equality of opportunity than it is a fundamental commitment.

Terror in England

Although this blog is principly an ahistorical one in that it eschews most commentary on current events, that probably will change. Not for any reason other than that current events put philosophic and political ideas into perspective, and denying perspective is the first step towards divorcing oneself from the world (pace Nietzsche).

The terrorist attacks on London's mass transit system occurred yesterday, as pretty much everyone has heard by now. These attacks wouldn't be such an important thing, except that they occurred in a country that is not at war internally, is relatively wealthy, and the attacks targeted civilians qua civilians, not military personnel, government officials, or strategic sites. No, the attacks were purely about inciting terror and convincing Londoners to give up their "meddling" in Iraq and elsewhere, presumably.

I say presumably because it is unclear whether the attackers -- whoever they are -- actually have any rational goals. It is clear that the diffuse, decentralized phenomena of worldwide terrorism presents a problem which purely democratic thinking cannot resolve. These are people who cannot or will not appear in the public sphere to debate their points of disagreement rationally, and attempt to persuade their fellow persons to their point of view. These are people whose most convincing arguments involve economic hegemony by the West over the poor peoples of the Middle East -- and yet they would institute tyrannical governments without any civil liberties. Which is as if to suggest that economic freedom would be worth anything without political or civil rights -- an idea most Westerners would laugh at, and rightfully so. Furthermore, it is unclear why attacking relatively powerless civilians in prosperous nations that purportedly exercise said 'hegemony' will bring about the ending of Western domination in the Middle East and the muslim world. But maybe it is clear: maybe the civilians killed in London are not powerless, and the progenitors of fear realize this; maybe it is precisely because those citizens can vote and cajole and lobby and contribute and argue and have free speech; perhaps that is why they were slain. In a capitalist democracy, despite the overwhelming evidence of class, racial bias, and centralized power in the wealthy class, there is still a fair amount of political power that can be exercised by an individual adult. So by attacking the electorate, perhaps these people are attacking the leaders themselves -- but that may be a stretch of democratic theorizing.

In any case, I am not one of those who will play the "numbers comparison" game and write-off the attacks on London as just run-of-the-mill terrorism. To say, as some do even now, that "oh, why care about those rich Britons when there are people starving around the globe" is to dissemble before your own morality. If one should care about freedom and equality and the basic provision of food, shelter, healthcare, and services to all peoples of the world, then one should also care about FDR's much maligned "freedom from fear" -- one should also be concerned wherever an attack like this occurs in a nation at peace, because it is an unwarranted breach of peace by rogue anti-public forces. Remember always that the people who attacked New York, Madrid, and London are vehemently against the Open Society, against the participation of the public in a deliberative process, against antihierarchical aspirations -- all elements of the previously-posted Modern American Liberalism framework. To defend that part of the framework is to defend the whole, and to realize that wherever liberal ideals are challenged by irrational violence, one should mourn that challenge and rise to combat it.

Which is to say, in short, that the poor in the third-world won't get any closer to realizing those same goals (see Framework) if the first-world nations contract their realization and aspiration of those goals (e.g. instituting a stronger PATRIOT Act, closing up immigration, increasing the scope of the police state generally). But these terrorists, of course, don't believe in those goals, and that is precisely why they should be given as little political and social power as possible. We have a right to discriminate against those who discriminate, and we have a right to deny participation to those who are anti-participation. Or to quote Karl Popper:

"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."

Modern American Liberalism: A Framework

Below is a framework worked out by G and Vanity relating to the modern phenomena of American Liberalism, which is called or charicatured as many different things. It draws substantial insight into how a society and government should work from socialist reformers, democratic theorists, progressives, and has been informed and refined in response to conservative critiques and information gained from studying the functions of the European super-States.

This is meant to be a narrowly conceptual framework, and thus will not go into the details of policies, which of course are not agreed-upon by ModAmLibs to a degree where they could be characterized. Rather, the philosophical and ideological bases are presented here for easy reference and criticism. Later we can explore some of the underlying assumptions behind this framework, such as the assumption that human beings and their characters are generally dynamic and malleable, as opposed to fixed, static, and resistant to change, as conservatives have traditionally held.

ModAmLiberalism
I. Human dignity and autonomy
a. All human beings of any color, creed, lifestyle, etc. are
ultimately "ends" in any system of governance.
b. Fairness of opportunity is more important than "leveling" or pure equality.
c. Safety Net (a bare minimum of food, healthcare, education and housing for everyone, most especially for children)

II. Open Society / Govt. Rationality
a. Government must justify coercion with rational explanations / justifications.
b. Justifications must be non-sectarian, neutral as among belief systems
c. Transparency of "public" actions (by Government or large
corporations that may as well be part of the "system" of governance
due to their power, authority, and favored status)

III. Scientific Rationalism
a. The idea that science's assumption of fallibility comports more
with the above goals than sectarian government does.
b. Self-analysis, self-criticism, metacognition as being necessary for
a working and accountable system of Democratic self-government. Hence a commitment to a very high level of freedom of speech and association, and of course THOUGHT.

Friedman's Folly

Thomas Friedman brings certain immovable conceptual objects (ICO) to any consideration of geopolitical economics:

1. A naïve and shallow examination of globalization
2. Childlike optimism
3. A lack of moral consideration

There are more. However, these are the ones I find most prominent in his editorials for the New York Times. Like an astronomer studying interstellar gas by its effects on the light from distant stars, we can see how Friedman’s conceptual proclivities intervene between the subjects of his editorials and his readership to produce a unique (to say the least) view of the world.

His recent editorial brings together no votes on the EU constitution and globalization illuminating ICO number one. He approaches globalization in an almost Hegelian manner, with a sense of inevitability. He then implicitly rationalizes globalization’s effects based upon this inevitability, never stopping to consider whether that over which it steam rolls should actually be plowed under. His cursory dismissal of Western Europe’s social safety net is a prime example of this.

ICO number two allows him such neat rhetorical tricks as callously dismissing the plight of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of human beings, as in:

Sure, a huge portion of India still lives in wretched slums or villages, but. . .

With this amazing ability Thomas Friedman can also completely discount the social welfare accomplishments of Western Europe. He can compare the state of a semi-third world nation—e.g. India—to that of a group of thoroughly industrialized nations with universal healthcare, rock bottom infant mortality rates, longer life expectancy and a host of other extremely high indicators of social wellbeing and come to the patronizing conclusion that:

Yes, this is a bad time for France and friends to lose their appetite for hard work - just when India, China and Poland are rediscovering theirs.

Finally, with such analytical gems as:

. . . French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Good luck.

we see Friedman’s complete lack of moral consideration. There may or may not be an argument for a 35-hour work week, but he does not touch upon it. He merely argues through inevitability and ignores the issues of labor rights, quality of life and national autonomy.

But the worst thing on the whole page were the last five words on the page:

Paul Krugman is on vacation.

Indeed.

European economic performance: Playing politics with data

The great socioeconomic policy debates nowadays involve political interpretations of the vast wealth of empirical data we have on the performance of different national policies over a variety of factors.

So it is with sadness that I realize that perhaps millions of readers of both liberal and conservative persuasions will find the recent anti-European public policy articles by David Brooks and Tom Friedman in the N.Y. Times. One can only hope that I overestimate the importance of the Times and its readership, and that no one takes either of these two writers seriously anymore.

The problem is this: both writers purport to lay the underperformance of France/Germany/Italy at the feet of those countries' welfare states. Ironically, they accomplish this feat by selectively choosing those countries that have poorly-functioning welfare states, rather than actually dealing with countries that have strong welfare states -- such as Norway, Sweden, Great Britain, or the Netherlands. Confronting a comparison between the latter four countries and the United States presents a different picture for Messrs. Brooks et Friedman.

First, let us establish how the two writers define underperformance. It is defined by Brooks primarily in terms of unemployment rates and low GDP growth rates, both of which are typical of France, Germany, and Italy during the past decade. That much we'll grant. But of course Brooks is cherry-picking here. And another article will have to deal with Friedman's stunning suggestion that a 35-hour work-week is something of which the French should be ashamed.

Let's also set aside the obvious point that these are hand-picked measurements that aren't necessarily the best ones for measuring national wellbeing. Let's run with them anyway. In the four "good welfare states," what are the corresponding figures to the United States' 2004 GDP growth rate of 4.4% (Bureau of Economic Analysis) and unemployment rate of 5.4% (Bureau of Labor Statistics)? Using a few different countries than my own, Ben P. at MyDD has performed a similar analysis (so I will steal his figures where possible).

Great Britain - 3.3% GDP growth rate, 4.7% unemployment rate
Norway - 2.9% GDP growth rate, 4.5% unemployment rate
Sweden - 3.2% GDP growth rate, 5.5% unemployment rate
Netherlands - 1.4% GDP growth rate, 6.4% unemployment rate

Curious. Having a well-functioning welfare state and an active, interventionist national government must obviously increase employment and foster lower growth and competitiveness because... Orthodox conservative economic theory says so. Stop looking at the data; pay no attention to the man behind the curtain; just look into this camera-like device so we can flash your memory a few times...

This is not to say the United States has not performed extraordinarily well coming out of 9/11. At least as far as these two indicators go (w/ all the caveats attached to them) the U.S. has done quite well. But what do you know? So have the four European nations I mentioned above. Imagine that. And some of them have better employment levels, too.

Second point: Brooks wants to say, "wait! None of this matters, the 'European' standard of living is on a par with Arkansas!" Interesting, because Arkansas and continental Europe, while sharing a similar GDP/capita, have several distinct differences:

1. In continental Europe, you would receive free health care no matter who you were, and often this would be rather high-quality care, without waiting lines for simple procedures (contrary to fear-mongering by right-wing publications without any actual data, France does not have waiting lines for its world-class healthcare system).

2. In continental Europe, if you were at the 25th percentile of the income ladder, you would have far more income than a person at the 25th percentile of the Arkansas income ladder. That is because continental Europe has higher income equality, something Americans never quite seem to understand. It mean that wealth and income are more evenly divided among the people, so that there is less of a difference between those at the 25th percentile and those at the 75th percentile. This is why average GDP figure are distorting.

3. Education is much better funded, covers more subjects, and by international standards (and many studies) is probably superior to what the majority of Arkansas students would receive. Not to mention that the French or Germans would not dream of teaching their children nonsense such as "Intelligent Design theory" or whatever the propaganda ministers have decided to call it now.

4. Oh, by the way, the French live longer. Appreciably so, in fact. And they have a lower infant mortality rate, among other standard health indicators not mentioned by the NY Times pair.

Final points: If Brooks and Friedman had the cajones, they would have done some thorough research that took into account numerous other factors than we have even covered here. But they did not, and for a simple reason: their goal is political, and it is to misrepresent the relative performance of the modern European welfare state by finding the current countries that are struggling the most with what can best be described as "non-innovative" welfare states, as opposed to the countries that have found successful ways to provide their citizens with the guaranty of universal healthcare, pensions, and strong unemployment insurance (which dampens the effect of those unemployment figures, does it not?). The latter is the only fair comparison of economic systems, and even this small sketch we have provided is not adequate to encompass what a full analysis would and should consider.

Point: The New York Times deserves better.

Sidestepping consequences

The dance of the free trade arguments is hard for some to follow. On the one hand, there are numerous problems for advocates of free trade, and on the other, they show that their theories might generate greater welfare for the world -- and for individual countries. But the free traders do not often deal with the downsides of their advocacy, and they avoid it through two methods:

The "positive" and "normative" distinction: Economists advocating free trade sometimes do not want to deal with the real-life, political results of their advocacy. So they disclaim the advocacy! They say that free trade policies are the optimal policies, and they say this as a descriptive matter, not an actual policy suggestion. Of course, this is never how they actually act, but merely what they say they are doing. Most economists want nothing more than an end to trade barriers, but it is politically more convenient for them to make their claims impervious to criticism by saying that they are only describing the optimal strategy, and that politicians would have to wrestle with the actual social and political problems of implementation.

Putting economics in its own cabinet: Economics is roughly considered a "social science," though of course there are huge limits to the collection of empirical data on economics because the field involves humans -- just like sociology, psychology, and many other of these social sciences. Economists want nothing more than to be treated as a separate and distinct discipline when they advocate free trade, because then they can easily disclaim the influence their proposed decisions (e.g., "reduce trade barriers") on other areas of society. They can say, "politicians will figure out what to do, and sociologists can worry about the impact of free trade agreements. Economics just shows what is most efficient." But by pretending (again) that you are just a reporter, and not an advocate, you obscure what is going on. If economic theory does not have to take account of political, moral, and social issues, then why should we take those economic proposals that affect all of these other areas very seriously at all? Either the discipline of economics is part of a larger category of social sciences, or it is something special. If the former, free trade advocates have to directly address the issues raised in a previous post. If the latter, then we need not take their arguments seriously except where they have zero effect on any other part of our cultural, social, or political development.