Maggie's Farm

Quoted from Crime, Drugs, Welfare - and other good news by Wehner and Levin in Commentary:

As for the social reality underlying this general feeling of decline, a number of conservative commentators, concentrating especially on the areas of crime, welfare dependency, and illegitimacy, undertook the task of quantifying and analyzing the available evidence. The most notable such effort was by William J. Bennett, who in March 1993 released a report entitled The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators.

Over the course of the preceding three decades, Bennett wrote, the United States had indeed experienced “substantial social regression.” About this, the data were unequivocal. Since 1960, there had been a more than 500-percent increase in violent crime; a more than 400-percent increase in out-of-wedlock births; almost a tripling in the percentage of children on welfare; a tripling of the teenage suicide rate; a doubling of the divorce rate; and a decline of more than 70 points in SAT scores. To Bennett, the conclusion was inescapable: “the forces of social decomposition [in America] are challenging—and in some instances overtaking—the forces of social composition.”

Just when cultural decay seemed hopeless, these things began to change. They conclude:

Culture itself, finally, exhibits an ebb and flow as surely as economies pass through cycles of ups and downs. In The Great Disruption (1999), Francis Fukuyama cited historical examples of societies undergoing periods of moral decline followed by periods of moral recovery. In our case, too, he argued, the aftermath of the cultural breakdown of the 1960’s had already triggered and was now giving way to a reassessment and recovery of social and moral norms. Such “re-norming” will not occur in every social class all at once; in some instances it may take hold in one stratum but not in another. That is partial progress, but progress nevertheless.

Despite persistent anomalies and backslidings, some species of cultural re-norming certainly seems to have been occurring in this country over the past decade-and-a-half, and it is fascinating to observe in whose hearts its effects have registered most strongly. In attitudes toward education, drugs, abortion, religion, marriage, and divorce, the current generation of teenagers and young adults appears in many respects to be more culturally conservative than its immediate predecessors. To any who may have written off American society as incorrigibly corrupt and adrift, these young people offer a powerful reminder of the boundless inner resources still at our disposal, and of our constantly surprising national resilience.

From a series of clips of Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher interviewing Friedman in 2005. More of the clips here.  h/t, MouseNaround

The government as Santa the Thief (who and what is "Santa the Thief"? We will tell you later.)

The Trouble with Limited Government, by Voegli at Claremont. One quote:

Reagan was elected president 25 years after the first issue of National Review declared its intention to "stand athwart history, yelling Stop." This was an amazing ascent for a political movement that started out, in the words of NR's first editorial, "superfluous" and "out of place." In the 25 years since Reagan's election, however, conservatives determined to scale back the welfare state might as well have been standing a respectful distance behind history, whispering "please slow down."

If conservatism has a future, those who want to fashion it need to acknowledge and understand this stunning defeat. In National Review last year Ramesh Ponnuru said the "real crisis" is that, while a conservatism whose "central mission" does not emphasize the fight against Big Government is inconceivable, a "political coalition in America capable of sustaining a majority" for that mission is unimaginable. Conservatism, in other words, can have a purpose or it can have a prospect. It cannot, apparently, have both.

This political problem will only become more acute as the challenges of governance become more severe. One yardstick may help conservatives feel a little better about themselves. In 1981 federal spending was 22.2% of GDP; last year it was 20.3%. This measure hovered in a very narrow band for the whole era, never exceeding 23.5% or falling below 18.4%. Adding expenditures by states and localities confirms the picture of a rugby match between liberals and conservatives that is one interminable scrum in the middle of the field. Spending by all levels of government in America amounted to 31.6% of GDP in 1981, and 31.8% in 2006.

Conservatives, though, can't take much solace from fighting Big Government to a draw.

Read the whole thing. Readers know my view: the only vision which can compete with the vision of childlike dependency on an omnipotent State is the old Yankee vision of the individual freedom and dignity of sturdy, honest, self-reliant family people who proudly forge their way through life, take their lumps, ask for nothin' from nobody, and want a government which only protects freedom and which "governs least." That noble vision was an easy sell in 1789, but not so easy today. From the board-room to agri-business to greedy geezers, everybody now seems to want a government Santa, and to feed at the trough of the income tax and the federal debt - and even invents ways to morally justify it. Heck, if I live to Medicare, I will probably take it too - but I will hate myself for doing so.

There is a soul-degrading vicious cycle at work: the more you tax people, the less money they have to take care of their families - so the more they will want, or even need, "freebies."

Am I old-fashioned to distrust and fear government power and control? Are we really just government-intoxicated decadent Europeans, on a different continent with different accents or a different language, instead of the stalwart, rugged, independent Americans of history? Was it just a dream?

Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, seems like a book that somebody needed to write.

Sounds like the right book at the right time.

Many readers of this site are well-aware of the totalitarian impulse of the Left, but I am not sure how much the general public thinks about it. However, I am not sure how much of the general public reads anything.

With Iowa coming up soon, it's been a tough month for Hillary Clinton with a whirlwind of uncomplimentary stories.

The Hu contribution scandal, the radical law firm story, her strange reversal on illegal driving licenses, her unwillingness to take a firm stand on anything, new polls that reinforce the idea that she might not be electable, the Vin Gupta story, news articles reporting that people do not trust her honesty - and now the lesbian theme comes out of the closet today, a theme which has been whispered around Washington for many years. That's enough to short-circuit any rapid-response team.

The Dems do have two excellent candidates who are substantial, savvy, accomplished, and ready for prime time: Joe Biden and Chris Dodd - Dodd being perhaps the more impressive of the two. If primary voters take a look beyond the two celeb candidates (Clinton and Obama) they might find something to like.

When candidates were chosen by wise men in smoke-filled rooms, Biden and Dodd would have been on the top of the list and Clinton and Obama would have been viewed as arrogant, presumptuous lightweights and laughed out of the room and instructed to return when they have accomplished something.

Are voters so celeb-intoxicated these days that solid guys ("solid" as politicians go - even though I would not be voting for any of these) don't have a chance?

When Social Security was initiated by FDR as an effort to remove workers from the workforce to reduce politically-dangerous unemployment while virtuously cloaking it as "caring" for the old folks, politicians never publicly considered the long-term effect of that incentive.

Or did they?

Adding money to lower-, middle- and upper-class folks' retirement calculations helps incentivize them to quit being productive and to retire earlier while they are still able-bodied, paid for, as parasites, by a shrinking number of hard-working youngsters.

Politicians never think long-term (but, in the defence of those in the 1940s, folks in their 60s now are in far better shape that folks in their 60s then). Politicians think election, job, power, importance, ego, etc. But we know better: The Law of Incentive and the Law of Unintended Consequences are always in force. The Feds need an "Office of Consequences and Incentive" along with the "Office of the Budget."

Mankind is powerfully motivated by money, and that will never change. Money offers choices. Many have commented on Megan McArdle's fine piece on Social Security, but I will link this piece on her piece.

I believe Social Security should be income- and asset- balanced, but it will never happen. It's an entitlement now: another freebie on the backs of others.

Photo: Ida May Fuller, supposedly the first Social Security check recipient

While checking out the link to the Mediocracy site, I found a piece which echoes much of the sort of thing we write about here, about the attempts to re-define Liberty in the UK.

Dr. Tassano notes:

The transformation from old-liberty (= right not to be interfered with) to new liberty (= right to be interfered with) takes place, as Dr Brown showed us, in 13 easy steps.

Read the whole thing. We'll add him to our regular reads.

Re-posted from Feb, 2007

If you believe in a man-made global warming crisis, you:

1. Will not fly on airplanes
2. Will live close enough to work to walk or bike
3. Will turn off your electric power - and no oil lamps. No computers - they are energy sponges.
4. Will cease to mow your lawn
5. Will heat your home with solar power, or, better yet, not at all. It takes a lot of energy to create those solar panels
7. Will give up eating beef
8. Will junk your cars, tractors, lawn-mowers, boats, chain saws, etc.
9. Will wear no synthetics, or clothing requiring electric power to produce
10. Will grow all of your own food so it doesn't have to be trucked to your supermarket

If you do not do those things, then I won't believe that you are genuinely concerned, and will not take you seriously. Show me what to do - don't tell me what to do. Government and the UN first, please. Greenies second.

Just don't tell me that you are going to continue to enjoy these luxuries until the government forces you not to. Show leadership and individual responsibility. No pseudo-virtuous tokenism, please. Carbon credits? Gimme a break.

(Personally, I agree with Stephen Harper that the climate hysteria is no more than a socialist/luddite scheme.)

Update. An Al Gore True Believer said this to me yesterday: "I'm not the problem. Society is the problem." This person sells real estate and drives a big Mercedes all day long in his job in our Connecticut exurbia. "Society"? Who dat bad man? And what is his phone number?

Image: Non-hypocritical global warming fans in Vermont wear no factory clothing, inhabit caves, and hunt for food in the woods, which they eat raw so as not to create CO2 and other pollution with campfires. Vermont environmentalists complain that they are depleting the forests of roots and tubers, scaring the deer, and eating all of the skunks and raccoons. And crapping all over the place.

Jack Daniel's at  Synthstuff. Don't do it - it's perfect for a fine Christmas eggnog. They should consider the poor, who can't afford a bottle of Jack for their eggnog.

Maybe this CNN story has legs, after all. Another Rathergate? Media people are scared of Hill and Bill: if you give them a hard time, they will never grant you another interview. Not just collusion - ratings. Still, I suspect CNN could be violating McCain-Feingold. And so will I, if given half a chance to do so on Maggie's Farm. Sue me: I have 200 smart lawyer friends here in Hartford, CT., and we will tie you up in court for a lifetime and cost you a bundle.

Doing what?  We are making our venison mincemeat pies tongiht, for Thanksgiving, and for our friends. Aged for four weeks. The smell from the kitchen is amazing. Lucky friends. Ten to give, and two for Thanksgiving here for the beloved relatives. And we are not making pumpkin pies - we are going to make Butternut squash pies from winter squash from the garden. The challenge is to get the moisture out of the cooked squash so it's not to watery and bland.