Sunday, September 13, 2009
Dark Epiphany
I find this really quite depressing.The rise of the welfare state in the US was instantiated by the need to provide civil rights and welfare for non-white citizens.
Small government worked in America as long the population was 99% white protestant.
Because local religious welfare providers and locally elected governments were dealing with a homogeneous population. This worked fine as long as the America electorate was 99% white protestant.
The trouble began when women and blacks became citizens….women got some indirect benefits and representation because they were part of white protestant families….blacks didn’t.
So the federal government was forced to intervene to provide civil rights and welfare to non-white citizens.
So Hayek was wrong….the welfare state doesn’t lead to socialism…it leads to the death of the religious local welfare providers…..to Great Britain style secularism......where the churches are dying.
Because local religious welfare providers and locally elected governments were dealing with a homogeneous population. This worked fine as long as the America electorate was 99% white protestant.
The trouble began when women and blacks became citizens….women got some indirect benefits and representation because they were part of white protestant families….blacks didn’t.
So the federal government was forced to intervene to provide civil rights and welfare to non-white citizens.
So Hayek was wrong….the welfare state doesn’t lead to socialism…it leads to the death of the religious local welfare providers…..to Great Britain style secularism......where the churches are dying.
They can't compete.
Government welfare doesn’t require the investment of church attendance or conforming to a belief system about social behavior.
Citizenship makes it free, or at least much cheaper.
Citizenship makes it free, or at least much cheaper.
The welfare state is simply the public option for religion.
// posted by Matoko Kusanagi @ 10:38 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Mostly Europe enacted it's social reforms after the War. There were a few countries like Germany that had already moved in that direction much earlier. But there was a fear in postwar Europe of revolution, Eastern Europe was Communist and agitators were everywhere.
Not a few people blamed the rise of fascism on the breakdown of the social order in the 1930s. Keynesian economics was in the ascendent. So the idea was not to repeat the same mistakes.
Now by 1960s Europe was in the middle of its postwar Economic Miracle. So Europe had become "socially progressive" as well as rapidly growing economically. UK was the exception.
And people looked at America and saw a very divided society. It seemed to them that there was a very poor underclass. Not just the segregated minorities in the South but even in the cities, a poor underclass of whites.
So liberals looked at what was happening in Europe. Social reforms seemed not to have impaired rapid economic growth. So why not here?
In retrospect their analysis was shallow. The most socially liberal societies like Sweden, were also those that had excaped the War. For every Sweden there was a Switzerland.
Remember the sixties were also the decade when many of Europe's empires were in the last stages of collapse after the war. So in a sense racial superiority was an idea that had outlived its sell-by date.
White rulers were being kicked out everywhere, where they weren't smart enough to go of their own accord.
This is why I am not sure that I really endorse your analysis of the dynamic.
To me it feels like the rise of liberalism in economics and liberalism in race were independent forces.
The common thread was that this was a postwar world. Empires were falling, domestic economies were recovering. Communist revolution had to be resisted, in part by co-opting its claim to be the party of social justice - blunting its appeal.
Things just came together. America shared the mood that permeated the West.
Not a few people blamed the rise of fascism on the breakdown of the social order in the 1930s. Keynesian economics was in the ascendent. So the idea was not to repeat the same mistakes.
Now by 1960s Europe was in the middle of its postwar Economic Miracle. So Europe had become "socially progressive" as well as rapidly growing economically. UK was the exception.
And people looked at America and saw a very divided society. It seemed to them that there was a very poor underclass. Not just the segregated minorities in the South but even in the cities, a poor underclass of whites.
So liberals looked at what was happening in Europe. Social reforms seemed not to have impaired rapid economic growth. So why not here?
In retrospect their analysis was shallow. The most socially liberal societies like Sweden, were also those that had excaped the War. For every Sweden there was a Switzerland.
Remember the sixties were also the decade when many of Europe's empires were in the last stages of collapse after the war. So in a sense racial superiority was an idea that had outlived its sell-by date.
White rulers were being kicked out everywhere, where they weren't smart enough to go of their own accord.
This is why I am not sure that I really endorse your analysis of the dynamic.
To me it feels like the rise of liberalism in economics and liberalism in race were independent forces.
The common thread was that this was a postwar world. Empires were falling, domestic economies were recovering. Communist revolution had to be resisted, in part by co-opting its claim to be the party of social justice - blunting its appeal.
Things just came together. America shared the mood that permeated the West.
The UN played a part too. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 set a standard for what was expected of a civilized nation.
Decolonization created a host of new non-white nations, and the US and USSR were in competition for influence. Segregation had become a deep embarrassment to the USA.
The Soviet Bloc was never reluctant to exploit it for propaganda purposes either, reporting regularly on the "plight of the colored peoples and impoverished working classes in the Imperialist nations".
I used to monitor Radio Moscow on Shortwave in those days, so I heard this stuff regularly. Fair is fair. USSR was truly internationalist in outlook from the earliest days. Propaganda-wise anyway.
The West felt the sting of those criticisms. It was one of the reasons why Marxism was so influential in the Academy during the period. It sounded so universalist and progressive.
It took a deeper sophistication to see the contrast between the nobility of the high-falutin propaganda and the grubby imperial tyranny that the Soviet Union actually was. So many of the ivory tower types never saw through it.
But perhaps in a funny kind of way it helped the West to lift its game. The endless torrent of critical propaganda from the other side.
Decolonization created a host of new non-white nations, and the US and USSR were in competition for influence. Segregation had become a deep embarrassment to the USA.
The Soviet Bloc was never reluctant to exploit it for propaganda purposes either, reporting regularly on the "plight of the colored peoples and impoverished working classes in the Imperialist nations".
I used to monitor Radio Moscow on Shortwave in those days, so I heard this stuff regularly. Fair is fair. USSR was truly internationalist in outlook from the earliest days. Propaganda-wise anyway.
The West felt the sting of those criticisms. It was one of the reasons why Marxism was so influential in the Academy during the period. It sounded so universalist and progressive.
It took a deeper sophistication to see the contrast between the nobility of the high-falutin propaganda and the grubby imperial tyranny that the Soviet Union actually was. So many of the ivory tower types never saw through it.
But perhaps in a funny kind of way it helped the West to lift its game. The endless torrent of critical propaganda from the other side.
Well Spock......I am just a wee bit disappointed that my uber-conservative forebears never let me in on their little secret.......that Burke, Oakeshott and Hayek were just cites to give cover to Bull Connor and Yearning For Zion, and that the devil's bargain was that conservative intellectuals paid for the base's votes by winking at their racism and oppression of women.
Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kiddin'.
Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kiddin'.
I think you're in interesting territory here. I think it's overly reductive to say that the welfare state is “simply” the public option for religion, since there was more going on historically than just demographic changes. But changes in the electorate were a major factor; you're right about that. I'd like to see if I can flesh out the history a little bit.
So, a few observations:
1.) Religious voluntary organizations were a major part of the landscape of 19th century America. It's interesting to read about how they arose as grassroots organizations in the 1820s and 1830s, at a time when the only part of the government comparable in scope was the postal service. At that point in history, these early national movements helped cement the idea of the USA as a single nation. Which is to say that religious welfare providers weren't just local: some of them, like the Salvation Army or the American Temperance Society, were gigantic organizations.
2.) Catholic voluntary organizations did a great deal for immigrant populations in the emerging urban landscape. It wasn't just Protestant churches that provided charity / non-government welfare. But I guess it helped that these Catholic populations were concentrated.
3.) The great depression was a big turning point: via Keynesian strategies, FDR could offer what churches couldn't.
4.) Racial issues probably require a separate analysis for the South and the North. The historic (and continuing division) between the black and white churches sustained a racist system in the south — perhaps it's best to say that the white church sustained the division — whereas I'd think in the north it was more that the divided church was unable to adjust quickly and effectively to the northward migration of African Americans. But in the first half of the twentieth century, the Great Migration coincided with events that foreshadowed the decline of Protestantism.
5.) To wit, the fundamentalist/modernist split within Protestantism in the early part of the twentieth century weakened the ability of churches to provide welfare services. Fundamentalists withdrew culturally, and declined to support what they saw as “social gospel” movements. Evangelicals in the 19th century had often been able to come to an uneasy theological truce and work together on social programs; this kind of thing ground to a halt after the split. And as the government rushed in to fill the gap between the 30s and the 70s, voluntary welfare, well, lost much of its market share.
6.) And you're right that government welfare isn't tied to the same social expectations that voluntary organizations had, which gave it a cultural public-option style advantage.
7.) In the face of their decreasing numbers, mainline Protestants (often the ones who really embraced the “social gospel”) are facing up to their modified role. But when fundamentalists (and/or evangelicals) charged the public square in the 70s, they wanted to make a bid for the throne. Some Catholics joined in. Short of a widespread and unexpected religious revival, it's not going to happen, but this is at least one facet of the antipathy towards government action / welfare / health care reform that these groups have — they'd like to have the role that Protestantism had in the 19th century.
Hope that's not too much for a comment.
So, a few observations:
1.) Religious voluntary organizations were a major part of the landscape of 19th century America. It's interesting to read about how they arose as grassroots organizations in the 1820s and 1830s, at a time when the only part of the government comparable in scope was the postal service. At that point in history, these early national movements helped cement the idea of the USA as a single nation. Which is to say that religious welfare providers weren't just local: some of them, like the Salvation Army or the American Temperance Society, were gigantic organizations.
2.) Catholic voluntary organizations did a great deal for immigrant populations in the emerging urban landscape. It wasn't just Protestant churches that provided charity / non-government welfare. But I guess it helped that these Catholic populations were concentrated.
3.) The great depression was a big turning point: via Keynesian strategies, FDR could offer what churches couldn't.
4.) Racial issues probably require a separate analysis for the South and the North. The historic (and continuing division) between the black and white churches sustained a racist system in the south — perhaps it's best to say that the white church sustained the division — whereas I'd think in the north it was more that the divided church was unable to adjust quickly and effectively to the northward migration of African Americans. But in the first half of the twentieth century, the Great Migration coincided with events that foreshadowed the decline of Protestantism.
5.) To wit, the fundamentalist/modernist split within Protestantism in the early part of the twentieth century weakened the ability of churches to provide welfare services. Fundamentalists withdrew culturally, and declined to support what they saw as “social gospel” movements. Evangelicals in the 19th century had often been able to come to an uneasy theological truce and work together on social programs; this kind of thing ground to a halt after the split. And as the government rushed in to fill the gap between the 30s and the 70s, voluntary welfare, well, lost much of its market share.
6.) And you're right that government welfare isn't tied to the same social expectations that voluntary organizations had, which gave it a cultural public-option style advantage.
7.) In the face of their decreasing numbers, mainline Protestants (often the ones who really embraced the “social gospel”) are facing up to their modified role. But when fundamentalists (and/or evangelicals) charged the public square in the 70s, they wanted to make a bid for the throne. Some Catholics joined in. Short of a widespread and unexpected religious revival, it's not going to happen, but this is at least one facet of the antipathy towards government action / welfare / health care reform that these groups have — they'd like to have the role that Protestantism had in the 19th century.
Hope that's not too much for a comment.
Shams, Repression of women?
Well, it's received wisdom to feminists, but it always seemed to me that it was premodern biology, and the "ancient social compact" between the sexes, that the males went out and did the hunting and defended the tribe, and the females stayed home, had the babies, raised the children and took care of the household.
Both sides had their burdens and responsibilities. Their little perks and their quirks.
The life of upper-class females, with their colored or working-class maids, was a hundred miles away from the women of the working-class poor. But then so was the life of the males.
But I'll go along with you about the appalling hypocracy of racism. USA was not really unique here. Slavery in America, was merely the US domestic counterpart of the imperial extractive economies in the nations of Old Europe. The enlightened Europeans kept their slaves overseas.
Yes exploitation was hypocritical, but was there ever a civilization so tempted? Science and Industry placed power at the hands of the "white race" that premodern civilizations initially found practically unimaginable and bewildering. Also dominant Europeans rearranged things to suit their needs. How else could tiny England control vast India, not to mention all the other dominions?
It only worked until it didn't. Sooner or later the subjugated figured it out. The Cold War pumped huge amounts of arms into the various rebellions, so the overlords lost their advantage. The Europeans also foolishly bankrupted themselves in their two internecine "World Wars".
FWIW, both slavery and imperialism always had their critics. They weren't listened to. Not enough to stop the evils, against the temptation of easy wealth and power. But there were always critics who warned it would end badly.
Well, it's received wisdom to feminists, but it always seemed to me that it was premodern biology, and the "ancient social compact" between the sexes, that the males went out and did the hunting and defended the tribe, and the females stayed home, had the babies, raised the children and took care of the household.
Both sides had their burdens and responsibilities. Their little perks and their quirks.
The life of upper-class females, with their colored or working-class maids, was a hundred miles away from the women of the working-class poor. But then so was the life of the males.
But I'll go along with you about the appalling hypocracy of racism. USA was not really unique here. Slavery in America, was merely the US domestic counterpart of the imperial extractive economies in the nations of Old Europe. The enlightened Europeans kept their slaves overseas.
Yes exploitation was hypocritical, but was there ever a civilization so tempted? Science and Industry placed power at the hands of the "white race" that premodern civilizations initially found practically unimaginable and bewildering. Also dominant Europeans rearranged things to suit their needs. How else could tiny England control vast India, not to mention all the other dominions?
It only worked until it didn't. Sooner or later the subjugated figured it out. The Cold War pumped huge amounts of arms into the various rebellions, so the overlords lost their advantage. The Europeans also foolishly bankrupted themselves in their two internecine "World Wars".
FWIW, both slavery and imperialism always had their critics. They weren't listened to. Not enough to stop the evils, against the temptation of easy wealth and power. But there were always critics who warned it would end badly.
Edward Harrison suggests the Chimerica relationship is rapidly headed for divorce as a result of growing protectionism.
I think he is right, but it's not just because of protectionism. I think the West cannot keep expanding credit to pay for Asian imports.
I think rising energy prices are causing globalization to implode. (Impressive Pictures) The breakup into regionalism is probably unavoidable.
I think he is right, but it's not just because of protectionism. I think the West cannot keep expanding credit to pay for Asian imports.
I think rising energy prices are causing globalization to implode. (Impressive Pictures) The breakup into regionalism is probably unavoidable.
ty WBR, that was lovely.
Explains a lot.
It is just depressing that it is still so much about race and the legacy of slavery.
Spock, that was a big part of when I realized the truth about the right....you know i was linked by instapundit and guest blogged for Protein Wisdom.....when Dr. Yes (my pet name for Reynolds) began to defend the patriarchy daddies of Yearning For Zion and their localized chattel slavery of women and children....that was the end....Expelled, torture, hESCR lying and YFZ....that was end.
Explains a lot.
It is just depressing that it is still so much about race and the legacy of slavery.
Spock, that was a big part of when I realized the truth about the right....you know i was linked by instapundit and guest blogged for Protein Wisdom.....when Dr. Yes (my pet name for Reynolds) began to defend the patriarchy daddies of Yearning For Zion and their localized chattel slavery of women and children....that was the end....Expelled, torture, hESCR lying and YFZ....that was end.
Hmmm, problems (many) with your analysis. The leaders (in both America and England) for the emancipation movement were (on balance) religious leaders. Leaders in the suffrage movements, the civil rights movements were religious leaders (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, etc.). Leaders in the Jim Crow movement where "city fathers" who tended to be Democrat. Union leaders, which set up unions to keep out women and minorities, were "progressive" Democrats.
Welfare and the "Great Society" were attempts to make up for the early socialist movements that were headed by democrats that were explicitly racist (think Ted Kennedy's father's admiration of the Nazis) in the face of the shifting of the South from the Dems to the GOP.
I'm of two minds of public assistance. I don't like the "Welfare state" as it encourages multi-generational dependence on government and creates wasted lives (why go to college if you can get a free check? Why try to be a star athlete if everyone in your family/community are government dependents?); but I am for a government-funded "safety net" as the private secular and religious charities are not uniform in effectiveness across geography (meaning, in the ultra-leftist city I live there is little private charity for the poor; for the ultra-conservative south where some of my friends live there is a lot). I am not for what Sham-wow prefers: a safety mattress.
In short, a safety "net" is something you hit when you are in trouble (like lose a job). A society with a safety net will help you recover when you lose a job but expect you
Welfare and the "Great Society" were attempts to make up for the early socialist movements that were headed by democrats that were explicitly racist (think Ted Kennedy's father's admiration of the Nazis) in the face of the shifting of the South from the Dems to the GOP.
I'm of two minds of public assistance. I don't like the "Welfare state" as it encourages multi-generational dependence on government and creates wasted lives (why go to college if you can get a free check? Why try to be a star athlete if everyone in your family/community are government dependents?); but I am for a government-funded "safety net" as the private secular and religious charities are not uniform in effectiveness across geography (meaning, in the ultra-leftist city I live there is little private charity for the poor; for the ultra-conservative south where some of my friends live there is a lot). I am not for what Sham-wow prefers: a safety mattress.
In short, a safety "net" is something you hit when you are in trouble (like lose a job). A society with a safety net will help you recover when you lose a job but expect you
WRB, pardon....
I'm sleepy.
I just feel almost physically sick at the dishonesty.....the evil.
The right are servants of Kylon.
I'm sleepy.
I just feel almost physically sick at the dishonesty.....the evil.
The right are servants of Kylon.
I'd agree with Scorpius that you would be seriously mistaken to think that all the repression came from "the right".
to get back on your feet. A safety mattress (welfare state) will let you exist on the public dole until you die.
The Welfare state is soul-destroying and unAmerican and would lead to loss of American exceptionalism. Something Obambi does not believe in.
The Welfare state is soul-destroying and unAmerican and would lead to loss of American exceptionalism. Something Obambi does not believe in.
Impressive video clip from Nanosolar.
Hopefully the world is about to be flooded with cheap solar panels.
NYTimes says they already have $4.1 Billion of orders.
Hopefully the world is about to be flooded with cheap solar panels.
NYTimes says they already have $4.1 Billion of orders.
Keid A.
Logic and reason won't convince her. She is of the Self-righteous; the twin ideologies she belongs to, Islam and leftism, command her to be so.
Self-righteous and hateful/destructive to what we call "Western Civilization" which is just a name for the amalgam (Melange?) of Modern, enlightened rationality.
For her Islamic it is a contest of civilization; a contest between modern, enlightened rationality and brutal, medieval, atavistic, superstition. For her leftism it is a nihilistic and adolescent hatred of the very culture and society that allows her to be such. It is quite idiotic and is pretty much the way that brainless, undergrad drones think.
Logic and reason won't convince her. She is of the Self-righteous; the twin ideologies she belongs to, Islam and leftism, command her to be so.
Self-righteous and hateful/destructive to what we call "Western Civilization" which is just a name for the amalgam (Melange?) of Modern, enlightened rationality.
For her Islamic it is a contest of civilization; a contest between modern, enlightened rationality and brutal, medieval, atavistic, superstition. For her leftism it is a nihilistic and adolescent hatred of the very culture and society that allows her to be such. It is quite idiotic and is pretty much the way that brainless, undergrad drones think.
M, you call me naive? Look up the US Presidential elections of 1876. And stop harping on Kylon- your version of events is from Aristoxenus, a Pythagorean partisan. Try the 'anonymous Iamblichi' fragments.
media matters debrief
It isn't so much a deliberate lie as magical thinking.
They WANT to believe it.
And if they lie a little...they rationalize because EVERYTHING IS SO UNFAIR!!!!!!
lulz
It isn't so much a deliberate lie as magical thinking.
They WANT to believe it.
And if they lie a little...they rationalize because EVERYTHING IS SO UNFAIR!!!!!!
lulz
Dio, I AM a Pythagorean partisan!
Number is the ruler of forms and ideas and the cause of gods and demons.
Number is the ruler of forms and ideas and the cause of gods and demons.
And I am pointing out the degeneracy of number worship and other assorted mysticisms. Your partisanship blinds you to the power of the germ-line, which Keid is rightly in awe of. The chief object of monotheism is to destroy classical scholarship- such as it existed then and now. It is a war against the germ-line of the meme space. And you are on the wrong side. The germ-line is a geometric object, not arithmetic.
Seriously, you need to read something outside of the Pythagoras-Plato-Kant-Marx axis. (Hint, its called empiricism and it existed long before Francis Bacon). Try some Heraclitus: "those who love wisdom should acquaint themselves with a great many particulars".
You could be wise someday, but you have to get off the crack. :D
Seriously, you need to read something outside of the Pythagoras-Plato-Kant-Marx axis. (Hint, its called empiricism and it existed long before Francis Bacon). Try some Heraclitus: "those who love wisdom should acquaint themselves with a great many particulars".
You could be wise someday, but you have to get off the crack. :D
Didn't large-scale Catholic immigration start in the 1840s?
For that matter, back when the Constitution was being written, the Protestant sects differed far more than they do today. The 1st Amendment was written because Calvinists, Quakers, Episcopalians, etc. couldn't stand official recognition of the others.
Post a Comment
For that matter, back when the Constitution was being written, the Protestant sects differed far more than they do today. The 1st Amendment was written because Calvinists, Quakers, Episcopalians, etc. couldn't stand official recognition of the others.
<< Home
