http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05adouthat.html?_r=1
I just want to ruminate on a couple of his points:
1) Liberals are unlikely to support immigration reform that curbs the number of unskilled laborers coming into the US.
Well, this may or may not be true. Liberals do tend to like policies that are humane to the immigrants who are already here, such as not splitting families apart (though this is in contrast to Douthat's next point) and not punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Such policies encourage more people to try to enter the country illegally, and worry about naturalization once here. Right now, though immigration reform is on the back burner, the politically expedient stance among both Dems and Repubs is to call for better border patrol and a tougher stance toward people here illegally, so in practice I'm not sure that the libs to whom Douthat is referring constitute a politically significant cadre.
But, what struck me most about his statement is the double-edged sword of it all. Traditionally we hear the call to reduce the cost of business for corporations (a rising tide lifts all boats) from the right wing. Cheap laborers reduce that cost. Maybe this is the brilliance of the GOP: reaping the benefits of a policy while pinning the blame for its unpopular aspects on the Dems.
2) "But today’s Democratic Party increasingly represents “unmarried America” — the single, the childless, the divorced. This makes it an unlikely vehicle for policies that discriminate, whether through tax code or the welfare state, in favor of the traditional nuclear family."
Except where same-sex couples are concerned, which could constitute 5% of the family population (assuming a 50% partnered rate for a population that constitutes perhaps 10% of the general populace). Douthat is right when he says that cultural shifts like these go deeper than public policy can extend itself, and I suppose it's up for debate as to whether trying to shift cultural trends away from divorce and single-parenthood is worth punishing people for whom this is the best option. Do we trust them to make the best decisions for themselves (a typical Republican party line)? Also, these are the people who grew up in an era of the nuclear family, and while it may have given them a leg up economically, it doesn't seem to have done the same spiritually...blaming or extolling the nuclear family seems simplistic to say the least.
3) Education needs reform that is unlikely to be brought about by liberals.
Probably true. Douthat wants choice and competition brought to our public schools. I can't exactly disagree, though we'd probably disagree about how to do that. Tying funding for public schools to geographical school districts (and then tying the students to those districts) begets some serious problems with our nation's public schools, and probably gives birth to the growing inequality gap. Choice = good; usually though, "choice" and "competition" go hand in hand with "privatization" in the Republican lexicon. Maybe "choice" could involve a decoupling of geography and school funding/attendance instead. The outcry from rich districts would probably be substantial, but we all pay for other people's education in some way or another because an educated populace is a common good, and this would be an extension of that principle.
4) "The European experience suggests that specific policy interventions — the shape of the tax code, the design of the education system — may matter less in the long run than the sheer size of the state. If you funnel enough of a nation’s gross domestic product through a bureaucracy, the gap between the upper class and everybody else usually compresses.
But economic growth often compresses along with it. This is already the logic of our current fiscal trajectory: ever-larger government, and ever-slower growth."
Interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment