The Discrete Charm of the Boboise

In the best of times "conservative thinker" tended to be an oxymoron and we sure as shit aren't living in the best of times.  Nonetheless, I read today's latest from Bobo with cringing dismay as his never ending quest to miss the point reached its apotheosis: to sum up -- it is incorrect to compare present times to the Great Depression because then people loved government and now they fear it.  Also too they now fuck too much and fail to marry those whom they fuck.  It is also incorrect to compare the present moment to the Progressive Era because then we needed government to rein in irresponsible businesses.  Now that that has all been taken care of, we really need government to stop people from fucking too much and failing to marry those whom they fuck.  (Well you do a better summary in a paragraph.) 

Alright David, let me spell it out for you.  We compare the present moment to the Great Depression because current economic conditions, including high levels of joblessness (albeit not nearly as severe as those experienced in the early 1930s) and the attendant lack of aggregate demand have created a self-reinforcing tendency toward economic sluggishness that seems to have no end in sight.  The present moment is not completely analogous to the Great Depression because government programs put into effect to combat the Depression and some fairly aggressive actions by both the Bush and Obama administrations prevented a complete meltdown of the financial system, thereby ameliorating some of the ill effects of the currrent downturn.  The present moment is also reasonably analogous to the Progressive Era in that we too live in age plagued by grotesque speculation and galling inequality -- one crying out for government response.

Brooks does posit an analogy to our times and the Progressive Era, and I must say, it is a head scratcher:

Then, as now, we are seeing great concentrations of wealth, especially at the top. Then, as now, the professional class of lawyers, teachers and journalists seems to feel as if it has the upper hand in its status war against the business class of executives and financiers.

What the hell does this mean?  Do teachers really feel that they have the upper hand in the status war against business executives and financiers?  On the one hand, one can make a salary in the high 40 thousands and eventually collect a pension -- every plutocrat's dream -- on the other there are stock options, bonuses, golden parachutes, and the magic of carried interest.  Clearly teachers are winning this batte in a rout.

As to why Brooks thinks lawyers are aligned with teachers as opposed to business executives and financiers is beyond me.  Does Brooks really not understand what large law firms do and how much money the people who run them make?  And for whom they work?  As for journalists, it seems to me that they spend a lot more time criticizing teachers than they do our business elite.

As always with Brooks our problems are never the result of the failed free market ideology he has long embraced nor of the business elites whose side he invariably takes -- no, we (the unwashed masses) suffer because we deserve to suffer -- because we are morally deficient.  If we would only embrace the good old fashioned Victorian ideals of chastity and self-abnegation (again, only an ideal for the masses, not the rich and powerful), the economy would no doubt turn around on a dime.  If only we were worthy.

Comments

[KN]

At first I could not figure out the lingo you were using here but I finally got it when you became a little more declarative.

I have to admit that it is a bit astonishing that anyone could have the medacity to claim that the current economic conditions are the responsibility of the unwashed masses. As the saying goes, follow the money. The sad fact is that all the theater and posturing about how things are really not fucked up beyond all recognition is just that. The Banksters are in an enormous hole of their own making and it will harm everyone sooner or later when the piper comes to be paid.

The only question of any importance, beyond whether or not a reasonable society will survive is who is going to be justly punished for the wrongdoing. Here at least things are not arcane and so high level that you have no traction whatsoever. A bit of dash will get you by.

I don't relish the idea of being priced entirely out of the market.

[Beckya57a]

What a pile of dreck. The complete and utter cluelessness of our elites never fails to amaze.

[nancy]

yes. discrete. indeed.

[kathy a.]

his ideas about the superior morality of 100 years ago are kind of horrifying. apparently he believes that shotgun marriages are a good and moral thing. women of that earlier era had little or no independent economic and legal power, and were forced to enter or stay in unhappy or dangerous relationships so as not to starve their children.

[Davis X. Machina]

My theory. Occluded carotids. And a box of Reactionary Poetry Magnets for Christmas.

[Joe S]

Sir C, I think Brooks makes a bit of a point regarding professionals versus the business class.

Basically, a large number of professionals who used to cater to the middle class and/or lower upper class (the top 5-10% of the population) (most lawyers, most doctors, most teachers) are being squeezed by the new globalized order and want to know the reason why.

There is also a cultural divide between college grads that went into business (including business lawyers) and all other college grads.

Most importantly, there seems to be a generational divide among professionals-- older White professionals have much more faith in the "Free Market" versus younger professionals who want more regulation of the globalized market place.

Brooks has to elide these distinctions to get to the preferred solutions of the moneyed elite. But it is classic Brooks- using half truths to distort reality and to get to a point in support of moneyed elites.

[paula b]

I'll go with DXM's take on Brooks. Makes sense. As Kathy pointed out, only members of the (rich) boy's club pine for yesteryear.

[kathy a.]

he has muddied distinctions all around. for example, an awful lot of people are in business, but not part of the "class of executives and financiers" whose wealth has grown so astronomically while everyone else is urged to tighten belts.

my best guess is that he is trying to distinguish professionals who actually perform services of benefit to others and those whose business is churning and skimming money. oddly, though, he seems to be defending the business elite as saviors. perhaps that is why he framed it as a "status war," to make it sound as if money churners suffer unfairly from disdain of the popular kids.

there are, of course, distinctions within the ranks of teachers, journalists, doctors, and lawyers. in the vast army of teachers -- because of universal public education -- it seems likely that most serve a variety of students and a great many serve disadvantaged students.

lawyers are assumed to be well-off, and those in elite private firms are indeed very well-off. lawyers who are public employees -- there are lots of them -- at least have some financial security. many lawyers, however, work for non-profits and/or on behalf of poor people, and those are not the rich lawyers. (for every TV celebrity lawyer you see giving a press conference about their famous client, there are literally thousands defending less fortunate people.) so, i think there are more cultural divides than joe mentions, amongst lawyers.

[kathy a.]

No matter how bad the economic problems became, progressive-era politicians did not impose huge debt burdens on their children. That ethos is clearly gone.

what happened was -- politicians of that era simply ignored the plights of less fortunate people, and protected their own fortunes. and it was great -- all that cheap child labor; women's work cost nothing; colored people's work cost almost nothing, and in company towns they could be charged for any goods made available; none of those bothersome workplace safety regulations; lynchings could take care of what the sheriff wouldn't; undesirables (women, colored people, poor people) weren't allowed to vote; old and sick people just died; so many were poor and desperate that there was a constant workforce, given that women had no control over their reproduction.

which exact planet does he live on, again?

from that quote above, he trots on immediately to sexual morality. there simply aren't decent figures on "illegitimate" births back in the day, so he is relying on the "shock" figure of 40% of kids born outside wedlock now, no source cited -- that figure must include committed couples who have not formally married, single parents who bear or adopt children, gay couples who cannot marry, etc., as well as those who did not go through shotgun weddings.

if he really means to worry about unintentional pregnancies in young people, maybe he ought to be promoting good sex education and the availability of family planning health care. i'm pretty sure that youthful sexual activity was common in the olden days; we all have heard of people marrying very young, probably in our own family histories.

[oddjob]

probably in our own family histories

That would be my father, whose conception prompted a shotgun wedding, his being put up for adoption, and via unknown processes somehow adopted via a very circutious route by his maternal grandparents. His biological mother and father didn't stay together, but I never learned when my biological grandfather left nor when the divorce occurred. (This all took place in Buffalo, NY in the early 1930's.)

[kathy a.]

oddjob -- my favorite great-uncle had a similar story, from closer to the turn of the last century, only he ended up in foster care. if someone was to get picky about lineage, uncle bob wasn't officially a relative -- he married the widow of my dad's uncle -- but damned if he didn't adopt us all and make our lives richer.

my own mother's first marriage was at 17, and she was a virgin bride -- abandoned in a bar a few months later by the rich boy her mother thought would bring the family to glory. she saved her mother from shame by remarrying at 19 -- my dad had been the first man, the first time. her own progeny were determined to not make the same mistakes.

[nancy]

kathy -- which exact planet does he live on, again? that would be planet bethesda. i re-read this today and could not believe he allowed himself to write it, even he he does think it. perhaps he gets away with his form of condescension and ridiculous revisionism because of his seemingly unthreatening demeanor -- he seems like he should be a reasonable and kinda nice guy. this stuff is neither.

it might come as a surprise to our mr. brooks that couples in school, with baby, who would like to get married, are penalized by immediately being required to pay back student loans if they should. and why doesn't he just come out and say 'lowlife-underclass' -- formerly welfare queens? i think i'd better stop here before the expletives get tossed.

[Crissa]

Why would marital status change your student loans? That'd be stupid.

...I'm not say I doubt you. Things can be real and stupid at the same time.

[nancy]

Crissa -- that one has me puzzled too, I must say. The two graduate student couples we know who apparently fall into such a category, however, cannot afford to lose their loan repayment deferment periods. I do not know what institutions hold their loans, nor what interest these institutions would have in the loan bearer's marital status. Makes no sense to me no matter how I look at it.

That said, if my understanding of the reports my social-working friends give is correct, there are also plenty of disincentives for low-income couples with children to marry, since some benefits become affected. That reality has never made any sense to me either -- and again, I don't know which agencies put those rules into effect. Real and stupid you betcha.