What’s Wrong with the World

I hate the "pox on both your houses" crowd.

Let me re-phrase that: I DETEST the "pox on both your houses" crowd. I detest them with a fierce and burning detest.

Now, now, don't be a hater... ;-)

More seriously, I think that sometimes the "pox on both your houses" attitude arises from a feeling of betrayal in politics which is then exaggerated until one becomes unable to see accurately. One begins by noting various compromises and, shall we say, a lack of full enthusiasm for the life issues on the part of, say, the Republican party leadership. One moves from that to full-bore cynicism: "Everybody in politics is just owned by moneyed interests. Nobody really cares about any issues or principles." One finishes by concluding that there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between the parties--and oddly, if one started as a conservative, this is often accompanied with greater friendliness than ever before toward the left and an accompanying resentment of the right. In other words, one doesn't actually end up symmetrical, whatever one might say.

While everyone around here knows what a political purist can be, I try to avoid following that path. Changes of administration do indeed make a difference. We purists, of all people, need to look that fact squarely in the eye. "Lesser evils" often really are, measurably, lesser. It may be that those differences between parties are gradually disappearing, but they have been there and have been real and in some places do still remain.

I meant that the people who say that "there are problems with both sides" are generally the types who think that Republicans aren't liberal enough. But that seems to be what you're saying too.

'I meant that the people who say that "there are problems with both sides" are generally the types who think that Republicans aren't liberal enough.'

On the contrary: in my experience, conservatives who say "there are problems with both sides" are generally the types who think that Republicans aren't really conservative.

In my opinion both parties [stink, ed.]; one just happens to [stink] worse.

In my opinion both parties [stink, ed.]; one just happens to [stink] worse.

A vacuous statement expressed in third-grade terms. Sweet.

One moves from that to full-bore cynicism: "Everybody in politics is just owned by moneyed interests. Nobody really cares about any issues or principles." One finishes by concluding that there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between the parties

I recently rode to work with a woman whose job is pure politics: she works for a PAC, and her job is to assist the PAC leadership hand out money to congress-critters to help (some of) them get re-elected. If you want cynicism, now SHE was cynical - she really hated her job because she saw how disgusting much of the process has become. The PAC would hand out money to Repubs or Dems, I gather not necessarily only those who were solidly in the PAC's camp but also to those who could be "swayed" to take a more flexible view, even if only partly. Money all the time. She really was of the "pox on both your houses" sort.

And yet, she had an incomplete view: she only really interacted with Congressmen in terms of money, so that's all she saw. She admitted that there were some Congressmen who were less money-grubbing than others (maybe the ones who turned down the PAC's money?) She was in sympathy with the Tea-Party sentiment in terms of grass-roots resistance to the insider culture, but she was only partly in sympathy with its generally conservative tone of restraint of government: more like "I don't like the massive government because it hasn't dealt with MY pet peeves", than opposed to massive government on principle. I wonder whether many, maybe even most Tea-Partyers are of similar bent. That would explain why it did not morph into an actual party - the only true coherence to them is the view that government, as massive as it already is, has not dealt with X problem so it needs to be brought up short and made to listen, but X varies from person to person. Some hate the deficit, while others hate the way the judiciary reduces out culture, while others hate the fact that farmers don't get enough help.

What is it with the proliferation masked posters? The Masked Elephant is a different animal - and he can't fly, hehehe...

The Chicken

Mark, I agree that N.M.'s statement is pretty contentless. It's hard to see what there is not to understand about, "Party A enthusiastically funds the evil regime of the UNFPA and tells or gladly accepts lies about China's one-child policy while Party B listens to reason and cuts gigantic U.S. funding for said program."

MC--Chickens can't _really_ fly, either. :-)

I meant that the people who say that "there are problems with both sides" are generally the types who think that Republicans aren't liberal enough. But that seems to be what you're saying too.

Yes, there is that type. There is also the type like our new commentator Nice Marmot. They are slightly less politically predictable, more angrily cynical, and usually, as you see, say more strongly-worded things about "both sides" than just that they both have problems.

That would explain why it did not morph into an actual party - the only true coherence to them is the view that government, as massive as it already is, has not dealt with X problem so it needs to be brought up short and made to listen, but X varies from person to person. Some hate the deficit, while others hate the way the judiciary reduces out culture, while others hate the fact that farmers don't get enough help.

A shrewd comment, Tony. And probably one that applies frequently, in broad outlines, to populist movements generally. Populism per se is politically undifferentiated.

Masked Chicken, I beg your pardon. What makes you so sure?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjPYMs4w5TI&NR=1&

The Elephant

MC--Chickens can't _really_ fly, either. :-)

Yes, they can, for short distances, but it isn't pretty.

The Chicken

Lydia: "information showing just how hard it is being green--hard, that is, on the women at the bottom of the food chain"

People have always thought that the lower classes reproduce more. This was the conventional wisdom of the late 19th century. When Gregory Clark was looking at Medieval English wills for his Farewell to Alms, this was what he expected to find but in fact found the opposite. In the Medieval Era, the children of the upper classes had a 2:1 survival rate over the children of the poor. The upper classes had more children, and there was a subsequent downward flow of genes. Nearly everyone of English ancestry today is a descendent of the Medieval upper classes.

Similar studies in other European countries have found the same phenomenon: the lower classes didn't reproduce, and nearly everyone today is descended from the Medieval and Early Modern upper classes.

How the reproduction of the lower classes was curbed throughout most of human history (exposure, primitive birth control, abstinence, etc.) no one exactly knows.

I'm not making any value judgement about what you write above, but only pointing out that this is not a new phenomenon. In fact, before the modern welfare state, it was even more pronounced.

"A vacuous statement expressed in third-grade terms. Sweet."

It's not vacuous if you look at the statement which immediately precedes it. Someone needs to retake Reading Comprehension 101. As for third-grade...well, sometimes blunt is good, as you'll discover if you ever try to drive a nail with an ice pick.

'It's hard to see what there is not to understand about, "Party A enthusiastically funds the evil regime of the UNFPA and tells or gladly accepts lies about China's one-child policy while Party B listens to reason and cuts gigantic U.S. funding for said program."'

Absolutely right -- regarding this particular issue the GOP has it all over the Dems. My statement had more to do with my view of the parties in general. Both are at the beck and call of special interests and as a result neither one cares much about the average American citizen. Both throw bones to us on occasion in order to keep us showing up at the ballot box, but that's about as far as the interest goes.

Lydia,

I dong have a lot to add. I just wanted to note publicly here that Steven Mosher is one of my heroes!

MAR, I suppose my phrase "at the bottom of the food chain" was a bit ambiguous. In China, it isn't clear to me that the only ones who suffer from the one-child policy are "the lower classes." There are, I believe, various ameliorations of the policy for various areas--e.g., in such-and-such a region you may have two children, or you may have two children if your first child is a girl, or something like that. The way it ends up, the ones hardest hit by the policy may in fact be those who are relatively poor within Chinese society, though I'm not certain about whether that is true across the board. My impression is that everyone is controlled by it to some extent. But by "the bottom of the food chain" I didn't mean anything about relative riches in Chinese society. For this post, I meant simply something like, "Helplessly under the power of a totalitarian regime."

The China policy is what it is. It's not like it's a secret. Indeed, the Mosher testimony quotes from posters put up around Chinese villages warning people about "illegal reproduction"! As far as I know, Medieval Europe had no policy whereby the lord of the manor could force poor women to abort. (She said, drily.)

In other words, MAR, everything isn't really just the same as everything else. Coercive population control doesn't actually just mysteriously "happen" in all times and places. It is done by particular people to particular other people. It is being done in China right now, and it isn't being done everwhere else. It detracts from the peculiar evil of China's policy just to say, "Ho-hum. Same-old-same-old. Throughout mankind's history the poor have somehow under-reproduced; we don't know exactly how."

Lydia: Yea, my post was ambiguous, you're right; in China, it's government-controlled population control; in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, it was voluntary. But both were a population control nonetheless, although one might be more state-centered and the other more ground-up Malthusian.

in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, it was voluntary. But both were a population control nonetheless,

Is there some reason that humans should not control their reproductive rate voluntarily according to their conditions?

Is there some reason that extreme poverty is not a condition that a couple should take into account in choosing a reproductive perspective?

No, of course not, to both questions. It is natural and appropriate that couples who are at the very bottom of the wealth scale would want to consider limiting their reproduction to accommodate their resources, including the time, energy, and wealth needed just to keep their already existing children from starving. That's rational, human behavior. Human in the sense of willing voluntarily to follow sound and upright reasoning. Such a voluntary choice only offends good men if the couple have been put into that situation of extreme poverty by specific acts of injustice by others.

I think that referring to the poor's "reproductive rate" as measured solely by the number of children they bring to maturity is a decidedly wretched way to describe the reality. It is not a voluntary choice by poor people to be reproducing at a low rate when 1/2 of their children die of disease before age 5, neither is it a failure of justice in the state. And the children who died thus are, indeed, humans, and should be counted. Again, unless those poor were poor specifically on account of having their wealth unjustly taken (or kept) from their hands by specific acts of injustice aimed at reducing their reproduction, or they were constrained by specific policy of authorities to have fewer children, the lower rate of reproduction-to-maturity is not a lower rate that can be explained as population control. That's a false characterization. Voluntary decisions made individually based on individual family conditions is not "population control", it is "family control", and goes hand in hand with "self-control."

Tony,

The find that during Medieval and Early Modern Europe the upper classes had a 2:1 survival rate over the poor and most Europeans today are descended from the Medieval upper classes is perhaps one of the most interesting finds of the decade, as it drastically changes our view of Medieval history. Gregory Clark implies that there was a downward drift of people and genes, raising the general intelligence of the English in particular and the Europeans in general. I wasn't making any value judgements, only descriptive observations.

But referring to it as "population control." That's what I didn't get. If you didn't mean it that way, then I am fine with the description.

"The find that during Medieval and Early Modern Europe the upper classes had a 2:1 survival rate over the poor and most Europeans today are descended from the Medieval upper classes is perhaps one of the most interesting finds of the decade, as it drastically changes our view of Medieval history. Gregory Clark implies that there was a downward drift of people and genes, raising the general intelligence of the English in particular and the Europeans in general. I wasn't making any value judgements, only descriptive observations."

Here's a very interesting study showing that most people throughout history haven't reproduced and that we're descended from small groups of people (usually from the upper classes). Regarding recent studies on the DNA of Icelanders (summarized in Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn), of all Icelandic women born from 1972 to 2002, 92% are descended from only 22% of the women born between 1848 and 1892; 86% of contemporary men are the progeny of 26% of this group. Going back farther, 7% of the women born in the early 18th century are ancesstresses of 62% of contemporary women, while 10% of men of this period fathered 71% of contemporary males.

MAR, I find it puzzling to think that we have reliable techniques to determine these. Do we have DNA samples from the 1700's and 1800's that are satisfactory and prove these conclusions?

Going back farther, 7% of the women born in the early 18th century are ancesstresses of 62% of contemporary women, while 10% of men of this period fathered 71% of contemporary males.

So, looking at the differential, 7% women versus 10 men%, it looks like almost half of women in the early 1700's had children by more than one man. In spite of the fact that at the time vast numbers of women died in childbirth and complications from it. Seems pretty unlikely, on its face. One suspects that the reasoning may be off a little somewhere along the line.