Via Julian, I see that Yglesias has spun a narrative:
For the past 65-70 years—and especially for the past 30 years since the end of the civil rights argument—American politics has been dominated by controversy over the size and scope of the welfare state. Today, that argument is largely over with liberals having largely won.
…
The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done.
This seems plausible, but I think I can spin an equally plausible narrative of my own:
Imagine, in a parallel universe if you prefer, that some of Yglesias’ ideological compatriots are driven not by wonkish numeracy, but rather by a deep-seated desire to abolish suffering. Like the War on Terror, the War on Suffering (declared June 1st, 2017) can never be won; but for this hardened, elite team of poverty-warriors, it must eternally be fought. More and more resources are tossed at the task, the cost/benefit ratio spirals higher and higher, but the grim band presses on, for press on it must, for to do any less would be to admit defeat.
One dark and stormy night, a happiness researcher knocks on the door of the Department of Pleasure: “Did you know that our metrics suggest that happiness is sometimes a function not of absolute wealth but of relative wealth? On the other hand…” ENOUGH! The staff at the Department of Pleasure (formed by the Providing America Tools for Hastening the Obliteration of Suffering Act of 2037) are uninterested in the effects of culture upon the human psyche or the dubious methodology underlying the findings. Somebody out there feels bad about the fact that his neighbor has more resources! So quick! To the Bat Cave! After many quests and trials, our triumphant heroes manage to rescue the Phoenix Sword from the Dragon King, and bring its enormous, equalizing, leveling forces to bear upon society. Finally, and at long last, we will have discovered happiness.
Pure speculation, I know, but is it so far from the mark? After all, as we know, “one is too many”.
Kidding aside, I’m not grokking the obvious footholds on this slippery slope. Is my read on the motivations flat-out wrong? It seems that much of the tradition of political philosophy from which modern advocates for the welfare state draw their sustenance has the abolition of suffering as its explicit goal. I wish I could be confident in Yglesias’ read of his movement, but I see no reason why, absent tactical considerations, they should be satisfied with Obamacare.
March 26th, 2010 | 6:00 pm
For one thing, it’s well-documented that most peoples’ happiness is relative to that of others, both competitively and cooperatively. For another, to suggest that anyone motivated by the abolishment of suffering would be or is satisfied with the Affordable Care Act is juvenile, at best.
But your little thought-experiment was pretty cute. I bet it was fun to write, what with the smug sense of intellectual superiority you obviously felt while you wrote it.
As for the narrative you’re trying to counter, well, all I can say is that the opposite narrative, that getting government out of the way and cutting everyone loose to make their way in a revived Hobbesian state of nature by way of free market capitalism is the best way to produce happiness and human progress, has been tried and found to be wanting. So it seems not unreasonable to try it the other way for a while. After all, it worked out pretty good in the past.
Besides, it’ll probably make you happier, too, since you’ll have more things to write snarky little straw-narratives about.
March 27th, 2010 | 2:22 am
@Anti: That’s my whole point! Yglesias is claiming that ACA should be enough for those who desire the abolition of suffering, but I doubt this to be the case.
If the free market has been tried with regard to health insurance, I’m unaware of this experiment. Can you point me towards a reputable source?
In any case, whether or not a true free market experiment has been conducted is hardly my primary focus. I’m curious to know where you think the obvious stopping point on the slippery slope is.
March 27th, 2010 | 7:10 pm
I would only point out that not all, not even most liberalism is utopian. You can recognize that suffering is most likely an ineradicable part of what is means to be human and still believe that the misfortune of being sick ought to be taken care of by government.
As for the stopping point in the slippery slope, it has to do with the tradeoff between equality and growth. People like both, of course, but there are limits to how expansive the state can become before growth starts to take a big hit. That Western Europe has turned more neoliberal in the past 15 years strengthens my case and perhaps suggests an equilibrium.
All this said, you can bet I’ll join with you to fight the PATHOS Act. Because really, yuck!
March 28th, 2010 | 1:06 pm
I have long contended that modern leftism is essentially a princess-and-the-pea phenomenon: The better things get, the more the little stuff irritates like mad.
De Tocqueville predicted something along these lines. I’m at a loss for the exact passage, but amid his warnings against sacrificing liberty for equality, he noted that ever-increasing equality would lead to ever-more fastidious definitions of inequality. As each perceived inequality gets felled, the remaining ones suddenly loom larger — stuff that was hitherto piddly or even unnoticeable.
And so, for example, “ethnicity X is 13.7% underrepresented in Tuesday prime-time network sitcoms” aquires in 2010 a moral urgency akin to “laws ban black people from entering colleges” in 1950. Or “health insurance” becomes a pressing moral imperative in a day when people actually live longer than ever, nobody actually lacks access to medical care, etc.
So, yes: Obamacare is absolutely not the end of this project. The princess will always be demanding, and there is an endless supply of ever-smaller peas to prompt ever-growing irritation. And so the mattresses will keep getting stacked: The left will continue to tweak and fiddle and choreograph and manipulate society and human existence until we’re down to “no person deserves to have an itchy foot,” at which point we’ll all be handed automated foot-scratchers for use in our prison cells.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact