Which of the two political parties in the United States is most to blame for the gutting of American inner cities and the persistence of poverty in the land? I think a good case can be made that they are just about equally responsible. Specifically, a fair amount of guilt has to be shared by two of the worst US presidents of the 20th century: Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson and Republican Richard M. Nixon—the former for his War on Poverty (1964) and the latter for his War on (Some) Drugs (1971).
0 Comments
A study by a team of NASA-funded researchers has been getting a lot of play in recent days. Headlines scream about the "irreversible collapse" of civilization if we don't smarten up. In order to stave off disaster, the study says, we need to a) reduce economic inequality, and b) reduce resource consumption, both by using less and by reducing population growth. But a closer look suggests that reports of humanity's future demise may have been greatly exaggerated. There is absolutely no question in my mind that those who refuse to vaccinate their children against diseases like measles and whooping cough love their children just as much as those who do vaccinate. Pretty big of me, eh? But seriously, to a first approximation, parents love their kids, end of story. If they refuse to inoculate them, it's because they doubt the effectiveness and/or safety of vaccines. But while such parents may see themselves as skeptics, they are in fact too credulous by half. And so it came to pass that a great blanket of uncertainty settled upon the land like a late winter snowfall. The studious wondered if they would be forbidden from pursuing their post-secondary educations in English. Those with certain religious beliefs foresaw a future in which they would be effectively excluded from labouring in the public sector. The entrepreneurial of spirit pondered the possibility that they might be forced to operate their small businesses in French, regardless of any felt need to do so. Are the have-nots motivated by envy of the haves, or do they just want their fair share? Conversely, are the well-to-do jealously guarding their unjustified privileges from those that ain't got, or do they just want to keep their fair share? In my latest Québécois Libre article, "The Politics of Envy and Jealousy," I explore some of the things I think we need to consider before attempting to provide an answer to such questions. I've been reading David Friedman's Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World in anticipation of his talk here in Montreal tomorrow, and it's got me thinking about the power of reputation. In a chapter called "Contracts in Cyberspace," the law professor points out that suing someone for shafting you in an online deal is even more of a nuisance than doing so in the physical world, since you may very well live in completely different jurisdictions. Why, then, don't more deals go sour on the Internet? Ford (the company, not the mayor) is upset about the new free trade pact Canadian officials have just concluded with their South Korean counterparts. Among many other things, the deal will eliminate the 6.1% tariff on vehicles imported into Canada from companies like Kia and Hyundai, as well as the 8% tariff on vehicles imported into South Korea from Canada. If that sounds to you like a win for people in both countries, then you're obviously not the president and CEO of Ford of Canada. When a book has a lot to offer—meaty ideas, well-crafted language, a plot that sings, characters that move me—I want to take my time with it. I want to savour it and make it last. On the other hand, there are some books that I want to have read, but that I'm not really looking forward to reading. Also, there are just a lot of books out there, and only so many hours to devote to reading in a given day, year, or lifetime. What if I could savour the best and speed through the rest? You know what you never hear? You never hear anyone saying, "Man, I wish I spoke only one language," or "Being bilingual really sucks." Nobody regrets being able to communicate in two separate languages or having direct access to two different cultures. It's enriching and mind-opening, and door-opening too. I will always be grateful for having grown up in a francophone community with just enough of us anglophones in it to support a couple of small English schools. There are many "visions" out there for how society should be organized. Under an authoritarian regime, one person or small group imposes a vision on the rest of society. In a democratic country, "the people" decide who will get to impose which vision. Should "we" repair the roads or build more mass transit? Accept more immigrants or drive away those who are here? Beef up the army or train more doctors? Give welfare to single moms or to sclerotic corporations? Cast your vote, then live with the results. |
Who Writes ThisBradley Doucet is a Montreal writer and the English Editor of Le Québécois Libre. More of This
June 2016
Even More of ThisThe Limits of Power: A review of Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath
Math Education Should Be Set Free Santa on Trial What Does Greenpeace Have Against Golden Rice? Dear Sugar Man: Does a Nation Really Need a Charter of Values? To Dream a Possible Dream: MLK’s Famous Speech, 50 Years Later The Cost of Regulation: Why It's Worth Thinking About Is Government a Necessary Evil? A Review of Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority The Planned Chaos of New Orleans, LA The Unplanned Order of Houston, TX Dynamists vs. Stasists: Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies, 15 Years Later |