April 05, 2005
Reform, In Theory and Practice
I don’t know if it is synchronicity or just my fevered imagination, but it seems as if two disparate posts among the many I read on the blogosphere often end up revealing a deeper truth than either can do individually. Jane Galt has an interesting post with the amusing title of "A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other". It purports to be a post about gay marriage, but its best parts are an excellent explanation of the conservative interest in taking reforms slowly and carefully:
Social conservatives of a more moderate stripe are essentially saying that marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history. It is a bedrock of our society; if it is destroyed, we will all be much worse off. (See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.) For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about, is between a man and a woman; this seems to be an important feature of the institution. We should not go mucking around and changing this extremely important institution, because if we make a bad change, the institution will fall apart.
A very common response to this is essentially to mock this as ridiculous. "Why on earth would it make any difference to me whether gay people are getting married? Why would that change my behavior as a heterosexual"
To which social conservatives reply that institutions have a number of complex ways in which they fulfill their roles, and one of the very important ways in which the institution of marriage perpetuates itself is by creating a romantic vision of oneself in marriage that is intrinsically tied into expressing one's masculinity or femininity in relation to a person of the opposite sex; stepping into an explicitly gendered role. This may not be true of every single marriage, and indeed undoubtedly it is untrue in some cases. But it is true of the culture-wide institution. By changing the explicitly gendered nature of marriage we might be accidentally cutting away something that turns out to be a crucial underpinning.
To which, again, the other side replies "That's ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether or not gay people were getting married!"
Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. "That's ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!" This ignores the fact that you may not be the marginal case. The marginal case may be some consultant who just can't justify sacrificing valuable leisure for a new project when he's only making 60 cents on the dollar. The result will nonetheless be the same: less economic activity. Similarly, you--highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you--may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn't mean that the institution of marriage won't be weakened in America just the same.
This should not be taken as an endorsement of the idea that gay marriage will weaken the current institution. I can tell a plausible story where it does; I can tell a plausible story where it doesn't. I have no idea which one is true. That is why I have no opinion on gay marriage, and am not planning to develop one. Marriage is a big institution; too big for me to feel I have a successful handle on it.
However, I am bothered by this specific argument, which I have heard over and over from the people I know who favor gay marriage laws. I mean, literally over and over; when they get into arguments, they just repeat it, again and again. "I will get married even if marriage is expanded to include gay people; I cannot imagine anyone up and deciding not to get married because gay people are getting married; therefore, the whole idea is ridiculous and bigoted."
They may well be right. Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality. Every government programme that libertarians have argued against has been defended at its inception with exactly this argument.
She then discusses Chesterton's classic caution about reform:
(Now, I am not arguing in favor of stigmatising unwed mothers the way the Victorians did. I'm just pointing out that the stigma did not exist merely, as many mid-century reformers seem to have believed, because of some dark Freudian excesses on the part of our ancestors.)
But all the reformers saw was the terrible pain--and it was terrible--inflicted on unwed mothers. They saw the terrible unfairness--and it was terribly unfair--of punishing the mother, and not the father. They saw the inherent injustice--and need I add, it was indeed unjust--of treating American citizens differently because of their marital status.
But as G.K. Chesterton points out, people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.
Now, of course, this can turn into a sort of precautionary principle that prevents reform from ever happening. That would be bad; all sorts of things need changing all the time, because society and our environment change. But as a matter of principle, it is probably a bad idea to let someone go mucking around with social arrangements, such as the way we treat unwed parenthood, if their idea about that institution is that "it just growed". You don't have to be a rock-ribbed conservative to recognise that there is something of an evolutionary process in society: institutional features are not necessarily the best possible arrangement, but they have been selected for a certain amount of fitness.
I am generally very receptive to this argument. But I always feel like there is something missing from it.
Minutes after reading Jane Galt's post, I read this post by Henry Farrell at Crooked Timber. Its general argument (especially as expanded by Henry in the comments) is that no matter how plausible the Bush administration's proposal to bring more transparency to union finances by allowing union members to find out where the political contributions are going sounds, they should be rejected because Bush doesn't have the best interests of unions in mind. In the comments I wrote (not explicitly thinking about the Galt post):
This is actually a good point, yet the problem beneath it is somewhat self-contradictory. Modern Democratic administrations have no interest in reforming the huge problems with unions because unions and the Democratic Party feed off of each other for power. It is a fact of democratic government that institutions are most likely to be reformed by people who don’t like them, or only when people who like them are forced to reform them by people who don’t like them. You admit that reforms are necessary but you don’t like the political outcome of these reforms. You are unwilling to engage the detail of these (apparently good) reforms because you don’t like the administration’s motives.
I don’t care about the motives. This proposal would have been good under Carter or Clinton, it is good now. Workers should not be forced to join a union, forced to have union dues grabbed from their paycheck and also forced to allow the union to support a party they hate. The union-member already is allowed to have the political portion returned to him if he doesn’t like it. But without transparency he can’t ask for the money back because it is difficult to track the money.
Your complaint seems to be that unions won’t be able to support the Democratic Party as much if its members (many forced to be members by law) find out how much money goes to the Democratic Party.
That just suggests that unions support the Democratic Party far more than their membership would want.
He responded:
Your point about reform is a reasonable one – but is also not applicable in this case. The kinds of reform that you’re talking about are only going to happen when either (a) the putative reformers are also those whom we want to benefit from the reform, or (b) the putative reformers have interests that are somehow aligned with those we want to benefit from the reform. In the case at hand, those we would like to benefit from putative reforms are presumably the ordinary union members. They’re not the Bush administration. Nor do we have any reason whatsoever to believe that the Bush administration’s interests are aligned with those of ordinary union members.
I think Henry makes a category error confusing 'unions' and 'union members' which he technically distinguishes but does not differentiate. He also confuses those who claim to be aligned with those who are actually aligned with particular interests. But when I read that paragraph my problem with the Galt piece suddenly thudded in my head. I think the bolded section of my comment was correct. In the specific case of unions, the much needed reforms were never going to take place under Democratic leadership because they benefit too much from the current shady structure. In the more general case, much needed reforms are likely to be proposed by those who don't like certain institutions. But, but, but I also believe that Jane Galt and Chesterson were correct. You don't want someone who doesn't understand why the fence was built to be put in charge of when and how to take it down.
Crap.
Someone smarter than me really needs to analyze how we can work this out. My initial feel would be that people with a conservative temperament ought to be much more attentive to listening to those who want to change things and approach problem solving by not only trying to defend the status quo by showing what could go wrong with change, but also trying to figure out how to make the change work. People with a more liberal temperament need to spend more time really understanding (in a non-dismissive way) why long-term institutions have existed the way they have so that if they see a change, they can also see how things might get screwed up. This also would suggest smaller, measurable changes so that we can see the effect of things before they get out of control. (I say non-dismissible because an all too common understanding of institutions liberals want to reform is along the lines of: it was evil, it was patriarchy, they didn't really understand things, they were repressed. Some of that can be true, but it is very likely that you are just not looking hard enough for the reasons.) Unfortunately, most people don't want to restrain their natural temperament. So in a democratically styled government this happens by having reforms proposed by people who dislike certain institutions and having the people who like them temper the proposed reforms.
I guess this is just a cautionary note, no matter what side you are on.
Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw at April 5, 2005 02:07 AMPersonally, I think we should have a Marriage Law that bans both Gays and Divorce. Divorce is evil and against God’s Law. I really don’t understand why people legalized Divorce. I suppose banning a minority is always easier.
Posted by: Aldous at April 5, 2005 03:04 AMguess ill have to agree with the ban on divorce and gay marrige. the majority should not have to change or be tolerante of a minority. Dimocracy is were the majority overules the minority, correct.
Posted by: Nik at April 5, 2005 08:13 AMCorrect. This is the reason we must prevent illegal immigration at all costs!!! The second those Minorities outnumber us, the US will no longer be a White Christian Country.
Fortunately, the Minuteman Project are even now blocking all attempts to enter this country. These brave men and women will ensure our supremacy and keep our Homeland for moral, decent folks!!!
——————————————————
He He He
Joke only!!! Happy April Fools!!!
Personally, I think civil unions should be allowed between gays, the government should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage, and let “marriage” be the province of religious organizations.
I’d like to ask one question, though. It seems clear to me that from the standpoint of social stability and public health, society better off with more long-term, monogamous relationships. If you agree with that, then gay marriage is obviously good - unless it somehow weakens “traditional” marriage.
Aside from these vague analogies to economics, is there any actual evidence, anywhere, that gay marriage weakens traditional families?
Posted by: William Cohen at April 5, 2005 11:34 AMWilliam-
How does one even begin to measure such a thing? I would argue that divorce weakens traditional families in a much more measurable sense, but no one except Aldous is suggesting we make that illegal.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 11:57 AMI think the overall theme of the post is that much thought should be put into “any” type of change or reform. This, I very much agree with. Although I lean more toward the left, I must admit I agree with many of the ideas from the right too. The bigger problems seems to be when either the right or the left gain power they tend to ignore the other side and make wholesale changes (or at least attempt to make wholesale changes) without listening to the other side.
Our Republic, a form of democratic government, is not longer a true republic. Politicians are bought and sold by any number of large organizations. They mock the term “public servant”. They do not serve us, the public; instead we serve them. Ben Franklin thought our public servants shouldn’t be paid at all. Although I wouldn’t necessarily agree with this (as Madison didn’t either), I think we have gone 180 degrees. Sure, they don’t make the CEO type salaries but they will never have to worry about health insurance or pensions (at our expense).
As for unions; there was at one time a VERY good reason they were created. When corporations are allowed to go unchecked they will take advantage of anyone and anything in order to make a profit. People were forced to work overtime or get fired (I’m not talking a little overtime…I’m talking 7 days a week 365 days a year), people were not given adequate safety measures while performing their work resulting any many fatalities, and they were paid very unfair wages. Thus, the people revolted and unions were created. I think they still have a good purpose, although some abuse their power. We’ve seen what happens when corporations are allowed to go unchecked. I wouldn’t necessarily rely on our government to protect us from these folks who grease the politician pockets either. So, if someone doesn’t want to belong to a union I would recommend they find a non-union job. Most don’t want to because they don’t pay as much, they have to work harder, and the benefits are poor. Thus, they want all the benifits of the union but they don’t want to support the party that helped unions…and unions, in turn, feel obligated to the democratic party (so, like other organizations grease the pockets of politicians).
Just my thoughts
Posted by: Tom at April 5, 2005 12:32 PMNik, the US is not supposed to be a democracy. The ideals of democracy are what kept slaves in bondage, put Japanese Americans in concentration camps, and stripped the Native Americans of their land and culture. There are other examples as well, but you get my point. This is exactly why the Constitution is so important. It ensures equal rights when a majority would not.
Don’t misinterpret this though; I’m not saying I advocate gay marriage one way or the other. I still haven’t figured out marriage as an institution, and until I do I am not qualified to advocate changing it.
Posted by: Zeek at April 5, 2005 01:35 PMThe ideals of democracy are what kept slaves in bondage, put Japanese Americans in concentration camps, and stripped the Native Americans of their land and culture.
Unbelievable. Is this what the leftist schools in this country are passing off as history or did you drop out of school in the third grade and have been home schooled by Carol Mosely Braun?
Posted by: Fisher at April 5, 2005 03:17 PMZeek,
i couldn’t disagree with you more. the u.s. is ran by the majority(ex. more americans voted to keep bush in office during the election).
as for these “native americans land” we live on. the u.s. government BOUGHT the louisiana purchace (key word purchace). the government paid france for land, therefore the land belonged to the u.s. And it is very hypocritical to live on the “stolen” land while saying the government should never have occupied it.
I cant even begin to say how much it agrivates me when people bring everything back to slavery. slavery, is no longer legal and i for one dont beleive i owe any minority anything. Buisnesses can no longer tell minorities they have to eat on an opposite site of a room or drink from a different waterfountain. And while im on this subject, giving minorities jobs and scholarships because of their race is rediculous.
i do admit the government was wrong to put the japanese in camps(although they were not concentration nor death camps). but you must also remember the time. People were afraid of spies, air raids,ect.
Nik:
I don’t know where the Louisiana purchase came up in Zeek’s post, but it doesn’t matter. Just because the US bought the land from France doesn’t give the US anymore right to drive off the Native Americans. Whether the US drove them off land the US conquered itself… or drove them off land France conquered and the US “bought” is irrelevant—it’s still the same argument, and the Native Americans were still there before any European even set foot on the land.
In fact, your argument is equivalent to saying it’s okay for me to own a slave because I bought the slave from a Frence slave trader rather than capturing the slave myself… I just don’t see the point your post is trying to make.
Nike and Fisher:
Zeek is completely correct. The US is not just a democracy, it is a constitutional democracy. The difference between the two is rather like the difference between a monarchy and a constitutional monarchy. In a regular monarchy, the ruler is a dictator, all-powerful. In a constitutional monarchy, the ruler’s power is limited by a constitution which affords certain rights to the citizens. In a regular democracy, it is simple majority rule, or rule by the mob. Whatever the majority wants, the majority gets, even the subjugation of minorities to increase the power of the majority. In a constitutional democracy, the power of the majority is limited by a constitution, designed to afford certain rights to minorities and individual citizens even in the face of opposition by the majority.
Posted by: Jarin at April 5, 2005 07:19 PMSebastian:
Galt makes some good points, but fails in a large way by repeating an error that those “in defense of marriage” consistently make: Marriage has not existed unchanged throughout history, nor has it been solely between a man and a woman “always and everywhere, in every culture we know about”. Marriage was once commonly polygamous, with one man being married to many women. You can even find examples of this in the bible. Even Solomon himself followed this model of marriage. It has also frequently occurred between members of the same gender. The so-called “berdache” of native american tradition is one example of this, though the term itself is a french insult applied to the practice by colonists. Christian adelphopoiesis rites in the middle ages in Europe. There is also evidence from traditional rabbinical teachings dealing with the laws of Leviticus that same-sex marriage was practiced by the Egyptians and Canaanites at one time. These are just a handful of examples. Nuclear, heterosexual marriage is not as unchanging and traditional thing as we have been led to believe in modern times.
Posted by: Jarin at April 5, 2005 07:37 PMI apologize for interupting the Norm Chomsky lovefest.
Posted by: Fisher at April 5, 2005 08:54 PMNik, I don’t think I’ve ever wanted to laugh more than at this moment.
“the u.s. is ran by the majority(ex. more americans voted to keep bush in office during the election). “
Ok, let’s pretend the 2000 election DIDN’T happen (if you recall, GW lost the majority vote). Even then, the country is not run by the majority. The rights of citizens are completely decided by a group of people the “majority” does not elect. I am talking, of course, about the Supreme Court.
“as for these “native americans land” we live on. the u.s. government BOUGHT the louisiana purchace (key word purchace). the government paid france for land, therefore the land belonged to the u.s. And it is very hypocritical to live on the “stolen” land while saying the government should never have occupied it.”
So, you’re saying Louisiana is the only place the Native Americans lived? Funny thing, I seem to recall us legally giving the entire western half of Dakota to the Native Americans through a treaty. Until, that is, we stripped them of those lands. If this doesn’t constitute as stealing I don’t know what does.
“slavery, is no longer legal and i for one dont beleive i owe any minority anything.”
I don’t believe I owe African Americans anything either. My point was that slavery occured under democracy which is why I’m saying democracy is not as great as so many Americans make it out to be.
“i do admit the government was wrong to put the japanese in camps(although they were not concentration nor death camps). but you must also remember the time. People were afraid of spies, air raids,ect.”
The US government concentrated the Japanese into camps. That would make the camps “concentration camps.” See, the key word there is “concentration.” As for the time, what about now? Right now people are afraid of fundamentalist terrorists. Why don’t we just start putting the American Muslims in concentration camps? Isn’t that what your logic is advocating?
Fisher, I don’t know why you started talking about leftist schools teaching slated history. What I said was less about the history and more about the philosophy. Think about it. What is democracy about? Rule of the majority, and thus the rights of the majority. Naturally this means that minorities are at the mercy of the majority. Minorities like blacks, Japanese, Native Americans…
The simple truth is that democracy, especially in pure forms, actually encourages the oppression of minorities. Exploiting minorities in favor of the majority couldn’t be closer to the fundamental principle of democracy.
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 12:01 AMZeek, are you aware of what was going on in the world in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s? Should we be critical of a policy that interned US citizens, you bet. Are you able to set your hatred of this country aside for a moment to put the world in context? I doubt it. While we were interring people in this country, the Japanese were doing the same, only they starved, tortered, and murdered several million of them. The Germans and Russians were doing the same, and guess what, they were not democracies. Utlimately, this country and many others were fighting for their very existence, so please drop your phony indignation.
Zeek my point about history is this - it seems you have a very twisted version of it in your head that somehow makes this country out to be the main force for evil in the world. You are a card carrying member of the blame America first crowd and you have ZERO credibility.
Posted by: Fisher at April 6, 2005 08:33 AMSebastian -
I don’t understand what happened to this comment thread, but it’s not your fault! Terrific post; very well presented. As a Christian, I have a somewhat different vantage point on the whole issue (maybe I’ll post that sometime), but I really appreciated your broadmindedness in looking at the zeitgeist of reform.
Fisher,
“Should we be critical of a policy that interned US citizens, you bet. Are you able to set your hatred of this country aside for a moment to put the world in context? I doubt it. While we were interring people in this country, the Japanese were doing the same, only they starved, tortered, and murdered several million of them.”
This is a typical dumb, “you don’t agree with me so you must hate America” accusation. Where did I say I hate America? Where did I call America evil? There is no place on this earth I’d rather live than in the States. So, secure as I am in my love of this country, why can’t I point out some of the nastier aspects of our history?
“The Germans and Russians were doing the same, and guess what, they were not democracies.”
Yet the spirit of democracy was there. The majority of Germans were certainly happy to imprison gays, Jews, and dissenters in concentration camps. Similarly, the majority of Russians were more than eager to imprison German POW’s and make them suffer. Maybe the government of those places weren’t democratic, but the power of majority prevailed nonetheless.
“Utlimately, this country and many others were fighting for their very existence, so please drop your phony indignation.”
What phony indignation? Again, I was merely pointing out that democracy isn’t as perfect as everyone thinks it is. I wasn’t being “indignant” in any sense of the word.
“it seems you have a very twisted version of it in your head that somehow makes this country out to be the main force for evil in the world. You are a card carrying member of the blame America first crowd and you have ZERO credibility.”
I see you are on a mission to destroy all opinions that aren’t the same as yours. I never even implied the US was evil, much less that this country is the main force for evil in the world. I’m not blaming America for anything other than imperfection, which is fine; no country is perfect.
My point was that if we were a little less democratic and a little more Constitution-oriented, our nation would be a better place. Of course, some wackos might interpret this as America-hating-madness, but it isn’t.
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 03:32 PMZeek,
Don’t waste your breath on this guy. You are absolutely right. I have extensive study in the constitution and constitutional history. Although our constitution and our “Republican” form of government isn’t perfect it is the best form of a democratic government in existence.
That said; the self interest of either party could turn the whole idea of our “democratic” form of government on its head. Many of our founding brothers at the constitutional convention had the same fears you have expressed…that being the majority trampling on the rights of a minority. Some were concerned with large states vs. small states while others were thinking about individuals.
It’s kind of funny. At that time there was serious consideration that one could only vote if one owned property and had wealth. Looking back that seems ridiculous. One of the thoughts was if one had a vested interest in the country one would be loyal (either to state or country) while another thought was the more educated would present a better vote (and for the most part the more educated were the landowners). Fast-forward 200 years and most of Americans don’t even know the purpose of the constitution or the bill of rights…and both sides (right and left) tend to interperet to their benefit.
Yes, the constitution does many things. It checks the power of the executive branch with the legislative branch and vice-versa. It also has individual rights meant to protect all citizens…even the minority.
I understand Fisher’s point also…it is hard to hear our country criticized. Especially by it’s own citizens. However, we should always question the motives and actions of government. Thomas Jefferson was very leary of federal powers. He constantly questioned government…we should too. It keeps them honest.
Fisher,
Just because someone tortured our citizens doesn’t make it right to torture theirs. we should not want to drop to that level. Two wrongs doesn’t make a right. ALL people are created equal. Sure, we disagree with many people of many nations as they do us. Degrading our integrity to that level, however, does nothing for our country or the world as a whole. We should lead by example….that NOT being the Japanese imprisonments or the Iraq prison scandal. We are a fair people that will retaliate if intruded upon but we will treat all humanely; even in the face of other’s sins.
Posted by: Tom at April 6, 2005 07:53 PMPerspective, that is my point. It sounds like you guys are drawing a moral equivalence between what we did in WW2 and what the Nazi’s and Imperial Japanese did to their “detainees”. Moreover, I never read any of this kind of concern for the “minority” when the democrats were the party in power.
Tom, it’s not hard to hear our country criticized, I am objectintg to a total lack of understanding and perspective by the critic.
Posted by: Fisher at April 8, 2005 08:45 AMFisher:
“It sounds like you guys are drawing a moral equivalence between what we did in WW2 and what the Nazi’s and Imperial Japanese did to their ‘detainees’.”
You are completely missing my point. I was saying that majority rule is often what leads to oppression and things like internement camps. I’m not comparing what we did in WW2 to the Nazis or Japanese, and I’m not quite sure why you thought I was.
“Moreover, I never read any of this kind of concern for the ‘minority’ when the democrats were the party in power.”
I never mentioned the Republicans so I don’t know why you’re mentioning the Democrats. I was criticizing democracy, not political parties. However, on that note, both the Democrats and the Republicans have been party to oppression before.
“I am objectintg to a total lack of understanding and perspective by the critic.”
You are claiming that I lack understanding and perspective because you don’t know what I’m talking about. Quite simply I’m saying democracy is far inferior to our Constitution.
