24 January 2012
Reclaiming America’s World Leadership
In his Saturday Essay in the January 21, 2012, Wall Street Journal, “The New American Divide,” Charles Murray expresses his view that the upper middle and the working classes in America are becoming more and more isolated from each other because of a lack of commitment, among other things, to building a community of common interests. He compares the trends in the lifestyles of those groups in 1960 to 2010. But, more starkly he compares the current condition of American society to that described by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th Century.
Let us recall that the society described in “Democracy in America” was much closer to its origins as an immigrant community than today’s society. The elites that Murray contrasts with the working class will probably be joined, if not subsumed, by the latter immigrant-dominated group in future decades. This expanded elite will then be isolated from the latest batch of immigrants, or from the economically slower-to-evolve regions of the world in Asia, for example. The vibrancy of that 19th Century America and the innovation that is more common within immigrant-dominated civilizations withers away the more distant the rigours of establishing new roots become. That is what made the characteristics of the America that de Tocqueville observed so starkly different from the Europe that he was brought up in.
Rather than calling for a renewed commitment of upper middle class citizens to inspiring their children to engage the diverse human resources available in this country, Mr.Murray should be invoking the power of increased fertilization of our society by encouraging immigration of the new blood, genes and ideas of risk-takers from other parts of the globe. Owing to their invigoration Americans will reclaim leadership as the world’s engineers of economic and technological growth.
In his Saturday Essay in the January 21, 2012, Wall Street Journal, “The New American Divide,” Charles Murray expresses his view that the upper middle and the working classes in America are becoming more and more isolated from each other because of a lack of commitment, among other things, to building a community of common interests. He compares the trends in the lifestyles of those groups in 1960 to 2010. But, more starkly he compares the current condition of American society to that described by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th Century.
Let us recall that the society described in “Democracy in America” was much closer to its origins as an immigrant community than today’s society. The elites that Murray contrasts with the working class will probably be joined, if not subsumed, by the latter immigrant-dominated group in future decades. This expanded elite will then be isolated from the latest batch of immigrants, or from the economically slower-to-evolve regions of the world in Asia, for example. The vibrancy of that 19th Century America and the innovation that is more common within immigrant-dominated civilizations withers away the more distant the rigours of establishing new roots become. That is what made the characteristics of the America that de Tocqueville observed so starkly different from the Europe that he was brought up in.
Rather than calling for a renewed commitment of upper middle class citizens to inspiring their children to engage the diverse human resources available in this country, Mr.Murray should be invoking the power of increased fertilization of our society by encouraging immigration of the new blood, genes and ideas of risk-takers from other parts of the globe. Owing to their invigoration Americans will reclaim leadership as the world’s engineers of economic and technological growth.
11 January 2012
Mitt Romney Confuses Free Enterprise with Governing
Free Enterprise is not the enemy of the people’s welfare. It is indeed a proven avenue for raising their standard of living. Therefore, government must not stand in its way.
However, there are social interests that cannot be satisfied by the marketplace. These include health, personal liberty, religious belief--to paraphrase John Rawls, What is Just is not necessarily Lucrative. American values are not solely fulfilled by the triumph of free enterprise, even though it does contribute to our capability for honoring those values.
The most disturbing feature of Mitt Romney’s character is his blindness to broader definitions of the general welfare than material wealth. One of his most revealing comments during recent campaigning came when he replied to a questioner’s concern about the effects of the Great Recession on the questioner’s standard of living by expressing worry about returns on Romney’s own investments. How many in the audience had investments left to worry about?
Free Enterprise is not the enemy of the people’s welfare. It is indeed a proven avenue for raising their standard of living. Therefore, government must not stand in its way.
However, there are social interests that cannot be satisfied by the marketplace. These include health, personal liberty, religious belief--to paraphrase John Rawls, What is Just is not necessarily Lucrative. American values are not solely fulfilled by the triumph of free enterprise, even though it does contribute to our capability for honoring those values.
The most disturbing feature of Mitt Romney’s character is his blindness to broader definitions of the general welfare than material wealth. One of his most revealing comments during recent campaigning came when he replied to a questioner’s concern about the effects of the Great Recession on the questioner’s standard of living by expressing worry about returns on Romney’s own investments. How many in the audience had investments left to worry about?
