Today at Assembly, Exonians had the opportunity to hear from conservative Mark Steyn. While he critiqued partisanship and said he had problems with both parties, he only mentioned what Obama has done to increase the debt and not what Bush did before him to exacerbate the problem. Steyn was correct in introducing himself as a de-motivational speaker. His speech focused on self-indulgence in society, how education is overrated, the debt, and multiculturalism.
In his critique of multiculturalism, he discussed how Muslim morality police are trying to control women in France. While there are downsides to multiculturalism, he ignored the benefits of multiculturalism choosing instead to say that coexist bumper stickers aren’t applicable to real life due to a few isolated problems with multiculturalism. The movement allows integration of different cultures and effectively reduces prejudice. It seems odd to me that Steyn would argue against appreciating other cultures.
Steyn was right in criticizing self-indulgence and overspending by American citizens and their government. I agree with him that prosperity isn’t ensured forever and that his crowd spent our money. He seemed a bit confused though by Obama’s promise to Joe the Plumber to redistribute wealth. This had nothing to do with taking money from the future and using it for the present. Obama cut taxes for the majority of Americans. It seems disingenuous to me for Steyn to say that Obama’s redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the Robin Hood model of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.
His critique of higher education was spurious and based on the idea that people with low level educations achieved a lot after World War II. This model simply doesn’t apply nowadays though given the necessity of at least a high school diploma to find any sort of work in the US. Steyn critiqued world poverty and saving the planet as overly lofty causes, but isn’t reducing the debt an equally lofty cause? Besides, just because a cause is lofty doesn’t make it not worth fighting for.
Steyn was downright apocalyptic in the closing parts of his speech, saying that America is doomed. He predicted total societal collapse because of the debt. This idea is more than a little alarmist. Every generation faces great problems. The Greatest Generation faced World War II, the Baby Boomers were up against Vietnam, and now we face the debt. That doesn’t mean we’re on the brink of societal collapse.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA well written article Dan and I respect your courage in putting it up for critical review. Here are my comments:
ReplyDelete1. I think you have to distinguish between multiculturalism expressed after internalization of the common culture versus that expressed without first joining the pre-existing primary culture. The immigrants of the Ellis Island era all became Americans before they were Italian-Americans etc
2. you compare the Obama debt to the Bush debt. I think this is an incomplete way of thinking of the budget. Presidents don't write budgets, the House of Representatives does; presidents can only veto. I think it's much more constructive to pair the President with his Congress. For Bush then, we have a Republican house until 2006, but a Democrat House thereafter. Bush also committed us to vast military adventures and TARP, which were one-offs. None of his and his Congress's increased spending, and the Medicare Part D was unconscionable, is remotely in the same league as Obama and his veto-proof Democrat Congress. See here:
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/07/12/spiraling-deficits/
I think it would be even more useful to just plot spending outlays by the major categories so we can differentiate Entitlements from Military from Discretionary.
3. there is a difference between spending money on one's self and government spending. Who is to judge what is self-indulgent? My BMW?, your private high school? Now gov't spending is quite another thing becasue gov'ts only have the money they take from others.
4. Obama did not cut taxes. He was politically incapable of allowing the lower taxes of the Bush era to lapse to a higher rate. That was because the Republicans regained the majority in the House (see point 2).
5. Your paragraph on higher education is all opinion. Do you have any data?
6. The debt problem is apocalyptic, by which I mean, when debt reaches 100% GDP, countries start to fail. The US debt, on its present track, will reach this level next year (see here: http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_debt_as_percent_GDP_over_time.html )
7. I think some data might help with your inter-generational comparisons, which I don't think are equivalent:
- WW2 had 16 million serve with more than 300,000 deaths over 4 years in a population of 133 Million
- Vietnam had 8 million serve between 1965-75 with 3 million in country and 58,000 deaths in a population of 195 Million.
- you don't face the debt, you don't have a job. I face the debt. What you face is the Entitlements, which are much bigger and much harder to cut, because we Boomers are all going to vote our benefits at your expense.
I haven't had a lot of time to respond in the past month because I've been busy with school work. Jimmy told me that Mr. Tisdall took this as a sign that he was right and while I agree with some of his points, I'm not exactly conceding defeat. So here's my rebuttal:
ReplyDelete1. Multiculturalism can be problematic if it creates subsets in a particular nation. I disagree, however, with the notion that immigrants from Ellis Island became Americans before they became Italian-Americans. The Italians along with the Irish are a good example of a group of people who were originally cut off from society, but gradually integrated themselves into American culture. Without multi-culturalism, different ethnic groups do not have the opportunity to slowly assimilate into another culture because they are forced to do so all at once.
2. I don't think it is problematic to pair a president with the debt. Bush could have vetoed any number of bad budgets that Congress gave him. Obama came into office faced with a economic melt down caused by poor regulation during the Bush era. As a result, he adopted a Keynesian model for recovery. His over spending was based on an economic plan while Bush's over spending was based on poor decisions.
3. There is a difference between what the people choose to spend their money on and what the government chooses to spend their money on. But when the people spend their money on what they can't afford, it becomes a public issue because it effects the well being of the banks. Self-indulgent spending by the people isn't a problem otherwise.
4. Obama did not cut taxes because he had to renew the Bush tax cuts. Needless to say, Obama clearly has the intention of making life financially better for Americans of income levels below $100,000 a year.
5. One statistic is that College graduates make around $52,000 a year while non-college graduates make around $30,000 a year. A state school costs around $15,000 dollars a year. Assuming someone goes there for four years, college is well worth the $60,000 investment in order to make $20,000 more a year for the rest of one's life.
6. Even if our country fails economically because of our debt, this isn't apocalyptic in the same way that a movie like Independence Day depicts the apocalypse.
7. I think that the debt is less problematic than World War II to be honest. At least nowadays, we don't have the fear of being occupied. If America had waited until Britain had fallen in World War II, we may not be in the same position today. That's a real apocalypse in my opinion.
1. I assure you that neither the Italians nor the Irish were welcomed with open arms. They had to make their own way, and through this struggle they created their identities. They were not treated like infants as have been the post-LBJ immigrants and poor.
ReplyDelete2. You contrast Obama's "economic plan" with Bush's "poor judgments" as if the call to take on suicidal debts was not a poor judgment. Bush's "poor judgments" include what? Medicare part D, yes. Iraq, debatable, I think not. Compare these with Obama Care and "Stimulus" and you'll find judgment hasn't really been Obama's strong suit either.
3. What happens when government subsidizes say, housing loans, and thus creates an incentive for people to spend their money on what they can't afford? [See: Fannie and Freddie] The well being of the banks is the banks' problem, unless the government starts to interfere. If the government is limited, it cannot initiate these hellish cycles of breaking and fixing it's own mistakes.
4. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
5. I skipped the assembly so I don't know what I'm supposed to be arguing for.
6. Independence Day depicted an alien invasion. Barring extraterrestrial attack, what do you consider to be apocalyptic?
7. World War II brought the country together against a common enemy. Debt will tear us apart until the bottom half of the country realizes that it is a burden, and the top half flees for friendlier shores. The welfare state WILL ruin us in its current form.