The Gods of the Copybook Headings

God in the Machine

David Warren on capitalism:

Yet I tend to become a fairly advanced environmentalcase myself, when I look at the products of contemporary life; and at the incredible waste, not only in their production, but in the goods themselves: each an evanescence of fashion, to be soon discarded and replaced, contributing to a culture that is inherently unstable. And yes, even the food is full of chemicals.

Oh, dear. Years ago I told a chemistry teacher that I had spilled a "chemical" on the table. She rolled her eyes and explained that practically everything has a chemical composition. Chemically speaking water is dihydrogen oxide. In casual conversation "chemical" typically means something that has been artificially produced. That, however, tells us very little. Arsenic is quite natural and many medicines use chemical compounds created in a laboratory. 

Modern society is quite wasteful? Indeed. The reason societies before us have not been wasteful is that they have been poor. The rich can afford to throw things away. The poor must use and reuse rather than purchasing something newer and better. To those of us who have been forced to "make do" the experience is not ennobling. My father, who grew up in a poverty Mr Warren has likely never experienced, is quite "wasteful." As he puts it: "My time is more valuable to me than this old piece of junk." 

The jeremiad against modernity continues: 

Worse than this, disposable lives. For people, in the main today, work to live, and the great majority of them in tasks that are mindless, repetitive, and demoralizing. When the cry goes up for "full employment," remember that this is a statistical concept, that reduces us to ciphers.

Yet how does this differ from the rest of humanity? Or previous eras? Does Mr Warren imagine that the life of a medieval peasant was not "mindless, repetitive and demoralizing?" A deep faith may have helped him survive psychologically, though he was often physical worn out by middle age. This assuming he and several of his children had not already perished in the frequent famines, plagues and wars of the pre-industrial age. Man does not live by bread alone, yet he must have bread.

The ideal that Mr Warren posits is one of "live to work." A laudable ideal. No doubt being a professional writer is quite fulfilling. Not everyone in a society can engage in work they happen to find fulfilling. One can find great personal happiness in painting very mediocre canvasses that not a soul, at least beyond your immediate family, will ever care to accept much less purchase. Since there is no market for what you enjoy doing, you will have to engage in work that has market value.

Every society in human history, regardless of its socio-economic arrangements, has been built and sustained by an enormous amount of drudgery. We recall Michelangelo's genius, though not the washerwoman, the cook, the farmer, the brewer and humble clerk without which David would never have been possible. For beauty to exist a great deal of ordinary work is necessary.

Some of this work can be fulfilling too. There are many people in very humble walks of life who take great pride in doing a job well. This ethos has certainly faded in recent decades. Yet it is purest fantasy to think that the vast majority of people in previous ages, and in poor nations today, take great pride is scratching a precarious existence from near barren soil. Wearing the same tattered clothing for years is certainly not wasteful, it is also hardly desirable.

Much of the popular culture is horribly vulgar. Corporations are often run in at top-down manner, much to the detriment of the company's long-term prosperity. These are not the failings of capitalism, they are failings of our culture. If men and women are not taught beauty and truth, do not expect them to prize it once they emerge out into the world. The markets are merely machines responding to the desires of the participants.

When the tastes and values of the few fail to match those of the many, as they often do, the tendency among the few is to damn capitalism. The statist will demand subsidies and privileges to protect their sensibility from being violated. Whether bailing out a car company or an opera house, the same principle applies: My preferences entitle me to pick your pocket.

I'm not accusing Mr Warren of demanding subsidies for his personal preferences. There is, however, in his writings a kind of nostalgic utopianism. In a world more pious than today life was less harsh, less vulgar and possessed of greater meaning. Yesterday might have been more pious, at least in outward form, but to imagine that the world was once populated by humble saints tilling the soil is absurd.

The Left imagines a utopia that has never been, probably could never be given human nature, and rails when the practice fails to meet their theories. David Warren is partially guilty of the same error, except in the opposite chronological direction. If we do reach a stage in human development when most of us "live to work" it will be thanks to economic growth. A rich society can better allow its people to engage in fulfilling work than a poor one. 

 

Children of the Age

The cannon fodder of socialism.

If you are like me, and I suspect reading this blog you probably are, the last few weeks have been an endless source of bleak amusement. The Occupy Everything for Whatever Reason mob has swept through the Imperial Capital. It was just enough to get the attention of jaded Torontonians for a good nanosecond. Unless it involves the Leafs getting into the playoffs the denizens of Hogtown really can't be bothered. Given the Leafs track record in recent decades that means apathy is our routine.

Snarl traffic in downtown Toronto? How would anyone notice? Occupy St James Park and fill it up with dirty hippies? Again, how would anyone notice? The "protesters" resemble nothing so much as overgrown and bewildered children left to wander about Bay Street without parental supervision. A few brave journalists, mostly from Sun Media, have gone so far as to ask the mob members what they are "protesting." 

The answers are simply hysterical. One of the most common is that the bank bailouts must be stopped. When it is explained that there were no bank bailouts in Canada, something an aspiring social activist should be aware of, the blathering response is something to behold. Here is Michael Coren doing a rundown. The word you are searching for is inarticulate. None of us have the time to wait for the word they are searching to find.

Astroturf? Sort of. The big unions were there as were the professional activists. The usual suspects. Even in these days of bloated government there are only so many of these paid agitators. A protest requires lots of people to fill out the crowd. With just the typical deadenders these events would be even more obviously pathetic than usual. 

The bulk of the mob, which is what they are, are fools. To more precise they are the victims of modern public education. The whole train of modern paedology is focused not on facts, logic or reasoning but on emotions. I feel therefore I am. Thus adults, at least in physical form, wander through the streets of our largest city for no apparent reason without embarrassment. They are angry.  At what they are not entirely sure.

Capitalism? What is capitalism? They have no idea. Socialism? It's a nice word but it's unlikely many could speak at length about the collective ownership of the means of production. The vast majority sound and look to be native born Canadians. My guess is that the majority are WASPs who are university or college level students. Those who complain about the Muslim hordes overwhelming the Dominion should take careful note. The immigrants have better thing to do with their time than complain about, well, nothing in particular.

Having been provided years, perhaps decades, of expensive schooling at the taxpayers expense these beings seem to still function at a perceptual level. They are drawn to loud noises, shinny objects and large groups of people. There is an unfortunate tendency among ordinary and productive citizens to give these beings the benefit of the doubt. Surely if people feel that strongly about an issue there must be something to it.

No. Sound and fury signifying nothing in particular. Their heads are bereft of history, economics, science, philosophy, literature, geography, current events, law and even basic hygiene. This is what the Canadian population now calls a post-secondary education. The dumbing down of academic standards has a useful political side effect, it creates an electorate too ignorant to understand what is happening.

The high school curriculum does place great emphasis on "critical thinking." Once upon a time this meant conducting research, evaluating competing claims and making a personal analysis of a complex issue. That is not what is currently taught in the schools. Critical thinking means being critical of those in power, in the most narrow sense of the word. You rich bastards are hogging all the money. Voila! Critical thinking skills in action.

Without a knowledge of history there is no way for them to know that socialism has been tried before and failed. Lacking a grasp of economics these victims of public schooling cannot fully understand the role of prices, profits and wages in a market economy. This makes it far easier to persuade them the whole system is a con. Never having been given access to proper literature their view of man is of a narrow and wretched thing. Their cosmology is a mere parable, that of the rich man crushing the poor. 

These shrunken creatures, ignorant and foolish, are the children of Rousseau and Dewey. Beings who are filled up with the self esteem of empty praise, not a genuine pride and confidence of intellectual and personal accomplishment. The goal of education is to equip the young to fend for themselves, to make of children independent and confident adults. Yet modern schooling does the opposite. It creates emotional and intellectual cripples lurching from one mental fog to another. These are fit subjects ready to be led and cajoled by their leaders. Socialism's cannon fodder.

It is unlikely that most of these sad creatures, whose parents and teachers have betrayed them, is aware of Ayn Rand. More than forty years ago Miss Rand identified the ideas that drove modern education and were creating the hippies of that time. Decades onward and we are confronted with beings even more anti-intellectual than the Sixties era hippies. Here is Ayn Rand's classic essay The Comprachicos. While it is lengthly, this essay provides a still powerful and relevant insight into the workings of modern schooling and its victims.

 

Young Cranks

Our wayward, though not Leftward, youth:

Young Canadians are carrying around some gender stereotypes that seem more in line with what their parents or grandparents might have thought, a new global study suggests.

The report, released Thursday by the development agency Plan International, found 31% of Canadian boys aged 12 to 17 believe a woman's most important role is feeding her family and taking care of the home.

Whoa Nelly! They'll be demanding the death penalty for petty theft next. The article's tone, this is the National Post not the Star, is incredibly condescending. Why is the belief that women should be focused on family so horrible to contemplate? Why is it any more or less invalid than a belief that women should be actively pursuing careers? Is not tolerance the watchword of modern Canada?

Well, no. Even those on the Canadian Left have no interest in tolerating themselves out of existence, which is why people on the Right get the snarling contempt treatment. The lackadaisical attitude toward the dangers of Islamic Fascism comes from a foolish belief that the Left's vital enemy is the domestic Right, not the headhackers on the other side of the world.

Diversity is the strength of a free society, though not in the way the word is typically used. A society in which, say, women uniformly pursued the role of housewife and mother would lose a great deal of intellectual talent. A society in which women were actively discouraged from focusing on raising families would be, well, rather like Canada today. Neither extreme is conducive to a balanced and healthy society.

Most people are not research scientists, inventors or corporate titans. They perform middling functions in a routine way. It is difficult to see how a disaffected female office clerk is any more fulfilled than a woman spending her days raising young children. The vast majority of people work principally for financial gain. They may prefer one job to another, but male or female few of us harbour great ambitions.

There are many women who would agree with the statement that "a woman's most important role is feeding her family and taking care of the home." They may not wish to admit it publicly, for fear being seen as old fashioned.  Put aside the gender wars of the last two generations for a moment. What's more important to you, shuffling paper, or taking care of your family? If you could do the latter without having to do the former, would you?

An ambitious person wouldn't view these questions in the same way. They might find raising a family and having a career fulfilling. They would try to balance both the best they could. Perhaps they would marry someone lacking career ambitions so both could focus on what they do best. If both want to pursue careers perhaps outside help is brought in. The division of labour is an uncontroversial tenet of economics. It seems to be heresy in family life.

Yet this is real diversity. A diversity of values, priorities and aptitudes. It is the vital element of a successful society, allowing individuals to seek what suits them best in agreement with others. A society that turned out nothing but engineers would stagnate as surely as a society that produced nothing but accountants. A mixture of skills and talents drives an economy forward. Why should it be any different for the non-monetary aspects of a civil society? 

Just as some are excellent parents, with a seemingly natural aptitude for dealing with children, others lack the empathy and patience. There is a compelling logic in encouraging the former in their strengths and discouraging the latter in their weakness. The childless couple is perhaps not quite the demographic drain. The fecund parents not the costly burden on society. Would they not, in an appropriate ratio, compliment each other?

Take any point of view and there are problems. People can be too focused on families and forget the rest of the world, or too focused on what's beyond the home. The misanthropic might eschew marriage and children altogether. There is no single ideal solution for everyone. Rarely is there a single ideal solution for one individual or family. Part of life is a tricky balancing acts and hard choices. Everyone making the same choice in their personal lives makes as little sense as everyone pursing the same career, or purchasing the same stock.

This abundance of personal choice is the product of an affluent society. The poor are too worried about survival to spend much time thinking about gender roles. It was only after 1945 that a handful of countries became rich and advanced enough where raising a family became a conscious decision for most people. Leftist intellectuals, more than generals, keep fighting the last war. The clock is always 1957 and the channel always stuck on Leave It To Beaver.

We will allow the historians the task of finding how much of the Fifties were like the mythology that has grown up around that era. In the Culture Wars of the last four decades a whole decade has been turned into a bludgeon. Let the cliches bury the stereotypes. A modern society should be able to view different life choices as part and parcel of the dynamism of a free society. Leave the one size fits all approach in the past.