Wizblog

More Asses Than Chairs

Michael Barone has a piece called A Tale of Two Nations in the new U.S. News, but Barone's two nations are not the "red and blue" states of America we've all heard about, or the "right and the left", but rather "Hard" and "Soft" America. In seeking to explain why America's creates such "incompetent" 18-year olds, and yet such capable 30-year olds, Barone faults in part, the educational system. It's all worth reading, but here's an excerpt:

from the age of 6 to 18, our kids live mostly in what I call Soft America--the part of our society where there is little competition and accountability. In contrast, most Americans in the 12 years between ages 18 and 30 live mostly in Hard America--the part of American life subject to competition and accountability; the military trains under live fire. Soft America seeks to instill self-esteem. Hard America plays for keeps.

Of course this might all be explained by simply saying that when they're 18, they're kids, and when they reach 30, they're adults. And I'm not too sure that today's 18-year olds are any more coddled, spoiled or "soft" than my generation was. Nor am I convinced, however, that it's "tougher for kids today", which I hear constantly from contemporaries of mine, (usually those with underachieving kids).

I'm not so sure we should be throwing 12-year olds to the wolves of life's cold realities, and I don't think Barone does either. But there is a certain lack of discipline and accountability in today's educational system that values self-esteem above achievement, and the results (or causes?) include social promotion and grade inflation. I know it's tough to tell a 16-year old anything, much less warn him or her about the cold, cruel world of Hard America that awaits if they don't excel in school. But to me there's no excuse for not demanding more of them while they're there. One way is to refuse to lower the bar, just because someone fails to get over it.

There will always be those in any society that need to be, and should be supported, yes, "carried", by that society's productive members. I think that many on the left in America lose sight of the truth of Barone's closing remark:

a sensible society also understands.....that Soft America lives off the productivity, creativity, and competence of Hard America. And that we have the luxury of keeping part of our society Soft only if we keep most of it Hard.

Lexington Green is one of the bloggers at Chicago Boyz, who posts a response to the Barone piece that I wanted to share. His permalinks weren't working so I'll excerpt most of it below: (He explains in his comments that his use of the term "losers" is facetious)

Barone is almost always good. He is extremely knowledgeable about the real facts of American life. The piece hits home. I got introduced to Hard American in my early jobs in high school, and I got Hard America right socko in the teeth at U of C, which was do or die. I owe any success I have had in life since then to the U of C's f*** you attitude -- we give Ds and Fs here, so show me something or there's the door. Yep, they do in the workforce, too. That's training for reality. That's Hard America.

One element Barone doesn't play up, which I think is real, is that most parents believe at some level that adult life, and work in particular, which is every waking moment most of us have, is pretty much an umremitting, vulgar, ugly, loveless snakepit with a few winners and a lot of losers. In response, these parents figure that especially younger children can be spared the full brutality of it for a while. But by junior high anyway, these coddled darlings need to start understanding that dogs do eat dogs, that rats do race, and that there are far more asses than chairs when the music stops.

That's Hard America. God bless it. It is better than all the alternatives. It rewards merit and punishes sloth. It produces wealth, freedom and opportunity -- all very great goods. And it has, so far, conquered the world. Barone is probably right that it should be pushed down the age axis, so it starts at about age 12 from a current age 18. Then we will all work harder and sort out the winners from the losers earlier, and have more money.

I think it was Schumpeter who said that a certain pretty large proportion of any society will simply not be able to cut it in a capitalist economy. Let us call these people "losers." So, according to Schumpeter, or whoever it was, these losers need to be given busy work and an income out of the social surplus of the productive part of society. This way these losers will feel like they are doing something useful, and have a modicum of human dignity, whether or not they have earned it. If this is not done, these losers will raise Hell and destroy the whole system. He was onto something.

There is a libertarian dream world in which there is no Soft America at all, a world of the future, if only this or that would happen today. This vision beckons half-glimpsed on the horizon, somewhat like the Marxian workers' paradise, except with cleaner bathrooms and crisp efficiency and no grade inflation. It is an Ayn Randian world of competent "winners," and no bureaucrats, toadies, or parasites like that half-retarded nephew of the boss working in the mailroom.

But this All-Hard-American-All-The-Time utopia will never be more than a delusion. There will always have to be a pretty big Soft America. There will always have to be a place to warehouse and cabin-off the losers who cannot hack it, who will always be misfits in the cash economy. Otherwise, these losers will have time to brood about their failures, find like-minded losers with grievances, blame society for their inability to compete successfully, and agitate for socialism, or whatever equivalent snake oil is fashionable, thus killing the goose for everybody. Much more prudent and humane to have them all work at the Registry of Motor Vehicles. They pretend to work, we actually pay them, and they don't start a new Nazi or Bolshevik party or join Al Qaeda. Not necessarily a bad buy.

(Such thoughts are why I am a Conservative and not a Libertarian.)

Green's readers respond that the European welfare states, (generally very "soft" societies) have not prevented radical or even terrorist groups from developing, despite massive bureaucracies with plenty of places to "warehouse" potential malcontents. But when I speak of those people that should be "carried" by the productive segment of society, I'm referring to the disabled, retarded, infirm, or aged among us, not just those who are looking to blame someone else for the mediocrity of their existences, and as such are willing customers for the statist snake oil salesmen.

Posted by dan at May 9, 2003 02:05 PM