Thanks for the debate
Dear book clubbers,
As an author, it’s rare to find a venue for such well-informed debate. TV and radio are all about sound-bites. Bookstore talks are like college seminars where no one’s done the reading: you stand up and talk to people about a book they haven’t read—and that, amazingly, is the point. By contrast, here, I’ve gotten to mix is up with people who have read the book, thought about it, and taken the time to write down their thoughts. So thanks Chris, Scott, Dana, and Mark and to the staff at TPMCafé for all their time and effort!
While at times we got bogged down in statistical minutia—there’s no dispute that housing costs in major cities have gone up in the last generation but we seem to disagree a little about the extent and disagree a lot about the implications for career choice—I think we got into some very important issues here. And it’s encouraging to see broad agreement that we need to address the impact of the new inequality on those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. It’s worrisome, however, that even among putative progressives, progressive taxation and expansions of the social safety net are still controversial. Too many are complacent with an America that works for fewer and fewer Americans, and a concentration of wealth at the top that, as Jonathan Chait points out in his excellent book, The Big Con, (discussed in a recent TPMCafé book club), looks statistically more like Imperial Rome than a modern, developed democracy.
At one point in the debate here, it was alleged that I was “trapped” by ideology. Rather, America is trapped by an ideology that views the taxes we pay for things we all need as an imposition on freedom and equates social justice with simply giving charity to the poor rather than building a more just—and more free—social order. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, “We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both.” This is a choice that America—and particularly its progressives—cannot put off for much longer.
Clubbed but not out,
Daniel Brook















"As an author, it’s rare to find a venue for such well-informed debate."
Perhaps, as an author, you might consider avoiding dangling modifiers.
October 19, 2007 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...equates social justice with simply giving charity to the poor rather than building a more just—and more free—social order." Thanks. That criticism in particular means a lot to me.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 19, 2007 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It'd be really cool if you came back here as a regular contributor.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 19, 2007 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aw shucks. I guess I'm too late for The Big Con, which I highly recommend. But if they're doing Paul Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal," I'd love to get tapped.
October 19, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rather, America is trapped by an ideology that views the taxes we pay for things we all need as an imposition on freedom and equates social justice with simply giving charity to the poor rather than building a more just—and more free—social order
I agree with a lot you are trying to do with your book. I say that first because I don't want you to take the following criticism wrong. I think you have not correctly identified your opponents in this sentence. Many don't object to charity for the poor. That impulse, for instance, is the reason for the whole "compassionate conservatism" theme. Rather, what makes a lot of moderates and those with libertarian leanings fear liberals having power, what they object to, is excessive social engineering. I think framing is really important here, stressing the "fair playing field" and avoiding classic social engineering terminology, like you are partially getting at in the end of the sentence.
October 19, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dangly things are what editors are for.
Jack
October 19, 2007 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Economics are the method but the object is to change the soul."
-Margaret Thatcher
And they say we're the social engineers???
October 19, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how many European friends Daniel has and how much he's actually traveled there? It's true you can get excellent medical care in France for free, but France also wrestles with extreme poverty, hopelessness, and finding enough jobs for young people entering the work force. This despite extremely high taxation and "progressive" policies. Where's the justice for all? These same conditions are reproduced in every European country with a few exceptions.
The point here is that Daniel and his ilk preach the gospel of higher taxation as a cure for social ills and inequality, when the reality created in those societies is plain for everyone to see. Throwing money at these problems does not make them go away.
October 21, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignoring a problem won't make it go away. Pursuring policies that make it worse, or make it a permanent condition for many people, is stupid at best.
October 22, 2007 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
most Americans would not agree we are ignoring poverty in this country. There are billions being spent on federal and state programs to help the disadvantaged and billions more in private efforts.
October 23, 2007 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink