Real Patriots Go Bareback
Kerry Howley | May 8, 2006, 1:25pm
In a heroically incoherent column in today's Wall Street Journal, German politico Silvana Koch-Mehrin complains that her country is caught between falling birth rates and an "expensive social welfare system." The solution, she argues, is to expand that social welfare system and introduce "country-wide day-care infrastructure," thus encouraging women to get knocked up at a pace Germans can be proud of. But there is a catch:
...the current passionate debate about how to raise the birth rate reveals a rather conservative streak in Germany's society. The focus is solely on why women fail to deliver the next generation of tax payers.
That does sound creepily sexist. Should a progressive nation be treating its women as factories for taxpayers? Sure, explains Koch-Mehrin, as long as we remember that men are people-producers too:
There is usually no mention at all of the (lacking) contribution from men. Luckily for them, they are not accused of being childless. In 21st century Germany, childbearing has become a women-exclusive topic.
Problem solved! When society is careful to "accuse" both men and women of daring to be childless, we'll be well on our way to the ideal state. (Like France, according to Koch-Mehrin.) And as Will Wilkinson has pointed out, why should natalist policy makers restrict their concerns to quantity and not quality? If making sure appropriate numbers of children are produced is an excuse for government intervention, what aspect of a child's development is not? They'll have to be good revenue producers, after all, to pay for all of that daycare.
James Anderson Merritt | May 8, 2006, 10:29pm | #
Johnny-
I live in Santa Cruz CA. The whole town -- whose ruling elite wear their "progressive" labels as proudly as a union label -- is my source.
Now, maybe Santa Cruz "progressivism" isn't the same as original, turn-of-the-century "progressivism," or even that variant which European countries such as Germany adopted (I have my own opinions on that, which we can get into at some point, if you wish), but around here, it is very cool -- very "progressive" -- to keep raising taxes for social services, and to keep restricting behavior for the good of all (and the environment!). We have a downtown smoking ban, for instance, and for a long time traffic policy within the city aimed at OBSTRUCTING the streets (with planter-barriers, speed bumps, and narrowed lanes) so people would "voluntarily" decide to avoid their cars and, perhaps, use the publicly subsidized bus system. Other examples of "progressive" elitist-paternalism (but never use "paternalism" -- smacks of the patriarchy!) abound.
Having looked at the history of the Progressive movement, I can understand why some people might say (indeed, have said) that Santa Cruz-style "Progressivism" (which seems very similar to the Berkeley flavor -- I lived there, too, during the 1970s) is practically the antithesis of the original idea, or at least a corruption or betrayal. Perhaps I am guilty of judging "Progressives" as some people judge "Libertarians," by the examples of poseurs who have affected the label for political advantage, and not from the most ideologically authentic. On the other hand, Santa Cruz gets a lot of press for its "progressive" policies. So I wouldn't be surprised if most people get their ideas of "progressivism" from such news stories, instead of political history textbooks.
I think I can put together a list of high-profile Dems here in CA, who fit my earlier description, who call themselves "Progressive," and who would be lauded as such in my hometown. I'll give it a shot and get back to you.
