So America is abandoning its traditional principles of limited government and free enterprise economics in favor of the European ideology of Social Democracy, with its welfare state and semi-socialism. But is that so bad? European countries, for the most part, are pleasant places with an enjoyable lifestyle. What’s wrong with going European? Well,
Charles Murray contends that “the European model. . .drains too much of the life from life”:
The stuff of life — the elemental events surrounding birth, death, raising children, fulfilling one’s personal potential, dealing with adversity, intimate relationships — occurs within just four institutions: family, community, vocation and faith. Seen in this light, the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. The European model doesn’t do that. It enfeebles every single one of them.
Drive through rural Sweden, as I did a few years ago. In every town was a beautiful Lutheran church, freshly painted, on meticulously tended grounds, all subsidized by the Swedish government. And the churches are empty. Including on Sundays. The nations of Scandinavia and Western Europe pride themselves on their “child-friendly” policies, providing generous child allowances, free day-care centers and long maternity leaves. Those same countries have fertility rates far below replacement and plunging marriage rates. They are countries where jobs are most carefully protected by government regulation and mandated benefits are most lavish. And with only a few exceptions, they are countries where work is most often seen as a necessary evil, and where the proportions of people who say they love their jobs are the lowest.
Call it the Europe Syndrome.
Why would countries that subsidize child care have such low birth rates? Why would countries with lavish job security have such low satisfaction with work? And why is the current administration–with the apparent support of the American public–so willing to throw out the American model in favor of the Europe syndrome?
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
When individuals decline to parent, the society becomes sterile.
The individual decision to abort or contracept all children affects the adult.
There is an individual and cultural arrested development.
Responsibility for a child brings challenges, heartaches, joy–and growth.
Parents pour themselves out in working for the benefit of their child.
God has revealed himself to us as our Father and gives us children so that we may better understand His nature.
This is not to say that infertile couples are infected with this malaise.
Their receptivity to children is key.
It's the intentional rejection of children that begins a pattern of withdrawal, detachment and irresponsibility in other social areas.
It's Erikson's 'Generativity or Isolation' stage of psychosocial development.
We need a new theory of stage development for families and societies.
Correction–'Generativity or Stagnation'
Luther's three estates are similar to Murray's four, but Luther combines, more or less, family and vocation into one so you have Family (including vocation), Church (faith), and Government (which would include community).
Here's what I believe is the problem with Europe's socialism and America's forced crawl in the same direction: The Government/community becomes so large that it begins to consume the other estates, leaving little recognition for them as separate and important entities. Also since Government deals with the temporal matters of life, the spiritual and higher things (which are the responsibilities of the other two estates), seem insignificant and get left behind. Life not only becomes boring, but man is deprived of his individuality, his dignity, and his soul's deepest desires.
I'm not sure that you can blame the empty churches of Europe completely on state subsidies. France does not subsidize churches (except in Alsace-Lorraine), and the churches are empty there too. Subsidization might be a factor, but only one of many.
Subsidized living is a form of servitude. Parental government does nothing but produce spoiled children instead of robust citizens.
Apparently, no one told Charles Murray that correlation is not the same thing as causation. His article is full of conflating the two, followed by grand, yet unsubstantiated, predictions of how science will ultimately prove him right, at some point in the future.
At least in the case of the "child-friendly" policies, I'm fairly certain many of them were instituted to stem the low fertility rates, not the cause of them.
Also, "America is abandoning its traditional principles of limited government and free enterprise economics in favor of the European ideology of Social Democracy"? Hasn't that been the case since early in the 20th Century?
Something that you work for is frequently more satisfying than something that you were given. It is also more highly valued. It explains why children will, for the most part, take much better things of toys they had to save up for than toys that they were simply given. It is why students feel a greater sense of accomplishment over the B+ they studied for hours to earn than the easy A in Rocks for Jocks.
… take much better ***care*** of toys…
Change the word "parental" to "paternalizing."
Just an observation for Stephanie, wcwirla and rose: If you create the Open ID or Intense Debate ID, you can go back anytime and edit your own comments. I use that feature all the time! It's great!
Nanny states essentially make life dull and easy. They take the life and spirit out of people, to the point that people don't wish to take on the burden, as well as the joy, of having children. They, also, create mediocrities and worse who despise and envy hard working people who have achieved economic independence. They, also, create weaklings who lack the ability to fight and die for one's country. Most Scandinavians declared themselves neutral in the face of Hitler and Stalin's depredations, ignobly denying their hard-fighting Viking ancestry.
America is not far behind Scandinavia. Were it not for lusty immigrants among us, our birthrate would be below replacement. We lost the Vietnam War and damn near lost the Iraq War due to the pacifists and isolationists among us, most of whom lack the backbone and spirit to fight for their country's interests.
paternalism
Noun
authority exercised in a way that limits individual responsibility [Latin pater father]
paternalistic adj
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006
——————————————————————————–
paternalism
fatherlike control over subordinates in government. — paternalist, n. — paternalistic, adj.
See also: Government
it might be why churches are weakening. why should i get tax dollars transferred to me from others in the form of a tax deduction because I gave money to my local lutheran church.
there would probably be fewer kookie dangerous churches if they could not get a tax exemption and their adherents a deduction. christian churches would probably be stronger without those laws as well.
republicans bought into fdr/lbj democratic socialism a long long time ago. why does everyone seem to pretend here that this is not so or that republicans are somehow in favor of limited government;. does anyone have any actual proof of that besides the barry goldwater candidacy?
the extended nuclear family that provided these services and support since the dawn of time till around 1930 is gone forever . who beside the government is able to replace the millions of social safety nets in the form of the extended nuclear families that are no longer with us? I agree that using the govt for this results in alot of waste and fraud and nasty side effects you mention. but what is the alternative? My family actually helped (=subsidized) me alot during my youth. I probably would not have made it through college without them…. better them than the govt but still my question stands…
i think we are well past the stark choice offered here between nany state and limited government. NO republicans are opposing the nanny state seriously. that being the case, what is it exactly we are debating should be done?
Takes all the fun out of it. I prefer to let my stupidity just hang out for all the world to see. Plus, who needs all those email notifications?
True "child friendly" policies are those which recognize parents as the rightful authority in their homes, and which foster low tax rates to enable families to have adequate financial resources to raise their children as they see fit. Subsidies for child care do not help families that want to raise their own children. The same with "long maternity leaves". Whatever other subsidies are provided by the "gracious" hand of government are no doubt far less than the true cost of child rearing. As has been posted above, encouraging individual responsibility is the best way to encourage a responsible society, where its citizens care about more than their own short term satisfaction.
Frank, you keep repeating on the various threads this notion that tax reductions are the equivalent of a transfer of tax dollars from one citizen to another. That makes no sense.
While I totally disagree with socialist policies, I have spent some time in Norway with my Norwegian friends. It is perhaps the most pleasant place I've ever been. It's clean, beautiful, efficient public transportation, and people have a lot of leisure time. The family that I am friends with spends that leisure time with one another. They are an odd Norwegian family, as they have gotten married young and some have had many children. They are all Christians, certainly in the minority there. Nonetheless, their Scandinavian lifestyle is evious.
So, is the European life one of pleasantness rather than meaning and family? Yet, it is hard to reconcile how they seem to be having more fun than stressed- out, unhealthy, overwieght Americans. (I include myself here.)
don. lets say the fed spending for the year is $100. tax revenue is $100. you get a tax credit for $10. that means that there will be a shortfall of $10. a deficit. so the govt will have to borrow to cover your deduction. which will eventually have to mean a tax increase. UNLESS someone is interested in cutting spending.
It looks to me like the republicans have a starve the beast strategy that looks real sweet. cut cut cut taxes, and dont worry about the spending side too much. just borrow to cover that part. republicans are borrow and spend. democrats are tax and spend. at least the democrats talk about balanced budgets…..even if I agree, they want to spend way too much just like the republicans.
the transfer is to you from the next generation Don. your deductions are not matched by spending cuts.
Wow, I'm having trouble following that logic, Frank. So, if I've got you right, you are probably opposed to the graduated income tax as well because those paying a lower percentage of their income are receiving transfers from the next generation. We should all pay exactly the same — 100% of our income, unless our political leaders are disciplined enough to run a balanced budget.
No, Frank, the Democrats talked about balanced budgets when the Republicans were in charge. Now, they are talking about increasing the deficit four-fold, and then trying to cut that in half by the end of Obama's term. Never fear — Democrats will always be able to out-spend and out-tax Republicans
Don,maybe it is better to have the govt split between dem and reps in the congress and whitehouse? Do you REALLY think that the republicans have proven their fiscal responsibility or are you saying that the kettle is calling the pot black? umm. what are you saying?
CUT spending, you say? Hmmm. This is a strange new idea. I would need more explanation before I could understand. Is that even possible?
(Dripping sarcasm requires no reply.)
What I am saying is that the Republicans are bad overspenders and the Democrats are horribly bad overspenders. Yes, split government seems to work the best, although we cannot stand too many years of Democratic control of the administration because of the damage that causes to our judiciary through bad judicial appointments.