Monkey Nature Economics

I'm coming to some conclusions.
(1) I won't see much change in the political situation in my lifetime. I mean change toward a libertarian/free market model. We could and probably will drift slowly leftward, toward an inefficient mix of Euro-socialism (crony capitalism?) mixed with enough "environmentalism" (quotes for its political rather than nature orientation) to stay in power. with global warming theory entrenched enough to at least not "go away", there will be fewer ways to critique a regime that is "trying" (good-hearted) no matter how unsuccessful they are at attaining any of their goals. I expect no progress on global warming, "progress" on national healthcare to stumble toward an inefficient rationing-based system, and the economy to be unable to recover its robustness due to the denigration of its key components: desire for profit, risk taking, independance of government.

(2) Supporting this belief, I think that the "monkey nature" we carry in our genes is inherently biased against those "free market" virtues which can only be sustained with a national temperment to support them. Without philosophical support we will inevitably drift toward socialism, a state where the rich are suspect no matter what benefits their presence creates. Studies show people are more resentful of wealth and willing to squash percieved unfairness even to the detriment of their own situation. So socialism IS more "natural" than capitalism, and though it may return, the bottom line is that wealth creates a philosophical void in which instinct rushes in.

(3) Though I say that socialism is natural and in some ways inevitable (even if vastly more inefficient than capitalism at creating and sustatining wealth) I think a contrarian part of our "monkey nature" is that we also (naturally) gravitate to strong leaders, even royalty. We don't really like to admit this, it is mildy degrading, but it's clear that's what we want. Whether it's Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie, Princess Di or the Obamas, we want to be lead by the "good king/queen"... We dislike the complexity of the world (for good reason, our lives are complicated enough) and yearn to believe that "someone (powerful and smart) is looking out for us." Though this can lead to Stalins and Hitlers it's more likely to lead to sequential royalty... [The King is dead, Long live the King!] We replace one with another, become inevitably disappointed and move on. Charisma plays a role. Surely the healing balm of Obama relates to the idea that "ah, now we aren't racists. we can move on from that!". True or not, other factors play in. Royalty MUST BE attractive and speak well. That's about it. They don't really need "credentials" though it helps.

(4) My own situation is that I am pretty much alone in my beliefs. Everyone I know is basically left-oriented or left-center. All my friends and family. I am withdrawing with my beliefs in "codgerism" that is the time honored state for the elderly of being able to dislike "everyone" in power.

More later

my son's a socialista now

ok
what do you want
his girl's in love with Che
his "best teacher"
is a fucking commie

what do you want?

is that all i have to say?

maybe

thank god for poetry

;-)

politics and education

my son is writing a paper for his smart but lefty high school history teacher. the subject is the cold war and he's saying it was a failure because it hurt so many people and made the world hate us. fair enough. but as we discussed it (he wanted to say we spent too much on defense, money that could have gone to "other things" like "fighting racism") it occured to me, hey, what about the nuclear bomb? during the cold war we were scared shitless about being bombed. might have made us a bit paranoid when it came to dealing with "nationalistic revolutions with merely a communist flavor" (like vietnam, he said).

ok. seque. i've been listening to my pandora station of folk rock. when i was in high school, yes, during the vietnam war, the coolest music was "underground" folk music also known as protest music. as i listen to it now i see that it assumes that WHAT IS TAUGHT IN SCHOOL was pro-american, pro-war, and probably pro all the bad shit like racism, but let's stay to the issue of war. so, "we" the boomers (supposedly... i also know people whose progressive high schools were already fashionably marxist) were taught by straight-laced patriotic americans. fair enough.
maybe some of us were.

fast forward seque. so now, the EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT is solidly liberal-left. they gleefully re-write (re-teach?) history with this slant -- that racism indicts the entire pre-1960something american world. that and patriarchy, etc. they don't teach wars (much), preferring to praised eleanor roosevelt, comparing her contributions to churchill's. excuse me?

so there you have it.
patriotic (supposedly, not sure i believe that) teachers in the 50s-60s
spawn the unpatriotic boomers (mostly)
boomers become the teachers
indoctrinate their students with environmentalism, feminism, pacifism, all the isms

what happens next?

will the "underground" music (south park?) rebel?
south parkians call earth day the brainwashing festival

so there you go