Why Are These People Such Clueless Hacks?

I suppose the question might be considered rhetorical if not for the fact that we are dealing, in this post, with David Brooks. Brooks only impresses himself with his own insight and wisdom. Most people who actually know things about subjects like history and sociology find him comically ignorant. The author of Bourgeois Bohemians is perhaps the most ridiculous example of a journalist trying and failing miserably to be what only Walter Lippmann managed to do, be a practicing journalist and a public intellectual at the same time (George Will, for all his striving and pouring over Bartlett's Quotations to spice up his columns failed before Brooks entered the scene, but struggles gamely on). In any event, his New York Times column today begins with an almost comical caricature of what passes for American history. It needs to be quoted in full in order to be appreciated for its bountiful ignorance.

The people who created this country built a moral structure around money. The Puritan legacy inhibited luxury and self-indulgence. Benjamin Franklin spread a practical gospel that emphasized hard work, temperance and frugality. Millions of parents, preachers, newspaper editors and teachers expounded the message. The result was quite remarkable.

The United States has been an affluent nation since its founding. But the country was, by and large, not corrupted by wealth. For centuries, it remained industrious, ambitious and frugal.

Over the past 30 years, much of that has been shredded. The social norms and institutions that encouraged frugality and spending what you earn have been undermined. The institutions that encourage debt and living for the moment have been strengthened. The country’s moral guardians are forever looking for decadence out of Hollywood and reality TV. But the most rampant decadence today is financial decadence, the trampling of decent norms about how to use and harness money.

Obviously, in no other era of American history have Americans pursued money.

If I were an eighth grade American history teacher, I would fail this column. Factually inaccurate, grossly over-simplified presentation of our hyper-Calvinist roots (I don't know if Brooks realizes that Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, while a landmark achievement when it was first published, has been superseded by more detailed studies more fluent in the languages of history, religion, and sociology), this beginning is so woefully absurd as to be, in the end, meaningless as a jumping-off point for anything other than ridiculous word play. Fortunately, Brooks doesn't disappoint in that department.

I usually make it a policy not to engage arguments based upon demonstrably false premises, but Brooks' column misses something important, and so we shall continue and see if anyone can spot the glaring hole in his argument.

The loosening of financial inhibition has meant more options for the well-educated but more temptation and chaos for the most vulnerable. Social norms, the invisible threads that guide behavior, have deteriorated. Over the past years, Americans have been more socially conscious about protecting the environment and inhaling tobacco. They have become less socially conscious about money and debt.

The agents of destruction are many. State governments have played a role. They aggressively hawk their lottery products, . . .

Payday lenders have also played a role. . . .

Credit card companies have played a role. . . .

Congress and the White House have played a role. The nation’s leaders have always had an incentive to shove costs for current promises onto the backs of future generations. It’s only now become respectable to do so.

Wall Street has played a role. . . .

There are dozens of things that could be done. But the most important is to shift values. Franklin made it prestigious to embrace certain bourgeois virtues. Now it’s socially acceptable to undermine those virtues. It’s considered normal to play the debt game and imagine that decisions made today will have no consequences for the future.

Does anyone see what is missing from Brooks' list of who is to "blame"?

If you answered "stagnant and even deteriorating real wages by a shrinking middle class, forced to borrow to continue to enjoy a lifestyle to which it had become historically accustomed" you win the booby prize. This is a direct result of malign neglect and various Republican tax cut proposals that have further burdened an already over-burdened working and middle class with financial obligations it is less and less prepared to meet. If we had a sound corporate and wage policy, the debt probably wouldn't be necessary. The necessity of both spouses working would disappear. All sorts of social ills could be dealt with.

Changing our "values" - whatever Brooks means by that particular word in this instance - only works if there is the social and cultural infrastructure in place to support those changes. They don't exist, so all the emphasis on thrift will fall on deaf ears until we have real social change.