I have often cautioned against making the argument that we are superior because we are smarter, better looking, more cultured, or deeper thinkers. Today is the day to condemn a similar style of argument, people in the past were smarter, better looking, more cultured, and deeper thinkers. The impetus for writing this is much of the commentary on the riots in England.
First, I will offer small compliments. Whereas typically arguers of this type will not offer a demarcation point and why, the nostalgia arguers are indeed doing so. Of course the nature of nostalgia is to point to some change and assert that things were better then, so the compliment necessarily must be small. In one version, the de-Christianization of the West is blamed. In another version, the welfare state is blamed.
The de-Christianization thesis has the flaws typical to traditionalist nostalgia. There is simply a dearth of evidence that massive numbers of people were ever intense partisans over Christology. One of the stronger cases was Christian Europe versus Muslim invasion. The counterargument of Christianity wrapping itself in ethnic identity is stronger I believe. Another argument is that people were more theologically literate. The ability to recite the Baltimore catechism is an evidence here. Biblical literacy is also cited. On the other side of the coin, a greater percentage of our population has doctorate level knowledge in theology than at any prior point in history. That is similarly true for bachelor degree level knowledge. Admittedly, that knowledge is typically and quickly dismissed by partisans advancing the de-Christianization argument. Also dismissed is the rampant and widely acknowledged superstitious aspect of spirituality in the past. While this one paragraph is certainly insufficient to debunk the thesis, I think I have at least provided an introduction to how the argument would go.
The welfare state is an interesting argument. The most interesting aspect is that the welfare state was created to placate the poor and keep them from seeking to redress the injustices committed upon them by the rich. Of course it is always possible that the cure was worse than the disease. It is always possible, but it isn’t probable. Urban rioting is of course not a recent phenomenon, even in America. The draft riots in the Civil War occurred absent a welfare state and were the worst in our history. The question becomes, can we construe a more compelling narrative with the welfare state than with some analogical construct between English riots and say the draft riots. I don’t think one can. Even the less burdensome argument of the welfare state on its own merits is dubious to me. Young adults are not presently and have not historically been the targets of the welfare state. The welfare state has typically targeted the elderly, the disabled, and those with young children.
While on the topic of poor arguments, the argument that young people do not appreciate their social obligations must be one of the poorest out there. The median young man in the United States has the expectation of having college debts he can’t afford, a job that will provide him with insufficient income, housing expenses that will consume his income, a public transportation infrastructure that requires him to spend thousands so as to have said job, no private pension and no certainty of a public pension later in life, and a rapidly bifurcating education system for his children. For this he is condemned for not appreciating the social endowment he’s been given. Rights talk certainly has its deficits, but duty talk is pretty much an apology for the status quo and the wealthy. For violating the social trust, hundreds of English youths found themselves in the country’s jails. For violating the social trust, the wealthy have found themselves rewarded with fat bonuses.
I’m reminded of the Dostoevsky quote, “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” The quotes recognizes that the erosion between the individual and society is found at the bottom of society. In the United States, our obsession is over the sufferings of the elite. One political party has nearly all of its candidates pledging not to raise taxes. In its presidential debate, every single candidate declared he/she wouldn’t tackle the deficit if the deal were $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, such was their concern over increasing the burden on the elite. As embarrassing as that is, the other major political party has a significant minority (if not majority) that is itself obsessed over the burdens of the elite. Under the banner of Rand, perhaps we can say the degree of civilization in society can be judged on how the rich are treated.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In