“No matter what the Church did, he was done with it.”

My friend Robert W sent me a link to this piece by Rod Dreher which in turn refers to this piece by Matt Walsh which is pretty well summarized in its title: "Maybe Christianity In America Is Dying Because Itโ€™s Boring Everyone To Death":

And this is the problem with Christianity in this country. Not just inside our church buildings, but everywhere. It often has no edge, no depth. No sense of its own ancient and epic history. There is no sacredness to it. No pain. No beauty. No reverence. Or I should say Christianity has all of those things, fundamentally and totally, but many modern Christians in every denomination have spent many years trying to blunt them or bury them under a thousand layers of icing and whipped cream and apathy.

Well, yes. And Dreher says:

Walsh says that the lameness of the service he attended surely has something to do with the Pew numbers out this week showing that Millennials are abandoning organized religion. If the only thing I had to go to on Sunday morning was services like the one Walsh describes, I would stay at home. Thereโ€™s no there there. Catholics have their own version of this kind of thing, and I used to patiently endure it by silently repeating the mantra, โ€œEx opere operato.โ€ Itโ€™s beyond tragic that so much of the Catholic Church in the United States has cast aside the treasures of spiritual and aesthetic depth in its patrimony. 

Well, yes, again. There are quite a number of us who fully grasp these problems, and to tell the truth are weary of talking bout them. They're real. But I've come to the conclusion that even if the liturgy were always reverent and beautiful, and all the clergy and faithful were shining lights of truth and charity, the basic situation of the Church in the formerly Christian world would not be much different. The fundamental problem is succinctly stated by a commenter on the Dreher piece who signs himself "Dominic 1955":

There is no man so blind [as] those that do not want to see and no man so deaf as those that do not want to hear-which is ultimately the problem with โ€œModern Manโ€ (which in turn is a fantasy like the New Soviet Man) in that no matter what the Church did, he was done with it.

That's part of a long comment which I encourage you to read (that link should take you straight to it). Casting doubt on the whole Vatican II reach-out-to-the-modern-world enterprise, he concludes, somewhat chillingly:

We are dealing with a scourge of God, a hardening of hearts the scope of which probably hasnโ€™t been seen before, not something to dialog with.

A while back I read a piece in America describing all the things the Church does to alienate young people. Some of it was fair criticism, some not, but I found myself becoming impatient with the whole premise: if young people leave the Church, it must be the fault of the Church, and when we figure out what they don't like and stop doing it, and start doing what they do like, they'll stop leaving. Young People–who collectively are treated as a semi-mythical entity somehow continuing to exist in the same essentially callow state for decades on end–thus escape all blame for the situation, absolved of responsibility for their own fundamental choices. This is both mistaken and futile. 

The more typical truth, I have little doubt, is that young people leave the Church because they're much more interested in other things and because it tells them they can't do what they want to do. And what they want is to enjoy sex and the many other pleasures and comforts which life in a rich and licentious society has to offer. That is to say, Young People are Modern Man in his youth. Sometimes I think the solution to the mystery of the great apostasy is that our material progress has made life so comfortable for so many that they no longer see the point in paying much attention to the spiritual life, except in a consumerist or therapeutic sort of way. No, that's not the whole story, either, but it's an important factor. 

There is just not a great deal that we can do to make the faith attractive to people who simply don't see, or want to see, the need of it. And they don't see the need of it because they don't see the need of salvation.

***

Addendum: another piece of the puzzle, probably as big as the lure of the pleasures of the world, is the triumph (or seeming triumph) of technology over so many of the ills that have beset mankind since the beginning, and the support which this triumph gives to the elevation of science to the position of explainer-of-everything, and explainer-away of religion. If my memory is correct Newman described a "deep and plausible skepticism" driving out all else. As illogical as the idea that advanced technology and "the modern world" in general somehow make the idea of God implausible may be, it seems to be very powerful.


,

174 responses to ““No matter what the Church did, he was done with it.””

  1. “The more typical truth, I have little doubt, is that young people leave the Church because they’re much more interested in other things and because it tells them they can’t do what they want to do. And what they want is to enjoy sex and the many other pleasures and comforts which life in a rich and licentious society has to offer.”
    Exactly. I remember going to a talk about how to keep our children Catholic by a guy who had written a book by that name or something similar, about 26 years ago. I didn’t really want to go, but I didn’t want to go to the other breakout sessions more. Everyone was asking the question, “Why do they leave?” I was sitting there thinking exactly what you said, but no one seemed to be able to come up with such a simple answer. Nowadays, I would be in their with my big mouth open I’m sure. Also, turns out that 2 of the man’s 4 children and left the Church at that point.
    AMDG

  2. And I think it’s usually sex because that’s the only thing they think sin is about. That probably says something very profound.
    AMDG

  3. Mac, all good points but surely some of the falling away can be attributed to a failure in preaching. Faith comes through hearing, no?

  4. Rob G

    “Sometimes I think the solution to the mystery of the great apostasy is that our material progress has made life so comfortable for so many that they no longer see the point in paying much attention to the spiritual life except in a consumerist or therapeutic sort of way.”
    Yes, that’s definitely a big part of it. No real crises, no real want, thus, why worry? The spoiled donโ€™t see the need for the gods.

  5. On reflection, I think the science-and-technology factor is as important, or almost as important.
    Bill, I think a failure in preaching, like many other defects in the Church, is a factor, but I don’t think it’s a decisive one.
    Janet, something I tried to work into that post, and didn’t because it was going to take too long, is the way a look at my own psychology supports the idea. At 65 (66?) I see my own teenage repudiation of Christianity as having more of desire to give up something difficult and pursue something pleasurable than I would have said even as a Catholic at 35. And my repudiation was comparatively thoughtful–I didn’t just drift away out of boredom and indifference. Certainly by the time it had hardened, say by age 20 or so, the idea of having my pursuit of pleasure thwarted was about as unwelcome as anything could be.

  6. Marianne

    There’s also Freud, who encouraged us to think that sex was the meaning of it all. And, man, did that idea take hold.
    Combine that with another point that commenter you quote made about โ€œthe ravages and horrors of WWI and WWII [doing] far more to kill off religiosity in Europe than any ‘medieval’ folderol in the Papal Court or Latin in the liturgy” and, well, the perfect storm.

  7. Rob G

    “On reflection, I think the science-and-technology factor is as important, or almost as important.”
    Related to this, here’s part of something I sent Rod Dreher last month that he ended up using on his blog:
    [In The Crisis of Modernity] Del Noce argues that while the Left in Europe had largely failed at the level of politics, it had won at the level of values. The still greater victory, however, was won by what he calls the “technocratic right,” because “it has been able to completely turn the culture of the left into its own tool.”
    Thus, the cultural revolution of the 60s, which began as a rebellion against bourgeois values (mistakenly considered “traditional”) was captured and then used by a foundational aspect of the very thing it was rebelling against. Transfer this to our place and time, and we observe that the same thing has happened here, that American corporatism, our “technocratic right,” has, in effect, harnessed the Sexual Revolution for its own purposes.
    Del Noce says, “Because of the culture that inspires it, the technocratic right is mortally opposed to traditional thought…” and “the alliance between technocratic right and cultural left is there for everyone to see.” While this may have been true in Del Noce’s time and place, it’s undoubtedly not so visible here, at least among the mainstream left and right. Because of its commitment to the Sexual Revolution the left misses — either by being blind to it or downplaying it — the role that the “technocratic right” has played in the furtherance of “sexual liberation.” Likewise the mainstream right, given its commitment to corporate capitalism, fails to see the corrosive effect of the same on what it values culturally, and thus serves as a semi-willing accomplice.

  8. Rob G

    Interesting that Del Noce, a committed Catholic and Christian Democrat, and Christopher Lasch, a non-religious “man of the Left,” come to similar conclusions despite independently examining things in Europe and America respectively.

  9. You know, this is funny because I was thinking of it completely in terms of a pre-internet world. I was thinking of when I was young, and when my kids were teenagers. I mean, my kids were on bulletin boards and did some very early internet stuff, but it was nothing like it is now. And even then, the technology was a growing factor in their disaffection with the Church I imagine.
    AMDG

  10. The big change, as we were discussing a while back, was the advent of movies, radio, and tv. With widespread print and literacy in the preceding centuries starting the process. Not that those are intrinsically bad things, but they enabled mass propaganda. But with the internet, it’s like the loudspeakers were turned up from 5 or 6 to 10.
    I don’t know exactly who del Noce, or for that matter you, Rob, are including in the term “technocratic right”, but I’m not sure there really is such a thing in the U.S. anymore. Well, I guess you can still find it, but for the most part the people I would describe as technocrats are on the left.
    I had not heard of del Noce before you mentioned him, but Lasch’s book (the narcissism one) has been sitting unread on my shelf for many years. I think I’ll make it my next non-fiction read.

  11. But I’ve come to the conclusion that even if the liturgy were always reverent and beautiful, and all the clergy and faithful were shining lights of truth and charity, the basic situation of the Church in the formerly Christian world would not be much different.
    I think you’ve overstated it. A decade ago, you would see offered in fora like these an ‘if you build it, they will come’ argument. Having seen conscientious ministries fail, I’m skeptical of that, but recognizing that conscientious ministries fail is rather different than arguing that the trajectory of a ministry is indifferent to its properties.
    The people who trade in the c**p that’s abroad in the Catholic and evangelical world are, I suspect, passably pleased with it in the present tense and the rest do not protest because they are not the sort to do so. Any attempt to improve matters in a given parish will generate conflicts and a departure on the part of a section of the congregation so will lead to short and medium-term demographic losses even if the institution may be healthier in the long run. Since clergymen tend to be particular character types and (when not) have no interest in building and maintaining conscientious ministries, the probability you’ll find someone who will take the hit is fairly low. The probability that you will find such a person fully ensconced in a diocese in which conscientious ministries are valued is lower still.
    And it’s not just boring people to death. Institutionally, Catholic apostolates do not have much resistance to the larger culture and evangelical apostolates have even less. They’re run by people easily rolled. What’s maddening about reading these complaints from Dreher of all people is that he works for a publication that has been easily rolled and he himself is fairly craven in his treatment of the Church’s adversaries (and systematically unfair and even malicious to Church officials).

  12. “Because of the culture that inspires it, the technocratic right is mortally opposed to traditional thought…” and “the alliance between technocratic right and cultural left is there for everyone to see.”
    “Technocratic right” is a nonsense term, and an instrument for striking attitudes. There are varieties of libertarianism which are troublesome. There are the terminally other-directed in electoral politics and in mundane life. There is a set of corporate officialdom whose civic engagement (such as it is) involves extending what their balance sheets and their income statements tell them into realms where those instruments are misleading rather than instructive. There are technology fetishists. There is no ‘technocratic right’.

  13. “But with the internet, it’s like the loudspeakers were turned up from 5 or 6 to 10.”
    No, I’m sure that one goes to 11.
    AMDG

  14. “But I’ve come to the conclusion that even if the liturgy were always reverent and beautiful, and all the clergy and faithful were shining lights of truth and charity, the basic situation of the Church in the formerly Christian world would not be much different.”
    It’s hard to be able to judge that. My parish does have liturgy that is reverent and beautiful, etc., and is packed with young couples and lots of children. And it’s not the only parish here that is growing because of these young, involved families.
    AMDG

  15. Rob G

    Augusto Del Noce was an Italian political writer/philosopher who lived from 1910-1989. He was a committed Catholic, and politically could be considered something of a Christian Democrat. He was widely known in Europe for his writings on Marxism and Fascism.
    “I guess you can still find it, but for the most part the people I would describe as technocrats are on the left.”
    Yes, there are certainly leftist technocrats, but I’d say that “our” technocratic right (Del Noce wrote the essay I referred to in Italy in 1970, so those to whom he was referring would be different) is the corporate capitalist elite, “fiscally conservative but socially liberal.”
    ~~~”Technocratic right” is a nonsense term, and an instrument for striking attitudes.~~~
    See above.

  16. Rob G

    I read Lasch’s ‘Culture of Narcissism’ a year or so ago, and am reading ‘The True and Only Heaven’ now.

  17. It’s just a terminological quibble, but I wouldn’t describe “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” as being on the right anymore. I’m not even sure it really exists in any number. It’s way outside my sphere, but I wonder whether our corporate elites can for the most part even be accurately described as “fiscally conservative,” except in the sense of wanting to conserve their own fisc. I suppose Mitt Romney might do as an example of the technocratic right. And some libertarians.

  18. Janet and Art, I never meant to be saying that liturgy and solid teaching and faithful witness don’t attract people. They do. I’m arguing against the Dreher/Walsh claim that remedying our defects in those areas would make some kind of decisive difference in the general situation of Christianity in the culture. To put it the other way around, I don’t think a deficiency in those areas goes very far in accounting for the turning away from Christianity on the part of our buddy Modern Man.

  19. To put it the other way around, I don’t think a deficiency in those areas goes very far in accounting for the turning away from Christianity on the part of our buddy Modern Man.
    It’s hard to disentangle causes even consulting multiple disciplines. I cannot help but note, though, that religious observance in this country which can be verified through social research was at its peak ca. 1958, when about half the population attended weekly in what was not exactly an era of feudal village society. If the fragmentary readings I’ve done of period histories are true, actual congregational membership in the last quarter of the 18th century was modest, less than 20% of the population. Also, you have huge present-tense ecological variation (see Sweden v. Portugal) I think there are vectors at work other than technological advancement.

  20. It’s just a terminological quibble, but I wouldn’t describe “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” as being on the right anymore. I’m not even sure it really exists in any number.

    Critics of William Weld and Christine Todd Whitman contended (and we could consult the data) that purveyors of this were sorely ineffective at the ‘fiscally conservative’ portion of this formula, and for foundational reasons. Not sure what the answer is.

    Neither Weld nor Whitman had any background in technology. Weld was a lawyer and Whitman was a corporation executive’s wife with a long history in Republican voluntarism. Her mother had been a prominent avocational Republican as had her father. They were non-ethnic patricians with some of the signature features of the breed. Amory Houghton and George Bush the Elder would be examples as well. Among those features would be a disinclination toward systematic thinking on civic matters, a tendency to conflate the virtues manifest in personal dealings with the well-springs of public policy, and a weird sort of conflict aversion wherein you’re habitually kind to the cruel and cruel to the kind, as it were. Not much to do with technocracy, a great deal to do with virtues which help you in everyday life being extended to a political realm wherein they are inappropriate.

  21. our corporate elites can for the most part even be accurately described as “fiscally conservative,” except in the sense of wanting to conserve their own fisc.
    I suspect what it is is that corporation executives simply do not have the ambitions or the passions that the social work industry or academe or much of the legal profession has. However, they have nothing to speak of which generates any resistance to the designs of these characters. The business case dictates wheeling-and-dealing and pr to avoid losses.
    During the Duke Lacrosse fiasco, the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University was a banker who had been in George W. Bush’s subcabinet and was later CEO of Wachovia in its terminal phases. What did he do to reform Duke? Nothing. He backed the weasel University president to the hilt, a man whose lack of honor was manifest. One might also recall Jonah Goldberg’s account of his time on the board of Goucher College. Among the motors of the board’s activities was a liberal lady lawyer who actually believed in something. The board was stupidly other-directed much of the time (“we’ve go to get out ahead on this”) and Goldberg’s objections were met with annoyance by much of the board because they elongated meetings and cut into golfing time.
    What’s amazing about the corporate elites is that they are very capable in their field but seem to be complete breeze brains in every other circumstance, so they end up with a 25 year old bachelor alumni trustee telling them they should stop and think about what they’re doing (and failing to persuade them).

  22. You recall Charles Sykes’ book about Dartmouth, The Hollow Men? The ‘hollow men’ in question were Dartmouth’s trustees, who caved into faculty pressure and were generally unfamiliar with even the graduation requirements of the institution over which they presided (much less anything granular about institutional life).
    These people are someone’s idea of the ‘right’?

  23. Rob G

    I’d probably interpret ‘technocracy’ as rule not by technology per se, but by ‘technique’ in Jacques Ellul’s sense, which includes technology but is not limited to it.
    ~~~It’s way outside my sphere, but I wonder whether our corporate elites can for the most part even be accurately described as “fiscally conservative,” except in the sense of wanting to conserve their own fisc.~~~
    Yes, I think you’re right. The whole conservative/liberal nomenclature is a problem. If Deneen, et al, are correct, then many “conservatives” are really some version of “right liberal.”
    That economic liberalism and cultural libertinism have to a great extent been joined at the hip for the past 50 years has been good for the corporate and managerial elites, but bad for the culture. This was my point about relating the Del Noce argument to your comment about technology.

  24. “I think there are vectors at work other than technological advancement.”
    Of course. It does seem reasonable to say that Modern Man is pretty well convinced that this world is all there is. Technology is part of that. Though Darwinism might be a bigger part.

  25. The way “technocrat” is used here has very little to do with technology. It means people being entrusted with power (or being trusted by those in power) because of some supposed expertise โ€” economic, sociological, social psychological; not by any means necessarily technological. When the Italians got an economist as Prime Minister during the financial crisis, he was widely described as a “technocrat”.

  26. Louise

    “But I’ve come to the conclusion that even if the liturgy were always reverent and beautiful, and all the clergy and faithful were shining lights of truth and charity, the basic situation of the Church in the formerly Christian world would not be much different.”
    Yes, that could well be right.
    “There is no man so blind [as] those that do not want to see”
    Gosh! I just used this expression to express this very idea at least twice today.
    “I found myself becoming impatient with the whole premise: if young people leave the Church, it must be the fault of the Church, and when we figure out what they don’t like and stop doing it, and start doing what they do like, they’ll stop leaving.”
    Me too. I think it’s like a beaten wife thinking she “deserved it.”
    “We are dealing with a scourge of God, a hardening of hearts the scope of which probably hasnโ€™t been seen before, not something to dialog with.”
    Seems so. It seems to be a prefiguring of the final apostasy.
    “And what they want is to enjoy sex and the many other pleasures and comforts which life in a rich and licentious society has to offer.”
    I think so.
    “As illogical as the idea that advanced technology and “the modern world” in general somehow make the idea of God implausible may be, it seems to be very powerful.”
    Given the simply enormous number of people – even young people – who still die of cancer every year, in spite of the best medicine, it certainly is illogical.

  27. Louise

    โ€œthe ravages and horrors of WWI and WWII [doing] far more to kill off religiosity…”
    Yes, I think this may have been a big part of the hardening of hearts.
    I definitely see WWI as a major turning point. Perhaps THE turning point.

  28. I definitely see WWI as a major turning point. Perhaps THE turning point.
    I’d be skeptical. Smells of Paul Fussell.
    Observant Catholics were a minority in France in 1945, but they were a generous minority, 20% or so of the population and as consequential as evangelicals are in the United States today, with the main Christian democratic party good for a quarter of the vote. As late as 1970, non-believers per polls made up perhaps 20% of France’s adult population. As we speak, France competes with Sweden and Denmark for the title of the most secularized country in Europe (with weekly observance in low single digits) and a majority say they are unbelievers. In Britain, the Church of England had a mini-revival during the post-war period, gaining adherents and vocations up to about 1962. See the memoirs of Andrew van Rijn on his Dutch childhood. The Church and the protestant congregations remained something close to the master institutions of village life as late as 1935 and religious bodies only began to implode around about 1965. Spain, Portugal, and Italy had vigorous Catholic minorities as late as 1995. The catastrophic implosion of the Irish Church began, again, not in 1915 but in 1990. The vigor of the Catholic Church in America and in Quebec prior to 1960 is not a story that needs retelling.

  29. It means people being entrusted with power (or being trusted by those in power) because of some supposed expertise โ€” economic, sociological, social psychological; not by any means necessarily technological.
    That might apply to Cdl. Richelieu as well. You could also appoint people by virtue of political loyalty, dynastic considerations, or status considerations. I’m not sure we’d be better off.

  30. The whole conservative/liberal nomenclature is a problem. If Deneen, et al, are correct, then many “conservatives” are really some version of “right liberal.”
    Political terminology is conventional. It’s hardly a new idea that the incongruence between academic and journalistic usage causes confusion, as does that between historical and latter-day usage. Deneen wishes to use a terminology approrpiate to intellectual history to describe contemporary conflicts. That exacerbates problems of confusion (and fails to plumb the sources of the conflicts we do have).
    That economic liberalism and cultural libertinism have to a great extent been joined at the hip for the past 50 years has been good for the corporate and managerial elites, but bad for the culture
    Hugh Hefner is Hugh Hefner. He’s a rather odd duck next to an ordinary business executive born in 1926. Very few people are employed in the entertainment business, all things considered, and at least some were as conventionally bourgeois as Walt Disney.

  31. It means people being entrusted with power (or being trusted by those in power) because of some supposed expertise
    Just to point out again William Weld is a lawyer and Christine Todd Whitman a housewife whose paid work has consisted of political offices. Whitman’s post-secondary schooling was in academic subjects at a liberal arts college. If I’m not mistaken, Weld has two degrees in academic subjects in addition to his law degree. This pair had a great deal of liberal education.

  32. Cardinal Richelieu was no sort of “expert”.

  33. Louise

    “I’d be skeptical. Smells of Paul Fussell.”
    I don’t know who he is, but I’m pretty sure Australia’s situation was different to the US.

  34. Cardinal Richelieu was no sort of “expert”.
    He was educated in rigor and extent characteristic of only a tiny minority in the 17th century. Whatever.

  35. ‘The way “technocrat” is used here has very little to do with technology. It means people being entrusted with power (or being trusted by those in power) because of some supposed expertise โ€” economic, sociological, social psychological; not by any means necessarily technological.’
    Exactly. Of course there are always people wielding power, usually a fairly small number of them. But the reliance on quasi-scientific, supposedly objective expertise is different.

  36. “Hugh Hefner is Hugh Hefner. He’s a rather odd duck next to an ordinary business executive born in 1926.”
    Well, yes and no. Ignore the product and there’s probably not much difference in the practices. And Hefner could not have succeeded without the cooperation of people in many other businesses. The point is not that most businessmen were personally libertines but that the logic of business provided no defense against cultural solvents like Playboy.

  37. Ignore the product and there’s probably not much difference in the practices.
    Why would I ‘ignore the product’?
    And Hefner could not have succeeded without the cooperation of people in many other businesses. The point is not that most businessmen were personally libertines but that the logic of business provided no defense against cultural solvents like Playboy.
    Well, Hefner bought paper from people, printing equipment from others, hired contractors to renovate the Playboy clubs, sent his magazines through the mails, and sent some to news vendors. It’s rather a stretch to derive from this some sort of “joining at the hip” of ‘cultural libertinism’ and ‘economic liberalism”.

  38. But the reliance on quasi-scientific, supposedly objective expertise is different.
    The significance of which is precisely what?

  39. grumpy

    I first heard the expression ‘Ubertarian’ at a seminar at a conservative journal about a year ago. None of the other conservatives present had heard it before. It came from some young guy. The young guy explained to us that Uber-tarians are people who think technology can solve every problem, like with the Uber taxis. I know one person who is the Uber-Uber-tarian. He is relatively conservative in some respects, but no one would say he is a typical conservative. He is my middle brother and a maths wizzard. I could only characterize one other person I know as ‘Uber-tarian’ – it seems to fit the temperament of some people who work a lot with computers. It is not characteristic of most intellectual conservatives, so far as the ones I know personally and by acquaintance are concerned.

  40. “Ubertarian” is a new one on me. But I immediately thought of Newt Gingrich. He might be our best example of a right-wing technocrat in politics.
    “The significance of which is precisely what?”
    That basing authority on quasi-scientific, supposedly objective expertise is a different thing from basing it on, for instance, throne and altar. If you don’t think the difference significant, I can’t help you.
    ‘It’s rather a stretch to derive from this some sort of “joining at the hip” of ‘cultural libertinism’ and ‘economic liberalism”.”
    I didn’t do that. I cited it as an example of the difficulty that a commercial society of unstable principles has in resisting a line of business that’s harmful to it.

  41. Marianne

    The point is not that most businessmen were personally libertines but that the logic of business provided no defense against cultural solvents like Playboy.
    True. But can we blame business for stores being open on Sunday? Or was that due to pressure from consumers? Anyway, it sounds very mundane, but surely that’s had a big impact on church attendance.

  42. That basing authority on quasi-scientific, supposedly objective expertise is a different thing from basing it on, for instance, throne and altar. If you don’t think the difference significant, I can’t help you.
    In the social context of that time, the altar incorporated not ‘expertise’, precisely, but the building blocs of it. I’d refer you to Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie’s Montaillou, a portrait of a French village near the Pyrennies which he was able to assemble due to an unusual cache of court records. The setting is ca. 1300. From the records, Ladurie was only able to verify that 4 people in a village of 250 were literate. There may have been more than that, but that’s what he could verify from surviving documents and court testimonies taken. One was, of course, the village priest.
    I didn’t do that. I cited it as an example of the difficulty that a commercial society of unstable principles has in resisting a line of business that’s harmful to it.
    You did not do that, but you were interceding for Rob G who did do that. And I’m disputing the idea that it’s all that difficult. The ‘commercial society’ in which we live managed it passably well up until about 1950, and it was not the business community which sought to dismantle that, but the legal profession and the word-and-image merchant element with which they were allied. I’d refer you and Rob G to the work of Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter done a generation ago. The media, the legal profession, and the general run of the business community are distinct interests even if they’re all organized under corporate law.
    One thing lost in all this chuffering about ‘economic liberalism’ and what not is that commerce and industry takes place within a legal architecture. The precise features of that architecture vary. In discussion of economics – whether it’s Milton Friedman’s or it’s Paul Samuelson’s – aspects of that architecture are taken as given. Economists themselves are commonly very conscious of the limits of their discipline and leery of any kind of normative discourse because normative questions cannot be effectively addressed using the tools of economists per se. You have ‘libertarian’ economists, but they are, in addition to being purveyors of particular understandings of social dynamics, also purveyors of a set of social ethics and political principles.
    It’s your contention that the predilection of particular men of business are irrelevant because the logic of markets determines outcomes. With regard to the precise issues we’re discussing, that’s not true. The members of your local Rotary do not aspire to run strip joints and are uninjured when local ordinances debar such enterprises. Another example would be the drug trade, which no one wants anything to do with except a small corps of social deviants.
    Just to point out that value added in “Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services” amounts to 4% of national income. The share of that accounted for by assaults on the sensibilities is quite small. The share of aggregate personal consumption devoted to street drugs is also quite small. (Gross sales of legal marijuana are supposedly $1.5 bn. The spicoli jurisdictions have a population of 17 million. If you scale that, you might posit $27 bn of sales nationally. That amounts to 0.23% of personal consumption expenditures).

  43. Rob G

    ~~~The way “technocrat” is used here has very little to do with technology. It means people being entrusted with power…~~~
    Thanks, Paul. That’s what I was driving at when I mentioned Ellul.
    ~~~Hefner bought paper from people, printing equipment from others, hired contractors to renovate the Playboy clubs, sent his magazines through the mails, and sent some to news vendors. It’s rather a stretch to derive from this some sort of “joining at the hip” of ‘cultural libertinism’ and ‘economic liberalism”.~~~
    Cute, but facile. That is not the sort of “cooperation of other businesses” either Mac or I are talking about. But of course you know that.
    “The ‘commercial society’ in which we live managed it passably well up until about 1950, and it was not the business community which sought to dismantle that, but the legal profession and the word-and-image merchant element with which they were allied.”
    Hmmm. Are you implying that big business had nothing to do with word-and-image merchantry? Given the history of mass advertising, that borders on the delusional.

  44. Rob G

    “But can we blame business for stores being open on Sunday? Or was that due to pressure from consumers? Anyway, it sounds very mundane, but surely that’s had a big impact on church attendance.”
    True, but I don’t recall any consumer pressure for stores opening on Sunday until the stores themselves floated the idea by trial runs. Consumers then voted with their feet and their dollars. Advertising exists to create desires, and a desire to shop on Sundays is no different.
    It’s the same thing that’s happening now with Easter, Christmas and Thanksgiving. In America it’s largely Wal*Mart that’s the culprit in initiating these current consumerist pushes.

  45. Rob G

    ~~~Just to point out that value added in “Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services” amounts to 4% of national income. The share of that accounted for by assaults on the sensibilities is quite small.~~~
    By this logic free internet porn has NO influence on “sensibilities.”

  46. By this logic free internet porn has NO influence on “sensibilities.”
    [rolls eyes, drums fingers] My point is that dead-weight losses from restraining the sex trade (according to conventional national-income accounting) are contextually small and would be borne were their not non-economic objections (and have been borne in the past). Businessmen being businessmen really does not account for the abandonment of obscenity law.

  47. Cute, but facile. That is not the sort of “cooperation of other businesses” either Mac or I are talking about. But of course you know that.
    No, I do not know that. What I know is that you’re engaged in your usual word play and very resistant to anyone inspecting mundane life to see if the verbiage is a description of anything palpable. You’re last sentence there is gamesmanship, and tiresome.
    Hmmm. Are you implying that big business had nothing to do with word-and-image merchantry? Given the history of mass advertising, that borders on the delusional.
    No, I’m contending that hardware dealers sell hardware, not words and images, and that social research on the media and the legal profession indicate they have quite different dispositions toward the common life than do ordinary businessmen. Not rocket science.

  48. Sunday until the stores themselves floated the idea by trial runs.
    In New York and in Virginia, blue laws were annulled by arbitrary judicial decrees. Cannot say about the other states. When I lived in Maryland, there was a vigorous and successful constituency in the business community for the maintenance of blue laws. The legislature repeatedly refused to repeal them at that time due to the pressure of this constituency.

  49. Rob G

    “My point is that dead-weight losses from restraining the sex trade (according to conventional national-income accounting) are contextually small and would be borne were there not non-economic objections (and have been borne in the past). Businessmen being businessmen really does not account for the abandonment of obscenity law.”
    This fails to take into consideration mass advertising and its ever-increasing adoption of and reliance on “sex sells.” The car salesman may not be a lecher, but the ads that help sell his cars are often lecherous indeed. (Ditto, for the record, hardware dealers.)
    Also, the belief that pornography should be illegal has zilch to do with its de facto market status. While it’s legal it’s subject to analysis like any other marketable product. The presence or absence of anti-obscenity laws doesn’t enter into it.
    “What I know is that you’re engaged in your usual word play and very resistant to anyone inspecting mundane life to see if the verbiage is a description of anything palpable.”
    Sorry, but mere flinging of statistics about doth not an argument make.

  50. Rob G

    The entire culture of mass advertising is subversive of tradition and traditional morality in that it is inherently narcissistic, hedonistic and acquisitive. It promotes precisely “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.” You may feel ideologically compelled to separate business per se from how it promotes itself. I do not.

  51. I’m busy today and can’t respond at any length, but I want to say this much: the discussion has taken a turn that really doesn’t have much to do with any point I was making. (Probably applicable to Rob, too, but I’ll let him speak for himself.) My point is NOT that business and businessmen are the cause of various sorts of moral and cultural decline, but that liberal (in the old sense) societies have a flawed conception of freedom which facilitates the decline. It shows itself in commerce as in many other areas. Commerce is an interesting instance precisely because the business community has or at least had no particular desire to encourage the self-indulgence and casting off of restraints that it does in fact implicitly encourage.

  52. the business community has or at least had no particular desire to encourage the self-indulgence and casting off of restraints that it does in fact implicitly encourage.
    I’m somewhat perplexed by what you might mean here.
    Self-indulgence is to some degree a function of technological advancement and process improvements. There’s more stuff with which to indulge oneself. Here your problem is not a flawed conception of freedom nor commerce per se.
    Advertising is an aid to marketing goods and services and commonly is employed to persuade people to buy one brand or another; the aggregate demand for the good or service in question is not much affected by it (or the product in question is a minor component of household budgets). It cannot compel people to buy anything. It can trick someone into buying something that has esoteric flaws, but to the extent that it does so repeatedly or over the long haul or at great scale, it generally has to be a service traded in by experts and of opaque value to laymen. Legal services, architecture, psychotherapy, investment counseling, and higher education are the loci of long-con gyps. You might notice that these are not advertising-intensive trades.

  53. The entire culture of mass advertising is subversive of tradition and traditional morality in that it is inherently narcissistic, hedonistic and acquisitive. It promotes precisely “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.”
    Yak yak yak
    You have production and you have consumption. Has there been a secular increase in the share of household incomes devoted to personal consumption? If not (and IIRC, the allocation between private consumption, savings and investment, and public expenditure has tended to vary within narrow bands for the last generation with the principal change since 1929 being the size of the public sector), you’re complaint is either that we produce too much or produce too much that can be sold through advertising.
    Now, when I turn on the tube, what do I see most prominently displayed (and there are oh so many ads):
    1. Pharmaceuticals
    2. Technological do-dads
    3. Other television programs
    4. Business services
    5. Furniture showrooms &c.
    6. Automobiles
    7. Occasion sales (“back to school”)
    8. Chain restaurants
    9. Appliances and appliance dealers
    10. Home improvement & lawn and garden items.
    11. Commercial higher education
    12. Ambulance chaser lawyers.
    13. Cleaning products (some durable, some not).
    14. Packaged comestibles.
    15. Money management
    It seems rather florid to use terms like ‘narcissistic, hedonistic and acquisitive’ to describe the trade in blood thinners and lawn fertilizer.

  54. Oh, i forgot hygiene products, cosmetics, and clothes (though the latter are covered under ‘occasion sales’ and the cosmetics seem to be shampoos and the like).

  55. Sorry, but mere flinging of statistics about doth not an argument make.
    The argument is that you’re not with all of this babble describing much but half-baked notions which have no analogues to anything going on outside your head. You might try demonstrating that they do in lieu of merely telling me I’m vulgar or dense.
    This fails to take into consideration mass advertising and its ever-increasing adoption of and reliance on “sex sells.”
    Arnold Palmer is not hawking blood thinners with sexual subtexts.
    Also, the belief that pornography should be illegal has zilch to do with its de facto market status.
    I think people hauled in for traffickng in obscenity in 1963 might take exception to that.

  56. Rob G

    (Probably applicable to Rob, too, but I’ll let him speak for himself)
    Agreed. I’ll simply refer any interested parties to Del Noce, Lasch, Daniel Bell, et al.
    “Commerce is an interesting instance precisely because the business community has or at least had no particular desire to encourage the self-indulgence and casting off of restraints that it does in fact implicitly encourage.”
    No doubt. For example, Burger King was not attempting to destroy civilization when it introduced the “Have it your way!” ad campaign back in the early 70s. But it doesn’t seem arguable to me that that particular mentality has become rather dominant in our society, and consequently there certainly is a lot more word and image merchantry that screams “It’s all about you!” As someone put it, with apologies to Kris Kristofferson and Janis Joplin, “Freedom’s just another word for lots of things to buy.”
    “I think people hauled in for traffickng in obscenity in 1963 might take exception to that.”
    Which totally misses the point, but hey. Probably better that way.

  57. You’re obsessed with advertising and fancy the country is filled with gulled rubes while you yourself sip port reading back issues of Modern Age. Not very attractive.

  58. Rob G

    “You’re obsessed with advertising and fancy the country is filled with gulled rubes while you yourself sip port reading back issues of Modern Age. Not very attractive.”
    Actually, I was always more of a beer guy, but I had to give up alcohol for health reasons, alas.
    I do not think the country is full of gulled rubes; what I think is that Madison Ave. is adept at the modification of consciousness.

  59. what I think is that Madison Ave. is adept at the modification of consciousness.
    In other words, that they can gull people but not you.
    People do not drink Dr. Pepper because their consciousness is ‘modified’. They drink it because they like the taste of it. Advertising might induce someone to try it when they would not otherwise, but they still have to come back for it.
    People spend their income on housing, with regard to which the intervention of advertising agencies is modest, likely limited to design for sites like Trulia. They spend their money on medical care, with regard to which advertising is nearly non-existent. They spend their money on insurance, with regard to which it’s limited to brochures and websites and often intermediated by agents. They spend their money on legal services, for which word of mouth is the order of the day except for the sort of attorney despised by other attorneys. They spend their money on fresh produce and fresh meat and milk (for which advertising is minimal except for branded chicken). They spend their money on cars. There is a great deal of advertising there, but the advertising faces cross-cutting vectors (test drives, Consumer Reports, Kelly blue book). They spend their money on higher education, but higher educations’ promotion generally consists of brochures, circulars, and websites. They spend their money on utilities. Those are natural monopolies.
    Durable goods account for 11% of household budgets; clothing and shoes about 3%; recreation about 4%; restaurants, bars, and hotels, 8% (I’ve seen advertisements for 2 of the 5 or 6 restaurants at the nearest mall to me, and in one case it’s just fliers). Most of what people spend their money on is not advertising intensive. You’re fussing over shifts in market share among producers of goods and services people spend their money on anyway.

  60. I find it very hard to believe anyone actually likes the taste of Dr. Pepper without making considerable efforts to acquire it first.

  61. Of persons of British extraction whom I have heard express an opinion of Dr. Pepper, 100% have said they can’t understand anyone liking it. That’s only two people, but it’s a trend. The other was Andrew Stuttaford of National Review, who was extremely emphatic.
    Personally I love it and as I happen to be thirsty right now wish I had one.

  62. Going back to Cardinal Richelieu, his education was not exceptional for a member of his class, and was pretty much the equivalent of what would now be a Liberal Arts degree. He had a remarkable mind and was a man of remarkable achievements, but none of them were based on any claim to “expertise”.
    A Hungarian Member of the European Parliament I used to meet occasionally so he could practice his English once had occasion to berate “expert advisers” for presenting policy decisions ready-made for elected officials to endorse, rather than presenting advice on the basis of which elected officials could deliberate. He was very proud not only of having been able to make his point in English, but to have done so by paraphrasing Burke in the chamber of the European Parliament.
    There is a contrary tendency to view experts as the best people to make decisions on behalf of non-experts, rather than providing expertise for non-experts to draw upon in deliberating about decisions. “Technocratic” is as good word for this as any.

  63. With regard to advertising, it’s remarkable that so many superficially sensible businessmen should spend so many billions on a pursuit that pays for the media (and a lot of the lawyers) to do their thing, and fills our cities, roadsides, letterboxes, reading matter and screens with its images, when it has such negligible impact on the general public’s economic decisions.
    As a businessman myself, I feel quite vindicated in not wasting a penny on advertising, despite the blandishments of such as Google and the Yellow Pages, and getting almost all my clients by word of mouth and direct sales.

  64. Back to Dr Pepper: objectively it’s vile, so people must presumably put some effort into acquiring the taste, or the manufacturers would long ago have packed it in.

  65. Marianne

    I loved Dr Pepper as a kid — no effort required. But then in high school I was made fun of for liking it, so I gave it up for Coca-Cola. Is it sweeter than other soft drinks, and so appeals mostly to children?

  66. I would occasionally lick a battery when I was small. The taste is very similar.

  67. A Hungarian Member of the European Parliament I used to meet occasionally so he could practice his English once had occasion to berate “expert advisers” for presenting policy decisions ready-made for elected officials to endorse
    In this country, the most prominent critic of this has been, of all people, Henry Kissinger. (“You would endorse the bureaucratic consensus every time just by selecting option two, always placed between to patently absurd options”). The object of Kissinger’s irritation was, ironically, the Foreign Service, which once made a particular point in its entrance examinations to select people with a liberal education.
    There is a contrary tendency to view experts as the best people to make decisions on behalf of non-experts, rather than providing expertise for non-experts to draw upon in deliberating about decisions.
    The most egregious manifestation of this in this country concerns the appellate judiciary (and their shallow and smart-assed clerks, and the public interest bar, and their straw plaintiffs). However, what they trade in is not true expertise, but in the notion that their personal excellence (from their education and social standing) entitles them to stick the plebes with their moral sentiments.
    As for Mario Monti, in this country there are masses of politically-connected economists and their preferences vary considerably (moreso by far than their assessment of economic variables). Every presidential candidate has a brain trust of petexperts and there are institutions on both sides which generate studies and position papers.

  68. I miss that Hungarian MEP. I didn’t know him well but I liked him a lot. He died of a heart attack almost 10 years ago; I think in his early forties. He got his Burke from an old-fashioned “Reader for students of English” that he wanted me to talk him through and that he was proud of owning because it had belonged to a dissident writer of the 1950s and 60s. There was a typed draft of a letter folded inside it, declining an invitation to a PEN meeting in Venice because of not being allowed to travel. We hear a lot about faineant MEPs just clocking in for expense allowances, but he was a tremendously active man with a real sense of history and of duty. I haven’t known many politicians personally, but I don’t think he can have been representative of them in general.

  69. Back to Dr Pepper: objectively it’s vile,
    Southerners in my experience love it. Not sure why. There’s enough of a constituency up north that it’s marketed in New York (which Duke’s mayonnaise is not). I cannot recall the last time I saw a commercial for RC Cola though, though I understand it’s still sold somewhere. Carroll’s, Howard Johnson’s, Arthur Treacher’s, Red Barn, Burger Chef all gone or nearly so. Mass marketing does fail, even after periods of prosperity.

  70. the notion that their personal excellence (from their education and social standing) entitles them to stick the plebes with their moral sentiments
    That’s something that’s very apparent in British politicians of all parties. Much less so in judges.

  71. Much less so in judges.
    Mark Steyn, who has been a party to lawsuits in the U.S., Britain, and Canada has said the American judiciary is stupefying in its pretension, in the expense of dealing with it, and the degree to which it is politicized. He said in Britain, “a judge is just a bloke in a wig” at the end of the day.

  72. “I would occasionally lick a battery when I was small. The taste is very similar.”
    Now this is objectively incorrect. Dr. Pepper has a very sweet, heavy and vaguely fruity taste (hence the belief that prune juice is one of its ingredients), while batteries have a bright, sharp, and (not surprisingly) metallic taste.
    RC Cola was always an also-ran. I think it’s still around but if it is it isn’t very popular.
    Actually I think all that stuff is mildly toxic. I drink maybe half a dozen a year, though this year I hit my quota in January trying to alleviate flu misery with ginger ale.

  73. “In other words, that they can gull people but not you.”
    People aren’t gullible – they’re just ill-informed.
    re: Dr. Pepper. I spent two years in college in Texas. There were folks there from various parts of the south who would drink Dr. Pepper hot, with lemon. Like tea. It actually isn’t bad. As it loses its carbonation when it gets hot, it tastes less sweet. They also had a soft drink there called Big Red. It tasted like liquid bubble gum.
    I like Dr. Pepper but I have to be in the mood for it. I generally don’t drink soft drinks very often, but when I do it’s usually Pepsi or RC. Coke isn’t sweet enough for me.

  74. Grumpy

    I started thinking about this discussion a few days ago, but I was busy with work here and before I knew it the comments had moved on from whether flight from the church is all motivated by sex to a fierce argument about whether technology is all the blame and businesses and liberalism and do they destroy the family or is it advertizing that destroys the family, to now, finally, a conversation about whether or not Dr. Pepper is vile or does it taste like a battery.
    I do not like soft drinks so I cannot contribute an opinion about Dr. Pepper. When I was a child mothers were continuously told about a tooth left overnight in a glass of coka cola which had disintegrated by the morning. So we never had them at home and I never acquired the taste for soft drinks.
    Now, I often disagree with Art Deco. I have posted a photograph on my facebook of a course advertized in the mid western University in which I teach: the course is on the philosophy of time and the professor has two doctorates. It just is not such an unbelievable phenomenon as he supposes.
    However, on the point at issue between Rob G and Art D I fall closer to A.D.
    I did not follow the whole discussion. Simply, when the discussion above about liberalism was in its early stages, I began to muse about it. And my musings are anecdotal and have little anecdotal force. Most of them were, as I say, stimulated by the very early part of the discussion and are not a direct response to what either gentleman wrote above. By the time I returned an argument had developed around a thought I had begun to think but had not yet articulated.
    My musing led me to the thought that it is advertizing, in our culture, which grooms young people to be self-focussed serial monogamists to whose life style it makes little difference whether they are hetero or homo sexual. The ideal person in the advertizement is in their mid twenties, obviously very slim, in perfect health, with a perfect car, a perfect house, perfect teeth, perfect pets. These images are in people’s heads from everything they read and look at from the first months of their lives. It is the constant promotion of these images which undermines self-discipline and encourages hedonism and therefore undermines the existence of the kinds of virtues which can build stable families.
    Anecdotally: as children, we were not allowed to watch adverts on TV. I’m sure I’ve said that here before. It was very strictly enforced. My father turned off the sound and he said ‘avert your eyes’ and we had to cover our eyes. He said it got us into the habit of averting our eyes from evil. It was stricter even than it sounds; we were not, for instance, allowed to hum or sing advertizing jingles. My father thought these things promoted materialism and they were evil.
    Now here is something I cannot explain very well, but this is why I side with Art Deco on this question and why I do not think it is stupid or inane or vulgar to think it right to distinguish manufacturing business in general from the advertizing industry.
    We had a small business ourselves and my father wrote very amusing adverts for it! Little verbal jokes! He designed the adverts with pictures photographs and his texts. Of course we could not afford TV advertizing. They were just little ads which went into the Village Voice or into the mailings we made to our customers.
    This is a kind of paradox which I think paleoconservative anti-liberals do not understand and which I cannot articulate very well. In a conservative society the small business class must discourage its offspring from anything amounting to a hedonistic life style whilst simultaneously encouraging other folks to buy stuff.
    Sorry it does not sound very convincing, but if I was any good at being convincing in political science or social theory I would be in a different line of work to my present employment.
    Sorry, I just agree with Arty that the one single industry apart from the teachers who have undermined the stability of our culture is the advertizing industry – or marketing, or PR or whatever you wish to call it. And I think that industry can be distinguished from the businesses which used advertising or PR to market their products. Making things to sell them and and ‘marketing’ are not one and the same thing. Logically that sounds ridiculous, which is why Rob G says its ridiculous. But the world is not built out of logic.

  75. Rob G

    Grumpy, I see your point and actually agree partially. However, what I think you’re missing is the extent to which business and its advertising become less separated as one moves up the food chain, so to speak. Products in a sense “become” their brands, and the pushing of the brand is hugely important. And at a certain point the production and the marketing of the brand become indistinguishable on any other level than the material.
    I’ve seen this very recently, close up, as the Fortune 500 company I work for has within the last 6 mos. “rebranded” itself. Now since it’s a medical company we don’t do a ton of advertising, but one of the things we heard a lot during the transition was “the brand is us.” If this is true for a company that doesn’t have an instantly recognizable brand, how much truer is it for one that does?

  76. Louise

    I really must try Dr Pepper. I’m fairly sure I won’t like it, but you never know.
    I’ll report back…

  77. Louise

    I’m about to eat pulled pork which is just one of the Best. Things. Ever!

  78. grumpy

    I agree Rob that it is different for small and large businesses. As I have said before, my mother was a fashion designer. I would have said we had a middling sized shop in Greenwich Village. I went back there last spring and we had a tiny shop in the Village! I had no idea was so small. My sister was also surprised by the size when she went back a while ago. And I agree that when the business becomes ‘the brand’ its hard to distinguish the product from the marketing for the product.
    But I do not think that, in and of itself, say, the existence of Ford or IBM or those big American or Japanese camera companyies which don’t exist any more – I don’t think that that changed the culture from the 1960s on. I think what changed the culture was the marketing of these products. It was that which affected, not to say, poisoned, the imaginations of most people.
    To go back to the original discussion: I do find it surprising that parents will let their kids sit and watch TV throughout their teenage years and then be distressed when they fall away from the faith. I remember at one of Stratford Caldecott’s conferences Peter Hitchins gave a talk and said you should not let your kids watch TV if you want them to grow up to be Christian. I thought that was sound common sense, but the audience was simply appalled. They found his proposal unthinkable.

  79. Well, I haven’t been following this discussion because I’ve been too busy, but I can say that pulled pork is the best and Dr. Pepper is gross and when I tell people that I don’t watch TV they ask, “Well, what do you do?”
    AMDG

  80. since it’s a medical company we don’t do a ton of advertising
    Not even to doctors and hospitals?
    I think I’ve mentioned before that I had a very Pinfoldesque experience a few years ago, brought on by oxaprozin-based anti-inflammatories prescribed after a hand operation. When I went back to the prescribing doctor and told him, he said something dismissive about the likelihood of the medication being to blame (although its warning leaflet actually lists “confusion, delusions, depression, hallucinations, paranoid reactions, and panic disorders” as potential side-effects; but, typically, I didn’t actually read the leaflet until afterwards). At that very moment I noticed that his subscription pad was provided to him by the manufacturer, and had their name and logo blazoned across the top. I don’t think he was even consciously aware of it any more.

  81. Very occasionally I’ll catch wind of something on the television I’d like to see (such as archaeologist friends being interviewed on documentaries about ancient remains). I never have the time to watch.

  82. At that very moment I noticed that his subscription pad was provided to him by the manufacturer,
    I don’t think your doctor is a date that cheap.

  83. Robert Gotcher

    I have nothing substantial to add to this discussion. Ya’ll are, as usual, much better read than I am.
    I do agree with Art that any claim must find a real, observable manifestation in the world in which we live. Basically, if this abstract point is true, it will appear in our world like this. But, what we actually see is that. Now, I’m not saying that stats can’t be used to obscure the actual reality of things. Obviously they can. The business of actually finding and analyzing the empirical evidence for claims is time-intensive.
    I love Dr. Pepper. I’m from Oklahoma, which is a northern suburb of Dr. Pepper land. One of my favorite stories is about the ridiculous lengths my sister went to to find a Dr. Pepper when she was visiting me in Kentucky. If it is available, I drink it and only it. I prefer Coke to Pepsi. And, by the way, a “coke” is any soft drink in Oklahoma. As in “I’ll take a coke.” “What kind? We have Coke, Dr. Pepper, Sprite, root beer….”
    I REALLY don’t see how people can spend any time watching TV. I don’t watch it at all (except for Packer games–sans advertisements), but I don’t have enough time to get all the things I need to do accomplished.

  84. I’m not sure what “a date that cheap” actually means. I don’t for a moment imagine there was any conscious quid pro quo (“I’ll ignore the known risks of the medication because the manufacturers give me freebies”) โ€” more likely, he was not even consciously aware of the company’s logo, no longer noticing it day after day, while its unnoticed presence unconsciously linked that brand to his conscious business of writing prescriptions. That is, after all, how branding is supposed to work, and why people spend so much money on it.

  85. Or are you suggesting he got a lot more out of the relationship with that brand than a free prescription pad? As I say, the expression is opaque to me.

  86. “Coke isn’t sweet enough for me.” You have a serious sweet tooth! I always thought Coke was slightly preferable to its competitors because it wasn’t as sweet. Which I know does not fit with my liking Dr Pepper, which is extremely sweet.

  87. And by the way now that you mention it I remember a brief vogue for hot Dr Pepper. I think the company may actually have been pushing it at one time.

  88. A while ago I heard a Eastern European saying the strangest thing about being in the Low Countries was seeing so many adults cycling, since where he came from it was regarded as a typically childish means of locomotion (people transitioning to cars, mopeds and motorcycles as soon as legally old enough, if not before).
    I hope this doesn’t cause offence, but I do notice in myself a slightly similar wondering reaction to adults discussing their taste in fizzy pop. I know it’s just a cultural difference, but it’s a strangely dissonant one.

  89. I’m confused. Grumpy, you said “I just agree with Arty that the one single industry apart from the teachers who have undermined the stability of our culture is the advertizing industry – or marketing, or PR or whatever you wish to call it. ”
    But I thought Art was saying the opposite of that, that advertising does not have that big an impact.
    At any rate, I’ll repeat what I said earlier, just for emphasis: advertising is only one factor in our culture among many that foster an attitude of self-gratification.

  90. Robert Gotcher

    ” advertising is only one factor in our culture among many that foster an attitude of self-gratification.”
    One of the others is a favorite of a friend of mine. Whenever I say “Why did so and so bad thing happen?” he says, “Genesis 3.”

  91. That is, after all, how branding is supposed to work, and why people spend so much money on it.
    I’ll give you three explanations:
    1. That he’s aware (or has a personal assessment) of the frequency of side effects to this medication as against any confounding phenomena and he thinks the confounding phenomena are much more likely. (Doctors are not actuaries, so this is unlikely).
    2. For practical reasons, he’d rather not admit a mistake.
    3. For reasons of pride, he’d rather not admit a mistake.
    Any of these strikes me as more plausible than the notion that he’a a Manchurian Candidate by virtue of his prescription pad.
    You’ll recall that the fictional Guilford Pinfold’s doctor says the problem with private patients is that you don’t know what they’re taking on the side (in Pinfold’s case, his ‘sleeping draught’).

  92. A ‘cheap date’ is a girl who doesn’t cost you much for an evening. Phrase modal among cohorts born in the late 1920s, I believe.

  93. Except it’s not a mistake on the doctor’s part for a medication to have a side-effect, and he could only perceive it as a mistake by somehow identifying himself with the manufacturer.

  94. grumpy

    I do not know what a date that cheap means either.
    I may have got it wrong. Down to where I read in the discussion between Rob G and Deckers it seemed as if Deck was contending for advertizing alone being the cause of recent social decline and Rob G saying it was daft to make a strict distinction between advertizing and the stuff it advertizes. Rob seemed to be saying you cannot just blame ‘advertizing’ or marketing because the products which buy that marketing are complicit in the advertizing they use. Whereas down to where I read I thought AD thought that there is a distinction. Seeing the more recent discussion about the medical stuff makes me wonder if I did understand.
    Many of these medicines have side effects which the doctors in English brush off as side effects. When he had to take a lot of such medicines late in life, my father used to say ‘no engineer would build a bridge and then when it makes you disappear after crossing it say ‘well that’s just a side effect’.” I think doctors do tend to focus on the immediate effects of the medics. In America they seem to be forbidden to ignore the long term effects: the adverts for pills on the radio include at the very end a long list of the potential side effects, often down to and including death. By the time the very fast voice has read out all the potential side effects its a wonder anyone at all would want to buy the pills.

  95. I can’t really see myself how to distinguish media and advertising: they exist in almost complete symbiosis.

  96. he could only perceive it as a mistake by somehow identifying himself with the manufacturer.
    No, he would perceive himself as responsible because he prescribed that particular painkiller rather than telling you to take Tylenol.
    I gather the personal injury bar is less inventive in your neck of the woods.

  97. it seemed as if Deck was contending for advertizing alone being the cause of recent social decline
    No. Not my contention at all.

  98. Art Deco, so your idea is that he might have felt responsible for not having prescribed a different, more common drug, but that his choice of this particular less common drug cannot have been influenced by his having the brand name constantly before his eyes?

  99. Rob G

    From my time in Texas (early 80s) I also remember that Dr Pepper was not always all that easy to find, especially in soda machines, but in those instances there was an equivalent knockoff called ‘Mr Pibb’ that folks would drink instead.
    “I can’t really see myself how to distinguish media and advertising: they exist in almost complete symbiosis.”
    A friend of mine insists that TV programming exists only to fill the time between commercials. ๐Ÿ™‚

  100. but that his choice of this particular less common drug cannot have been influenced by his having the brand name constantly before his eyes?
    In the U.S., pharmaceutical representatives show up at doctor’s offices all the time. That’s one way they hear about new medications. Another is to read practitioners’ journals like American Family Physician and Pediatrics. That he’s in thrall to his prescription pad beggars belief.
    The GP I know best (who has a geriatric clientele, which conditions his thinking to a degree) tells me the following: “you know there’s an x percent chance that this medication will produce y percent improvement in this patient. You also know that it will likely do nothing at all and may have disagreeable side effects. What do you do?” You’re doctor faces dilemmas like this every day, and I’ll wager does not fancy being told he told you to do something which injured you.

  101. One wonders why pharmaceutical companies should bother with such freebies, if they don’t expect them to have any effect.

  102. Louise

    “Whenever I say “Why did so and so bad thing happen?” he says, “Genesis 3.””
    Apple-gate!

  103. Louise

    “I remember at one of Stratford Caldecott’s conferences Peter Hitchins gave a talk and said you should not let your kids watch TV if you want them to grow up to be Christian. I thought that was sound common sense, but the audience was simply appalled.”
    I’m certainly inclined to agree with Hitchens. We don’t have TV stations in the house. My children probably do watch too much in the way of movies etc. I watch next to nothing at all — because I’m on the ‘net. ๐Ÿ˜›

  104. Louise

    Rob G, I can reliably inform you that Dr Pepper is now widely available in Texas. I’m not sure this information will be in any way useful.

  105. If you drink Diet Coke, which I do, you can be sure that sooner or later you will be given a Dr. Pepper by mistake. The only think nastier than drinking Dr. Pepper is drinking Dr. Pepper when you think it’s going to be something else.
    AMDG

  106. “…a slightly similar wondering reaction to adults discussing their taste in fizzy pop. I know it’s just a cultural difference…”
    It is, and it’s a reflection of just how big a part of the culture those stupid and unhealthy drinks are. Even someone like me who rarely drinks them has an opinion. Offhand I can’t remember when I last had a Coke or Dr Pepper, but nevertheless I voice my preference. There are similar discussions about the merits of fast food restaurants: Macdonald’s, Burger King, and all the rest.

  107. Grumpy

    Paul, I think the conversation about which is our favourite soft drink came up after the discussion had become a bit abrasive. It was a way of pouring oil on troubled water – moving the conversation on to something non controversial. Probably happened unconsciously.

  108. “The only think nastier than drinking Dr. Pepper is drinking Dr. Pepper when you think it’s going to be something else.”
    I have to take issue with that. It would be considerably more unpleasant to get Diet Coke when you thought you were getting Dr Pepper.
    Diet Coke, now–that’s the one I don’t understand. That anyone would drink it regularly baffles me the way Dr Pepper baffles some people.

  109. Marianne

    The remark about cultural differences reminded me of Marmite and Vegemite. Just thinking of either makes me shudder.

  110. They make me think of breakfast.
    I’m getting toward the end of the Vegemite, finally. It’s ok but I like Marmite better.

  111. Rob G

    “Diet Coke, now–that’s the one I don’t understand.”
    Ditto. Oddly enough, I’ve heard from quite a few people that the best tasting diet beverage (the one that tastes the least “diet”) is Diet Dr. Pepper!
    As I said above I’ve never been much of a fizzy drink person, but lately I’ve been drinking a fair amount of bottled iced tea, which is not really good for you either. Better to make your own, I’d say — either that or lemonade.

  112. “I have to take issue with that. It would be considerably more unpleasant to get Diet Coke when you thought you were getting Dr Pepper.”
    That may very well be true, but I can assure you I will never have that experience, so I can only speculate.
    As far as soft drinks are concerned, my friend Fr. Robert always says that the motto of the South is “Coke–it’s not just for breakfast anymore.” I loved everything about Coke when I was little: the wooden cases in the corner of the kitchen, the green glass bottles, looking on the bottle to the bottle to see where yours came from (sometimes it said Memphis!), the openers that hung on the wall (I have one in my kitchen that’s been here for at least 40 years.), the enormous coolers (big enough for a few kids to sit in) filled with half-melted ice that we had at picnics, and the fact that you had to have a nickel and a penny to get a coke out of the machines. So, I can’t drink regular cokes anymore, but it’s hard to give it up altogether.
    Actually, lately I have been drinking more tea and fewer soft drinks, and the soft drink I prefer is Fresca.
    AMDG

  113. Rob G

    I’d say that this reflects what might be called technocracy:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/former-master-we-are-all-slaves/

  114. Indeed. I also thought of the mostly anonymous people who wrote the Obamacare law. And the arrogant guy (Gruber?) who admitted that the whole thing was deceptive while profiting handsomely from his consulting role.

  115. Individual comestibles are not ‘good for you’ or ‘bad for you’. Obesity (commonly derived from a mix of compulsive eating and inactivity) is not good and a mix of excess and deficiency in your overall diet is not good.

  116. Louise

    “They make me think of breakfast.
    I’m getting toward the end of the Vegemite, finally. It’s ok but I like Marmite better.”
    Do you really? I definitely prefer Vegemite. Marmite is a little too bitter for me.

  117. Louise

    “As far as soft drinks are concerned, my friend Fr. Robert always says that the motto of the South is “Coke–it’s not just for breakfast anymore.””
    Ha! I love Coke. I really love it. But I don’t drink it much. An excess would certainly be bad for me. I like the fizz of fizzy drinks, so by way of having something a little more healthy when I go out for dinner, I often drink orange juice with mineral or tonic water. The fizz is very pleasant and it’s not too sweet.

  118. Louise

    “Individual comestibles are not ‘good for you’ or ‘bad for you’.”
    Oh dear. You are a heretic against the New Religion of Eating Right.

  119. Your contention is what, Rob G? That we should not have a financial sector, or that it should not be run by people with expertise, or that the curious place of the financial sector in the economy is a novelty?
    the way the system chewed him up and spit him out
    How was the man ‘chewed up’? He was certainly ‘spit out’, but treating late middle-aged men as expendable is characteristic of a number of sectors (and notorious in tech). See Clayton Cramer on this point. No clue as to whether it reflects real changes in productivity as a worker ages or it’s a fallacy which does not injure competitiveness because it’s so universal in a sector.
    It turns out that the filmmaker, Marc Bauder, set out to interview a number of German investment bankers about their world, post-crash, but none would talk to him โ€” none, other than Voss.
    Which strongly suggests a somewhat atypical perspective will be forthcoming, because he’s given up on his trade.
    He was a company man from the start, rising from fairly humble beginnings (his father was a heating engineer) to a position in which he was making around $1.5 million yearly (on the advice of his lawyer, Voss doesnโ€™t mention the specific banks for which he worked). And from the beginning, the finance industry owned his soul.
    Dreher’s just the sort who confounds his rhetorical flourishes with reality.
    He talks about how if you want to get ahead in high finance, you have to live for the company. Your family must come a distant second. The only time Voss gets visibly uncomfortable in the film is when the director presses him on his relationship to his children. Voss uses the classic self-justifying dodge of the high-flying workaholic: What matters is not the quantity of time I spend with my children, but the quality. You can tell that even he really doesnโ€™t believe that anymore, but canโ€™t bear the emotional consequences of calling it a lie.
    This man he’s referring to is derived from a tiny self-selected minority. There are benefits and costs to any course of action you take, and senior corporation executives and attorneys often work abnormal hours. The injury to their children depends on their capacity to have salutary interactions with those children to begin with.
    I assume Dreher has crossed paths with a medical resident, and certainly with a common-and-garden GP. Their children generally do not see much of them either.
    He says that the industry changed dramatically with deregulation in the 1980s, when Americans with โ€œstrange suspendersโ€ came over to teach the German bankers about all the fabulous new financial products they could be putting together and selling to clients. Voss says that he and his colleagues viewed the Americans โ€œas gods.โ€
    Oh, so it’s our fault. Why does this not surprise me from the world’s faux populists?
    And they learned. Voss says that one dirty little secret of the industry is that the only people who really make money are large institutional investors; private investors simply do not have the technical capability to know when they are being screwed over by investment bankers.
    “Large institutional investors” would be people managing pension funds, mutual funds, money-market funds, insurance company portfolios and philanthropic endowments. The insurance company portfolios largely consist of bonds which appreciate and depreciate very little (as a rule) and the money market funds contain commercial and municipal paper (which pays low returns and neither appreciates nor depreciates much). Now what sort of people benefit from mutual funds and pension funds? Computer programmers from Mobile, perhaps? Postal workers from Youngstown?
    While we’re at it, you likely will find little in a private investor’s portfolio sold in an IPO. People buy equities in a secondary market because they fancy they’re undervalued. If there is someone scamming here, it’s likely money managers, who get paid fees even though their clients might be just as well off investing in index funds. Now, you do have some high-fliers in that trade (e.g. hedge-fund operators), but the common-and-garden investment counselor, financial analyst, financial planner, &c. likely is not much better off than a typical insurance agent. I bet there’s an insurance agency in St. Francisville. He may even double as a money manager.
    In fact โ€” and this is the freakiest thing about the film โ€” nobody knows anything
    Again, reporters write like this. Non-brain-dead people do not.
    Voss says globalization and the technologization of trading has created a system so vast and complex that nobody can really master it.
    Shades of William Greider. There must be someone ‘at the wheel’ of ‘global capitalism’ or world go blooey. (The younger Paul Krugman offered that Greider should have a competent economist review his books before they’re published). Why would you expect a given person to ‘master’ an entire economic sector world wide, or, really any sort of trade or profession? Why would you want a discrete public or private entity to ‘master’ an economic sector? (And why would I expect Dreher to have any idea of the implications of the words he spews?)
    The system has mastered us all. Control is an illusion.
    Welcome to adult life, Mr. Dreher.
    would force the bankers to change, e.g., compel them to stop making money off the potential economic failure of certain countries. But nobody will.
    Yeah, the world will be a much better place if you cannot short sell Greek government bonds (to someone else in your trade who fancies you’ve misjudged their value).
    The film is at its most penetrating when Voss talks about how much control the financial industry has over the lives of ordinary people, and even entire nations.
    The financial sector controls nothing in your household. They influence your behavior to a degree, consequent on your circumstances and choices. That’s mortgage lenders, credit card vendors, miscellaneous consumer lenders, and credit reporting agencies. This fellow Voss was not engaged in that type of finance.
    They do not ‘control’ entire nations or influence them much unless the nations in question are in extremis from bad financial decisions or odd events. You have money to lend, you influence corporate bodies who wish to borrow. Does Dreher fancy there is some alternative to this?
    Voss speaks evenly and unaffectedly about how bankers at his level will speak openly to each other about making money at the expense of tearing other countries and societies apart.
    Can Dreher think of a single example of some body of individuals having done that? Which ‘society’ or ‘country’ was ‘torn apart’ by bankers?
    In fact, says Voss, they considered him nothing but a mercenary. A gun for hire. It was only business.
    Employers have partial and contingent relationships with their employees. This is a revelation?
    covering their predatory, nihilistic behavior.
    Do you think Dreher could, without looking it up, define ‘predatory’ or ‘nihilistic’.
    I have a friend, an American banker who was at Vossโ€™s level.
    Dreher uses this shtick so often only the gullible assume the ‘friends’ are non-imaginary.

  120. Rob G

    “Your contention is what, Rob G? That we should not have a financial sector, or that it should not be run by people with expertise, or that the curious place of the financial sector in the economy is a novelty?”
    Now today, boys and girls, we’re going to learn about the False Trichotomy! It’s just like the False Dichotomy but it has THREE parts!

  121. Grumpy

    Louise: the New Religion of Eating Right
    These people are so obsessive! People started saying a year or so ago that the real problem is not fats, its sugar. But now sugar has become demonic poison. Of course people should eat sugary things as treats, not all the time. But treating them as demonic poisons is just fanatical.

  122. Now today, boys and girls, we’re going to learn about the False Trichotomy!

    I assume you’ll get around to telling us what the true option is that I concealed.

    This fellow Voss worked in a part of the world few of us have palpable experience of and which is from a distance disconcerting if not disgusting. You could argue it should operate under a different regulatory architecture for reasons of pareto efficiency or distributive justice. However, Dreher hasn’t the chops to make that argument because he doesn’t know anything but how to eat stuff and shoot his mouth off. So, we get the usual Dreher: laments, accusations, and imaginary friends.

  123. Rob G

    “I assume you’ll get around to telling us what the true option is that I concealed.”
    Why bother?

  124. “Your contention is what, Rob G? That we should not have a financial sector, or that it should not be run by people with expertise, or that the curious place of the financial sector in the economy is a novelty?”
    Art, it sometimes seems that you’re willfully misunderstanding, or maybe just being contrary for the fun of it. If I think Jonathan Gruber is a dishonest son of a bitch who has parlayed his expertise as an academic economist into an opportunity to help run the lives of those whom he apparently holds in contempt while pulling in very healthy rewards for himself, it doesn’t mean that I don’t believe we should have a health care sector.

  125. OK, but his reference was to an article by Rod Dreher on a disaffected investment banker. The problems with Dreher’s theses noted (with some complaints by me about Dreher’s usual modus operandi).
    If your complaint is about people with little integrity, I get that. If it’s about the terminally arrogant, I get that. If you’re interest is in exploring the problems posed by the New Class (see Alvin Gouldner), I get that. I’m just not seeing how that’s illuminated by Dreher being Dreher and offering a misconceived whine about a practitioner in a field of which he knows nothing.

  126. Rob G

    “I’m just not seeing how that’s illuminated by Dreher being Dreher and offering a misconceived whine about a practitioner in a field of which he knows nothing.”
    I’m not sure you have to know much about the minutiae of investment banking to intuit that something’s rotten in this particular state of Denmark. My posting of the piece was based on the observation that in general, the sort of thing that Rod is describing here is a good example of what certain critics refer to as technocracy — rule by technique. One need not agree with every particular in order to support the general contention.
    “If I think Jonathan Gruber is a dishonest son of a bitch…it doesn’t mean that I don’t believe we should have a health care sector.”
    This line of argument always baffles me. It’s like raising the issue of highway deaths and being answered with, “Oh, then you don’t believe in automobiles?”
    Being warned not to throw the baby out with the bathwater is one thing. Being told that a complaint about the dirtiness of the water implies a rejection of baths is quite another.

  127. Right. It’s an all too common form of argument.
    Art, I wonder if your dislike of Dreher causes you to overreact. I’m not especially a fan myself, but I read the thing Rob linked to not so much as a Dreher opinion piece but a news story about a technocrat which raises about the strong possibility (at least) that, as Rob says, there is something really rotten in our financial system. As I’m sure you know that view is not hard to find in conservative circles. It’s not just liberal anti-capitalism.
    On further thought, I think the people who run things like the Federal Reserve Bank fit the definition of “technocrat” better than an investment banker, who is after all pretty up-front about being in it for the money. “Technocracy” in my mind can be defined as “rule by experts”, keeping in mind the distinction Paul (I think it was) made between expert advice and expert diktat. It’s an idea beloved by experts.

  128. Louise, I wouldn’t have used the word “bitter” to describe the difference between Marmite and Vegemite, but I seem to like a bitter edge in some things, for instance beer. The “Veg” part of “Vegamite” is the distinctive bit to me–there’s a vegetable-y flavor that Marmite doesn’t have, and is what I don’t like as much.
    I used to work with a Jesuit who said “Coffee should be like life: black and bitter.”

  129. which raises about the strong possibility (at least) that, as Rob says, there is something really rotten in our financial system.
    Dreher’s not the person to make that argument and the argument cannot be made with a personal story (though aspects of that might be illuminated by it).
    Dreher does allude (vaguely) to a conflict of interest incorporated into the operations of a securities firm or universal bank when the investment bankers therein are underwriting a securities issue and the investment counselors and brokers therein are promoting certain securities to their clients. I think ‘Chinese walls’ are supposed to guard against that, but it would seem to me that if two people in your firm cannot speak to each other, you’re really saying that they perform functions which should not be in the same firm.
    A different question, which Dreher cannot address, is whether we have and could possibly erect institutions which could rapidly roll up bust securities firms. FDIC’s book is deposits-and-loans institutions and they did not have the institutional memory to handle a universal bank or the resources to handle a bank which had 2/3 of its deposits domiciled abroad, which is why Citigroup was treated to an ad hoc rescue rather than the standard package Washington Mutual recived via the FDIC (at least that’s what I’ve read). That leads to the question of whether the sort of universal banking practiced elsewhere should be permitted and permitted here.
    Another question has to do with the incongruous intramural behavior of firms like Goldman Sachs, which had a history of peddling collateralized-debt-obligations to their clients while their trading desk was taking short positions on these instruments.
    There’s more people in the business can explain to you. I know some conventional trusts and commercial banking mavens in Rochester who were aghast at some of the stuff casino bankers in New York were getting away with post-1999. Do not know the angles myself.
    Apart from that, you just had a mess of bad business decisions, some of which were not accounted for (if I understand correctly) because you had derivatives with huge notional values being traded in dark markets. Or, as one lapsed Merrill Lynch employee told my brother, “AIG was a great company destroyed by five guys in London”.

  130. If you want something rotten, look at the mortgage maws and the nexus of political connections they maintain. Dreher’s an alt-right partisan, and their business is trashing the conventional right, not taking apart crony capitalism as practiced by Johnson, Gorelick, Raines, Frank, and Moses, so Dreher isn’t motivated to discuss Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who received huge cash injections the ‘bailed out’ banks had to pay back with interest.

  131. The Federal Reserve is an example of what you’ve been discussing, bar that Timothy Geithner is Mr. Connections more than he is Mr. Expertise. The problem is one of alternatives. The specie based currency or an updated version thereof favored by paulbots would be almost indubitably a disaster. Economists like John Taylor have been critical of the Fed for exercising too much discretion in lieu of following formulae and rules. About the mechanics of monetary policy, it’s hard to see that elected officials have much to bring to the table (other than a complaint about overall results).

  132. Rob G

    I’ll take Wendell Berry’s short version: a bet on a debt is not an asset and shouldn’t have been sold as one.
    “Dreher’s an alt-right partisan, and their business is trashing the conventional right, not taking apart crony capitalism”
    Dreher has talked about cronyism, both left and right, fairly often. But the mainstream right’s attack on “crony capitalism” is largely a dodge. By laying all the weight on the adjective they free themselves from having to look critically at the noun.

  133. I generally avoid discussing “capitalism”, because its definition is so slippery. But with that in mind, that’s a fair criticism of some on the right.
    I am not at all competent to discuss finance. But it is hard to look at economic events of the past 20 years or so and not get the feeling that there is indeed something rotten.
    I can speak from personal knowledge of the effect that a focus on stock market performance can have on an enterprise. It’s a very distorting effect, forcing a short-term perspective–week-to-week or day-to-day fluctuations in stock price become all-important. And when you reflect that the people determining those prices are in some large percentage mere gamblers, it sort of makes a mockery of that storybook version you get in school (at least I did) of how the whole concept came to be: someone invents a better mousetrap, and his neighbors see its potential and put up money for him to produce and sell it, then when it succeeds are rewarded in proportion to their investment.
    Whether Dreher is “a good person to make that argument” or not wasn’t a factor to me in reading that piece. It’s what’s said in the film that’s of interest. I assume Dreher is accurate enough in reporting that.

  134. Dreher has talked about cronyism, both left and right, fairly often.
    No, Dreher strikes a pose once or twice a year in which one or another character string figures. You would be hard put to find a single example of Dreher offering a critical assessment of the social nexus around the Democratic Party on this issue. The thing is (and to those of a certain vintage who were billeted in political science classrooms devoted to American domestic politics), you can hardly discuss the mundane business of the Democratic Party in Washington without making reference to it as a collection of patron-client relations.
    The most in-depth treatment of ‘cronyism’ you’ll find courtesy Dreher is an article published nearly ten years ago in National Review concerning Michael D. Brown, the hapless hack running FEMA during Hurricane Katrina. The only article you’ll find on the mortgage maws (which have been tremendously important and incestuously tied to the Democratic Party) was an attack on George W. Bush’s Treasury secretary.
    Other people can figure Dreher out even if you cannot. The man will post more food porn photos in a week than he has remarks on these aspects of political economy in the last decade. Michael Kinsley was a serious student of the Democratic Party. Dreher is not.
    But the mainstream right’s attack on “crony capitalism” is largely a dodge. By laying all the weight on the adjective they free themselves from having to look critically at the noun.
    I’ve been waiting for years for a ‘critical look’ from you that wasn’t perfectly vaporous.

  135. Art, I wonder if your dislike of Dreher causes you to overreact.
    The man is capable of provoking a discussion and turning in copy on time. He’s so insufferable in every other way that ‘over-reacting’ to him would be quite a tour-de-force on my part. On the other hand, I’m told by those proximate to me that I’m a fine specimen of the Victor Meldrew type on our shores, so maybe I’ve managed it.

  136. Rob G

    “I’ve been waiting for years for a ‘critical look’ from you that wasn’t perfectly vaporous.”
    The stuff’s out there, man. The Skidelsky’s, John Medaille, Herman Daly, Fr. Albino Barrera, Brad Gregory, William Cavanaugh. Fr. Barrera is especially interesting, as he holds advanced degrees in both theology and economics.
    Tolle lege.

  137. John Medaille
    I’ve had exchanges with Mr. Medaille in fora like this. If you want to go there, you’re lost.

  138. Herman Daly is a purveyor of a peculiar subdepartment of resource economics associated with the infamous Club of Rome. You may want to go there but I doubt many will be pleased to follow you.

  139. When you’re done name dropping, let me know.

  140. Recommending writers is not generally described as name-dropping. Not generally and not accurately.
    “[Dreher]’s so insufferable in every other way…”
    It amuses me that you share this passionate detestation of Dreher with a certain friend of mine whom you also detest. I know several other people who share it. The intensity of it puzzles me somewhat.

  141. Rob G

    “Recommending writers is not generally described as name-dropping. Not generally and not accurately.”
    True. And furthermore, you do not have to agree with a writer’s entire “project” or his associations in order to call on his ideas for support.

  142. Recommending writers is not generally described as name-dropping. Not generally and not accurately.
    Not generally, but perhaps when the name of the writer is all you ever see.
    And furthermore, you do not have to agree with a writer’s entire “project” or his associations in order to call on his ideas for support.
    John Medaille is on the record as saying all of economics is nonsense. For some strange reason I’m not inclined to ‘call on’ any other flotsam and jetsam in his head. Herman Daly’s signature ‘idea’ is ‘zero-growth economics’. I have not clue what else on which you imagine you are calling. Does he write a gardening column or something I missed?

  143. Sorry, Art, but your previous comment crossed the personal attack line. I’ve un-published it, which means it still exists but doesn’t appear. I can either edit it down to something I consider acceptable and re-publish it, or just let it go–your call. But my “acceptable” is probably not going to be yours. I would say this via email but the one you supplied with the comment doesn’t appear to be valid.
    Let’s keep this at the level of ideas, not personalities.

  144. Rob G

    “John Medaille is on the record as saying all of economics is nonsense.”
    Having read him (but not having any books or articles at hand) I know for a fact that you’re taking that statement out of context, misquoting it, or both.
    “Herman Daly’s signature ‘idea’ is ‘zero-growth economics’. I have not clue what else on which you imagine you are calling.”
    The thing that springs immediately to mind is his observation that modern economics has ceased being what it was classically, a moral/humane science, and has instead become largely an exercise in number crunching. He puts it in Aristotelian terms: oikonomia has collapsed into chrematistics.
    Of course Daly is neither the first nor the only one to have pointed this out, but he is one of the first economists that I came across who did so.

  145. You brought this subject up, not me. Is it a ‘personal attack’ for you to say I ‘detest’ someone I’ve never met in the flesh, never injured, and give no thought to from one season to the next?
    You say I ‘detest’ Daniel Nichols and it’s a ‘personal attack’ for me to dispute that and tell you what it really is I do not like about what he’s said time and again and how that contrasts with my opinion of Dreher’s collection of stances. I know nothing of Daniel’s viewpoint bar what he’s said on his own blog and here and he makes no secret of his views on State Farm Insurance, the Ohio State Police, and the State of Israel &c, so I cannot figure how it’s illegitimate to allude to it. (Unless it’s your contention that it’s illegitimate to refer to his habits and dispositions as manifested in saying these things).
    As for Dreher, he keeps company (and has little compunction about quoting) Damon Linker; Linker is best known for drawing a salary from the Institute on Religion and Public Life for four years in order to collect material for an expose; that’s not the sort of person an ordinary man might want to be around or cite as an authority, but Dreher brooks no criticism of the man, and I mean none. It’s a reasonable inference that’s because Dreher cannot see what’s wrong with that type of behavior. (That’s a ‘personal attack’ on Linker, I suppose, but if that’s illegitimate, you cannot ever discuss the police blotter either).

  146. Having read him (but not having any books or articles at hand) I know for a fact that you’re taking that statement out of context, misquoting it, or both.
    No I’m not. He’s said so in no uncertain terms in repeated paragraph length outbursts. Tito Edwards liquidated old comment archives the last time he updated The American Catholic, so my exchanges with him were erased, but yes, he said this. He cited Donald McCloskey as his authority and he went on and on about ‘economists’ failure to predict the financial crisis, as if more than a modest minority of publishing academic economists were specialists in general macroeconomics or finance.

  147. The thing that springs immediately to mind is his observation that modern economics has ceased being what it was classically, a moral/humane science, and has instead become largely an exercise in number crunching.
    It’s hard to fix much meaning or value to complaints like this. If he wishes to have arguments on moral and ethical matters, he can consult works of philosophy. Economists will readily tell you that they do not handle normative questions well.
    As for ‘number crunching’, you have theoreticians and you have applied economics’. Some do one, some do the other. Some are historians. You have a few who are intellectual historians like the younger Thomas Sowell. You cannot readily verify testable assertions without the use of statistical method.

  148. Just for the record, since you are pressing the point, it was specifically the imputation of anti-semitism that caused me to block that comment. You didn’t say “state of Israel,” you said “the Jews.” Now let’s just drop it.

  149. Rob G

    “He’s said so in no uncertain terms in repeated paragraph length outbursts.”
    He has said things to the effect that all modern economics is nonsense, because he believes it’s all built on a faulty foundation. But if he really believed that ALL economics was nonsense he wouldn’t have written two books and numerous articles on the subject.
    “It’s hard to fix much meaning or value to complaints like this. If he wishes to have arguments on moral and ethical matters, he can consult works of philosophy. Economists will readily tell you that they do not handle normative questions well.”
    Precisely his point. The “numbers” aspect of economics has been artificially separated from the moral and ethical side of the science that used to be an inherent part of it. Chrematistics, which was once a small subdivision of economic science, has in effect become the whole.

  150. He has said things to the effect that all modern economics is nonsense, because he believes it’s all built on a faulty foundation.
    You fancy this makes his statement less lunatic?

  151. Precisely his point. The “numbers” aspect of economics has been artificially separated from the moral and ethical side of the science that used to be an inherent part of it.
    No, Rob G. An economist undertaking a statistical study is attempting to answer a question which does not interest you. If it does not, read something else.

  152. Louise

    “Of course people should eat sugary things as treats, not all the time. But treating them as demonic poisons is just fanatical.”
    Quite right, Grumpy. Of course, it’s not just the evil sugars in obviously evil things like sweets/candy/lollies, but even the insidious evil sugars which lurk in fruit and anything made of anything even remotely tasty.
    Maclin, your preference for beer that is more bitter certainly makes sense in the light of your preference of Marmite over Vegemite.
    An American guest we had at our house during World Youth Day in 2008 looked at the ingredients of Vegemite and declared the stuff to be solid beer. (With salt added I assume).

  153. I’m pretty sure I read that Marmite began as a by-product of beer-making. Probably the same is true of Vegemite.

  154. Marianne

    My Kiwi son-in-law will eat nothing but the Marmite that’s made in England. My daughter, his wife, will eat nothing but the Marmite made here in New Zealand, which she says has a much creamier consistency. So far, no one in the family eats Vegemite, but it may be just a matter of time before my two grandchildren decide to be rebels.
    And all poor Nana can do is sit by and shake her head over having such a sadly deluded family.

  155. Louise

    I forgot to mention that I tried Dr Pepper yesterday. It wasn’t as bad as I thought it might be, but I doubt I’ll try it again.

  156. Rob G

    “You fancy this makes his statement less lunatic?”
    Yes, because even if he really believes it and is not just hyperbolizing, he has a valid point if his initial observation is accurate. For instance, if he believes that all modern economics is off-base because it assumes a fundamentally erroneous understanding of human action, then he’s got a point.
    “No, Rob G. An economist undertaking a statistical study is attempting to answer a question which does not interest you. If it does not, read something else.”
    Sorry, but you are simply wrong. We’re not talking about “a” statistical study. We’re talking about statistical studies and other number-crunching activities crowding out the moral and philosophical aspect of economics that used to be a major part of the science. And “interest” in statistics has nothing to do with it: no one is implying that statistical analysis isn’t important. It’s just not the whole ball of wax.

  157. Louise & Marianne– I’m a little puzzled at reactions of shock and horror to Dr Pepper. I can see not liking it, but don’t understand, for instance, Paul’s reaction. But I’m not at all puzzled by that reaction to Marmite or Vegemite.

  158. And by the way Marianne I’m intrigued by your mention of national variants of Marmite. Now I wonder if I’m missing something.
    Americans, at least those who listen to pop music, heard of Vegemite back in the early ’80s when it was mentioned in a song by the Australian group Men At Work. I recall someone at work wondering what it was, and someone else explaining, and adding “It’s awful“.

  159. I started reading Medaille’s “truly free market” book a while back and never finished it. I admit that I’ve been a little prejudiced against him because of the unpleasant tone of some of his online writings that I’ve come across here and there. But as I recall that wasn’t present in the book, though I didn’t get very far. When it’s time to actually pick up a book and read, proposals for fixing the economy, or creating a new one, tend to lose out.

  160. Rob G

    I have that one but have only dipped into it here and there. His previous book, The Vocation of Business, was quite good I thought. He is definitely more prickly online than in his actual published writing.

  161. Yes, because even if he really believes it and is not just hyperbolizing, he has a valid point if his initial observation is accurate. For instance, if he believes that all modern economics is off-base because it assumes a fundamentally erroneous understanding of human action, then he’s got a point.
    Sir, a real estate agent from Dallas who fancies he can bring down an entire academic discipline is a textbook example of what is called a ‘crank’.
    Sorry, but you are simply wrong. We’re not talking about “a” statistical study. We’re talking about statistical studies and other number-crunching activities crowding out the moral and philosophical aspect of economics that used to be a major part of the science. And “interest” in statistics has nothing to do with it: no one is implying that statistical analysis isn’t important. It’s just not the whole ball of wax.
    Again, their are economists who do theoretical work and those who do empirical studies. There are also historians. None of them would suggest that statistical analysis was the ‘whole ball of wax’, so what’s the point of that complaint?
    And, no, I’m not wrong. Your complaint is one against academic specialization, and that complaint is a waste of time. Economists have a full plate learning just what they do at this time, and it’s one of the less heterogeneous social research disciplines. That someone with the label ‘economist’ slapped on him is not pondering some philosophical question is of no account unless the absence of philosophical discourses distorts lines of inquiry. Both Medaille and you are so confused about what economists do all day that you’d be hard put to assemble a cogent argument to that effect.

  162. Rob G

    “Your complaint is one against academic specialization, and that complaint is a waste of time.”
    Wrong again, evinced by this total misunderstanding of the complaint.
    “That someone with the label ‘economist’ slapped on him is not pondering some philosophical question is of no account unless the absence of philosophical discourses distorts lines of inquiry.”
    And if the philosophical discourse went missing far upstream and its absence has distorted the very lines of inquiry that brought said economist to the place where he now sits doing his current cipherin’ and figurin’?
    “Both Medaille and you are so confused about what economists do all day…”
    This wasn’t based on Medaille’s complaint, but on Daly’s. And he IS an economist.

  163. Is Amartya Sen an economist?

  164. This wasn’t based on Medaille’s complaint, but on Daly’s. And he IS an economist.
    Medaille is confused by what economists do all day, whether Daly has some complaint or not.
    Wrong again, evinced by this total misunderstanding of the complaint.
    I understand your complaint. It’s just that the complaint is contrived and not worthwhile.
    And if the philosophical discourse went missing far upstream and its absence has distorted the very lines of inquiry that brought said economist to the place where he now sits doing his current cipherin’ and figurin’?
    You’re fixated on the notion that people in the economics department should be thinking about what you fancy is of interest (rather than characters in the philosophy department or in the theoretical wing of the sociology department). Why you expect this of economists, I cannot figure. (And why you seem unable to get your mind around the concept of what theoreticians do in academic economics I cannot figure either).
    And you’re not going to get much out of Daly on that score either. He’s been around for decades, but the vast bulk of his verbiage has been arguing for the applicability of his notion of a ‘steady state’ economy. He tends to prefer monographic formats (i.e. to eschew conventional publishing conduits) and you’d be hard put to find a treatment of a normative, theoretical or epistemological question longer than a couple of newspaper columns.

  165. Louise

    “I’m a little puzzled at reactions of shock and horror to Dr Pepper. I can see not liking it, but don’t understand, for instance, Paul’s reaction. But I’m not at all puzzled by that reaction to Marmite or Vegemite.”
    I agree.

  166. Rob G

    “It’s just that the complaint is contrived and not worthwhile.”
    There are quite a few people of pretty high intellectual calibre who think it is worthwhile, so excuse me if I stick with them.
    “You’re fixated on the notion that people in the economics department should be thinking about what you fancy is of interest”
    Please. I’m beginning to think you’re just a contrarian. If someone you didn’t like said the grass was green, you’d start an argument about what shade.
    “Is Amartya Sen an economist?”
    According to wikipedia, yes. And a philosopher too. I’ve not read him, but recognize his name from other things I have read.
    Which reminds me of another name I forgot to “drop” — John Mueller, author of Redeeming Economics, who is some sort of economist or economic analyst.

  167. Please. I’m beginning to think you’re just a contrarian. If someone you didn’t like said the grass was green, you’d start an argument about what shade.
    No, Rob, you fancy economists should focus their attention on things other than economics because Herman Daly made reference to some late 18th century figure who did so. Arts and sciences faculties are characterized by disciplinary specializations and people in department x do not do what’s done in department y and x and y often involve the cultivation of incompatible skill sets. That’s just reality in a world in which there can be a great deal to learn, and, no, Herman Daly is not some erudite practical philosopher. He’s a bloke with an opinion and some eccentric ideas about sustainable development.

  168. Rob G

    “you fancy economists should focus their attention on things other than economics because Herman Daly made reference to some late 18th century figure who did so.”
    Huh? Who would that be? I certainly don’t recall mentioning any such figure, and the bit of Daly to which I was referring didn’t either. In fact, I specifically limited my recommendations to contemporary writers precisely because I didn’t want to hear the “he’s-so-out-of-date” response.

  169. You recommended Herman Daly, who is not who you fancy he is, and John Medaille, who be a crank, and paraphrased Daly as complaining that… oh, never mind.

  170. William Tighe

    The late Orthodox bishop, Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, admitted at a conference which I attended and at which he was a speaker, some twenty years ago, that Dr. Pepper was the best “American product” he had ever discovered, and sought it out whenever he came to the United States.

  171. So now the English vote on Dr. Pepper comes in at 2 to 1: one out of three like it. That’s a great improvement from the previous standings. Well, there’s also an abstention, but that doesn’t count. I heard yesterday that Whataburger is offering a Dr. Pepper milk shake. Or “milk shake.” If I went to Whataburger I would be mildly tempted.
    I’m surprised at how many comments there are on this post.

Leave a reply to Mac Cancel reply