There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Writing about Rick Santorum's rhetoric in the New York Times the other day, David Brooks let fly with this observation:
If conservative ideas were that much more virtuous than liberal ideas, then the conservative parts of the country would have fewer social pathologies than the liberal parts of the country. They don't.
I can think of a couple of counterexamples--but only, to be honest, a couple. Massachusetts, which is more Catholic than the rest of the country, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, suggesting that Church teaching about the indissolubility of marriage has at least some effect. And Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have, as best I can work it out, the lowest crime rates in the country, suggesting that those gun totin' lock 'n loaders who go deer hunting every autumn have something of a pacifying effect on their communities.
But of course this is all terribly unsatisfying. Massachusetts may be more Catholic than the rest of the country, but it's also more liberal. And whereas Maine and New Hampshire elected Republican majorities to their state legislatures in 2010, Vermont remains one of the bluest of all the blue states.
Can anyone lend a hand here? David Brooks more or less has to be mistaken, doesn't he?
- Comment (57)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments :
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
David Brooks cannot tell the difference between virtue and having the right crease in one's pants.
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Here is a second thought, Peter. Oklahoma -- whence I hail -- had and may still have one of the highest divorce rates in the nation. That is because Baptists marry. No marriage, says your average New Yorker, no divorce. QED.
Jun '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Utah and Idaho, both very red states, have the lowest illegitimacy rates in the nation. Wyoming has the lowest abortion rate.
Having children within the bonds of matrimony and avoiding abortions both seem pretty virtuous to me. Does Brooks bother to define the term?
Dec '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Define social pathologies. Brooks probably considers pathological those things we could consider virtuous, and vice versa.
Jun '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Of all the neighborhoods, around the nation, that I'm afraid to walk through at night, I can't think of a single one that's majority conservative, or even significantly conservative. I don't know what social pathology he's talking about, but the one I pay attention to is getting mugged. I've been mugged, and it didn't happen at a Tea Party.
Sep '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
It's a silly argument. A set of ideas may be more virtuous than others, and yet the people who believe in them may still find it difficult to follow them.
St. Paul said it in the first century:
Jun '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Double post. I got so excited about how dumb Brooks's argument is that I clicked twice.
Edited on Jan 10 at 2:54pmJun '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Utah and Idaho, both very red states, have the lowest illegitimacy rates in the nation. Wyoming has the lowest abortion rate.
Having children within the bonds of matrimony and avoiding abortions both seem pretty virtuous to me. Does Brooks bother to define the term?
I agree completely with Dr. Rahe. Back when everyone used to get married, relative divorce rates meant something. Not anymore.
Dec '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Perhaps Mr. Brooks has never been to the nation's capitol?
Sep '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Oh, and Peter... you should have known St. Paul's reply already. Ahem.
Mar '11
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
A simple explanation may be that "virtuous behavior" results from factors which are not political, for instance wealth, education, and local culture.
For instance, in my NH hometown almost nobody had a gun at home, yet we had almost zero crime. I imagine that the combination of fairly homogenous, middle-class families in an out-of-the-way setting contributed more than anyone's political leanings to our safety.
Similarly, divorce rates are much lower among those with college degrees, and MA certainly has a lot of those.
I think human behavior is much too complex to be strongly correlated with something as fickle as political views.
Jun '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
D.C. has by far the highest abortion rate in the nation.
Jul '11
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Precisely! Whatever that fool Brooks is alluding to he is excluding inner cities that are filled with mostly democrats who vote when bused to the polls by acorn.
Nov '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Brooks makes the mistake of assuming that virtue resides in conservatives. It doesn't. It resides in virtuous people, no matter what their political persuasion. My dearest friend is a [liberal] from Texas, and she would sooner shoot herself in the foot than commit any kind of social pathology.
A little off topic, I did hear this morning about The Advocate naming Salt Lake City "The Gayest City in America" in an admittedly unscientific survey. At first I was surprised but then it made sense, as this is the kind of freedom and tolerance you find in a predominantly conservative environment. (Maybe Mittens should make some minor noise about that at an appropriate moment.)
[Edited for code of conduct.]
Edited on Jan 11 at 7:35amRe: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
dogsbody: It's a silly argument. A set of ideas may be more virtuous than others, and yet the people who believe in them may still find it difficult to follow them.
St. Paul said it in the first century:
Jan 10 at 2:49pm
More St. Paul--and an even neater summary of the problem: "That which I would, I do not, and that which I would not, that I do." (And I'm with you, btw. Go with the King James version every time.)
Dec '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
tabula rasa
D.C. has by far the highest abortion rate in the nation. · Jan 10 at 2:55pm
And the highest rates of every other social pathology we would think belongs on the list...
Dec '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
National traditional media and borderless Internet media mean that social pathologies can easily seep across sectional lines. Iowa, for example, has significant problems with street gangs and meth labs, though it's hardly a stereotypical urban environment.
Further, Brooks is mistaking correlation for causation. A predominance of conservative values doesn't mean that the local populace must therefore be virtuous: it may be that the conservative values are seen as a bulwark against the inherent unvirtuous impulses of the local populace.
Sep '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Brooks mistakes ideas with their implementation.
Edited on Jan 10 at 3:11pmAug '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Not only does Mr Brooks bowl alone , it appears he thinks without the benefit of company as well. Peter , on the other hand , is accompanied by an army of Davids.
Jun '10
Re: There Must be Something Wrong With This Argument, Mustn't There?
Arthur C. Brooks (obviously from the smart side of the Brooks family) demonstrated in Who Really Cares: that liberals are less charitable than conservatives. George Will's summary:
"-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- . . .
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent."
David Brooks probably doesn't think this counts because conservatives are probably giving to churches instead of Planned Parenthood.
Edited on Jan 10 at 3:16pm