Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Should Mark Steyn Lighten Up?
Glenn Reynolds calls our attention this morning to a piece in Forbes, written by John Tamny, entitled “Mark Steyn Resides In a Crowded — and Centuries Old — Echo Chamber of ‘American Doom'”. Here’s a sample:
Mark Steyn is easily one of the most entertaining – and frequently insightful – opinion writers in existence today. Agree or disagree, his National Review op-eds count as a must-read for many – including this writer – as evidenced by his popularity.
But right or wrong, and it says here that Steyn is wrong, one of his most popular modern narratives is the one about how the U.S.’s best days are behind it. To quote Steyn from a recent book, After America, “the prevailing political realities of the United States do not allow for any meaningful course correction,” and “without meaningful course correction, America is doomed.” …
To be blunt, ‘America’ has been ‘doomed’ for longer than the United States has even existed as a country. Steyn has entered an echo chamber of doomsayers that is long in tooth, and that could fill many Rose Bowls. Maybe Steyn is correct this time despite joining a chorus of naysayers who’ve always been wrong, but even if correct, it seems he misreads what ‘doom’ is, or what it will look like.
Tamny then goes on to assess the soundness of Steyn’s arguments regarding particular cases in point: long-term demographics, immigration, budget deficits. He concludes that Steyn’s overall take is narrow and unnecessarily fraught:
No doubt we can do much better, better in the sense that without all the barriers erected by government that our present lifestyle of plenty would seem like Haiti relative to what we could be economically. But to posit as Steyn and others have for centuries, that we’re on the path to destruction is not credible. And as evidenced by the massive capital inflows that our productive are still entrusted to deploy, markets confirm this basic assertion.
To be clear, ‘doom’ per Steyn’s definition isn’t some horrid future that never seems to reveal itself despite centuries of predictions offered up by our wise commentariat. Instead, ‘doom’ is today, it’s the ‘unseen,’ it’s what we don’t have when it comes to future Googles and Intels, cancer and heart disease cures, and transportation advances that would make the automobile and the airplane seem positively pedestrian. That’s what Steyn and the chorus of doomsayers might be talking about were they not so blinded by inconsequential notions of birthrate, unwashed immigrants who renew us, and deficits that investors line up to buy the income streams of.
So who’s right? Is Steyn a crotchety old coot, or is Tamny a pie-in-the-sky goofball?
In a funny way, the very quality of Steyn’s writing tends to make me suspect his conclusions a little. It’s too seductive. Reading him always gives me an uneasy feeling that I’m being lured down the path of despair by dazzling turns of phrase. I confess that I have not yet read After America because I’m afraid I won’t be able to resist Steyn’s rhetorical juggernaut. There’s only so much lacerating wit I can withstand before I swoon — and then where would I be?
I know there are many Steyn fans here at Ricochet. What do you feel, in your heart of hearts? Do you agree with him that America is down for the count? And if so, I have to ask: what are we all still yammering about?
Published in General
Judith, I think your article is saying, “Somebody stop me before I kill again.” In your case, somebody stop me before I read Mark Steyn again. Face it. You know he is right.
I agree with Steyn. The sunny, ” oh these deficits and spending have been going on forever and nothing has happened” is like a person plummeting from a 100 story building who has passed the 20 the floor and saying ” so far so good”. It’s not the fall it’s the sudden stop that’s the killer. We are headed for the ground barring some miracle.
Steyn is simply wrong to rely on his demography stats. When a lefty does that, we call him out. The fact is, no one knows where we are inevitably bound. ·5 hours ago
It’s undeniable that in Europe Muslim’s are having most of the children. Will this continue? Who knows, but Steyn points out that many immigrants live in enclaves that don’t integrate with the native populace and culture so they are less likely to take on the same birth rates and habits. And it’s undeniable that these host countries are curtailing their liberties according to the sensibilities of their “guests”. Anti-semitism is on the rise in France and Sweden. Muslim women who immigrate to Europe from more moderate middle-eastern countries find that in Europe they are being forced to conform to orthodox Islamic customs (e.g., Europe is more radicalized than their place of origin).
But middle-east demography stats are just a very small part of Steyn’s argument. Mostly he makes accurate observations about crumbling cultural habits and failing/hollwed-out institutions.
Most importantly he reminds us what free born citizens should aspire to and expect from their nation.
There’s extrapolating into the future and observing what’s actually happening. Steyn does both. I don’t see anyone arguing with his observations and only disagreeing with his extrapolations based on the fact that the future isn’t knowable and is dynamic. People aren’t even arguing that he’s mostly wrong on the trends (the only point of contentions seems to be middle east birth rates). So if Steyn is correct in his observations of what is going on , and correct in the immediate trends we’re seeing then his future extrapolations deserve respect.
If everyone went into farming, Malthus was right; but we didn’t. Extrapolation and assuming that the trend lines continue as-is are huge assumptions, and that is the point.
If you believe Steyn’s assumptions are correct, OK. Don’t say that everyone else is wrong for pointing out that a) Steyn’s demography is not dispositive because Muslim birthrates have already been changing since he wrote the book, and b) cultural trends never go anywhere but down, when history does not say that.
Our side tends to get fixated on non-stop gloom and doom.
[snip]
Every problem described here is indeed a problem. The ultimate resolution- whether and how– is a complete unknown to us at this point.
I don’t claim to know the final “resolution” — Steyn doesn’t either — and not knowing the final resolution is not at all equivalent to knowing that the trajectory the country has been on since the Progressive era is actually rather clear. The essence of the 16, 17, 19 Amendments was the repudiation of the premise of republican democracy via unleashing open-ended individuality. The gender-neutral society is that unleashing’s concrete manifestation.
IOWs, a freedom-loving, limited government society is radically inconsistent with the ideal that men and women are equal in all respects except for the plumbing.
It’s precisely this that has caused the explosion of what can only be called a return to tribalism and slavishness among the middle-to-lower classes in America. Few people see this. Charles Murray doesn’t see it- his account of human nature in Coming Apart is incomplete because he doesn’t account for the radical breakdown in relations between the sexes — a breakdown of a sort wholly and categorically unprecedented.
If everyone went into farming, Malthus was right; but we didn’t. Extrapolation and assuming that the trend lines continue as-is are huge assumptions, and that is the point.
Steyn isn’t non-stop doom and gloom. He’s only doom and gloom most of the time.
Sure, no one can predict the future and some of the trends Steyn predicted have halted in some parts of the world (have they in Europe?) but he’s pointing out real problems that need to be addressed – or that are already deeply entrenched and will take a lot of effort to overcome/fix. He’s pointing out things that are already problems and why he thinks they’ll get worse.
There are real consequences for the destruction of the family in the West for example. Whatever “ebb and flow” happens to deal with this isn’t going to be pain free or problem free.
One half of Steyn’s argument is that we face specific problems, the other is that we need to take them seriously and do something about them.
Our side tends to get fixated on non-stop gloom and doom. ·1 hour ago
Our nation faces real problems – the debt, unsustainable entitlements and a “fatherless” society which will require more debt and more unsustainable entitlements.
It doesn’t bode well when we are/have bankrupted ourselves as a nation and it’s politically impossible to talk seriously about fixing it.
We need people pointing out this is not going to end well. We need more of them.
Take a gander at Detroit. And other towns as well. Spreading slums don’t exactly bode well for a prosperous future. There was a techhead interviewed on Jimmy P’s podcast today who thinks more low skilled immigrants will contribute to economic growth. Just what we need – more poor people. The poor stay poor, grow their numbers and the welfare state. All Mark is saying is that this isn’t a formula for productivity. Dependency isn’t a path to liberty. Throw in the debt, over-regulation, more and bigger government, a shrinking free market and it’s not too hard to see a power in decline. Sad!
I see your point, of course, but I can’t help but wonder of we really need this guy to lighten up!
http://www.amazon.com/Marshmallow-World-Disco-Fever-Edition/dp/B004BX3JWS/ref=sr_1_4?s=dmusic&ie=UTF8&sr=1-4&keywords=mark+steyn
” future Googles and Intels, cancer and heart disease cures, and transportation advances that would make the automobile and the airplane seem positively pedestrian.”
Those amazing companies — the storied history of exceptional America — are exactly what the Obama Central Planning Czars and Democrat regulation boards are destroying.
Mark Steyn and Ayn Rand both underestimated how bad it would get. We have thousands of Wesley Mouches — useless, talentless bureaucrats lead by an empty-suit President who believe his very words make products appear. “Under MY plan, you’ll save $2,500.00 a year! EVERYONE will be have the best health care!” All while no one even read the 2,500 page law and the 20,000 pages of regulations.
These impotent idiots who could not drill a well, design a communications system, a phone or even a website, think they can, ex catheda, create something from nothing.
We’re broke. If interest rates go up 1% or the Fed quits printing money, it’s all over.
I only want the next 30 years. I have no heirs. The young fools that voted Obama and his miserable ilk into office, thinking they would get everything for free, can go to blazes.
Perhaps it’s time for the US to go the way of the USSR: split into individual nations.
The workers in one nation, the dreamer/utopian/tax/spenders in the other.
Galt’s Gulch, anyone?
Mark Steyn and Ayn Rand both underestimated how bad it would get. We have thousands of Wesley Mouches — useless, talentless bureaucrats lead by an empty-suit President who believe his very words make products appear. “Under MY plan, you’ll save $2,500.00 a year! EVERYONE will be have the best health care!” All while no one even read the 2,500 page law and the 20,000 pages of regulations.
These impotent idiots who could not drill a well, design a communications system, a phone or even a website, think they can, ex catheda, create something from nothing.
We’re broke. If interest rates go up 1% or the Fed quits printing money, it’s all over.
I only want the next 30 years. I have no heirs. The young fools that voted Obama and his miserable ilk into office, thinking they would get everything for free, can go to blazes. ·27 minutes ago
Edited 26 minutes ago
You say it so well, and you haven’t even mentioned the eventual riots and looting!
Millions of Americans, are living from paycheck to paycheck, without savings or skills to barter or benefit themselves in times of scarcity.