In Sunday's colloquy with fellow Timespundit Gail Collins, David Brooks gave Mitt Romney a pat on the head for departing from the GOP Convention's dominant preoccupation with the pursuit of private gain. As a whole the GOP convention was "all about small business, as if commercial activity is the only sphere of American life," quoth Brooks. "But true to his faith, Romney is heavily committed to community. He spoke more about how to build social capital than all the Randians combined."
Yes, in his nomination acceptance speech Romney did have a few words to say about the joys of suburban community--"that new business opening up downtown...when we go to work in the morning and see everybody else on our block doing the same." And he even made so bold as to mention Americans living in poverty--though the only thing he had to offer those have-nots was the promise of jobs via school choice and the strenuous cuddling of the haves.
But the most telling line of the speech, summing up most of what he had to say about why he should be president and most of what the GOP is all about these days was: "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise...is to help you and your family."
Never mind that, as Jon Stewart pointed out, all us familes actually have to live on this planet. Or that an awful lot of American citizens will be hard pressed to care for their families if the rising tides drive them out of their coastal homes. Me and my family is what the GOP is all about these days. Community, not so much.
It has, of course, been an article of Republican faith for the past generation that strong families are the backbone of America, that strong commitment to family guarantees the health of the nation. But when it comes to the building up of social capital, it is anything but clear that strengthening our commitment to our familes is a good thing.
In a famous study half a century ago, the political scientist Edward Banfield coined the term "amoral familism" to describe how family solidarities in a southern Italian village decreased engagement in and trust of the political community as a whole. Rather than see their futures wrapped up in the success of their country and civic community, the villagers sought to maximize their family's situation by any means necessary, no matter what the cost to the larger community.
Over the past few years, economists studying social capital around the world have been studying the question anew, and have generally found that Banfield was on to something. In an important paper, Alberto Alesina and Paola Giuliano looked at 80 countries and found that those where the family ties were weakest tended to have the strongest levels of civic and political engagement and generalized social trust. And vice versa. The top performers in terms of civic engagement were northern European countries: Denmark, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and Germany. At the bottom wer the Philippines, Venezuela, Egypt, and Zimbabwe. The U.S. (the greatest democracy in the history of the universe) came in 50th.
It is often thought that the GOP's social conservatives, who believe that government should act to support family values, are at ideological odds with the Party's economic conservatives, who want to get government out of the way of economic activity. But if the studies are right, the conservative social agenda actually serves the economic agenda--by weakening the attachment of Americans to collective (i.e. governmental) solutions to social problems. To strengthen family bonds is to weaken commitment to political and civic engagement, and to undermine trust in social institutions concerned with the general welfare.
As the attention of the nation turns to the Democrats tonight, it's worth noting that their platform, unlike the GOP's, has a section devoted to the common good called "Strengthening the American Community." There are those who think that, substantively, the Democrats don't offer much more than Republican inaction. Philosophically, however, they're on a different planet.
NJ John | Sep 4, 2012 | 5:48pm
As with other Mr. Silk’s posts, I have a hard time keeping up with his logical athleticism. A leap here, a jump there, and finally we arrive to his point.
I must not have been watching the same convention as Mr. Silk. Either that, or I am programmed differently. Mr. Romney spoke of helping those outside his family. I also think he has shown that he practices what he preaches.
Also, I found Jon Stewart’s analysis silly. Mr. Silk makes the same silly jumps. Mr. Romney’s rhetorical point was not that the earth doesn’t need saving, but that Pres. Obama made grand statements and misplaced his efforts. His point was that, when he should have been helping the families of the US with the most pressing issue, the economy, Obama focused on promises that made him seem grand and goals and policies that would not have helped the average family. In fact, the policies were as sweeping as they were speculative.
Mr. Silk, you have made a straw man of what Mr. Romney actually said, and the rhetorical point he actually made. Such is befitting a late night faux-news comedian. Yet your venue should be, however slightly, more serious.
Carl Diederichs | Sep 5, 2012 | 10:40am
Truth often comes in the form of satire. And Jon Stewart is a master of satire and in that medium he tells much truth.
Daniel | Sep 14, 2012 | 12:33pm
Hmm, strong family = weak government, weak family = strong government. Sounds to me like an argument for, not against, the family. As the son of Southern Italian, I can tell you that the love one experiences in the typical Southern Italian family is deep and profound. Government, even at its best, cannot bestow even a scintilla of love. At its worst - when it is too strong—it can be the author of oppression, massive injustice and even genocide.
KMF | Sep 14, 2012 | 1:08pm
“Without a family, man, alone in the world, trembles with the cold.”..... Andre Maurois
PJ | Sep 14, 2012 | 3:57pm
To appreciate incompetent or absent government you have to live in a society where it is the norm for people to put family above everything else. Watch a child die because the drugs were counterfeit, see a substandard building fall down (the inspector was bribed), hear of a judge paid off, experience regular power cuts, corrupt police, illiterate teachers, potholes etc. and you begin to realize how much is taken for granted in countries where laws are more than suggestions, where standards are not a means of exacting a bribe.
The loudest fulminators against big government and regulation in my experience don’t have the FAINTEST idea of what life is actually like in societies with governments small enough to “drown in a bathtub”.
American TV really should do some reality TV shows that bring this home. BBC TV has a series titled “The Toughest Place To Be” (Googleable and on YouTube) that’s well worth a look.
The key is whether taxes will be spent honestly or used for pork or simply stolen. If there is no trust in how they will be spent then everything is negotiable and it’s every family for itself because the state can’t be trusted. America’s Gini coefficient is surely highly correlated with its ranking in in the studies cited. I’d be interested to see those lists side by side. I’d say that dynastic politics is a good indicator of social inequality too.
EB | Sep 14, 2012 | 4:21pm
It’s a big mistake to conflate extended families that act like tribes or clans without loyalty to the civic whole, with strong nuclear families that have what it takes to raise children,.
Kevin R Kosar | Sep 19, 2012 | 9:42am
Prof. Silk:
I was delighted to see you citing Edward C. Banfield. “Amoral familism” is an idea that remains in currency, appearing recently in the Economist and other publications.
Most of Banfield’s books, including “The Moral Basis of a Backward Society,” are available for free (legally) on a website I edit: http://edwardcbanfield.wordpress.com/ .
Cheers!
Kevin R. Kosar
HaliKayagma | Sep 27, 2012 | 2:39am
Hi, all participants discussed , very cool forum.