This post is scheduled to go up on the 39th anniversary of my marriage. If you want to aim to replicate some aspect of my life, I recommend the family aspect.
When it comes to small-scale society, my personal views are extremely conservative. I really believe that the old-fashioned stable marriage, with children and grandchildren and a close-knit family, is the way to go. I see the cultural-elite disrespect for that sort of family as sad and disturbing.
Almost all of my writing concerns large-scale society. When you ask about the role of government, I believe that the libertarian response is usually the best. I don’t lose any sleep trying to come up with ways for government to promote social conservatism.
I try to maintain separation between micro-morality and macro-morality. I recognize that in some ways the two realms collide. But I believe that keeping them conceptually separate helps to avoid a lot of the worst intellectual errors.
I believe that micro-morality matters more than macro-morality. I have total respect for friends who have political beliefs that differ from mine and who have maintained solid marriages. I feel a sense of distance and distrust toward men whose political beliefs I generally share but who have left behind their families for the younger woman.
My wife is one of the few people I have known who appear to me to live their lives constantly asking “What would a righteous person do in my situation?” These are the people that I think of when I hear the term tzadik, which is Hebrew for “righteous one.” My wife’s sister’s husband is another tzadik. I did not know him well, but a businessman and philanthropist who was killed in a traffic accident earlier this month came across to me (and to others) as another tzadik.
I don’t see myself as a tzadik to that degree. In the realm of micro-morality, I avoid doing bad, but I don’t go out of my way to do good. I would grade myself as B+.
According to Helen Fisher’s personality theory, my wife and I are not a good match, and indeed our friction points are the ones that Fisher would predict. But the combination of a tzadik and a B+ has held up quite well.
Cute! Hope we make it that long.
Happy Anniversary!
An admirable, praiseworthy, and honorable approach to life, well stated.
Happy Anniversary!
“I see the cultural-elite disrespect for that sort of family as sad and disturbing.”
Can anyone point to an example of such disrespect that got any support from cultural elites?
Elites seem to be pro-promiscuity and pro-divorce. Or at least “if that’s what you want to do.”
For instance, is boredom a reason to leave a marriage? Is a strong romantic desire for another partner a justification to end a marriage? If your partner gets sick or has a career setback, is it OK to leave them for a better model?
There is a general believe that the point of life is your own happiness, and bonds to others are only important as so far as it services that end (all selfless charity takes the form of vaguely uplifting a distant “other”, its not really about being good to the people closest to you). There is some vague reference to “doing no harm”, but since harm isn’t defined concretely enough people can rationalize just about anything.
For instance, is having an affair harmful? What if your spouse “consents”? How do you really know if your affairs aren’t harming them regardless of what they say? The impression I get is that these things are generally harmful regardless of how they are approached, and that one simply shouldn’t do them. That isn’t the elite opinion though. I’m pretty sure the elite opinion is that if you want to have an affair you should, and that the only important fact is that you want it.
There is also the problem that “your own happiness” isn’t well defined either. I mean that’s the goal but there is no sense of what actually leads to it beyond “this is what I’ve decided.” There isn’t any thought to the idea that something other then your own feelings should act as a guide or informant to reaching the good life.
Obviously there is some schizophrenia on this, but that’s the general zeitgeist mainstream society taught me growing up (but not my parents, thank god).
Bill Clinton, for one. Wendy Davis would be another. The movie “Eat. Pray. Love.” is another, with Julia Roberts’ involvement serving as a clear endorsement. Did anyone even try to criticize Donald Trump for being twice divorced and thrice married? Granted that there are so many other important things to criticize with Trump, but even so.
Let me raise the bar just a bit.
People have always engaged in anti-family behavior, and various art forms have told many of these stories. It seems a stretch to ascribe a greater affinity for this to cultural elites. This type of disrespect is present in every corner of every society, but so is the general idea that family is the most fundamental building block of a healthy society.
That is different from taking a public stance of disrespect for traditional family values. Bill Clinton is clearly a dog, but he doesn’t go around saying only losers are faithful to their wives.
I just don’t see any top down signals that family isn’t important. For every artist that tells a story of individual selfishness, there are ten stories of the power of family love.
Tom,
I think there is some truth to what you say, but it doesn’t quite hit the mark for me.
There was a clear message to me growing up about these sexual matters, and it’s still the message as far as I can tell.
I’d say the difference between Donald Trump and leftists is that Donald Trump doesn’t hold up his lifestyle as a model, nor does he attempt to teach it to children. Most people I know who voted for him say that they don’t approve of his private actions, and would have preferred to vote for a different kind of person if such a person could have fulfilled the same political role.
By contrast, leftist who defended Clinton explicitly said that there was nothing wrong with his sexual actions. And they made the same claims about being puritanical, and many even openly pined for a more “European” attitude where powerful men had affairs and everyone just approved of it.
Ironically, Donald Trump is what they pined for. A man who is rather explicit and upfront with his trophy wives as to the nature of things. Gives them prosperity and children. And makes sure they and their kids are taken care of after he moves on (which they all knew going in). Is that not what the Clinton affair supporters wanted? Trump is the arch sexual progressive, taking consent morality to its natural conclusion.
Leftist regularly call traditional sexual morality backward/puritanical. The idea that you wouldn’t rack up notches was definitely seen as some kind of religious repression and perhaps a psychological problem that needed to be fixed.
I definitely get the impression from leftists that if you want to have sex with someone else but are faithful to your wife that its seen as being sexually backward/repressed. Really, your spouse should be OK with it if they are a “true open minded progressive” and their inability to be OK with it is a personal failing which, if the other person finds it too difficult, they are justified in leaving.
More importantly, this is stuff they want to preach to people. Including children. It’s not just a matter of private shame to them…the whole world must acknowledge they are in the right.
P.S. Libertarians are no better. Every time you get a Robert Kraft you get a ton of articles about how awesome prostitution is. It’s not just a “pragmatically speaking the law should be XYZ”. It’s always a moral judgement of “prostitution is a good thing and if you don’t think so you’re a religious bigot.”
asdf-
Again, you are making assertions without pointing to any particular example. Many Democrats criticized Clinton’s behavior in the nineties. Today, its hard to even get an evangelical leader to criticize Trump’s sexual indiscretions.
As a practical matter, divorce rates and unmarried birth rates would seem to be the true bottom line metrics, and its pretty clear that socially conservative states have much higher rates of familial disfunction that progressive states.
The priests I know have no problem criticizing Trumps sexual choices. This assertion feels like a parallel world to me. Religious people never shut up about Trump’s sins. They were also the last group to fall in line with Trump’s nomination, and would easily have abandoned him if the other party didn’t want to outlaw their existence.
What did Democrat’s criticize? Occasionally they will drum up something about “power dynamics”, which apparently are this super crazy thing that make it OK for Monica to cheat with Bill but not OK for Bill to cheat with Monika. There is never any reflection that their basic philosophy, consenting adults sexual free for all, ought to be questioned.
“socially conservative states”
This is really piss poor social science and you know it. Conservative states are lower down the socioeconomic scale, and that’s the best criteria for familial dysfunction. I could just as easily say that Baltimore, a city that is like 90% Democrat, is loaded with familial dysfunction.
After you control for socio-economics, it’s pretty clear that conservatives are more virtuous than democrats on matters of family. Especially if we consider getting married and having children as a pre-requisite (many Dems avoid the problem of divorce by not marrying or reproducing at all, which they consider a virtue).
I didn’t say “Priests”(Catholic, often not a Trump voter), I said Evangelicals (who tended to vote Trump).
Lieberman, Moynihan and Kerrey come to mind as Senators who criticized Clinton’s behavior as immoral.
And piss poor social science? After you control for “socio-economics”? That’s funny.
I doubt you would find any trouble finding Evangelical preachers that would have a problem with Trump. I know a lot of religious people and lots of them have problems with Trump. I don’t think you comprehend the extent to which the other side is seen as so bad that Trump might as well be a saint in comparison.
I have no doubt some Dems criticized Clinton over something. What it was? Did it strike at the heart of Dem sexual ethos? I don’t recall some NeverClinton movement that sprang up.
I remember the basic jist I picked up at the time and it was all “people should have sex with whoever they want and your a religious nut if you think otherwise.”
There is nothing funny about the fact that at every single income level conservative people have better social outcomes, including those surrounding family, then liberals. It means we are right and they are wrong about the most important things.
It’ll be 38 for us in June. Interestingly, we both believe we lucked out and the other person could have done a lot better.
Congratulations to you and your wife, Arnold.
The “cultural elite” take their own families, marriages, and child rearing duties very seriously, on average. Stats support this. This was a thesis of Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart” comparison of Fishtown to Belmont.
Bill Clinton and Wendy Davis do not model the ideals and behaviors that progressives practice. But progressives overlook that and support their tribe. Progressives will bend all other principles and morality to accommodate their political loyalty. Their politics is like a religion and they hold their faith above all else.
Not common here to get a glimpse at the private life of Arnold Kling, so this is both unexpected and pleasant. I congratulate you on your choice of wives. And I congratulate your wife on her choice of husbands.
Perhaps you could post a progress report in another 39 years?
As Niko noted, Charles Murray showed that elites very much practice as though they think marriage and family values matter. Conservatives used to say these values matter, but now they support someone who mocks those values. But conservatives overlook that and support their tribe. Conservatives will bend all other principles and morality to accommodate their political loyalty.
Steve
I’ve encountered zero conservative that mock the values of family. I’ve encountered some that voted for Trump, but this was in spite of his behavior, and they made that very clear. The fact that his opponent, both in the guise of Clinton and the left more generally, mock such values made it easier since there was no “family values candidate” to vote for. It’s also the case that the “family values” candidates they had voted for over the years turned out to be pieces of shit (Bush).
The elites religion is anti-family, regardless of how they behave. They insist on preaching that religion down the societal ladder.
I would also say that the leftist elite may not get divorced much, but this is in part because they don’t get married and have children in the first place. Which isn’t much of an accomplishment.
There is probably some hypocrisy like that everywhere. But it’s not equal, it’s hard to measure and objectively compare.