Ms. Victoria Buhler's Problem

In David Brooks's column, "The Empirical Kids," that appeared in the NY Times, March 29, 2013, we find David being bowled over by the insightfulness of one of his students at Yale's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs.  The opinion expressed by Ms. Buhler that left such a profound impression on David was that today's youth have reverted to an empiricist mindset.  They are now showing a tendency to think in economic phrases like "data analysis," "opportunity costs," and "replicability," which Ms. Buhler and David deem demoralized economic phrases.  They find today's students have a tendency to dismiss other "more ethical and idealistic vocabularies."  To which I say, thank God.

I have no problem with David giving Ms. Buhler an A for putting her finger on a current trend.  It's his disparagement of the direction he and Ms. Buhler find today's youth now going in to which I object.  I keep gong back to David Halberstam's book, "The Best And The Brightest."  (If you never read it, or if you've forgotten the key disclosures made in this book, by all means open it up again.)  It shows in painful detail how a president, who spoke using a lofty and idealistic vocabulary sent America down one of its darkest roads.

Apparently, Ms. Buhler also finds the American model of democratic capitalism wanting.  (It "created all men equal but allowed some to rise above others through competition.")  I find the phrase "democratic capitalism" off putting.  Capitalism (free markets) does indeed require democratic institutions.  But I'm left wondering as to what is meant by "democratic capitalism"?  Is it intended to suggest that there are other kinds of capitalism?

I can't help but think of Chile's Pinochet in connection with "democratic" capitalism.  He acquired power by ruthless means, although his opponents were hardly less ruthless.  But he did seek to improve the lot of the Chilean people.  He was persuaded that the theories of Milton Freedman regarding free markets were the answer.  This did indeed prove to be the case.  The Chilean rate of poverty went from 40% to 14% and Pinochet was removed from power in a peaceful manner.

Further cited in Ms. Buhler's paper was Sept. 11 and Bush's moralistic language regarding the war on terror.  I would agree.  There is indeed a problem with language that cites abstract terror as being the problem.  It's not nearly specific enough.  It fails to accurately pinpoint the enemy, an enemy that seeks to destroy our concept of democracy. It fails to tell Americans that, while we will fight for freedom of religion, we will fight with equal vigor to defeat any religious concept that seeks to overturn our democratic institutions.  Americans must learn that Islam has a benign and indeed a positive face. However, it also has cruel, and dogmatic Salafist face.  We Americans, both Muslims and non-Muslims, must learn to distinguish between the two.

Regrettably, our youth, along with the rest of us, experienced a terrible bursting of a real estate bubble as well as the consequent damage done to our economy.  Politicians with their fingerprints all over this mess point to America's banks and America's lack of regulation as the root cause of that debacle.  Hopefully, American's youth will sift through the data and come to a clearer and more accurate understanding as to how our government manipulated the real estate market for social purposes and the disaster this proved to be for each and every one of us.

I think of the late NY Senator, Moynihan, who put his finger on social problems facing this country and suggestions as to how we might best deal with them.  His opinions were based on the data available to him.  Data still relevant today.   But, as much as we loved our straight-talking Senator, he was much abused in the press for his analysis and his lack of idealism.

I hope Ms. Buhler's findings as to the direction America's youth is now taking is correct.  I, for one, would applaud it.