Matt Yglesias

20 Responses to “European-Style Socialism is Pretty Awesome”

1. John Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

   I’m all for expanding the welfare state, but are the Scandinavian countries really a realistic model for the United States? They’re tiny and generally fairly homogeneous. The Nordic model seems questionable for the United States. I know it’s attractive because the western European states have very high unemployment, but it doesn’t seem to me that blithely promoting Sweden as the model for what the US should be like is terribly realistic, even on a totally theoretical level.

2. Brett Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 2:06 pm

   Obviously, you’d need to modify the whole social democracy program to fit into the US’s more federalistic and diverse population.

   I still think it could be possible, though. You could combine extensive unemployment benefits and universal health care with generally good overall economic policies, as long as you spread the costs right (you might need to reform unemployment benefits so that they don’t rely on the employer’s money). A lot of this would be distributed and run at the state level, though.

3. NBarnes Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

   ‘[isn't] terribly realistic, even on a theoretical level’? That construction blows.

   Of course it’s realistic on a theoretical level. The question is, would it actually work? (as they say, in theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice) But nobody, not even full-bore out-and-proud social democrats, such as myself, is advocating the Social Democracy Implementation Act of 2010, in which the US is completely reworked in the mould of social democracy a la France or Sweden or some such. We support smaller, more gradual changes, in which the US adopts those elements of policy from such countries that seem most likely to work or to replace the most failed elements of our own system. Health care is a good example of this.

   Gradual changes, in this way, are a fundamentally conservative approach that allows us to revisit the questions and make changes based on experience.

4. James Gary Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

   Lookin’ good these days, Matt…the bike riding seems to be paying off.

5. anonymous Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

   What the hell does multiculturalism have to do with whether you have a high quality public education system or universal healthcare? Continetti is full of shit. Perhaps he should look at New York City, with a population of eight million people from all over the world and a center of capitalism but with a high degree of social welfare programs compared to the rest of the country. New York City went Dutch long ago.

   The notion that every single American is a rugged individualist is also bullshit. In fact, our highly-developed free market system guarantees a high degree of interdependency–one need look no further than the current crisis to see that this is the case. How is individualism possible when the decisions of an investment banker in New York determines whether a small business in Toledo sinks or swims?

6. kmcg Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

   The guy you are debating is kind of an ass. For the first couple minutes, he keeps insisting that you frame your points in his way, so he can then go on to argue with some tangentially related point.

7. TW Andrews Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

   I quite like Europe and the European social model (having lived there for a number of years and planning on moving back when my children are school age), but I don’t particularly want to see it emulated here (which isn’t to say that we can’t have national healthcare and an improved safety net without becoming Europe)

   There are good things about our system too, and I think overall it’s better that two distinct systems exist rather than very similar systems on both continents.

8. Jeremy Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

   In all seriousness, when you’re on video, could your resist the temptation to suck back the last drops of your soda can? It’s just not that pretty to look at from the point of view of your macbook camera.

9. John Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

   NBarnes – poor construction, indeed. What I meant was that, even if you assume it was politically feasible, which it is not, there is reason to think it might not work.

10. Jasper Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    What the hell does multiculturalism have to do with whether you have a high quality public education system or universal healthcare? Continetti is full of shit.

    This has now become the fallback position of righties: they know denying the attractiveness of the social democratic model is increasingly untenable, so now it’s “it won’t work here cause of all our furriners.”

    Well, tell that to Toronto.

11. Max424 Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Matt, I have never seen you before. I was impressed. You have got the power!

    That being said, I thought it was a poor performance. Way to fidgety, to many uhums and yes yeses and head nods while your “opponent” prattled on. You can’t look anxious, it gives the appearance that your “opponent” is scoring major points even though he isn’t saying anything.

    Just stare at the camera in a composed and placid manner. The less you move and the more you stare the more the audience will focus only on you. Think Al Pacino in the Godfather.

    And if you get a code word like “homogeneous” you have to pounce. Homogeneous in the context of an interview like this means we have too many blacks and Hispanics. Right? So give the most aggressive form of answer, ask a “do you still beat your wife” question, like “Mr. Continetti, are you saying we can never aspire to a European model because our minorities simply pose too great a burden?”

    That guy was afraid of you. Clearly you have conversed before. He did not want to see your intellect unleashed, so he filled time with his own blather. I can see you crushing people like this in the future without saying nary a word.

    You have got the power! It just needs to be harnessed.

12. Adam Villani Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    Seriously, who puts on a tie in the morning for his blogging job?

13. Silver Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    What the hell does multiculturalism have to do with whether you have a high quality public education system or universal healthcare?

    Conservatives assume that every white person is like themselves, and that when people see the spooks and beaners get actual health care paid for out of general tax revenue, there will be race riots.

    They aren’t racist, you see. They are so concerned about the welfare of minorities that they realize that benefits like health care would actually hurt them due to the amount of white resentment that would follow.

14. Mellors Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    Absolutely will not watch that Yglesias character with the umms and yaws and soda can web yuk manners and the You Know idiocy.
    Lousy web cam speaker. Most awful public communication mode ever invented. Double yuk.

15. superdestroyer Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    There real question is what are the prep school educated, Ivy League educated progressive elitisit willing to give up to have a social democracy. The first thing they are are going to have to support is sealing the borders and deporting the millions of illegal alients. The next is that they may have to give up the idea of Ivy league and prep schools for their children.

16. k1 Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    Am I the only one who loves (and by love I mean am totally disgusted) the way uber conservatives throw around the term “right of center” as if they’re extreme positions are moderate.

    On another note there was a recent article (don’t remember who or what periodical) premised on the fact that the very reason European countries can provide greater social services is because there homogenous nature makes it a lot more palatable to the taxed.

    k1

17. Adam Herman Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 5:06 am

    Er, let’s let the states decide how far they want to go with that model. Social democracy has never been tried on a country as large as ours, and the larger the country, the less well it performs.

    If France and Britain are X less efficient than Norway and Sweden because they are 3-4 times larger, then does it follow that we’ll be 4-5 times less efficient still?

    The states are the laboratory of democracy, not the whole freakin’ country. If California can make it work, then maybe I’ll get on board.

18. Adam Herman Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 5:12 am

    Oh, and as for homogenous, it’s not to imply that you can’t build a social democracy with too many minorities because the minorities will be a burden.

    It means that social democracy requires everyone to believe that everyone else is pulling their weight. That condition is not present in this country. And if you put an alien face on those who aren’t pulling their weight, support for social programs vanishes into the ether.

    If you are a blonde Swede and your idle neighbor is a blonde Swede, it’s not going to affect your support for 50% tax rates. If you’re a white American with a job, a wife, and two kids, then you won’t be nearly as supportive of your tax dollars going to people whose culture you don’t really get, and who seem to be ne’er do wells.

    Welfare was a top 5 issue in elections before welfare reform. Do you seriously think you can build support for not only restoring welfare to the way it was before, but expanding it? Seriously?

19. Jake Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Matt, I wish you’d make more of the distinction between workable versus politically persuasive. Better yet, I wish you’d make more of the distinction between (1) a cultural/historical causal explanation of existing policy and political constraints, and (2) a rational justification of existing and alternative policy. In this video, you both talk about culture as a “reason” for policy, but that’s ambiguous and tends to conflate explanation and justification. I often hear from conservatives that a “reason” we don’t have more egalitarian policy is our lack of ethnic homogeneity. But try offering that as a justification for opposing such measures, and do it in the first person voice: I don’t want policy-p because it would help people who don’t look like me. All of a sudden, the conservative argument loses some of its political persuasiveness. So please: insist on making policy a question of justification, and insist that people speak for themselves.

20. Ed Smithe Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

    Now I understand where the impulsive analysis comes from. You drink too much caffeine.

    As someone who has his own demons with respect to caffeine, you need to lay off of it.