I went to my second Braver Angels meeting yesterday and enjoyed it even more than the first. At the start, the moderator had us go around the room and tell our names, whether we were red or blue or some other color, and whether anything at a previous meeting or previous meetings had affected our views. Often people went off script to talk about a concern they had, but I found that interesting also. I let go of my need to have everybody stay within the one-minute time limit. Part of the reason was that I was enjoying people so much.
One person, who actually lives in my neighborhood and whom I like a lot, said that he misses the country he grew up in. He identified as red but other people, including some blues, echoed that feeling. I looked around the room of about 30 people and the look on people’s faces suggested that a number of them agreed. I even found myself agreeing.
At the end of the meeting, though, when I was talking to one of the organizers, I pointed out something that was better. I pointed to a guy–I’ll call him Daniel–who had casually mentioned his husband. I said to the organizer that no one in the room seemed upset that and no one called the cops. I pointed out that 50 years ago, homosexuals were often rightly afraid of being beat up. So that’s a huge improvement on the “good old days.”
Later that afternoon, I was telling a friend about that conversation and I told him something else that I had forgotten. I was in a men’s group in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and there were a number of gay guys in the group. They were certainly a little nervous about coming out of the closet and very nervous about, say, holding hands with their gay partners in public. That had given me an idea at the time. I thought it would a good idea to get a group of gays and allies together and, on a Saturday afternoon, walk down the main street in Monterey, Alvarado Street, with gays opening holding hands. I wanted to call it “Take Back the Day.”
I never did it. But I don’t feel bad that I didn’t because in the 30 years since then, look how far we’ve come. When I go on my afternoon walk by the ocean most weekdays, I often see young women holding hands or young men holding hands. It’s not a big deal. Thirty years ago, if they had done that, they might have gotten beat up. Fifty years ago, it would have been even worse.
Lots of things are worse today than they were. But some things are way better.
The pics are from the Stonewall riots of 1969, when homosexual men fought back.
Postscript: Now that I’ve had more time to think, I think the longing for the good old days happens for two reasons. First, during those good old days, most of us were children and we didn’t think about all the bad news around us; we were too busy playing. Second, we tend to take progress for granted. What was food like in the good old days? What happened when we got certain diseases? How did we get in touch with relatives when we heard that someone was sick?
READER COMMENTS
steve
Mar 3 2024 at 10:28am
When I was in boot camp they had a blanket party for a guy who they thought might be gay. Once out of boot camp we had a class that included how to spot a homosexual so we could report them. Characteristics included looking for people who were single and volunteered to stay late at work or work extra weekends. Being selfish I hoped my unit had a lot fo those people. Being a macho military culture people talked openly about wanting to go out and “roll a fag”. Remember the gay panic defense? Anyway, what struck me was that most of these people didnt seem to have ever (knowingly) met a gay person.
Steve
David Henderson
Mar 3 2024 at 11:13am
Thanks, Steve.
David Seltzer
Mar 4 2024 at 5:04pm
Steve, I did my basic at NTC San Diego in 1960. Similar story. A boot often sat on his rack in the nude. Many thought he was gay and one evening his was assaulted in the shower with a vicious blanket party. He was taken to sick bay with a broken jaw. He never returned to our barracks. In those days, if one was just suspected of being gay, often they were discharged.
Craig
Mar 3 2024 at 11:01am
Things are actually alot better actually in many respects though pandemic there is an increase in crime rates (though still FAR below 1990 rates) and a tick down in life expectancy. My angst about the future is that I feel like the frog or lobster that is being slowly boiled coupled with a culture of leftism that is becoming increasingly entrenched. Is the US safe for entrepreneurship? No. I experienced confiscatory taxation in NJ and a CDC imposed eviction moratorium stricken down on the basis that the CDC lacked statutory authority to impose such a moratorium, not that it would be unconstitutional to do in the first place.
If we take Madison’s quote: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Do they control themselves? No. Has anything happened in my lifetime that leads me to conclude the government will control itself? No. This fiscal recklessness and perpetual militarism seems to defy gravity for sure. I have to hold wealth in the currency issued by the world’s largest debtor? Seems masochistic to me, but I digress. Will they get away with it? Well, they might, right? Technology very well might produce the needed productivity miracle. Indeed I believe in the ascent of mankind and think it will happen, the only question is one of timing. But they’ll be watching your every move, on cameras bolstered with facial recognition software/AI, AI scrutinizing 1040s, CBDC tracking your every transaction.
David Henderson
Mar 3 2024 at 11:16am
Well put, Craig.
Yes, there are many things that are worse and getting worse.
You write:
Actually, I think that’s false. At the federal level, it’s bad, but even there, some Supreme Court decisions (and the Supremes are part of the feds) have rolled back various regulations. At the state level, there’s lots of good news, especially on taxes. I’ve linked to a number of pieces I’ve written on state governments dropping marginal tax rates and even moving towards a flat income tax rate.
Craig
Mar 3 2024 at 9:16pm
I believe CA has marginal income tax rates which coupled with the federal income tax rate exceeds 50% without considering the impact of other taxes imposed. Indeed sales tax can also exceed 10%.
David Henderson
Mar 4 2024 at 11:13am
For the very top income people in California, you’re right. According to the Tax Foundation, which is my go-to source, the top income tax rate in California is 13.3 percent. Also, there’s an extra 1.1 percentage point tax on wages for high-income people. Combine that with the top federal tax rate, which is 37%, and, remembering that you can’t deduct more than $10,000 in state and local taxes, you get over 50%, even without payroll taxes.
I’m not in that income stratosphere, but even for me, my incremental tax on earned income is just shy of 50%. Why? 24% on federal income taxes, 9.3% for California income taxes, and 15.3% in Social Security (FICA) and Medicare (HI).
robc
Mar 5 2024 at 11:23am
Isn’t FICA effective rate 14.13%?
Craig
Mar 5 2024 at 12:55pm
There’s 15.3% Social Security + Medicare up to the cap beyond which one continues to pay Medicare. Some who are employed realize the employer’s share is shielded from them to obfuscate the amount of the tax. Those who are self employed become familiar with SE tax and if one employs himself through a C corp for instance sees the employer share of course.
Jon Murphy
Mar 3 2024 at 12:03pm
Posts like these always remind me of a lyric from Billy Joel (I forget which song):
Don Boudreaux
Mar 3 2024 at 1:04pm
David: Nice post – and postscript.
One other reason, I think, for fond nostalgia for the past is that, in the present, nearly all past problems have been solved or forgotten. But also in the present, no present problems have been solved or forgotten. We know that the past’s problems have been solved, and usually in ways in which matters at large turned out better on net. In contrast, there’s always a prospect that present problems either won’t be solved, or will be ‘solved’ in ways that make matters at large worse on net.
Richard W Fulmer
Mar 4 2024 at 11:36am
Good point. I think that there is also the survival fallacy at work. The shoddy goods made back in the good old days are now in landfills and are out of sight, badly made buildings have collapsed or been replaced, poor art is relegated to museum basements, badly written books are no longer read, and bad films are no longer watched. What was good has survived, giving us the false impression that most of what was created back then was above average.
David Henderson
Mar 4 2024 at 11:52am
Good points, Don and Richard.
Don Boudreaux
Mar 4 2024 at 3:57pm
Richard: Yep. Nicely said.
john hare
Mar 4 2024 at 5:31pm
Absolutely. Hear that nonsense from people about construction all the time. After enough remodels, one gets the impression that many of the surviving old buildings were lucky. Almost none would meet current codes.
Ahmed Fares
Mar 3 2024 at 3:59pm
Ross Douthat writes religious articles for the New York Times.
The Covington Scissor
Matthias
Mar 3 2024 at 6:54pm
I was born in East Germany and grew up in the area. I feel nostalgic from time to time, and that’s despite knowing for a fact that the place was rotten.
Rose tinted glasses of nostalgia are the norm for humans. Even more so if you are looking back at a comparably tolerable place like the US of the last handful of decades.
(Of course, not everything in East Germany was bad. Hell, I bet not even everything in North Korea is bad. But just because people can point to a few redeeming specifics here and there, doesn’t make nostalgia any more trustworthy.)
Just to be clear: I am not saying everything in eg the US is better now than in the past. I’m just saying that nostalgia is not good evidence either way.
Craig
Mar 3 2024 at 9:04pm
Ostalgie. Read an anecdote once, I think in German actually, where the middle aged former resident of the DDR expressed nostalgia for the DDR and he was asked questions along the lines of: but you have a car now, but isn’t the food better, but can’t you visit Paris now, but can’t you do whatever it was that people in East Germany couldn’t do. To which the middle aged man replied along the lines of, “But that’s when the girls smiled at me.”
Mactoul
Mar 3 2024 at 7:07pm
I wonder what were the trade-offs that resulted from the present state of Equality. That is, what positive things that were sacrificed to achieve the good that consists in a man calling another man his husband?
A greater split between man and woman, decay of normal male friendship, epidemic of gender dysphoria and mutilation?
Jon Murphy
Mar 3 2024 at 8:35pm
Probably not any of those because I don’t see any evidence that any of those things are going on.
It seems to be the societal costs are virtually nil.
Jose Pablo
Mar 4 2024 at 10:38pm
decay of normal male friendship
Really? What could the advantage for “normal male friendship” (whatever that means) of homosexuality being kept in secret?
Maybe your “male friendship” wasn’t that “normal” afterall in your male friend eyes. Who knows? The suffering of keeping it secret was the norm back then.
Peter
Mar 5 2024 at 1:49am
It meant you could be reasonably assured you were just platonic friends and not have some creeper gay guy really just trying to check you out or get with you because homosexuality is rare enough you don’t encounter it generally. You didn’t have to say “no homo” in seriousness as opposed to a joke. I want to be able to strike up a conversation with a guy at a pool table and not worry about whether he’s trying to get in my pants, likewise accepting a free drink.
Now every male friend, every guy showering in that locker room, every random guy you strike up a conversation with or ask for a number/drinks is a suspect they are creeping rather than just being friendly. Basically platonic male “safe spaces” have been destroyed between open homosexuality and feminism and yeah that has been extremely detrimental to society. Some of us just want to shower in the gym without the dude next to us openly ogling us.
If I’m forced to be ogled in the shower for gay rights, then they need to go co-ed for everything so I can ogle my sexual preferences in the locker room too.
Jon Murphy
Mar 5 2024 at 7:26am
I don’t know, man. Someone with the attitude your describing would have trouble forming meaningful relationships in any context. Paranoia, suspicion, and the inability to see others as anything other than sexual objects does not make for the foundation of healthy relationships.
Jose Pablo
Mar 5 2024 at 12:10pm
Wow, Peter! You really make me feel bad now!! No men have never ever tried to get into my pants at the gym or the swimming pool table. I feel like a total loser! And that despite the fact that I like my jeans tight and showing off my well-developed biceps.
I have had a few instances of men flirting with me at clubs, and I’ve always felt flattered and enjoyed the conversations. I’m still friends with one of them, a talented choreographer who creates amazing beauty in the little free time he has left after desperately trying to get into other men’s pants.
And I certainly would have love having Oscar Wilde, Federico Garcia Lorca, Arthur Rimbaud, Leonard Bernstein, Freddie Mercury, Sir Elton John, Yukio Mishima, Walt Whitman (both of whom were very likely homosexuals), Deirdre McCloskey (now a woman and one of my favorite economists) … interested in me and engaging in conversation. Even at a swimming pool table or in a shower!
Man, anywhere, anytime, with any of them!
john hare
Mar 3 2024 at 7:57pm
I don’t remember the “good old days” as being that good. I remember one course meals being beans OR potatoes. I remember dropping out of sixth grade to work with my parents, which would be a major legal issue today. Undependable vehicles at 5 years old and drafty rental houses with no heat or air. Anybody here remember hot plates for cooking?
Not all bad by any means. But when someone starts in about the good old days, my default assumption is that they either had parents that were well off, or more likely have a bad memory.
All of which is not to say I don’t see serious problems today. I consider most government to be corrupted to a greater or lessor degree. Not prison corruption, but virus in the system type corruption. I dread the eventual correction.
Craig
Mar 3 2024 at 9:27pm
Growing up my sense was that I was better off than my parents who were better off than my grandparents….
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 4 2024 at 6:25am
I think you said it well, nostalgia for the feeling that things would get better, maybe faster or maybe not so fast, but we didn’t have to worry about retrogression.
Kurt Schuler
Mar 4 2024 at 7:27pm
For those of us in our 60s or older, the good old days of our childhoods really were considerably better than the present in an important way: a much higher share of intact families. The 1960s thinking that conflated sexual promiscuity with freedom has had disastrous, long-lasting effects.
Monte
Mar 4 2024 at 9:55pm
I certainly wouldn’t trade my childhood experience back then for any since. In addition to more intact families, we had considerably more discipline at home and in school. We respected and obeyed (even feared) our parents and teachers. We also socialized and connected in healthier ways, rather than through social media, which provides children with access to content that is morally depraved. Innocence lost. Many of us walked to school and roamed our neighborhoods with little concern of being kidnapped, raped, or worse.
Each generation might be better off materially than the one before, but not morally or spiritually, IMO.
Jose Pablo
Mar 4 2024 at 10:23pm
Each generation might be better off materially than the one before, but not morally or spiritually, IMO.
So true! We can only long for the Crusades killing infidels, the Inquisition torturing heretics and the Massachusets witches burning at the stake of our yesterdays. That was true discipline! Move out of the right moral and spiritual path and you will learn your lessons!
we had considerably more discipline at home and in school
Yeah! That was great too! Pink Floyd made one of the best songs ever thanks to that. Sadly, no such inspiration can be found in the classrooms of today.
Peter
Mar 5 2024 at 2:03am
And yet that never left us nor will it. Modern men are the current witches and heretics suffering the same depredations of torture, imprisonment, and death over the modern moral panic against men.
And the Crusades never ended hence our ongoing forays into the Islamic and Orthodox Catholic worlds. Every noticed how the enemies of the West, even today, are the same as 1000 AD. Anywhere that isn’t under the thrall of the Roman Catholic Church and it’s Protestant bastard with the sole exception really of Shinto Japan.
You can’t even argue gays are better off today than let’s say in yesteryear Macedonia or Samoa. And my bet, just like them, it’s just a passing fad which will revert back to the normal in a couple centuries of homosexuality not being socially acceptable, at least outside the fringes like other sexual deviants such as incest, beastiality, etc. Maybe I’ll be wrong but doubt it, future crispr like babies will end homosexuality like it will Down Syndrome.
Jose Pablo
Mar 5 2024 at 12:19pm
Peter, one of the things I love the most in Econlib is that comments are not moderated. I find this very refreshing.
You make my revisit my most deeply held principles.
Jose Pablo
Mar 5 2024 at 3:03pm
Modern men are the current witches and heretics suffering the same depredations of torture, imprisonment, and death over the modern moral panic against men.
Maybe because there are, indeed, “sexual predators” among us (men). One of those (confessed predator) has even been President of the US and could be President again.
You, better than most people, should understand the modern moral panic against men, since this panic follows the very same reasons that seem to cause your “moral panic against homosexuals” (like you, women don’t feel safe at gyms and swimming pools).
Monte
Mar 5 2024 at 2:09am
You’ve take hyperbole to new heights.
Monte
Mar 5 2024 at 12:17pm
Pablo’s sarcasm and appeal to extremes demonstrate he doesn’t understand the difference between spirituality and religion, or discipline and abuse (which is what Pink Floyd’s song makes reference to).
From where I’m standing, it appears we’re living in a world characterized by an increasing prevalence of materialism, corruption, and violence exacerbated by a breakdown of the traditional social structures of family and community. Only by refocusing on spirituality and moral discipline – not religion – can we come to terms with our differences and accept one another with the hope of creating a better world for ourselves and future generations, IMO.
Jose Pablo
Mar 5 2024 at 12:54pm
traditional social structures of family and community.
Monte, this sounds to me pretty close to the “cage of norms” of our yesterdays. There’s a widely shared consensus that individuals are generally better off when liberated from these historical norms that have, in many instances, led to considerable individual suffering.
And don’t get me wrong, you have every right to have the family and community of your choosing. The most traditional you can think of. That’s totally ok. But I don’t see why you have the right to impose your preferred social structures of family and community on the rest of us. Thanks, but no thanks.
All members of your “traditional family and community” should voluntarily take part in your traditionalism. And feel free to explain to them many times the immense advantages that you believe these traditional structures have for them.
And there are significant positive challenges to your proposition:
Each generation might be better off materially than the one before, but not morally or spiritually
Historically, humanity has exhibited moral shortcomings by today’s standards. We used to enslave other humans , discriminate against people of other races (interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states until 1967) and religions (we still do), forced women to live under a humiliating men tutelage, send homosexuals to jail (or worse), genocide Native Americans …
It is challenging to argue that we have not made moral and spiritual progress since those times. So, your theory implies that progress occurred for a while, then stagnated, and we have been regressing morally and spiritually since.
I am curious about when you believe humanity reached its moral and spiritual zenith (a necessary implication of your thesis). I am almost sure that this is going to be a subjective position of yours, very difficult to positively defend in a rational debate.
Monte
Mar 5 2024 at 7:34pm
Well, thanks for the response, Pablo. These discussions become much more pleasant when we dial down the sarcasm (of which I’ve been guilty, too).
I don’t seek to impose by personal beliefs on anyone. I would welcome and wouldn’t exclude anyone from my family or community based on race, religion, creed, or sexual preference. But I fail to understand anyone who views with disdain those of us who wish to preserve family and community. In my ideal world, we all live in perfect harmony, learning, loving, and living as productive members of society at peace with our neighbors, both foreign and domestic. Of course, as humans, we fail miserably to live up to this ideal. In reality, we mature and progress by fault in an eternal holding pattern of continuous improvement.
It’s easy to judge history by today’s standards. All civilized people detest past transgressions and we try to make amends. I suspect we’d all be guilty of crimes against humanity to varying degrees if we’d been born during those dark times in our history subjected to the prejudices, superstitions, and fears that used to control us. It’s true we’ve made incredible progress since, but we have far to go.
When I speak of my childhood experience, I’m not speaking for others. Most of us have fond memories of when we grew up. And no one should take offense when I say I prefer to have been born when I was. I don’t believe humanity was at a “moral and spiritual zenith” then any more than it is today, but it was a better place for me. And that I just did positively defend in a rational debate.
Peter
Mar 5 2024 at 6:14pm
Jose: We can’t do super nested replies so this at your last but I won’t disagree at the moral panic equivalency between gays and men. I think TBH it’s always been a war on men even before with lesbians winning the homosexual war and straight be assuming their place, it’s the current moral panic is just a continuation of the earlier one sans women. Stonewall wasn’t about lesbians and you probably are old enough to remember when GLBT was rebranded to LGBT and the slow marginalization of gayness by the lesbians and the rest of the alphabet over the years to the point most gay men I know, and bull dykes for the matter, feel the movement no longer has any place for them nor represent their interests.
My point was more along the lines of either get rid of gender separate spaces period so we can all equally feel violated or revert them but what we have now is the worst of both worlds where only homosexuals and straight women get to have their cake and eat it too. That’s not equality before the law.
Also FYI comments are moderated. Been in here since nearly the beginning, it happens more then you think and certain words, even if used contextually innocently and correctly, will result in the post never showing up.
Lauren Landsburg, Econlib Ed.
Mar 5 2024 at 11:55pm
Peter correctly points out that comments are moderated on Econlib. For example, obscenities, including abbreviations or elisions of obscenities, are not allowed. We also do not allow flame wars or rudeness to others. For more info, see Comment Policy for EconLog and EconTalk.
On the subject of nested comments: We actually allow five levels of nesting. But in practice, more than three levels can be unreadably narrow–especially on cellphones–so many commenters adapt creatively either by replying at a former level even if it means replying to themselves or by starting a new, unnested thread.
Jose Pablo
Mar 4 2024 at 9:55pm
In 1980 96% of China rural population was below the poverty line.
I would say that lifting more than 850 million people out of extreme poverty is a very significant improvement.
Jose Pablo
Mar 4 2024 at 10:00pm
… that’s around 3 times the total population of the US (including California), and sure there was a lot of homosexual men saved from starvation among the 850 million Chinese.
Comments are closed.