Michael, I think you miss the point of what I was trying to say. I have no doubt that the 'family metaphor' has become important in current political dialogue -- that is the whole point of David's posts. My point is that this metaphor is based on a faulty historical and institutional foundation and therefore, leads to wrong conclusions with respect to the role, function and importance of SS, in particular to the maintenance of the current family in an economy facing 'fundamental uncertainty' (which was, I believe, Ellen's point.) I was not trying to be nasty but merely pointing out that you can not engage in a meaningful debate when one side of the debate insists on historically faulty assumptions that are necessary to his position.
Perelman, Michael wrote:
I'm not sure that I agree with Paul. David is a very articulate spokesman of the conservative perspective and he makes his case without engaging in irrational rants. In doing so, he performs a valuable service in helping us to sharpen our own presentation.
Generally, these threads go for a while and then become repetitive after both sides either go on autopilot or some of us get nasty. I don't think we've got yet.
The metaphor of the family is very important. George Lakoff considers it central to the current political dialog. It is also used cynically. Remember how the Republicans used to call for balanced budgets: if families can balance their budget, why can't the government? [neglecting the fact that many families have considerable debt, especially mortgages]. I haven't heard that rhetoric lately.
Precisely, and all of us pointed out at the time that the family metaphor with respect to debt was wrong, both in theory and fact. As the present situation shows, the neocons didn't really believe it either since, for the most part, they have supported the current administrations accumulation of debt with only a barely audible whimper. And even that is not based on the family model but rather on the possible effects on financial markets.
Paul P.
