Dude, free books
I guess I’ve arrived as a blogger since people are sending me free books. I received John Lott’s (website here) Freedomnomics yesterday. Made it through two chapters. One of the interesting things the book says it will discuss (and a theory I’ve heard before) is that the increased size of our federal government is tied to women’s suffrage. Don’t know yet what Lott says about it but the theory I’ve heard is that women tend to be a bit more, err, protectionist.
Lott’s book is also a counter to Freakonomics, which I’ve been meaning to read.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Well, the first wave of feminists seemed to take their new right to vote and allied themselves with the bible thumpers. From that alliance we got both prohibition and a government ban on prostitution.
Aside from cutting the budget of our military, I can’t really recall a popular feminist position that would reduce the size of government. Usually it’s the other way around. Forcing pharmacists to dispense drugs, forcing 9 year old girls to get a vaccine, more government programs for woman’s health care and daycare etc …
June 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Similar time frame as the 17th amendment (popular election of senators). And the 16th amendment (income tax). And the Federal Reserve Bank (paper money).
I think those three really set the stage for the explosive growth*. Expanding the vote may have aggravated an already bad situation but I don’t think it caused it.
* Go to a law library. Find the book shelves that have the U.S. Statutes at large. Make note of how much shelf space is used for 1789 to 1914 (125 years). Note how much more space is needed for 1915 to 2007 (92 years). Then find the several rows of shelves needed for the Fereral Register (which did not exist in 1914). I think you’ll find it rather shocking just how much the Federal government expanded its control.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:25 am
IIRC, very few Democrat presidents would have been elected in the last century without women’s votes. Men seem to side predominantly with the Republicans. That should pretty well give you your answer right there.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Given that the term ‘protectionist’ is traditionally associated with trade and tarriffs, I think word (if it is one) ‘protectivist’ might serve you better.
Of course, nannyish works even better for me.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
[…] only ever received one free book from blogging. Steve Gill laid an advance copy of The Fred Factor on me a few days before Memorial […]
June 11th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Go Ben! Jack Kennedy was the last Democrat to win the white male vote, with 50.5% in 1960. Mostly on the basis of being a wounded war hero, which he wasn’t. The bad back was a birth defect. In his only combat action, he panicked, turned the wrong way, and got a highly manuverable, 55 m.p.h. torpedo boat cut in half by a 35 m.p.h. Jap destroyer. His incompetence got two of his crew killed, and Admiral Halsey wanted him courtmartialed. Kennedy’s father was ambassador to Britain, so instead he got a job in D.C., where he spent the war screwing a known Nazi spy and giving her classified information. It was all recorded by the FBI, and used by Hoover years later to blackmail Kennedy while in office.
June 11th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
And JFK was pro-gun and a tax-cutter. Probably the last of the Dems in that mold too.