Since Trump, NR has lost damn near all its credibility and your points are strongly illustrative of where their actual “beef” lies. Cass is upset that undeserving people that irresponsibly reproduce (what he is saying but won’t be that crass about it) will not be made to feel the pain of their irresponsibility.
The Puritan scolding that is and has been the constant refrain from NR for many years is just so damn obvious to anyone that bothers to look.
I say we keep the work requirement but we allow one mom to pay a different mom to watch her kids, while the other kids' mom pays her to watch *her* kids, and then they swap the kids they watch so they each end up watching their own kids but they pay each other so they both get the benefit of the dignity of work.
This is fundamentally Cass trying to provide an incentive either to 1). “Force” single mothers to marry a working partner 2). Disincentive single women from having (more) children.
When he says the family is the key unit, he means the nuclear family with 1 mom 1 dad (who works) and as many children as they can produce. This is social policy achieved by other means, that may result in some poverty reduction.
Great to see you push the sword in all the way to the hilt here. Not sure how well this analogy works, but Cass' position seems like the last helicopter off the island of Reaganism. The times have finally found this 40-years dominant ideology and, as you note, he is basically fighting a rear-guard battle to squeeze some vestige of the Reagan-era into a minimally acceptable social and economic policy. Disregarding the influence of any white paternalism (I agree not a little bit is there!), I wonder whether and to what extent you think there's just a basic assumption about human nature that conservatives hold that leads Cass to think this way. I wager it has something to do with the differences between Locke and Rousseau, Smith and Marx...
Since Trump, NR has lost damn near all its credibility and your points are strongly illustrative of where their actual “beef” lies. Cass is upset that undeserving people that irresponsibly reproduce (what he is saying but won’t be that crass about it) will not be made to feel the pain of their irresponsibility.
The Puritan scolding that is and has been the constant refrain from NR for many years is just so damn obvious to anyone that bothers to look.
I say we keep the work requirement but we allow one mom to pay a different mom to watch her kids, while the other kids' mom pays her to watch *her* kids, and then they swap the kids they watch so they each end up watching their own kids but they pay each other so they both get the benefit of the dignity of work.
This is fundamentally Cass trying to provide an incentive either to 1). “Force” single mothers to marry a working partner 2). Disincentive single women from having (more) children.
When he says the family is the key unit, he means the nuclear family with 1 mom 1 dad (who works) and as many children as they can produce. This is social policy achieved by other means, that may result in some poverty reduction.
Great to see you push the sword in all the way to the hilt here. Not sure how well this analogy works, but Cass' position seems like the last helicopter off the island of Reaganism. The times have finally found this 40-years dominant ideology and, as you note, he is basically fighting a rear-guard battle to squeeze some vestige of the Reagan-era into a minimally acceptable social and economic policy. Disregarding the influence of any white paternalism (I agree not a little bit is there!), I wonder whether and to what extent you think there's just a basic assumption about human nature that conservatives hold that leads Cass to think this way. I wager it has something to do with the differences between Locke and Rousseau, Smith and Marx...