It was okay. It didn't further my commitment to voting for BHO (already unswayable), but there was a point where I was like, fuck energy policy and the rest of this infomercial, how are we going to help this couple from Sardinia Ohio. Seriously, it was a little bit too heartrending. Also, that guy whose pension got gutted totally made me cry.

As with everything else in the last 6 weeks or so, it wasn't aimed at us, jms.

I also had low expectations, and fears that it would come across as arrogant, but I think it was actually very good for the un-freaking-decideds and some GOTV as well.

I teared up at that guy as well, and then as Obama kept saying, "When I'm president," and it really, really sunk in that he will be.

I don't think I realized just how crazy Perot was until I recently saw some excerpts of his presentations from 1992. He might have come across as more sane if he'd called himself Hercule Perot, adopted a Francophone accent, and set off to investigate where Americans' jobs were going.

What does "FTW" stand for? My mind filled in "For the record," but it's obvious that it's not that, since that would require an R instead of a W.

For the win.

1: God, the gutted-pension guy destroyed me. Mostly because, after he told his story to BHO, BHO said, "That was your money. You put away for that. That was no "gift." That was your money." And gutted-pension guy looked up at him, nodded, and said, "Thank you," as if no one had ever acknowledged that before.

Flap Those Wings?

Flying Tendency Windward?

FragilisTicexpeaWidocious?

6:
I dunno, not even mentioning that it got stoled by some rich executives at a low, job-creating tax rate drives me nuts. Its a rare opportunity to make every american gain a gag reflex at any mention of deregulation, "business tax cuts to create jobs" and free markets, but we're throwing it all away.

6:
I dunno, not even mentioning that it got stoled by some rich executives at a low, job-creating tax rate drives me nuts. Its a rare opportunity to make every american gain a gag reflex at any mention of deregulation, "business tax cuts to create jobs" and free markets, but we're throwing it all away.

Why did you have low expectations? BO's campaign has been pretty media-savvy all the way; he hires smart people.

That said, I watched something else, as I'm already part of the choir and have already voted.

The Biophysicist & I were behind a car with McCain/Palin and Yes On 8 stickers this morning. There was a discussion of the cost/benefit analysis of ramming the vehicle. [The Biophysicist & I get grouchy when our blood sugar is low.] We settled on prayer to the Parking Gods [our only recognised deities] that this vehicle should nevermore find parking in the county of Los Angeles. And that, people, is the equivalent of raining down hellfire in this burg.

PS: Has our local hang-'em-in-effigy of Palin brouhaha made the national news? Apparently, even the Secret Service had to admit it was an act of political speech and not illegal, which probably means they're waiting until after the election to see whether the perpetrators should be whisked off to Gitmo.

he did sound better on meeting with random 3rd world shitheels. he made it sound like he, unlike that big wimp mccain, would march right over there and talk.

Whenever I see or hear of the clip of McCain bitching about the late start to the baseball game I can't help it leaves me with two impressions:

1) What, is 8:35 too far past your bedtime?

2) What, is delaying the start of a three-inning make-up game more important than talking about the economy? Healthcare? The war? Really?

I'm already in the tank, obviously, and my ballot is already in the box, but surely I cannot be alone in thinking that way.

10: Yesterday I saw a ginormous Chevy Suburban decked out in Republican bumper stickers and my honest reaction was, wow, that is one lonely fucker.

11: Yes, it was on the front page of MSNBC.com yesterday, though not a big headline.

13: Plus I thought it only preempted pregame commentary, not the actual game?

the cost/benefit analysis of ramming the vehicle

I've been struggling to keep those sorts of impulses under control as well. Less the ramming, since I can't afford to get my front end replaced, but more not following them until they park so I can ask them to their faces what the fuck is wrong with them.

10: Parking gods? You parking polytheist!

There is only one parking deity, and that is the goddess Asphalta, to whom one should pray thus:

Oh Asphalta, full of grace,
Help me find a parking place!

I'm a parking atheist / occultist. Since time immemorial (the 70's, I think), my family has simply beamed beneficial thoughts into the minds of those around us. It usually goes, Urge to leave... urge to leave... urge to leave...

Recently, we wanted the slow cars in front of us on a long two-lane road to pull over, and lo and behold, within five minutes of beaming the urge, both of them had done so. Fact!

15: True! Fox has stated that there was no way the game was starting before 8:30 anyway.

11: I'm all for hanging politicians in effigy. I've had grand plans of doing it to Bush and Cheney, but I don't want to get dissapeared.

Palin's probably not worthy of effigy, yet. I do find the hanging Obama in effigy incident at U. Kentucky genuinely disconcerting, though, on account of the racial angle.

16: I think the benefits of getting in someone's face are primarily to one's own psyche. As far as recruitment goes it's likely to backfire.

I had a funny moment a few weeks back when I was wearing an XKCD No Velociraptors shirt and some guy came up to me all ready to get up in my face thinking I was endorsing Young Earth creationism. I had a hard time not laughing at him as I tried to explain what was going on. Didn't entirely succeed with the not laughing, which would have made me feel bad except for the fact that he was belligerently accosting strangers.

[Velociraptor context for the uninitiated.]

It was a really well-done spot. Two things really amazed me:

1) Even Obama referred to it as an "infomercial". Really, Barack? Can't come up with even a slight euphemism? Gotta use the same term they use for 2 am ads for AbZapper3000 and Sham-Wow?

2) Damn has digital video changed soooo much. They've got pretty much two guys on sweet computer rigs and a couple of high-end digital video cameras, and they're able to produce stuff that looks like this. The sets probably cost more than the total production including labor. It's crazy, in a really really good way.

So, I repeat my lonely, last comment from somewhat downblog: Anyone else got tix for the Grant Park (Chicago) rally on election night?

||

Who is in charge of the "Ask the Mineshaft" these days? I need advice. What should one do when one's spouse or significant other undergoes a sudden and dramatic political shift for the worse? I half-joked on another thread a few weeks ago about my wife mentioning Ayn Rand approvingly and non-ironically, but I didn't at the time realize the magnitude of the problem. She's gone off the deep end. I think what happened is that she somehow made some online friends from the wrong side of the tracks, and then followed them to some libertarian-leaning online communities, and she's spent a lot of time there and has somehow been suckered in to the whole mess. An example (brace yourself): she sent me [redacted] a few days ago, in an apparent attempt to persuade me of something, although honestly I'm not sure what. I can't even fathom how to begin responding to that, it's so mind-blowingly asinine. (I responded, but it was difficult balance to convey how appallingly stupid I found the link without seeming to insult her in the process, since she sent it to me. Her response to my response was to send me [redacted]. My response was nearly to break down in tears.

Six months ago she was a respectable liberal. We had a discussion a few nights ago in which she stressed her newfound "hate" of progressive taxation in any form. What should I do? Obviously I can't have sex with her anymore; I have principles. But I'm worried about my children.

|>

24: To me, there are two big things you must do -

1. Keep in mind that intelligence is a landscape and not a number. Whatever, this is the stage she's at in terms of thinking about politics and economics, and it may seems mighty backwards to be pursuaded by such things if you're older than 19, but I bet she's damn intelligent in totally unrelated areas or you wouldn't have hit it off with her.

2. You need to let her know how much this bothers you emotionally. This is not to out-argue her politically, but to really inform her how much this twists your gut. The details of the politics are almost irrelevant to this conversation.

I can't post from work, but someone else should put it up, it sounds like an interesting discussion. Under the distinct possibility that your wife reads blogs (which she obviously does), and would be offended by this conversation (which it seems beyond obvious that she would be), and would be able to identify you if she came across it (which she probably would, what with those two specific links), on the other hand, if I were you and were interested in staying married, I would (a) ask someone who can get into the back end of the site (i.e., not me) to redact that last comment, and either give up on the discussion, or find a way of couching it that's less identifiable.

Heebie's being too nice, Brock. Now is the time for tough love. Put her stuff on the sidewalk with a map to the welfare office and change the locks.

25: Yes, of course she's very intelligent. One of my first thoughts was "how could someone as smart as her think like this?" But then I realized Greg Mankiw is also very bright.

That seems like a bizarre manifestation of the maternal impulse.

Suggest making some sort of charitable donation, and see if she spits in your face and accuses you of putting your own superficial self-satisfaction ahead of the interests of your children.

Sure, fine, redact. I thought the links were necessary to convey the severity of the problem. I mean, I hope no one missed this gem from the second link:

Coming up with a "fair" system of taxation is about as feasible as coming up with a "loving" method of rape."

I've known couples who agreed on lifelong truces on religion and politics. It only works, I think, if both sides want to stay married and understand the truce differently.

My guess is that it would have to be more than just "agree to disagree". More like "agree not to talk about politics".

I couldn't do it.

24: I'd ask her if she honestly believes this guy (and others like him) spent the entire 90s and into whenever the Bush tax cuts were passed refusing to work. Because that's all the effect of the Obama tax plan on him amounts to.

32: that was part of my response, yes. I got the second link as a reply.

My last comment was, I think, insufficiently emphatic. Brock, you're a valued commenter around here, and I think well of you. Talking smack in public about the awfulness of your wife's politics, given the perfectly reasonable possibility that she will at some point read this and know it was you, sounds to me like a decision with life-changing potential, and one that you may very likely regret.

I will now stop being paternalistic, given that I'm as fond of talking smack about conservatives as anyone else.

31: "understand the truce the same" obvs.

More seriously, I don't have any idea what you should do, Brock. If I were in your position, I wouldn't be able to be nice enough about it to keep from driving her to divorce. But I'm an asshole by nature and maybe you're more charitable than me.

23: Well, I have that confirmation saying I signed up and will get ticket information later along with the giant text screaming that it's not actually a ticket itself. I'm just not sure when I'll be able to make it. I'll be volunteering at HQ that day, and I'm told I may be helping run a bunch of volunteers for one of the GOTV data operations, which could easily keep me there until the Alaska polls close (gotta help with the downticket races, after all). I'll be heading in late with a bunch of the workers.

Writing the world's most successful economics textbook, and being sought after to constantly switch between chairing prestigious economics departments, AND getting subsidies from the American Enterprise Institute to popularize right wing extremism by writing folksy propaganda, only gets you an "upper middle class lifestyle"?

34: I 'm really not interested in a conversation about the awfulness of libertarian politics. I'm interested in advice or suggestions about how to respond to such a political change in one's partner. Maybe there's nothing much to be said, I don't know. But please feel free to redact identifying info.

39: Is changing your name sufficient? Or should comments be deleted entirely?

What do you think is causing the new libertarian energy?

40: I think you could just redact the links. If changing my name were sufficient I'd be thoroughly fucked anyway, so.

38: I had somebody on my website just yesterday argue that being in the top 3% of the wealthiest households in the richest nation on Earth doesn't make you rich.

I can't do any redacting until I get home tonight -- I just wanted to make sure you were thinking about the issue.

On a what to do about it front: you two used to be more in agreement about politics, and she's changed. Have you tried talking to her about "What's happened that you now disagree with you from 2006?" Did she read something life changing, or was she convinced by a friend, or has she just been thinking about stuff? Getting into the history of the change in her thinking might get you somewhere, at least in terms of understanding.

38: Also part of my response.

41: As I said, I think just an overexposure to libertarian perspectives, especially in a few people whom she otherwise likes and admires (i.e., for non-political reasons). But obviously she's finding something about the ideology attractive as well, and other than what she's told me ("the government fucks everything up"), I couldn't tell you what.

22.1 - I read the use of "infomercial" as preemptive, a way of indicating that even as dead-serious as the Obama campaign takes itself, it also doesn't. Kind like BHO's appearance on the Daily Show. Which, by the way, really wasn't very funny at all, but seemed to indicate a kind of affability, the sort of guy you like because he laughs at your jokes.

39: All I can say is ouch. I'm terribly sorry. Probably your best bet simply is to declare a moratorium on political or financial conversation. Or embrace the highs and lows of grudgefucking.

I mean... I could give you some of the solid economic research that contradicts what the Mankiw post seems to imply, but the only way those would ever help would be as exhibits in the divorce filing.

(Plus, I think it should be noted that Mankiw himself basically says he refuses most of the new work anyway even at current tax rates. After all, he's already got a comfortable lifestyle and no one really needs to pass that much money on to their kids. Especially if one is worried about the estate tax rate after an inflation-adjusted $5 million exemption, it's not exactly keep-them-from-starving territory. He admits to the inelasticity of his own labor to tax rates in his post about why rich people would have such worse incentives under the Obama plan.)

Really, what about the children? They spend all day with her. Are they safe? What if she sells their organs? Libertarians do that sort of thing, I think.

42: Done. Pipe up if you want more masking.

It seems logical to me that after having kids someone is more likely to see massive selfishness as a virtue. I saw that in my dad's friend D____ W_____. All of a sudden he was trying to exploit his status as an extremely minor academic expert on something into all kinds of demoralizing "consultant" gigs with shady entities.

I think that talking someone out of libertarianism is almost impossible. Libertarianism (like most ideologies) has quasi-religious roots -- it's not one of those things where you can show them the numbers or explain the history and prove they're wrong. Especially lnot converts.

especially in a few people whom she otherwise likes and admires (i.e., for non-political reasons).

If they're likable and admirable, whatever they think about politics, they probably don't act according to those beliefs. Pointing out that the guy who stiffed the waiter was an asshole, and that progressive taxation does not involve being an asshole, and so there's probably a substantive distinction between the two situations might get you somewhere. And that if the people she liked and admired behaved like the guy who stiffed the waiter, she wouldn't like and admire them.

47: all part of my response!

Serious question: was she basically non-political before the current affair with The Invisible Hand?

52: "asshole" was the exact word I used!

(because now he had an excuse...I have to provide for my kids' future (by providing for myself), other people are lazy and don't care about their kids (by not being ambitious).)

55: Erm, this is something I don't really know what to do with, being a heathen myself, and I do apologize if what I'm going to say is rude or inappropriate. But you guys are reasonably serious with the Christianity, IIRC. This seems like a possible foundation for what I would think of as sound economic argument.

It would be a goddamn good thing for the world if all of the Chicago School people ^ every goddamn economist on the face of the earth ^ [Mankiw is from MIT] quit working entirely, forever.

Don't tempt me, Mankiw! I propose a hundred percent tax rate on economists' earnings past $30,000 a year.

Brock, I feel strongly that policy conversations will be totally useless. The only conversation to have is how much this emotionally distresses you, where you don't sugarcoat it and really be vulnerable.

If she says, "But I don't get why it bothers you," that's derailing back to a policy conversation, which is a much "safer" conversation to have.

Now I don't think this will actually change what she believes, because I don't think there's anything you can do to affect what she believes. This is just for the health of the relationship.

Seems like a strange time historically to suddenly become a libertarian. But it seems like something you can't argue someone out of, at least not quickly.

Maybe you should just give her Gaijin Biker's phone number. From that thread at apo's, it seems like they'd hit it off.

Buy her the complete works of Ayn Rand, and dress up as Howard Roarke for Halloween, thereby attempting to distract her with kinky sex?

I think it would be wise to explore it as LB and others recommend, and you yourself seem to want to do, which is to start talking about what brought on the change in perspective, not the change itself. Is she sick of the government fucking everything up because Bush has fucked everything up? It would probably go best - at least, were I your wife - to say things like, "I'm really frustrated with the way this administration has bungled the responsibilities of government, too, but I think the system itself is basically sound - it's survived and evolved for such a long time! - and I really hope that someone with better intentions and greater skills can put the government back to the work it should be doing," etc. In short, don't tell her she's wrong; ask her why she's changed and express faith in your own beliefs rather than disapproval of hers. Likewise, don't go about it by condemning the views of the friends or the friends themselves, as that will just be a huge turn-off.

If she sells their organs she'll probably do it on Ebay and that at least gives you a window during which you can stall her as she tries to print out the shipping labels.

54: She wasn't non-political, no, but she wasn't exactly a political junky or a policy wonk--just not her interests. She's always sort of thought that a lot of what the government does is unjust, counterproductive and wastful, but she used to be right (in that she said that sort of thing mostly in connection with the War on Drugs, coporate handouts, wasteful/inefficient agricultural subsidies, etc.). She voted for Nader, but probably wouldn't have if we'd been in a swing state.

Seems like a strange time historically to suddenly become a libertarian.

But isn't that one of the theories of what Bush & his cronies sought to do: to starve the government to the point it was incapable of doing anything well and thus people would stop wanting it to try?

This page has a wide array of thoughtful points against libertarianism, with a morals-based one near the bottom. Not for forwarding, but perhaps some ammunition if you choose that way.

65 gets it right. It's possible your wife's having a panic response to financial fears, a sort of 'man the barricades, protect your money, the marauders are at the gates' reaction. There's a healthy dose of that in the McCain camp's rhetoric, of course.

29: incidentally, she's still all in favor of generous private charity (as she always has been). She just doesn't want the government involved in any sort of redistribution in any way.]

I think I agree with everyone who says direct policcy arguments aren't going to get us anywhere, but I'm not sure it's clear to what's being suggested instead. I don't think there's much to discuss with her about the history of her shift (other than she's "been reading a lot of interesting things recently").

It's possible your wife's having a panic response to financial fears, a sort of 'man the barricades, protect your money, the marauders are at the gates' reaction.

Oh, this is clever, and very likely right. If she's feeling financially insecure, probing into that, or talking about how much more secure even middle class people are in other industrialized countries with real welfare states, might get you somewhere.

I really don't think talking her out of it is conceivably possible. I've deadended with libertarians enough times that I don't even talk to them any more, at least not civilly. (No, I wasn't always the way I am now.)

But you guys are reasonably serious with the Christianity, IIRC.

Pointing out that these guys are really the Almighty Dollar guys might go some ways.

Or you could get her reading smarter libertarians.

70: But people do get better. My sister had a real Objectivist period in college (boyfriend. He had really great hair), and I read all the books because she had them, and kind of fell for them myself a bit. We're not talking lifelong libertarian (can Jim Henley and such develop a standard differentiating adjective, so I can talk about libertarians without implicitly dissing them?) here, we're talking someone who's gone weird in the last year or so, and may still be reachable.

She just doesn't want the government involved

I think there's a useful exercise, perhaps, in pointing out which governments have that sort of arrangement versus which ones have a healthy social safety net, and how the former are mostly hellholes that you wouldn't even want to vacation in, much less reside.

Best of luck, Brock. I think Heebie has a good point that addressing this on an emotional level might be a good start. Also seriously talking about the politics in a respectful way, if possible. A lot of conversations I have with people I disagree with politically are made substantially more challenging by the soundbite political culture. Also politics has a lot to do with group identity and lizardbrain/tribal issues, which is part of why this is so distressing - it's like she's abandoning your (our) tribe and heading off to live with the savages the next valley over.

Incidentally, Mankiw fucks up the math on that link. t4 = 0 in both cases if he isn't lying about how much of an inheritance he's leaving to his kids.

73: One such being 1930 America.

72: I didn't know that, LB. Unfortunately, it's an indelible stain, so I can no longer talk to you. And I will dream no more of the lovely, ginormously tall Dr. Oops. A sad day for me indeed.

76: But Dr. Oops is so like you!

Incidentally, Mankiw fucks up the math on that link. t4 = 0 in both cases if he isn't lying about how much of an inheritance he's leaving to his kids.

Oh, no, I expect he really is leaving that much. He's fairly wealthy.

The basic problem with that article (well, one of the top-5 basic problems, anyway) is that it's questionable enough (and empirically not well supported) to assume that indivduals decide how much to work based solely (or even largely) on the marginal income tax rate they face today; the idea that a wealthy individual would base the work decision on the total after-tax return his heirs will recieve in 35 years is just a joke. (Or, again, maybe Mankiw really does expect us to believe that's how he makes his decisions. I very much doubt it, but fine. To suggest we should somehow use this information to evaluate tax policy is absurd.)

You could take her for a vacation in Somalia, which, from what I hear, is a small-government Libertarian paradise.

other than she's "been reading a lot of interesting things recently"

No, don't ask what she's been reading, ask why they've been convincing her. "What in that article really spoke to you?" "What did s/he say that made you feel you were incorrect before?"

I think parsimon very likely nailed the real source.

A lot of economists are workaholics, as I was about to say. James Buchanan admiringly told a story about a colleague who worked himself to death and who, on his deathbed, was in anguish because he wasn't being productive.

Some thoughts:

If she's capable of reasoning and cognitive dissonance and recognizing contradictions, then she could gently be moved along a chain of reasoning. This seems to be in favor of non-assholish belief systems.

If this is recent, I'd doubt she's fully committed. I bet she is susceptible to persuasion.

People are susceptible to their milieu. Watch Fox News and you get more conservative. Have Maddow and the Daily Show in the background and those will sound right and obvious after a while.

Unless you know that you guys have Ninja-level communication skills (probably from previous couples-counseling or mediation classes), you might want to hire someone who does have and intends to teach you Ninja-level communication skills. They're totally learn-able, but in the middle of an intense political discussion is probably a bad time for trial and error.

I'm guessing you're joking, but I'll say the obvious: your kids are fine. You're both all loving and stable to them and they're gonna see all sorts of philosophies. Model the one you believe and they'll soak it in.

Like 69 said, if she is responding to a fear-based philosophy, remove the underlying fear. Oddly, I think the way to remove the underlying fear is to move toward the source. If she's scared of ravening homeless hordes sacking the house, volunteer with Loaves and Fishes or Food Not Bombs.

And what Heebie is saying.

Do family court judges recognize libertarianism as a form of abuse sufficient to withdraw parental rights? That would be an important thing to know.

IMX, while libertarians may be entirely despicable as human beings, the sex is fantastic -- I say you just go with it.

[More] seriously, I suspect like a lot of things, this comes down to how well you as a couple are able to argue. Can you engage in vigorous debate about this kind of thing without sliding into ad hominems and utter disdain? Or do arguments tend to leave one or more of you feeling like the other person doesn't respect or admire you?

I'm guessing you're joking, but I'll say the obvious: your kids are fine

Can't be too sure. Give the kids a doll and name it "Progressive Taxation" (that'll be our little secret, kids!). When they get attached, tell them mama wants to take it away. Maybe tell them that mama's new friends think Jesus Christ is wrong.

||

My niece is moving from Atlanta back to Fargo. Once you've lived in Fargo, nowhere else can be quite good enough.

|>

"Once you go Fargo, you never go far."

Addendum to 84, having caught up more on the thread. BE CAREFUL about trying to take any sort of talk-her-out-of-it, heal-her-of-her-affliction approach. Yes, yes, we all think she's horribly misguided and that appeal to her basic intelligence should help set things right. But the minute she picks up on any vibe that you think she's an idiot for being attracted to this philosophy, you are toast. Whether or not you agree is one thing. Whether or not you treat her as an intellectual equal in responding to her views is another thing entirely.

OMG, Brock, all my sympathies. I would honestly be thinking divorce at this point if I couldn't talk her out of it (in all seriousness--I associate a lot less than I would with my wife's sister and her family because of their fucked up political views. They're pretty fun to hang out with, but their smug me-first Republicanism puts me in a lather for days afterward.). I can't imagine what it would be like to have a spouse doing that to me everyday.

I think that others have started down the right path for avenues of pursuit, but I would ask her to walk through real-world scenarios about what would happen if her dream policies were to come to pass.

"Do you like roads? Who will build and maintain roads? What's to stop them from charging inordinate rates while skimping on maintenance to maximize profits? Oh, the market. Someone will build an alternate road? How is the land acquired to build roads? What if someone doesn't want to sell? Who will enforce property rights?"...yadda yadda.

Everything in fantasy libertarian land winds up at Somalia or a government of some sort incompatible with liberty.

74: S'alright, his math's wrong in a fair number of ways. And deep down, he's got to know it even if he would explain that "I just wanted to keep this little taxation model clean, so I used a few simplifying assumptions".

while libertarians may be entirely despicable as human beings, the sex is fantastic -- I say you just go with it.

Di seconds the grudgefucking perk, Brock. We'll find you that silver lining!

libertarians may be entirely despicable as human beings, the sex is fantastic

Being married with two small children is a really serious counterweight.

The only short term real-world conflict this is creating is her new steadfast vow never to live in either a condo with a governing board or a neighborhood with a home-owners' association. Because those are instruments of socialism and impediments to liberty. (No, really.) And we were looking to buy. And, it's not as if those things are real necessities in my view, but she's seriously limiting or choices.

But... those are private institutions full of wealthy people.

I've never been much of a grudgefucker.

Being married with two small children is a really serious counterweight.

I'm confused. I'd understand this as a "counterweight" if the libertarian in question were someone other than the person to whom Brock is married and parenting his two small children. Under the circumstances, that seems to be additional reason to just go with it.

93: I know! But their members must sacrifice their freedom.

Huh. That, as a practical problem, seems like something you could talk her through on the grounds that she's not opposed (one would assume) to being employed by a corporation or partnership -- in either case you're talking about a freely chosen association of independent economic entities, or whatever the rhetoric should be. As long as everyone has joined voluntarily, you're not on the road to serfdom or anything else.

95: Being married with two small children = too tired for fantastic sex most of the time.

Because those are instruments of socialism and impediments to liberty.

Wow. Is she refusing to shop at grocery stores that make you stand in lines to check out?

88: I'd like to respectfully disagree with you, Di. (And I'm speaking from how I would react, not with a firm advice about how Brock should proceed). Frankly, this kind of thing is a moral issue. If one's spouse has changed enough that their moral compass has changed to embrace policy prescriptions so radically from one's own, then one needs to either work to change the spouse's point of view, work together to find a middle ground that doesn't clash with either person's value system, or find an amicable way to separate.

Libertarianism of the sort I'm imagining Brock's wife has adopted (and correct me if I'm wrong, Brock) is as deep a moral failing as homophobia or racism. How would you feel if your spouse came home spouting the Fred Phelps party line?

You could go the long way around and into the analysis of wage-slavery. She might come out the other end an anarcho-syndicalist.

Dude, I wouldn't want a homeowners' association. Maybe this has an upside.

We aren't really opening up the full range of options. Brock could read some of the good libertarians and be converted too!

92: And it seems as if I've gone off with a with a wild hair up my ass. Sorry for getting so worked up.

I may have issues.

I thought the concept of "grudgefucking" was limited to men who boast of their prowess in inducing pain and discomfort with their massive cocks. I fail to see the appeal of having sex with someone you don't like.

Wow. Is she refusing to shop at grocery stores that make you stand in lines to check out?

No one actually stops you from pushing your way to the front of the lines. Give it a try! And if someone does, that is someone whose superiority is merited anyway.

I wouldn't want a homeowners' association. Maybe this has an upside.

The HOA for our neighborhood has annual fees of $50, which go to repaint the sign at the entrance, maintain the little playground, and have a big neighborhood picnic each summer in the cul-de-sac in front of my house.

105 - How do you endure the redistribution and oppression?

Marijuana.

105: Exactly. But what they got together and voted to up the annual dues to $5,000 (to fund a standing neighborhood militia), and also required everyone to paint their house green. That's the risk: YOU NEVER KNOW.

78 - my intended implication is that he's lying. Or as econowhores like to put it "making a few simplifying assumptions" as per 90.

105: But do they tell you what color you can paint your house? Ban political signs in your yard? Tell you what kind of holiday decoration you have to put up? I would avoid something like that like the effing plague.

Of course, I get cranky that they block off my street for National Night Out, so I may be more curmudgeonly than the average.

103: wait, not 92 wasn't a response to you. I think you're mostly right. Or at least maybe right. I mean, we're not going to separate, but this is a serious issue.

100: I don't disagree with you on the moral issue. It sounds alot like Brock would like to remain married, though, and like his wife's libertarianism is more or less along the lines of the new-convert over-enthusiasm that one can reasonably hope will pass. Tactically, treating her new views respectfully (without pretending to in any way remotely agree with them) seems more productive than firing up the ol' persecution complex and making her dig her heels in.

Libertarianism of the sort I'm imagining Brock's wife has adopted (and correct me if I'm wrong, Brock) is as deep a moral failing as homophobia or racism.

I timidly agree with this.

Yes, the practical effect of the "no HOA" rule isnt' the problem, it's the thinking behind it.

I'm used to thinking of FTW as "Fuck the World"

111: Thanks, I get that it's serious. I just didn't want to come off as stridently vilifying your wife while everyone else joked about Ayn Rand.

96: Oh crap. Tell me she's not becoming a homesteader.

Has she at least read The Social Contract, since that kind of lays out a bit more explicitly the trade-offs involved in any form of governance, and the omnipresence of governance in virtually any form of cooperative enterprise? Or does she shun all notions that there are benefits to social cooperation? Does she need to know about the basic transaction costs literature and why it can be wealth-enhancing to have cooperative structures even if it implies some circumscribed liberties under certain conditions (e.g. like working for a corporation)?

Argh. Brain. Hurting.

105: Your neighborhood has an "entrance"? Sounds like a rentierist clique to me. You will not be spared when Obama liquidates the kulaks.

110: No, no, and no.

Really, the only controversy that has ever come up with the HOA is some people wanted to levy a $500/house charge to build a security fence in the woods after a couple of break-ins. There was a lengthy email discussion where more people pointed out that 1) lots of people simply didn't have $500 to drop any given month, and 2) a fence that only bounded one side of the neighborhood wouldn't accomplish much of anything.

It was dropped from consideration.

her new steadfast vow never to live in either a condo with a governing board or a neighborhood with a home-owners' association

I'm actually sympathetic to this, but the reasoning seems odd. I'm happy to live in a city where snout houses are outlawed, but I associate condo boards and HOAs with petty tyrants who prohibit people from hanging their laundry outside and that sort of thing.

On preview, pwned, but wevs.

Does she get her Ayn Rand books out of the public library? Because you could point out the hypocrisy right there.

Any philosophy that holds public libraries to be evil has serious problems.

public libraries to be evil

They're not evil -- they provide a place for strong, superior people to steal books from and become educated. (There's a great bit in the Fountainhead where the homeless gang leader kid who later becomes the newspaper tycoon organizes his followers to steal books from the library for him. Surely he could have, you know, gotten a library card, and just returned the books when he was done.)

Your neighborhood has an "entrance"?

Yep. Two, really (the entire neighborhood, such as it is, consists of three roads), but the one that's a couple hundred yards to the east doesn't have a sign.

You could embroider samplers and make little pillows to leave all over the house.

There but for...
As thou dost to the least of thee...
His eye is on the sparrow...

I'm being dense and don't get why libertarianism would conflict with buying a condo or a house with an HOA. Those are voluntary associations, right? and you can choose one that has the kinds of rules and fees and so forth that you feel happy and comfortable with? Do libertarians frown on joining clubs? Even clubs whose stated objectives are ones which you agree with?

124: Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's...

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

Brock,

When even I think your wife's gone off the deep end, it's bad. This is a conversion zeal issue. She'll calm down. The HOA thing is a marker of how superficial and thoughtless her attachment is, and actually bodes well for you, if she's intelligent enough to recognize the contradictions. (One of the attractions of libertarianism is its refusal to permit certain kinds of compromise; if this aspect appeals to her, careful nudging may be able to budge her from this particular position.)

Perhaps a trail of virtual breadcrumbs leading her to a more Henleyesque perspective would be useful? This would require you actually engaging with her and finding middle-ground readings that could draw her back toward the center. At least then she might moderate such that she could be brought into polite company.

Unless you know that you guys have Ninja-level communication skills (probably from previous couples-counseling or mediation classes), you might want to hire someone who does have and intends to teach you Ninja-level communication skills. They're totally learn-able, but in the middle of an intense political discussion is probably a bad time for trial and error.

I'm no ninja, but I've had a bit of ADR training, and my wife's had quite a lot (no couples counseling, though). For us, those techniques work really well for ordinary relationship issues, and not so well for political debates. I think this is because a major part of mediating a dispute is getting the parties to stop talking about their positions and start talking about their interests. But the only way to stop talking about positions in a political discussion is to stop talking about politics.

So we can talk about finances and childrearing, but not about Nader in the 2000 general or Clinton in the 2008 primaries.

(That said, active listening and so forth could be useful for dealing with relationship issues caused by political discussions -- "I don't need you to agree with me, just to respect me," per 88 -- but presumably Brock would prefer to avoid having the issues in the first place.)

I have the Ninj communication skills! Let me help Brock!

"Use your words, bitch!"

112: Well, yeah, the discussion has to be respectful. But I don't think the moral aspect of the discussion can be left out of it, either. From talking with my friends, I realize that my marriage is different from a lot of folks, but my approach would fall along these lines:

"Honey, after the kids are down tonight or maybe tomorrow night if you'd rather wait, I'd like to sit down and talk through your change in thinking around libertarianism and how I find myself reacting to it."

[Gives her time to think, not feel ambushed, and so on. Get into it a little bit if she wants to know why you feel the need to have a little talk.]

"So, the reason I wanted to talk things through with you is I find myself having a pretty negative reaction to the way you're looking at things lately since they seem to clash so strongly with the way I look at the world. I know that you're a good-hearted person--it's why I married you and why I love you so much--but I'm really struggling with this and I'd really appreciate you walking me through your reasoning. I'm going to do my very best to listen respectfully and not interrupt, but I may have questions along the way. We don't have to solve anything tonight, but I'd like to begin the process of mutually understanding and respecting each other's views. I'm not going to lie--I'm going to try to change your mind. But I suspect we'll also find a lot of places where we can compromise, agree-to-disagree, or you may convince me."

[Sets the ground rules, ensures that love and respect are communicated, etc.]

I'm lucky enough that my wife is patient enough to listen to me blather on that way, but it works for us.

Remember that if you divorce, Brock, and she gets the kids at least half of the time, that's half of your kids' time that she can indoctrinate them nastily on a constant basis and then they'll show up at your place scorning you and your ways. I'm not saying it's not worth divorcing over for your own sanity, but unless you can convince a judge that her (pretty common) political position is a threat to your children's health, divorce won't save them from having a rabid libertarian mom.

Believe me on this. I watched my ex and his ex-wife after the split spend most of the time they had with the kids indoctrinating and re-indoctrinating them, every three and a half days, and it made the kids pretty goddamn confused. At least while they were bitterly together, it all got moderated.

That said, living in a loveless household full of animosity isn't great for the tots, either.

127 - I know your intentions are good, Publius. But that's kindof a long sampler.

I'm not really sure I know what Henley believes; I've never read him. Isn't he just a "real" libertarian, rather than a Republican partisan hiding under libertarian cover? Or do I have him wrong?

She's not Republican.

i always think what is that, just general politics and what is your SO or other family member, coz practice loyalty to who is closer to me
what is more important , like, some goodness principles for the sake of hypothetical masses, or a real person near me
though it would be nice of course if my ideals matched the person's beliefs
and the nature of mothers is to be a bit conservative, as if trying to save her children, provide for them by all means etc
if one divorces over political matters and one's children would suffer through it, maybe that's a sign that you reached that, a higher consciousness and intellectuality

one

Divorce is not on the table. We're Catholic, but really, it wouldn't be on the table even if we weren't.

134: Insofar as I understand his politics, I have trouble telling Henley from a liberal with a strong focus on civil liberties, and a rule-of-thumb suspicion of military intervention overseas and of the effectiveness of bureacracy, and a similar worry about the dangers of regulator capture. From my point of view, there's not much to disagree with in his libertarianism.

137: And even thinking about getting divorced over this kind of thing would be really loopy.

Just came to the thread. When I read 139 + 137, I assumed that Mrs. Landers had found the Mineshaft.

139: Well, it might or it might not; depends on where it goes from here. I mean, if Roberta converted to Pentecostalism, I would absolutely consider divorce and suing for custody. The big difference here is that there aren't really Libertarian churches, as such (or a functioning libertarian movement, for that matter).

Also, to really emphasize my late-coming, I'm right on board with oudemia's 6:

God, the gutted-pension guy destroyed me. Mostly because, after he told his story to BHO, BHO said, "That was your money. You put away for that. That was no "gift." That was your money." And gutted-pension guy looked up at him, nodded, and said, "Thank you," as if no one had ever acknowledged that before.

133. Yeah, but if I said Federalist 10 you commies wouldn't even have looked. Need to work on my skillz.

How's the libertarian fire department doing? Thought so.

138 - That's because Henley has done some deep soul-searching and come to the conclusion that supporting the people who support bad economic policies and have no real commitment to negative liberty is vastly outweighed by the need to combat a wing of American polity whose chief commitment is to destroying the vestiges of the Magna Carta and starting more and better wars. If it were a different world, you and he would probably disagree about a lot more.

140: I'm thinking I should just email her this thread, with the note "God, what a jerk this Brock guy is. But the thread brought to mind some of the interesting things we've been talking about recently..."

Brock, didn't you have a lead paint problem in your apartment recently? Surely your wife concedes that it would be a good thing to have the government regulate toxic paint in rental units?

there aren't really Libertarian churches

Preacher: "And now we must rise for the affirmation of the faith."
From the Back Pew: "Just who do you think you are?!"

A cute little cross-stitch with bunnies and flowers that said "Federalist 10" would be AWESOME.

Need to work on my skillz.

Did you type it out from memory? Because those would be mad skillz.

Henley is still a little-government guy. But he's supporting Obama at least as enthusiastically as I am, because the Republicans are far from little-government principles in almost every respect.

And even thinking about getting divorced over this kind of thing would be really loopy.

Seriously, this. If Rah came home from work one day and said, "That's it, I'm a hardcore libertarian," I'd probably say, "Well, as long as you're not leaving and you're not taking the cats and you don't heckle Olbermann if I agree not to heckle... well, whoever you watch now... OK?" Rah and I do not agree on all things politically but there are 364 other days in the year - the ones other than Election Day - we somehow manage to get through.

Brock, didn't you have a lead paint problem in your apartment recently?

Hmm. Related?

I think I could bring myself around to having sex with Henley. So maybe that's the direction I'll nudge my wife. (Not condescendingly--just send her links to his posts, etc.)

Even if that approach doesn't fully work, I might then at least be able to imagine Henley while having sex with my wife. Maybe that would be good enough.

You could get a border collie. All the cool libertarians have some.

I apologize if I overread Brock's comments. He made it sound like this is a sex-denying, disgust-producing, I-fear-for-my-children turn of events, not just a "She doesn't vote the way I do anymore!" thing. Maybe that was an exaggeration for effect.

I guess I would have a very hard time staying in a relationship with someone whom I loved for our shared ethos and worldview and then that worldview changed to the point that I no longer believed that that person cared about humanity. How someone votes is not the issue; it's whether you believe your partner is a decent and ethical person. I am extremely sympathetic myself to certain aspects of conservatism, and could imagine loving someone who voted Republican in an ideological sense, but I simply cannot imagine a relationship with a Randian.

154: You do have to remember that Brock is a well known lunatic.

152: Perhaps if you put enough effort into imagining Atrios having sex with your wife, you could pull her back from the brink.

Oh wait, I missed the "while" in your original comment. That does change things a bit.

I wrote a thoughtful response to 154, but then re-read 34 and deleted it. But the short, sanitized version is that I'm sure you're overreading, necessarily.

Oops. I'm *not* sure you're overreading.

I'm so sorry to hear that, Brock. I would go completely ape-shit in that situation. I'm just imagining it happening to me, and I feel my pulse racing and my heart pounding. I would do nothing constructive in that situation. I would fight about it constantly.

154. Wait- what's wrong with sex with a Randian? Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

And even thinking about getting divorced over this kind of thing would be really loopy.

Maybe so, but I wouldn't underestimate, especially given the general stresses of maintaining a marriage while raising two small children, the kind of strain this could cause. You have my sympathies, Brock.

A true libertarian won't vote Republican anyway, so I shouldn't worry about that.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/129703.html

A true libertarian

Yes, but how would a true Scotsman vote?

Reading Rand alone is not cause for this kind of reaction, though. Combined with some other comments BL has made about the relationship, it sounds a bit like a long history of growing resentment. (a) Growing resentment seems like one of those things that just happens to couples raising young kids, because it makes you realize very concretely that you disagree about stuff and that the disagreements are more than petty cute bickering. In many cases, you grow past that stage and end up fine together, eventually remembering why you loved one another without the stress of little-kid raising. (b) In other cases, growing resentment on ideological issues can be used by either party to excuse really cruel marital behavior. (I.e., I'm a good guy because I didn't divorce my wife, but that bitch deserves it when I treat her like crap or cheat on her.) I'm not saying Brock would do this, but unless you're really earnestly moving toward option (a), you may be in danger of drifting toward option (b).

Yes, but how would a true Scotsman vote?

A true Scotsman doesn't get to vote in the US election. Yet.

Wouldn't put sugar on his oatmeal, though, I tell you.

For some reason, AWB thinks her choice b is bad, when it is the only possible solution.

I'm surprised by the vehemence of my reaction, but I can't stop thinking about Brock's situation. I think subconsciously I thought one of the rules of the universe is that no one suddenly becomes a libertarian after the age of 22 or so.

because it makes you realize very concretely that you disagree about stuff and that the disagreements are more than petty cute bickering

Yes, this exactly. There are differences between mature adults that become considerably more significant when you realize, "Wait, this impacts upon the values I would like to instill in my children." Sometimes, you discover these things are deal breakers; sometimes you see them as an opportunity to model for you kids the concept of "reasonable people can disagree on this point."

I sympathize with 154.2

You do have to remember that Brock is a well known lunatic.

Also a master of the artful troll and I say that with genuine warmth and admiration.

168: If (b) is the only solution, then not getting divorced is just cruel, IMHO. Shackling yourself joylessly and eternally to someone you despise can only lead to a very bitter life of perverse acting-out. If you're not able to conceive of things getting better, what kind of example can you be for your kids? (I'm not advocating the "only children matter" argument, but when your kids grow up without any idea of what a loving relationship might look like, they're screwed, and the fact that you stayed together "for the kids" seems pretty absurd.)

Probably no great shock that I agree strongly with 172.

If you're not able to conceive of things getting better

I hear all your points, but I am very, very far from this mindset.

a) and b) do not exhaust the possible responses to growing resentment. There's a possible feedback loop where resentment causes escalation of disagreement causes resentment. I don't think hatefulness or all-is-forgiven reconciliation are the only outcomes.

I add the caveat that I say 172 as someone who is pretty fucked-up for a lot of reasons, one of them being that my father never respected my mother, and subtly undermined her constantly to us, while cheating on her in really nasty ways. And my mom was no peach either, because feeling constantly undermined and subtly despised doesn't exactly make you a hopeful and encouraging parent. Divorce is a big fat bummer, but so is never having the least idea what people do in long-term relationships other than learn to despise one another and resent their children.

175: Not all-is-forgiven, but we-can-live-with-this.

174: I'm glad you're not there yet. I'm just concerned that it sounds like you're heading there, but it's not too late to work on this and figure out some common ground where you can still be happy together.

172 misses the benefit of a single, stable place for kids. I grew up with no idea of what a loving relationship looks like for sure; so did most of my friends in HS. There's a huge gap between optimal marriage and misery harmful to the whole household.

179: Yup. My parents didn't like each other much for all of their marriage I can remember. While that was hard on them, and has done weird things to my neuroses and ability to function emotionally, I still think I'm better off than I would have been had they divorced.

176: Yup. One of the single most powerful factors in my own decision was the acute awareness of the joys of growing up with parents who can't stand one another but stayed together "for the sake of the children." Ideally, of course, a couple learns how to model respectful disagreement for the kiddos instead.

Unfogged! Where to go for an evenhanded exploration of both sides of every issue!

179, 180: I don't think that 172 is missing the benefit of a single, stable place for kids at all. I think AWB is recognizing that "[s]hackling yourself joylessly and eternally to someone you despise" frequently, if not inevitably, is utterly incompatible with a stable place for kids. Believe me, Rory has a shitload more stability growing up in two households now than she could ever have hoped for remaining in one.

Of course, divorce would be a lot better option if it didn't necessarily result in even more vicious competition for children's love and affiliation. Part of this seems to be the problem of the winner-take-all attitude of a lot of divorce lawyers (will excepted, based on things he's said). If you decide that divorce is the best thing for your family and your kids, it really doesn't help if you are both lawyering up with advocates who pump you up about how your spouse is trying to steal your money, brainwash your kids, and so forth.

Peace is possible here, and, as is often the case, begins within.

I recommend making an effort to love her as a libertarian. Libertarians are not immoral. They fixate excessively on one value, but it is still a value. Think about your philosophical common ground. The ideas expressed in Mill's *On Liberty*, particularly the middle section "Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being." For instance

He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties.

Another thought to toss in the soup here. The idea that the change in ideology is more or less just conversion zealotry. To the extent this is so, it might be worth considering what sort of gap Mrs. Landers might be seeking to fill in her life. At least for me, personally, over-the-top fanaticism has generally correlated to something else seriously missing.

At least for me, personally, over-the-top fanaticism has generally correlated to something else seriously missing.

Di FTW.

will excepted, based on things he's said

I'm pretty sure will's noted here that he is engaged in "collaborative practice" -- which is a wholly different, and more productive, mindset than the traditional litigation model.

Libertarians are not immoral.

Libertarians are amoral.

I'm not claiming psychic powers for judging how to strike the balance, just saying that there's something to be weighed. Respectful disagreement is great in every house, but no one's consistently perfect at living up to goals.

I'm regularly surprised at how my kid perceives things; IMO, imperfect understanding of the sprogs' perceptions really throws a monkey wrench into things. I'd only use the power for good in this one case, but magic insight into what he's thinking would help a lot.

186: I actually thought about this, and almost included something about it in my original question. I haven't been home much in recent months, so she hasn't had much serious (in-person) adult interaction; is this partly my fault?

But I deleted all that because I decided it sounded condescending and trivializing. By all appearances these are her genuine political views. Writing them off as some sort of psychological manifestation seems not to respect her agency. (Which was also my reaction to 67 et al., by the way.)

Libertarians are amoral.

Not really, nor are they really egoists. A true egoist would not preach egoism as an ideology. She would preach self sacrifice for everyone else, and then not practice it at all herself, and reap the rewards.

WRT 67 et al, what's wrong with understanding her political position as a reasoned response to her best interests in the current financial situation? You're still probably going to disagree with her, but speculating that the change is a response to her understanding of the current facts doesn't seem contemptuous to me.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Hey, I dated a guy like that in college.

I dunno, Brock. With a lot of political positions, I can understand how psychologizing about them is inherently condescending, but libertarianism is a special case, in that it seems to be fundamentally rooted in emotional disaster. I'm not saying it should be in the DSM-V, but it's close. I wouldn't want to pathologize a person who suddenly starts attending church, either, but someone who suddenly starts attending a race-baiting homophobic church with erotic rituals in which they cast out demons, yeah, I'm going to guess some pretty serious emotional needs aren't being met there.

196: Can we distinguish Jim-Henleyesque libertarianism from "I have a quote from Atlas Shrugged tattooed across my abdomen" libertarianism?

What are you suggesting, AWB? More cuddling?

Seriously--what's the "emotional disaster"/unmet need that leads one to libertarianism?

197: let's just agree to call Henley a liberal and be done with it.

Dude. I still think this is all coming on too strong. I wouldn't take anything that's happened in the past year as the new normal. Look, people are crazy right now. On the left, people are re-discovering hope and reason and realizing that America has been fucking insane for eight years. (We... torture people in camps? The VP... shot a friend in the face? It is OK to have arsenic in water?) The left is working through a huge amount of stuff to process.

The right is understanding that the world is about to change and nothing they've done works. (A black man is about to be President? Two men can get married? We keep saying that this guy is a terrorist, but they keep liking him anyway? People might not love Sarah? Our money is gone? My child might date someone I don't understand?)

No side is stable right now, and these are huge emotional touchstones. So it makes perfect sense that people are crazy. I'm seeing it everywhere. Lots of friends report stories. Crying over little things. Sleepless nights. Anxiety attacks. People having personality shifts. I'm sure there are proximal causes of all of these, but we're also in the grips of big macroscale transition and turbulence.

I would take anything that has happened recently (within the past year) with a huge grain of salt. Wait for more settled times (another several months) before reassessing anything big. We're in limbo right now.

197: Yes, feel free to do so. I'm sure there are libertarians who are not acting out paranoiacally against government that, in its dastardly way, wants to educate children and provide health care and roads and mail and libraries and stuff. I just haven't met any IRL.

191 is a good guess. While we all have agency, we also all have emotional needs that will express themselves either consciously or subconsciously.

a race-baiting homophobic church with erotic rituals in which they cast out demons,

That actually might be entertaining. Especially the last bit.

199: But (to the best of my knowledge), he'd disagree, and presumably he's not unique in being a self-described libertarian with non-crazy views. IDP talks about 'left-libertarianism' all the time, Belle Waring flirts with libertarianism... the disturbing version of libertarianism isn't the only one out there. E.g., someone who's a generally reasonable person, but votes Republican for whatever reason people do, but is nonetheless concerned with civil liberties probably thinks of themselves as kind of libertarianish.

198: Yeah, I think it's possible that someone who suddenly turns to Meanness Libertarianism may be reacting to an unfillable desire for safety and love, which would allow them the emotional space and freedom to imagine supporting safety and love for others. I'm not trying to blame you here, Brock, but if her sense of alienation is causing her to hold views about the world that make you want to alienate her further, it's not going to result in the kind of middle-ground-meeting that could make the marriage work again. Someone has to soften here.

Not plain, predictable limbo. Limbo with swirly hope and fear and excitement and dread and every emotional lever being intentionally pulled by people who know what they're doing.

Not really, nor are they really egoists. A true egoist would not preach egoism as an ideology. She would preach self sacrifice for everyone else, and then not practice it at all herself, and reap the rewards.

Or use his bully pulpit for two decades as a press-beloved economic savant to lead people astray into giving all their money to people like him, and then after that process is complete, apologize.

Writing them off as some sort of psychological manifestation seems not to respect her agency.

Yeah, this is a difficult balance. I'll say looking back at my fundamentalist fanatic phase, it's pretty clear that a large component of it was pure response to a pretty fucked up home life. At the same time, any suggestion anyone would have made that I was going off the deep-end for any reason than a logical, conscious personal choice generally had the effect of pushing me to defensively dig in my heels. Which I still think was a fair response. The fact is, I was engaged in my religious fervor to fill a void -- but also because, intellectually, there was quite a bit there to appeal to me. Still is.

Shorter: I wouldn't take the view that it's your fault -- but it couldn't hurt to show an interest in her new thinking and engage intellectually. If she's mostly looking for some adult wrestling with new ideas, this could well be a great opportunity to grow together.

Hey, I dated a guy like that in college.

It ain't me

solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Hey, I dated a guy like that in college

I thought it was the name of your old law firm.

208 is right, in that I wouldn't suggest Brock going to his wife and saying, "Honey, I'm aware that you're just politically acting out against me because I haven't been home enough, so I'm going to cuddle you like crazy until you stop." Just offer her love and see what happens. It might not change her mind about politics, but at least you may be able to have a sane discussion about it.

It's not so much that unmet needs lead to libertarianism as rather unmet needs make you an easy mark for a simple worldview.

What are you suggesting, AWB? More cuddling?

From my recollection of Ayn Rand, I'd guess that sneaking up on her while wearing dusty overalls, and ravaging her, would work better than cuddling.

I'm surprised by the vehemence of my reaction, but I can't stop thinking about Brock's situation. I think subconsciously I thought one of the rules of the universe is that no one suddenly becomes a libertarian after the age of 22 or so.

Same exact thing here. It would be like becoming a racist. It would make me wonder if the person had a brain tumor or something.

"Mrs. Landers was no longer Gage"

(incidentally, throughout this thread, and in this comment we are referring to objectivists, but saying "libertarians".)

You know, thinking back to the Mankiw link, I'm not even sure that what it's espousing makes sense given my Econ-101 understanding of things (okay, a couple B-School Micro courses, but you get my drift). Here's the way I map out his argument:

1: Taxes are raised in a way that lessens his incentive to work for additional income, given the functional effect of reducing his potential earnings for an hour of work.

2: His personal utility is already near-maximized, so rewards (money) need to be substantial to cause him to work more. [Prestige and other non-monetary rewards don't seem to be in play in this argument, even though they have to be substantial or else he'd be an I-Banker or the president of a company or something else that offers more remuneration for someone of his skillset.]

3. He is incapable of raising his price for an hour of work to offset the effects of a tax increase. Perhaps the market will pay for a $500 an hour consultation from Greg Mankew, but not one that cost $515.

4. There are no acceptable substitutes for Greg Mankiw on the market, or all acceptable substitutes are in the same boat as Mankiw and already have maximized their utility to the point that they won't do an hour's worth of work for less than $515. Potential buyers of Greg Mankiw's labor or substitutes thereof have all rigorously calculated the cost/benefit equation of paying for Mankiw's services and determined that the opportunity costs are too high at $515, but not at $500.

5. Many people share Mankiw's situation within their own unique status as utility-near-maximized unique goods, to the point that the U.S. economy as a whole will grow substantially less quickly when their labor is unavailable to the market, because the money they would have earned will not be then placed in the stock market and then held their for their estate, and corporations will opt to not spend the money elsewhere in a way that will cause the economy to grow (I don't know, maybe they use it for toilet paper? Use it to light cigars?).

Is that it? QED?

I thought it was the name of your old law firm.

Nah, they were Multitudinous, Rich, Nasty, and Brutish.

From my recollection of Ayn Rand, I'd guess that sneaking up on her while wearing dusty overalls, and ravaging her, would work better than cuddling.

Wait, are you saying this is the sort of thing that happens to people who read Rand?

217=me

And one other plank that seems to be a given whenever economic consequences are discussed in these situations, but isn't part of the core argument:

A. Government money gained through taxation does not count as real money when it is spent and does not contribute to the economy.

Having both been through a divorce and seen plenty of others, I have a really deep aversion to drawing anything like firm lines about when divorce is or is not appropriate. This is a subject where a thousand factors matter, most of which are invisible to an outsider, and many of which are invisible to the participants. You just have no idea what's actually going on. Some of the comments here, particularly AWBs, strike me as way over the top with the prescriptiveness (not to say the comments aren't well-intentioned, of course).

With that said, as for the topic at hand, Heebie and Megan are dead right. What you can do is focus on improving your communication skills. Do NOT try to preach political philosophy or attempt to subtly educate her about a "better" form of libertarianism. Do not send her to Jim Henley with the notion that she'll come back a better person. You'll provoke resentment, and that way lies ruin. Figuring out what's going on and learning how to better communicate it is really hard, and you probably can't talk about politics with so much emotional baggage without coming across badly, so this sounds like an area where some therapy or marital counseling could really help.

this sounds like an area where some therapy or marital counseling could really help

I agree she needs therapy, but I'm having trouble finding anyone who specializes in helping people work through libertarianism. (Which is surprising, since the consensus view seems to be that it's the result of some unmet emotional needs.)

I apologize for coming off as prescriptive. My point, more generally, was that staying in a resentful, loveless marriage you have no intention of improving could be really bad. But it sounds like Brock is trying to get to a point where he can make an effort, even if it's unilateral, to figure out what's going wrong.

215: I read it much simpler: "You enact this surprisingly simple and moderate social policy, and I'll shut up for the rest of my life. Win-win."

AWB, you seem to think my marriage is in rough straits for reasons unrelated to anything I've said in this thread. (In several comments, but especially in your 165.) Why is that?

You just have no idea what's actually going on.

I have stated before that this is the single most important point to absorb about any marriage to which you are not a party. Marriages are as individual and idiosyncratic as people.

For both of you, fool. And the point isn't to psychoanalyze you both -- it's to allow you to talk to each other without scaring the other person or coming across like an asshole, which is pretty hard to do otherwise.

224: Not this thread, but others. If you've just been sounding off in other threads, and it sounds now like that's what it was, then just chalk it up to my paranoia about long-term relationships.

224: Because she's acting like a good therapist. If someone with whom you've previously had enough common ground to establish a life and a family together suddenly vacates that ground, it's pretty reasonable to ask if there's something else going on besides a change in her reading list.

224: Brock, be fair. You presented the question as a serious issue affecting how you feel about your wife.

228/229: ?? I was asking mostly about this statement in 165: "Combined with some other comments BL has made about the relationship, it sounds a bit like a long history of growing resentment". I'm not sure what she's referring to. I made a comment the other day about my wife acculumating stuff, but that's not a serious point of resentment (and I was wondering if it can across that way, or if AWB was referring to something else.)

226 to 221, which I just (moronically) realized was in jest. And AWB, of course I agree that staying in a resentful, loveless marriage can be bad -- but the problem is figuring out when things are really "resentful" or "loveless," which takes a lot of work and is almost impossible to judge from the outside.

224: Brock, all any of us knows about each other is what we're commenting about, and 90% of that is joking or nonsense, so there's no reason to take any of this to heart unless it's making sense to you. But I can certainly think of a whole bunch of comments that have given rise to the impression AWB seems to have, and of at least one that led me to suggest that you and your wife could probably profit from some communications/marital therapy, because it sounded as if you were having trouble talking to each other.

Just in this thread alone, Brock, you come across at first like you're saying there's this totally repulsive aspect of your wife that makes you fear her being alone with your children and dread sex, and then when there's the suggestion that, yeah, that sounds awful and like there's a serious problem there that deserves to be treated like a serious problem, you back up and say that your marriage is great and full of trust and love and there's just this tiny little problem that is nagging at you a bit.

No, I'm not going to cull the archives for similar discussions that made me think there were serious problems. If you like, you can strike my non-surprise about this thread from the record.

232: yes, I think I know what you're referring to, although I was wondering more about the "long history of growing resentment". If she'd said "comminucation difficulties" I'd have thought I knew what she was talking about, too.

Did 224 seem hostile? It wasn't intended that way at all, so if so, sorry. I'm a little surprised people are jumping on me about it.

234 was me.

I didn't take it as hostile.

Chiming in on the hold the fucking horses on the road to divorce line. Not that I'm worried about this, but jesus fuck half of you all flirted with different political beliefs and got over it. Everyone has to start somewhere, and if this is 95% 'holy fuck the economy's broke and we just gave billions to people that broke it' and 5% 'I really hate condos', that's really not irreconcilable differences.

Brock, you sounded to me like someone venting about a spouse, which seems to be necessary because having a spouse means being obligated to put up with another person and that's the reason there are marriage vows, because it's easier to deal with annoying traits when the alternative is a lot of paperwork.

I realize this is anathema, but judicious use of emoticons would solve most of the communication problems in this thread. (The marriage, possibly but not as likely.)

having a spouse means being obligated to put up with another person and that's the reason there are marriage vows, because it's easier to deal with annoying traits when the alternative is a lot of paperwork.

Heh. You realize this sounds like: Dear, we should get married because otherwise I wouldn't be willing to put up with you. (Obvs. not intended that way, but funny still.)

220: Something my shrink says, and I think is hugely insightful, is that once contempt enters a marriage, it's extraordinarily difficult to step back from that point and arrive at a stable, happy relationship again. So finding ways to communicate respectfully and deliberately de-escalating when arguments turn bitter or disrespectful are incredibly important parts of getting through something like this.

239: Hehe. (No one should have to put up with an academic trying to find a job without the solemn reminder that under the laws of our present state, we'd have to be separated a year, by which time, this job market thing would have sorted itself out.)

223: Sure, for the individual Greg Mankiw, except he's not really saying that--he's just promising not to work any harder than he is now. But there's an implicit argument that his case generalizes to the economy as a whole in such a way that Obama's plan should not be enacted because it will negatively effect economic growth.

We could detach Ms. Landers from Brock, attach her to Di's Libertarian Ex, and then attach Brock to Di, killing sweveral birds with one stone.

242: But there's an implicit argument that his case generalizes to the economy as a whole in such a way that Obama's plan should not be enacted because it will negatively effect economic growth

But I think the implicit argument is so stupid that, if pushed, Mankiw would have to shrink away from it and say "no, I wasn't making any broad policy argumetn, I was just musing a bit about my personal circumstances, as I said at the beginning of the post". Obviously that's not true, and he was trying to suggest an implicit argument of some sort, but there's no sensible policy argument to tease out of the post, so it's really not worth trying.

then attach Brock to Di

Then Brock might actually weigh as much as a normal adult.

Chopper makes a good point in 219 regarding redistribution. Now that we have ended welfare as we know it, the redistribution comes in the form of projects, not handouts. There is a lot of infrastructure to be rebuilt. Of course some of the infrastructure needs to be rethought, ie do we really need more freeways if in the future we drive less? What about inbedding a rail for future maglev stuff?

Pork for everyone! Especially is the pork comes from Emerson Farms, known for the delicious if unique taste.

243: Emerson is now acting as a... matchmaker??

I don't know what to say.

Brock, this is for you and your wife.

Brock,

First, I really like you candy. Thanks! But getting down to business, do you think maybe this thing with your wife is a phase? Kinda like a midlife crisis, but for women? I'm not sure if there is such a thing, but maybe she just needs to get it out of her system.

Can you do any off road driving or skeet shooting where you live? I say you get some cheap beer and try to blow off some steam before you do anything drastic like divorce, especially because kids are involved.

Give her some booze, some bullets (or shotgun shells) and some space and see if she gets this out of her system.

Do you have a Pastor you can call for help if you need it?

First, I really like you candy. Thanks! But getting down to business, do you think maybe this thing with your wife is a phase? Kinda like a midlife crisis, but for women? I'm not sure if there is such a thing, but maybe she just needs to get it out of her system.

I keep telling you guys, this could be a case of the maternal protective instinct going overboard into a philosophy of "I need to look out for number one, and by number one I mean my family."

Kinda like a midlife crisis, but for women? I'm not sure if there is such a thing

Uh. I believe that women have midlife crises too. Hard to believe, I know, but there it is.

Where's the Manikiw link?

In my experience, almost all really high achievers -- and Mankiw's a high achiever -- work for non-monetary reasons like pride, ego, status, etc. Money is important, it feeds into ego and status (hard to feel you're high-status unless society gives you at least some nice stuff), but a couple of bucks reduction in your very high hourly salary is not important. You'll keep working for the pleasure of it and to feel in the center of things. Workaholism, basically.

Now, where money is important for high-level economists is taking on little side consulting gigs. But most of those consulting gigs are doing what economists would describe as competing over rents -- "expert witnesses" in legal cases, propagandists of various sorts, etc. They don't add to social utility and may even subtract from it.

A person who changes political views can change back.

And really, in the world we live in, the world you live in, libertarianism is more a form of whining than a philosophy. Stop riding the subway, obeying the traffic lights,* don't send your kids to school, or use the mails. Stop using that heavily regulated electricity, and get a solar panel (but don't apply for the tax break!) to make your own. Don't complain about theft (private theft, that is) or discrimination.

I would be tempted to suggest some of these, at opportune moments. Then again, I'm in trouble with my wife just now, and had better get off the internet, and head right home.

* Stop on the green; otherwise you're participating in and benefiting from the oppression of the people on cross-street by state power in the form of a red light.

A couple things about that Mankiw piece.

1. Before getting into the details of the analysis, it's literally a cost-benefit analysis that estimates costs without even acknowledging the existence of benefits. Hack hack hack.

2. When does labor effort respond to tax rates? Economists have actually studied this issue, and Mankiw is surely familiar with their results. For most people, labor effort is simply not responsive to shifts in the tax structure. This is fairly intuitive. First, it's not like Mankiw will teach more or fewer classes at Harvard next year if Obama raises his marginal tax rate. Second, while Mankiw will get less after-tax money from a consulting gig under Obama, that may actually motivate him to get more gigs because he'll be poorer. Or probably not, because he's probably not that motivated to pursue outside gigs in the first place, because he's already so goddamned rich and maybe the economy will be better off if his talented trust-fund grandkids don't spend all their time living off the inheritance.

I'm getting inconsistent advice here.

In my experience, almost all really high achievers -- and Mankiw's a high achiever -- work for non-monetary reasons like pride, ego, status, etc.

It sounds as though you've never even taken Econ 101, PGD. Just a few well-chosen chapters should set you straight. Have you ever heard of the law of supply and demand?

254.2(b) Most people are on salary or working at the maximum number of hours on hourly wage and therefore do not have anything like the fine grained control over income that Mankiw does.

3. Work not taken by Mankiw is work available to other less well compensated economists, raising the boat for all of them, perhaps even to the point where they have the extreme good fortune to even think about estate taxes.

I'm remembering a conversation I once had with someone who was arguing that taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor discourages the rich AND the poor from working. I got a good laugh out of it (he wasn't making this connection explicitly).

||

Why I don't watch TV news: I just turned on my television to see Charlie Gibson talking about how people who vote early are not voting based on all possible information. What the hell?

|>

258: well, if you believe incentives matter (which they don't really, in this context), that makes sense: you're disincentivizing work and incentivizing non-work. So it's not not first-blush crazy.

240: 220: Something my shrink says, and I think is hugely insightful, is that once contempt enters a marriage, it's extraordinarily difficult to step back from that point and arrive at a stable, happy relationship again.

The rule of thumb as I saw it stated was that a marriage has to have at least four compliments for every putdown or it won't survive. (And why would it? If it did, it would be miserable, yes?)

221: (Which is surprising, since the consensus view seems to be that it's the result of some unmet emotional needs.)

I agree with everything that AWB says. I don't think it has much to do with libertarianism, per se, as it has to do with the culty nature of the sudden, very rapid conversion. (The effects would be just as weird if she suddenly converted to $cientology or Janism or something.) My first thought when I was reading down from the top was, "Who's she screwin'?"

Something unrelated is wrong, and now she's found THE PHILOSOPHICAL CURE; in such instances the actual philosophy itself usually has damn little to do with the real issue.

Having been in a sort of similar situation, I have no good advice here: marital therapy might be good. Regular therapy (for you) would probably work better because this is very likely going to be a large, ugly problem that eventually results in divorce. (And then later you found out: SURPRISE! She was doin' a Chicago-school economist! [*])

max
['Sigh.']

[*] Joke.

I'm remembering a conversation I once had with someone who was arguing that taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor discourages the rich AND the poor from working.

The rich are governed completely by the substitution effect, the poor by the income effect. The fact that there are possible theoretical effects of income redistribution that go in both directions (more work and less work) allows powerful economic arguments for almost anything you want to say in this area. Yet another reason that economists are in high demand as consultants.

Coming in late, but want to echo this:

It's possible your wife's having a panic response to financial fears, a sort of 'man the barricades, protect your money, the marauders are at the gates' reaction.

Di's 186 and Megan's 200 seem really key also. Not that other people aren't saying valuable things, but from what I've gathered about your descriptions of Mrs. L. over time, those seem most likely to be on target in this specific case.

And yeah, what everybody else said about contempt being killer for a marriage. You can disagree with someone, but I maintain that you can't feel contempt for them on an ongoing, regular basis and maintain any real kind of communication or partnership. None of us can tell how far along you are on that path, although per the above it really sounds like a new, recent development, so I'd have relatively more confidence in being able to reverse the trend (in yourself as well as in her beliefs).

Whoops, 263 was me.

YAY some love for 200. That's been my whole big insight recently and I reveal it here to crickets. Except for Witt, who has shown herself to not be a cricket AT ALL.

Chirp!

243: The suggestion is kind to neither Brock nor his wife. Also, John, I'm currently practicing the Relationship-Free Life. With the fervor of a zealous convert.

267, me.

I'm here, and also not a cricket. But even if I completely accepted 200, I'm not really sure what I should takeaway from it. The thoughts that "this too shall pass...", and just ignore things?

'm not really sure what I should takeaway from it.

Megan is of course more than able to speak for herself, but what *I* would take away from it is "Allow for the possibility that this is your wife's rational reaction to an irrational world; don't assume that this is an epic, fundamental shift in her character." Thus leaving room to respond to her as a human being that you love, who is reacting powerfully and rather idiosyncratically to some rather strong social forces at work, and not necessarily turning overnight into some person you can't imagine yourself sharing values with.

When my baby sister was three or four, my friends (naturally) taught her to hold up her fingers and say "I am not a crook." On her own she changed it to "I am not a cricket", and this is adorable because she was little and cute.

The takeaway I'd suggest from that is that Ms. Landers may be partially responding to exogenous stuff that's about to stop (like large doses of intentionally administered fear). That doesn't explain why she chose the reactions she did or how you guys work on finding new common ground, but the part that is driven and reinforced by this unusual outside stimulus will soon ease.

If this is recent and coincides with the national crazytime, I wouldn't take it as a new longterm reality. I'd look at your old longterm reality for a better idea of what the future will be like.

I'm getting inconsistent advice here.

That, of course, is because there's really no right answer here. Except that part warning about contempt. If you sense that starting to creep in, you need to deal with it quickly or you really will have a problem.

I love the way Witt framed it. She should frame all my thoughts for me.

I thought, but did not say at the time, that 200 was well said. So there!

The more I consider this, the more I think that if it were my situation, I'd reply to the libertarian thoughts with very mild remarks, like: "Well, I like the US mails, though. And the roads being maintained too. And bridge safety, food safety, stuff like that. So. I don't know how we do that without taxes." Then just sort of mildly shrug, as though to say, Hey, seems like we have a dilemma. Then smile and continue with whatever I'd been doing.

Don't get riled, in other words, as others have been saying. If she's sending you links, she arguably wants your feedback, and given that it's apparently a new series of thoughts on her part, ignoring it isn't the right way to go.

Should clarify that I don't think she's malicious or selfish or [insert other libertarian character flaws], just terribly misguided. She's not developing a bad character.*

*Some of you seem to think that fact alone, if true, will be enough to ensure this is a short-term blip? Somehow I don't see things that way, but I hope I'm wrong.

The libertarian answer is always "The free market would do the same thing better". You'll end up in the weeds of imaginary policy.

No, I don't think it is enough to ensure that her new thinking is a short-term blip. But I do think it is reason to doubt that it is a permanent shift. We're bombarded with unusual stimulus right now. Wait for several months after the stimulus goes away to re-assess.

274: she's a small-government libertarian, not an anarchist. She'd agree with all that. (Well, not sure about the food safety part, but I bet she'd agree with that.)

My tack so far has been "yes, I'm also a fan of small government, of course. We just need the government to ensure certain fundamentals that provate citizens can't easily provide (and that we both believe in): public infrastructure, the rule of law and the administration of justice, some measure of national defense, protection of individual rights, consumer safety, environmental protection, equal opportunity for all citizens, etc. I want a government big enough to provide those things effectively and no bigger."

When framed like that it almost felt as if we weren't in disagreement. Even though we very much are.

She's not developing a bad character. Some of you seem to think that fact alone, if true, will be enough to ensure this is a short-term blip?

Further to 277, what is that old saying? Thoughts become words, words become actions, actions become habits, habits become character? It's not that Crazed Libertarian thoughts won't eventually get you a Crazed Libertarian character, it's that there are a lot of steps in between. And a lot of ways to step off that path and on to a new one.

276: see, this is the direction I'm worried she's headed. That would be a real problem.

277: I didn't really mean you.

||
Trolley problem! (pdf)
|>

So, Brock, worst case scenario. Say she really explores all these new ideas and decides that, yes, she does indeed wish to embrace this philosophy. Is that a deal breaker? If so, is that because the philosophy is so deeply offensive to you that you can't imagine feeling affection for someone who embraces it? Is it that the philosophy is so misguided to you that you can't imagine maintaining respect for someone who embraces it?

(I picked up this thread after your links were redacted, so I suspect I may be missing the full significance of the shift. I doubt my libertarian ex had any such comprehensive philosophy behind his self-description; rather, I think he learned a neat, big new word and started using it.)

The way to resolve this is to have extensive discussions about precisely where you disagree politically. I'd suggest drawing up a list of social services you both agree on, and then each come up with your own, separate lists of services the government provides you'd either like to keep or have abolished. Then, I'd assign her some reading (make sure to make it as specific as possible about the costs and benefits of specific government agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and be sure to discuss the reading you've assigned at least every other day.

Also, while doing this, be sure to never express that you disagree fundamentally with her position, but offer indirect, nudging comments to suggest areas where she's wrong. If you're careful, she won't pick up on this strategy at all, and you can be totally assured that your rational conversation will show her the error of her ways.

278.1: Yeah, I realize that. The general approach is what I was after, though: mild counters in a "I see a counter-argument here, which is as follows."

If that ultimately gets into the weeds regarding whether the free market can provide what's needed, er, so be it?

278.2: In that list of things a small(er) government should provide, providing for the general welfare seems to be included, where that means equal opportunity, protection of all citizens against their individual times of need, and so on. But in light of the second original link, to the story about redistributing the waiter's tip to the homeless guy, those things are apparently just what's in question.

283: I'm not sure what you mean by "deal-breaker", Di. I'm not going to get divorced over it. And I certainly don't think (absent real character changes) I'd develop true contempt for her; I'm sure we could go on happily (enough) ever after, just deeply politically divided. But that's sure an outcome I'd like to do everything in my power to prevent. Because it would certainly cause disharmony. Respect? I could still respect her as a person, but I'd think her politics were deeply misguided. (But please realize that I'm not trying to downplay this: to use a comparison from upthread, there are racists and homophobes who I'd say I otherwise deeply respect; I just think they're badly wrong about certain very significant issues. Is this as serious as that? I'm not sure.)

284 is painfully amusing.

285: yeah, I guess I skipped over that in 278. "Poverty reduction" is a government-goal on which we've had specific disagreement recently. (She thinks it should be left entirely to private charity.)

I'm not entirely sure what I mean by "deal breaker" in your situation, either, to be honest. I guess something like, at what point does this become something that changes the way you feel about her? I mean, to me, if this is as serious to you as her becoming racist or homophobic, that's something akin to a "deal breaker." However much I might otherwise love and respect a partner, unapologetic racism/homophobia would be "deal breakers" in the sense that I (doubt I) could ever fully love and partner with someone who saw things that way. On the other hand, I feel pretty confident I could love and partner with someone I disagreed with on other political/policy type issues. I guess I'm just asking (or encouraging you to think about -- I don't really need to know) at what point the philosophy interferes with your ability to fully engage with your wife.

"Poverty reduction" is a government-goal on which we've had specific disagreement recently. (She thinks it should be left entirely to private charity.)

Ouch. Crap.

Did someone say upthread that y'all should volunteer at a food bank? Yeah, that. Not that either of you has time for it.

So, well, this goes toward the panic, 'man the barricades' scenario, then; either it's a temporary disturbance of the force, or the Dark Side has taken over completely. I don't know how to address that without getting into broader moral arguments about man's responsibility to man person, etc.

broader moral arguments about man's responsibility to man person

Part of the problem there is that I think we're in total agreement on the broader moral arguments. She just sees it as a moral imperative better served by private individuals and institutions than by (bloated, inefficient, unjust) government.

Further to 290: I guess you could go the route of arguing that it's in the middle and upper classes' best interest to minimize poverty. I find this stressful to argue, myself.

My sympathies, Brock. I see why you're in a bit of a (serious) quandary.

291 -- Start a joint study group on the empirical impact of state vs. charity delivered welfare payments. It's the only way forward and will solve all of your problems.

292: I don't mean to minimize at all, but if you agree on the basic moral principle, can't you just agree to disagree with her on the policy end? (I am assuming neither you nor she is in any position to actually directly influence the government's role in poverty amelioration, etc.)

Maybe if you talk about the size of the need. Taking all the programs together, it's a vast amount of money, and private charity could never match the economies of scale that government makes possible.

294 to 291, that is.

She just sees it as a moral imperative better served by private individuals and institutions than by (bloated, inefficient, unjust) government.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but my experience of people who suddenly start stating beliefs like like this is that it often truly is an artifact of that semi-mythical Internet echo-chamber effect.

It IS now possible to get so much news from a narrow spectrum of choices that you get a rather wild-eyed view of the world. I like Radley Balko as much as the next person, but if one reads selectively from his blog and a few others, one could begin to think that Taser abuse is the greatest problem facing the Western World.*

*Hyperbole. Don't jump on me, people, and for heaven's sake don't Taser me.

And having the government involved lessens the number of free riders -- people who have the benefit of living in a society that's not as poverty riven, but not paying for it at all.

Um, yeah, so my point is 297 is that it helps to have alternate news sources around. Quick, subscribe to the Christian Science Monitor before the print edition runs out!

297: right! That's what I said I thought way back early upthread! So what do I do about it? Should I cancel our internet service at home?

I think the difficulty, here, Brock, is that it is very hard to tell how big of a deal this is to you. According to your comments late in the thread, you must have been making a Hilarious Joke when you initially said you can no longer have sex with her or trust her with the children. But then, if the assumption is that it's really not a big deal at all; it's just a minor difference of opinion between two adults who love and care about each other, why are you so intermittently anguished about it? Is it that you're not sure how big of a deal it is to you? Sometimes you think you're afraid of who she's become, but then you think, "Oh, my wonderful wife"?

292 posted before seeing 291.

She just sees it as a moral imperative better served by private individuals and institutions than by (bloated, inefficient, unjust) government.

That's the sentiment informing a lot of small-l liberarian thinking, I gather. The only thing I've managed to say to people who argue this way is that, look: if you bring your broken car to 3 mechanics none of whom manage to fix it, you don't decide that all mechanics are incompetent. So, you don't decide that government in general is incapable of certain tasks (even if it might suffice for others). Note, this argument does not work, in my experience.

Nonetheless, I think it's the only way to go.

301, cont'd: Either you trust that she's a sane, good person who has sane, good reasons for thinking things you disagree with, or you're really not sure. The degree of your really-not-sureness is sort of mysterious.

Do I remember correctly that she's home with kids? Link her to some of the sane "mommy-bloggers." And I know enough Catholic social-justice folks in real life; they must be blogging too.

I know Halford is joking, but definitely don't approach it in a didactic way or in a competing-links way. If you do spouse-e-mail at all, I'd just start including the occasional link to wherever in your other notes. "Honey, I won't forget to bring home the milk -- btw, did you see this thing about food banks hitting hard times? What do you think?"

If you don't typically do spouse-e-mail, or ask her opinion on this sort of thing, of course, that will be darned hard to suddenly drop into the conversation. Hey! Honey! I just suddenly decided to start e-mailing you from work. No, I'm not feeling guilty...no, I'm not having an affair....hey, WHAT?

And, y'know, I wasn't kidding about the CSM. Their faith lens is IME very unlikely to conflict with Catholicism.

Is it that you're not sure how big of a deal it is to you?

I often have the experience that in a relationship, I can't tell how big a deal something is to me. One minute it'll seem like a deal-breaker, the next something I can shrug off.

The rule of thumb as I saw it stated was that a marriage has to have at least four compliments for every putdown or it won't survive. (And why would it? If it did, it would be miserable, yes?)

In the research this comes from, they asked couples who were going to be married to discuss their biggest problems for 30 minutes, then rated the interactions. Some of the effect they found may just be that couples with significant problems will tend to have more heated discussions than those with more minor problems.

With respect to Brock's problem, people believe all kinds of stupid stuff. If my wife became a libertarian, it honestly wouldn't bother me that much. I would stop talking about politics though.

IME, things irritate me in a relationship, and I mention how irritated I am to a friend, who asks if we're breaking up, at which point I start shifting gears and talking about how wonderful my partner is. Then, later, when the relationship ends in disaster, I realize how right I was to be irritated by that thing, and that it was a deal-breaker for me, but that I just couldn't, at that time, imagine a way out of the situation. YMMV.

for heaven's sake don't Taser me.

Tased is the new banned.

Can you arrange for more time around sane adults? My very kind, decent mother has become a hardcore wingnut in retirement, for which I mostly blame the talk radio that keeps her company during the large chunks of time she spends home alone. If Mrs. Landers is spending all her time with small children and the internet, she really shouldn't be expected to be all that responsible for her own mental state.

308 has been my experience too. I still do bitch about Jammies, and then if someone questions it I'd backpedal and explain how great he is. Possibly being in a permanent relationship means finding someone with whom you can maintain intermittent suppression of their irritating bits forever. And divorces come when it boils over.

Look, I've been joking around but AWB gets this exactly right. It's totally baffling as to whether you think this is serious or not. If you don't really care at anything other than a superficial level, go ahead and argue about the role of the state, forward internet sites, look for laffs a la Unfogged-style bullshitting, etc. (but don't, for god's sake expect to actually convince her of anything -- when was the last time THAT happened in a political argument). Roll with it. I'd suggest going easy on the jokes about never having sex again, but YMMV.

If it is a really big deal to you -- even if it's not a "dealbreaker" -- you're going to get absolutely nowhere with an intellectual argument about whether the state or private charity does a better job of taking care of the poor, and you both need to figure out a way to communicate your concern about what she thinks and where she's going but also allows you to treat each other with respect. That's a hard thing to do and something that takes a lot of work. To me, it sounds like you're serious, but what do I know.

I have no doubt that I can "shrug it off" if necesasry, i.e., I will not let it become a deal-breaker. But that's basically because I'm generally very amenable; I'd really, really like this not to be the case. I mean, if she'd tolerate good-natured mockery about it*, maybe that would be fine, but I think that would get old for her very fast. And if I can't mock libertarians, what have I left?

*By which I mean, if she could accept the fact that I found her political views completely asinine. I don't think she's deal well with that, but maybe I'm not giving her enough credit.

I'd really, really like this not to be the case

By "this", I mean "my wife is a libertarian".

And divorces come when it boils over.

Per AWB, Brock's pasta kettle has been splashing hot water all over the kitchen for some time now. Throw in the no-sex and whatnot, and... well.

I can understand perfectly why the concept of splitting up/divorce seems like the absolute worst thing in the world, so ignoring the increasingly painful issues in a bad situation may be the only way to cope.

If my wife became a libertarian, it honestly wouldn't bother me that much.

That's what I don't quite get - if everything else were just spifftastic, I don't see how the political conversion would be a deal-breaker. On the other hand, if there are problems everywhere you turn, then I could see how the transition away from 'decent liberal' [*] could be the straw that slices the camel in half.

max
['Blood, guts, all over.']

[*] It sounded so Mayflowery!

By which I mean, if she could accept the fact that I found her political views completely asinine. I don't think she's deal well with that, but maybe I'm not giving her enough credit.

Why should she be less able to cope with your political differences than you are?

I think that's really it, now that I've thought more: I'm not sure I care so much whether she's politically loony, but it's going to drive me nuts if I have to pretend to believe that looniness is a sensible and reasonable position in order to maintain domestic peace.

I've got the same confused "huge deal or no problem at all?" reaction Halford and Bear seem to have, but 313 clarifies it some. If this is something you could be okay with so long as you didn't have to tiptoe politely around, what's keeping you from not tiptoeing? She must know you disagree with her -- can't you just give her shit about it as you would if it weren't a touchy subject? You can be married to someone you disagree with about stuff, but pretending you're not disagreeing (or, rather, being all careful as if expressing disagreement is going to be a deadly insult) has got to be very difficult.

Why should she be less able to cope with your political differences than you are?

She thinks my views are more reasonable than I think hers are. (I think.)

That crossed with 316 and 317, which got much faster to exactly the same point.

317 -- OK, so don't. It's not at all unreasonable to ask your wife to allow you to tell her that her political beliefs are crazy, as long as you can make sure that she really knows that you don't think that she's crazy or that her political views are the symptom of some other kind of character flaw. Most couples have agreements to disagree like this about at least a few things, but you're both going to need a sense of humor.

but it's going to drive me nuts if I have to pretend to believe that looniness is a sensible and reasonable position in order to maintain domestic peace.

This makes sense. I really think you've got to be honest and tell her what her politics mean to you. Not so you can make snippy remarks in the future, but just so that you've stated exactly where you stand. Don't protect her from that.

can't you just give her shit about it as you would if it weren't a touchy subject?

I'm not totally sure why, but the answer definitely feels like "no". 319 is a big part of it, I think.

I should also say that this has been a very helpful conversation, Mineshaft. Thanks.

Was I the most helpful?

Because I'll keep helping. I'm not scared.

||

Which one of you insane people put a reggae cover of "Hotel California" on a mix?

|>

323: This is going to sound all marriage counseling-y, and I don't actually know anything about marriage counseling or therapy of any kind so I wouldn't particularly think it's a good idea to listen to me, but I think this is a real time for "I statements". She says something you disagree with like "We should shut down the public schools", you say "Golly, sweetheart, I've always believed government funding of early childhood education is not only morally imperative, but economically efficient as well." Not so much attacking her for being insane, but stating what you think where it's incompatible with what she's saying.

Only one answer: You've got to toughen her up with some jokes about aging and her weight. Then, you can make fun of the libertarianism and it will be like no problemo.

Okay, so 319: She thinks my views are more reasonable than I think hers are. (I think.)

Can you land for now with: I need to find your views more reasonable, and so far I'm having a really hard time with it.

I don't see how this can avoid policy discussion really. The proposal that private charity will take care of poverty is, if you strongly disagree with it, a recipe for and endorsement of the view that if it doesn't care of it, you don't care about those poor people. That's very disturbing. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that Brock is torn about whether he can treat this hypothetical position on his wife's part with equanimity.

325: Well, 49 was helpful in a way that was qualitatively different from the help offered by anyone else. So, there's that.

Brock, for what it's worth, I think since you two agree on the ends but not the means, so to speak, this is something you can fruitfully have a conversation about.

328: so, good example, because she said that the other day. And my response, which was something along the lines of what you've proposed, felt so restrained as to border on falsity.

331: I'll delete anything. Anything.

she said that the other day.

No shit, she said let's shut down the public schools? Wow, this is tricky,

333: Would it be disrespectful to, when she pulls shit like that, say, "Excuse me a moment," pull on an actual tinfoil hat, and then say, "You were saying?"?

What I'm suggesting is that she might need an illustration of where her views rest on the continuum of Right Thinking. Maybe invite the friendless IT guy from your office over to dinner to say things like, "Wow, that's really out there, Mrs. L."

I'm sorry that I have nothing to offer but humor.

I confess that I'm fascinated by why someone would think, now of all times, that private enterprise is the answer to public schooling or poverty reduction.

333 -- No bueno. You're not playing fair if she thinks that you're both having a respectful dialogue about public education and you think that she's off her rocker. Seriously, I'm leaning towards the "this is a big deal" camp -- you need to figure out some better way of communicating around this issue. I don't agree with 332, or at least you need to have some awesome relationship skillz to make the conversation work, because you obviously think that she really is nuts on this topic and it also obviously really makes you nervous.

282: Way back, but could I just answer the question posed on Side 1 of that postcard?

Ahem:

No, because it's fucking EMPTY, you RETARD.

Thanks. I feel better now.

Disregarding all the falsehoods and scaremongering on the other side, it really fucking pains me as a marketing professional to see something like this done so poorly.

The public schools thing is a little disconcerting, innit? We see that Brock is a little disturbed.

I'm trying to think if there's a pattern here: so far, privatize public schools, poverty reduction. It's a particular emphasis in limiting the redistribution of wealth.

Mmm. For "let's shut down the public school system", maybe a combination of gently chosen "I statements," and some pointing and laughing, accompanied by inquiries as to whether if she's going to be smoking crack, why she isn't sharing it with you.

341: right, so we're back to 319. I think that's the crux of the problem.

338: yes, in my view it *is* a big deal. I don't want to get divorced over it. People for whatever reason seem to be having a hard time with that idea: as if it's either got to be something over which I'm about to walk away from the relationship, or a trivial non-issue. There's a pretty big middle-ground there, at least for me.

Be respectful, but don't sugarcoat either. That's my advice. Seriously, though, the Ugly Naked Guy complained in the end about feeling like he was always walking on eggshells around me. I, in turn, had found it annoying as fuck to constantly feel like he was always telling me only precisely what he thought I wanted to hear. Neither one of you can live like that for long.

In case 342 wasn't clear, one of you should now tell me how to solve the problem. Thanks.

343 --- YES YES YES we have a bingo. There is zero need to get divorced over the issue, but you are going to need to figure out a good way to talk about it. Ignoring the problem away or hoping it will change will almost certainly not work. I'm a big fan of marriage counseling, if you can find someone good -- and no, going to counseling does not meant that you're "headed towards a divorce." If you don't go that route, at least try a decent self help book or maybe check in with someone in Church. There are actually skills here that are real and can be learned.

I agree with 344. It's incredibly bizarre to feel like your partner thinks you're so crazy that your thoughts cannot even be discussed. What are you afraid will happen?

341, 342, 344: At this point, I think making fun of her is the respectful option. If it's something you really can't honestly engage with straightforwardly, like shutting down the public school system, don't engage, but don't pretend you're engaging; give her shit about it the way you would a friend with some loopy ideas, and talk about something else. If she wants to persuade you that it all makes sense, listen, but don't pretend she's making sense to you if she really isn't at all.

You can be respectful and loving and supportive on other subjects.

Not that I'm a model of the perfect wife, but I would have been mocking this for days now: "A = A. You want the woman, you take the woman, and she will like it."

345: Maybe you should start by trying to see her views as reasonable. Which is not to say agree with them. But really, you don't think she's an idiot. Is it so impossible to imagine that she has some intelligent thoughts on this question? Which is to say, I think you need to start by not assuming the problem here is her.

Still think she needs more interaction with sane adults. If she's thinking like a socially isolated teenager, maybe it's because she's feeling a bit like one.

350, me.

Is it so impossible to imagine that she has some intelligent thoughts on this question?

On the question of whether to shut down the public schools? I'm not personally acquainted with Mrs. Landers, but I'm finding that fairly impossible.

I feel that 348 should also reference 336 as a model of respectful fun-making.

I say this not out of any egoism (I'm no Objectivist, you know), but simply to keep the record clear.

Not all IT guys are crazy wingers, JRoth.

Is she going to home school your children?

351 bears repeating. I don't know how many intelligent women I know have had babies and then felt incredibly isolated intellectually, and sucked into groups, IRL or online, that tried to move them away from long-held beliefs. I have a friend here in the neighborhood who nearly burst into tears while we were having brunch together one day because I asked her about her poetry. Not a lot of conversation about personal intellectual labor among the Park Slope mommy contingent.

Really, I wouldn't be able to handle "shut down the public schools" without asking what the hell the rationale is.

We're hammering on this theme now, but really: you have to talk about it. The woman is not stupid, and presumably has some reasoning for this. You're probably asking the wrong people if you don't want to hear "discuss it" as a general theme.

Brock, I think a few folks are a lot more willing to think about divorce in a situation like this (including me), but that doesn't mean that you need to leap to hearing us say that's an inevitable conclusion of the state you're in. For you divorce isn't an option that you would consider in this situation, and that's cool and something we should all respect (and folks, I read a few of us as suggesting that divorce was a likely outcome--let's trust Brock to read his situation correctly when he says it isn't).

That being said, it's obviously a big deal. I frankly think you need to nut up and have the conversation, especially emphasizing that it's a very big deal to you and that you want to find a way to talk about it that's respectful and emotionally safe. I outlined my suggested approach above, but it's your relationship, you know what works with your wife.

One caveat--and I'm probably going to get a bit reamed for saying this, but I'll take the hits--it's less than a year since your most recent kid was born, right? And I'd guess that while you're doing your best to be a responsible co-parent and share in household tasks, work prevents you from doing enough for it to feel equitable from her perspective. She's most likely exhausted and as if she's getting a bit of the shaft, no matter what you do. (Can you tell I'm projecting here? We worked it out, but it was a tough 9 months.) Anyway, IF my conjectures are accurate your wife may be more than just a bit irrational at the moment (mostly exhaustion, possibly some postpartum hormonal stuff) [There's where I'm gonna get beaten up, most likely.]

So what do you do with that? If you can, and if you don't see her making extraordinarily bad choices that will impact the future (taking your savings and investing in land in remote Idaho), you may just want to grit your teeth until after your kid's first birthday. Shit gets a lot easier after that, even with the second one. It's a lot easier to have rational discussions when both parties are well(ish) rested and rational.

I been through this whole thing with my brother/father/mother from 2000-6, and with each one of them required a different approach. The key is understanding why your wife took a turn for the worse, politically. Is this an intellectual thing or a social thing? Argumentation generally won't fix these type of things, unless she's just read Hayek and is thus infatuated. Odds are, the solution is to come up with a modus vivendi and wait it out.

327. If it's the skatalites, me.

Josh's mix looks great, but I'm having a hard time swinging the 100M download.

Not all IT guys are crazy wingers, JRoth.

Methinks, &c.

I did add "friendless."

I haven't followed the thread that carefully, and obviously there's a big discontinuity between a spouse or other loved one and other friends, but a lot of the thread seems really extreme to me, because it seems obviously true to me that it's normal to have friends with whom you have deep political disagreements.

Also, Brock, as much as I feel for you, I've also been using this thread to procrastinate off and on on a hugely important task (filling out 6 months of expense reports for the job I was laid off from 3 weeks ago) that is like pulling teeth for me. Somebody slap me if I show up here again without noting that the task is finished.

Whoop, skadaddyz, not skatalites.

If it's the skatalites, me.

No, definitely reggae, not ska.

Majek Fashek.

Incidentally, I believe my sister would like the skatilites one - she's a fan of theirs, and I think can tolerate some Eagles.

OT: Can Baby Jesus please make Indiana stop changing back and forth from pink to blue and back on fivethirtyeight.com? It's really nerve-wracking for some reason.

367: I'm also obsessed with the difference between 364 and 375 electoral votes, but other than Nate defining 375+ as landslide I don't know why.

363: IANAMP. I will also never be a married person, precisely for the reason that the idea of coming home everyday to someone who gradually changes before your eyes into someone whose ethics/worldview is so radically different from my own that I no longer trust that they are sane, and make me feel not an ounce of lust for them, and yet whom I expect to remain my life partner until death, makes me want to die. So all comments above about divorce should be taken with a grain of "but of course AWB would rather die than be married under these circumstances in the first place." OTOH, I don't think I'm alone in this thread for assuming that divorce was the road Brock was headed down. Knowing that it's off the table, so to speak, means negotiations without preconditions are of utmost importance.

I have a little money down on BHO with 350+, but it was mostly to buck up a friend from NV who fears a loss.

370: At even odds I don't love that bet.

Personally, I'm not someone who is inspired by self-protective cynical pessimism. (Not-bald Chris, I'm looking at you!) I understand this is a minority Dem position.

Can we distinguish Jim-Henleyesque libertarianism from "I have a quote from Atlas Shrugged tattooed across my abdomen" libertarianism?

Yes, please. A great many libertarians have joined the democratic party. We will be more successful in banishing the republican party to the exile they've earned if we can get along. Intelligent outsiders can distinguish between liberals such as, say, LB and McManus, so surely liberals can distinguish between reasonable and crazy libertarians.

Maybe it's time for us libertarian-leaning democrats (who've been working our tails off to get Obama elected!) to take back the word liberal. We had it for a few hundred years before you "social liberals" appropriated it.

because it seems obviously true to me that it's normal to have friends with whom you have deep political disagreements.

Yeah, me too. Especially since this seems like a recent thing.

373, see 199.

368: You're obsessed with Missouri?

356: an unresolved question.

351/357/359 are all in line with what I originally suggested. I'm not sure what to do about it. Should I introduce her to the Mineshaft? (Hint: no.)

And on 359, yes, she's undeniably overworked and exhausted.

Should I introduce her to the Mineshaft? (Hint: no.)

In fairness, this would give her something equally absurd to mock you about.

373: Intelligent outsiders can distinguish between liberals such as, say, LB and McManus, so surely liberals can distinguish between reasonable and crazy libertarians.

I wouldn't call LB crazy, exactly.

We just discussed Brock's problem Chez Carp. (Probably the third or fourth time ever an Unfogged thread has come up here.) The wife said therapy. Simone was more accomodating, but is self-interested: she's been looking forward to meeting a guy from the wife's office, and finally met him today. He's undecided in the election. But thinking Ron Paul is the only real maverick in the race. (The right answer would have been 'I'm going canvassing for Obama over the weekend, would you like to come.')

377 --> 356 -- That's not an agree to disagree kind of thing, obviously. But far enough away that you don't have to resolve it now.

I suppose the overwork and isolation are things you can work to mitigate now, even without mentioning the political views . . .

373 -- It's tautological, in that I would hesitate to call anyone who couldn't distinguish between the politics of Elbee and BMcM 'intelligent.' There are, however, vast hordes in the rightward regions who show no sign of an ability to make this kind of distinction. Even without the recent inspiration from Joe the Plumber, there were people calling Obama 'far left.' To such persons -- eg my brother the Minneapolitan -- the only logical response is 'you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word 'far' or the word 'left.''

There's only one Minneapolitan, and he's far left and proud! Your supposed brother is an imposter.

351/357/359 are all in line with what I originally suggested. I'm not sure what to do about it.

Start by nixing the homeschooling idea. That way lies Galt's Gulch. Beyond that, dinners, weekend excursions, and the like with friends, planned to keep child care from crowding out adult conversation. If you don't have time for that because you're working too much, you may have some thinking and talking to do about how income gets generated and who does what to keep the family going.

Your supposed brother is an imposter conservative whack job.

Never to be confused with small m minneapolitan.

376: No, Indiana. Obama has a better chance of getting Missouri and not Indiana than he does of Indiana and not Missouri.

Oops. Thought Indiana had 10 electors. Silly monkey.

There's a capital-M Minneapolitan? Huh.

383: This gets it right, if there was any idea of home schooling, but even if not, the getting out more / adjusted arrangement of child care sounds splendid.

There have been recent studies showing that Minnesota (like Oregon) is a moderate state because it has a nice mix of very strongly liberal and very strongly conservative. The Minnesota Democratic Party is among the ten most liberal, and the Minnesota Republican Party is one of the ten most conservative. Most years the Democrats have a very slight advantage, though this year should be better and we might take 2 of the 3 Republican seats.

And we also have Jesse Ventura's former party, which gets 10-20% of the vote.

I should add that only two Minnesotans in Congress are "very liberal": Ellison and McCollum. Right now three Republicans (1 moderate 2 wacko) and 5 Democrats (2 liberal, 3 centrist or conservative).

No slapping needed, at long fucking last I'm goddamn done. What a weight off my shoulders!

----
381: You have a brother in Minneapolis? Do you ever visit him here? If so, can you sneak away sometime for a beer and/or mini-meetup?

390 -- It's funny: I fly Northwest most of the time, and so find myself in MSP with a couple hours to spare two or three times a year. He'll come get me at the airp, and we'll have dinner or something. If you're over that way, I'll be happy to try for a beer some time.

391: Great, yeah. I live in St. Paul. E-mail addy below, drop me a line next time you're going to be around and up for it.

I would lean towards either: "Look, I think those views are loony/morally bankrupt, & I'm really disturbed that you hold them--knowing that, would you prefer that we hash this out at length, or can we not discuss this stuff for a while?" or giving her crap.

I won't claim that this is actually good advice--I've always thought, that while I recognize that people with vastly different political views could be wonderful people & while in theory it shouldn't be a dealbreaker, in practice I would probably be so obnoxious about it & handle it so badly & be so disturbed that I'd either reprogram them or annoy them so much that the relationship ended.

(filling out 6 months of expense reports for the job I was laid off from 3 weeks ago)

So sorry, Chopper. And you hadn't been at that job all that long and really seemed to like it. Good luck finding a new one.

278: Mario Cuomo had a good formulation of this in his 1984 convention speech:

We believe in only the government we need, but we insist on all the government we need.

(Although this part is far more important to me:

We believe that while survival of the fittest may be a good working description of the process of evolution, a government of humans should elevate itself to a higher order.

|| Oh hey, Katherine! If you're still around. How are you doing with the pregnancy and the move and general chaoticness of life?

|>

394--

No worries, BG. I mentioned this elsewhere, but I got a nice(ish) severance package, sufficient to last us until maybe mid-March without a lot in the way of belt-tightening, and I already had a couple irons in the fire. The ideal scenario would be for one of those irons to work out, and for me to join an old boss at his new company in January, but I have a backup plan in progress with another company, and am continuing to network and look at opportunities.

It's a bit nerve-wracking to be unemployed in this economy, but I'm fairly confident that things are going to work out. My biggest worry of the moment is that I may get a job offer from my backup company before my old boss confirms that he has the headcount for next year to hire me. It would be tough to pass up a bird in the hand for an even better one that is likely, but may not materialize.

Good to hear you've got some backup options, Chopper, but you should definitely BURN SHIT DOWN anyway, just on principle.

There has been a lot of good advice in this thread. It all comes down to maintaining communication and respect. Bear in mind that the occasional big argument and even the occasional screaming row are part of the bargain. Sometimes you really need to just strip things down to essentials and have it all out. As long as the fight resolves after the fact (perhaps several days later) into a respectful discussion, it's a healthy thing. Unhealthy fights are the ones you have over and over with no forward movement at all, or the ones that just begin to get started and then one person walks out or shuts down.

A big fight can be helpful because in the heat of the moment things are said unfiltered and that can be the starting point for dealing with underlying issues. It can also be the moment when it is revealed that mutual respect is seriously endangered or even gone. Better to know so you can deal with it.

I just caught up on this thread. Wow.

First thing: it's totally possible to have different values within a family.

My father is a serious libertarian: he refuses to take the census, he wouldn't fill out financial aid applications for his children's colleges, he believes that small, efficient, local government works best. Since this is a life-long, core value system, he's also learned how to live in the world as it is.

My mother, on the other hand, is a Mormon communitarian. Who mistrusts the federal government because of all its tyranny, of course. But she does all the charity work and church service that my dad really thinks is laughable.

They get along great, despite these differences: they enjoy travelling together, they both love their children and grandchildren to bits, and they've found ways to alleviate the tensions between them. They are totally weird people, mind you, and weird in different ways from each other. But it can work.

Second thing: you need to be talking to your wife about this shit. Not about social contract theory and the optimal rate of taxation. That stuff is as important to your marriage, your everyday life, your future, as the batting average of the Oakland A's in 1980 would be. I mean, don't you guys talk about anything else? How about a weekend away in the country? Can you get a family member to babysit for a while? Get offline, enjoy each other's company, look at some trees changing color. You both sound a little lonely and overheated.

It's like he can read my mind:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/10/as-a-conservative-i-must-say-i-do-quite-like-the-cut-of-this-obama-fellows-jib.html

How about a weekend away in the country?

Yeah, like I said, go drive over some off-road vegetation and wildlife, go shoot something, drink beer.

Blow off some steam.

But since we are at 400 comments am I the only one to detect that Brock the Candyman is atrollin' in this case?

I'm pretty sure he pulled my leg. Or something.

am I the only one to detect that Brock the Candyman is atrollin' in this case?

I don't even know what this would mean in this context.

396: hi! We're settled in nicely in Boston--the frantic apt. search paid off & the move went smoothly as those things go. The third trimester is a giant pain in the ass though--bad heartburn, congestion, which combine to lead to nausea, all of which makes it impossible to sleep more than three hours or on less than six pillows-- as is my job.

This thread is clearly dead, but along with the advice in 400 and 200 and listening to Megan and Cala and Witt, &c., you might want to put a bit of thought into just how much your own political views are shaped by the echo chamber you (like all of us to one degree or another) inhabit.

Quite frankly, it's entirely reasonable to look at the past 8 years and conclude that the American system of government is a complete disaster; it's not crazy to look at the past 350 years and think much the same about the Westphalian nation-state more generally. I'm not saying you should either BURN SHIT DOWN! or start homeschooling, but since, A, neither you nor your wife is likely to be pivotal in bringing down the USA, and B, there are quite reasonable arguments for thinking the USA as presently constituted is a moral disaster of epic proportions, what's the big deal with some radicalism?

It's not just that you need to learn how to talk to her respectfully or whatever; you need to stop *thinking* about her with such contempt, and the Mineshaft isn't going to help with that (though perhaps Bob McManus & Emerson could give you a reading list that would). Radicalism isn't crazy in a world where we're psyched that only, what, 43% of our voters want Permanent War Forever, and where the sane choice is promising an increase in the size of our military (which will sooner or later be in the hands of another republican militarist, guaranteed).

It doesn't sound like she currently has a completely worked-out political theory, but neither do you, and neither does anyone. The problem here isn't simply "she's flipping out because of other stuff and has gone crazy"; I suspect it's also that *you're* much less tolerant of these political positions than you otherwise would be for the exact same reasons, esp. the election.