When you cite Hungary's family policies (which is fine to do! They are fascinating and have some good stuff to them!), *do not turn your brain off*.
I want to be clear, I genuinely and sincerely do believe that @gjpappin has made important contributions to the debate on family policy, and indeed that US conservatives really can learn from our Hungarian counterparts. thepublicdiscourse.com/2021/04/75329/
Nor do I think there's anything untowards or fundamentally bad about conservatives seeing another country doing some stuff we like, and feeling a since of fellowship with the people doing it.
But love demands discipline. Friends tell you the truth. Fellows sharpen each other. If you only debate your enemies, then you have crap for allies.
Conservatives have got to have better debates among themselves. Family policy is a nascent area where the debate is still being outlined. We should make sure it shapes up in a good way.
And folks, pro-natalism and Orbanism are not the same thing! Orban wasn't even seriously pro-natal until like 2015!
Learn from Hungary. But don't become Hungary.
And folks, what we can learn from Hungary is that competent economic management + throwing piles of cash at families is a RECIPE FOR SUCCESS.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, as an aside, if you read my whole comment, which I'm happy to see @eliza_relman used, this tweet I'm QTing is like a prima facie example of The Problem.
The article is here, and btw the article is full of a lot of extremely non-neutral language (it's marked as politics news, but it's clearly an editorial), but nonetheless Relman did manage to quote precisely one conservative (me): businessinsider.com/republican-bab…
This is a cool paper. They use Norwegian data to track people before, during, and after college attendance. And they exploit a quirk of Norway's admission system: there's a lot of hard cutoffs and quasi-random variation in admission. #NBERday
There's even hard cutoffs and quasi-random variation in what *field of study* a person can enroll in. Everybody applies to a centralized system and is allocated out to schools. You apply to a field and a school simultaneously. #NBERday
A friend in Canada contacted her member of parliament about the bill which extends euthanasia to people with severe mental illness.
This was the response (from an MP who *opposes* the extension to mental health cases):
So, first off, I was not aware that Canada had US-style judicial review, and conducted by *provincial* courts at that. You live and you learn I guess. Imagine if a Texan court could nullify US law!
But more broadly, this is a case where I really think Canadian politeness is doing a bad thing.
The correct response here is to call the court's bluff. Let them void the law. Allow the cavalcade of horrors of totally unregulated euthanasia to occur. It will create an outcry.
"If it's a tie, we do nothing. We only take measures we know have huge benefits. If it's not clear there are huge benefits, we will quite literally criminalize it."
In a just and rational world, the government needs to *definitively prove* giving the vaccine is *harmful* in order to *deny my right* to take a risk with my own body.
ESPECIALLY since it's increasingly apparent that these vaccines DO reduce transmission, we should be vaccinating even if individual-level risks are slightly against the vaccine, because vaccinating people may save lives beyond their own.
A good model of (intentional) fertility is: "People have children when they feel ready to take care of them, and readiness is primarily proxied by their assets and debts rather than their income."
Indeed, if a tight labor market boosts wages and labor demand and causes people to believe they can boost their net worth rapidly by working now and then having kids *later*, then tight labor markets could theoretically *reduce* fertility.
10/10 would do again, it worked very well and was highly effective and probably contributed meaningfully to the fall of communism, unlike like ya know the CIA's entire Latin American portfolio, which was probably worthless.
provide material support to actual live, existing "enemy of my enemy" folks who are willing to actually fight wars that serve our interests
things intelligence agencies should not do:
alienate millions of people in our backyard by toppling elected leaders simply because they advocate for bad policies despite the fact they pose zero strategic threat to the US