Tom Harris: blogging vs "politics"

Tom Harris is complaining about the appallingly low level of “debate” prompted by this post of his.
However - to paraphrase Enoch Powell - a politician complaining about a poor quality argument is like a fish complaining about water.
Harris’s original point was:

There are more two-car homes in Britain today than there are homes without a car at all. We live longer, eat healthier (if we choose), have better access to forms of entertainment never imagined a generation ago (satellite TV, DVD, computer games), the majority of us have fast access to the worldwide web, which we use to enable even more spending and for entertainment. Crime is down.
So why is everyone so bloody miserable?

This, of course, is just a rehash of the Easterlin paradox, that GDP growth is not associated with rising happiness. So what would an intelligent debate look like?
It’d first establish the facts; recent research has shed doubt upon whether the paradox actually exists. And Tom gives us no hard evidence to show that everyone is bloody miserable.
It’d also suggest reasons why the paradox might exist if it does. Maybe people just get accustomed (pdf) to their higher living standards and so eventually don’t feel happier. Or maybe other people’s affluence (pdf) has negative spillovers, for example by making the roads more congested. Or maybe (or not (pdf)) we regard (pdf) wealth as a positional good; we care not about how rich we are, but how rich we are relative to others.
It’d also ask: who cares if people are happier or not? Should utility really be the goal of either individual lives or of policy? What about other values such as liberty or the pursuit of excellence? As the man said, better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
And then we could ask: if the Easterlin paradox does exist, so what? Is it really an argument against economic growth? Maybe not, because greater wealth increase our real freedom. Does it suggest conservative conclusions - be happy with what you’ve got - or radical ones: the rich are making us unhappy, so we should tax them?
If Tom wants a debate about these issues, fine. I, and many others, will chip in. But Tom’s got a choice. If he wants intelligent debate, he should be a blogger. If he doesn’t, he should stick to what is (mistakenly) called politics. He can’t, as he has discovered, have both.

Comments

[Matt Cain]

I often find myself in agreement with what you write. However, to suggest that it is only possible to engage in proper debate if you are a blogger - and that politics is incapable of such debate - is foolish. You've also failed to provide supporting evidence; something for which you'd be quick to criticise others.

[chris]

I'm not saying politics is incapable of producing intelligent debate, merely that the probability of it doing so is low - lower than you get on the better blogs.
And I do think we should err on the side of counter-hegemony here. There are too many people who equate blogging with the half-wit comments left at CIF. Why shouldn't we counter this by claiming that proper blogs represent the high ground?

[james higham]

Shocked by your last paragraph, Chris - have to completely agree.

[a very public sociologist]

Lol, who constitutes the "proper blogs"?

[Blissex]

My explanation to the paradox lies in the difference between being content and happy, where contentdness is about past and present fulfilment, while happiness is about future fulfilment.

Someone starving who know that he will get fed tomorrow will be not content but happy; someone well fed who know that it won't last will be content but not happy.

If rich people feel miserable may be because being content does not imply being happy, if expectations for the future are uncertain or lower, even if purely on a material level.

[Bishop Hill]

Maybe it's just that everyone Tom Harris speaks to is suddenly overcome with a fit of depression. It must happen to a lot of politicians.

[chris]

A story to support Blissez's claim.
A chap was giving a lecture on sexology. He asked his audience: "how many of you have sex more than once a week?"
Hands went up.
He asked: "how many have it 2-3 times a month?"
More hands went up.
He asked: "how many have it once a month?" Fewer hands were raised.
Finally, he asked: "who has it once a year or less?"
Just one hand went up, from a man grinning widely.
The lecturer asked: "why then are you so happy?"
He replied: "Because it's tonight."

[true religion outlet]

Do we really want our schools and hospitals to be run like a typical branch of PC World or Sainsburys?
Instead, he says, what matters are than the services be well run - in particular, that they “get the right people on the bus”, people of ability and motivation.
In this respect, asdfhospitals and schools have a huge advantage over many private sector jobs.