I read a review of Patrick J. Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed and immediately
put a hold on the book with the JOCO library. (The Kansas City library does not
yet offer the book. But we have a streetcar.) I don’t remember what the review
said, but the book was not what I was expecting, which would have been something
similar to Thomas Frank’s Listen,
Liberal.
The book, published by the Yale University Press, is
ponderous. The author is a political science professor at Notre Dame. I began
his book thinking, “There must be a pony in here somewhere,” but alas, no pony.
I ended Dr. Deneen’s book not knowing exactly what points he is trying to make.
First, I’m not sure what he means by “liberalism.” At times it seems liberalism
is whatever leads to consequences Dr. Deneen does not like. At times it seems
the book has more dog whistles than you’d find at Petsmart. At other times the
book seems more like the musings of Miniver Cheevy in need of a drink, harking
back to an ideal age that never existed. For example, Dr. Deneen, through
Wendell Berry, novelist, poet, environmental
activist, cultural critic, and farmer, a spokesperson he uses often, criticizes
the breakdown of communities as places of constraint and limits. This is not
new. This breakdown has been going on for hundreds of years, as people shake
off the shackles of restrictive hometowns and relocate to places they can
become their own people, which does not meet with Dr. Deneen’s approval. What
some of us would call freedom, individualism and making our own personal
decisions about marriage, children, where to live, etc., Dr. Deneen calls
selfishness. I find it amazing there is never a shortage of people to tell us
our decisions, when they do not conform to societal expectations, are
“selfish.”
Dr.
Deneen uses his puppet, Wendell Berry, to defend a community’s prerogative to
demand certain books be removed from the educational curriculum and insist on
the Bible’s introduction into the classroom as the word of God.
Dr.
Deneen notes the many current dystopian films, TV series, books, etc. as
examples of society’s fears of technology. He says, “Most examples of this
recent genre seems (sic) to reflect a widespread foreboding about a shared
sense of powerlessness and even the potential for a new kind of bondage to the
very technology that is supposed to liberate us.” I would propose this genre is
currently a moneymaker for the dystopian industrial complex and is being
reinforced in order to keep it profitable. I suspect the fears reflected are as
valid as the fears reflected in the early 1950s films about giant insects
resulting from radiation.
Dr.
Deneen’s not too sold on the internet. In fact, Dr. Deneen is not sold on much
in modern society. I agree with him on some issues, including the desirability
of an education that includes the liberal arts and humanities. I certainly
agree with him and his puppet on consumption. He criticizes the need to spend
beyond our incomes and rightly points out this is not sustainable either on a
personal or a national level. He does have a point about the hypocrisy of the
elites for having stable family lives, children, and all the trappings of upper
middle-class society while not expecting those on the lower economic rungs to
follow suit. I’m not sure what Dr. Deneen would have them do about the fact
people choose different paths, but he points out elites benefit from the
situation by being able to find affordable nannies, gardeners, tutors, and day
care.
When
it comes to solutions, the book has a few. We should minimize our participation
in the economy (an idea I proposed in Political
Frugality), learn to do such things as building, fixing, cooking, planting,
preserving, and composting for ourselves. Dr. Deneen proposes intentional
communities based on an ideal past that never was. I’d have some reservations
about these communities. They could work out, but they could also develop into
cults—especially when religion is mixed into the witches’ brew. But, even
though Dr. Deneen seems opposed to nonconformity, I’m happy to allow him to be
a nonconformist and join a cult if he wishes. I won’t even call him selfish.
I saw on what passes for a nightly news program at
ABC a brief mention of the FIRE movement, that is Financial Independence,
Retire Early. There’s a formula for this kind of news. A happy family or two is
shown enjoying their early retirement and then some scold is brought on to
dissuade the rest of us from having any such delusions. In this case the scold
was some blogger who said early retirees would have to watch their expenses,
and that’s no fun. Just stay chained to your desk twelve hours a day for the
next forty or fifty years. Don’t even think of leaving! Now that’s fun!
As I’ve said on many occasions, frugality and
financial independence will never get objective treatment from media that are
dependent on advertising and consumption. And in today’s economy, with an
alleged shortage of workers, leaving the workforce before you’re on your
deathbed is not likely to be viewed positively.
What I found funny was the reporter claimed to be
speaking to the person who came up with the idea (and I didn’t catch who that
was). The fact is the idea’s been around a long time. I picked it up when I
watched the 1938 film Holiday with
Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. The theme was repeated in 1988 by Paul
Terhorst in Cashing in on the American
Dream: How to Retire at 35, one of two books that changed my life. At any
rate it was interesting to learn there’s a new generation of financially
independent early retirees.
Somehow that led me to Jacob Lund Fisker’s Early Retirement Extreme: A Philosophical
and Practical Guide to Financial Independence, another book the JOCO
library has that the Kansas City libraries do not. But then JOCO does not have
a streetcar. The book is heavy on the philosophical reasons one might not want
to spend a life working eight hours a day forever. The book is a challenge to
read. Dr. Fisker has a PhD in theoretical physics, and he writes like a PhD in
theoretical physics. The book has many formulas. One of the formulas, as Dr.
Fisker points out, is similar to a mortgage amortization schedule. A personal
note here, the first time I saw an amortization schedule showing over 30 years
I’d be paying more than $100,000 on a $13,000 loan, it occurred to me that the
same thing would apply to savings over time if I made regular payments to
myself, and that got me started saving.
Dr. Fisker says he became financially independent
after working five years. As of 2010, when the book was published, he and his
wife were living in an RV probably on a much lower scale than many of us would
choose, but it’s their choice. Some of the things Dr. Fisker questions strike
me as odd. For example, several times he suggests refrigerators are not
necessary, and he’s not too fond of freezers, either. He dislikes the noise
they make, among other things. He suggests living near a store and buying what
we need daily. He is realistic on occasion; he says clothing is so inexpensive
these days it doesn’t pay to make it ourselves. On the other hand, he suggests
we grow our own food. Dan puts in a garden, and we love what we get from his
garden, but if you consider only the economics, frozen vegetables are cheaper
and much easier to work with, and so far we don’t have to fight the squirrels
for the food in the freezer. On a side note, we have a pear tree that is
amazingly prolific. I think I’ve had maybe two pears from the tree. The minute
the pears are ripe enough the tree rats attack. As Dan says, “It looks like the
migrant workers have been here and stripped the tree of its fruit.”
The book is an interesting take on retiring early. In
my own Beating the System I suggested
looking at work as a twenty-year sentence. The time line could be shorter
depending on motivation, which brings me to the happy news that Vicki Robin has
updated Your Money or Your Life (the
other book that changed my life).
That’s the book to go to if you’re serious about becoming financially
independent. The book has a nine-step program for determining when you’re able
to leave your job, so you won’t have to rely on Dr. Fisker’s claim of five
years or my suggestion that twenty might be more reasonable. You’ll be able to
determine your own timeline.
And remember, just because you become financially
independent, you don’t have to leave your job. But when you’re financially
independent, you won’t have to put up with as much crap at your job, either.
© 2018 Larry Roth
Along with Deneen's commentary on intentional communities , check out Rod Dreher's blog at The American Conservative, and his writing (and book) on what he calls "The Benedict Option" - which is intended for small "o" orthodox Christians to preserve the core of the Christian faith - but he recommends it to everyone in order to trend against what he calls "liquid modernity." Food for thought in any case.
ReplyDeleteAlso want to recommend "God Save Texas" by Lawrence Wright - agree or disagree, some lively writing and punches being thrown.
And YES, your books were way ahead of their time - which is why I still have multiple copies of them and give them away to young college graduates as gifts. It is never too early to wise up.
Thanks for the recommendation. I put a hold on "The Benedict Option" at the JOCO library. I'll at least skim it. One advantage people like Dr. Deneen have is Americans don't seem to have a grasp of history and don't realize that the road to ruin they see ahead is a continuation of a very long road that goes back in time a long way.
ReplyDelete