Charles Murray and personal responsibility

by Kakofonous

I recently read Charles Murray's Real Education, and agreed with much of what it had to say. Murray's central point is that the American education system is not being realistic (hence the title) about its priorities for success. For example, one chapter is devoted to explaining the intellectual capacity required to succeed in a rigorous college environment (hint: it's much, much higher than the average), and the consequent lack of objectivity and honesty in political policy initiatives to bring college to all. He ends up recommending a system of certification for many professions that would serve as a viable alternative to the bachelor's degree, allowing a faster, cheaper, and more productive alternative to a four-year college for the majority of American students entering the workplace. He also suggests that this system would also create workers more satisfied with their work and career choice, since vocational education and the certification system would make it acceptable to pursue a career as, say, an electrician, directly after high school graduation if one had talent with one's hands. The talented aspiring electrician would not feel the financial and social sting of lacking a BA, and would be able to start his or her career earlier.

Having been impressed by the book, I was interested to discover this speech he delivered a little more than a year ago at the American Enterprise Institute: "The Happiness of the People". Here, he uses the same theme of satisfaction with one's work and life articulated in Real Education to provide the first real justification I have ever heard for why personal responsibility should trump collective responsibility: once the government steps in to provide a service, the local, interpersonal network that had worked toward achieving that goal for itself becomes obsolete, and thus civic and social engagement is useless.

While I do not accept this theory as it applies to health care (what civic engagement is there is purchasing health insurance?), it does make me curious to read his book on this development and consequences of the US welfare program: Losing Ground, which will hopefully provide more data in favor of this view of government. The speech offers scant evidence; Murray relies primarily on vague promises of future scientific discoveries in his favor, as well as some examples not supported by rigorous statistical backing.

Also: it appears that, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, my semi-agreement with Paul Ryan in my recent post on health care reform was mostly unfounded.