My, he’s gonna make some lucky woman very happy one day

My fellow Conservatives, why do you want people to suffer so? What is it about misery that you value so highly? Forgive my sarcasm. It is a natural reaction to this tripe from Matt Yglesias (the emphasis belongs to Yglesias):

This put me in mind of Monica Potts’ review of Kay Hymowitz:

“Before [today], the fact is that primarily, a 20-year-old woman would have been a wife and a mother,” author Kay Hymowitz told the crowd of about 100 at the Manhattan Institute in New York City. Men would have been mowing lawns and changing the oil in their family sedans instead of playing video games and watching television. In previous decades, adults in their 20s and 30s were too busy with real life for such empty entertainment, Hymowitz says. “They didn’t live with roommates in Williamsburg in Brooklyn and Dupont Circle in D.C.”

Hymowitz’s argument, essentially, is that not only has feminism opened up new doors of opportunity to women, but it’s helped contribute to the growth of a society in which young men are less crushed down with family and household obligations and are spending more time enjoying themselves. Except she means this as a bad thing! In both cases the conservative conceit seems to be that a decline in human suffering is a bad thing because it leads to a corresponding decline in admirable anti-suffering effort….

We can argue whether the unobligated life equates to a happy life but to refer to men who have chosen to be family men as “crushed down” belies a liberal conceit. A certain amount of selfishness is necessary for happiness but a life based on selfishness alone is at best boring and at worst, lonely.

I suspect that Mr. Yglesias is incapable of understanding the joy that is inherent in the mundane trappings of the family life. Given the choice between hot dogs in the back yard and, well, anything else “anything else” would be the hands down winner. It makes me feel sorry for Yglesias. But on the other hand, I’ll happily breathe a sigh of relief on behalf of those never to be born children who will be spared the unhappiness of his uninterested parenting.

What is He Suggesting?

Consider this from Matthew Yglesias:

We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed. (emphasis added)

How does Yglesias suggest that it be changed? I would remind Yglesias that the Democrats have the White House, the Senate and the House. They can do any damn thing they want and there is not a whole lot the Republicans can do about it. The Left's problem has nothing to do with "the minority"; their problem is that even Democrats face re-election and as such, some of them, and occasionally enough of them, balk at backing a far Left agenda. So unless Yglesias is suggesting that the entire election process be chucked and instead hand-picked Leftist are permanently installed in the halls of power I would suggest that he adjust to the messy mechanisms of democracy.

Update:

American Power has an incredible post on this. Donald makes the point that the majority, in this case "progressives", who care care about the poor, down trodden minority when it suits their agenda.