A wonderful example of framing effects in action. I hear that the USA is going spend $1.5bn on promotion of marriage.
First thought: A billion and a half! That’s a HUGE amount of money! How the hell are you gonna spend that kind of money on marriage counselling?
Second thought: Fifteen bucks per household isn’t going to buy you a lot of marriage counselling.
{ 17 comments }
freddie poo 01.15.04 at 3:01 pm
You too seem taken in! under the guise of saving marriage (who can badmouth that?), Bush is handing out money to faith based groups–tax money to churches…like mass marriage of Moonies!
praktike 01.15.04 at 4:03 pm
Third thought: how is the promotion of marriage a function of the federal government?
Andrew Edwards 01.15.04 at 4:15 pm
I think Matt Y. had it right when he proposed that this be used to establish a cabinet-level Secretary of Dating, administering a national dating service for single people.
Bob 01.15.04 at 4:22 pm
OK, so Jeffrey Frankel was wrong:
“the thesis of Jeffrey Frankel that the parties have switched places, with Democrats becoming the party of fiscal responsibility, free trade, competitive markets, and minimal government, while the Republicans have become the party of trade restriction, big government, and interventionist economics.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker30.html
and http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.jfrankel.academic.ksg/Republicans%20and%20Democrats%20Have%20Switched.PDF
Obviously, Frankel should have included Federal support for Marriage Counselling on the Republican agenda as well. Anyone can make a simple error of omission like that. The issue now is whether Federal programmes for more Marriage Counselling goes far enough to deal with the present crisis:
“Market forces are also threatening psychoanalysis. Of the roughly 15 million people in therapy in the US, few have the time or money for a treatment that typically lasts years and calls for as many as five one-hour, $100 sessions a week. Many patients – and all health insurers – favor short-term psychotherapies that target specific problems rather than delving deeply into a patient’s past. Two popular approaches are cognitive-behavioral therapy, which seeks to alter unwanted habits of thought and behavior, and interpersonal therapy, which focuses on patients’ current relationships with others.” – from: http://www.nichols.edu/faculty/davis/py151/Freud.htm
Ophelia Benson 01.15.04 at 4:39 pm
That’s really hilariously funny. Married people tend to be Republicans, so encourage more people to marry, and there will be more Republicans. Hmm.
But it’s not about marriage counselling, it’s about marriage promotion. A different thing. And no doubt more cost-effective. $1.5 billion would indeed not buy much individual counselling, but PR blather is aimed at a mass audience rather than one couple at a time. This thing seems to be about PR blather along with resisting the dreaded gay marriage and defending the ‘sanctity’ of the other kind.
DJW 01.15.04 at 5:19 pm
For some reason, it’s these little things that really drive me batty about Bush & co. The Iraq war, for example, is a much worse idea, but I knew it was coming, I knew why, etc. This just makes me want to scream.
Of course, we now have exhibit #4,658 why actual principled libertarians really ought to be supporting Democrats these days rather than Republicans, at least at the national level.
Mats 01.15.04 at 5:21 pm
Don’t conservatives believe that marriage is a cornerstone of society, and that (big)government is almost like a parasite on society’s back.
How on earth can they then believe that government would save marriage?
godlesscapitalist 01.15.04 at 6:05 pm
I think the issue here is that marriage promotion (if done intelligently) could end up saving the federal government a lot of money in social spending. Not just welfare, but also stuff like adoption and secondary effects like crime and so on. I could definitely see it saving money overall.
David W. 01.15.04 at 6:18 pm
Given how abstinence promotion doesn’t work so well in sex education, I wouldn’t be too keen about what the Bush administration will come up with to promote marriage.
On the other hand, they could hire Matt Groening to promote marriage, which would at least be funny:
The Nine Types of Relationships
From Matt Groening’s very funny “Love Is Hell” – 1985 Pantheon Books.
Woman + Wimpy
She: “How many times have I told you not to cringe?”
He: “312?”
Advantages: Symbiotic; plus maybe she’ll get laryngitis and shut up.
Drawbacks: Permanent laryngitis unlikely.
Brute + Jumpy
He: “Me and her get along just fine.”
She: “I think I’ll have a little drink now.”
Advantages: Won’t last.
Drawbacks: Next relationship will be just the same.
Look-Gooders
He: “Ciao, darlin.”
She: (kiss noise)
Advantages: These young professionals look great together.
Drawbacks: They couldn’t care less about each other.
Sourballs vs. The World
He: “Can you believe this garbage on TV?”
She: “Goddamned re-runs.”
Advantages: Smug cheerlessness.
Drawbacks: Cheerless smugness.
I’m With Stupid X 2
He: “Where’s the beef?”
She: “Tee Hee Hee”
Advantages: They know oodles of jokes.
Drawbacks: They will tell them.
Mr. And Mrs. Boredom
He: “Honeybuns, do you ever wonder if maybe there’s more to life than
the two of us just sitting here night after night?”
She: “Nope.”
Advantages: Warm, comfy, snoozy.
Drawbacks: Insipid nicknames.
Jolly Jugular Jabbers
He: “I love that little idiot, ha ha. Heh heh.”
She: “He’s not as stupid as he looks, ho ho. Hee hee.”
Advantages: Smiles galore.
Drawbacks: Cruel nicknames.
Cobra + Mongoose
He: “Grrrr”
She: “Grrrr”
Advantages: The thrill of victory.
Drawbacks: The agony of a toaster hurled at your face.
Love Bunnies
He: “I wuv you”
She: “I wuv you too”
Advantages: Bliss, intimacy, joy, satisfaction, fulfillment.
Drawbacks: Sickening, isn’t it?
Ophelia Benson 01.15.04 at 6:23 pm
“I’m With Stupid X 2
He: “Where’s the beef?â€
She: “Tee Hee Heeâ€
Advantages: They know oodles of jokes.
Drawbacks: They will tell them.”
Ooh, I know them! All too well! (They both like to forward ‘jokes’ to me in email. Oy.)
Ab_Normal 01.15.04 at 6:47 pm
I *like* being the Mrs. in Mr. and Mrs. Boredom…
Thorley Winston 01.15.04 at 6:56 pm
It isn’t but then neither is spending federal tax dollars on “violence prevention programs,†after-school programs, AIDS awareness campaigns, Americorps, population control, smoking cessation programs, the President’s Council on Physical Fitness, the Office of the Surgeon General, or numerous other “promotional†and “awareness†programs which are often sold to us as either being “preventative†of some social ill.
I assume of course that the same people snickering at a proposal to promote marriage in order to reduce welfare dependency would also favor the wholesale elimination of taxpayer support for these other programs as well.
Thorley Winston 01.15.04 at 7:05 pm
(Another) Godlesscapitalist wrote:
That is my understanding of the legislation as well. If you educate younger people about marriage so that they make more intelligent decisions about when to get married, how to make a marriage work, and other such resources then they are less likely to become impoverished, have children out of wedlock, and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
I don’t support the program even though the theory seems to have merit, because I don’t think it is either proper nor constitutional function of the federal government, but neither is three-fourths of what it does now and it is certainly less expensive and destructive than many of the programs advocated by many of the same leftists who are snickering at this one.
Ophelia Benson 01.15.04 at 7:12 pm
“I like being the Mrs. in Mr. and Mrs. Boredom…”
Well of course you do. Mr and Mrs B always do.
zizka 01.16.04 at 4:12 am
I think that the beneficial effects of marriage will disappear or at least be reduced if marriage becomes a government program. Generally married people are happier and healthier, mostly because happy-healthy people are more likely to get married. If more people with problems start getting married, marriage won’t help them.
I really suspect that a lot of that 1.5 bil will go to faithbased programs (=Republican voters).
dsquared 01.16.04 at 7:23 am
Ach come on people, it’s only $1.5bn. And most of it will go to the advertising industry and therefore be spent on cocaine.
andrew 01.17.04 at 1:21 am
A $1.5 billion covert operation to sabotage the nation’s condom supply would do wonders for the marriage rate.
Comments on this entry are closed.