Author: Elizabeth Lagerback

The Case For Trump by Victor Hanson talks about the 2016 election and what exactly lead to the election of Donald Trump. The election was very surprising to many, especially because Donald Trump did not have political experience, while Hilary Clinton had much of it. Furthermore, Donald Trump does not act like a typical politician. He is much more abrasive and less “classy”. Hanson argues that his attitude is part of what got him elected, and that it appealed to the working class in America.

  Hanson argues that there are “two America’s”, one comprised of the smaller cultural elite, and the other the larger working class. He states that they are growing apart in terms of views, and that most of the people in the lower class felt that regular politicians were failing them. Trump was an outsider, a bad boy, and his unique role in politics appealed to a sector of the culture who wanted real change in the country. Hanson also argues that there is a an ancien regime, which is a group of the cultural elite who are actively trying to oppose Trump. I do not think that the ancien regime is as strong as Hanson makes them out to be. I think that precisely what made Trump appealing to some voters is what puts him in the spotlight: he’s different than other presidents. Some people really like it, and some people really do not. This leads to people paying extra attention to him, some wanting him to succeed and some waiting for people to mess up. The fact that people have such strong views on Trump just furthers the cultural divide. However, I think this is a side effect of our divisive political system, and not the ancien regime being out to get Trump. 

Hanson also argues that to be an effective President, you don;t necessarily have to be a moral person. Donald Trump is not a typically moral person, but many presidents in the past who we consider “good” have had similar scandals as Trump. Also, many of our most moral presidents have not been all that effective. I still do think it is important for presidents to show some degree of morality. It is clear that more than just racism and xenophobia of voters put Trump in office, however, Trump’s attitude and moral failures did give people with racist and xenophobic veiws more validity in their feelings. Because of Trump’s sometimes lack of morality, political correctness, and his ability to “tell things how they are”, some people interpret his words as racist, xenophobic, or tolerant of those things. Even if this isn’t Trump’s intention, it still gives the racists and xenophobes of the US a champion, and makes them feel like they have a voice and are not a minority. This makes them more dangerous, and spreads their views wider. It could be argued that this is not Trump’s responsibility, but I think as President, it should be considered his responsibility, and morality in a president is something we should value to an extent.

Regnerus’ argument, and the evidence he musters to support it, shows clearly that the current mating and dating culture/market is harmful to the interests of most women and just makes it easier for men to get the central good they want from women (sexual access) without any real exchange of other goods that women desire (e.g., emotional attachment, long-term monogamous commitment). As a society, we should rethink this piece of our culture and try to find ways to adjust it in ways that would make the experiences of women like Alyssa (who is described at length in the book) more fulfilling and healthy

            In the book Cheap Sex, Regnerus argues that the current dating market, characterized by contraceptives, dating apps, pornography, and overall access to “cheap sex”, just makes it easier for men to get the “central good” they desire from women, while making it harder for women to get what they desire. He claims that women desire relationships and emotional attachment, but for countless reasons, in the era of “cheap sex”, monogamy and marriage are becoming less and less common. I believe that as a society we should rethink this part of our culture to a certain extent, however, many aspects of the problem that deserve the rethinking are not discussed at length in by Regnerus.

            There is no denying that in our society, sex has become easier to access, and this has had numerous effects on our culture overall. Sex is less of risk, as with “new” technology, sex doesn’t necessarily lead to pregnancy. In the past, men and women would wait longer to have sex, as they both would usually want to be prepared to raise a baby if they did. People needed to invest in a personal relationship, both emotionally and economically, before developing a sexual one. Regnerus brings up data that shows more people than ever before are having sex on the first date, or before starting a committed relationship. He also states that monogamy is less common than it ever has been. Though correlation does not equal causation, it seems fairly intuitive that this sudden increase in availability of sex would lead to a decrease of people working hard for it.

            There are definitely pros and cons to this development, but I believe it is an overall good thing for women, even though it does lead to some harsh consequences for them. In the book, we read about Carlos, who watches porn even though it upsets his girlfriend. In my opinion, Carlos clearly doesn’t care much about his girlfriend, but she stays with him, arguably because there are more eligible women on the market than men, so she might feel like she has to. We should be concerned if we are in a society that produces many men like Carlos. However, the past also produced many men like Carlos. In the 1950’s, a Carlos could have been married to a woman and cheated on her, and she wouldn’t have any ability to leave him, since she’d be financially dependent and probably share a kid with him. In the 1950’s, men could still get away with being sexually promiscuous (to a lesser extent), while women never could. It is undoubtedly better to live in a society where women at least have the freedom to leave bad men, and to do what they want sexually without being as ostracized.

            That being said, I still feel we need to rethink this problem, but the only way to do this is by looking forward, and trying to create a better world with this new sex culture. Things are hard for women in the dating market, but things have always been hard for them. In the 1950’s and 60’s, men worked harder to have sex with them, giving them more of what they wanted, but that is because those women didn’t have the financial capabilities to give themselves these things. In this world, women were often still looked at as less than human. Today, this still can be true, even though many men do respect women wholeheartedly. There is evidence that in a sexual context, women tend to see men as full people, with personalities and a life story, more often than men look at women that way. I realize many men do not think this way, and some women do, but as long as the “central good” a large number of men want from women is sex, women cannot be seen in full. This dichotomy can a least partially explain the evidence in Cheap Sex stating more women report being interested in relationships and emotional attachment. There is evidence in the book to show that most people want to get married and have kids, and it is human nature to want love and companionship. I think in order to move forward and make things better for women in the dating world, we need to create a society that does its best to make men see them as more than just people to have sex with, and make the ones who want to get married want to be good husbands, not because they have to but because they can.

After talking about looking at immigrants as people instead of just workers in his first chapter, among other things, Borjas dives into the economics of immigration. There is a popular economic theory stating that if countries had no borders the world would prosper economically. In theory, workers would move from places with lower GDPs to places with higher GDPs. Traditionally poorer countries would have less workers, so workers would get paid more, an the opposite would happen to the traditionally richer areas. After some time, everyone would be getting paid around the same amount, and productivity would go up around the world.

Borjas argues that though this theory sounds great, economists who believe it overlook the facts that immigrants are people, not just workers. He states that it would take around five hundred years for everyone to move around enough for the world as a whole to start making a lot of money. Also, they would bring different cultures to the area, which economists often overlook. Different cultures have different values when it comes to work, and Borjas argues this could result in some overall loss.