The French and Rick Santorum

Jonathan Weiler over at The Gadfly blog pointed out yesterday a column by the NYTimes' Paul Krugman that I missed from last week about one of my favorite post-honeymoon topics: French versus American lifestyle. Mrs. F and I returned from our trip renewed and ready to fully embrace the French way of life--where bigger isn't necessarily better and downtime is treasured--in our own lifestyles. (I'd say we were doing a bit better than most on the former, but we have been doing some more downsizing of late, but it was the latter that we've been working on the most.) Here's what Krugman was trying to get at:

Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe - France, in particular - shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice. First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive." Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States. It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families. O.K., I'm oversimplifying a bit. There are several reasons why the French put in fewer hours of work per capita than we do. One is that some of the French would like to work, but can't: France's unemployment rate, which tends to run about four percentage points higher than the U.S. rate, is a real problem. Another is that many French citizens retire early. But the main story is that full-time French workers work shorter weeks and take more vacations than full-time American workers. The point is that to the extent that the French have less income than we do, it's mainly a matter of choice. And to see the consequences of that choice, let's ask how the situation of a typical middle-class family in France compares with that of its American counterpart. The French family, without question, has lower disposable income. This translates into lower personal consumption: a smaller car, a smaller house, less eating out. But there are compensations for this lower level of consumption. Because French schools are good across the country, the French family doesn't have to worry as much about getting its children into a good school district. Nor does the French family, with guaranteed access to excellent health care, have to worry about losing health insurance or being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills. Perhaps even more important, however, the members of that French family are compensated for their lower income with much more time together. Fully employed French workers average about seven weeks of paid vacation a year. In America, that figure is less than four.

Krugman asks the question, which society has made the better choice? Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum would most assuredly answer the United States. He's been on book tour lately with his new book, It Takes a Family : Conservatism and the Common Good (note the not-so-subtle twist on Hilary Clinton's book, It Takes a Village), which Weiler points out, "claims that it's not government, but family and communities that provide the basis for a well-ordered, morally decent society." I'd say it's of a whole, but I'll let Mr. Weiler continue:

As I have noted before, the former Thatcherite conservative John Gray has long questioned right-wing failure to explain why the societies that exhibit the most hostility to big government are the ones with the most undesirable social statistics, from the standpoint of conservative values. Teen pregnancy, crime, broken families – the very things that conservatives claim to be most concerned about, and to have the clearest solutions for – are worse here than in any other advanced industrial society, including France. The exceedingly poor performance of the United States when it comes to all of these measures would be damning enough evidence that there is a gaping hole in Conservative logic with respect to social policy and morality as they themselves define it. But, assuming Santorum's moral sanctimony is sincere is still giving him too much credit. Rick Santorum's agenda, despite what his book may tell you, is not primarily about promoting well-to-do families whose economic situation is stable enough to allow one parent to stay at home. Instead, Santorum's record suggests a highly permissive attitude toward corporations and their agenda, regardless of the impact of that agenda on family well-being. For example, digging around the website, santorumwatch, one learns that Rick has a 100% rating from the Chamber of Commerce, has consistently favored tightening the noose on families filing for personal bankruptcies, opposed minimum wage increases (except when attached to poison pill legislation that would undermine other workers' rights) and has been a dutiful choir boy for the pharmaceutical industry. [...] Santorumwatch's Gil Smart fairly asks "does the price of medicine have a fiscal impact on American families? And if so, how do these votes square with Santorum's professed desire to get families to make more austere choices?" There's no bigger lie than the Republican claim that they are committed to moral decency through stable, secure families. And, there's no more obvious example of their hypocrisy than Santorum.