In Defense of Wonks

 

Klippenstein is a good reporter and a generally good egg, but my God, the juxtaposition of housing as a problem (which can be understood in terms of zoning, affordability, Nimby-ism, etc.) and matters of foreign policy, that are obviously understood as federal in nature, is just...

Look, I would like it if HUD had a strong hand and a strong plan for overriding local twattery that keeps housing unaffordable. But there are limits to what can be legally done at the executive level to demand housing access--it's complicated!

Foreign aid is a bit different, isn't it--it's one thing, it doesn't go through state and muni filters You're not dictating to developers and actual neighborhoods with people in them about what they do and don't want. It doesn't have a myriad of red tape things to fool about with. 

We're not talking about the difference between apples and oranges, but apples and eggs. Knowing the difference is very useful, because you really shouldn't expect apples to fall out of any aperture of a hen. Klippenstein isn't an idiot and isn't juxtaposing those things thinking otherwise. 

So, why put them together at all? Comparisons are odious and in fact, extraordinarily politicized. There's a reason for people who have followed both conversations to believe that someone jamming these two things together is making a not-entirely-sincere point. It's demeaning to the idea that the government has multiple irons in multiple fires and assuming the success or ability to fund any program is about what people in government prefer other than a story about what is attainable--like assuming the kid that did the best financially was naturally their parent's favorite--it isn't necessarily so. 

Yglesias is right--what we can do is more about appropriations than priorities. I'm not sure how the other way about is supposed to work. It's not a "gotcha". Let's say we "appropriate" a like amount and direct a certain quota of block building for affordable housing, with price controls and even subsidies in multiple jurisdictions across the country? 

We had this--it was called "the projects". Section 8?  We've had voucher programs. It's an ongoing thing we've been dealing with as a nation from the whole depression era until today. And we've never really sorted it out. But sending weapons overseas is dead easy. We do it as easy as: SNAP! 

Yglesias is not, like, my homeboy, but his callout is correct. It isn't a question of whether I like it--of course it would be great if more people were housed! Love the idea! Show me the functional plan! But the devil is in the details. One isn't prioritizing Ukraine defending itself against a genocide from Russia that is very liable to lead to spillover aggression in multiple European nation-states as a fucking third world nation with nukes proceeds to engage in imperialism, over more US regular people being able to live indoors. 

It just looks that way. Pointing it out isn't a wonk problem, it's a noticing you trying to be a signifying ass and you not liking it problem. 

And that is generally my problem with progressives. When simple facts are pointed out, it gets all "whatabout what is more moral" up in this piece, and who promised you that shit, beloved? No one said government was going to be Santa Claus. Yes, homes are less pricy than missiles. But sending missiles is less complicated than building homes, in a neighborhood, and getting people to live there amongst other people. Yes, we obviously can tear down (blow up) whole city blocks abroad and don't build them here. Duly noted--is that really about priorities from up top--or down below? 

Wonks don't make the rules. They explain realities. And it isn't great, but sometimes it is what it is.