In Guns We Trust?

Americans and their guns. It is hard to talk calmly about this. Long ago we drew lines in the sand and crawled into our separate bunkers. There are those of us who think gun ownership should be infrequent and exceptional rather than mainstream. On the other side, there are those for whom the right to bear arms means gun ownership is a widespread and sacred American right. 

In this post, I want to reflect on some of the most common arguments made by those who believe that widespread gun ownership is not a problem and for whom the notion of tighter gun control is the farthest thing from a solution to our epidemic of gun-related violence in the United States. Below are five common arguments employed by gun-rights enthusiasts.  I address each one in turn.

1.       Taking away the guns will not make us safer. People who want to cause harm will find a way (e.g., knives, home-made explosives, sticks, stones).

This is an example of a half-truth. It is true that people who really want to cause pain and harm others can do so without a gun. This is obvious. Before guns, people used rocks, spears, bows and arrows, slingshots, knives, whips, and their own hands to injure, maim, stab, strangle, and murder each other. Today, without guns, people do the same. Human beings are capable of incalculable harm and violence and this is as true today as it always has been. Unless you take away the humans, you will have aggression and violence on some level. But here is the rub: The inevitability of human aggression does not negate that certain tools can be used to extend and exacerbate that aggression. And it does not mean that civilized societies do not take measures to curb violence by limiting access to tools that are used to exact violence. Indeed, the fact and certainty of human aggression should give us even more cause for worry when it comes to firearms.

Guns are tools. Tools are devices that are designed to facilitate manual or mechanical work. Saws, knives, drills, hammers, bicycles, and crowbars are all tools. Most tools were designed for a particular purpose though they might be used for alternative purposes. For example, rather than being used to drive a nail into a two by four, a hammer might be used to weigh down a stack of papers, prop open a door, or hit someone over the head. But these are not the purposes for which the hammer was designed. Let’s think about guns as tools. What exactly are they designed to do? The honest answer is that they are designed to injure or kill. They make this “work” more efficient. Hunters use guns to take down game. Law enforcement officers use guns to protect themselves and others by injuring and/or killing people who might cause harm or who are actively causing harm. Guns are used in the military to threaten or kill the enemy. Presumably, civilians use guns for self-defense. The idea is to scare off an assailant or to shoot and injure or kill an intruder or someone else who seeks to harm us. Alternatively, guns are used for sport as well. People use guns to practice their aim or when skeet shooting. But it would be difficult to argue that this “sport” is the true purpose of a traditional bullet-bearing gun. The bottom line here: The purpose of a gun is to injure and/or kill. If they happen to protect people, they do it through threat of death. Guns, by their very purpose, make for very efficient injuring and killing. To take away guns would then make injuring and killing somewhat less efficient. I think that makes us safer. Not completely safe because, of course people will still have access to other tools that can be used for harm, but safer nonetheless.

Finally, this argument is often advanced in a deeply inconsistent way. While it is a poor but extremely common argument against gun control measures, it is far less likely to be an argument used to suggest that drugs or prostitution should be as legal and available as guns. The same people that want us to do nothing about guns because doing something will not completely solve the problem will not suggest that we do nothing about any number of other things. 

2.       Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

Like the previous one, this one is half-true. Because guns are only a tool and do not possess self-determination, it is true that they don’t just lie around shooting themselves and killing people. In the same way, lawnmowers don't mow lawns and scissors don't cut paper. However, both make work much more efficient.

So we are asked not to blame the tool, blame the person. Yes, of course the perpetrators of violence should be held accountable. Who doesn't agree? The problem is that holding people accountable for killing people with their guns is reactive. Do we not want to prevent the killing before it happens?  In most mass shootings, the shooter takes his own life or is shot and killed by law enforcement. I suppose that is accountability but it doesn't do much for the victims of the violence or their families. And the suicides of these individuals along with their deaths in the hands of the police hasn't decreased the numbers of mass shootings in our country.

There are other reasons that the “guns don’t kill people…” line is problematic. The same logic would have us conclude that nuclear weapons, hand grenades, missiles, machine guns (which are, thankfully, illegal), and many other tools don’t kill people either. It is the people who kill people, right? Actually, it is people with guns that kill people most efficiently. Just think if we were to allow civilians to have their own nuclear weapons, grenades, and missiles. Crazy, right? Yes! Why don’t we allow civilian possession of these things? Because these tools allow human beings to inflict untold harm in a very efficient way. With all of our rights, we draw lines. All rights are qualified. Freedom of the press is qualified by laws that forbid slander and libel. Freedom of speech is qualified by laws that forbid obscenity and hate speech. The freedom to bear arms is already qualified by laws that prevent the sale and availability of some types of weapons. I’m arguing, with horrific and widespread gun violence as my evidence, that more qualifiers are necessary to protect people from gun violence.

3.       The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

This is an interesting idea. It isn’t a strong argument because there is almost no evidence to support it. But it endures because it is hard to falsify. It is kind of like Freud’s theory of dreams—totally absurd sounding, but how can you prove it isn’t true? 

Gun rights activists point to a small number of cases where they say a good guy hero was able to intervene to save people. The most common example I’ve heard is the 2012 shooting at the Clackamas Town Center near Portland, Oregon. A man claims that he drew his gun (after the shooting rampage began), but then retreated for fear of injuring innocent bystanders. Some, including this man, argue that the shooter saw the armed bystander, got scared, and then retreated down a stairway and shot himself. This is impossible to prove and, actually, seems unlikely. Did the shooter really see the bystander? Is this why he committed suicide rather than continue to run?

Gun enthusiasts have other examples that they point to, but the details are typically hazy and causality (i.e., proof that the civilian changed the outcome) is nearly impossible to determine. One list I came across cited twelve examples since 1997 when a civilian with a gun supposedly saved lives.  Even if all of those examples could be verified, that leaves hundreds of mass shootings over the same nearly 20-year period in which no armed civilian is even suspected of having made a positive difference. In reality, it is the police who usually make the difference by intervening. But, once again, law enforcement can only intervene after the shooting begins or after actual laws have been broken.

For what its worth, Mother Jones conducted an in-depth investigation of 62 mass shootings in the United States over the past 30 years and found that exactly zero of them had been stopped by an armed civilian bystander. I’ve heard the pro-gun crowd cry foul at the source—Mother Jones. But I haven’t heard of any conclusive evidence to back up the argument that armed civilians save lives. In the handful of cases that are most often cited by gun rights activists as examples of heroic civilian intervention, careful investigation shows that the bystander was either a trained law enforcement officer or member of the military, or intervened after the shooting was over, or some combination of these. And you won’t hear gun rights activists mention the cases where bystander intervention has gone horribly wrong. Like the 2005 shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington, where the armed civilian was badly injured by the shooter and where his intervention caused six more bystanders to also be injured. Or the 2005 courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas, where the man who intervened was shot dead by the assailant.

There are many other examples which would seem to show that the presence of armed “good guys” doesn’t prevent gun violence. For instance, in 1981, moments before President Ronald Reagan was shot in the chest, he was surrounded by at least five armed security personnel. John Hinckley, Jr. managed to shoot Reagan regardless. The recent massacre at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando was not stopped by the armed off duty police officers or security personnel that were on site. The armed security guard at Columbine High School was not able to stop the rampage there in 1999. This is not to suggest that these people did not behave heroically or that their interventions did not save lives. But, in all of these cases, the shooter was neither deterred from going through with his deed nor was he stopped from injuring or killing people.

Let's not forget that mass shootings are a terrifying but small fraction of the gun violence that we see in the United States. Far more people are gunned down by people they know. And these tragedies disproportionately end the lives of women and children who are victims of armed domestic abusers. Who is arguing that wives and children need to be packing heat to protect themselves from their "bad guy" husbands and fathers? As a matter of fact, tragically, there are cases in which children are the ones firing guns and killing themselves and others. In the first six months of 2016, there have already been 23 cases nationwide where toddlers--children between the ages of 1 and 3--have shot themselves and others with guns. There have been 77 cases so far in 2016 where someone under the age of 18 has accidentally shot someone. Where are the good guys here? Where are the bad guys?

Altogether, the evidence suggests that the good guy with a gun is more of an action movie and video game mythology than a reality. Despite widespread concealed carry and increasing gun ownership in the United States, there are precious few non-police "heroes" with guns and, in the extremely rare instances where they materialize, they are too late to stop the shooter from killing or they do more harm than good.

4.       There are many things that kill a lot more people than guns (e.g., automobiles).

In academic debate, this is referred to as a red herring, a distraction that causes you to look away from the point. Think, for example, if you were to propose spraying a bug repellent that keeps ticks away because you don’t want a tick bite. I could respond saying, why are you worrying about ticks when mosquitos are more common and you’re more likely to get a mosquito bite? My mention of mosquitos is really a distraction from the issue at hand—repelling ticks. When people argue, for instance, that automobiles kill more people every year than guns they are correct, in part. In 2011 (the most recent year for which I could find numbers), there were 35,543 automobile fatalities and 32,351 gun fatalities in the United States. But that gap has been shrinking; in 2009, there were 42,624 auto fatalities compared to 28,874 gun fatalities nationally. And, there are 14 states plus the District of Columbia in which gun deaths exceed auto fatalities.

But let’s put statistics aside. My point here is that to start talking about automobile accidents is a distraction. The fact that thousands of people die every year in automobile accidents is tragic. But we are talking about how to reduce gun related deaths. The cynic in me believes this is exactly why organizations like the National Rifle Association started making the comparison. To distract us from the point. There were 32,351 gun deaths in 2011 and that is 32,351 too many. The NRA and its allies ought to be careful though, because if the current trend goes unabated, it will no longer be an effective contrast to make.

While the comparison of automobile and firearm deaths is generally a distraction, it does allow for a strong contrast to be made with respect to safety standards and government regulation. When it comes to automobiles, there has been no shortage of widely-supported regulation (e.g., seat belts, speed limits, airbags, third brake lights) introduced to make car travel much safer. And these measures have worked. Individuals who operate vehicles need to be insured, licensed, and their vehicles must be registered. Not so for those who might operate a firearm. Indeed, handguns and semi-automatic rifles remain some of the only consumer products not regulated at the federal level for health and safety. And isn't it ironic that the tool that is the subject of much more regulation is not the one designed for injuring and killing? 

5.       The fact that shootings occur in states and countries with tighter gun laws shows that the laws will not protect us.

Actually, according to the available evidence, tightening the restrictions on guns does make a difference. But not always and not for every category of gun violence. For example, strict laws seem to be better at reducing suicides than they are at eliminating mass shootings. While states with strict gun laws are not completely free of gun violence (Maryland is a good example of this), it is true that states with lenient gun laws nearly always experience far more gun violence compared to states with stricter laws. So it is complicated.   

One thing that makes the study of the effect of gun control laws difficult is that, in the United States, the federal government has issued very few restrictions. Instead, gun control measures have largely been left up to states and municipalities. And the laws across state boundaries are wildly inconsistent. Take for example New Jersey and its next-door neighbor Pennsylvania. In New Jersey, an ID card is required for the purchase of a rifle or shotgun and a permit is needed to purchase a handgun. All gun owners must be licensed and a concealed carry permit is quite difficult to get. In contrast, Pennsylvania requires no licenses for gun owners, does not require permits, and rifles, shotguns, and handguns do not need to be registered. Because people may travel freely across state lines, New Jersey's stricter laws have limited efficacy. It reminds me of dry versus wet counties and states that outlaw fireworks versus those that allow them. I fully support stronger laws at the state and local level, but to fully protect against gun violence, we need federal action.

Nonetheless, there are important examples and statistics that suggest gun laws can curb violence. In the United States, statistics show that states with tougher gun laws experience less gun-related violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control and factcheck.org, in 2013, of the 5 states with the strictest gun laws (CA, CT, MD, NJ, NY), all but Maryland were also among the 10 states that experienced the least gun-related violence. On the flip side, of the 10 states that experienced the most gun-related violence, all except Alabama had gun laws that were rated F by the CDC, meaning they were woefully lax. Alabama received a D-. The magazine Guns & Ammo rated 4 of the states with the most gun-related violence (AL, AK, AZ, WY) among its top-10 places for gun owners due to their lenient laws. Might I suggest that Guns & Ammo add a short disclaimer stating that these are also great places to experience gun-related violence? 

To be fair, there are exceptions to the stricter laws equal less violence link, which show that other variables such as rates of gun ownership and culture matter as well. New Hampshire, which has very lenient gun laws, is a state where there is relatively little gun-related violence. That said, gun ownership in the state is low, at only 14%. Compare that to Alaska, where 62% of the population own guns. Is it a coincidence that Alaska also has more gun-related deaths per capita than any other state?

Internationally, Australia is one of the most cited examples. In 1996, following the most deadly mass shooting Australia has ever seen, the Australian parliament reacted by introducing tough new gun laws. They banned semi-automatic weapons, introduced a 28-day waiting period, and asked those who sought to own a gun to provide a justifiable reason. There has not been another mass shooting in Australia since then. That said, causality is not clear here. It could be a coincidence or simple good luck that Australia has not seen another mass shooting since 1996. But it also could be that, at the federal level, they were able to put significant hurdles between people and guns.

Some argue that new laws won't make a difference because the bad actors don't care about legislation. Laws would simply make it hard for "good guys" to get their guns while the bad guys would still be armed. By that logic, why enact any laws about anything at all? Aren't all laws breakable? Of course laws will be broken. But that doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose or that they don't limit dangerous behavior which results in a safer society. Should we eliminate speed limits because most people speed? Why do we ban machine guns--can't the "bad guys" still get them? And let's take the example of drugs. When they are illegal, they aren't eliminated from society but they become much harder to access and their use is not mainstream. While you can just walk into a Walmart and buy a gun, you cannot buy heroin, crystal meth, or crack. Certainly you can still get these drugs, but there are significant hurdles to accessing them and there are laws that make possession of them illegal. Importantly, if laws exist, it is possible to hold people accountable. Furthermore, laws allow societies to adopt a proactive approach to gun violence. This is in stark contrast to our reactive approach where we await those first potentially lethal bullets to be fired before we respond.

Concluding Thoughts

I chose to write this essay because I have grown tired of seeing empty, vacuous posts about this issue on social media platforms. I am similarly exhausted by the conversations and "debates" I see about guns on the news. By the same token, I haven't found a good way to keep myself or my conversation partner calm when I have discussed the matter in person. 

I think it is clear that the most common arguments that are used to reject stricter gun laws fail. They fail due to gravely flawed logic. They fail because they are not consistently applied. But, as a psychologist, I know that people don't always believe what they believe because it is logical. Sometimes logic is important. But people also believe what they believe because it fits their worldview and because it reduces anxiety. We often believe whatever makes us feel good. For many people, guns make them feel good. They make people feel safe, secure, powerful, and in-control. Perhaps logic is no match for that. 

But as we continue to mourn the deaths of the victims of mass shootings, accidental shootings, and other gun-related incidents, I think we have a responsibility and moral duty to examine our beliefs and our motivations. Free and unfettered access to firearms comes at a cost. A tremendous cost. Those feelings of safety, security, power, and control are paid for by the tears and blood of the victims of gun violence. 

Let It Go.

I am not Peter Pan. I am a really grown up. I write this because I've been reflecting on childhood, play, and memory since visiting Walt Disney World this year.

I could say much about Disney. Eventually, I probably will. But for now I just want to comment on the Walt Disney World experience.  Just as summer was yielding to autumn, my family embarked on the pilgrimage to Orlando--a trip that I, more than any of my children, had eagerly anticipated for years.

You see, I grew up in Florida and this is where memory comes in. Growing up in Florida meant a close proximity to this most magical of places. Though childhood trips to Walt Disney World were rare, once I became a young adult with a car and a credit card, I had taken full advantage of that proximity. Not so surprisingly, those many trips had left an indelible mark on me and now, in my thirties, the nostalgia is thick.

Now this year's family trip is over, we have our memories and, of course, the many digital pictures and videos. My two boys hugging Mickey Mouse (precious). The classic family shot on Main Street, U.S.A., with Cinderella's castle in the background (gorgeous). We talk about how creepy the Haunted Mansion was and how much fun we had riding the Astro Orbiter. We sing "It's A Small World" in a multi-generational chorus.

Nonetheless, my first trip to Walt Disney World as a parent was an awakening. You could say that the nostalgic fog has dissipated and my perspective is a little clearer now. Although we have some great memories, I have come to the conclusion that--in the spirit of Frozen's Elsa--it is time for some letting go. It is time for me to let go and stop idealizing Disney. It is time to stop elevating it above other childhood experiences.

Like any week with three small children, our week at Walt Disney World was filled with peaks of euphoria and valleys of despair. In hindsight, given the promises of Disney and the expense of the trip, there should have been relatively more euphoria. My wife said it well; if we had spent 10 hours for three days straight devoting all of our energy and attention to our children and to entertaining them, we would have had many wonderful moments. Though we'd have been exhausted, we would have had a great time because we would have satisfied their hunger for connection. As any parent knows, on a daily basis, this is a difficult hunger to satisfy when you have so many things competing for your attention. The place where the connection occurs doesn't matter to kids. We could be in the backyard, in a parking lot, or on the moon. The point is the kids don't care about Disney unless we teach them to.

This matters because Disney actively teaches some things we may not want our children to learn. Specifically, the park experience puts visitors face-to-face with conspicuous materialistic values. Many psychological studies have shown that individuals who are relatively more oriented toward materialistic values (i.e., money, attractiveness, status, fame) are less generous, less happy, and less well-adjusted than individuals who are relatively less oriented toward these values. In other words, chasing these things is not a path to happiness. This is deeply ironic for a place that is advertised to be the "happiest place on Earth."

Take the following three examples of how, in a very real way, Disney fosters materialistic values that teach the pursuit of fame, money, status, and attractiveness.

Fame - The characters--Mickey, Goofy, Donald, Aurora, Ariel, Elsa--are the celebrities of Disney World and their presence and visitors' opportunities to interact with them form a fundamental part of the experience. In nearly every gift shop in the Magic Kingdom (I checked) you can buy an official autograph book and then spend much of your time at the park waiting to meet characters so that your child (or you) can collect autographs and pictures. This celebrity chase is a signature part of many peoples' Disney experience and I'm concerned about what this teaches kids. How we spend our time reveals our lived values and what does it mean to stand in line for hours to greet someone who is dressed up as a movie character?  It is only anecdotal, but the children I saw didn't seem that impressed with these interactions. Indeed, many of them needed to be consoled because they were so tired of waiting in line or they were afraid of the character they were meeting.

Money and Status - It should be obvious that not everyone can go to Disney World. You need to have a ticket and tickets are quite expensive. In fact, the Magic Kingdom in Florida commands the highest ticket price of any U.S. theme park. Many families save carefully for years to be able to afford the trip. In my own case, the whole experience was a very generous gift from my parents, who live in Florida--a gift for which my family and I are still very grateful. Generous is the only way to describe it because the ticket price is just the beginning. Once you factor in lodging, meals, transportation, photos, and souvenirs, it is easy to see how a trip to Disney requires a budget comparable to many far more luxurious and exotic vacations.

Once you have admission taken care of, you are invited to buy added perks and, as we know, perks connote status. In the realm of lodging, the most privileged can afford to stay at the Grand Floridian, the Polynesian, or the Contemporary. Those hotels are all on the monorail line to the Magic Kingdom. Guests who stay on-site can pay an additional $315 per hour ($340/hour for guests not staying on-site) to hire a VIP tour guide who will get you into the attractions of your choice with no waiting at all. Another less expensive perk is a Photo Pass package that allows visitors to approach photographers stationed throughout the park for photo ops that can be later retrieved and viewed.

In short, money and conspicuous consumption are all over Walt Disney World. While some children are probably too young to understand this completely, we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking they don't get it at all. How we spend our money conveys our values. What do we show our children when we work longer hours, sacrificing time with them, in order to save for this sort of vacation?  Are we able to hide our resentment when they don't like it as much as they "should" given that cost?

Attractiveness - With few exceptions, the good guys and girls of Disney fit classic and stereotypical notions of physical attractiveness and the bad guys and girls do not. Disney princesses are young, thin, and disproportionately blonde. Disney princes are square and chiseled (and rich, of course). The problem is more acute for girls because Disney so aggressively promotes those princesses and their costumes to girls. Indeed, more than a few little girls spend their time in the park fully adorned in polyester and sequined princess attire complete with a tiara on their tiny heads. Although it is tempting to see this as mere child's play, we should not ignore what it teaches with regard to ideals of beauty and body acceptance. When we look at the crises of body dissatisfaction and disordered eating among adolescents and young adults today, we have to wonder where it all originates. Are there other ways that we might encourage our little girls to pretend? Other ways that don't involve fantasizing about being beautiful and being admired for that beauty?

All of this leaves me concerned. As an adult and a parent who is responsible (gulp) for my childrens' welfare, I want to be conscious of what I am teaching my children and, specifically, what my own choices and behavior endorse for them. My adult eyes see the fantasy of Walt Disney World as just that--a fantasy. But while fantasy can often be constructive and good, the kind of fantasy that we see at Disney is not altogether good. In some ways, it is a subversive and dangerous fantasy because it represents something that is patently false. It is an endorsement of values that actually undermine well-being.

Yes, children (and adults) have fun at Disney World. We also have fun in many places that do not require a ticket and that do not so brazenly promote fame, consumption, and beauty. And, along with the fun, there is plenty of misery at Walt Disney World, too. Look at the wait times. Feel the heat and humidity. Listen to parents telling their kids they can't have a $15 balloon. Look at the kids hearing their parents tell them they can't have the $15 balloon.  See the scared five-year-old who is too frightened for a trip through the Haunted Mansion. Talk to the three-year old who tells his Daddy, "I am not brave," after riding the Barnstormer.

So, let me return to Peter Pan. Like him, I can appreciate child's play, imagination, pretend, and the magic in all of that. Actually, I see these things as critical ingredients in a healthy, happy, and full childhood. I don't for a moment think childhood fantasy must be given up or let go. But I will let go of a specific fantasy. One that suggests that joy can be sanctioned by a corporate entity and curated by indebted, exhausted, and anxious parents.

Welding & Philosophy

During the fourth Republican Presidential Debate, held Tuesday, November 10th, Florida Senator Marco Rubio said, "Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers." The comment garnered Senator Rubio thunderous applause from the live audience. Yet, grammar notwithstanding, it reveals flawed and troubling logic.

My grandfather was a welder. And then a Baptist minister. Though he worked hard doing both, and both were noble professions, he never made a lot of money doing either. Today, according to occupation net (O-net), the median salary for a welder in the United States is $37,420. In comparison, the median salary for a philosopher (philosophy professor) is $63,630. O-net also estimates the projected outlook for professions and they report that job growth for post-secondary philosophy teachers (professors) will be 15-21%, or faster than average while, for welders, growth is projected to be 3-7%--slower than average. Mr. Rubio must have consulted different statistics. Perhaps he was comparing college graduates who major in philosophy with students who pursue a certification in welding from a technical college. But then you aren't really comparing a "philosopher" to a welder. Incidentally, fellow presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was a philosophy major in college and today her net worth is second only to Mr. Trump's among the current Republican candidates. In any case, I can't find any figures that support Mr. Rubio.

Pointing out the problems with Senator Rubio's facts (namely that they are hard to substantiate) is not my goal here. I am more interested, and indeed troubled, by his relative valuing of professions. Since when has it been appropriate to assess an occupation's worth solely through an evaluation of the average income of a worker in that occupation? Were we to adopt this criterion, we would "need more" philosophers and fewer welders, not the other way around. If we for a moment think through the implications of this kind of evaluation of worth, we quickly discover that this is deeply problematic.

Using Mr. Rubio's logic, could we not say that any profession that out-earns another is more valuable? Investment bankers earn more than emergency medical technicians. Senators earn more than pilots. Teachers in New Jersey earn more than teachers in Florida. Philosophy professors earn more than welders. You can see my point.

We work to earn a living. That is critically important. But we also have many other reasons for working. Individual reasons vary considerably, but many workers search for (and some find) fulfillment and purpose in their craft. Others savor the camaraderie of the workplace. Many people are motivated to learn and grow in doing their jobs. Ideally, people see the social benefits of their work and care about the quality of what they do. Think for a moment about what it means to say, "S/he is in it for the money." This is not a compliment and it suggests that something is awry in the individual's motives.

Of course Mr. Rubio's comment wasn't only a comparison of occupations. It was also a statement about education. Like other Republican politicians before him, he was taking a swipe at traditional liberal arts education while he simultaneously elevated technical education. The argument is something like this: Young people, don't major in the liberal arts because you can't get a job. Pick a trade; you'll actually get a job and make some money. Never mind that competencies developed through exposure to the liberal arts (e.g., writing, argument formation, public speaking, analytical thinking) might often be more transferable across a wide variety of jobs compared to very specific skills training in a trade. Indeed, one of the problems facing many displaced American workers has been a lack of transferable skills. Don't misread me--specific technical skills are frequently very valuable. But the economic hardships of recent years should be instructive. When we conflate skills training with traditional and broad education, as Mr. Rubio does, we do so at our own peril. Specific technical skills are regularly outmoded by advances in technology. Think of key punch, for example.

Moreover, assessing the value of education by looking only at subsequent employment prospects also reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose of an education. Education, particularly in the liberal arts, has never perfectly correlated with employability. A liberal arts education is about exposure to ideas, the development of writing and speaking skills, and the nurturing of critical thinking. This is a social good but not something that can be easily commodified.

This is not to say, as Mr. Rubio implies, that a liberal arts education should be a luxury. Instead, it should be seen as helping to develop a thoughtful and educated citizenry. In my view, it should be a basic part of an education and we should all receive it. Indeed, if you take a look at the modern American system of higher education, liberal arts are foundational. Students across the country take courses in philosophy, English, and economics as part of what is considered "general" education. Some students go on to major in one of these fields but most do not.

Perhaps those of us in higher education need to better articulate the value of an education. When it comes to work, my sincere hope is that we can move beyond comparisons that pit occupations against one another and rise to a conversation about making work more meaningful for everyone. In addition, I hope that we can put more effort and energy into raising the incomes of all working people. This will require good logic, openness in thinking, hard work, and creativity. These are all things that a good philosophy class or two can teach us.