Tudo que sei, aprendi com Dan Savage:
It’s not every day that a sitting president takes cues from a sex columnist who once licked Gary Bauer’s doorknob. But for all his prowess as an advice writer and viral activist, Savage’s most lasting influence on American culture may ultimately register in a deeper and more enduringly significant realm: ethics. While he built his following by talking without fear or euphemism about the technical aspects of intimate life, Savage has moved inexorably over the years toward focusing on the moral ones. In so doing, he has carved a unique place for himself in the culture’s discourse about sex. For years, there have been moralizing voices on the right standing athwart the rush of sexual freedoms yelling “Stop,” and there have been others whose policy is to remain nonjudgmental toward sex as a form of expression. Savage yields to no one in his sexual libertarianism, but he has not been content to relegate the ideas of right and wrong to cultural conservatives. Wading deep into the free-fire zone of modern sexuality, he has codified a remarkably systematic—and influential—set of ethics where traditional norms have fallen away. The question is, into what kind of world do his ethics lead us?
Lendo o perfil de Savage escrito por um pastor luterano e publicado na Washington Monthly, percebi que nenhum outro indivíduo influenciou tanto as minhas opiniões políticas. Savage é um liberal de esquerda ultra-Democrata, mas seus conselhos sexuais são uma grande defesa da liberdade individual, experimentação, responsabilidade pessoal e ética comercial, além de grandes lições sobre reputação, vantagem comparativa e ordem emergente. Outros indivíduos ajudaram a moldar o tipo de liberal que sou (Friedman, Hayek, Tyler Cowen, Russ Roberts, a revista Reason), mas ninguém me fez mais libertário do que Savage.
E o mais engraçado é que o autor do texto toca exatamente nesse ponto quando escreve:
Classical liberalism, however, may prove just as inadequate in the bedroom as it has in the global economy, and for many of the same reasons. It takes into account only a narrow range of our motivations, overstates our rationality and our foresight, downplays the costs of transactions, and ignores the asymmetries of information that complicate any exchange of love or money. For society as a whole, it entails a utopian faith in the capacity of millions of appetites to work themselves out into an optimal economy of sex—a trading floor where the cultural institutions of domesticity once stood. And for the individual, it may only replace the old sexual frustrations with new emotional ones. (…)
Como deve ser óbvio para quem me conhece ou já leu mais do que dois posts deste blog, eu discordo da inadequação do liberalismo clássico. Mas Dan Savage se morderia muito com a ideia de que é um Jean Baptiste Say do Sexo, um David Ricardo da Poligamia, um John Stuart Mill do Ménage à Trois.