The question posed is: what accounts for the difference between the US and many other countries when it comes to social welfare issues?

Then we’re told that US citizens contribute less to federal campaigns. Then we segue into youth sports. We’re not told if youth sports is the cause or the effect of the distinctive US attitudes but there’s a suggestion that youth sports is “driving” the difference. Then comes perhaps the least understandable segue: we get a sarcastic swipe at youth sports, and unsupported conclusions about the results of youth sports (e.g., less physics, and less attention to global warming). Then the post backs off from the proffered explanations and gestures toward other explanations.

(A) high US school sports participation figures,

(B) high rates in the US of considering the unfortunate to be lazy, and

(C) the low rates in the US of campaign contributions you mention at the beginning of your post.

In particular, Ganz & Hassett say, “Athletes are also more active citizens, a 2006 study found. Economists Mark Hugo Lopez and Kimberlee Moore of the University of Maryland examined the effect of participation in sports on civic engagement. After controlling for factors such as age, educational attainment, and income, they found that athletes are 15 percent more likely to be registered to vote, 14 percent more likely to watch the news, and 8 percent more likely to feel comfortable speaking in public (and, for public speaking, the effect on females is twice as large).”

In your earlier blog post, you’re discussing resistance to redistribution. But that’s more related to point (B) than to point (C) above. Let’s assume that (A) (youth athletics) does lead to (B) (thinking the unfortunate are lazy). Ganz & Hassett’s characterization of the evidence suggests that any connection between (A) and campaign contributions should be the opposite: one might expect higher rates of campaign contributions among athletes. Moreover, campaign contributions can be made to foes of redistribution as well as to its advocates, so (B) and (C) seem separable issues. But you seem to suggest that (A) leads to (C), maybe because of (B). Am I missing something?

Disclaimer: this question is more directed to the logic of your argument, and shouldn’t be understood to suggest agreement with all or any of Ganz & Hassett’s substantive conclusions, some of which are just silly. E.g., “In other words, if you take two kids who have the same IQ and put one in a sports program, he will have a better future.” Aside from the dubious wisdom of equating “better future” with increased wages, and ignoring that the wage differential G&H mention is only $1,000 per year, what if, say, that kid doesn’t like sports?

I can appreciate that there are some positive values taught in youtb team sports, but what really amazes me is the opportunity costs in wasted brainpower for the millions of hours spent watching professional sports (and most TV for that matter).