Rarely does our culture explicitly extol the virtues of money.  It’s a bit crass, we’re told.  Money concerns, however, have a way of focusing minds on things that matter and away from faddish diversions.  There is only so much airtime and so many op-ed pages and so many emails to Congressmen that could ever be generated during the lifespan of any political controversy cycle.  When there’s nothing else serious to talk about, “cultural” issues (e.g. God, guns, gays, etc.) are afforded their fifteen minutes.

Mark Rich in the Times writes that in this economy, where concerns of money trump all others, the culture warriors of the past 20 years are getting laid-off, as President Obama reverses the global gag rule and stem cell policies of the Bush Administration.

What has happened between 2001 and 2009 to so radically change the cultural climate? Here, at last, is one piece of good news in our global economic meltdown: Americans have less and less patience for the intrusive and divisive moral scolds who thrived in the bubbles of the Clinton and Bush years. Culture wars are a luxury the country — the G.O.P. included — can no longer afford.

Yes and no.  While the moral scolds are still scolding and their followers are still reiterating their specious talking-points, other issues are crowding them out.  Rich is wrong to think that “Americans have less and less patience” with those who want to teach creationism in school (a majority of the public wants this), or to keep the gays for marrying (even a majority of Californians won’t allow it).  These erstwhile “values voters” still exist in large numbers, but are distracted by more pressing economic concerns.  It’s not so much a matter of patience as it is a matter of attention.  When the economy’s decline has settled, the silent majority (Rich admits their silence, but not their majority) shall once again savor the luxury to take offense to Janet Jackson’s exposures and other such non-issues.

* * *

There’s one curious contradiction in Rich’s article:

As Michael A. Lerner writes in his fascinating 2007 book “Dry Manhattan,” Roosevelt’s stance reassured many Americans that they would have a president “who not only cared about their economic well-being” but who also understood their desire to be liberated from “the intrusion of the state into their private lives.” Having lost plenty in the Depression, the public did not want to surrender any more freedoms to the noisy minority that had shut down the nation’s saloons.

F.D.R. did not end “the intrusion of the state into … private lives.”  F.D.R. presided over a massive expansion of government intrusion, mandating all sorts of new taxes and social welfare schemes, not to mention the extensive economic regulation.  Whether or not one thinks the New Deal was wise, there is no doubt that F.D.R. expanded government intrusion.

Michelle Singletary in the Post points to research showing that people are less responsible with their money when they use credit cards.  The ease of use, the lack of tactile interaction with cash, and the deferment of eventual payment better enable us to part with our money.  Even when we fully pay off our balances each month, we must consider, writes Singletary, how our cards have subtly influenced us to make purchases we would not have otherwise made.

I recall times in college when I didn’t have a credit card and when my debit card was linked to my paltry bank account, I used to keep very little cash in my wallet lest I spend it.  The presence of only one Andrew Jackson set a psychological limit since I was reluctant to withdraw more cash.

Marc Fisher in the Post writes about an issue that has long interested me: why people live where they do. Different neighborhoods and jurisdiction provide different amenities that appeal to different people. Suburbs such as Montgomery and Fairfax Counties offer high-quality public schools, a feature especially appealing to middle-class families. Other neighborhoods offer proximity to bars and nightlife, a feature especially appealing to the young and single. Some jurisdictions have low crime rates, appealing to everyone, no doubt, but to different degrees. Others offer affordable housing, something becoming scarcer in DC and close-in suburbs.

Fisher concludes:

In the end, there is a bit of a city-suburb split. Many suburban residents love where they live but labor to pry open hours in which they can take advantage of what they’ve worked so hard to be near. City residents lose out on amenities such as libraries and recreation programs, and on essentials such as strong schools, but gain something some find equally precious: time.

Ask people who live and work in DC and you will find few of them complaining about spending too much time sitting in traffic.