Getting Past the Fast Food Decoy

Nails it again

Paul Krugman identifies a fascinating and vexing problem--and that goes to the heart of what passes for "conservatism" in America and what is at the core of contemporary populism. What currently passes for conservatism in America  is a strange alliance between business-oriented voters driven by an aggressive, free-market ideology and those who suffer most from those policies, such as working-class whites. This latter group is guided primarily by fear, anxiety, and resentment that are the result of a (relative) loss of status and accelerated cultural change. Contempory consumer capitalism is one of the least conservative ideologies in the world, perhaps second only to Marxist-Leninism.  And yet so-called "values" voters have--until this past primary season--voted for candidates funded by the Koch brothers and their ideological fellow-travelers. 

When upheavals occur in the economic, political, or cultural spheres, people as a whole become spooked, like herd animals that can sense danger and are moved by a primal fear that can trigger panic. The minority of voters who voted for Donald were willing to place a hell of a big bet that he would do anything worthwhile and that he wouldn't do much greater harm than the status quo. Indeed, an astonishingly high number of Trump voters don't think he'll do a good job according to exit polls. A sense of desperation drove these decisions. 

The Republican Party, for many decades, but especially since the Goldwater insurrection, has served as not just the party of business, but also the party of fear and racial resentment. This trend has accelerated at an astonishing rate. While its ideology remained free-market fundamentalism,  its core of voters are motivated by anger, fear, and resentment. This sense of anger, fear, and resentment, apparent from so long ago, was a part of the reason that I left the Republican Party. I find anger, fear, and resentment are the worst guides to policy and conduct. Fear is intended to serve as a warning system, not as a guidance system; anger is designed to be a tool for dealing with immediate threats, not a permanent mode of perceiving the world,  nursed by repeatedly pushing its on-button. And resentment is the reaction of those who surrender to their reality by nursing grievance instead of taking action. The inferiority complex cultivated by many who want to call themselves conservative is--whatever its original justification--a crutch that has been adopted as a permanent fixture of their reality. 

All of this is not to say that middle America isn't suffering through difficult times. Growing income inequality, declining life expectancy, loss of quality schools and other government services, and the loss of quality jobs are among many problems that are all too real. Democrats know this, but they have been far too passive about these slowly unfolding disasters. However, Republican policies have been disastrous. See, for example, Sam Brownback's Kansas, or how Terry Branstad has presided over the slow, continued decline of Iowa via their pro-business, free-market ideologies that parade as conservative. Contrast these states with the relative prosperity of New York or California. In California, it is the Jesuit seminarian turned life-long Democratic politician, Jerry Brown, who has overseen a resurgence and not the movie star-turned-Republican governor, Arnold Schwartzenager. Somehow that message has been sold in those states, and they've benefited. 

So, we need to get past the fast food decoy and work with those who are alienated from the system to bring them back into the fold for the benefit of all Americans. 

David Brooks: Sort of Right But Doesn't Want to Fight

"My conservative friend"

David Brooks has recently written two consecutive columns that address the social, economic, and political problems of inequality and social dysfunction in contemporary America. As is often the case, I find a lot to agree with Brooks and some to disagree with, and these two columns placed side-by-side provide a perfect opportunity to get a sense of sources of agreement and disagreement.

In the first column, “The Temptation of Hillary”, Brooks decries what he believes is the possible shift in the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton from an emphasis on what he calls “human capital progressivism” to “redistributionist progressivism”. He argues that the problems identified with the decline of middle-class wages and earnings arise from differences in education and educational opportunities. Accordingly, he believes that a continued emphasis on education should continue, while he decries the possibility of shaping political remedies to our growing inequality.

Brooks ignores the secular stagnation hypothesis of Larry Summers and The Great Stagnation of Tyler Cowen, to name but a couple of those who have identified and considered long-term structural problems going back to the 1970s. Brooks wants to limit the focus to the Great Recession of 2008 or shortly before and claim that wage and earning inequality is not an endemic problem. Indeed, as we read in the next essay, Brooks prefers to consider the problem as one of norms and morals. While I don't disagree that norms and morals are fundamental component of the problem, Brooks wants to continue thinking about remedies that avoid issues of political economy.

The more I consider issues of macroeconomics, the more I believe that the late 19th century divorce between political economy and economics was a mistake. Policies of governments made through political institutions; i.e., through non-market decision-making processes such as elections, legislative bodies, and lobbying, are of paramount importance in determining market outcomes. Political decisions that shaped the American economy in the immediate post-World War II era of the 1950s and 1960s began changing in the 1970s for a variety of reasons. Since that time, a market ideology has been dominant in American politics. This ideology reduced the role of government in addressing the shortcomings of the market. (I believe that perfect markets work perfectly and that perfect markets are as common as a perfect democracy or a perfect circle in nature. Or, to paraphrase what Winston Churchill said about democracy, a market economy is the worst type of economic system except when compared to all the others that have been tried from time to time.) I give credit for to Brooks for stating that the choice between what he terms “human capital progressivism” with its emphasis on education and “redistributionist progressivism” that he believes involves a redistribution of wealth, is not an absolute divide but one of measured differences. This is certainly true, and I don't support any type of full-scale redistributionist scheme. I’ve every sympathy for Brooks in what he seems to argue tacitly:  redistributionist politics are the toughest political fights and could harm the nation as a whole, especially in a time when we are already extremely divided. (Although I believe that much of the divides is already a surrogate redistributionist battle.) I also believe (along with Brooks?) that the politics of envy is the worst politics of all. (This is not something that I recall his having written or addressed directly, but I discern it is an undertone of much of his on-going commentary.)

The second essay, "The Costs of Relativism" is a review and commentary on Robert Putnam's recent work, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis. In that book, Putnam and his colleagues look at the differences between the children of educated Americans versus those of less educated Americans. The differential is staggering. However, what neither Putnam nor Brooks discuss sufficiently (per a review of Putnam here, as I haven’t read the book) is that education is a direct correlation not only of future earnings, but most likely of past (parental) earnings and wealth. Indeed, one critic of the book noted the irony that Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, fails to address the public policies and political decisions that have led to the increasingly gross distortions in the lives of children brought about by differences in wealth and education. Brooks also (largely) ignores the political and public policy aspects and ramifications of the problems and instead focuses on norms and morals.

I don't disagree with Brooks in that norms and morals play a huge role. Indeed, one useful dividing line between political outlooks can be drawn between those who focus on the individual and the individual’s personal attributes as defined by their morals, norms, and character, and those who focus on these society-wide political and economic systems that shape the environment in which individuals live. I accept both perspectives as different ways to look at the same problem. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but to believe that one need only be a Horatio Alger or positive thinker to get ahead and overcome a lack of education or opportunity is the grossest kind of deceit.

Brooks acknowledges that better policy and application of greater resources (money) have some role to play, but norms and morals are the most important aspect. He laments what he perceives as a lack of judgment by those who fail, and again I have some sympathy for this. A degree of tough love is appropriate when people are transgressing boundaries, but the widespread breakdown in marital and family standards are often exacerbated by the economic pressures that wage stagnation and a decline in public institutions (like public schools and colleges) are enforcing upon families. The simple matter is that marriages are more likely to be successful and happy if they're not under constant attack because of money problems. The degree that a lack of money and resources can be blamed on the bad choices that individuals and families make and the degree of blame that we can attribute to the economic and political system varies greatly. But when the pattern is as extensive and widespread as we find in America today, then we are justified in  giving greater weight to the economic and political forces shaping the our environment. In Iowa, since the 1970s, most Iowans know of the personal and family costs of economic decline and dislocation. I used to joke – although it's not really a laughing matter – that my my hometown declined (in population, economics, and social welfare) after I left for college in 1971. Of course, it had nothing to do with my leaving and everything to do with a wider pattern of economic decline and dislocation found among the mostly white middle-class in rural and small-town America. The vice-grip of economic dislocation is the source of the populist anger and Tea Party irrationality that erupted on the American scene and that now governs the Republican Party. It’s no coincidence that Iowa’s newest U.S. Senator is from Red Oak (very near my home town), located in rural, white middle America that’s experienced such a decline. It’s ironic (and sad) that her election was paid for in large measure by the Koch Brothers and their ilk with an agenda that will do no favors for the vast majority of her supporters. Elections like the last one are a lashing out. As David Frum his written, the divide of populism in America is not so much between wealth and poverty as it is between the educated and the (relatively) uneducated. ("American populism has almost always concentrated its anger against the educated rather than the wealthy. So much so that you might describe contemporary American politics as a class struggle between those with more education than money against those with more money than education: Jon Stewart’s America versus Bill O’Reilly’s, Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin.")

If it was as easy as Brooks implies that by merely enunciating and enforcing renewed social norms and morals we would mend the current rents in the American social fabric, that would be great. But while I believe this effort worthwhile, it needs a complimentary boost from changes in our political economy. Capitalism as a social and economic system is one driven by incessant change and the clear logic of personal (or corporate) profit. The capitalist system is terribly new measured against the whole of human history and which has been amped-up by industrialization and improving technologies over the course of less than three centuries. It needs repair. 

We are mortal, incarnated humans whose rationality is limited. We humans are not homo economus. We need social norms, we need markets, we need political deliberation. We need strong families. We need love. There is no magic bullet, but neither is there any source of change that we should ignore. Brooks tries to ignore the political economic aspects of necessary changes because it gets messy, but we can't afford to avoid those tough decisions.

President Obama's State of the Union Address 2014: Pointing in the Right Direction

 I didn't see or hear President Obama's State of the Union address, but I've reviewed the text and found some things worth considering more carefully. Excerpts from the speech follow with some comments from me. (Bold type marks my emphasis.)

The question for everyone in this chamber, running through every decision we make this year, is whether we are going to help or hinder this progress. For several years now, this town has been consumed by a rancorous argument over the proper size of the federal government. It's an important debate -- one that dates back to our very founding. But when that debate prevents us from carrying out even the most basic functions of our democracy -- when our differences shut down government or threaten the full faith and credit of the United States -- then we are not doing right by the American people.

 Calling out House Republicans for their shameful behavior (okay, he didn't say "House Republicans", but we all know it) was completely appropriate. He needed to lay down his marker and he did.

And in the coming months -- (applause) -- in the coming months, let's see where else we can make progress together. Let's make this a year of action. That's what most Americans want, for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations. And what I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party, young or old, rich or poor, is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all, the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead in America. 

A restatement of the American Dream and ideals, but we have to take a hard look at whether its working as well as it should. I don't think so. 

Now, let's face it: That belief has suffered some serious blows. Over more than three decades, even before the Great Recession hit, massive shifts in technology and global competition had eliminated a lot of good, middle-class jobs, and weakened the economic foundations that families depend on.

Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all.

So our job is to reverse these trends.

It won't happen right away, and we won't agree on everything.

 Growing inequality is a creeping and its insidious. One of the benefits of living in another country is to see how things that you don't understand or appreciate in your own country effect other nations. India suffers from huge chasms of inequality, the rising middle class notwithstanding. If you consider nations with large amount of inequality, you see how they don't make the "best place to live" awards. American has normally been marked by a large degree of social and political equality, and the more we lose that quality, the more our social and political fabric suffers.

But what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require congressional action, and I'm eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still, and neither will I. (Applause.) So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do. (Cheers, applause.)

 In other words, "Republicans, you either part of the solution or a part of the problem. You've marked yourselves as problems and its time for you to go." I'm glad to hear Obama taking this type of bold stand, which seems contrary to his instincts, but sometimes you've got to go beyond instincts.

 The point is, there are millions of Americans outside Washington who are tired of stale political arguments and are moving this country forward. They believe, and I believe, that here in America, our success should depend not on accident of birth but the strength of our work ethic and the scope of our dreams. That's what drew our forebears here. It's how the daughter of a factory worker is CEO of America's largest automaker -- (applause) -- how the son of a barkeeper is speaker of the House -- (cheers, applause) -- how the son of a single mom can be president of the greatest nation on Earth.

Yes, most of us come from modest origins. This is a great strength of our nation. 

Moreover, we can take the money we save from this transition to tax reform to create jobs rebuilding our roads, upgrading our ports, unclogging our commutes -- because in today's global economy, first- class jobs gravitate to first-class infrastructure. We'll need Congress to protect more than 3 million jobs by finishing transportation and waterways bills this summer. (Cheers, applause.) That can happen.

Infrastructure in the U.S. is beginning to lag, and this a great way--assuming sound projects--to put people to work. That all of us fortunate enough to enjoy some of this prosperity will have to pay some more in taxes doesn't bother me.

Meanwhile, my administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and jobs growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, our communities. And while we're at it, I'll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations. (Applause.)

If you want to find out what poor environment standards mean for day-to-day living, come to India or China, and you'll find out. 

And taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet. Over the past eight years the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth. (Applause.)

But we have to act with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with floods. That's why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air.

The shift -- (applause) -- the shift to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require some tough choices along the way.

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. (Applause.) And when our children's children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did. (Cheers, applause.)

Figuring out energy while reducing our carbon footprint is probably the greatest challenge the world faces now. To hear climate change raised in the public sphere in a clear and unequivocal voice is so welcome. We can't fix the problem until we acknowledge it, and the No-Nothing Party (once the proud Republican Party) won't do it. 

Tonight, because of the extraordinary troops and civilians who risk and lay down their lives to keep us free, the United States is more secure. When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq. More than 60,000 of our troops have already come home from Afghanistan. With Afghan forces now in the lead for their own security, our troops have moved to a support role. Together with our allies, we will complete our mission there by the end of this year, and America's longest war will finally be over. (Applause.)

It should have happened sooner. The complexity and history of Afghanistan are so daunting that we'll never have a "victory", so we need to get out sooner rather than later.  Watch the superb Jaipur Literature Festival panel about Afghanistan if you want some sense of the problems that exist there.

But I strongly believe our leadership and our security cannot depend on our outstanding military alone. As commander in chief, I have used force when needed to protect the American people, and I will never hesitate to do so as long as I hold this office. But I will not send our troops into harm's way unless it is truly necessary, nor will I allow our sons and daughters to be mired in open-ended conflicts. We must fight the battles -- (applause) -- that need to be fought, not those that terrorists prefer from us -- large-scale deployments that drain our strength and may ultimately feed extremism.

Yes, they do drain us. Thanks for admitting it!  And yes, sometimes I think that the U.S. government is in the terrorist creation business (see under "drones").

So even as we actively and aggressively pursue terrorist networks, through more targeted efforts and by building the capacity of our foreign partners, America must move off a permanent war footing. (Applause.) That's why I've imposed prudent limits on the use of drones, for we will not be safer if people abroad believe we strike within their countries without regard for the consequence.

This can't be said often enough: war and democracy don't mix. War kills democracy. If we have to worry about it in an Obama Administration (and we do), then how much more in a future (Heaven forbid!) Bush administration? 

The sanctions that we put in place helped make this opportunity possible. But let me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. (Applause.) For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

Super. We have to let all the world know that the U.S. will act in its perceived interests even if they conflict with the interests of any ally or friendly nation, whether it be Canada, the U.K. , or Israel. If Israel foolishly tries to torpedo negotiations with Iran (through the U.S. Congress, no less!), then President Obama is right to say "no". Simple. The war hawks in Congress need a firm "no" on this, and I'm very glad that Obama sent that message. After assuring our own national interest, we must support the State of Israel within the bounds of our interests and not simply follow the policies of any given Israeli government. 

All in all, a good message. Keep after it, Mr. President!