kristof, nicholas. “wretched of the earth.” _nyr_, may 31, 2007.

i also thought of some other things that could help in our quest for an intact black family:

we can address racial inequalities in prison sentences.
we can get rid of nclb.

here’s an excerpt from a letter commenting on the kristof article. it’s from the august 16, 2007 issue …

“… it is not clear that targeting the poor is the way to achieve optimum results (reduced income inequality and poverty). universal programs that incorporate all social groups and treat public services as entitlements can work better. universal programs benefit those below the poverty line but also the non-poor that risk joining them. more importantly, universal programs can empower the poor, making them part of society and avoiding the stigmatizing effects of targeting. … there is no better way of eliminating the damaging cultural consequences of poverty than slowly constructing more generous welfare states.”

diego sanchez anochea
lecturer in economics, institute for the study of the americas
university of london

(the parenthetical is mine.)

food for thought … and tackling poverty takes an enormous amount of it.

first, local politics in chicago are historically peculiar … and by “peculiar,” i largely mean “corrupt.” it’s a nutty place, to say the least. i don’t think that is solely a function of some inherent flaw in the democratic party … also, chicago is a little tricky to compare to wisconsin, just on population density and ethnic heterogeneity alone.

second, chicago wasn’t the only place housing projects failed, but i think it is also important to look at the other social factors that led to their rise: the massive northern migration of southern blacks in the early 20th century and certainly post-wwII … the white populace that was already moving into the suburbs, and definitely with more rapidity once the blacks starting landing in urban centers … housing projects offered northern cities a convenient opportunity for containment of a very scary influx … and that’s not liberal or conservative …

it was, however, a liberal move to require that the government not completely IGNORE those ghettos.

i’m not going to deny that welfare policies likely contributed significantly to the entrenchment of a culture of poverty, but they aren’t the only cause.

(incidentally, there was a terrific article in the _new york review of books_ last year discussing poverty and effective social programs to treat it … it discussed how men and women handle poverty and benefits differently between gender, but similarly across cultures … i.e., men view their poverty in a similar way across cultures but in a different way than their wives … i just tried to find the article in some old issues, and of course, i cannot. i will keep looking. it is very interesting.)

bottom line: causation is extraordinarily difficult to establish in all things human, even in the most controlled experiments. you make some big leaps in going from obama’s speech to an inevitable expansion of failed welfare programs.

remember that the biggest single overhaul of welfare came under a democratic president with a bipartisan bill.

also remember that social welfare consumes very little of the entire welfare pie … much larger pieces being consumed by corporate welfare … tax breaks, subsidies, industry bail-outs for oil companies, airlines, agribusiness …

finally, i would like to hear some progressive republican plans for helping poor families remain intact and able to sustain themselves healthfully. i’ll make it easy: how about a relative rather than absolute assessment of the poverty level … how about subsidized child care … how about universal health care …

the only thing i’ve heard from republicans in the last eight years was a half-hearted push to establish a “let’s get married” education program.

I didn’t say they created it, but their programs compounded the problem by providing a surrogate source of income and a new alternative for unwed mothers. Teen pregnancies were actually higher in the 1950′s than in the 1970′s but the availability of welfare meant fewer girls married the fathers or put the child up for adoption. Because child support enforcement was not a priority, fathers were released from their responsibilities. It created an atmosphere where families were no longer important.

And lastly, what have consetvativess done to shield the “traditional” family other than try to keep other families from coming into being? Not bloody much.

We have fought against the frequency of divorce, upheld the importance of a complete family and made child support enforcement a priority.

Remember, tradition is a matter of perspective, and we always romanticize the past.

I would counter by saying that while yes, conservatives tend to romanticize the past, liberals are just as guilty of romanticizing the future. The only difference is that we base our dreams on what has actually happened verses what we believe might happen.

* Ames, I’m glad you’re commenting over here. You’re opinions are very welcome.

On the sokal program thing, you’re making an error of history. Liberals didn’t create the single parent family; they just realized that they existed and tried to help those in that situation. Its like saying liberals invented homosexuality, or that abortion is a modern construction. Hardly. Liberals just move more quickly to take account of and react to historical trends that were formerly tabboo to mention! Hardly very progressive at all.

And lastly, what have consetvativess done to shield the “traditional” family other than try to keep other families from coming into being? Not bloody much.

Remember, tradition is a matter of perspective, and we always romanticize the past.

‘Traditional’ in the Progressive sense is meant to explain our ideas on families, the role of parents, the role of the community in celebrating families, etc. When conservatives talk about wanting to strengthen ‘traditional’ families they are ridiculed because this doesn’t included non-traditional family models or it insults feminists who don’t think a father is important.

What liberal policies are intent on failing to unite families?

What liberal policies DO unite families? For over 40 years liberals have told us that the traditional family model is dead. They have provided as many social programs as possible to facilitate an explosion of single-parent families yet they have done nothing to address the cultural attitudes that have lead to this problem.

I also think the link between the father’s day speech and welfare is a little disingenuous: the unspoken truth is, in fact, unspoken and more than a little leap of faith.

Please explain to me how liberalism has done anything to help fix this problem? Explain to me how conservatives failed the South Side of Chicago? 77 years of Democratic leadership in Chicago Ames. That’s pretty hard to refute.