Thursday, May 25, 2006
Things That Make You Go Hmmm
I remain ever perplexed by "New York Times" columnist David Brooks, whether he is conservative to the core or whether his stint at the "Times" has had an effect on his political beliefs. Unfortunately he writes in a way that does not clear up the answer for me.
Today (sub. req.), in his column titled "Of Love and Money," he takes on the problem of inequality in the United States. First he softens us up with the stark admonition that failure to recognize the rising inequality in the United States is only to place us in economic and social peril in the days to come:
Nonetheless, certain conclusions are unavoidable. First, the gap between rich and poor is widening. It's like global warming; you can resist the evidence for a while, but eventually you have to succumb.
He also adds for emphasis, that living standards in the US are only rising for those on top and upward mobility has stagnated while new stratifications that create these inequalities have appeared--not just stratifications based in race or sex, but also with family background.
So the inability to compete really is not the fault of individuals, but rather it may be bred into the system? If you allow free market capitalism to run rampant with little government intervention, it will end in a system with few "haves" and enormous "have-nots?" Egads, that sounds to me like a "liberal" position? How can this be so from a conservative such as Brooks? And the gushing doesn't stop!
Why has the gap happened? Poor economic choices? Dropping out of school? Families that do not rigidly discipline children? No, it comes out of the system itself. The system rewards those with certain skills--skills that those on the losing end of the have-have not gulf. The system rewards children in stable, middle class homes. The system rewards those lucky enough to receive a college education, because a college degree is the key to opening doors that allow individuals into good paying jobs. Without a college education and the socializing effects of a stable family, individuals are forced to compete with the millions of unskilled workers that are part of this globalized economy. And if that is the case, then they will always fall right out of the bottom of society. Why David! You had me at hello!
But then the hammer falls--sort of. The million dollar question is: What do you do about this? And here you see the conservative in Brooks shine through. First, you do not throw money at the problem (doesn't that sound familiar?), it really won't help much to have job training for those on the lower economic rung of the ladder because you will never be able to give them the skills that will raise them above the masses of low and unskilled workers the world over. What do you do? Give up on them!
Brooks tells us that children at 3 years of age, who have been intellectually stimulated and surrounded by loving parents will be the type of individual who will grow up to succeed. Even Headstart will only produce "modest benefits," according to Brooks and to a recent study done by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The best Brook can offer is this:
If we want young people to develop the social and self-regulating skills they need to thrive, we need to establish stable long-term relationships between love-hungry children and love-providing adults.
Well that ought to get the current administration and their allies in Congress moving. Can we get millions of dollars in federal appropriations in teaching us to love each other, and then teaching us how to transfer that love to our children?
Glad that was simplified for us! But it does seem to suggest that the institution that is the "New York Times" has had a definite effect upon the thinking of David Brooks.
|
Today (sub. req.), in his column titled "Of Love and Money," he takes on the problem of inequality in the United States. First he softens us up with the stark admonition that failure to recognize the rising inequality in the United States is only to place us in economic and social peril in the days to come:
Nonetheless, certain conclusions are unavoidable. First, the gap between rich and poor is widening. It's like global warming; you can resist the evidence for a while, but eventually you have to succumb.
He also adds for emphasis, that living standards in the US are only rising for those on top and upward mobility has stagnated while new stratifications that create these inequalities have appeared--not just stratifications based in race or sex, but also with family background.
So the inability to compete really is not the fault of individuals, but rather it may be bred into the system? If you allow free market capitalism to run rampant with little government intervention, it will end in a system with few "haves" and enormous "have-nots?" Egads, that sounds to me like a "liberal" position? How can this be so from a conservative such as Brooks? And the gushing doesn't stop!
Why has the gap happened? Poor economic choices? Dropping out of school? Families that do not rigidly discipline children? No, it comes out of the system itself. The system rewards those with certain skills--skills that those on the losing end of the have-have not gulf. The system rewards children in stable, middle class homes. The system rewards those lucky enough to receive a college education, because a college degree is the key to opening doors that allow individuals into good paying jobs. Without a college education and the socializing effects of a stable family, individuals are forced to compete with the millions of unskilled workers that are part of this globalized economy. And if that is the case, then they will always fall right out of the bottom of society. Why David! You had me at hello!
But then the hammer falls--sort of. The million dollar question is: What do you do about this? And here you see the conservative in Brooks shine through. First, you do not throw money at the problem (doesn't that sound familiar?), it really won't help much to have job training for those on the lower economic rung of the ladder because you will never be able to give them the skills that will raise them above the masses of low and unskilled workers the world over. What do you do? Give up on them!
Brooks tells us that children at 3 years of age, who have been intellectually stimulated and surrounded by loving parents will be the type of individual who will grow up to succeed. Even Headstart will only produce "modest benefits," according to Brooks and to a recent study done by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The best Brook can offer is this:
If we want young people to develop the social and self-regulating skills they need to thrive, we need to establish stable long-term relationships between love-hungry children and love-providing adults.
Well that ought to get the current administration and their allies in Congress moving. Can we get millions of dollars in federal appropriations in teaching us to love each other, and then teaching us how to transfer that love to our children?
Glad that was simplified for us! But it does seem to suggest that the institution that is the "New York Times" has had a definite effect upon the thinking of David Brooks.
