Paul Krugman uses Martin Luther King Day to latch on to income inequality as the new "evil" to be opposed as vigorously as racism.
He cites a recent speech by CEA chair Alan Krueger, described by Timothy Noah; the speech took inspiration (and the Great Gatsby Curve) from this thoughtful and interesting paper by Miles Corak (who provides more background here.).
At a quick read I would say that Corak does not come out of the shadows on immigration, as Krugman did briefly in 2006. The gist - allowing unskilled Third World workers into the US to work improves their income situation and helps global income inequality but depresses the wages of unskilled native Americans, thereby hurting US income inequality statistics. Furthermore, the public won't support both a generous social safety net and open borders. So, although the moral case for the de facto open border policy favored by Democrats may make sense to some hypothetical President of the Americas, the case is a bit less compelling for a President of the US. Krugman does not add that the case for open borders becomes more compelling if there are lots of prospective new voter to co-opt.
I will also add that what is missing here is a baseline - David Brooks explained years ago that a hereditary meritocracy may not be what we want, but it is not surprising:
At the top end of society we have a mass upper-middle class. This is made up of highly educated people who move into highly educated neighborhoods and raise their kids in good schools with the children of other highly educated parents. These kids develop wonderful skills, get into good colleges (the median family income of a Harvard student is now $150,000), then go out and have their own children, who develop the same sorts of wonderful skills and who repeat the cycle all over again.
In this way these highly educated elites produce a paradox - a hereditary meritocratic class.
And at the bottom of the ladder:
And this is not even to speak of the children who grow up in neighborhoods in which more boys go to jail than college, in which marriage is not the norm before child-rearing, in which homes are often unstable, in which long-range planning is absurd, in which the social skills you need to achieve are not even passed down.
The Corak paper discuss this, after citing Solon 2004:
To understand these differences we need to appreciate the possible underlying causes of generational mobility, and an important starting point is Solon (2004) who has adapted a standard perspective in the economics literature and made it appropriate for comparisons across countries.
Very broadly speaking, the reasons for the differences in the intergenerational elasticity across countries has to do with the role of three fundamental institutions determining the life chances of children—the family, the labor market, the state—and the different balance struck between their influence across countries.Solon’s model invites us to think of families differing in their capacities and resources to invest in their children, but also as facing different incentives to do so according to their socio-economic status and the social context in their country. While some of these capacities and incentives to invest in children may be genetic or due to family history and culture, others are influenced by how families interact and interface with the labour market and public programs. It is these later influences that are related to public policy and choices.
Corak also discusses the implications of the cost and return to education:
As another example, an increase in the cost of human capital investment, such as in market-based provision of child care or health care, private primary schooling, or higher college tuition fees, will implylower human capital investment. In a similar way a higher potential return to human capital will create an incentive for more investment. Solon (2004) takes the rate of return to education as an indicator of the degree of inequality in the labour market, and shows that societies with labor markets characterized by more cross-sectional inequality—that is, a higher return to education—will be less generationally mobile.This is because a higher income, dual earner family with fewer children not only has a higher capacity to invest in the education of their children than a single parent low income family, but also because the incentives to do so are greater. Inequality in demographics and labor markets in the here and now will have an influence on the degree of inequality in earnings in the next generation. Consequently we can expect the intergenerational elasticity to differ across countries for reasons associated with the costs and returns of investing in a child’s human capital, the way in which the labor market works and how “good jobs” are obtained, and the income inequalities between parents.
A country with confiscatory taxes and a generous social safety net has less incentives for investment in education than, for example, the US. .
Finally, Corak presents a troubling, if unsurprising, finding in a comparison of the US and Canada:
In both countries there is a considerable degree of mobility among the broadly defined middle earnings group, but both the sons of high and low earning fathers are more likely to grow up to be, respectively, high and low earning adults.
...There is in fact a good deal of fluidity in the American earnings distribution across the generations with the children of most middle earning parents experiencing outcomes that are not strongly associated with their parents’ income levels. But even so, on average, the United States stands out as being among the least generationally mobile among the rich countries, and in particular the overall degree of relative earnings mobility across the generations is almost three times greater in Canada, a country to which it might be most apt to make a comparison. This difference is due to a greater stickiness in earnings across the generations at both the top and the bottom.
So Horatio Alger is alive and well in the middle class - a permanent underclass and a semi-permanent overclass would be the problem. Now, Paul Krugman's child, the offspring of two Princeton profs, is undoubtedly being raised in advantaged circumstances and will get into the college of her choice. My suspicion is that Paul Krugman does not consider his decision to raise his child with attention and care to be "evil". So maybe the notion that the well-to-do are making the ffort to raise their kids well is not really the problem. If class status was conferred by the inheritance of land, well, one might feel differently. But if parents pass down, through nature and/or nurture, some combintion of height, high energy, good health, good looks, intelligence, motivation, and organizational skills, well, is that really so terrible?
At the bottom of the ladder the problems are very different. I assume nobody wants to hear from a middle-class white guy on this topic, so let's cut to a middle class white gal - Megan McArdle attempted to imagine the difficulties of pulling a Hoartio Alger act from the ghetto, and struck me as quite insightful. Her point is that even if the door to success is open, expecting a kid to make the choices necessary to walk through it is not the high-probability bet.
I never thought I would be so glad to see a Krugman thread!
Posted by: centralcal | January 16, 2012 at 08:43 AM
Hi CC. How is our Garden Nome doing this week?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 16, 2012 at 08:50 AM
From the other thread:
When did Newsweek morph into Mad magazine? Or is it the other way around?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2012 at 08:50 AM
Me, too, cc. I was getting a big doctrinal headache.
I agree with Megan. Especially so after a month on grand jury duty here, watching a parade of kids who had lots of choices and rarely tok the right ones to upward mobility.OT, but via Insty and worth a read:
Related: Rex Murphy: Thou must not question Big Environment.
The greatest advantage the greens have had is the relative absence of scrutiny from the press. Generally speaking, it’s thought to be bad manners to question self-appointed environmentalists. Their good cause, at least in the early days, was enough of a warrant in itself. And when it was your aunt protesting the incinerator just outside town, well that was enough. But when it’s some vast congregation of 20,000 at an international conference, or thousands lining up to present briefs protesting a pipeline, well, let’s just say this is not your aunt’s protest movement anymore.
There is no such thing as investigative environmental reporting — or rather very precious little of it in the established media. Environmental reporters rarely question the big environmental outfits with anything like the fury they will bring to questioning politicians or businesspeople. Advocacy and reportage are sometimes close as twins.
And so the great thing I see about Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s little rant against Northern Gateway pipeline opponents a few days ago — asking whether some groups are receiving “outside money” or if they are proxies for other interests — is not so much the rant itself, but rather the fact that at last some scrutiny, some questions are being asked of these major players. Big environment, however feebly, is being asked to present its bona fides. And that’s a good thing: The same rigor we bring to industry and government, in looking to their motives, their swift dealing, must also apply to crusading greens.
Where does their money come from? What are their interests in such and such a hearing? What other associations do they have? Are they a cat’s paw for other interests? Do they have political affiliations that would impugn their testimony? In hearings as important as the ones over the Northern Gateway pipeline, with the jobs and industry that are potentially at stake, the call to monitor who is participating in those hearings is a sound and rational one.
Posted by: Clarice | January 16, 2012 at 08:53 AM
Hey, OL, didn't you hear? He moved up - Huntsman dropped out. Garden Gnome is sure to gain his voter!
Posted by: centralcal | January 16, 2012 at 08:54 AM
JiB: Interesting choice in Newsweak cover photo of The Won, don't you think?
Posted by: centralcal | January 16, 2012 at 08:57 AM
As long as "acting white" is the sobriquet that is thrown at students attempting to get an education and better themselves, there is not much money and or compassion is going to do to change the ghetto.
Posted by: GMAX | January 16, 2012 at 09:01 AM
"Huntsman dropped out. Garden Gnome is sure to gain his voter!"
I would think Huntsman would be voting for Romney.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 16, 2012 at 09:13 AM
In this way these highly educated elites produce a paradox - a hereditary meritocratic class.
This was a chief point of The Bell Curve which was lost in all the racial hullabaloo.
A bigger problem to my mind is that the educated (or higher IQ) are having fewer children than they used to, not enough to maintain their proportion.
Posted by: Ralph L | January 16, 2012 at 09:14 AM
Doesn't Canada allow many more immigrants (proportionally to the population) than the U.S.? Immigrants are much more likely to jump from poverty in the first generation to middle class in the second. If our poor are more likely to be native born, that would help account for why they are less upwardly mobile than Canada's.
As for our rich more likely to remain rich (which seems to be behind the Corak finding of less mobility at the top), it's hard to see why that's a bad thing.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 16, 2012 at 09:19 AM
You would be right, TK. He has already scubbed all of his YouTubes and websites of any "anti-Romney" stuff before his endorsement today.
What a bummer for De Rothschild who was hosting the big donor cocktail party. Maybe no one was coming and that's why he dropped out?
Posted by: centralcal | January 16, 2012 at 09:20 AM
sorry, my error - Lynn held the cocktail party on January 12th, so my supposition should be past tense - "maybe nobody went to the party."
Posted by: centralcal | January 16, 2012 at 09:24 AM
Newsweek Cover Story: 'Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?'
Now think about this: You get your news from reading the headlines in the grocery store. You don't care about politics, and have no idea that the problems in the economy are tied to political decisions.
Finally you know who to vote for - because the one thing you are not, is dumb.
Posted by: Jane | January 16, 2012 at 09:29 AM
Duke and Duke gets paid big time for this kind of advice, although a little googling
would have told him that a campaign manager
who would insinuate an affair to the Times, is someone you shouldn't trust;
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-withdrawal-should-aid-romney/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 09:30 AM
In hearings as important as the ones over the Northern Gateway pipeline, with the jobs and industry that are potentially at stake, the call to monitor who is participating in those hearings is a sound and rational one.
Bold mine. Yeah, who is giving testimony & who do they really represent. My experience with my neighborhood community association showed what a farce a lot of these hearings are.
Posted by: Janet | January 16, 2012 at 09:30 AM
What is wrong with people like this, yes she's the Parker of the North End;
http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/boston-herald-hack-obamas-a/
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 09:35 AM
The irony of Krugman and his argument is that it is the progs/Dem/left nexus that blocks upward mobility initiatives like school vouchers. So, all the money, all the programs, all the government intervention since LBJ's Great Society's War on Poverty initiative shows the aforementioned results? And what do you propose to counter such negative performance? More wealth distribution. That's the ticket. Yuk!
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2012 at 09:37 AM
It's not enough though to have highly educated parents. A distinct number of those kids have had limited substantive dialogues with those parents and far more contact with a series of nannies. These kids have an expectancy they will remain UMC without a real handle on what it took their parents to get there. Plus the change from private schools and colleges from transmission of knowledge to transmission of a filtering worldview means that many parents and their offspring believe they have purchased tickets on the bus headed to success. They aren't recognizing just how little value that markets will pay for is being purchased for all that tuition. See for example Hahvard discontinuing final exams for undergrads unless prof gets express permission.
Over and over again in the lit I read what we must do for ALL students. What a low threshold that must be. Guess who gets hurt the most? The bright kid who wants to move beyond the circumstances they were born into.
Also the social capital and high IQ generally is viewed by educators now as illegitimate because they believe it is entirely due to advantageous social circumstances. Your child's abilities and knowledge are thus not considered to be theirs alone. Bright kids have an obligation in this view to stop their intellectual ascent and aid the less capable.
Posted by: rse | January 16, 2012 at 09:38 AM
The Scots want a referendum on the UK and Cameron seems willing to give it to them. The Scots are the only reason why Cameron does not have an overwhelming majority in Parliament right now, so he probably is willing to waive a fond farewell. Like the Quebecois, they wont pull the trigger but might the English push them away from the mooring?
Posted by: GMAX | January 16, 2012 at 09:40 AM
Jane:
Its Newsweak. There is a reason it sold for a $1 to Mr. Nancy Pelosi. Hint: No one reads the rag anymore. Tina Brown is a has been too...
Posted by: GMAX | January 16, 2012 at 09:41 AM
Well that is the rub, rse, the 800 pd guerilla in the room, the content of these
courses, really no finals,
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 09:43 AM
GMAX,
Polls of the English show them in favor of the Scots indepedance while the Scots are starting to show a reluctance for Independance. This is all because of Alex Salmond. He's the guy in the viral Thatcher video on socialism who tells her "[he] disagrees with everyone of her positions" to which she responds how "[she} disagrees with all of his positions as shown to be true by the condition of Eastern Europe".
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2012 at 09:50 AM
No one reads the rag anymore
Nearly every week Dick quotes something he read in Newsweek. He clearly got a free subscription somewhere, and never heard that it has been discredited.
And according to Dick... he knows politics. I'm quite sure he has no idea Newsweek is passe or that it sold for $1.00 or that it is a laughing stock, and neither do the people who get their news from the magazine covers at the checkout line.
Posted by: Jane | January 16, 2012 at 09:53 AM
I can remember vividly the words of the Harvard soccer coach trying to put his best foot forward with Jmax. "Its a heck of a lot harder to get into Harvard than it is to graduate from Harvard, and I can get you into Harvard."
Posted by: GMAX | January 16, 2012 at 09:53 AM
One thing I keep wondering, but I'm too lazy to do the work (other than some idle googling):
To what extent is individual income inequality explained by
a) the increasing proportion of business earnings appearing on personal income tax via pass-through entities (partnerships, LLCs, etc.)
b) Immigration, as you suggest above, and the higher percentage of low-income people reporting due to EITC incentives.
Posted by: Andrew Hofer | January 16, 2012 at 09:57 AM
Minus 20 at Raz today.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 16, 2012 at 09:58 AM
Jane, Newsweak doesn't even appear at the checkout line these days.
Posted by: MaryD | January 16, 2012 at 09:59 AM
'A speech by CEA chair Krueger,' wait what?
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90058530?President%20Obama%20reaffirms%20faith%20in%20%26quot%3BCash%20for%20Clunkers%26quot%3B%20Krueger
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM
Thank God, a new thread.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM
I'm an Obama critic, so I guess I'm probably so dumb I don't even know how to read and therefore won't bother with Newsweek.
What are they expecting with this headline? To increase readership beyond their already committed Obamaphiles? If so, THAT'S dumb.
Posted by: PD | January 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Isn't a speech, by Krueger, as recalled by Noah, yet another rocket surgeon, told to Krugman, the classic 'game of 'telephone'
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM
actually I think it sold to mr jane harman.
jim ryan's rant upthread plus that newspeak cover reminded me of how lonely being a female atty who does not see things in the reflexive echo chamber way can be. Right now even good friends do not want what I am working on to be true but they have known me too long to doubt that I have tracked down whatever I claim is true. I just try to talk about other things.
Until yesterday when a young relative did not understand why I had a problem with expensive, reputedly elite colleges offering course credit for community service. I think I said a degree for good intentions will not create knowledge or skills anyone wants to pay you for long term. She looked at me with that sad "It should" look. And I thought about how much trouble relatives had gone to protect her from the economic realities of life.
Posted by: rse | January 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM
rse you are correct. My only defense is that I had not had even a 2nd cup of joe as yet!
Posted by: GMAX | January 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Tina Brown is a has been too...
Is there an alternative universe where her brief period of people knowing who she is made sense?
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Well the Asaad loving Anna Wintour comes from the same milieu, Captain,
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM
LOL, Ex.
Krugman poised to become Handicapper General through a recess appointment.
Envy is never attractive and remains one of the Seven Deadly. Along with sloth.
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM
A poor man in America is a very wealthy man; and yet nothing riles him more than seeing somebody wealthier.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 16, 2012 at 10:23 AM
If Ranger is around, DAX and FTSE ( that is Germany and England S/Exs ) are both up at the moment, the DAX especially so. No real impact and in fact the borrowing cost for France actually drop a tad, so its almost as if the Bond traders knew it and once the downgrade happens they cheered what they already knew.
Posted by: GMAX | January 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Which part of God do we thank, Ext?
Posted by: Ralph L | January 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM
From the McArdle piece TM linked, I think this is b.s.:
What's the basis for this statement? Black kids who study just as hard as white kids can't get the same jobs, in this day and age of Affirmative Action and associated reverse discrimination?What percentage of white kids end up as president of Merill Lynch?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Yes, I found that column very condescending, I agree that their are cultural elements that
tend to restrain traditional economic advancement, but why is that necessarily the last word,
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM
At the baby shower this weekend, oldest daughter who has worked at her school district forever - smallish farm town - told us how they are transitioning every classroom (elementary school) to the iPad. They buy 40 at a time.
Raised some eyebrows among us. Even here in California.
Posted by: centralcal | January 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM
That will not end well CC.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 16, 2012 at 10:36 AM
I'm quite sure he has no idea Newsweek is passe or that it sold for $1.00 or that it is a laughing stock, and neither do the people who get their news from the magazine covers at the checkout line.
Or get their news from the magazines in the waiting room at doctors' offices. Every doc and dentist I see is a Newsweek subscriber, probably because it's offered to them at virtually no cost. Gives me something to do while I wait though: stacking them up, covers downward, and putting them to the bottom of every pile.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | January 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM
No, it won't, the Ipad is a tool, but not an end in itself, If it was used in conjunction with Khan Academy or Academias Vasquez, that would be something else entirely,
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM
Realistically, dealing drugs probably offers many of them a more certain chance of making good money in their twenties than staying in high school.
McArdle's lucky she's not Sarah Palin, or that would be a really stupid and racist thing to say.
Posted by: bgates | January 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM
When are large numbers of blacks going to tell white libs to stop patronizing them with disgusting stereotypes possessing no moral compass and excusing criminal and self-destructive behavior? You don't even have to read between the lines to see that.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Jane: Off to work, but somewhere early this morning I read that Newsweak only prints little more than 1 million issues of the mag, and has a subscriber circulation of only 40K. Don't have time to backtrack my reading, so can't provide a link and am relying on my memory (dangerous, I realize).
With stats like that, I don't think they influence too many folks.
Posted by: centralcal | January 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM
I wonder do they just put that crayon up their nose like Homer;
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/santorum-staffer-under-fire-for-sexist-email-is-it-gods-highest-desire-to-have-a-woman-rule/
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Heh, (A)B, I do the same thing at my dentist. By the time I'm out of there, Sports Illustrated and Road & Track are at the top of every pile.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 16, 2012 at 10:48 AM
A poor man in America is a very wealthy man; and yet nothing riles him more than seeing somebody wealthier.
Not just the poor man. I think it was Benjamin Graham who observed that nothing aggravates a man like seeing the next man's investments go up more than his own.
Posted by: PD | January 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM
The header below the title, is ESPN 'dropping the ball' when did they ever have it;
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Actually, one of the CEO's of Merrill Lynch (once or twice removed) was in fact a black guy. You'd think a business writer like McArdle would have known that?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM
This would be too honest a cover;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnyshop/6704986165/
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Here's something a real commissioner should be looking into: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/14/3371495/arrowhead-anxiety-turnover-off.html#storylink=omni_popular
I'm sure whoever wrote that is having all his access pulled as I type so that Goodell doesn't have to deal with such unpleasantries when he holds court before the Super Bowl.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM
In line with the post upthread about checking who's funding the enviros:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086986/Kerry-Kennedy-making-40-MILLION-advocating-rainforests.html#ixzz1jY3jdWPF
Posted by: Clarice | January 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM
O'Neal, right, and Chenault the head of American Express, and that fellow who helmed
the Beatrice takeover, the late Reginald Lewis, who was a major M%A guy.
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM
There is a poll at NRO: Between Gingrich and Santorum, you favor:
For some reason it made me cringe but I voted for Santorum who I have never supported, over Gingrich who I once supported. Santorum is winning 71% - 29% at this moment.
It's amazing how much that attack on the free market hurt Gingrich. I wonder who recommended it.
Posted by: Jane | January 16, 2012 at 10:54 AM
How many times do they have to this, before they realize they don't operate in good faith;
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/fact-checking-the-new-yorker.php
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Did you guys read this? It's from a couple of days ago.
The most acute division on the right — the one that will give Mitt Romney the most trouble — is not between moderates and hard-core right-wingers, between electability-minded pragmatists and ideologues, or between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment. It is between those Republicans who disagree with Barack Obama, believing his policies to be mistaken, and those who hate Barack Obama, believing him to be wicked. Mitt Romney is the candidate of the former, but is regarded with suspicion, or worse, by the latter. The former group of Republicans would be happy merely to win the presidential election, but the latter are after something more: a national repudiation of President Obama, of his governmental overreach, and of managerial progressivism mainly as practiced by Democrats but also as practiced by Republicans.
Posted by: Jane | January 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM
It's amazing how much that attack on the free market hurt Gingrich. I wonder who recommended it.
No matter who recommended it, or if anybody did, it's one of the unforced errors that's characterized his public life that supporters were hoping wouldn't happen when he was doing so well in the debates. He's a ticking time bomb on that stuff and if it hadn't been this it would've been something else.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM
Have I ever seen an uglier couple? Yech...(Clarice's link.)
Posted by: Extraneus | January 16, 2012 at 11:04 AM
Yeah, it was linked in an earlier thread, Jane. I wonder how many Republicans are in the "Poor Obama. Great guy, if a little incompetent. But surely he only wants the best for America" camp. Besides T. Coddington von Vorhees VII, I mean.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Yes he went all 'ramming speed' and ran into the wall at the 'stop and shop'
But I've noticed how Sununu went all 'Vercotti on Adelson, suggesting he might not get casino financing, how Primack did a 180 on Bain, over the period of a month, how CNBC retracted a story, that in retrospect may not have been false, really the Treasury would contact a relatively small firm in Texas, and not one of the major players along with Lazard and Merrill.
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 11:11 AM
The former group of Republicans would be happy merely to win the presidential election, but the latter are after something more: a national repudiation of President Obama, of his governmental overreach, and of managerial progressivism mainly as practiced by Democrats but also as practiced by Republicans.
If the former group believe El JEFe's policies were mistaken, how could they not want them to be repudiated?
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM
I like to mark Martin Luther King Day by quoting from a description of the kind of society MLK's loudest supporters would like to build for us:
[the society holds that] is the duty and obligation of the individual to labor for the mutual benefit of both society and individual, under a warrant to the individual of protection, and a comfortable subsistence, under all circumstances. The person of the individual is not property....Nor is the labor of the individual solely for the benefit of society, but for the benefit of all concerned; for himself, to repay the advances made for his support in childhood, for present subsistence, and for guardianship and protection, and to accumulate a fund for sickness, disability, and old age. The government, as the head of the system, has a right to the cooperation and labor of the individual, but the individual has also his mutual rights in the government; the right of protection, the right of counsel and guidance, the right of subsistence, the right of care and attention in sickness and old age. He has also a right in his government as the sole arbiter in all his wrongs and difficulties, and as a merciful judge and dispenser of law to award the penalty of his misdeeds. Such is America
I'm sure the lamentable sexism gave away the fact that the author of that paragraph was not quite as enlightened as modern Democrats, but he's close. It's remarkable how well he captured the spirit of the social contract his party offers us all, with its balance of rights to social services and obligations to provide funding for those services. You can read more of the thoughts of this college President and forerunner of today's Democratic Party here; I quoted (well, paraphrased, but very slightly) from page vii of the introduction.
Posted by: bgates | January 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM
When I first started reading the New Yorker regularly, about 1977, it was significantly better edited than it became in the arms of Tina Brown.
I still subscribe to the magazine, but nearly every piece has at least one gratuitous paragraph aimed at those who do not love Obama or the Progressive agenda, even in articles about successful economic activity in downtown Los Angeles.
Tina seems to have had a more lasting impact on the New Yorker than Harold Ross and William Shawn.
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM
I don't think very many, Ext. IMHO 90% of Republicans are enthusiastic about wanting Obama's agenda repudiated; the central conflict is between those who think Romney is up to the job, and those who don't.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM
...and maybe a secondary conflict is between those who think Romney is the only electable candidate, and those who don't.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM
And don't forget Richard Parsons, former CEO of Time-Warner, born in Bed-Stuy.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Yes, I think the NRO piece is bunk.
bgates, who wrote that? I can't tell from the cite.
Some years ago I finally gave up on the New Yorker.
Looking thru the horrible Dem dreck mags, Conde Nast comes out as No 1 in all categories. Is it just a leftist front? If s, it's brilliantly done.
Posted by: Clarice | January 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM
That is remarkable, just like Lovett and Harriman are probably rolling over about the fate of their initial investment with Gene
Meyer in what would become Newsweek.
When it comes right down to it, McArdle's column is very condescending indeed, I know Parson of AOL and Johnson of BET, are from an earlier generation, but there is considerable mobility,
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Why do you subscribe to the New Yorker, MarkO? You are giving your money to people who despise you and all you believe in, and adding a headcount to the subscriber figures they use to rope in advertisers, their main source of income.
I was a loyal participant from Wm. Shawn's era, but wrote them a heated letter of resignation after finally having enough of Sid Blumenthal's carp, back in the days he spat out his hatred of Republicans and conservatives there.
I continue to enjoy some of the articles and fiction therein, but you can get old copies of the mag from your library -- as I do -- and they won't profit from your readership.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | January 16, 2012 at 11:26 AM
I also still subscribe to the NYer, though I probably only crack open half the issues for lack of time. The main reason is that it's virtually free--I manage to get a rate of around $20/year, and there are frequently non-political articles (Annals of Medicine and the like) that are still quite good. And I still like the cartoons and love the cartoon contest.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Hilarious bgates, except that the pro slavery guys seemed considerably more generous towards liberty than a similar document that the DNC or the Center for American Progress might produce today.
That's merits a bookmark.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM
--I manage to get a rate of around $20/year...--
jimmy,
For $20 you could get a subscription to an excellent magazine about fast cars and still have enough left for a subscription to an excellent magazine about cool guns and still have fifty cents for, well not much of anything these days, but you'd still have some change.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Another good MLK jr. quote:
I like that viewpoint (restraint of harm) a lot better than Obama's viewpoint of government as paternalistic dispenser of all good with its consequent restraint on everything we might choose for ourselves, lest we choose what might get in the way of government.
Posted by: PD | January 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Yes, I think the NRO piece is bunk.
I'm not so sure altho he may be referring to left v right. I know Mr. Left was a big supporter of Bambi and since he is a finance guy/CEO type I could never figure out why.
He thinks his reasoning for abandoning Obama is different than the reason I didn't support him in the first place. He assumes I am a birther, and think Obama is a Muslim and the manchurian candidate. Now I've never said anything like that. Not once. My mother pretty much said the same thing. It's in their heads. I don't know how it got there, but maybe from articles like Newsweek.
Posted by: Jane | January 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM
LUN is an article on the American Poli Sci Assoc pushing knowledge as contingent on race, gender, ethnicity, etc.
I think the author is too optimistic. My experience is that once an area of expertise disproportionately impacts any of these AA groups, the approach is to abandon it for any candidates.
And if these academics were less doctrinaire and better informed they would see how close they were to Jewish science from the 30s.
Posted by: rse | January 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM
The reason it is almost free, Jimmyk, is that you are more useful to them for adding to their headcount of subscribers than you are for the small amount they charge you for the magazine. It still amounts to giving aid and comfort to your enemies.
They had wonderful cartoons in the old, Helen Hokinson days, but I find them mainly uninspired and unfunny now. Nothing has such a devastating effect on humor as political correctness, and that's their focus at present.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | January 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM
In the 'water is wet' department, remember F. Chuck started out on his campaign
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/16/sen-harkin-set-to-release-another-biased-dishonest-and-fundamentally-flawed-report/#comments
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Have I ever seen an uglier couple?
Henry Waxman and Miss America.
Posted by: Ralph L | January 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Clarice, it was E.N. Elliott, President of Planters' College.
Posted by: bgates | January 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM
There's nothing funny about authoritarianism.
On that subject, humor, I was forced to sit through Letterman's opening the other night. He made fun of Romney, Newt, all those in the GOP field and never a mention of any Democrat. This was when MO's "I'm angry that people say I'm black and angry" was front page news. It is a classic bit that Carson would have covered.
My theory is that these folks realize the fragility of the Obama construct and fear that the slightest push might topple it. No one is afraid to make fun of, say, Lincoln.
That nice Mr. Obama, you can't say those things about him. Bless his little heart.
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2012 at 11:44 AM
I love the New Yorker but only for the show, art gallery and jazz club schedules and the cartoons:) But at one time when they had John McPhee writing there was quality worth waiting for each month.
Remember it is called "The New Yorker", not "The Texan" or "The Georgian" or "The North Dakotan". That alone should be a giveaway as to what is inside. Don't buy it, let your dentist and doctor do that for you.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM
For $20 you could get a subscription to an excellent magazine about fast cars and still have enough left for a subscription to an excellent magazine about cool guns
Too much frustration for one living in Manhattan where both fast cars and cool guns are impractical or impossible, though the looks on friends' and relatives' faces from seeing those magazines on the coffee table would be priceless.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM
From Narciso's 10:02 Link
"as the White House continued to look for ways to create jobs and to promote economic growth."
Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90058530?President%20Obama%20reaffirms%20faith%20in%20%26quot%3BCash%20for%20Clunkers%26quot%3B%20Krueger#ixzz1jdkvw1Zl
In the years I have been following the Obama Regime, I had no idea they were looking " for ways to create jobs and to promote economic growth". It looks to me like they only kill private jobs and promote economic destruction of our economy.
Posted by: pagar | January 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM
You can't mock 'happy fun Obama' you should know that by now, he gets all 'wee weed up'
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM
I have mentioned before that numerous "the pol elites have plans for us" books lay out the importance of the media and cultivating what and how they cover desired talking points.
I marked this quote as an example this weekend:
"There will be an important role for the mass media in spreading the word and developing wide accord as a basis for political cooperation".
Posted by: rse | January 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM
I've been saying for 3 years that the MFM treats El JEFe like a retarded child.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Mark,
Those people have never criticized Obama. He is a God to them.
Posted by: Jane | January 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM
"There will be an important role for the mass media in spreading the word and developing wide accord as a basis for political cooperation".
Guess it's time for a little rebellion.
Hey, "Question Authority" was all the rage a while ago, wasn't it?
Posted by: PD | January 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM
I've been saying for 3 years that the MFM treats El JEFe like a retarded child.
And we don't?
Posted by: PD | January 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM
This will make some verklempt, thenerve of him;
http://theothermccain.com/2012/01/16/scott-walker-is-a-threat-to-the-status-quo/
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM
I love the New Yorker but only for the show, art gallery and jazz club schedules and the cartoons:)
Subscribe to Roger Kimball's The New Criterion, the best magazine extant for art, theater, book reviews, political insights, and cultural comment. From OUR side. It focuses on NYC, of course, and presents what's going on there so compellingly that after reading each month's issue I'm ready to sell my grandbabies for airfare. No cartoons, but you can look at those after you've purloined old issues of The New Yorker from your public library.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | January 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM
A good first step;
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ed-meese-gop-candidates-should-embrace-reagan-s-4-part-magic-formula
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM
I don't know about Lovett, but Johnson became rich through special legislation which benefitted Black ownership of tv and radio stations.
Posted by: Clarice | January 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Though their divorce was notoriously acrimonious- it was rumored that Mr Cuomo walked in on Ms Kennedy mid-tryst with a married family friend-
What is it with those Kennedies (I solved the apostrophe problem)
Posted by: Rocco | January 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM
I remember that last bit from the Wise Men, if I'm wrong I blame Thomas and Isaacson,
somethings never change; re questioning the efficacy of daylight bombing in Germany;
Averell Harriman, to Lovett;
"I have not supported Newsweek for ten year, through it's difficulties to allow our hired men to use the magazine to express
their narrow, uninformed, or insidious ideas' (193-194)
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM