December 22, 2016--Liberals Need to Fess Up

If we progressives are to rescue our political souls we need to begin by doing some fessing up.

I'll begin and then maybe you will consider doing the same.

Since 1981, Ronald Reagan's first year as president, most liberals have been big beneficiaries of conservative fiscal policy. Especially tax policy.

Though publicly rueing the dramatic cuts he and Congress pushed through, privately and unconfessedly we have done very well.

The Reagan tax cuts followed years later by the Bush tax cuts (re-upped by Barack Obama) were of benefit primality to upper-middle-income people. Not just the top 1-percent but most who were just upper-middle-class. Millions and millions of Americans with advanced education comfortably slotted into the professional, knowledge-working sectors of the economy.

People like me.

These are approximate numbers that reveal how I have fared thanks to Reagan, Bush, and even Obama--

Since 2001 when the Bush cuts took effect, Rona and I have paid at least $5,000 less a year in taxes. Over the course of these 15 years this totals $75,000.

Not bad, not bad at all.

This savings funds a lot of our lifestyle since it is discretionary income.

And the good times for us in this regard, with Donald Trump about to become president, look as if they will continue to roll. Maybe even accelerate. The stock market is so happy that the Dow is about to top 20,000 and our portfolio of stocks in only six weeks, thanks to the Trump Rally, has gone up more than 6-percent.

No bad, not bad at all.

All the time this has been happening, I have moaned and ranted here and among equally-privledged friends about the unfairness of the economic system, focusing my outrage primarily on how, as the result of right-wing fiscal policy, inequality has grown worse.

While all the time I and we have been thriving, millions are being left behind.

This looks and feels like hypocrisy to me.

And among the hypocrites you will find me.

Then, what else has been going on?

Again, since Reagan's time, white working-class and lower-middle-class Democrats have been drifting rightward. When the media noticed this phenomenon, they called these voters "Reagan Democrats," and a few weeks ago these same Democrats became "Trump Democrats," and their votes are propelling him to the White House.

All the while, what have many of us liberals been up to? Trying to enjoy ourselves, leaving the social policy agenda to Republican conservatives who have delivered more to us than the people whom they claim they represent.

I don't know about you, but I haven't noticed myself sending an additional $5,000 "equity" check to the IRS every April 15th with my tax returns.

Instead, at that time, I'm typically planning my next vacation in Maine and trip to Italy.

If we don't begin by taking an honest look at our own lives we will have no chance of overtaking the political forces at work. We used to be the party of "the working man." Now we are the party of self-indulgence and condescension.

More about that tomorrow.

November 28, 2016--Listen Liberals

Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal is a must read for progressives who are confused, frustrated, or just plain furious about why our preferred candidate is not the president-elect, ensconced up in Chappaqua, assembling her cabinet.

He is the author, recall, of What's the Matter With Kansas? which exposed the truth about how the conservative establishment backed by big-buck contributors such as the Koch Brothers figured out how to hoodwink Kansans among others by promising to make their lives great again--they would deliver on all the social issues that at the time were tormenting traditional-minded voters, from abortion and gay rights to prayer in school but not evolution in school.

If elected, the Republican Party promised it would end affirmative action and the voters would in return agree to tax cuts to benefit only the top five percent.

What of course happened was that the wealthy got their loopholes but average Americans did not have their social issues addressed.

Gays now can marry in all 50 states, evolution is still being taught in most schools, women still have the right to seek an abortion (often sadly having to run the gauntlet to secure one), and prayer in schools continues to be unconstitutional.

So now Frank turns his attention to the collapsed liberal majority. His subtitle says it well--What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?

If you haven't done so, read it and weep.

With a wealth of data and other forms of evidence, sardonically, he lays out how the old Democratic coalition of constituents has slipped further and further behind while progressive leaders offer lip service explanations and support policies that do not even chip away at inequality. In fact, they have voted for policies like the Bush tax cuts that have made things worse while at the same time for the liberal professional elites things have actually gone quite well.

Among liberals, Frank demonstrates, a kind of political ju jitsu is taking place that is spookingly similar to that practiced by Republican conservatives in the heartland of Kansas and the rest of red-county America.

In his words, "A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old middle-class commitment. For certain favored groups in a handful of cities, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality."

And Frank does a good job of vividly describing that abyss--

There was a time when average Americans knew whether we were going up or going down--because when the country prospered, the people prospered, too. But these days things are different. From the middle of the Great Depression [of the 1930s] up to 1980, the lower 90 percent of the population, a group we might call the "American people," took home some 70 percent of the growth in the country's income. 

Look at the same numbers beginning in 1997--from the beginning of the New Economy boom to the present--and you find that this same group, the American people, pocketed none of America's income growth. Their share of the good times was zero. The gains they harvested after all their hard work were nil. The upper 10 percent of the population--the country's financiers, managers, and professionals--ate the whole thing. The privileged are doing better than at any time since economic records began.

The last chapter of Listen, Liberal, rather than the current, "Liberal Gilt," could easily have been, "Why Donald Trump Won the Election." And the chapter after that should be, "It's Time, Liberals, to Fess Up, Organize, and Fight Back."

October 25, 2016--They're Dying of A Broken Heart

Thinking hard about the results of Angus Deaton's and Anne Case's study of death rates among white people, Bill Clinton, noting the dramatic rise in the suicide rate and increases in alcohol and drug abuse among young, undereducated low-income men, especially men, the former president said--

"It's not simply that people are losing jobs. Jobs were part of their cultural world. It's bigger than just this coal job doesn't exist anymore. It's that part of a way of life is disappearing."

He continued--

"You know what they're really dying of? They're dying of a broken heart."

He not only understands that pain. He feels that pain.

Some have made fun of Clinton's feeling people's pain--thinking it insincere and self-serving--but his enduring popularity, particularly among these displaced white people, suggests that they believe him. And as a result, he has wide support across the political spectrum. Perhaps more than any other politician.

If we want to build working connections between otherwise polarized constituencies, for the upcoming Clinton administration, a focus on men, proverbial "angry white men," as well as men of color, is both a good and smart idea.

To glimpse the scope of that need, from the Sunday New York Times, here is something by Susan Chira, senior correspondent and editor on gender issues--

• More than a fifth of American men--20 million people--between 20 and 65 had no paid work last year.
• Seven million men between 25 and 55 are no longer looking for work. Twice as many black as white.
• There are 20 million men with felony records who are essentially unemployable in anything other than menial jobs.
• Half the non-working men report they have serious health problems.
• Only 42 percent of college graduates are men.
• It is estimated that by midcentury, about a third of men between 25 and 54 who do not have college educations will be out of work.
• And, their suicide rate is soaring.

During the current campaign, we continue to hear from Hillary Clinton about the ongoing needs of women, children, and families.

These are real issues and deserve continued attention.

What we hear about men as a cohort tends to be negative. Through winks and nods, Donald Trump's approach is to pander to displaced-feeling men who, when they hear "make America great again," in dog-whsitle terms this means to them a time when white men were dominant and the wife stayed home to take care of the household and children.

Hillary's approach to male issues has been one-off--by making college more affordable, by growing the economy, everyone, including men, will benefit.

It may be that this will prove to be insufficient.

Just as when we perceived gaps between men's and women's aspirations and achievement, we instituted affirmative approaches to narrow those differences in the schools and work places. And to a large extent it worked. For example, 58 percent of college graduates are women.

We may need something equivalent for left-behind men.

Who better than a female, feminist president to take the initiative to address this new, even dangerous inequality. Not only would it be unexpected, it would wonderfully disrupt expectations. The concern among many is that her administration will be all about women and children just as there was fear that Obama's would be about black people.

If Hillary Clinton aspires to be a transformative president and genuinely wants to heal one of the most significant breeches in our social fabric, paying attention to those men dying of broken hearts would be an ideal place to begin.

November 13, 2105--Uber

In Aftershock: The Next Economy & America's Future I think it was Robert Reich who wrote about how the middle class has struggled to adapt to the new service economy by a variety of responsive strategies.

In the old economy, with well-paying manufacturing jobs economically anchoring millions of families, it was men primarily who worked in factories and offices while women stayed at home and worked there to maintain the household and assume primary responsibility for raising the children.

At that time, for most the jobs available to middle-class men were enough to sustain their families and provided enough so the next generation could do better than their parents.

But then the compounding affect of inflation and the decline in the number of these good jobs made it impossible to maintain families' life style with only one job and only one person working outside the home.

So men added part time jobs to help them keep even. And more and more women began to work outside the home and struggled both to do that and continue to take primary responsibility for childcare.

But 10-15 years ago this also began not to work.

To compensate families next turned to debt financing.

The one appreciated asset many families had was the rising value of their homes. Those who owned one. And so to maintain their financial status millions refinanced their dwellings. The loose lending environment was such that it was easy to get financing for more than real estate was worth, and families used that extra money--extra debt--to finance their lives and life styles.

Then everything collapsed and millions found themselves under water.

Looking around, they couldn't figure out what to do. Some decided to defer or even not have children. Others turned to the underground economy. More depended on various forms of government subsidies.

And yet others found ways to turn their only two remaining assets into income--

They earned extra money by renting their homes, apartments, and spare bedrooms via Web-based operations such as airbnb and turned their cars into taxis via Uber.

When this no longer works to keep families afloat, what will be next?

March 25, 2014--Chem Lab

In an analysis of the nation's 97,000 public schools, the Department of Education last week issued a report about the unequal deployment of resources among schools that enroll predominantly white students and those that serve children of color.

In every way it is disturbing.

Racial minorities are much more likely than white students to be suspended; they have access to fewer math and science courses; their teachers are lower paid and less experienced; and the schools in which they are enrolled are older and less well maintained.

Black students are three times as likely to be suspended or expelled as white students; a quarter of schools with the highest percentage of Hispanic students do not offer any math courses beyond Introductory Algebra; and a full third of them do not have any chemistry courses.

And when it comes to the availability of advanced placement courses--important for college admissions and success--schools with African-Ameircan and Hispanic students fare as poorly.

It is no wonder then that the academic achievement gap between the races is so pronounced and persistent.

This inequality of resources gives the lie to the claim of many conservatives that the opportunities are there equally for everyone and if certain people do not succeed (and we know what that is code for), it is their own or their parents' fault.

Some years ago I was working with the lowest-performing school district in New York State--Roosevelt, Long Island, a wedge of poverty squeezed between communities of great wealth.

The high school had the lowest graduation rate in the state and as a result the smallest percentage of students going on to college. The Ford Foundation was looking to work with all the schools in the district, offering to bring to them approaches to teaching and learning that had been shown to work in other impoverished school districts.

On my first tour of the high school, the principal pointed proudly to a gleaming chemistry lab. It was during school hours but there were no classes being held in the lab. When I expressed curiosity about that, the principal said, "Oh, we don't actually use the lab."

"Why not?" I asked.

"Because there's no gas for the Bunsen burners and no running water."

I was incredulous. "So no one takes chemistry lab? Isn't it a state requirement that to earn an academic diploma students need to take two to three years of lab science?" She acknowledged that was true.

"So what do you do?" I asked.

"We arrange field trips to Great Neck High School," she told me proudly, "and they allow our students to watch their students do lab work."

"They watch them? Doesn't that rub it in your students' faces that Roosevelt is, well, less than second-rate?"

For this she had no reply.

Nor, I suspect, do the thousands of principals and teachers who labor in under-financed and resourced public schools across the nation.