Not that I think Chas. Murray is any great champion for those groups, but he did acknowledge in the intro to his piece that these remarks did not apply to people of color. I think that is a real limitation of his analysis (although I doubt he’s particularly bothered by either the omission or my assessment of its effect on the persuasiveness of his claims.)
It is also a curious omission, as I think that among black Americans, this degree of cultural or civic separation between the most successful and least is vastly less. That is to say, I think an analysis of why black America is more cohesive as a group could be a useful counterpoint to Murray’s piece.
In particular, I have in mind Chicago. Florida was the same. I’d be surprised if this didn’t hold in places like Atlanta or Charlotte or Dallas. Keep in mind by most and least successful, we are talking about the top and bottom quintiles. So, I don’t mean pairings like Oprah and ex-con, but it would include, say, a dentist and security guard with no more than a high school diploma.
The black church, which is particularly strong in the South, is one association that is less stratified than its whiter counterparts.
Murray seems to believe that religion is equivalent to going to church. I wonder how many of the people he counts as non-religious have Bibles and consider themselves born again, but don’t go that often. They may watch the services on TV. He seems to think there are a lot more atheists out there than even fervent atheists do.
My father was a participant in the kind of experiment that Brooks proposes - it was called the Army during WW II. He ran the veterans organization for his battalion, so I met a lot of the people in the army with him at various reunions. They were very aware of social class. The top people were officers, the rest, like him, were privates and corporals. It was a lot more effective at mixing people, so that dairy farmers from the middle of Pennsylvania met Jewish lunch counter guys from Brooklyn. For mixing classes - not so much.
In 1960 I was in the fourth grade, and the people I went to school with were a lot like me. Maybe everyone watched the same TV - but everyone did not read the same newspapers. The Daily News and the Times in NY were as different as Fox and MSNBC. and there were a lot of other big papers also.
Odd that Murray seems to ignore the 50% in the middle, and brushes away the top .1%. Get them closer to the middle and maybe there would be some more money to close the gaps he mentions.
This is nothing new- G.B. Shaw discussed it in “Pygmalion”.
What should be worrisome-the growth of the economic underclass-the people who reject education and middle class behavior.
Those three young men who attempted the rob the 65 year old bicyclist-thing they would be model citizens?
Economic or cultural classes aside, the divide that worries me the most is the professional soldier class that’s arising. Things went very, very badly for Republican Rome once the old militia was replaced by the professional Legions, and we’re going down the same road: long-term career soliders and their families forming their own tribe outside of mainstream society. And unlike ancient Rome or even the British Empire, having the soldiers colonize the barbarian frontier is no longer an option. The day when the soldiers don’t consider themselves the same people as the citizens anymore is the day we’ll start seeing Latin American-style coup d’etats and juntas.
This shows not that the Republicans are wrong but that they were right. At one time (the 1950’s and 1960’s) the cultural elite was trying to free people from the shackles of traditional values. They argued that marriage was a gilded cage imposed by the patriachy. That marriage was just a paper and whatever got in the way of love and pleasure were to be rejected. That there needed to be a revolution in sexual mores and sexual roles. It was felt that people needed to be free of old fashioned sexual morals which only caused people to be prudish and ashamed. Schools were labeled conformity factories and young people had to be told how special they were and to follow their dreams. This attitude succeeded in reshaping our culture.
Thus people started divorcing because they weren’t in love anymore and did not want to settle. Men could have as much sex as they wanted without commitment. If someone has worked hard their entire life to acquire possesions instead of trying to emulate them, you flop a tent in a public park and protest that the government doesn’t give you enough of their money. Out of wedlock births have skyrocketed, along with divorce and STDs.
Since 1970 the poverty rate for every type of household except single males has fallen by at least 20%. Yet the overall poverty level has only fallen by 3%. This is because of the changing types of households leading to what is called the feminization of poverty. Children of single parents have much higher rates of delinquency which makes it harder for them to get good jobs and escape poverty. This leads to a cycle of perpetual poverty.
There is little public policy can do to change this, since culture and not government caused the change and there is little government can do to influence culture. Respect for traditional marriage is one obvious policy but for the most part the battle has already been lost.
The climbing college attendance rate shows Americans don’t reject education. It is not like there were no high school dropouts in the good old days. The difference is that those people could make a living back then, and it is a lot harder now.
As for crime, is the CEO who drives a company to bankruptcy or near bankruptcy a model citizen? Near me the CEO of a construction company ignored orders from the city to stop work at a site due to unsafe conditions and a man died, crushed to death when a ditch fell in on him. Is he a model citizen? There are criminals at all levels. The ones at the top don’t need to do it to feed themselves.
The way the author of this piece tacked on the “National Service” stuff right at the end there makes it seem like a dumber idea than it is.
I wouldn’t say I’m from the most privileged of backgrounds, but I definitely had a comfortable life compared to the kids I served in City Year, and that service gave me a lot of perspective. The pinko in me wishes every kid would spend a year doing volunteer work before they go out into the world. Ducking and covering now.
So you summarized fifty years of damage caused by unmarried heterosexuals being unable to keep it in their pants, and your conclusion is this will be fixed by continuing to subjugate homosexuals.
Here in my little Appalachian burg the rich and the poor intermingle almost by necessity. Coal executives, doctors, teachers, miners, Wal-Mart clerks, welfare recipients and petty thieves all go to school together, go to church together, and probably have dinner together after church because they’re all in the same extended family. My doctor colleagues hunt and fish in the same places as our patients, watch the same TV shows, shop in the same stores. The cultural divide is far more in line with the article’s vision of 1963 than it is with its vision of the modern “tribes”.
And yet, we have at least as big a divide (if not bigger) as the article describes when it comes to things like kids born out of wedlock, adults in the work force, community involvement, healthy living, etc.
So if I had to draw a conclusion, I’d say that people who have money are able to live happier, healthier, and more stable lives than those who do not. This would appear to disprove the conjecture laid out in 1997 by Smalls, Combs, et. al. that greater prosperity leads to greater overall difficulty in one’s affairs.
Repeat. This is important. That middle 50% is supposed to be everything in American society, ain’t it? They are the nation if any class has a greater claim than any other to be the nation.