Krugman's False Options

I am SO behind on this blog.  the University version has taken over. As a down payment: Hunter Richards has a nice, digestible set of charts on the decline of what is sometimes called brain work in America...
on the decline of what is sometimes called brain work in America - and on the state of the labor market in general. They are worth going through one at a time.

They helped me think about what didn't like Krugman's Tale of Two Moralities column today. He describes the opposition to the Right's darwinism as this:

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

Mais non!  A major project for progressives is fix Krugman's incorrect alternative to the Right: it's not that the left wants safety nets, it's that the current accounting for value creation is completely distorted, leading to misappropriation of income in the first place.  Krugman's formulation guarantees that liberals / leftists will lose, since it grants the genesis claims of the Right and wants to weaken them.  It also guarantees the great divide he laments, not because the two sides have incommensurable premises, but because they have the same premise. No conservative has a reason to think of the left as having an alternative philosophy of labor and value that would actually change the position of regular people in society.  The alternative just seems like the "bleeding heart:" version of conservatives.

The year 2010 brought better alternatives for thinking about how to stabilize and grow the actual US workforce and I will get to these.

Dumb Enough Yet?

Bill Mahler has been working the theme that this is a dumb country. This obscure blog can hardly disagree.

And before I go about demonstrating how, sadly, easy it is to prove the dumbness dragging down our country, let me just say that ignorance has life and death consequences. On the eve of the Iraq War, 69% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Four years later, 34% still did. Or take the health care debate we're presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and "listen to their constituents." An urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything. At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare," which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways.

I'm the bad guy for saying it's a stupid country, yet polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War. More than two-thirds of Americans don't know what's in Roe v. Wade. Two-thirds don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does. Some of this stuff you should be able to pick up simply by being alive.

Against this kind of evidence, I'm one of those odd people who thinks that humans are naturally smart, not dumb, and naturally goo - well not good exactly but not naturally evil. I have 20 years of students to prove limited and localized non-dumbness - smartness is possible!

But my optimism is being sorely tested by the United States of America as a whole. Of course this isn't the first time, but I was thinking that during the first summer that we have Obama rather than Bush, that the big picture might start being a little less dumb. No such luck. We're back at the level where US politics consists of Republicans making up some really dumb shit, and the media broadcasting it everywhere as a real story. Like Sarah Palin's claim that Obama health reform will mean a "death panel" that might have killed her Downs' Syndrome baby. Say anything - the dumber the better.

None of the bloviating against socialism etc was ever smart enough to defend ideas that actually worked. Floyd Norris produced some data last Friday showing that the private sector added virtually no new jobs between 1999 and 2009. The growth areas? Lawyers, accountants, and managers, who worked tirelessly to make the economy good for them. You can see how it worked out for the other 90%.

Class Seismic Shift in 2008 Election?

Ruy Teixeira says so in an interesting interview in 538. I don't buy the title claim for reasons I'll explain later, but there are interesting statistical trends:

• Obama won not because white working class voters shifted towards him, but because the electorate shifted away from white working class voters (towards the college-educated middle class and people of color).
• younger white working class voters ("Millennials," born in 1978 and after) did vote for Obama, as did their entire cohort by a huge margin of 2:1. So "help is on the way," if you care about the dumbness of white people.
• the "country party" of rural America is as hard core conservative as ever.
  

Nothing about Teixeira's kind of analysis, with its "creative class" biases, will change that. These analyses have an alienating feedback effect that I wish demographers could actually take into account.

Rediscovery For a Change

There are limits to dumbness:

• This weekend I've been at a family reunion in Marin County in honor of my brother's father-in-law Murray Kaufman's 90th birthday. If I were a media anchor I would call him a great American. Murray was a leftist CCNY student in the 1930s, in the US Army in France in World War II, was a printer in New York before becoming a high school teacher in Rossalyn on Long Island, where among many other things he coached the tennis teams and started one of the country's first high school curricula in environmental studies. Murray has never stopped fighting against unfairness and screw jobs in all their stupid forms. This is why his example is so important, why his company is such a pleasure, and why he has lived so long.
  
• I was in Oaxaca during the Obama-Jeremiah follies, where the media finally figured out how to play the race card - the ghost of panther-nationalism. I haven't had time to write about Oaxaca properly. We visited about a dozen frontyard, backyard, and cottage workshops of every kind. Some people make high-end crafts for tourists, some make art so expressive and direct it is hard to imagine it coming from the United States. Some get up before dawn to make animal characters they've invented out of pieces of scrap wood that they spend 12 hours in the local market trying to sell for the equivalent of 2-3 dollars or so. Nobody in the US who doesn't know how the Oaxaca half lives should ever lecture about entrepreneurship again.
• Meanwhile, a vacation did Tom Friedman good. He's got a sense of our royal American screw-ups much deeper than before. Maybe he's less screened by the effects of his regular diet of CEO kool-aid. He even borrows a title from an old book by one of the country's best business journalists, the Nation's William Greider ("Who Will Tell the People" - that their leaders' dumb ideas have sunk them). Here he is: "millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others. Look at the kids lining up to join Teach for America. They want our country to matter again." That's a good start. He spoils it a bit by adding that America's Youth want it to "be about building wealth and dignity — big profits and big purposes. When we just do one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, said Shriver, 'no one can touch us.'" Well, no. The big stuff - teaching, research, invention, change - isn't about winning. You can't measure progress with profits. The search for profits is what has largely destroyed our search for purposes. But at least Friedman is starting to see what happened to the country while he was drinking the CEO drink.

Coming Democratic sea-change

Here's an interesting piece from the Financial Times that strikes me as a real possibility, and it is not written by an advocate of a shift to the left, but by an opponent.

***
Beware the coming Democratic sea-change
By David Frum
Financial Times: February 7 2008

The conservative ascendancy in American politics is coming to an end. For three decades, the right has dominated, with the Republicans winning five of the seven presidential elections since 1980. Conservatives did more than just win elections: even when liberals gained power, they governed on conservative terms.

What were the most important accomplishments of the Clinton presidency? Balancing the budget, welfare reform and the expansion of Nato - not exactly left-of-centre projects. And of Jimmy Carter's? The deregulation of the airline and natural gas industries.

Neither president set out to accomplish these goals. Indeed, they often resisted them. In the end they had to accept the limits of the possible - just as Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon accepted the limits of the possible in the liberal era from 1930 to 1975.

Neither Mr Clinton nor Mr Carter created a single, major, permanent new national social programme. Mr Clinton failed to bequeath power to his chosen successor; Mr Carter failed even to win a second term.

John Mitchell, Richard Nixon's attorney-general, predicted in 1970: "This country is going so far right you won't recognise it." His prophecy was vindicated. Now its time is up: 2008 is shaping up to be the first decisive Democratic victory since 1964 - a 1980 in reverse. The signs are gathering everywhere. Three-quarters of Americans now describe the country as "on the wrong track". Almost 90 per cent express strong dissatisfaction with the costly healthcare system.

In primaries and caucuses, Democratic contests have drawn more voters than Republican ones. An early estimate after Super Tuesday suggests that, thus far, 11m Americans have cast ballots for Republican candidates, while more than 15m have voted for Democratic ones. Democrats outpolled Republicans by 20 per cent even in the state of South Carolina, maybe the most conservative in the nation.

Usually pundits expect that the party that chooses its nominee first will win the election. That will probably not be true this time. Although the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama contest looks likely to continue longer than John McCain's march to the Republican nomination, Democrats tell pollsters they like both candidates - they are just deciding which they like best. Republicans remain divided, with Mr McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee each passionately disliked by opposing factions within their party.

In polls, Americans express preference for Democrats over Republicans on almost every issue surveyed, including such traditional Republican advantages as taxes, ethics and competence.

In 2002, equal numbers of Americans identified as Republicans and Democrats. In the six years since, Republican identification has collapsed back to the level recorded before Ronald Reagan. The decline has been steepest among young voters. If they eat right, exercise and wear seatbelts, today's 20-somethings will be voting against George W. Bush deep into the 2060s. Most ominously, US polls show an ideological sea change: a desire for a more activist government, a loss of interest in the tax question and a shift to the left on most social issues (although not, interestingly, abortion).

As things are going, the Democratic nominee will win a majority of the votes cast (unlike Mr Clinton). They will almost certainly gain an increased majority in Congress (unlike Mr Carter). If the present mood lasts, that nominee will have a green light to move the US in new policy directions (unlike either Mr Clinton or Mr Carter).

The stage has been set for the boldest and most dramatic redirection of US politics since Reagan's first year in office. Of course, there are no guarantees in politics. An inept president could bungle his or her chances. Unexpected events could intrude: a nuclear test in Iran, a major terrorist attack on US soil or some attention-grabbing political scandal. But given moderate luck and skill, the next president could join Reagan, Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the grand reshapers of politics and government.

Tragically, that reshaping is likely to be for the worse. The things that Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama want to do are likely to prove costly and counterproductive, if not outright disastrous. A greater government role in healthcare, higher taxes, tighter regulation, more social welfare, an increased flow of low-skilled migrants with amnesty for those already here, a cut-and-run from Iraq: these are not measures likely to improve US competitiveness or enhance America's standing in the world.

To prevent these negative consequences - to retrieve victory from impending defeat - would require more creativity and responsiveness than Republicans and conservatives have displayed for many years. Unless American conservatism can rejuvenate itself, the odds favour the liberal left holding sway until the day that its own errors and delusions lay it low again.

The writer, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again