On Political Books

March/April 2012 The Rise of the Amero-pessimists

Two political thinkers, a liberal and a conservative, believe America is headed toward inexorable decline. There are good reasons to believe they’re both wrong.

By Ruy Teixeira

For example, economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz show in their book, The Race Between Education and Technology, how critical the development of open, free, relatively gender-neutral public schooling was to our economic growth in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, allowing us to surge past our European competitors. For Murray, the only thing about public schooling of that era that deserves a mention is the heavy-handed McGuffey Readers—not so much because they taught kids to read (an ancillary benefit, apparently) but because they inculcated the proper virtues into America’s polyglot population.

More risible still is Murray’s depiction of 1950s America as some sort of classless utopia. He treats problems like rural poverty, urban ghettos, racism, the subordinate position of blacks, women, and gays, and so on as just minor footnotes to an almost perfectly functioning society. And he certainly doesn’t believe class divisions were much of an issue back then— after all, the fabulously rich heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post may have lived in a somewhat bigger house than most Americans, but (at least according to Murray) she ate the same chow and read the same best sellers. Clearly Murray is seeing what he wants to see in fifties society, and only what he wants to see.

But his view of society since the 1950s is radically different. He throws away his rose-colored spectacles and now can see nothing but class and inequality. Indeed, his relentless focus on this problem and some of the economic trends he documents would not be out of place coming from a liberal think tank or academic. Yet that overlap has not led him to pay the slightest attention to the careful work these think tanks and academics have done analyzing the growth in inequality. Murray dismisses out of hand explanations rooted in structural shifts in the economy, slower growth in educational attainment, changes in labor market institutions (unions, the minimum wage), or really anything other than increasing rewards for smart people and declining morals for dumb people. This is no more believable than his Panglossian view of 1950s America.

Perhaps he senses that his analysis is a bit less than completely convincing once he strays from documentation (for example, the top 20 percent are growing away from the bottom 30 percent—hardly big news) to explanation. He admits that some of his cultural claims are necessarily anecdotal, relying on the work of social commentators like David Brooks, whose generalizations, he says, are consistent with his own. If that doesn’t provide sufficient comfort to readers, he urges them to reject or accept his account based on their own experience. In other words, if it seems right, it must be right. Murray even provides a pseudoscientific questionnaire so readers can assess their own “class” position, as defined by Murray. As we used to say back in graduate school: Garbage in, garbage out.

Wrong diagnosis inevitably leads to wrong prognosis, and so it is with Murray. If an unfolding process of concentrated cognitive ability at the top and declining morals at the bottom is not the origin story of today’s inequality, then the inevitable future decline of American society seems less obvious. Better policy might actually make a difference. Government might actually have a role to play. People might actually benefit from having more education and opportunities to get ahead. (Murray believes we’ve already soaked up all the smart people, so more education would be like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.) In short, Murray’s variant on Amero-pessimism is not justified.

Nor is Edsall’s—though, again, for different reasons. Edsall’s analysis is generally more closely connected to Planet Earth, and he correctly emphasizes the political dimension to today’s unequal economic outcomes. Where he goes off the rails is his blanket acceptance of the most pessimistic assessments of today’s trends coming from different and usually contradictory quarters. He fully accepts the negative verdict on economic trends promulgated by the Economic Policy Institute and other left-leaning groups. But then he tacks to the center and completely embraces the themes of centrist pundits like Thomas Friedman who see both parties as completely incapable of compromise and meaningful policy reforms (though Edsall is especially hard on the Republicans). Perhaps most damaging, however, he repeats, in the gloomiest possible tones, the predictions of various deficit hawks on the coming debt crisis that will bring America to its knees—predictions that the EPI and Paul Krugman, among others, have done their best to debunk.

Call it the austerity assumption: America will grow slowly. America will have high structural unemployment. America’s ratio of debt to GDP will spiral out of control. America will be forced to cut lots of stuff. The parties will fight over what stuff to cut. Not enough stuff will be cut and things will get worse, necessitating more cuts and more fighting. You get the picture. No way out!

But what if the austerity assumption is incorrect? What if America’s fiscal situation is difficult but not intractable? What if slow growth is not locked in and high unemployment is not structural? What if, in short, the extraordinary depth of our current problems is driven in large part by cyclical factors that are likely to improve?

If so, the extraordinary “brutality”— Edsall’s term—of current politics might subside as well. He implicitly admits this when discussing Arizona and some other cases where the rise in political brutality tracks very closely with the deterioration of the economy. It follows logically that if the economy improves, brutality will subside.

But Edsall doesn’t seem to believe that more growth is possible, that the current expansion could get stronger, or that better policies could make much difference. Looked at in, say, a six-month time frame, these beliefs might appear reasonable. Looked at in broad historical context, however, they seem excessively pessimistic. There have been other periods of American history with high inequality, and they have been followed by periods of compressed inequality; other periods of slow growth have been followed by periods of faster growth. And during some of these periods— notably in the late 1800s—visions of America’s deteriorating, bitterly divided future were even more apocalyptic than that predicted by Edsall (though he gives them a run for their money). Those visions were proved wrong; Edsall’s is likely to be proved wrong as well.

The same can be said for his vision of an ever more coarse and brutal politics that accomplishes nothing. Sure, again, over six months that may sound plausible. Stretched out over the long term, however, it is less so, and not just because the economy is likely to improve. As Edsall observes several times in his book, the demographic underpinning of the Republican coalition—the chief perpetrators, in his view, of political brutality—are eroding, while that of the Democratic coalition is growing. He seems to assume that these changes will be neutralized by the ongoing resource war and the ability of Republicans to squeeze more votes out of affluent whites. But that is far more compelling as a short-term analysis than a long-term one. Change is coming, and it is not always for the worse.

Comments

  • Daryl McCullough on April 02, 2012 12:30 PM:

    I think whether the future is bright or dismal will ultimately be determined by politics: IF there is a supermajority (which is what seems to be required, these days) in support of progressive policies, I think that we can work toward solving our problems. If there is gridlock in Washington for the foreseeable future, then we will be hamstrung in our ability to address the problems facing us.

    It would be nice to think that demographics alone will make the difference---once we are a majority non-white country, a coalition of non-whites and liberal whites can work on making things better. But it might be that the new non-white majority splits into the same Republican/Democratic blocs that make progress impossible today.

  • samg on April 02, 2012 1:05 PM:

    I'm with Edsall. I don't remember the last time Teixiera, who wrote this review, was right about anything. I do remember that back in the closing days of the 2004 presidential election race, every post he and his blog partner made pointed to a Kerry victory over GW Bush. Which didn't happen. Earlier that year he co-authored a book entitled "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which finally happened in 2008 when Bush's record of failing to stop or punish those responsible for the worst terrorist attack in American history, killing tens of thousands of people in a war based on lies, increasing the national debt by 85 per cent, and topping it all off with a Depression meant that Donald Duck could have beaten the Republican candidate that year. Let's hope Obama can squeeze through again this time. But one of Teixeira's earlier books, about the importance of the white working class vote, says it is critical to which party wins. Well, all the polls show that in 2012 the white working class vote is solidly Republican. So if Teix is right, we're doomed.

  • Texas Aggie on April 02, 2012 1:09 PM:

    "cyclical factors that are likely to improve"

    When you have to invoke "cyclical factors" to make a point, you have just lost your argument. It's the moral equivalent of deus ex machina and doesn't explain anything. Things don't just happen without some reason and to claim that there is a cycle explains nothing. There has to be some cause, some feedback mechanism.

    The author glosses over the major factor that turned the increasingly stratified pre1929 society into the less stratified post1950 society which was WWII. When it takes a major calamity such as that to change the direction of society, you have to give more credence to the idea that things will keep deteriorating until a major catastrophe occurs.

    It would be nice if the author could have listed some reasons to contradict the theses of the two book authors instead of vague generalities. It's difficult to make fun of "Inequality is as bad as Occupy Wall Street says it is. Political polarization is as bad as No Labels ... say it is" when the data shows that indeed inequality is enormous and rapidly getting worse and when the data show that religious style morality has taken over the right wing and that they absolutely refuse to give in on anything preferring to bite off their noses to spite their faces rather than budge on any of their multitude of moral issues.

    While the author is trying to give us hope for the future, the fact that he fails so badly only adds to the despair and to the certainty that things will continue to get worse.

  • cwolf on April 02, 2012 3:10 PM:

    I think we have reached the point where the only thing that may stop the inevitable end of humanity is the abandonment or collapse of industrialization, whichever inevitably, comes first. But with over 400 nukes that need to be decommissioned before that can happen, it must be timed perfectly.

    The "smart" people already know that we are nearing and may have already hit any of a number of "tipping points"; any one of which can make human life, if not most mammalian life, impossible or almost impossible.

    Some of the "solutions" to the problems are ridiculous. A proposal to dump atomized sulfur compounds in the stratosphere to bounce sunlight back into space sounds like a Marvel Comic book plan. Such an idea would do wonders for the oceans which already increasingly resemble battery acid. Don't even get me started on Tundra Fires... but I believe they have a glowing future. http://tinyurl.com/76j3r2a

    More "growth" seems to be THE answer to everything. but what that means in the US and most of the world is more fossil fuel gathering, more mining, more logging, more trawling, more nuclear materials refining, more pollution, less drinkable water, less breathable air, less usable land... more wars over all the above.

    In a short while no one will be alive who can read the danger signs that would warn them off exclusion zones like Fukushima, Chernobyl and the inevitable coming additions to these inevitably overlapping zones of radioactive wasteland.

    No combination of scientific parlor tricks is going to stop the cancer from spreading.

    I believe, in a word, that "Growth" is the not a solution, it is rather THE problem. It's like a cancer and no combination of scientific parlor tricks is going to stop it from spreading... except the death of industry as we know it.

    Of course this all is just speculation, but it would be irresponsible of me not to.

    Maybe R. Malthus was right.

  • Morgan on April 11, 2013 1:21 AM:

    "But what if the austerity assumption is incorrect? What if America’s fiscal situation is difficult but not intractable? What if...in short, the extraordinary depth of our current problems is driven in large part by cyclical factors that are likely to improve?"

    And what if the Cubs win the World Series and the Moon IS made of green cheese?

    It's about the economics. When a technology advances to a point where it's economically feasible to go mainstream, it does. It doesn't matter if it's internal combustion engines fueling explosive growth in manufacturing and fossil fuels production or microchips creating a booming economy in personal data retention and targeted marketing or ship building and sailing technology opening new hemispheres to colonization and exploitation.

    These economic factors drive societies, cultures, and history. And right now tele-technological globalism is the economic engine driving all the changes we see. Some good (ecological awareness) and some not (loss of privacy) . It's a smaller world with more intense competition and a VERY unequal playing field. Transnational corporations in every field from agri-business to financial sectors influencing governments to rewrite tax codes and leverage labor.

    All forcing societal changes that ask schools to be babysitters because one parent households can't keep up; and financial institutions to increase the quarterly profits at the cost of sound public and fiscal policy. Meanwhile the 1st World is economically exploiting the 3rd World - exporting 'crisis capitalism' and arms & munitions...while trying to militarily maintain a hammerlock on oil supplies; all the while simultaneously moving to a more socialist state style safety net (trying to forestall the inevitable democratic decay caused by a dwindling middle-class) .

    The OP is right. The current global economic paradigm of perpetual growth cannot be sustained without a NEW technology. One cleaner than fossil fuels but with at least as much energy output. Cold fusion or Z point energy are the only possibilities that come to mind and both are decades to centuries away.

    So a MAJOR shakeup will occur. Just when and how? And what happens after? One thing is certain, the American Century is over.