. Great essay. A thoughtful peace which clearly articulates the failures of both of the main political ideologies to address persisting racial disparities. A conventional take might suggest that the two ideologies compete out each others main virtues through partisan warfare and rightly categorise the issues you deal with as ‘thorny’ problems.
But I think it goes deeper than that. The conservative rightly sees personal responsibility as the path to salvation- but if they do acknowledge that context in the formative years is key, then it is to morally rebuke or condemn those who raise kids in situations which show a lack of personal judgement. Meanwhile, progressives desperately want to help- and are willing to throw in everything but the kitchen sink- but they also seem congenitally incapable of seeing the terrible harms their own programs have caused over the decades.
Despite my many conservative friends made through Quillette, I would argue that the liberal has the right idea, but completely the wrong approach, whilst the conservative’s instinct for limited government is not a catch all- there are some circumstances where it fails at a fundamentally moral level. Instead, I might try using a parable from the Bible and then a little recent history.
Jesus gave us the parable of the Sower of the Seeds, and although it doesn’t entirely fit in these circumstances we could equate those who grow up in adverse circumstances as falling on stony ground, or beset by weeds. Shouldn’t we do our best to remediate these issues, instead of waiting for the Day of Judgement to provide the solution? I think the key distinction is whether or not government intervention is the appropriate agent of change.
At the same time, Reagan later admitted that the withdrawal of welfare programs was his biggest mistake. He and his coterie of influential thinkers honestly believed that if the welfare was withdrawn, people would naturally re-enter the workforce of necessity, and begin their moral improvement through work of their own accord. Of course, it fell flat- and later Tony Blair would incorporate this lesson in the UK, where, when adding an imperative that welfare recipients should ‘actively be seeking work’ in most instances, he was willing to spend a significant amount of money providing private sector trainers and motivators, to get people back into work.
I think we need to understand that the flaw in progressive thinking is to want government to intervene directly, whilst conservatives tend to believe that the market will fix all ills. Instead, the better approach has to be a radical reformist approach which sweeps away or reforms the most harmful aspects of government intervention whilst redeploying those precious resources towards more productive ends.
The key is community. It doesn’t matter how well you raise your kids, if their peer group is beset by parents with socio-economic problems and deficits in personal responsibility which, on occasion, border on neglectful. The social mobility data from Dr Raj Chetty’s ground-breaking work proves that it is productive fathers in the community in which a child grows up which is the decisive factor- not fathers in the home. Other than to say that it is every parents worst nightmare that their teen falls in the with the wrong crowd- and something which anyone can understand- we need to recognise that individual parenting is a weak force when compared to peer group, and it only through parents, and most particularly fathers, acting as a community that they can ensure their children’s peer groups are healthy influences.
Where the liberal goes wrong is through failing to understand that in medicinally treating poverty as a social ill which requires fixing, they need to treat two problems, not one. First, there is the actual poverty, and then there is the moral atrophy which occurs as a result of poverty as a persistent intergenerational problem. By refraining from the exercise of moral judgement towards those less fortunate than themselves, the liberal dooms their good works to failure.
Instead, liberals and conservatives need to make common cause, and incorporate the best of both approaches into one successful formula. Government intervention is necessary, but it needs to happen indirectly- by sponsoring those forces which are proven to be socially benign and beneficial within society, instead of through the mandate of mandarins and bureaucratic apparatchik. This is the lesson from Northern Ireland- where Catholics once faced problems almost as insurmountable (excepting skin tone) as African Americans. Anti-discrimination laws were necessary, and opting out from the more egregious aspects of progressive educational theory was also extremely helpful- but they surpassed their Protestant counterparts in almost every metric through the agency of strong families, strong communities, parents invested in the educational enterprise and a strong Church as a hub of the community.
So what needs to happen? First, welfare needs to become a basic stipend which is gradually reduced from the first dollar you earn, instead of removed completely with the first dollar earned. There is plenty of incentive to work, if the $7,000 per welfare recipient spent on the three main American non-retirement or disability welfare programs is only removed at 25c per dollar.
Andrew Yang was wrong about UBI, because it’s too expensive, but a NIT which replaces welfare would not only contain the original anti-poverty motive of progressives, but also remove the disincentives to fatherhood and work which they unintentionally introduced. It would actually save taxpayer money, with only the existing system in place. But imagine if instead of having to periodically report to some demoralising public bureaucrat, the young were instead required to attend voluntary group sessions run by local Churches or Community Centers to show they were actively seeking work. Voluntary mentors might be a requirement or optional depending upon circumstances and what is proven to work. Small grants and funding mechanisms could be offered to the community facilities which run such programs.
The other issue is education. Probably the single most important aspect of persisting disparities is what happens to kids who don’t do well at school? In any group other than the few extremely high performing demographics, then roughly 50% won’t do well. The persisting disparity stems from the fact that healthy communities operate something analogous to a communal social safety net. If virtually every man in your less affluent community is gainfully employed in a job which a boy who doesn’t do well at school might see himself in future, this represents an iterative roadmap of potential productive futures- as well as an inbuilt source of advice, support and potential for job referrals.
Contrary to expectations, Black women actually perform slightly better on social mobility scales than white women, yet still lag behind in terms of pay by around 11%. Why is this? Because they experience a form of intergenerational reset. Because fewer Black men have productive, reasonably well-paying jobs, this greatly reduces the chances of stable family formation- which in turn makes it all but impossible to build family wealth. It also makes it almost impossible, outside of Black Middle Class communities, to build the types of communities in which it is healthy for a child to grow up.
Talk of social mobility used to be verboten in the political classes- instead they chose to focus on ‘raising all boats’. The reason was because social mobility used to evoke fears of moving down the economic spectrum through competition. But I don’t think this the case anymore. Before the pandemic, there were 7 million well-paid blue collar jobs which were vacant in America. And this is before one considers the countless millions of jobs which existed with substandard pay and working conditions for no better reason than because illegal immigrations possess no legal voice or negotiating power with those unscrupulous enough to employ them in bulk.
The key here is twofold, in terms of policy. First, technical vocation-based education at 13 or 14, for kids who don’t do well at school. To leave it any later invites the type of social dysfunction which leads to crime through demoralisation and disaffection, and to fundamentally disrupted schools, unable to fulfil their basic role. It’s what the Germans do- and it has proven highly successful in countering the socio-economic exercise in chromatography we have seen elsewhere. Perhaps the greatest benefit of their system is that it not only provides a blue collar workforce which is ‘loaded for bear’, but it represents in inherent universal male mentoring program, because boys self-select towards vocational options which are male dominated.
At the same time, there needs to be reform to both illegal and legal immigration. Historically, we know it is perfectly possible to run economies with labour participation rates which are roughly 90% of men. Tighter labour markets are required, paired with education and training which points teenage boys with little interest in academics towards productive jobs, instead of relying upon a transient international serf class. The key is in understanding which jobs American blue collar boys will do well at, with decent pay. Construction is a fine example, but there are many others.
The Australian system has produced a society which is 30% foreign-born, but it possesses little of the tensions which exist in America or the UK compared with foreign-born citizen levels which are barely around 14%. Why? Because it is an aspirational system. The migrants entering Australia aren’t causing wage depletion and labour displacement amongst the Blue Collar class. Instead, the Australians seem to have grasped that just because you educate 50% of your children to go to university, there will still be huge gaps in the knowledge economy, with entrepreneurship and in relation to professions none of our kids want to do.
Various sectors such as IT, hospitality, real estate and infrastructure development are growing. So, the country attracts migrants from across the globe.
The changes required to fix the ailing economies of West and heal racial divisions need to be radical and decisive. They also need to be universalist in their approach- helping poor white boys won’t don’t do well as schools, just as much as they help poor African American boys who happen to experience these problems more frequently- because of underlying poverty levels and communities which more frequently lack the resource of fathers who can help them. The key compromise both liberals and conservatives need to agree upon is that whilst government can help- by funding and empowering communities to fix their own problems themselves- government should probably only help at arm’s length and indirectly, given the atrocious history of direct government programs which have caused almost as much harm as the help they’ve provided.
This is both my favourite recent Quillette article and my fave response of yours so for on the blog. Interesting that you are no longer supporting a UBI, but I agree with you a NIT makes more sense in terms of affordability.
I first met you at Quillette, and you know my stated goal was to improve myself as a teacher. When, to my mind, conservative orthodoxy dominated at an institutional level in education, I was determined to be a progressive voice. Now that the pendulum has swung the other way, I am determined to provide balance to the debate. It's been fascinating to see how some of my progressive colleagues respond positively to my critiques of progressivism. It seems the Matt McManus approach to bipartisan dialogue works.
So, on that note, and because it wouldn't be a lengthy reply from me to you without a challenge - that's part of the fun right? - why do you continue to make statements like "Critical social justice employs tactics which wouldn’t be out of place in a Chinese Struggle Session"?
How is that anything but an inflammatory strawman? Like when you listed 'wokism' with 'nazism'. How do these rhetorical flourishes do anything to achieve your purpose - which I completely agree with - a rational, nuanced, bipartisan, evidence-based approach is far better than any proposal supported by only one side. But falling into these right wing tropes equating progressives with nazis, marxists, etc, is beneath you, and the incredible quality you bring to your thinking and writing. yes, there are massive problems with cancel culture. but those problems will be better defeated if we can create a bipartisan approach, that centres around poverty, free speech, and other classic principles of both conservatives and progressives. incendiary, bordeline dishonest rhetoric worsens that divide, worsening the chances of true progress.
Is there a reason you write about "disparities" instead of "poverty" or "struggles"? The term disparity implies that the end outcome in ideal would be totally equality at every level... but, as you can see taking a glance at some of Thomas Sowell's work, is almost certainly never going to happen without massive, quasi-totalitarian government intervention. And even then, if total equality is brought about by the state, it will be fragile and collapse the moment people are offered/given freedom over their own outcomes. And I'm guessing you don't agree with that sort of solution.
The NIT is acceptable to me over UBI if and only if we remove all other welfare programs for NIT recipients. Most people don't need a UBI, so doing so is absurd, even if "fair and equal." I am sure there are some people who need actual full-time care because they cannot handle receiving free money and caring for themselves. But it should remain basic because charity is a moral good that is lost when people no longer voluntarily choose to help for causes they like, but are just forced to help through an amoral (immoral?!) government system. But the NIT should help fund basic healthcare, basic housing, basic food needs.
Like safetyism and over-cleanliness, we find we make ourselves less robust and capable if we overdo these things, and more so if we don't concern ourselves with our own health and wealth and safety because we rely on government to bring these features and stop thinking, stop innovating, etc. I'm not for pure caveat emptor, but you are more easily conned if you believe government regulations remove all need to think before you buy.
This is both my favourite recent Quillette article and my fave response of yours so for on the blog. Interesting that you are no longer supporting a UBI, but I agree with you a NIT makes more sense in terms of affordability.
I first met you at Quillette, and you know my stated goal was to improve myself as a teacher. When, to my mind, conservative orthodoxy dominated at an institutional level in education, I was determined to be a progressive voice. Now that the pendulum has swung the other way, I am determined to provide balance to the debate. It's been fascinating to see how some of my progressive colleagues respond positively to my critiques of progressivism. It seems the Matt McManus approach to bipartisan dialogue works.
So, on that note, and because it wouldn't be a lengthy reply from me to you without a challenge - that's part of the fun right? - why do you continue to make statements like "Critical social justice employs tactics which wouldn’t be out of place in a Chinese Struggle Session"?
How is that anything but an inflammatory strawman? Like when you listed 'wokism' with 'nazism'. How do these rhetorical flourishes do anything to achieve your purpose - which I completely agree with - a rational, nuanced, bipartisan, evidence-based approach is far better than any proposal supported by only one side. But falling into these right wing tropes equating progressives with nazis, marxists, etc, is beneath you, and the incredible quality you bring to your thinking and writing. yes, there are massive problems with cancel culture. but those problems will be better defeated if we can create a bipartisan approach, that centres around poverty, free speech, and other classic principles of both conservatives and progressives. incendiary, bordeline dishonest rhetoric worsens that divide, worsening the chances of true progress.
did you see this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uIZ4C3Y0Ng&t=315s
I enjoyed the article.
Is there a reason you write about "disparities" instead of "poverty" or "struggles"? The term disparity implies that the end outcome in ideal would be totally equality at every level... but, as you can see taking a glance at some of Thomas Sowell's work, is almost certainly never going to happen without massive, quasi-totalitarian government intervention. And even then, if total equality is brought about by the state, it will be fragile and collapse the moment people are offered/given freedom over their own outcomes. And I'm guessing you don't agree with that sort of solution.
The NIT is acceptable to me over UBI if and only if we remove all other welfare programs for NIT recipients. Most people don't need a UBI, so doing so is absurd, even if "fair and equal." I am sure there are some people who need actual full-time care because they cannot handle receiving free money and caring for themselves. But it should remain basic because charity is a moral good that is lost when people no longer voluntarily choose to help for causes they like, but are just forced to help through an amoral (immoral?!) government system. But the NIT should help fund basic healthcare, basic housing, basic food needs.
Like safetyism and over-cleanliness, we find we make ourselves less robust and capable if we overdo these things, and more so if we don't concern ourselves with our own health and wealth and safety because we rely on government to bring these features and stop thinking, stop innovating, etc. I'm not for pure caveat emptor, but you are more easily conned if you believe government regulations remove all need to think before you buy.