I really liked this editorial at Bloomberg but I was startled and chagrined at the editors failure to understand modern political reality. The gist of the editorial is that a working group composed of representatives from the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution found broad agreement on strategies for combating poverty. For example:
Crucially, the group began by accepting three general truths that often derail debate before it begins: Able-bodied adults should work, two committed parents are better than one, and schools must do more to prepare students for careers. In each of those areas, the group managed to reach consensus on policy.
Those are already controversial. I’ll leave it to the interested student (as my math textbooks use to say) to point out how.
I could practically write an interlinear commentary on the editorial, viz.
On education, the group’s approach was no less catholic: It called for increasing and improving pre-K and early learning opportunities, as liberals want
I supported that for decades. Unfortunately, the results have proven disappointing. Improved outcomes from improved early learning opportunities have been short-lived. Look it up for yourself. What we really need is a lot more evidence-based education. Try to get unbiased empirical evidence on education. Go ahead. I dare you.
It doesn’t actually surprise me that a bunch of boffins could reach broad agreement. That’s isn’t our problem and when I read this passage of the editorial:
Taken in isolation, each of these policies is likely to arouse opposition from one party or the other. Bundled together, they form a package that both sides can support. This new report, excellent in its own right, makes an even larger point. The most effective way to make policy is not from the left or the right, but from the radical center.
I was taken aback. What world are they living in? The reason the two sides can’t reach agreement isn’t because they don’t agree. It’s because the objectives of modern politics are to help your allies and injure your opponents while encouraging wealthy donors to give you more of their money. Agreeing with your political opposition doesn’t get you any of that.
The history of American politics over the last 40 years is that the two political parties, both of which were “catch-all” parties, representing broad swathes of the political spectrum and in which centrists held considerable sway, have increasingly evolved into programmatic parties dominated by their most radical members. Every year there are fewer centrists in the Congress and they’re almost completely absent from the Congressional leadership.
Explain to me again how we’re going to make policy from the radical center.
I’ll extend their middle axiom one way, and then, with the first axiom, extend it the other way.
Children are better off with ONE committed parent than NONE.
Also, children are better off with TWO committed parents, especially when ONE parent can earn enough to allow the OTHER parent to stay home with the children.
…
As to education: It is surprising to me that now that it has become clear, from many many sources, that pre-K and other “early learning opportunities” don’t work, the calls for more and more of such have become increasingly shrill. It’s as though some people’s livelihoods depend on such things getting funded whether the policies help or not. Hmm.
…
As for evidence based research on education: Well, there’s one thing that most experienced teachers will agree on, although you’ve got to liquor some of them up first before they’ll admit it.
If you want better educational outcomes, you need better students. But that is the most controversial thing of all.
…
The editorial does not mention immigration. The report from Brookings/AEI mention immigration/immigrants five times. Only three of those are meaningful, and all three of those aren’t exactly clear as to meaning. The three meaningful mentions dance around the idea that immigration has driven down wages for low-skilled working-class men, but don’t really care to admit it.
I’ll posit that it is impossible to discuss the wealth and income gaps in America without discussing the addition of tens of millions of immigrants (and their descendants) to the workforce. It’s down-right dishonest, and largely ineffective.
It’s also why Trump has done so damned well running for the Presidency so far, as he has been the ONLY candidate to mention that all immigrants aren’t Steve Fucking Jobs/The Baby Jesus, here to bring untold riches to themselves, iPads to people to fucking stupid to figure anything out for themselves, and peace and goodwill to all fags/women/womyn/trannies/bronies/Jedi/etc (just so long as they’re not straight white men – those guys should all fuck off and die already, per that recent article on Salon or Slate).
…
Finally, there IS a broad political center amongst the political and ruling classes. It’s just not something they want to talk about.
The main foreign policy dispute is whether or not they should send in the Army to break foreign countries and drive up the number of refugees/immigrants, not that they should do so. One wing is perfectly content to break up countries with the use of air power alone. (They’ve been quite good at it, too.)
Domestically, they support large deficits and a Fed that is compliant to the needs of the financiers of “Wall Street”. They support increasing amounts of immigration. They support a “surveillance state”, if not a police state.
Look at Speaker Ryan’s recent spending and tax bills: He “meekly” “rolled over” and gave Obama pretty much everything Barry wanted. That’s because the Speaker and the rest of the Republican Party leadership support the same things.
The disagreement between the parties is largely about who gets the personal spoils, with a touch of variances on how the ruling elite should divvy up the spoils from raping the country.
But divisive issues such as abortion? What difference does that make? The courts have settled the matter in reality, and the public has largely accepted the matter. Haven’t heard much about flag burning since 9/11, but remember when that was a “national issue”? It never did matter, and there were few instances when it was really done in a manner intended to offend. Certainly not enough of an issue to merit talk of a constitutional amendment. But that’s what we got.
Now we’re being lectured by a man who openly gloated about wanting to put his nutsack in the mouths of anyone that disagreed with him on anything about the offensive nature of the word “schlong”. Meanwhile, someone who was made to look like a fool claiming an offensive video got some of her employees killed is now spouting off about another offensive video that doesn’t exist.
This isn’t true political disagreement about meaningful topics, and the last eight years have not shown that there _is_ any such meaningful difference between the parties. What we get is a very poorly done but effective Theatre of Distraction. Hell, that’s unfair – this isn’t even political street theater put on by semi-talented amateurs. This is an amateur hour clown show put on by retarded parents for their children at someone’s birthday party. But because pretty much all the outlets (and the inputs for the outlets) are controlled by the same people, it’s all most people ever get.
Left, right, and center have become meaningless (but usefully distracting) terms, both for the elites and the masses. What should really be done is to look at things in terms of whether or not a person or class of persons is in an in-group or an out-group, and if part of an out-group whether that person or persons are useful idiots, appathetics, or radicals – by which I mean people opposed to the current order. THAT would be more useful.
Also? Merry Christmas.
Everything alright in the critics section?
” Improved outcomes from improved early learning opportunities have been short-lived.”
Test scores are the same after a couple of years, but that is not really the outcome we should be worried about. What we see are long term improvements in employment, overall academic success and a decrease in a number of bad outcomes, such as crime and teen pregnancies. To quote from a Rand paper.
“Early childhood intervention programs have been shown to yield benefits in academic achievement, behavior, educational progression and attainment, delinquency and crime, and labor market success, among other domains.”
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145.html
Americans have always done poorly on international test scores. Given that we have generally outperformed those countries with better scores, I am not so sure we should place a lot of emphasis on them.
Steve
“It’s because the objectives of modern politics are to help your allies and injure your opponents while encouraging wealthy donors to give you more of their money.”
Yup. The increase we have seen in inequality has made this even worse. Those wealthy donors have so much more money than they did in the past. All it takes is one or two to fund a POTUS level campaign for a substantial period of time. The level of influence they now have is much more than in the past. But, not to worry. They are all selfless, true patriots and want what is best for our country not seeking anything in return.
Steve
“They are all selfless, true patriots and want what is best for our country not seeking anything in return.”
Indeed. And Messrs Steyer, Bloomberg and Eychaner, Goldman Sachs, GE and B of A, along with the entertainment industry and the trial lawyers should be stopped immediately. In fact, I think all of them should have their wealth down to $20MM remaining selflessly and patriotically redistributed. Seems like enough to keep, right? I think Hillary should make a major policy announcement the first week of January. I know everyone will agree, especially them, and Hillary, that little woman of the people her…….
Drew- Yup, it goes for wealthy folks on the left and right, and surely you don’t really think I would disagree with doing anything that will diminish the trial lawyers. Since your nominee is going to be the genius who inherited $200 million I am sure that argument will wear well.
Steve
I think there is still a center in the country, but not among the politically active and especially the political elite.
Steve,
I think there is a difference between early childhood intervention and the early education programs I think Dave is talking about. Intervention can certainly yield benefits, but education programs are basically just daycare according to all the studies I’ve read.
Lighten up, steve. You’ve become afflicted with AOMS – angry old man syndrome. Look it up. Reynolds was the first known case; symptoms include hurling epithets at apparitions of those holding opposing views, or tirades against religion, perceived racism etc. Quite debilitating.
It was snark. Jeez……..
Drew- Sigh. Point taken.
Steve