As a segue from my last post, I'll begin by excerpting Conley's primary example of how inequality affects the political process:
Nowhere is the linkage between inequality and political power starker than in the realm of finance -- now one-fifth of the nation's gross domestic product. The so-called regulators have been totally captured by the regulated, and the notion of the free market has become risible in the very geographic center of global capitalism. Hence the unusual alliance between the far left and the far right in opposing last year's bank bailout. Even if very few voters actually comprehend the messy details of the greatest political swindle in history, at least the public smells something fishy on Wall Street.
As the much more conservative P.J. O'Rourke put it: "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." Of course, the highest bidders are almost always the financial elites.
Conley summarizes the issue of social, economic, and political inequality by saying:
The answer, then, is to not decry inequality in and of itself. That's a losing proposition in the United States. Anyway, it distracts from the real issue: opportunity.... In essence, I am arguing for exactly the opposite of what Christopher Jencks advocated in Inequality 37 years ago. Whereas he and his co-authors ultimately resigned themselves to unequal pathways and thus focused on relative shares of the pie, instead, I maintain that inequality is epiphenomenal as long as we focus on maximizing opportunity for all. Let's worry about making sure the circuitry of the American dream isn't shorted, rather than whether some folks draw more current from the grid.
I believe the ideal of a level playing field, or equal opportunity, is worthy of government. There will be winners and losers, rich and poor, responsible and irresponsible, but as Conley suggested, if there exists a basic "floor" of opportunity, the socioeconomic disparities become less important. I suspect I may disagree strongly with many if not all of Conley's prescriptions, but I found this article a mostly accurate diagnosis.
3 comments:
Alex,
Where is the unequalness of opportunity to those born in the US?
And, what do you propose to do to change that?
Lumbee,
Sorry for the delayed reply, life was calling.
Education: Are SAT scores and graduation rates comparable across the socio-economic spectrum?
Crime: For non-violent crimes (i.e. drug), do incarceration rates reflect the socio-economic makeup of those breaking the law?
There are more examples, but I would say that these are two of the most important.
As for proposals for change, there are several things that I would suggest need attention, but only some involve government policy.
On education, I support the move to school choice, education vouchers for non-public schools, and charter schools. Choice and competition can only help the education system at this point.
On non-violent crime, I support the decriminalization of marijuana-related charges. I also support the lowering and/or elimination of incarceration for many crimes, with a shift more towards reparation and fines.
Related to both education and crime, as well as other issues, I also support the elimination of all government housing projects. Financial assistance is sometimes helpful/necessary, but it should come in the form of voucher or direct payments, allowing people to choose where they live, instead of being condemned to a ghetto existence.
As a child, I spent a lot of time visiting housing projects as part of a church bus mission, and saw dozens of kids funnier, smarter, happier and more charismatic than I slowly morph into tragic urban youth stereotypes as their hopes and dreams were crushed by their environment and crushed hope of ever escaping.
Regardless of race or economic condition, people should be able to build/re-build their own communities.
I should clarify my overall position by adding that perhaps above all else, it may be the lack of strong family structures (multiple parents/guardians and active, positive male and female role models) built around strong moral traditions that lie at the heart of socio-economic disparities. Crippling the drug/gang culture, improving education opportunities, tackling immigration issues, and fostering a more equitable justice system may all be important government policies, but they can not in and of themselves fix cultural/moral attitudes and choices of individuals. That is for the work of good people outside of government, both within communities and throughout society.
The furthest thing from the truth is to accuse me of thinking the government is the solution. If anything, I think government has helped entrench inequality at many levels, and the government fixes I proposes would mostly result in removing a heavy handed government.
Wow, where to start.
I actually agree with most of your points Alex!!!
I think school choice is great. Competition is awesome.
I agree that the government needs to be scaled back. I just think it should scale back even more than you propose. I see no, none, zilch, zero instances where government should ever give money to a citizen.
I believe that with more money in our pockets, Americans will give generously. I believe that it is the calling of the spiritual to give to the needy. I also believe that if a man does not work, he shall not eat!
To me it boils down to individual accountability. The young man in the ghetto has opportunity. He has huge negative influences, but also the freedom of choice. Odds are stacked against him. Maybe Johnny raised with a silver spoon in his mouth has more opportunity. Or does he loose half of his wealth to his ex-wife, overdose on coke, wreck his Jaguar and ruin his life? You see, in America, we all have opportunity. We all face choices. Whether you need to choose to follow your friends and join a gang and shoot each other, or follow your friends and snort coke and sleep with every coed and piss your life away, both boil down to choices.
Even in the ghetto you can rise up to the American dream.
I think government only gets in the way of that.
Post a Comment