Race, Class and Neglect

MAY 4, 2015

Every time youre tempted to say that America is moving forward on race
that prejudice is no longer as important as it used to be along comes an
atrocity to puncture your complacency. Almost everyone realizes, I hope, that
the Freddie Gray affair wasnt an isolated incident, that its unique only to the
extent that for once there seems to be a real possibility that justice may be
done.
And the riots in Baltimore, destructive as they are, have served at least one
useful purpose: drawing attention to the grotesque inequalities that poison
the lives of too many Americans.
Yet I do worry that the centrality of race and racism to this particular story
may convey the false impression that debilitating poverty and alienation from
society are uniquely black experiences. In fact, much though by no means all
of the horror one sees in Baltimore and many other places is really about
class, about the devastating effects of extreme and rising inequality.
Take, for example, issues of health and mortality. Many people have pointed
out that there are a number of black neighborhoods in Baltimore where life
expectancy compares unfavorably with impoverished Third World nations.
But whats really striking on a national basis is the way class disparities in
death rates have been soaring even among whites.
Most notably, mortality among white women has increased sharply since the
1990s, with the rise surely concentrated among the poor and poorly
educated; life expectancy among less educated whites has been falling at rates
reminiscent of the collapse of life expectancy in post-Communist Russia.
And yes, these excess deaths are the result of inequality and lack of
opportunity, even in those cases where their direct cause lies in selfdestructive behavior. Overuse of prescription drugs, smoking, and obesity
account for a lot of early deaths, but theres a reason such behaviors are so
widespread, and that reason has to do with an economy that leaves tens of
millions behind.
It has been disheartening to see some commentators still writing as if poverty
were simply a matter of values, as if the poor just mysteriously make bad

choices and all would be well if they adopted middle-class values. Maybe, just
maybe, that was a sustainable argument four decades ago, but at this point it
should be obvious that middle-class values only flourish in an economy that
offers middle-class jobs.
The great sociologist William Julius Wilson argued long ago that widelydecried social changes among blacks, like the decline of traditional families,
were actually caused by the disappearance of well-paying jobs in inner cities.
His argument contained an implicit prediction: if other racial groups were to
face a similar loss of job opportunity, their behavior would change in similar
ways.
And so it has proved. Lagging wages actually declining in real terms for
half of working men and work instability have been followed by sharp
declines in marriage, rising births out of wedlock, and more.
As Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution writes: Blacks have faced, and
will continue to face, unique challenges. But when we look for the reasons
why less skilled blacks are failing to marry and join the middle class, it is
largely for the same reasons that marriage and a middle-class lifestyle is
eluding a growing number of whites as well.
So it is, as I said, disheartening still to see commentators suggesting that the
poor are causing their own poverty, and could easily escape if only they acted
like members of the upper middle class.
And its also disheartening to see commentators still purveying another
debunked myth, that weve spent vast sums fighting poverty to no avail
(because of values, you see.)
In reality, federal spending on means-tested programs other than Medicaid
has fluctuated between 1 and 2 percent of G.D.P. for decades, going up in
recessions and down in recoveries. Thats not a lot of money its far less
than other advanced countries spend and not all of it goes to families
below the poverty line.
Despite this, measures that correct well-known flaws in the statistics show
that we have made some real progress against poverty. And we would make a
lot more progress if we were even a fraction as generous toward the needy as
we imagine ourselves to be.
The point is that there is no excuse for fatalism as we contemplate the evils of
poverty in America. Shrugging your shoulders as you attribute it all to values
is an act of malign neglect. The poor dont need lectures on morality, they
need more resources which we can afford to provide and better
economic opportunities, which we can also afford to provide through
everything from training and subsidies to higher minimum wages. Baltimore,
and America, dont have to be as unjust as they are.

Ideology and Integrity

MAY 1, 2015

Paul Krugman
The 2016 campaign should be almost entirely about issues. The parties are
far apart on everything from the environment to fiscal policy to health care,
and history tells us that what politicians say during a campaign is a good
guide to how they will govern.
Nonetheless, many in the news media will try to make the campaign about
personalities and character instead. And character isnt totally irrelevant. The
next president will surely encounter issues that arent currently on anyones
agenda, so it matters how he or she is likely to react. But the character trait
that will matter most isnt one the press likes to focus on. In fact, its actively
discouraged.
You see, you shouldnt care whether a candidate is someone youd like to
have a beer with. Nor should you care about politicians sex lives, or even
their spending habits unless they involve clear corruption. No, what you
should really look for, in a world that keeps throwing nasty surprises at us, is
intellectual integrity: the willingness to face facts even if theyre at odds with
ones preconceptions, the willingness to admit mistakes and change course.
And thats a virtue in very short supply.
As you might guess, Im thinking in particular about the sphere of economics,
where the nasty surprises just keep coming. If nothing that has happened
these past seven years or so has shaken any of your long-held economic
beliefs, either you havent been paying attention or you havent been honest
with yourself.
Times like these call for a combination of open-mindedness willingness to
entertain different ideas and determination to do the best you can. As
Franklin Roosevelt put it in a celebrated speech, The country demands bold,
persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If
it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.

What we see instead in many public figures is, however, the behaviorGeorge
Orwell described in one of his essays: Believing things which we know to be
untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the
facts so as to show that we were right. Did I predict runaway inflation that
never arrived? Well, the government is cooking the books, and besides, I
never said what I said.
Just to be clear, Im not calling for an end to ideology in politics, because
thats impossible. Everyone has an ideology, a view about how the world does
and should work. Indeed, the most reckless and dangerous ideologues are
often those who imagine themselves ideology-free for example, selfproclaimed centrists and are, therefore, unaware of their own biases. What
you should seek, in yourself and others, is not an absence of ideology but an
open mind, willing to consider the possibility that parts of the ideology may
be wrong.
The press, Im sorry to say, tends to punish open-mindedness, because
gotcha journalism is easier and safer than policy analysis. Hillary Clinton
supported trade agreements in the 1990s, but now shes critical. Its a flipflop! Or, possibly, a case of learning from experience, which is something we
should praise, not deride.
So whats the state of intellectual integrity at this point in the election cycle?
Pretty bad, at least on the Republican side of the field.
Jeb Bush, for example, has declared that Im my own man on foreign
policy, but the list of advisers circulated by his aides included the likes of Paul
Wolfowitz, who predicted that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, and
shows no signs of having learned from the blood bath that actually took
place.
Meanwhile, as far as I can tell no important Republican figure has
admittedthat none of the terrible consequences that were supposed to follow
health reform mass cancellation of existing policies, soaring premiums, job
destruction has actually happened.
The point is that were not just talking about being wrong on specific policy
questions. Were talking about never admitting error, and never revising
ones views. Never being able to say that you were wrong is a serious
character flaw even if the consequences of that refusal to admit error fall only
on a few people. But moral cowardice should be outright disqualifying in
anyone seeking high office.
Think about it. Suppose, as is all too possible, that the next president ends up
confronting some kind of crisis economic, environmental, foreign

undreamed of in his or her current political philosophy. We really, really

dont want the job of responding to that crisis dictated by someone who still
cant bring himself to admit that invading Iraq was a disaster but health
reform wasnt.
I still think this election should turn almost entirely on the issues. But if we
must talk about character, lets talk about what matters, namely intellectual
integrity.

Drop box
Box.com
Google drive
Sky drive