- reverse pyromania
- Posts
- David Brooks
Let me be clear up front. In my view, David Brooks is a pseudo intellectual who spews nonsense to fit his predetermined view of the world. His latest missive in the NY Times fits that bill perfectly.
In this “opinion piece”, he basically opines that providing money to poor people to help them get out of poverty doesn’t work because many/most of these people are somehow lacking in the “…culture, moral norms, traditions, religious ideals, personal responsibility and community cohesion” required to pull themselves out of poverty.
He goes on to make a completely unsupported association (a David Brooks specialty) with progressives and Karl Marx: “But there’s something deeper. Progressivism emerges from a different lineage. Karl Marx influenced many people who are not Marxist, and he saw the world through a material-determinism lens — people’s consciousnesses are shaped by their material conditions.”
He also promotes pseudo social research with spurious claims (another Brooksian specialty): “As Piper noted in a subsequent post, we spend more money combating poverty today than the entire U.S. G.D.P. from 1969, yet “the share of Americans whose pretransfer income places them in absolute poverty has barely fallen.” (US GDP was approx. $1 trillion in 1969. Do we really spend that annually on combating poverty? And do we just ignore the massive transfer of wealth upwards since Reagan due to political policy - tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate favoritism, etc.?)
He then ends his screed by showing his true colors: “If you can find some lefties who are willing to spend money fighting poverty but also willing to promote the traditional values and practices that enable people to rise, you can sign me up for the revolution.”
So, in Brooks worldview, people stuck in poverty don’t have the requisite “traditional values” to move up in life. What a d*^k.
Well, here’s a story from my time on the campaign trail (and part of a chapter in my upcoming book).
During my campaign for US Senate, I incurred a defining moment on poverty that has stuck with me ever since, one that will inform my views on economics and behavior for the rest of my life.
I was campaigning at an organization that was friendly territory for me in a state that didn’t offer me much welcome from a political perspective. The building was filled with young, idealistic, environmentally conscious staff, and they were not afraid to tell me their policy and political views.
I was standing in a circle of 5 or 6 employees, again, mostly young and relatively early on in their life journey. We were talking about healthcare, drug prices, and how to make sure everyone had access to affordable basic, quality care. I mentioned that I didn’t want anyone to have to make an agonizing choice about putting food on the table or affording a drug that they needed to be – or stay – healthy.
It was at that moment that a young woman (whose name I unfortunately can't recall), interrupted me with unexpected force in her voice.
“Let me tell you what it’s like.” She paused for a second or two and seemed to be gathering her emotions and thoughts.
“I grew up with nothing. My mom had to make decision like that all the time. Food or gas or medicine for her and her family. We had nothing. We skipped meals. It wasn’t that she didn’t have a job – she did. But people who have never been in that position, who think we should be making rational plans to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps out of poverty, have no idea what it’s like. When you are in that position, you are thinking poor. You are just trying to survive and make it to the next day. Rational plans don’t matter when your belly hurts and your car is broken down and you can’t afford to turn up the heat.”
Thinking poor. Of course, I’d never thought of it that way, and I’m pretty damn sure most elected officials haven’t either, because they have no idea what it's like. Those “with” seem to think its easy to develop a strategy to move up the ladder, a ladder whose rungs are starting to rot, making climbing it nearly impossible. Those “without” are generally making the best decisions they know how; they just don’t have the luxury and cushion to ignore the hard reality of their daily lives.
Thinking poor. Shame on us for not getting that.
Over the course of the 12 years between my campaigns, inequality in America had skyrocketed, as it continues to do to this day. The statistics are almost so incredible that they are hard to believe: the top 1% of Americans have amassed approximately 40% of all wealth, the top 10% have amassed nearly 80% of all wealth while the bottom 90% - the bottom 90% - have less than 25%. While slavery as an economic driver is no longer legal in the United States, our model of capitalism is absolutely dependent on a “low-wage” model where the majority of workers in this country barely earn enough to survive and raise a family. A huge percentage of workers at Walmart and McDonalds are on some type of government support program, which means that we, the taxpayers of the United States of America, are subsidizing the profits of private companies because they are not willing to pay their workers enough to support themselves and their families and live a life of dignity.
Thinking poor. The words stung me and made me feel guilty. Even dirty, that somehow, I might have been a part of this system that puts hard-working people in her mom’s position.
Over the last 40 or so years, since Ronald Reagan said the most dangerous 9 words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”, we have been told to worship at the altar of capitalism and a “free market” that isn’t free and that degrades and demeans the value of everyday life for the majority of Americans.
Every single group of human beings, back to the Stone Age, has had some form of government. A Village chief. A shaman in charge of religion and spiritual belief. Group members in charge of hunting and preparing food. Informal “court” systems that meted out justice (however barbaric we now view some of the old-fashioned remedies). Organizing into an orderly, functioning social group is fundamental to the success of the species known as homo sapiens.
But at the risk of being repetitious, “government”, or social structuring, is only as good or bad as the people running it and structuring it. Put people in charge who, like Reagan, believe government cannot do “good” or perform, and, well, it just won’t. Self-fulfilling prophesy here folks.
The interstate highway system. Rural electrification. Social Security. Medicare for seniors who couldn’t get health insurance. A justice system that, while imperfect, was the envy of the world for its lack of corruption. Medical and drug discoveries. A military that, while imperfect, again, is the envy of the world for its professionalism.
Government should not live our lives for us or tell us how to live or how to love. But inherently bad? C’mon. It has to stop.
Government must help, because forcing people into “thinking poor” has to stop.
Of course, that chapter takes on even more importance in light of the buffoons running our government today.
For anyone who wants a quick, informative, revealing, engrossing and enraging read on what it’s like for most Americans in our current society, read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. You won’t regret it.
As for Brooks, I’d like for him to experience for just one day what it’s like to be “thinking poor”.
Reply