#149 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Tuesday September 21)
Good morning,
It’s Thursday and time for some musings of friends and my responses to their ideas.
Today, I thought I would begin by sharing a few thoughts offered by Adam Torson (an actual teacher!) on the subject of teaching America’s history of racism in our schools. Those who have read these for a while know that Adam is a history and debate teacher at Marlborough. We met through middle school and high school debate coaching. Adam teaches his students qualities that are not terribly valued in our society today, to wit:
How to weigh sources of opinion
The value of data and facts
The importance of seeing both sides of most issues; and being open to being proven wrong
RACISM IN AMERICA
Here are some of his thoughts on the teaching of historic racism:
“If “critical race theory” entails the teaching of the history of racial oppression, conservatives will be delighted to know that that it would entail exposing the infamous history of the Democratic party, rather than covering it up…
I've known Conservative friends and relatives who use the line that the Democratic Party is trying to create a permanent class of underprivileged voters dependent upon the State. They use this as a way of deflecting the charge that the remark is racist when they characterize black Americans as lazy. ‘It's not an intrinsic characteristic, it's that the government made them that way!’ Aside from being untrue, it's also a classic example of thinking that racism can only mean the belief that people of a particular race are genetically inferior. In the rush to deny personal animus, they miss that the overgeneralization itself can be harmful, and more importantly miss the possibility that racism can be structural rather than interpersonal, which is what CRT is fundamentally about. For example, tropes about black folks' work ethic are surely a factor in the studies showing that a resume with a stereotypically African American name is much less likely to get a job interview than the identical resume with a stereotypically white name, even if the prospective employers don't know the applicants' races. Not to mention the effects of redlining, education discrimination, and lending discrimination on subsequent employment prospects in predominantly black communities, etc.
The evidence for 'welfare dependence' is pretty weak. To start, countries with stronger social safety nets tend to have dramatically higher social mobility than the US (e.g., the Nordic countries). While it's obviously hard to control for every confounding variable in cross-country comparisons, the magnitude of the gap (I think Denmark has like three times the social mobility of the US) is suggestive. There have also been lots of studies on whether cash transfer programs discourage work, most finding no effect, and some finding that they actually encourage work, though there are some badly designed programs that end up discouraging work. Here is a decent little summary: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9764324/welfare-cash-transfer-work
The evidence for intergenerational dependence is also not great. Children covered by Medicaid, for example, were less likely to need government benefits as adults: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/welfare-childhood/555119/
If some wealthy people maintain that cash transfers discourage work, I wonder how they think the transfer of large inheritances affects work ethic.”
HANDOUTS ARE DISINCENTIVIZING
Adam’s last observation is a great observation! Here is how it boils down:
The people, through their government, determine how tax dollars are allocated. Some of those dollars are allocated to the poor. The argument is that this wealth transfer discourages work and puts people on the “permanent dole.”
A couple, through their will, determine how their inheritance is distributed. Many of those dollars are allocated to their children and grandchildren. The same argument holds true. This wealth transfer also discourages work and puts people on a “permanent allowance.”
Those arguing against both of the above wealth transfers to people who have not worked for or “earned” the money have a point. The welfare system should provide incentives for work (perhaps scaled benefits based upon income). Similarly, the argument seems pretty clear that the government need not subsidize estates with the stepped-up basis. We (society) should get our fair share of gains on assets passed on at death (subject to the estate tax exemption).
ON SUPPORT SYSTEMS IN OUR COMMUNITIES
Finally, from Dennis Mulhaupt, an observation about lifting communities through collective action. He cites that “a number of immigrant communities had other key support structures to help their assimilation into the greater society. These institutions included the Catholic Church, Jewish aid organizations and fraternal and self-help organizations (organized largely on ethnic/nationalistic and/or on religious lines) — the latter effectively denied to African Americans, especially former slaves.”
This is an important point. In the early twentieth century, when these communities fell back on established members of the community that came to America before they did and religious and ethnic organizations for support, Black Americans could not avail themselves of such support. To compare the successes of the Black community to these other communities is like comparing someone in a footrace who lacks running shoes, a starting block or coaching to competitors who possess these advantages.
These ethnic and religious support organizations were indispensable to the process of lifting these groups into American society and economic and social advancement. Inroads are being made and support structures are being established for the underserved, in myriad nonprofit organizations throughout the country, including Posse Scholars, the Fulfillment Fund and others.
Have a good day,
Glenn
From the archives: