Rush is happy/excited about a book that points out vast inequality

[NAO]

The catch is this book claims that the inequality in America is NOT economic but cultural.

According to this book, "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010", the wealthy are in touch with core values while the poor have lost their way. The book focuses only on white people, allegedly avoiding the charge of racism.

It almost seems to acknowledge class (the author correlates income levels with degree of "values&quot , but then claims that values determine income levels, so the solution is to teach people values, (which is the root cause), and there is no need to address income inequality (which is determined by values).

I believe this is what is called "bourgeois sociology". I always thought those labels (bourgeois economics, bourgeois history, etc) were overdoing it a bit - but here is a case of a book that appears to be empirical science yet it is clearly done to validate conservative ideology and maintain the economic inequality generating systemic status quo.

[EC]

1. Is this a book or Brook's column

from the NYT?

On edit: It's the other way around, values and ethics change when you're poor or struggling..when you have to decide rather to eat or steal. And I've found that the rich do "whatever it takes" to make more money. Reminds me of a scene in "Body Heat" where Richard Crenna tells William Hurt that he's the one the big guys hire to "do what it takes" to get a job done.

[Mz Pip]

2. David Brooks wrote an op-ed on this

in the NYT. I don't see how you can only use data from white people and somehow reach an an all inclusive conclusion.

[barbtries]

3. you can't.

that's supposed to sidestep the question of race?

[NAO]

4. I think it's a high falutin' way of saying

"keep the white race pure"

This is by the same academic who wrote "The Bell Curve", which claimed that on average, the IQ of blacks was lower that that of whites.

[Mz Pip]

5. Well, that's interesting

It kind of plays into the whole O'Reilly culture wars BS.

I do agree with Brooks on one thing - there should be some kind of National Service.

[NAO]

7. National Service?? Do you mean a Government Takeover of the Job Creators? -nt

[earthside]

6. On Bill Bennet's show this morning.

I listened to Bill Bennet's radio program this morning where he interviewed Charles Murray about his new book 'Coming Apart'.

It was an interesting conversation and I wouldn't be surprised if what Murray says becomes yet another part of the Repuglicans 2012 campaign narrative ... because they love to point a finger at the perceived moral failings of others.

Even if the statistics that Murray conveys in the book are true -- and they maybe -- he and Bennet (I suppose Limgaugh, too) and the sanctimonious Repuglicans are totally blind as to the real reasons why there are now profound class divisions in the United States.

Murray and Bennet still wanted to blame it all on 1960s cultural changes, in other words, they don't have a clue and are still trying to ascribe everything they think is wrong with America on hippies, the women's movement and the so-called welfare state.

But what is actually rather obvious is that starting with Nixon and reaching its fruition under Reagan is the economic plundering of the American working and middle class. Divorce, single parenthood, homelessness, underemployment, failing schools are all symptoms of a working and middle class suffering from increasing economic stress. Nixon-Reagan-Bush have been relentless in their efforts to destroy good unions and the good wages and benefits they earned; and trade with China, globalism, "free" trade has shipped good working class jobs overseas for the sake of corporate profits.

So, at least from the descriptions offered in the radio interview, most of the social-cultural decline Murray talks about can be ascribed to the increased concentration of power and wealth into the hands of the upper 20 percent class. They can't or don't want to see that, of course, working and middle class people have to rely on government services more often when their union jobs and livable wage jobs are shipped to Mexico and China, while health insurance and tuition and fees, etc. continue to rise to fill the bank accounts of the super rich.

You bet the upper class has a more stable marriage rate and less single parents and better educations ... they have the resources to acquire those things. What a surprise that male unemployment is high in working class America ... their jobs are in China.

It was pathetic, too, to hear Bill Bennet's disappointment when even Murray had to concede that the upper twenty percent is NOT composed mostly of elitist "secular" liberals. As folks here at DU know, there is a governing class that does contain liberals, but mostly it is those who are reaping the benefits of the financialization of the economy, i.e., 'conservatives' who inhabit the upper class.

My suspicion, is that progressives may want to accept the basics of Murray's research and his numbers -- but use them to point out the rather obvious truth that the Occupy movement has articulated so well: the "Romney class" is waging war against the rest of us ... and they are winning ... so far.

[libodem]

8. Social injustice

Seems to tickle them pink. Equal justice under the law is a defunct proposition.



You get what you can pay for in today's America.

All men are NOT created equal. The rich are kings of the cast system.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Of course he is

I'm sure radical regressives like Limbaugh are excited to hear from somebody how they're not responsible for socioeconomic problems (or any problems really) and thus not responsible to lift a finger to do anything about them, especially if the solutions might involve increased government spending and/or programs.


As far as I can tell, it's basically just another in a long line of conservative attempts to justify selfishness.