…read this from the New York Times’ David Brooks, and fired back rather nicely don’t you think? Olen took special offense at Brooks’ notion that:
Affluent, intelligent people are now more likely to marry other energetic, intelligent people. They raise energetic, intelligent kids in self-segregated, cultural ghettoes where they know little about and have less influence upon people who do not share their blessings.
Imagine blaming women for income inequality. Where do these guys come up with this twaddle?
And thanks, Leftover, for the link.
Dating Jesus 
Whether you read this as an attack on women (the unmarried parents) or not, I think the points are well-taken. Of COURSE affluent parents are more able to spend their time with their kids if they so choose — they have help to do the stuff that the rest of us have to do ourselves. And of COURSE their kids go to potentially more rigorous schools — they can afford them. Ditto with outside and even school activities — when public schools have to cut back on sports and arts and other activities because of ravaged budgets and private schools don’t have to, who wins?
David Brooks is a die-hard conservative, and I’m definitely not. But David Brooks is no where near as crazy as many conservatives. I’m not defending him or conservative positions, but he actually makes some good points sometimes.
He never blamed these problems on women, certainly not explicitly. If he did, I certainly didn’t see it. Search his piece for the word “woman”, women,” “lady,” female” and you won’t find it. He never mentions women. Maybe he is making some assumptions, but… maybe not.
The references to out-of-wedlock children? The last time I checked, human females are not capable of asexual reproduction. A man always is involved. In our society, SOB men who knock women up almost get a free pass, but THAT is NOT a problem women created. Maybe, ya think, MEN created it?
Now, let’s look at the offending quote, part by part.
“Affluent, intelligent people are now more likely to marry other energetic, intelligent people.” I think that is increasingly true. Why? Because many marriages come from college relationships (increasingly that means affluent people) or from work relationships where lawyers and doctors do, in fact, work with lawyers and doctors who, increasingly, are of both genders.
“They raise energetic, intelligent kids in self-segregated, cultural ghettoes where they know little about and have less influence upon people who do not share their blessings.” Two highly educated people from affluent backgrounds have a much better chance of being affluent couples who can afford the best housing in the best neighborhoods and school systems. Hence, the “cultural ghettoes.”
Sorry, I’m a die-hard liberal. But I really think that David Brooks has raised some interesting points. Even if he might not have expressed them very well.
That said, it could be that I am totally, absolutely, imperceptive.
Brooks returns to a favorite theme to rationalize income disparity in America…family structure…to divert attention from the continuing orchestrated dismantling of social/political institutions supporting and protecting the interests of working people in America.
It’s a familiar conservative tactic. Factionalize the working class and pit these factions against each in attractive rhetoric to divert attention from the reality of the actual problems at hand.
He’s done it before…”The Wrong Inequality” from last year comes to mind…and he’ll continue to do it. I’m a little surprised Olen didn’t devote a little more time to dismantling the argument. Maybe it’s because nobody pays as much attention to Brooks as they used to. Or maybe her editor was more concerned with pushing a sensational theme that was a better fit to the “3 paragraph limit.”
Dean Baker at CEPR/Beat the Press has a short and sweet observation on The Conundrums of David Brooks: Reducing Class Inequality Without Talking About It.
He sees Brooks as being “open to evidence.” (“Better late than never.”) That may be the case, but he cherry-picks the way some preachers cherry-pick scripture. He offers some tasty morsels while keeping the whole pie away from the table.
(It’s Dean’s birthday today, too! Happy Birthday Dean!)