Home > Uncategorized > Original sin?

Original sin?

from David Ruccio


No one ever accused American conservatives of being particularly original. They started with a story about the failure of government programs and they stick with it, against all evidence.

Originally, conservatives targeted African Americans, who (so the story goes, e.g., in the Moynihan Report) were mired in a culture of poverty and increasingly dependent on government hand-outs. In order for blacks to regain America’s founding virtues (so the story continues)—especially marriage and industriousness—well-meaning but ultimately destructive government programs should be abolished so that they would once again be able to enjoy the security of marriage and dignity of work.

That exact same story has now been transferred to the white working-class. Anyone who’s read Charles Murray and J. D. Vance will recognize the “the pejorative Moynihan report on the black family in white face.” 

The latest version of that story was penned by the American Enterprise Institute’s Arthur Brooks, who cites Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty as the original sin, which “deprived generations of Americans of their fundamental sense of dignity.” According to Brooks, “rural and exurban whites” have been left behind “every bit as much as the urban poor” because they’ve come to “depend on the state instead of creating value for themselves and others.” Real dignity, argues Brooks (echoing a long line of conservative thinkers), stems from people being “authentically, objectively necessary.” And that means working—or at least looking for work.

That’s why Brooks cites the declining labor-force participation rate in the United States beginning with the War on Poverty.

The first problem is, the participation rate has been declining since the mid-1950s, long before Johnson’s program was enacted. As readers can see in the chart at the top of the post, the labor-force participation rate for white men (the red line), which stood at 87.4 percent in 1955, had fallen to 84.2 percent by 1964 and then dropped to 76.6 percent in 2007 (on the eve of the latest crash). If we calculate the change by decades, it dropped by 3.2 percent points in the first decade and then by less then 2 percent points in each succeeding decade.

It makes as much sense to blame the declining labor-force participation rate on Chuck Berry as the War on Poverty.

But notice also that, from the mid-1950s onward, the labor-force participation rate of white women soared—beginning at 33.4 percent (in 1955), rising to 37.3 percent (in 1964), and peaking at 60.2 percent (in 2007). In the terms set forth by Brooks, that increase in dignity more than makes up for the falling rate for men. And much of the increase for women comes after the War on Poverty is enacted.

Instead of mourning the fall in men’s participation, why isn’t the increase for women deemed a great success by Brooks and other conservatives?

The only possible answer is American conservatives hold a nostalgia—an extremely selective nostalgia—for a particular moment in U.S. history. They envision a white working-class made up of men most of whom are forced to have the freedom to sell their ability to work outside the home, with wives who for the most part stay at home, care for their husbands, and raise future workers. At the same time, conservatives forget about the unions that made it possible for workers to earn a family wage—not to mention the Jim Crow laws and bracero programs that created barriers for black and Hispanic workers to compete for the jobs white working-class men were able to find.

So, no, there never was a Garden of Eden—and, thus, no original sin.

  1. March 27, 2017 at 10:18 am

    Conservatism as a specific set of ideas and ways of life was set off by the French Revolution. It was made up of, in the words of the song, “cool, cool considerate” men who intended to stand up to radical theories and social transformations. It rested on the intend to preserve a world of reason, order, peace, and virtue, and fruitful penitence (Edmund Burke) against the emerging threat of a world of antagonistic madness, discord, vice, confusion, and unavailing sorrow. If this sounds “extreme;” it is and intentionally so. To defend custom, convention, and tradition, and the order, justice, and freedom they made possible any response was justified. Conservatism prospered in the enemy of France, the United Kingdom, and from there went on to the USA. As this makes clear conservatives are not the friends of capitalism, which they consider one of the major bastions of vice, injustice, and restraints of freedom.

    The criticisms of conservatism are many and often repeated. How does one choose which conventions and traditions are worth preserving and following and which are not? How does the freedom of entire societies function if each person in the society is free to do as s/he please, with only traditional constraints? Aren’t some of the social transformations and radical theories beneficial for all humans? And, if so why oppose these? Since democratic government is really self-rule by consensus, how can conservatives oppose the will of the people to change or set aside certain traditions and conventions? Etc. The basic problem with conservatism is that it takes charge of something which is not its to control – the traditional life of entire groups of people. Conservatives essentially pick some point in time and place, and tell all the people today they are permitted to act and believe only in ways from that time and place. Obviously, this is autocratic, anti-democratic, and repressive. And, in the end must spur more of what conservatives hate most, radical theories and social transformations. Conservatism in this sense is a dead end.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.