“Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life”

19 04 2018

Manhattan

Thomas Edsall, writing in the NYT.  It’s a gold mine.

So, let’s strap on the scuba gear.

Let’s get it, man, let’s go!

Last week, in an essay for CityLab, Richard Florida, a professor of urban planning at the University of Toronto, described how housing costs are driving the growing division between upwardly and downwardly mobile populations within Democratic ranks…

That would be the same Richard Florida who doesn’t know the difference between correlation and causation, because he made a name and career for himself conning urban planners and elites that the way to get prosperous was to import gay men. When in reality, gay men were attracted to urban prosperity that occurred for other reasons.

Allies on Election Day, the two wings of the Democratic Party are growing further estranged in other aspects of their lives, driven apart by the movement of advantaged and disadvantaged populations within and between cities. These demographic patterns exacerbate intraparty tensions.

But then this same article will cite the 2016 two-party voting statistics from these cities, and, as you can probably figure, they’re extremely overwhelmingly Democrat. For as much “intraparty tension” this is supposedly causing, which is another thing this article dwells upon, it doesn’t manifest on election day.

The really interesting question is how it’s possible that these two coalitions who have so little in common and despise each other so much, keep on voting for the same party on election day.

Florida, writing with Benjamin Schneider of CityLab, expands on this point:

While the advantaged members of the knowledge, professional, and creative class have enough money left over even after paying the cost of housing in these cities, it’s the less-well-paid members of the service and working classes who get the short end of the stick, with not nearly enough left over to afford the basic necessities of life. They are either pushed to the periphery of these places or pushed out altogether.

Far be it from anyone to ask if these two things just might happen to be related.

Baum-Snow and Hartley cite what they call “a shifting balance between departures of low SES (socioeconomic status) minorities and inflows of high SES whites” and point out that neighborhoods surrounding cities’ central business districts have experienced a turnaround

driven by the return of college-graduate and high-income whites to these neighborhoods, coupled with a halt in the outflows of other white demographic groups. At the same time, the departures of minorities without college degrees continued unabated.

In Chicago, Baum-Snow and Hartley point out, the largely minority census tracts that gained whites the fastest from 1980 to 2010 were “almost exclusively within 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) of the central business district.”

The “minorities” (i.e. blacks) in Chicago that used to live “within 2.5 miles of the central business district” didn’t “depart” willingly. They were forced out and forced onto suburbs and far away towns with Section 8 vouchers and the Feds using programs like HOPE VI and AFFH and laws like the FHA to use carrot-and-stick mechanisms to dump blacks on those places. Meanwhile, a lot of urban white people were suddenly blessed with short commutes.

Within major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Cain continued,

the sorting is also between neighborhoods, with large nonwhite populations surrounded by white/Asian suburbs, and certain Latinos and Asians displacing blacks.

And now you know why the urban gentry neoliberals are so anxious about immigration as a political issue. It is dynamically related to their desire for AFFH.

I came to the conclusion awhile back that if Trump kept everything about himself and his administration the same, but flipped on immigration to an extent and AFFH all the way, the domestic policy deep state would give up on their coup attempt. I think those two things are the fundamental points of aggravation between them.

Upscale liberal whites “who consider themselves committed to racial justice” tend to be “NIMBYists when it comes to their neighborhoods,” Cain wrote, “not living up to their affordable housing commitments and resisting apartment density around mass transportation stops.”

Elitist hypocrisy, who knew? I would add here the very recent news that California’s state legislature rejected a measure to force cities to fiddle with zoning laws to allow for much greater housing density near public transit stops, but this article will mention that further down in the paragraph count to prove Edsall’s point.

“One of the key problems of the information/digital economy,” according to Cain,

is that it thrives under conditions of amassing large concentrations of human and financial capital, which results in these homogeneous bubbles. It doesn’t help that many of the tech workers are not as inclined to be good neighbors.

The trends Cain cites are part of a nationwide shift.

Charles Murray, call your office.

The maneuvers in California are a reflection of a larger problem for Democrats: their inability to reconcile the conflicts inherent in the party’s economic and racial bifurcation.

“Inability to reconcile conflicts?” Where? Once again, this article notes how overwhelmingly bordering on monolithically Democrat these elite places are in their two-party voting habits. Seems to me nobody has any reconciliation problems anywhere. Of course most people reading these words know the answer to that: The white urban gentry neoliberals use social justice warriorism as a distraction, a diversion, a front. Not to mention coalition of the fringes, pincher movement politics, as another weapon.

Rodrik cites the work of the French economist Thomas Piketty, who argues that political parties on the left have been taken over, here and in Europe, “by the well-educated elite” — what Piketty calls the “Brahmin Left.”

Piketty spends most of that book shilling for the same “well-educated elite” by arguing that the very things which they want which have rigged the economy in their favor and exacerbated inequality will somehow reduce inequality.

Michael Lind, a professor of public policy at the University of Texas in Austin, wrote in a prescient 2014 essay, “The Coming Realignment: Cities, Class, and Ideology After Social Conservatism,” that “high-density downtowns and suburban villages are coming to have an hourglass-shaped social structure.”

“Wealthy individuals” are at the top, according to Lind, with a “large luxury-service proletariat at the bottom.”

And where do they find a “large luxury-service proletariat?” From Guatemala, silly!

Lind’s point raises a fundamental question for the Democratic Party: Can it find a way to hold its “hourglass-shaped” political coalition together?

They have so far, and as long as they can float up SJW flares and and as long as there’s even one white cishet goy conservative Republican in existence to hate, they’ll be able to keep on doing it.

Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, predicted the potential political developments of this situation in an article in March 2016:

Over the next decade or so, the Republicans will split between their growing nationalist-populist wing and their business establishment wing, a split that the nationalist-populist wing will eventually win. The Democrats will face a similar split between the increasingly pro-corporate but socially liberal Clinton wing and a more economically progressive Sanders wing, a split that the Clinton wing will eventually win.

And then:

Dani Rodrik picks up this point in his Project Syndicate essay:

Why were democratic political systems not responsive early enough to the grievances that autocratic populists have successfully exploited — inequality and economic anxiety, decline of perceived social status, the chasm between elites and ordinary citizens? Had political parties, particularly of the center left, pursued a bolder agenda, perhaps the rise of right-wing, nativist political movements might have been averted.

The problem is that there are too many differences between the populist-nationalist right and downscale Democrat voters for a “bold” agenda articulated on behalf of the latter to result in a political union between the two factions.

The force that had historically pushed policy to the economic left — organized labor — has for the most part been marginalized. African-American and Hispanic voters have shown little willingness to join Democratic reform movements led by upper middle class whites, as shown in their lack of enthusiasm for Bill Bradley running against Al Gore in 2000 or Sanders running against Clinton in 2016.

The cognitive stratification system killed the unions, because higher IQ individuals within the working classes of organized labor who would have in the past stayed in that class and remained union members and risen through the ranks to become competent union leaders and be able to bargain effectively against the high IQ ownership and management class are no longer of the working class or in unions. Union prosperity at the peak of the organized labor movement meant that the higher IQ children of union workers went off to college, and wound up getting absorbed into the elite-excuseology system. Over time, this starved unions of their capable potential leaders, putting them on the other side of the ledger. This is why today’s labor union leadership are elite excuseologists by and large, the union leaders have resumes and CVs and lifestyles that are carbon copies of the corporate executives they supposedly despise, and the modern union political agenda is neoliberal gentry social justice tripe.

Black voters voted HRC over Bern in 2016, in spite of Bern having an economic agenda that would have been better for blacks, because black voters tend to get behind the big chief. If you remember back to 2007 and 2008, when it was HRC versus Obama, when the season started, black voters and black leaders were almost universally for HRC. The early adopters of Obama in terms of endorsement were high level white women elected Democrats, largely out of queen bee syndrome. That gave Obama his first shot in the arm. His second shot in the arm, which put him over the Mendoza Line of political credibility, was the white doctrinaire anti Iraq war left, which provided the bulk of the votes in Obama’s early primary and caucus victories in 2008. Then and only then, was the water warm enough and save enough for the blacks to flip to Obama.

The hurdle facing those seeking to democratize elite domination of the Democratic Party is finding voters and donors who have a sustained interest in redistributive policies — and the minimum wage is only a small piece of this.

Even the minimum wage is largely a diversion, because it’s substantively ineffective in terms of its purported purpose, but its real reason is to drive out blacks.

Achieving that goal requires an economically coherent center-left political coalition. It also requires the ability to overcome the seemingly insuperable political divisions between the white working class and the African-American and Hispanic working classes — that elusive but essential multiracial — and now multiethnic — majority. Establishing that majority in a coherent political coalition is the only way in which the economic interests of those in the bottom half of the income distribution will be effectively addressed.

Easier said…

To wrap this up, Edsall’s article cites a lot of books and essays and papers and articles. In reality, to understand the wherefore and why of all this, all he needed to do was cite one book, that being The Bell Curve.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

3 responses

20 04 2018
Dale Gribble

Love the neo-liberal hypocrisy on the minimum or “living wage”. Buffett media here in Nebraska run stories how workers cant make it on the minimum wage. The next day they run stories how feedlot operators cant find enough workers without easing immigration visa rules.
Turns out your minimum wage is $12.30 a hour for the feds to approve your Ag visa. The “living wage” hurdle is just $10, so far.

20 04 2018
jb

Yep, the Bell Curve. The plain fact is that the problem isn’t that we don’t have enough redistributionist policies, it’s the reality that the brown and especially the black masses aren’t capable of building and maintaining an advanced, prosperous nation and live off of massive subsidies from whites. Wakanda isn’t real, and demographics is destiny. What we’re really starting to see is the beginning of the Democrats becoming a third-world tribalist party demanding a greater looting of whites a la South Africa. The Republicans have a strategic race problem because they stupidly went along with importing millions of hostile, racist invaders who will inevitably destroy the nation, their political movement, and their party. The Democrats have a tactical race problem in that they can’t allow their party to become the black/brown party before the sheer numbers of colonial occupiers simply overwhelms the natives. It’s going to be a close run thing. That’s why old white fossils like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, and Joe Biden are still hanging around, to keep a black/brown face from becoming the image of the party. That the real division, it has little to do with class.

The Republican have never come out against the constantly increasing crazy anti-white racism of the left and the Democrats because they’ll take hits for it in the racist MSM, and because they benefit from that craziness driving white voters into the Republican party. They’re in a bit of an incentive trap in that it will destroy them in the long run, but they can profit today. We don’t have an Evil Party and a Stupid Party, we have an Evil Party and The Other Evil Party. Or more precisely, a white-hating genocide party and a collaborationist party wiling to make a profit off of genocide, at least until they go to the wall themselves. That’s how evil and cynical the Republican/Conservative leadership is.

20 04 2018
Truth-hammer

Blah, blah, blah. IOW, niggers.

It's your dime, spill it. And also...NO TROLLS ALLOWED~!

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.




%d bloggers like this: