Poor, White, and Republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poor, White, and Republican
>
> Posted by George Packer
>
> F.D.R. called him “the forgotten man,” but
> that was long ago. By 1972, he was a member of the
> silent majority and had become a Democrat for
> Nixon (he wore a hard hat with an American-flag
> sticker). 1980 produced the Reagan Democrat (this
> time he came from Macomb County, Michigan, and was
> discovered by the pollster Stan Greenberg). By
> 1994 he had curdled into the Angry White Male (he
> elected the Gingrich Congress). In 2008, he was
> simply the working-class white—by then he was no
> longer forgotten, and no longer a Democrat of any
> kind; he was a member of the much-analyzed
> Republican base. The television godfather of the
> type, of course, is Archie Bunker, but you can
> also trace his lineage more darkly through the
> string of hard-bitten blue-collar movies that
> begins with “Joe” (Peter Boyle, 1970), goes on
> to “Falling Down” (Michael Douglas, 1993),
> “Gran Torino” (Clint Eastwood, 2008), and, in
> a rural context, “Winter’s Bone” (2010).
> He’s a descendant of the thirties Everyman
> played by Henry Fonda and Gary Cooper, except that
> in the intervening decades he lost his idealism
> and grew surly, if not violent, consumed with a
> hatred of hippies, immigrants, blacks, government,
> and, finally, himself.
>
> This election year, he’s back and getting a lot
> of attention from sociologists and pundits
> (Charles Murray’s new book “Coming Apart: The
> State of White America, 1960-2010” sparked the
> current flurry of commentary). But in 2012 he’s
> no longer even working class. He’s fallen
> through the last restraints of decency and
> industriousness, down into the demoralized and
> pathological underclass that, in the past,
> Americans associated with the black poor. There,
> he lives on disability, is no longer fit for
> employment nor has any impulse to get a job, is
> divorced, fathers illegitimate children who grow
> up to do the same, gets hooked on meth or
> prescription drugs, does time in prison now and
> then, and has bad teeth.
>
> Is it useful to make generalizations about whole
> classes of people? We all know the reasons why
> it’s not—they stoke prejudice, crush nuance,
> distort reality, are unkind and unfair. But just
> as it was wrong for a generation of liberals to
> reject Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s notorious 1965
> report “The Negro Family: The Case for National
> Action,” it would be a mistake to dismiss the
> subject of Murray’s new book simply because it
> insults half of the Americans who weren’t
> already tarred by “The Bell Curve.” Murray has
> a talent for raising important questions on the
> way to arriving at invidious answers.
>
> Perhaps the biggest political puzzle of our time
> is why, as the lives of working-class whites have
> descended from the stability and comfort of “All
> in the Family” to the chaos and despair of
> “Gran Torino” and “Winter’s Bone,” these
> same Americans have voted more and more reliably
> Republican. Sunday’s Times had a fascinating and
> disturbing lead story about the pattern of
> government dependency around the country. A map
> showing areas of greatest reliance on public
> benefits corresponds with weird exactness to the
> map of red America: the South, Appalachia, and
> rural areas in general.
>
> In addition, reliance on the safety net has more
> than doubled in the past four decades. During the
> same period, median incomes in America have
> stagnated or declined.
>
> The first fact goes to the heart of Murray’s
> books, from “Losing Ground” and “The Bell
> Curve” to “Coming Apart.” The second goes
> unnoticed. His persistent argument is that
> government programs do more harm than good and
> create a dependent class rather than alleviating
> hardship, because socio-economic differences are
> based on innate ability, not external
> circumstance. The white working-class has suffered
> a moral collapse caused in part by the sorting of
> society into rich and poor, with the traditional
> virtues surviving only among the former—not by
> an economic battering at the hands of
> globalization, technology, and corporate power.
> Inequality is a natural state, and people at the
> bottom of society should either resign themselves
> to their fate, or else revive themselves through a
> moral and spiritual reawakening (likely inspired
> by their betters) that will allow them to rise
> above the lousy hand dealt them by their brain
> power.
>
> Visit most towns or rural areas where factories
> are boarded up and all the economic life is
> confined to strip malls, and you have to
> acknowledge the force of Murray’s picture.
> Rampant drug use, high dropout rates,
> out-of-wedlock births, epidemic obesity, every
> other working-age person on disability—it’s
> true even though Charles Murray says it’s true.
> And the predictable left-right argument over
> causes and solutions doesn’t help. Is it
> disappearing jobs, or disappearing values? This
> isn’t an analytical choice I find very useful.
> Jobs and values are intertwined: when one starts
> to go, the other is likely to go with it, and the
> circle becomes truly vicious. A textile factory
> moves south of the border, and a town loses its
> mainstay of employment. Former textile workers
> scurry to find fast-food and retail positions. The
> move from blue-collar to service work is brutal,
> and over time some employees lose the will to
> stick it out in a hateful job. Their children do
> even worse. Soon enough there are two or three
> generations of one family on government help, and
> kids grow up without a model of the work ethic.
> When a technology plant opens in the area (with a
> fifth the number of jobs as the textile factory),
> few locals are remotely qualified to work there.
> It’s a dismally familiar story—but is it a
> story of jobs or values? The obvious answer is
> both, which is why no one’s five-point solutions
> or three-word slogan is convincing.
>
> In the Times story, there’s a man named Ki
> Gulbranson from a small Minnesota town called
> Chisago, both barely clinging to the middle class.
> He tries to make ends meet selling apparel and
> refereeing kids’ soccer games. All around him,
> he sees growing dependence on government. No fan
> of government spending, he joined the Tea Party in
> 2010; at the same time, he benefits from the
> Earned Income Tax Credit, free school breakfasts
> for his children, and Medicare for his mother.
> “I don’t demand that the government does this
> for me,” he said. “I don’t feel like I need
> the government.” Yet he finds it hard to imagine
> surviving without the safety net. “I don’t
> think so,” he said. “No. I don’t know. Not
> the way we expect to live as Americans.”
>
> Gulbranson’s moment of hesitation contains a
> certain explanatory power. He doesn’t want to
> say that he can’t live without government. In
> places like Chisago, the old ethic of
> self-reliance is real and fierce. But it’s
> disintegrating under the pressure of several bad
> economic decades. People in Park Slope, Brooklyn
> and the north shore of Chicago don’t see their
> neighbors going on disability when they could
> work. But the more Gulbranson sees it, the more he
> resents the government. Perhaps he resents it most
> of all because he knows he needs it. That’s a
> political conundrum for both parties, but even
> more, it’s an American problem.
>
>
> Read more
>
http://www.newyorker.com/poor-white-and-republican
> .html
tl:dr