Moynihan and the black family
Moynihan was right. It stands to reason that if you reward a behavior you tend to get more of it:
“The fundamental problem is that of family structure,” wrote Moynihan, who had a doctorate in sociology. “The evidence””not final but powerfully persuasive””is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling.”
For his troubles, Moynihan was denounced as a victim-blaming racist bent on undermining the civil-rights movement. Even worse, writes Harvard’s Paul Peterson in the current issue of the journal Education Next, Moynihan’s “findings were totally ignored by those who designed public policies at the time.” The Great Society architects would go on to expand old programs or formulate new ones that exacerbated the problems Moynihan identified. Marriage was penalized and single parenting was subsidized. In effect, the government paid mothers to keep fathers out of the home””and paid them well.
“Economists and policy analysts of the day worried about the negative incentives that had been created,” writes Mr. Peterson. “Analysts estimated that in 1975 a household head would have to earn $20,000”””or an inflation-adjusted $88,000 today””“to have more resources than what could be obtained from Great Society programs.”
The article by Peterson (or something much resembling it) also appeared in the NY Daily News. In it, Peterson wrote:
Growth in single parenthood has many causes including female entry into the labor force, changing social norms and male unemployment. But a close look at when the problem intensified ”” and when it attenuated ”” suggests that the main culprit may well be the government.
The steepest upward jump in single parenthood took place in the late 1960s and early 70s. And since the mid-1990s, the percentage of children living in single-parent families has stabilized ”” especially within the African-American community, where the percentage has in fact declined somewhat from its 1990 high.
Why? Prior to 1965, the welfare state for families with children was largely limited to a meager, restrictive program distributed by state and local governments.
That changed with the arrival of the Great Society…
Please read the whole thing.
Peterson thinks the problem can and should be corrected. He doesn’t think the Great Society needs dismantling; just redesigning. I suppose that’s most practical since entitlements are notoriously difficult to reverse once a population becomes accustomed to them, and anyone who wants to do differently is labeled a mean and racist old fill-in-the-expletive. I wonder whether even tweaking is possible at this point, for that same reason—as well as the fact that, although Peterson seems to assume liberals would like to make these programs more effective and less encouraging of dependent and family-destroying behavior, I’m not at all sure he’s right. The left has reasons to want to purposely encourage these things.
[NOTE: The same trend has occurred in white families, by the way, although the percentage of single-mother households is nowhere near as high, in part because they started out at a lower level of single-mother families:
When the report was released, about 25% of black children and 5% of white children lived in a household headed by a single mother. During the next 20 years the black percentage would double and the racial gap would widen. Today more than 70% of all black births are to unmarried women, twice the white percentage.
Whites are hardly immune to these same political/economic/psychological forces.]
It is way way easier to ride a social wave for the granting of “rights” and benefits than to undo it. We all know this.
The only way to undo is for the Gramscian way to be religiously seized by Leftism’s opponents, along with Alinsky’s methods. Otherwise, only bullets will do. Time. Which I recommend but I ain’t got. Time, that is.
Nanny government destroys and enslaves. I always admired Moynihan. The D party has long had no place for some like the late, great senator.
The WSJ article was by Jason Riley. The second article linked was by Paul Peterson. Both make the same point. The Great Society programs have encouraged the destruction of black families and are now beginning to have the same affect on white single motherhood.
Moynihan was indeed correct, and even though he was a democrat who helped design some of the Great Society programs, he is undoubtedly rolling over in his grave today.
Children need to be imbued with the idea that no one is going to take care of them – that they are responsible for themselves when they become adults. Our society is not doing that, especially in the black community, but it’s leaking over to the white community as well.
How do children learn those lessons? It starts with a parent or parents who work. It is reinforced by the parent(s) telling them that they are going to have to take care of themselves. It continues by allowing the child to work for wages. Starting with chores for an allowance, continuing with odd jobs for pay in the neighborhood, going on to outside jobs like burger flipping, working part time to help ay college expenses, and out into the regular world of work. It is called building a work ethic. Being educated and having a work ethic almost insures at least some level of success in this society.
I know two great young black men. They are trainers at the gym where I work out. They came from intact families. They know about supporting themselves. They work hard and don’t expect society to support them. They show what can be accomplished by blacks. Blacks are not dumb or lazy. They are being manipulated by the Great Society.
There are ways to wean blacks off the welfare plantation, but as neo pointed out, the democrats don’t want to do it. They see a permanent dependent constituency there. They are in many ways like the old slave-owning plantation owners. Nothing will change until they reform and that isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.
It’s too bad Moynihan isn’t alive to remind everyone that he has been vindicated. He was a good man.
Tweaking the plans, at this point, would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after it struck the iceberg. Not (or not just) from a sociological standpoint (though trying to make blacks act white just won’t work), but from an economic standpoint. While they keep going as they have been, actually accelerating debt in personal, pulbic, and private business, the truth is everybody is bankrupt. Eventually, without any doubt, that has to be destructive.
So I don’t worry too much about what these people who seem to have their heads buried so deeply in the sand that they won’t see the steam roller until there is nothing left. It wouldn’t even surprise me if they continue insist on borrowing and thievery to give to people who are being actively hunted when things change, they go on rampages for not getting their free money, and the government either just gets out of the way or takes charge of the hunt.
You can’t even talk to people who have pacified themselves into serious stupidity, like this author. There is nothing left to give, there is only survival. And that will be hitting hard and soon enough. We will all be on our own because the government won’t have the actual wealth to print paper money. Believe as you like.
As if this weren’t enough of a problem for our society, now with state legalization of marijuana starting to roll along, we also have the potential for creation of a growing class of people whose heavy adolescent marijuana use has permanently reduced their I.Q., and their general psychological and emotional capabilities (see http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16913.abstract) .
Ain’t it just grand!
Well all kinds of movie, sports, music etc people have made having bastard children A-OK so why should anyone think there is anything wrong with it. Kind of hard to find shame in a shameless world.
I think the old Seattle Super Sonics had a player, that judging by all the paternity suits, must of had a bastard in just about every NBA city.
Moynihan was the last Democrat intellectual. An intellectual needs intelligence, integrity, and a love of truth, none of which have been present in the Democratic party for some years. His legislative record was weak, but I miss his sensible commentary.
In yesterday’s ” Illegals and Amnesty” post, I disagreed with Geoffrey Britain about whether transformation of the country requires changing the constitution. (If I was following his argument correctly.
Once you have changed the character of the people and gotten a majority of them to expect and demand entitlements – the country has been transformed. It is not necessary to formally change the constitution. The character of the people becomes more important than an old piece of parchment that we have been ignoring for years.
The very first thing Obama did, within a days of assuming office, was to get rid of Clinton’s welfare reforms. Everything that he has done afterwards is just gravy. Smothering gravy.
Even worse, writes Harvard’s Paul Peterson in the current issue of the journal Education Next, Moynihan’s “findings were totally ignored by those who designed public policies at the time.”
And continue to be ignored.
Some observations;
“Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan has been $6.98 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars).* The War on Poverty has cost three times as much as all other wars combined.” * Stephen Daggett, “Costs of Major U.S. Wars,” Congressional Research Service, June 29, 2010. The CRS report counts the cost of wars through FY2010; the additional cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in FY2011, at $159 billion, was added to the CRS figures.”
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rectortestimony04172012.pdf
The explanatory factors for the lack of minority success in America, are well proven. Minority success in America exactly tracks the minority culture’s embrace, neglect or rejection of Five Critical Cultural Virtues.
The Five Critical Cultural Virtues are simple but profound in their effects, they are; 1) education, 2) developing a strong work ethic, 3) acceptance of personal responsibility and accountability, 4) acceptance of familial obligations and loyalty, and 5) the virtue of delayed gratification.
Individual exceptions aside, that is all it takes to be successful in America. That is all it has ever taken.
The overall success of Asian, Hispanic, Native American and Black ‘cultures’ closely match the degree to which they culturally embrace, ignore and neglect or reject these virtues. There are no substitutes or short cuts.
The Five Critical Cultural Virtues are proven by the socioeconomic success of three groups; Asian immigrants, West Indian black immigrants and black Nigerian immigrants. West Indian black’s ancestors were also slaves and their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites and nearly 25% higher than the average incomes of American born blacks. And, immigrant Nigerian-Americans are also extremely high performers too. These cultures embrace the Five Critical Cultural Virtues.
Urban blacks reject ALL five of the critical virtues and that is the ONLY reason why they reside at the bottom of the socioeconomic ‘totem pole’. No amount of welfare, entitlements or minimum wage hikes will change that reality. Urban black ‘culture’ needs to take a hard look at itself. To paraphrase Bill Clinton’s campaign; it’s the culture… stupid.
KLSmith,
My response, as belatedly posted on the other comment section.
There is no doubt that the country has already been transformed. Obama’s elections alone are proof of it. But that transformation is, if growing, still fundamentally limited in certain critical aspects. Aspects that cannot be changed without transformation of the Constitution.
So I disagree, formal revision of the Constitution is necessary because it is the only means to make lasting that fundamental transformation.
The character of the people is more important than “an old piece of parchment” but as the left has proven, the character of a people can change. Fortunately, it can change in both directions. We however will not create the conditions conducive to a change for the better, reality and the left shall.
Serious and highly unpleasant consequences await us on the path the left has America embarked upon. Reality is the one thing that invariably determines denials’ date of expiration.
Also, eventually ‘wolves’ must throw off their ‘skins of sheep’, some of those sheep are already beginning to awaken, like Alan Dershowitz and noted liberal Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley.
Remember that Obama’s undoing of Clinton’s welfare reforms can as easily be rescinded by another President.
Full fidelity to the Constitution hasn’t really been practiced in this country for a long time but… if it didn’t still matter, you and I and everyone else on this blog would either be in a reeducation camp or “pushing up daisies”.
The degree to which people don’t readily give up what they already have is determined by the risk/reward. Tea Party members who are reluctant to change Social Security are troubled by the prospect of finding an acceptable substitute. My 92 yr old father, who retired at 85, can’t replace it or do without it and survive.
In evaluating the reality of future prospects, a clear perspective is essential.
Theodore Dalrymple, a doctor who worked among London’s poor whites on the dole and living in “council flats,” saw the same pathologies among them.
1. Sociologists (almost all hard Leftists) are touting the “rape culture” meme as a weapon against American men, specifically. Who wants to live with or rely on a “rapist”?
2. Pro-American commentators have noted that the Left wants to cleave women from men, making the former dependent on the Govt., not on their men. But it goes further than that.
3. A new meme is being pushed in academia (coming soon to a theater near you!): “hypermasculinity” (again and always, only American men are so attacked; note their hostility to American Sniper) — hypermasculinity is the “root cause” of “rampant individualism.”
Chew upon that for a while. You see where they’re going with this.
It’s also interesting that our enemies really do know where our strengths lie — they just hate them.
People don’t always hate you for what’s bad about you. Sometimes they hate you for what’s good about you.
It is my understanding that the out of wedlock birthrate for Hispanics is 50%. At one time, Republicans thought Hispanics were natural conservatives dues to immigrant family structure and work ethic. However, it appears the corrupting American culture will do the same destruction on Hispanic culture as it has on black and white culture. It is the movement of millions of illegal immigrants and their citizen offspring onto the welfare and voting roles that provide Democrats with hope for the future.
And a note on Moynihan; he said many things which we regard as profound and insightful, but when it came time to vote, he did whatever Byrd, Mitchell and Daschle told him.
Moynihan was a large reason Hillarycare never happened. But then he disappointed big-time when he heartily backed her in her Senate race (for his vacated seat) in 2000.
This is a good post on the subject
Race Relations and Law Enforcement
Jason L. Riley
Editorial Board Member, Wall Street Journal
(don’t be stopped by the title; it’s mostly about how the cultural problems play into the recent protests about cops)
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current
Geoffrey Britain (8:06 pm) refers to “transformation of the Constitution.”
There is no need to transform the Constitution if enough of the elite power players agree to simply ignore it.
MJR,
That is only partially correct because just ignoring the Constitution is not permanent and is inherently limited in the ‘flexibility’ that tactic provides. Example; in 2009, Obama despite a majority democrat Congress could not declare that he was confiscating ALL firearms in America.
But with enough votes, the democrats can legally amend the Constitution and change the Bill of Rights such that the 2nd amendment is rescinded.
Remember that the Constitution does NOT refer to “inalienable rights”, so while we know that to be the basis for the thinking of the founders, the Left can say, whatever they thought then, this is now and nothing in the Constitution states that the Bill Of Rights cannot be amended. So goodbye 2nd amendment.
That a civil war would erupt over such an action does not change the fact that if the Constitution were amended, there would be no legal remedy available to stop the confiscation. The ‘weight of the law’ would be on the side of the Left and the US Military would, by their oaths, be obligated to follow the technically legal orders of the lawfully elected federal government.
There are many other examples of how amending the constitution would entrench the Left’s agenda, such that it could not be legally challenged.
Welfare has reversed Darwinism
Is it less of an enslavement to be dependent on SNAP than required to be in the cotton field at the crack of dawn?
GB: it is actually not that easy to pass/repeal an ammendment as it requires a vote of 3/4 of the states to pass. So if one is an imperial president, who might prefer a permanent legally binding solution, he would make do with something that is almost as practically effective. Like what they’ve been doing. Get banks to deny financing to gun stores, make ammo harder to get.
We may have to agree to disagree; you seem to be saying that we’ll just easily pass laws to change things back since permanent changes were not made to the constitution. Although you may be technically correct, we all know that it is much easier to give people free stuff than take it away. And that was true before we had a president intent on increasing the welfare rolls and welcoming our new immigrants to El Norte.
Geoffrey Britain (8:06 pm) refers to “transformation of the Constitution.”
M J R replied “There is no need to transform the Constitution if enough of the elite power players agree to simply ignore it.”
Geoffrey Britain (GB), 12:22 am — “That is only partially correct because just ignoring the Constitution is not permanent and is inherently limited in the ‘flexibility’ that tactic provides. Example; in 2009, Obama despite a majority democrat Congress could not declare that he was confiscating ALL firearms in America.”
M J R: At that point, he had to consider the impending midterms plus his own reelection.
GB: “But with enough votes, the democrats can legally amend the Constitution and change the Bill of Rights such that the 2nd amendment is rescinded. . . . [T]he Left can say, whatever they thought then, this is now and nothing in the Constitution states that the Bill Of Rights cannot be amended. So goodbye 2nd amendment.”
M J R: The left can indeed do that if they feel the need to dance the dance that a sufficient number of people will expect them to dance.
GB: “That a civil war would erupt over such an action does not change the fact that if the Constitution were amended, there would be no legal remedy available to stop the confiscation. The ‘weight of the law’ would be on the side of the Left and the US Military would, by their oaths, be obligated to follow the technically legal orders of the lawfully elected federal government.”
M J R: There would be no legal remedy, but at a certain point, “legal-shmegal” will be the new law of the land. We will do what we will do and you can’t stop us. We’re already seeing this in changing Obamacare at the whim of the president; in bypassing Congress on immigration matters; in Holder refusing to go after the Black Panthers for obvious and blatant election bullying; in stonewalling Fast and Furious; in the IRS situation and similar matters of political harassment; and in heaven knows what else, until there *is* a rebellion of some form or another. But the left is smart enough to know just how far a sufficient number of people are willing to be pushed before there is a rebellion of some form or another. So far, we-the-people have been pretty docile about everything.
GB: “There are many other examples of how amending the constitution would entrench the Left’s agenda, such that it could not be legally challenged.”
M J R: But there would be no need to “legally challenge” anything. We are even now essentially lawless. What the powers-that-be enact, is effectively the “law”, should we decide to dance that “legal” dance. The law is now little more than kabuki theater for those who demand kabuki theater. Welcome one and all to USA, circa 2015.
The American elite wanted to remake society and to build the American version of the new Soviet family. They succeeded.
Democrats had to find some way to keep the blacks on the plantation after the KKK worked them over and Reconstruction failed with the help of 1820s Democrats and upper class land owners.