Winds of Change.NET: Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory.

Formal Affiliations
  • Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
  • Euston Democratic Progressive Manifesto
  • Real Democracy for Iran!
  • Support Denamrk
  • Million Voices for Darfur
  • milblogs
 Subscribe in a reader

Kotkin on Kerry


Update: for a foreign perspective that reinforces this, go read this Spengler column in the Asia Times.

My piece on 9/11 is taking longer to write than I'd planned, and I'm working on two pieces on changes in the media and the assault weapons ban/the settlement by Bushmaster (gun manufacturer) in the DC Sniper case.

But the thing that's on the front burner of my mind right now are two columns by Joel Kotkin, one in the Washington Post, and one in the LA Times this Sunday. While security issues are at the top of my attention right now, just narrowly behind them is the crisis of what I call 'Skybox Liberalism', and the capture of the Democratic Party by this kind of leadership.

The first column, from the Post is about the Kerry campaign, and their reliance on the 'information elites' (hat tip to Daniel Weintraub's great California Insider - you should subscribe to this is you live in or are interested in California government).

Kotkin keys off the "Retro vs. Metro" ad campaign pushing the University of Phoenix's octogenarian founder John Sperling's book "The Great Divide". (Note that Captain Ed has an even harsher view of this on his blog...)

In the book Sperling offers (as Kotkin describes it) a prescription for the resurgence of the Democratic Party that sounds suspiciously close to Ruy Teixeira's. Here's Kotkin on Sperling:

It suggests that Sen. John Kerry can ace the election this fall by taking advantage of a growing conflict between what the book describes as a highly sophisticated, productive "metro" economy based largely in the Northeast and on the West Coast, and a troglodyte, parasitic "retro" economy located in the South and parts of the West and Southwest. In the book's analysis, the famous Republican "red states" of 2000 are socially and culturally regressive and economically backward. Meanwhile, the Democratic blue states are the "economic engines" of America, the incubators of new industries and bastions of financial brilliance and global savvy. Kerry's challenge, Sperling and his three co-authors declare, is to convince voters in swing states such as Arizona, Colorado and the industrial Midwest that they should get hip by becoming more "metro" and less "retro."

Here's Teixeira:

The Emerging Democratic Majority persuasively argues a simple thesis, but one with profound implications: Demographic groups that tend to support the ideas and candidates of the Democratic Party are growing rapidly as a percentage of the electorate. Groups that support Republican ideas and candidates are growing slowly, if at all. Not only are traditionally democratic voters such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and single women becoming a larger part of the voting public, but democratic-leaning white-collar professionals and the highly educated are increasing as well. At the same time, many blue-collar voters who defected to Ronald Reagan and the Republicans in the 1980's returned to the Democratic Party in the 1990's to vote for Bill Clinton. By the end of the decade these groups will provide the basis for a broad majority coalition, one rooted in the growing post-industrial metropolitan areas that the authors call "ideolopolises". The book outlines the case that democrats have the opportunity to build an enduring electoral majority.

Here's Kotkin's take on it:

Memo to Kerry: If only it were that easy.

There are lots of reasons why this analysis is wrongheaded. It's based on a significant misreading of many key economic indicators. And it doesn't recognize where Americans who aspire to upward mobility make their homes. But it's easy to see why it plays with the pro-Kerry crowd: In recent years, the Democratic Party has shifted away from its working- and middle-class roots to identify more and more with the rising elites of the information age. Yet this shift could cost it an election where economic issues may still prove decisive.

Look at Kerry's chief supporters and you see a new kind of elite, a veritable "hip-ocracy" of high-tech tycoons, Hollywood moguls and celebrities, and a bevy of Wall Street financiers. This group is bolstered by Americans with graduate degrees and a growing number of college and university faculty members.

These core Kerry constituencies, the technical and professional intelligentsia, increasingly show signs of seeing themselves as a new social elite, what urban guru Richard Florida has anointed as the nation' s "creative class." Most make their homes in the peculiarly elitist economies of post-industrial metropolises such as greater Boston, Manhattan, San Francisco and the west side of Los Angeles, where the definition of middle class often comes with a million-dollar-plus mortgage, a PhD and, often enough, more than a few pence handed down from the parents. Kerry, a Yale graduate identified by Burke's Peerage as having more royal blood than any presidential candidate in U.S. history, educated in Swiss boarding schools and married to his second heiress, is an almost-too-perfect representative of this new class.

And here's mine (from an old post at Armed Liberal):

The New Deal Democratic alliance was shattered by George Wallace and Jane Fonda, and while the ex-partners eye each other with a mixture of melancholy and anger ... kind of like ex-husbands and wives ... the reality is that the issues which once held them together don't any more.

So the Democrats are left looking for a core constituency. But they have three: Rich liberals, who value their self-image as 'just', African-Americans who know that many of the programs designed for social redress have become giant patronage machines, and the public unions, as noted here by Rob Lyman.

The Democratic 'investors' (donors), invest to secure their own positions. The bigger voter audiences in the middle have interests that often conflict with the Democratic 'investors', and sadly, when put to the choice, the Party goes with the 'investors' almost every time.

Now I think there's a big constituency out there...the single moms making $30K and barely getting by, the two-income families who realize that they'll never make more than $25K together, all the way up to the middle-class families making $100K and happy to own a home, but who realize that they can save for retirement or send the kids to college, but not both.

Social and economic policies aren't aimed at these people. And yet, they are the ones who the 'invisible hand' of globalization is hitting the hardest ... by limiting opportunity, by exporting jobs, by capping salaries.

I'm not an isolationist. King Canute's lesson to his advisors has sunk in. But we have to look at how we will manage the changes in the economy, if in no other way than by cushioning the impacts on those who can least afford it.

I think that Sperling's core strategy - of remaking the Democratic Party as the party for people like me - is going to be a train wreck, both in terms of where the part ought to be going, and in terms of political effectiveness.

It's not an immediately obvious train wreck because the lens that we look at politics through - the media - is firmly on the side of the 'hip-ocracy', and refuses to acknowledge the ruins of the bridge just up ahead.

I also think that it's a moral train wreck because it implicitly abandons the vulnerable - the workers in the 909 - in favor of the secure - the wealthy and the public sector employees (see David Friedman's great piece in the LA Times - it's gone from the archives, but here's a link to my post on it) - and the already damaged - the clients of the welfare state and their allies. Me again:

The problems of the very poor are equally real, and in many ways, more wrenching. But they don't have far to fall, and the mere ability to get and hold a job gets them through their worst problems.

And, cynically, they don't vote.

The working classes do. And they are righteously afraid of falling down a level, with all the reason in the world.

That’s the face of the New Model Democratic Party. When we figure out how to make the lives of working Americans getting out of the way and letting entrepreneurs create jobs, while keeping the scam artists from looting the banks and designing tax policy that is simple, fair, and tilted toward those who work rather than those who invest (yeah, this is going to be an issue...)...and by figuring out how to provide the public goods and how to get out of the way and let the market provide the private goods these people need to have decent lives.

A long time ago, I became convinced that what most people want...whether they grew up in Oxaca, Compton, or a decent house to raise their kids in, a meaningful and reasonable secure job, and some sense that their children’s lives had a shot at being better than theirs.

Deliver that, Democrats, and win.

But the Democrats aren't. Kotkin, again:

Nowhere have these trends been more pronounced, and less reported, than in Kerry's home state. Back in 1988, Michael Dukakis used his state's "Massachusetts miracle" -- its rise from industrial also-ran to high-tech bastion -- to help him win the Democratic nomination. Today, Kerry and many others still cite the Bay State as a case study in success.

Yet Massachusetts is very different now from what it was in Dukakis' day. Since 2000, the Boston economy has been among the worst in the nation in terms of job losses, many of them in higher-end business service and technology fields. Since 2002, nearly 40,000 Boston area residents have left the labor force. The city itself, after enjoying a small population gain in the 1990s, has been losing residents since 2000.

Overall, notes Michael Goodman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts's Donahue Institute, the state is hemorrhaging young middle-class families -- largely to "retro" states such as Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina, as well as neighboring low-tax New Hampshire.

Yet the Kerry camp and the Democratic Party leadership seem unruffled. In most of the country, such developments might have local elites in a state of panic. In the Bay State, though, the loss of middle-class families "is not defined as a problem," says Goodman.

This, suggests Doug Fisher, head of economic development for Northeast Utilities, a regional power company, is because things are generally jim-dandy for the hip-ocracy who now dominate the state's Democratic Party. Today, New England elites talk not about new jobs and opportunities, but about how rich those who can still afford to live there are becoming. The soaring housing prices chasing the middle class out of the state have proven a huge windfall for the Harvard professors who bought their homes a decade ago. "The real argument here is between jobs and income," suggests Fisher. "We still have plenty of money, and that's all that people think matters. We are becoming an economic-development cul-de-sac, and a lot of people like that."

Although the number of Massachusetts natives earning associate and bachelor's degrees has been dropping, there are still plenty of wealthy people around the world willing to pay huge bucks to get their offspring into Harvard. Not surprisingly, Harvard faculty are the second-largest source of direct campaign funds from employees -- behind the massive University of California faculty -- to the Kerry campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

The economic attitudes of these intellectual elites may help explain why the Democratic Party today can no longer do a convincing job of "feeling the pain" of the middle class. It also suggests a disconnect between the Democrats and those very places where Americans now go for opportunity.

Kotkin closes his Post piece with this, and I couldn't agree more:

Ultimately, the answer to the Democratic Party's democratic deficit won't be found among the dons in Cambridge, the patricians on Beacon Hill or the celebrities in Malibu. It will be found in identifying and understanding the strivings of middle-class people living in unfashionable tract suburbs, working-class city neighborhoods and small towns across the country. Until the Democrats find a way to connect with these people, they will find their own fortunes receding in the face of an enormous field of opportunity.

Kotkin amplifies that position, and offers some prescriptions, in this weekend's L.A. Times:

Not too long ago, U.S. elections were determined ... and sometimes stolen ... in cities. In the 21st century, however, the nation's major urban areas have become largely politically peripheral, except as stages for national party conventions.

As a result, neither major party makes a serious effort to address the crises affecting U.S. cities ... dysfunctional school systems, a declining middle class, eroding employment and rising populations of mostly poor, new immigrants. Instead, cities are essentially a kept constituency of liberal Democrats whose idea of an urban policy, aside from patronage, increasingly revolves around cosmetic face-lifts and the arts.

Missing today from national and local agendas is anything remotely resembling the progressivism that spurred the successful evolution of U.S. cities in the last century. Sometimes dubbed "sewer socialism," this program for development started at the municipal level and aimed to repair the legacy of the Industrial Revolution. From small, faded industrial cities like Bridgeport, Conn., to Los Angeles, enlightened administrations ... sometimes led by labor-oriented socialists, other times by business-oriented "progressives" ... cleaned up disease-ridden environments with new sanitation systems, created municipal-owned water and power systems, developed parks and upgraded education systems.


Cities' declining political clout is reflected in the state of urban policy. The focus now is on what sociologist John Kasarda calls "visual prosperity" ... the attempt to dress up urban areas with fancy edifices, cultural attractions and high-end housing.

"Patronage aside, Democratic Party policy in the cities," said Fred Siegel, professor of urban history at New York's Cooper Union, "often boils down to how to attract the beautiful people."

The policies of many of the brightest stars in the Democratic firmament ... Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, Denver Mayor John W. Hickenlooper and Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm ... seem predicated on this beautiful-people principle. All emphasize the creation of cafe districts, arts entertainment and culture palaces as the best means to revive urban centers. In Los Angeles, Mayor James K. Hahn is similarly hitching his legacy to a $2-billion double feature for the leisure class ... the proposal for the ersatz Champs-Elysées on Grand Avenue and the glitzy LA Live project around Staples Center.

A few years ago, I described San Francisco to a Danish friend as "Disneyland for upper-middle class adults". The Bay Area model, in which information workers create 'New Economy' enclaves which produce no pollution, employ the socially conscious who bicycle to work from their nearby lofts, and engage in meaningful self-actualizing charitable work when they aren't appearing in beer ads in their off hours. (OK, perhaps I'm being hyperbolic here...) is the one that has been adopted by a number of other cities who want to create gallery/cafe/loft districts as their route to revitalization.

There are a number of problem with this approach; the primary one is that it's great for real estate investors, high-income information workers who can buy or rent real estate, and low-wage service workers (the number of low-end opportunities expands dramatically, which is a good thing for the very poor). But it's not quite so good for working families - for the 'New Model Democrats' I talk abut above. They get hammered by declines in employment opportunities - unless they can bridge up to the high-wage 'hip-ocracy' jobs, or scale down their lifestyle to the wages paid by the service jobs. Kotkin goes on:

There is an alternative to the culture-and-arts approach to revive declining cities. It's sewer socialism, a back-to-basics strategy that encourages business investment and the development of healthy neighborhoods.

Such an urban agenda has its origins in the early decades of the last century. In the West, it unfolded under the tutelage of business-oriented progressives who invested heavily in basic infrastructure — public education, transit, water and power systems — to encourage commerce and improve the living conditions for at least part of the middle and working classes. In Los Angeles, cheap water was brought to a dry city to benefit citizens and businesses. Nominally nonpartisan, but mostly Republican, city leaders fostered municipal ownership of utilities and worked to prevent the Southern Pacific Railroad from dominating the city's new port. They also zoned to create a multipolar city to avoid the pitfalls of the traditional industrial one.


The working-class political base that supported sewer socialism, as well as the collectivist ideology that underpinned it, has largely evaporated. Yet, development-oriented urban politics are still relevant. To some extent, a variant of sewer socialism was practiced in Los Angeles during the 1980s when Mayor Tom Bradley united labor and corporate interests. Together, they pushed for the development of a job-creating infrastructure — most notably at the airport and port complexes — that help lay the foundation for the city's ascendancy in the 1980s as the primary U.S. hub for Pacific Rim trade and commerce.

Such union leaders as the late Jim Wood of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor essentially cut a deal with business: Unions would support huge publicly funded projects with broad economic goals as long as their members got to work on them. In turn, many of the jobs created in business services, at the port, in warehouses and at import-processing factories generated relatively well-paying private-sector jobs.

A more recent example of modern sewer socialism occurred in Houston under then-Mayor Bob Lanier. His administration focused on improving neighborhoods by enhancing public safety and constructing new roads, lighting and sewers, the groundwork for private sector-led economic development.

"You need to look at every neighborhood as your own and start from there," Lanier explained after leaving office. "First, you bring back residents and then the commercial — and jobs will come back. That's what city governments should do. Play that role and things will happen on their own."

Under Lanier's administration, Houston rose from the wreckage of the 1980s oil bust to become one of the nation's fastest-growing economies and demographically diverse cities.

Sewer socialism offers one possible direction out of the genteel, gradual decline that now threatens our cities. Any party or politician who embraces such a sensible, tried approach would deserve the grateful support of the beleaguered denizens of urban America.

It's not only the fortunes of our cities, but the fortunes of the Democratic Party that would be well-served by approaches like this. And to understand the dynamics of the Kerry campaign, it's important to understand the centrality of these issues.

Because it isn't only the struggle over a domestic policy that's causing Kerry's Swift Campaign to drift - it's the struggle over domestic ones as well.


That’s a lot of info to digest, but is it not assuming a certain selfishness on the part of all voters, and that they will vote for pure self interest and nothing else? I speak not only of cultural values, but of the very image a voter holds of the United States, and whether either given party represents that.

Here’s an idea. It’s a litmus test question for the Democratic party (I’m GOP, so wadda I know, but…..)

Question (very simple): Is Fidel Castro a legitimate leader?

This question has little to do with Fidel, may he drop dead soon, and everything to do with whether or not that voter has the moral courage to call out an absolute dictator of 45 years, no end in sight, not a hint of criticism in all those decades, whole nine yards, we all know the drill.

If they say Yes, he is legitimate…. Get out of the Democratic Party, go join the Greens or Anarchists or some other nut-job party. If they say No, then stay, and let the Democratic Party think and act that way toward dictators across the board… AND… protect the environment, ride herd on corporations, redistribute and regulate (within reason), their whole deal.

I believe, after the November blowout, that the Democrats MUST do basically the above. They must institute a Stalin-like (hyperbole ;-) blood purge of their tyrant-supporting Left, for reasons not of just foreign policy, but because they poison the entire Party and cause millions to, quite properly, doubt their belief in representative government and the United States in general. JFK, FDR, and Harry Truman would never tolerate such ideas as these people hold. Democrats must turn their back on them the way Republicans turn their back on Klansmen.

Do this, and the party can start to return. Do it not, and they will deservedly remain wandering in the wilderness, judgmental of no one, including the most appalling criminals….. unless they are Christian or Republican or both.

Andrew X:

Don't count on it. From Oliver Willis:

Heaven forbid the Bush admin win a second term, I think the Dems would best serve democracy by simply not cooperating with them in any way, shape or form. The idiotic neocons are already agititating for war in Iran (if the original sucked, can you imagine how bad the sequel would be? Who plays Chalabi this time?). It would be sad if this wasn't reality we were talking about. But the neocons, Bush and company, have made it quite clear that they don't care about you unless you have enough zeroes behind your name.

From Oliver Willis' website:

A snippet from Seymour Hersh's upcoming Chain of Command (he's the guy who exposed the Abu Ghraib abuse, something the media ignored and the right tried to pretend didn't exist -- and Rush Limbaugh joked about).


I read this with interest - I haven't yet read a good, robust refutation of Teixiera's thesis, so I keep wondering if I'll come across one that doesn't dwell in obfuscation.

Unfortunately, this wasn't it.

Here are the examples

"Look at Kerry's chief supporters and you see a new kind of elite, a veritable "hip-ocracy" of high-tech tycoons, Hollywood moguls and celebrities, and a bevy of Wall Street financiers. This group is bolstered by Americans with graduate degrees and a growing number of college and university faculty members."

This doesnt' qualify as analysis. This qualifies as a cornocopia of straw men.

Add to this, the fact that the actual economic facts on-the-ground are worse today than they were 4 years ago.

Less people employed.
Less people have health insurance.
More families in poverty.

To name three examples.

Myself, the only possible claim to superiority which Republicans have , which to their credit they recognize - is the claim to be a strong leader in the War on Terror.

The economic indicators, in EVERY respect, are worse.

(I would also say that a large majority of the national security establishment, from Richard Clarke, to David Hackworth (one of most decorated US soldier in history) to , regard the invasion of Iraq as a huge mistake in the War on Terrorism. Not that they are necessarily correct, but it is worth taking these views seriously.)

Back to the topic, it's a very valid point regarding the labor-corporate alliance. When this alliance works properly, it is a wonderful thing. The suggestion is intriguing.


I really hope you are right. There are (were?) lots of positivie aspects about the Democratic party and I believe that a strong, viable Democratic party is good for the country (and I say that as a somewhat right of center independant).

I hope to see the Democrats totally trashed in November and that experience leading to a reclimation of the party by its grass roots members, and the rest can go to what ever, as you say, nut job fringe party they wish, or the Devil his very own self if he will have them.

It would be a good thing.

JC -

Well, Texieira got a whole book, and this is just a blog post based on two newspaper columns....

Let me toss a few softballs over and get the party stared, though...

Economic indicators: Well, there are two issues that pretty much stand astride all domestic economic policy: one is global/structural and has to do with the challenges to labor of automation and levelling of the playing field internationally; and the other has to do with working off the effects of the 90's binge.

While the economy isn't healthy now, it's important to note that we are probably stull working off the debts incurred in fantasy economy of the 90's, when my party presided over one of the bigger financial Ponzi schemes in modern history (the railroads were relatively bigger, but don't qualify as modern). We got a great technilogical infrastructure out of it - which feeds into point #1.

Back to Ruy -

His core assumption is that labor will move back into the D camp, based on self-interest (joining the urban minorities and 'intellectual capitalists'). I'm far from certain about that. The core values fo the party were captured back in the 70's by people like me, and we pretty effectively shut out the cultural markers of the labor union crowds. And, as we're seeing, the minority vote itself is starting to delaminate as middle-income Hispanics and Afican-Americans soften in their support of the Democratic Party.

In a thumbnail, that's why I think his arguments are bong-hit silly. I do think there's power in looking at the demographics, and do believe that if the D's could put together a policy/values structure that apealed to blue/pink collar workers, minorities, and urbanites, they'd lock things up for a decade or so.

A big part of what I do in blogging is try and kick at the shins of anyone I can get to to encourage this happening...


Although I find the piece interesting the best part out of all it that really makes sense to me is this

"The working classes do (vote). And they are righteously afraid of falling down a level, with all the reason in the world."

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding you rang the bell. I consider myself middle class. The wife and I both have fairly lucrative jobs by most standards. We started with nothing and worked like hell to raise four children one out of the nest college educated, one out of high school now 3 years in the work force currently living with us and a single mom, one in college now, and the last one in middle school.

Yes we realize we will never be millionaires living the life on easy street so to speak. Yes we worry about health care issues (our own not our children's save the one still in middle school), yes we worry about social security (money paid we may never see yet alone invest it in ourselves), yes we worry about our retirement, yes we worry about that step down (how far does / will it go)!

Personal experience my wife's father worked for GM all his life. Paid his house off paid his way and still had nothing to show for it when he retired. Mismanagement on his part and misconceptions about government responsibilities possibly. Social security did not save him nor was it meant to, his pension did not save him either, he and his wife’s health issues ate up everything they had. He sold the house. He and his wife moved into a state sponsored retirement home with state sponsored health care and since, both have died penniless and very unhappy. For all the things the Democratic party says it will save us from it saved them from none of it. Yet he was a staunch democrat till the day he died.

Do I realize in our retirement years I’ll take a step down. Certainly but should I be treated indignantly for it? Not if I can help it. The three bedroom house is no longer a requirement, a small cottage will do, the IRA’s and any pension funds we receive hopefully will last through out our days. Mixing the drink of the day at the local bar for a little extra money and enjoying my twilight years sounds reasonable to me. Now granted my family is rather unusual in that I’m a baby boomer with 4 kids. All the while 1.5 has been spouted as the norm. If the democratic party truly believes that the younger generation can support the growing need of the elderly population yet keep the life style they advocate they better get a grip and get one fast.


This is all pretty good, except for one little (or, perhaps, not so little) nit:
tax policy that is ... tilted toward those who work rather than those who invest
You're completely in touch with the global nature of today's financial environment; why isn't this a recipe for economic suicide as investment is driven to friendlier climes?

Hey A.L,

Remember that the main point of what happened to the Democratic party, was the desertion en masse of the white working class, due to (necessary) civil rights fight, and the (overboard) social upheaval. At this point, the typical "liberal" position has sensibly retreated from its early 70's social radicalism.

Actually, the social radicalism hasn't been part of the Democratic mainstream for awhile, but the reality of this hasn't filtered to the majority yet.

And, as far as various minority participation, especially Hispanic, the "softness" that you describe hasn't actually shown up in the polling.

At any rate, it is interesting discussing.


I've been spending a bit of time looking over some economic posting at Brad Delong - awhile ago, I was a bit annoyed at a post, b/c he started from the very TOP, or the high point of the 2000 economy, and then preceded to compare the Bush economy to this (unfavorable comparison, of course).

In comments, I posted the obvious point about measuring from a "peak" that might not happen again for 30 years, and that this was a misleading use of statistics.

In short, my post to him, was similar to your response on my comment.

A few day to a week later, he wrote another post acknowledging the peak, and setting a more realistic criteria for the type of growth that should be expected after such a peak. And that Bush economic policies still fell short, by a signficant amount, to cushion the fall from the peak, especially in regard to the points I mentioned - job creation, health security, and buffering against poverty.

So, I would say the same thing. Yes, the late 90's were a time of "irrational exuberance", however, this doesn't excuse or explain the economic failures of the Bush Administration.

Hmm, A.L. has developed "SkyBox Liberalism" over several posts now - but here's a quick set of supporting data for the premise that the Democrats are changing in the way A.L. describes - and that his own experiences and observations parallel a larger trend.

By the way, the freepers were way behind the times. By Feb. 3rd the* newsgroups had already compiled a very extensive Columbia Loss FAQ .

Sorry, comment mixup, added to the wrong post. You can delete the above.

I don't see any profitable lines of advance for "sewer socialism" in the 21st century that don't benefit elites disproportionately over the working-class folk you're worried about. "Sewer socialism" worked because the basic humane infrastructure was underbuilt and a burgeoning population screamed out for new construction starts. While the US is still growing, population-wise, it isn't exploding the way it did during the 20th century. There are few areas which are lacking basic sanitary and utility infrastructure, even if they're decaying or antiquated. The same goes for educational infrastructure, with a caveat.

I'm not convinced that you can pour "sewer socialism" money into the postmodern education environment and expect the benefits to flow to working-class interests. From my admittedly limited vantage-point, surplus funds introduced to underperformers tend to go overwhelmingly to non-mission-critical jobs - administrative overhead and elite lard, rather than working-class bone and muscle - classroom teachers, maintenance, janitorial staff, etc.

Mitch, you must not live in California. All of our basic infrastructure, from water to sewers (they had a spill in Redondo Beach yesterday and had to close the beaches) to roads to transit to power is over capacity. Yes, we have 'basic' services, but we're also looking down the barrel of substantial population growth in the next decade, and those basic services may be more 3rd world and less 1st by then.


What I understand about global economics could fit into a small sentence - I know nothing. But what I am intrigued about is the ownership society that Bush seems to be moving towards, creating situations where you are in direct control of your own retirement with partial privitization of SS, with delinking healthcare insurance from jobs, vouchers for schools and the like. This seems to me to be a progressive, liberal philosophy. I don't know how much he actually means it but it seems to be an idea. Where are the ideas from the democrats. Some form of Nationalized healthcare, "saving" social security, higher taxes on the wealthy, more money for public education, empowerment zones and the like. I live outside of Philadelphia, a corrupt city, pay to play. I live in a state and next to state where political corruption is endemic (dem and rep) so I have little faith in government to "solve" problems. So a guy talking about personal accountability and personal ownership seems appealing to me - why should I depend on soem government program, I should take care of myself.

Of course the Bush economy looks anemic next to the economy of the latter '90s. The latter '90s was before 9/11. The threat of future terrorism is still dragging the economy down, by making investors and corporate executives cautious. Extremely cautious.

That is a qualitatively new phenomenon, only since 9/11. This nightmare of uncertainty is in the back of every corporate planner and venture capitalist. It's not trivial.

Yeah, Pennsylvania, although a growing section of it, rather than the decaying, emptying bulk of the state. I suppose it would look different from the viewpoint of the Sun Belt. From up here, all I see are fools chasing the sun right into the path of hurricanes and perpetual, institutionalized drought.

Leave a comment

Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:

*This* puts text in bold.

_This_ puts text in italics.

bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.

To add a live URL, "Text to display": (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.

Recent Comments
  • TM Lutas: Jobs' formula was simple enough. Passionately care about your users, read more
  • Just seeing the green community in action makes me confident read more
  • Glen Wishard: Jobs was on the losing end of competition many times, read more
  • Chris M: Thanks for the great post, Joe ... linked it on read more
  • Joe Katzman: Collect them all! Though the French would be upset about read more
  • Glen Wishard: Now all the Saudis need is a division's worth of read more
  • mark buehner: Its one thing to accept the Iranians as an ally read more
  • J Aguilar: Saudis were around here (Spain) a year ago trying the read more
  • Fred: Good point, brutality didn't work terribly well for the Russians read more
  • mark buehner: Certainly plausible but there are plenty of examples of that read more
  • Fred: They have no need to project power but have the read more
  • mark buehner: Good stuff here. The only caveat is that a nuclear read more
  • Ian C.: OK... Here's the problem. Perceived relevance. When it was 'Weapons read more
  • Marcus Vitruvius: Chris, If there were some way to do all these read more
  • Chris M: Marcus Vitruvius, I'm surprised by your comments. You're quite right, read more
The Winds Crew
Town Founder: Left-Hand Man: Other Winds Marshals
  • 'AMac', aka. Marshal Festus (AMac@...)
  • Robin "Straight Shooter" Burk
  • 'Cicero', aka. The Quiet Man (cicero@...)
  • David Blue (
  • 'Lewy14', aka. Marshal Leroy (lewy14@...)
  • 'Nortius Maximus', aka. Big Tuna (nortius.maximus@...)
Other Regulars Semi-Active: Posting Affiliates Emeritus:
Winds Blogroll
Author Archives
Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en