Wednesday, February 22, 2017

David Brooks Wants a Revolution but Can't Bring Himself to Say It

“Musicians, if they choose to, can drive a tonal wedge through the noisome pestilence; the stench that often accompanies our contemporary societal lifestyles,” [Junie Morrison] said. “I wanted to conceptualize an escape from the tensions and atmospheric pollution, even if it’s only a temporary psycho-acoustical one.”
The last paragraph in Jon Pareles' obit, "Junie Morrison, a Funk Mastermind, Dies at 62," the Ohio Players, Funkadelic, Parliament, P-Funk All-Stars and solo creative powerhouse.
Yesterday's New York Times op-ed page was a wonder.

David Brooks, who has been shuckin' and jivin' in his column since the dark days of the Lehman meltdown (in other words, almost a decade of bullshit), has really hit his stride with the rise of Trump. Now his ruminations are as dark and baleful as a college town coffeehouse anarchist.

Yesterday's "This Century is Broken" really must be read to be believed. Basically Brooks gets it right.
Most of us came of age in the last half of the 20th century and had our perceptions of “normal” formed in that era. It was, all things considered, an unusually happy period. No world wars, no Great Depressions, fewer civil wars, fewer plagues.
It’s looking like we’re not going to get to enjoy one of those times again. The 21st century is looking much nastier and bumpier: rising ethnic nationalism, falling faith in democracy, a dissolving world order.
At the bottom of all this, perhaps, is declining economic growth. As Nicholas Eberstadt points out in his powerful essay “Our Miserable 21st Century,” in the current issue of Commentary, between 1948 and 2000 the U.S. economy grew at a per-capita rate of about 2.3 percent a year.
But then around 2000, something shifted. In this century, per-capita growth has been less than 1 percent a year on average, and even since 2009 it’s been only 1.1 percent a year. If the U.S. had been able to maintain postwar 20th-century growth rates into this century, U.S. per-capita G.D.P. would be over 20 percent higher than it is today.
Slow growth strains everything else — meaning less opportunity, less optimism and more of the sort of zero-sum, grab-what-you-can thinking that Donald Trump specializes in. The slowdown has devastated American workers. Between 1985 and 2000, the total hours of paid work in America increased by 35 percent. Over the next 15 years, they increased by only 4 percent.
For every one American man aged 25 to 55 looking for work, there are three who have dropped out of the labor force. If Americans were working at the same rates they were when this century started, over 10 million more people would have jobs. As Eberstadt puts it, “The plain fact is that 21st-century America has witnessed a dreadful collapse of work.”
That means there’s an army of Americans semi-attached to their communities, who struggle to contribute, to realize their capacities and find their dignity. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics time-use studies, these labor force dropouts spend on average 2,000 hours a year watching some screen. That’s about the number of hours that usually go to a full-time job.
Fifty-seven percent of white males who have dropped out get by on some form of government disability check. About half of the men who have dropped out take pain medication on a daily basis. A survey in Ohio found that over one three-month period, 11 percent of Ohioans were prescribed opiates. One in eight American men now has a felony conviction on his record.
This is no way for our fellow citizens to live. The Eberstadt piece confirms one thought: The central task for many of us now is not to resist Donald Trump. He’ll seal his own fate. It’s to figure out how to replace him — how to respond to the slow growth and social disaffection that gave rise to him with some radically different policy mix.
What Brooks does next is textbook Brooks. He dodges the obvious, logical conclusion -- namely, that the source of all this domestic woe and disintegration is late stage financialized monopoly capitalism, a.k.a., neoliberalism -- by tossing sand in the reader's eyes by providing an ersatz sociological explanation instead, which invariably ends up blaming the victim. To wit --
The hard part is that America has to become more dynamic and more protective — both at the same time. In the past, American reformers could at least count on the fact that they were working with a dynamic society that was always generating the energy required to solve the nation’s woes. But as Tyler Cowen demonstrates in his compelling new book, “The Complacent Class,” contemporary Americans have lost their mojo.
Cowen shows that in sphere after sphere, Americans have become less adventurous and more static. For example, Americans used to move a lot to seize opportunities and transform their lives. But the rate of Americans who are migrating across state lines has plummeted by 51 percent from the levels of the 1950s and 1960s.
Americans used to be entrepreneurial, but there has been a decline in start-ups as a share of all business activity over the last generation. Millennials may be the least entrepreneurial generation in American history. The share of Americans under 30 who own a business has fallen 65 percent since the 1980s.
Americans tell themselves the old job-for-life model is over. But in fact Americans are switching jobs less than a generation ago, not more. The job reallocation rate — which measures employment turnover — is down by more than a quarter since 1990.
There are signs that America is less innovative. Accounting for population growth, Americans create 25 percent fewer major international patents than in 1999. There’s even less hunger to hit the open road. In 1983, 69 percent of 17-year-olds had driver’s licenses. Now only half of Americans get a license by age 18.
In different ways Eberstadt and Cowen are describing a country that is decelerating, detaching, losing hope, getting sadder. Economic slowdown, social disaffection and risk aversion reinforce one another.
Of course nothing is foreordained. But where is the social movement that is thinking about the fundamentals of this century’s bad start and envisions an alternate path? Who has a compelling plan to boost economic growth? If Trump is not the answer, what is?
What Brooks describes is monopoly capitalism and economic inequality run amok. It is obvious to anyone growing up playing Monopoly. When the other players own all the property and have built hotels on it, rolling the dice and moving around the board is painful if not deadly.

Brooks has been doing this -- putting sociological effects ahead of political-economic causes -- since global capitalism tanked in 2008. At the time I thought, "Well, he's got to do something. He's The Times' house conservative." And while he brings yesterday's column back around to the necessity of bolstering economic growth, he nowhere states the obvious: The super-rich love this low growth economy because they keep vacuuming up a greater share of the total wealth, which means even greater power and prestige.

What Brooks is really arguing for is a revolution. But he is a prophet in the employ of bankers, and he wants to keep his job at "the newspaper of record." So he'll keep confusing effects for causes.

No comments:

Post a Comment