Welfare and Work

A commenter asks:

How can you mock a man for calling the lower classes “spoiled” because they have a couple cars and several televisions — how can you laugh at his argument that this means their “grievance-mongering” politics are illegitimate — when you yourself are just another stupid white boy who bought the cadillac-driving flatscreen TV-watching welfare queen hype?

It’s almost as if you automatically assume the problems of black people are fake, purely invented to scam white people out of their hard-earned cash, while the problems of white people are legitimate. It’s almost like you think that.

Almost, but not quite. I think it's legitimate to use the term "spoiled" to describe someone who lives in a recently-renovated apartment with a flatscreen TV, has her rent paid in full by a government housing voucher, and then calls her home a "slum" and tells a reporter, gesturing to a homeless encampment, that "I might do better out here with one of these tents." I don't think it's fair to do the same for someone who feels economically strapped while going to work every day and making $40,000 a year to support a family of four - even if their life is pretty sweet by the standards of, say, 1875. And I don't think Sharon Jasper's race has anything to do with this distinction.

Comments

Ross writes: "Almost, but not quite. I think it's legitimate to use the term "spoiled" to describe someone who lives in a recently-renovated apartment with a flatscreen TV, has her rent paid in full by a government housing voucher, and then calls her home a "slum" and tells a reporter, gesturing to a homeless encampment, that "I might do better out here with one of these tents." I don't think it's fair to do the same for someone who feels economically strapped while going to work every day and making $40,000 a year to support a family of four - even if their life is pretty sweet by the standards of, say, 1875. And I don't think Sharon Jasper's race has anything to do with this distinction."

Yeah, you wouldn't, even though you didn't call her "spoiled" - you called her a "welfare duchess," and had to add in the Saint-Reaganesque nod about her non-existent Cadillac. And again with the TV - in the original thread I showed Craigslist postings that showed she could have bought it for as little as $150, which I know makes her an immoral leech in the eyes of the pious beancounters of the right.

You are Hillyer's twin.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 12:13 PM

That said, this is the first time I have seen Ross deign to communicate with the folks who comment here, so perhaps he is heading in the right direction. Baby steps, man. Baby steps.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 12:17 PM

"this is the first time I have seen Ross deign to communicate with the folks who comment here"

Maybe he finds the persistently abusive, facile, and immature trolling less then stimulating.

Posted by Fitz | January 4, 2008 12:32 PM

Are we ever going to get from you, Ross, what you feel is outdated about Reagan Republicanism, AND specifically, what your policy alternatives are? What a gift it is that most people in media are liberal. Thus, it is possible to constantly criticize conservative positions, from Iraq, to global warming, to whatever, and almost never be challenged to provide alternatives.
You want the Republican Party broken down and rebuilt or some such vague nonsense. Maybe you saw the episode of "Cheers" where Woody was running for city council against an incumbent who said things like, "we must go forwards, not backwards, up, not down". You examine the faults of the GOP with an electron microscope, but then you don't feel obligated to offer anything but vague platitudes.
Maybe I'm wrong. If so, does anyone know where I can find what kind of conservatism and/or conservative policies Ross Douthat is actually in favor of?

Posted by notamarxist | January 4, 2008 12:37 PM

Fitz writes: "Maybe he finds the persistently abusive, facile, and immature trolling less then stimulating. "

Well, I haven't seen him respond to your stimulating comments either, chuckles. And that would be "than stimulatng," not "then."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 12:40 PM

Leaving racial issues aside for a moment, the primary difference between the two examples you cite is that you're comparing an anecdote to an archetype. And the choice of each says more about you than it says about the groups of people you're describing.

There are Sharon Jaspers in this country, and there are single black mothers who feel economically strapped while going to work every day making $40,000 a year to support a family of four. There are honest, struggling families in Iowa who can't afford health insurance, and there are deadbeat dads in Iowa who blow their savings on booze and souped-up cars... then claim they can't pay their child support.

We can either design our public institutions to prevent selfish people from reaping undeserved rewards-- and allow honest people to suffer as a result, or we can design our institutions to help everyone who needs it-- with the understanding that some selfish people will abuse the system. Or we can land somewhere in between. It would be lovely if we could live in a world where all the cheats suffer and all the hardworking folks succeed, but the Magic Unicorn Party isn't fielding a candidate this year.

What irks me about your commentary (and the message implicit in the Huckabee campaign) is that you look at the evangelical community in Iowa and see the salt of the earth struggling to make ends meet. But when you look at traditional Democratic constituencies, you see Welfare Queens. You aren't offering us either conservative or progressive politics-- this is tribal politics.

I appreciate all this talk about compassion. But you can count me out.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 4, 2008 12:41 PM

notamarxist asks: "Maybe I'm wrong. If so, does anyone know where I can find what kind of conservatism and/or conservative policies Ross Douthat is actually in favor of?"

I've pieced a few together.

1. Ignore the war. No conservative commentator anywhere writes less about Iraq than Ross does.

2. Restrict TV ownership by recipients of public aid to 13" black and white sets with clotheshangers for antennas. Of course this only applies to poor people - rich people receiving various forms of public money for doing nothing should never be mentioned, scolded, or questioned on their TV choices.

3. Religion is really good as long as you don't make much noise while practicing it.

4. Harvard, Harvard, Harvard.

5. Ronald Reagan is the bet president of (at least) the past 150 years.

6. Steve Sailer merits a link, but Glenn Greenwald does not.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 12:48 PM

I'd like to see Douthat include a more explicit outline of his policy alternatives as well, but I think it's a bit unfair to assume that this blog (which, by design, doesn't lend itself well to crafting comprehensive policy platforms) represents the entirety of his commentary. His "Party of Sam's Club" article, for example, does a pretty good job of offering an in-depth political strategy for future Republican administrations that differs substantially from the status quo:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/312korit.asp?pg=2

Posted by Will | January 4, 2008 1:04 PM

Ross

(I'm sure you have read the better rendition in this month’s "Public Square" - Yet these related posts set it in my mind)

So I dug it up...

DOOLITTLE. It aint the lecturing I mind. I'll lecture them blue in the face, I will, and not turn a hair. It's making a gentleman of me that I object to. Who asked him to make a gentleman of me? I was happy. I was free. I touched pretty nigh everybody for money when I wanted it, same as I touched you, Henry Higgins. Now I am worrited; tied neck and heels; and everybody touches me for money. It's a fine thing for you, says my solicitor. Is it? says I. You mean it's a good thing for you, I says. When I was a poor man and had a solicitor once when they found a pram in the dust cart, he got me off, and got shut of me and got me shut of him as quick as he could. Same with the doctors: used to shove me out of the hospital before I could hardly stand on my legs, and nothing to pay. Now they finds out that I'm not a healthy man and cant live unless they looks after me twice a day. In the house I'm not let do a hand's turn for myself: somebody else must do it and touch me for it. A year ago I hadnt a relative in the world except two or three that wouldnt speak to me. Now Ive fifty, and not a decent week's wages among the lot of them. I have to live for others and not for myself: thats middle class morality. You talk of losing Eliza. Dont you be anxious: I bet shes on my doorstep by this: she that could support herself easy by selling flowers if I wasnt respectable. And the next one to touch me will be you, Henry Higgins. I'll have to learn to speak middle class language from you, instead of speaking proper English. Thats where youll come in; and I daresay thats what you done it for.

MRS. HIGGINS. But, my dear Mr. Doolittle, you need not suffer all this if you are really in earnest. Nobody can force you to accept this bequest. You can repudiate it. Isnt that so, Colonel Pickering?

PICKERING. I believe so.

DOOLITTLE: [softening his manner in deference to her sex] Thats the tragedy of it, maam. It's easy to say chuck it; but I havent the nerve. Which of us has? We're all intimidated. Intimidated, maam: thats what we are. What is there for me if I chuck it but the workhouse in my old age? I have to dye my hair already to keep my job as a dustman. If I was one of the deserving poor, and had put by a bit, I could chuck it; but then why should I, acause the deserving poor might as well be millionaires for all the happiness they ever has. They dont know what happiness is. But I, as one of the undeserving poor, have nothing between me and the pauper's uniform but this here blasted three thousand a year that shoves me into the middle class. (Excuse the expression, maam: youd use it yourself if you had my provocation). Theyve got you every way you turn: it's a choice between the Skilly of the workhouse and the Char Bydis of the middle class; and I havnt the nerve for the workhouse. Intimidated: thats what I am. Broke. Bought up. Happier men than me will call for my dust, and touch me for their tip; and I'll look on helpless, and envy them. And thats what your son has brought me to. [He is overcome by emotion].

Posted by Fitz | January 4, 2008 1:25 PM

Here I sit,
Broken-hearted.
Tried to Fitz,
But only farted.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 1:32 PM

Will offers: "I'd like to see Douthat include a more explicit outline of his policy alternatives as well, but I think it's a bit unfair to assume that this blog (which, by design, doesn't lend itself well to crafting comprehensive policy platforms) represents the entirety of his commentary. His "Party of Sam's Club" article, for example, does a pretty good job of offering an in-depth political strategy for future Republican administrations that differs substantially from the status quo:"

I guess. It seems pretty lame to me, with a whole lot of piddling $1000 tax credits here and there. The whole "pay people to have more kids" line of thinking is beyond bizarre. A thousand bucks here or there isn't going to convince middle class parents to start having 4-5 kids again when they're petrified of what college tuition bills will be like down the road. This is simply a social engineering fantasy which purports to be market-based while evincing a complete misunderstanding of the consumer. Does Ross even know anyone who would be considered middle class? And the comparison to some Canadian plan is absurd, since Canada already has a far superior social welfare system in place. Canadian parents aren't worried about paying for health care for an additional kid, for example.

The universal medical coverage fantasy won't ever happen by GOP initiative, the Romney plan in MA notwithstanding. For one thing, the Romney plan is a punitive joke for the lower middle class, and for another, the wealthy base of the GOP doesn't want universal coverage as of yet. Much of the aticle seems to talk about what Republicans might do if they weren't Republicans. It's really a brief for a 3rd party, one which would recognize Reagan and Bush as a dinosaur and a cancer, respectively.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 1:44 PM

I'm pretty sure Ross is working on a book that, among other things, will flesh out some ideas so that those of you hungering for his policy recommendations will be satiated.

Posted by Jasper | January 4, 2008 1:51 PM

Cool, Jasper - do you think you can set me up with a promo copy of "Pink Cadillacs Of Cambridge"? Thanks in advance.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 1:56 PM

The best part of the Sharon Jasper article is the photo caption. Whoever wrote it and selected the quote is a modern day Menken.

Posted by J Mann | January 4, 2008 2:16 PM

J Mann writes: "Whoever wrote it and selected the quote is a modern day Menken."

Those of us who have actually read Mencken know how to spell his name, and we also know what he would have thought of the goobers and muttonheads who run today's GOP.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 2:25 PM

Man, you are a tiresome, nasty, little man or woman aren't you. I can't spell anything, and I'll thank you not to make fun of my disability.

Posted by J Mann | January 4, 2008 2:44 PM

RE: Moe et. al.

In fairness, I wasn't endorsing Douthat's policy prescriptions, I was simply pointing out that he had offered some pretty concrete proposals (albeit in another forum) that differ pretty substantially from current Republican orthodoxy. The merits and political feasibility of his suggestions may well be suspect, but "The Party of Sam's Club" does give you a pretty good idea of where Douthat is coming from.

On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to some of your your complaints. When Douthat does talk about the war, it's always from the perspective of its political salience, and never about the relative merits of withdrawal, the surge etc. etc. He seems incredibly remote from the entire process. I'm also bewildered by his reaction to the Huckabee phenomenon. Huckabee seems like the candidate most akin to Douthat's own ideological preferences, but we don't get much in the way of actual advice for Huckabee beyond adopting "a more ecumenical populism." What the heck does that even mean? In an earlier post, he advised Huckabee to ". . . think health care, think family-friendly tax reform, think corporate welfare ..." but again, we're left with little beyond clever sloganeering. A few concrete proposals that Huckabee could actually adopt would make for an interesting discussion.

Posted by Will | January 4, 2008 2:48 PM

And I don't think Sharon Jasper's race has anything to do with this distinction.

Sadly, Douthat fails to take the self-reflection one step farther: consider the question of whether he is predisposed to think that race neverhas anything to do with it. But then, that would take actually self-criticism, not an act of self-congratulation presented as one.

And, for the record, that was not a flat-screen TV.

Maybe he finds the persistently abusive, facile, and immature trolling less then stimulating

The definition of trolling: any opinion the person making the claim doesn't like.

Posted by Freddie | January 4, 2008 2:53 PM

I don't think there's any reason a family of any race needs more than one TV.

Posted by James Kabala | January 4, 2008 3:06 PM

All these forced viewings of the 700 Club are what's gonna make me grab the family shotgun and go all Rambo when I'm 16.

Posted by James Kabala Jr. | January 4, 2008 3:35 PM

MLJ and LaFollette made every point I could have wanted to quite ably, with additional kudos to Freddie.

The fact that you continue to think the TV means anything only shows how little compassion you have for those with whom you don't identify.

Posted by Mike Meginnis | January 4, 2008 3:46 PM

Will writes: "On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to some of your your complaints. When Douthat does talk about the war, it's always from the perspective of its political salience, and never about the relative merits of withdrawal, the surge etc. etc. He seems incredibly remote from the entire process."

Will, I knew you were just presenting the piece as a public service and didn't think you were using it to engage in argument. Your point about remoteness seems apt. I think that's true not just when he writes about the war, but when he writes about economic realities and the poor or the lower middle class. There's never a sense that he has any familiarity with any of it. The whole TV thing should really embarrass him in a few years, I would hope, since it doesn't now.

I think this remoteness is why nearly the entire punditry, right and left, dismissed Gore and Kerry's Vietnam experiences and considered Dumbya's, "Look, Daddy, I can fly a big plane" drunken Guard time as equivalent "time served."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 3:47 PM

Sharon Jasper's attitude of entitlement was, and is, fair game. Anyone commenting on this topic who doesn't have any direct experience with the crippling unintended consequences associated with the welfare system "as we knew it" should be studying rather than posting self-righteous defenses of dependency.

Posted by Robert Powell | January 4, 2008 5:02 PM

"And, for the record, that was not a flat-screen TV."

Err, yes it is. Just went back and looked at it. It's rear-projection (ie, not the kind of LCD or plasma you can hang on the wall) but it's a flat-screen. It's a rear-projection LCD, an HD CRT, or a DLP. It's pretty darned big (looks to be in the 60" range) so that probably rules out CRT.

In any event, it's pretty jarring. It's the infrugality while living on other people's free handouts, combined with the simultaneous ingrate whining that they aren't doing enough for her and that she'd be better off in a homeless shelter (She's welcome to give us back the money and go there if she thinks it's so much better, says I). That's categorically different from someone who's working for their own money to raise a family, and complaining because they've got it tough.

Posted by Deuce | January 4, 2008 5:32 PM

Moe, I have to agree with you here.

Sharon Jasper _is_ entitled to a decent home, health care, nutrition, and other necessary aspects of a decent standard of living. We, as a just society, have an obligation to provide those things. The fact that Sharon Jasper is also obliged to work, an obligation which she may or may not be fulfilling, does not negate our societal obligations.

I don't particularly find Sharon Jasper's complaints jarring- what I do find jarring are the complaints of upper middle class people that their taxes are too high or their salries too low, etc.

Posted by Hector | January 4, 2008 6:41 PM

Re: I think this remoteness is why nearly the entire punditry, right and left, dismissed Gore and Kerry's Vietnam experiences and considered Dumbya's, "Look, Daddy, I can fly a big plane" drunken Guard time as equivalent "time served."

Huh? I don't recall the media trumpeting Bush's "military service". Quite the opposite in fact. Indeed, do you not recall that little business with CBS falling for a fairly obvious forgery purporting to be a write-up of Bush's poor service record from his superiors?
I will never comrpehend why anyone thinks the media has been pro-Bush! They've been down on him from day one (often quite justifiably, let me add). Sure, their critique is superficial and sensationalistic, lacking any deep anlaysis, but that's true of everything the media does. Which in turn is true because that's what the American people will pay for: Monica's stained blue dress over the ins and outs of healthcare policy. The blame belongs to a populace that doesn't want to think, just wants to be entertained. (Luckily those of us who feel otherwise do have the internet so thinsg aren't entirely hopeless)

Posted by JonF | January 4, 2008 7:06 PM

Douche quotes and writes: ""And, for the record, that was not a flat-screen TV."

Err, yes it is. Just went back and looked at it. It's rear-projection (ie, not the kind of LCD or plasma you can hang on the wall) but it's a flat-screen. It's a rear-projection LCD, an HD CRT, or a DLP. It's pretty darned big (looks to be in the 60" range) so that probably rules out CRT.

In any event, it's pretty jarring. It's the infrugality while living on other people's free handouts,"

It's only "jarring" if you're too damn lazy to check out what one of those TVs can be obtained for. In the original thread I posted several examples of such TVs which could be had for peanuts in the New Orleans area off of Craigslist. Of course most cons have done their damndest to ignore what's been going on in that area lately.

So this claim of "infrugality," and like claims of this woman's "immorality," are just the same old conservative horseshit that Saint Reagan was peddling to racist morons. Nothing has changed.

Of course I'm sure if Robert Powell or Douche were disabled or elderly they'd be the first to give up their TVs and live like members of religious orders.

Uh huh.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 7:46 PM

JonF quotes and writes: "Re: I think this remoteness is why nearly the entire punditry, right and left, dismissed Gore and Kerry's Vietnam experiences and considered Dumbya's, "Look, Daddy, I can fly a big plane" drunken Guard time as equivalent "time served."

Huh? I don't recall the media trumpeting Bush's "military service". Quite the opposite in fact. Indeed, do you not recall that little business with CBS falling for a fairly obvious forgery purporting to be a write-up of Bush's poor service record from his superiors?
I will never comrpehend why anyone thinks the media has been pro-Bush! They've been down on him from day one (often quite justifiably, let me add)."

I didn't say anything about "trumpeting," Jon. I write carefully, please read the same way.

And yeah, I think Dumbya got almost a free pass from the media - the Rather "forgery" notwithstanding. The fact is that the truth of that story got short shrift, and it's quite true that Bush did receive special treatment both in how he joined the Guard and how he left it. His mediocre record in Texas was similarly given little attention.

If you compare how the whole Kerry Swift Boat nonsense was covered, or how Gore's sighing in a debate was covered, and how Dumbya's own constant lies have been covered, I think you might see what the problem is. For more on how the mainstream media functions as Bush's lapdog, just dig into Glenn Greenwald's archives.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 8:46 PM

In reference to MoeLarryAndJesus, J Mann said: Man, you are a tiresome, nasty, little man or woman aren't you.

Little man actually. His name is Jim Keane and when he's not busy ruining any possibility of interesting discussion from taking place at Ross' site, he is getting banned from Wikipedia for trolling and vandalism (and not for his choice of name as he will try to tell you).

Posted by Mark Adams | January 5, 2008 12:02 AM

"when he's not busy ruining any possibility of interesting discussion from taking place at Ross' site, he is getting banned from Wikipedia for trolling and vandalism (and not for his choice of name as he will try to tell you)."

As I've said before, this username was banned from Wikipedia because some idiots thought it was offensive. After that my IP address was banned because I kept on arguing with said morons, and went through a succession of names they didn't like much, either. I'd do it again. In fact, I have done it again.

Apparently Mark Adams, who thinks he is not a troll, follows my posts on this site on the nights his wife is padlocked. There are better hobbies, Marky, especially since you make no other contributions here. Perhaps you could build a "real doll" with all of that glue you've got stored up.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 5, 2008 12:13 AM

Jim Keane,

Two questions: What was the purpose of putting "real doll" in quotes? Why is it that glue would be especially useful in the building of this doll?

Posted by Mark Adams | January 5, 2008 1:00 AM

"Two questions: What was the purpose of putting "real doll" in quotes? Why is it that glue would be especially useful in the building of this doll?"

"Real doll" is in quotes for reasons that will become apparent if you go over to Matt Y's blog on this site and scroll down a little. I'll leave the glue question up to your natural intelligence and wit, which could very well be a mistake.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 5, 2008 1:12 AM

Jim Keane,

It's odd that you keep denying the reason you were banned since anyone with access to Google can find it for themselves.

"I can see at least four other admins who have looked this over or handled a request from you to be unblocked under this name, and I can't just unblock you. The block wasn't for your username (personally, I think it's fine), it was for your deliberate and knowing trolling."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MoeLarryAndJesus

Under you new name "TortureIsWrong" you were banned "for repeated trolling" as well as creating "multiple accounts, or sockpuppets, to abuse Wikipedia policies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/TortureIsWrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppeteers&from=T

Posted by Mark Adams | January 5, 2008 1:16 AM

I'll leave the glue question up to your natural intelligence and wit, which could very well be a mistake.

And I will take that to mean that you were just trying to come up some way to reference backed up sperm and so you shoe-horned in a glue reference that didn't really work or make sense -- which is typical of most of your strained attempts at humor (remember when you tried to make a Don Adams/Get Smart reference?).

Posted by Mark Adams | January 5, 2008 1:20 AM

Re: If you compare how the whole Kerry Swift Boat nonsense was covered, or how Gore's sighing in a debate was covered, and how Dumbya's own constant lies have been covered, I think you might see what the problem is.

Well, I don't see it and don't recall it. The SwiftBoat stuff got a lot of play in the National Review, Faux News, Weekly Standard etc. It was covered mostly as a secondary story elsewhere (notable only because other people were talking about it). How many front page articles dealt with it outside the explicitly Rightwing Press (and by mirror reaction, the partisan Leftwing press)? Indeed, I recall the elitist Media being rather dismissive of the swiftboaters as a bunch of potbellied yahoos from Nowheresville who spent their days sitting round a cheap bar concocting tall tales over a few too many PBRs. And yes, I also recall Bush's pathetic "military" record being held up to (polite and gentlemanly) mockery in the press.
I really do think this type of complaint is simply paranoid. Because the media does not parrot leftwing propanganda it must be baised! Well, the Right has the same complaint, with the expect reverses. This would almost persuade me that the Media is doing its job since everyone hates it, but of course it is not (with some honorable exceptions). As I noted the Media is shallow and sensationalistic. It is not partisan-- or rather it's partisan in favor of itself, and it would happily sell its grandmothers, The Holy Grail, the Statue of Liberty, Mom's apple pie recipe, cute little kittens and God Himself to the Dark Lord of Mordor if it could thereby increase its advertising revenues and bring home a Pulitzer.

Posted by Jonf | January 5, 2008 1:25 AM

Jim Keane wrote: the Rather "forgery" notwithstanding.

So it really wasn't a forgery after all?

Posted by Mark Adams | January 5, 2008 1:32 AM

Big thanks to Mark Adams and Jonf on behalf of advocates for "any possibility of interesting discussion".

There is a distinctive clique of losers on both ends of the political spectrum who imagine that adolescent boorishness is a marker for serious political commitment. The best news from Iowa in my view is that candidates like Obama, McCain, and Huckabee who recognize this phenomenon as a destructive product of irresponsible behavior and shun it, did well.

Posted by Robert Powell | January 5, 2008 4:29 AM

I don't get the criticism. It seems to me that one can certainly question whether a particular welfare regime (or even the very idea of welfare in general) is addressing the problems of less well-to-do folks while still acknowledging that those problems exist and should be addressed in other ways. In a way, one could even say that arguing that the problems of less well-to-do folks can't be solved by mere welfare checks is actually acknowledging that the problem is more serious.

I agree with LaFollette when he says this:
We can either design our public institutions to prevent selfish people from reaping undeserved rewards-- and allow honest people to suffer as a result, or we can design our institutions to help everyone who needs it-- with the understanding that some selfish people will abuse the system. Or we can land somewhere in between. It would be lovely if we could live in a world where all the cheats suffer and all the hardworking folks succeed, but the Magic Unicorn Party isn't fielding a candidate this year.

I think that's exactly right. If we let the fact that certain people may be gaming the system dominate the discussion, we're not getting a good picture of how the system is working - the more apposite question is whether most or a substantial number of people are gaming the system, and that's one that has to be answered by analysis and statistic, not analogy. If Reagen's talk of "welfare queens driving Cadillacs" or "strapping young bucks" wasn't appealing to racism (and I'm not willing to concede that), it was definitely sloppy, and useless (from a policy, not political standpoint).

However, I don't agree with LaFollette's point here: What irks me about your commentary (and the message implicit in the Huckabee campaign) is that you look at the evangelical community in Iowa and see the salt of the earth struggling to make ends meet. But when you look at traditional Democratic constituencies, you see Welfare Queens. You aren't offering us either conservative or progressive politics-- this is tribal politics.

I appreciate all this talk about compassion. But you can count me out.

I don't follow. I don't see Ross, or Huckabee as drawing any distinctions, racially or otherwise, between which constituencies have real problems and which are gaming the system. Some individuals are gaming the system and I think they should be ridiculed and condemned (but of course we shouldn't take policy prescriptions or political positions based on their examples). But the broader point is a disagreement about what types of policies are the best for addressing the problems. I expect that someone like Ross or Huckabee might say that yes, there are serious economic problems among the working class and tremendous anxiety among the lower (and middle) middle class, but that doesn't mean that doling out welfare checks is necessarily the best way to address the problem. That's not playing tribal politics, I don't think. For example, in David Brooks' column yesterday, he raised the argument that for most folks, divorce was a much bigger financial danger than outsourcing or layoffs. I think Huckabee would agree with that - of course, it doesn't mean that we don't have an obligation to address outsourcing and layoffs.

Posted by hugo | January 5, 2008 9:58 AM

So it really wasn't a forgery after all?

It was, and it was an unfortunate lapse by CBS that they were rightly criticized for. However, it obscures two facts: 1, Bush was, in fact, frequently AWOL from his unit, was a terrible Guardsmen in general, and was saved from consequences because of the political power of his family. 2, if a similar forgery was planted in the conservative media and the ran with it, and it was later revealed to be a forgery, there would have been no consequences for them whatsoever. That's the way our media works now. Because of the invention of the "liberal media" meme by conservatives, the conservative media operates under no kind of oversight whatsoever.

Posted by Freddie | January 5, 2008 10:02 AM

I don't see Ross, or Huckabee as drawing any distinctions, racially or otherwise, between which constituencies have real problems and which are gaming the system

No, except the examples are almost always black, and the archetype of the welfare queen is implicitly black. Look, if you were to ask 100 people who they thought of when they heard the phrase "welfare queen", if they were being honest, just about 100 of them would say a black woman. Because that's the meme. And Reagan knew that, which is why Ross's denialism is so aggravating. The welfare queen stereotype does draw on racial feelings, because most everyone associates that image with black people; the fact that there isn't some explicit definition of a welfare queen written down somewhere gives people like Ross the ability to weasel around and act like race isn't implied when it most certainly is.

What should always be added is that most poor people in America are white. The percentage of blacks below the poverty line is higher than the percentage of whites, it's true. But because of the demographics of this country, the large majority of poor Americans-- and the large majority of those receiving welfare-- are white. Which, we can reasonably assume, means that the majority of welfare cheats are white. But the image presented is never the Appalachian white person living in the trailer with an HDTV. It's the New York black person living in a slum with a Cadillac. And frankly, that's messed up.

Posted by Freddie | January 5, 2008 10:18 AM

Freddie quotes and writes: "So it really wasn't a forgery after all?

It was, and it was an unfortunate lapse by CBS that they were rightly criticized for. However, it obscures two facts: 1, Bush was, in fact, frequently AWOL from his unit, was a terrible Guardsmen in general, and was saved from consequences because of the political power of his family. 2, if a similar forgery was planted in the conservative media and the ran with it, and it was later revealed to be a forgery, there would have been no consequences for them whatsoever. That's the way our media works now. Because of the invention of the "liberal media" meme by conservatives, the conservative media operates under no kind of oversight whatsoever."

Precisely. Cons aren't interested in the truth - they're interested in their hot, steaming movement. Back then protecting their Golden Boy Dumbya was the only important thing on their agenda.

Of course now that his utter failure is apparent to all, they're calling him a "liberal" and backing away from him, because conservatism never fails!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 5, 2008 11:07 AM

Jim Keane writes: Precisely. Cons aren't interested in the truth

So what was the point of scare quotes if the forgery accusation was correct? One can't help but wonder if Jim Keane is interested in the truth.

Posted by Mark Adams | January 5, 2008 12:09 PM

Re: For example, in David Brooks' column yesterday, he raised the argument that for most folks, divorce was a much bigger financial danger than outsourcing or layoffs.

This is hyperbole. I would agree that losing one's spouse (whether through divorce or death-- why do the family values types never admit that people do die too, leaving widows and orphans) is a big financial calamity, at least insofar as the spouse was a major earner in the household. But losing one's job is not trivial either and for most people is about the same order of magnitude of a financial hit. Of course pundits, politicians, intellectuals, and big executives do not understand this because they can easily bounce from job to job. For a great many people a new job as good as the last is very hard to find, and a permanent layoff puts them on a downward escaltor. Even though I'm someone who has had the opposite experience, I don't forget where I came from or lack the perception to see what happens to folks less fortunate than myself.

Posted by JonF | January 6, 2008 2:01 PM

Freddie wrote: What should always be added is that most poor people in America are white. The percentage of blacks below the poverty line is higher than the percentage of whites, it's true. But because of the demographics of this country, the large majority of poor Americans-- and the large majority of those receiving welfare-- are white. Which, we can reasonably assume, means that the majority of welfare cheats are white. But the image presented is never the Appalachian white person living in the trailer with an HDTV. It's the New York black person living in a slum with a Cadillac. And frankly, that's messed up.

The interesting thing is that if you're right (and I'm sure you are, but I haven't checked) then it's a little counterintuitive to accuse folks of racism for beating this particular drum, since although they may use racially charged language, the brunt of the impact of the policy advocated (presumably, welfare cuts or other policy that impacts the poor) actually falls on white folks (at least in a quantitative sum).

But that's one reason that I think that anecdotes about people gaming the welfare system should never be used as proxies for policy arguments. I think such anecdotes are useful for shaming and stigmatizing those people who are gaming the system by not carrying their weight and not meeting their obligations to society, but in order to seriously analyze whether the system works, we need objective numbers. I suspect, but could very well be wrong, that the numbers would show that while most folks on financial assistance are living perhaps slightly above their means and making some questionable financial choices, that they are basically honest, hardworking folks who rely on the financial assistance largely for the purpose of purchasing necessities for their families. When I was growing up, my family had very little money as my mom was a single mother of three with no help raising 3 kids, and so we didn't have a TV, let alone a flatscreen with cable, etc. Looking back, that was obviously a sacrifice but I would say a wise one. But who am I to begrudge someone else in a similar financial situation who has made a different choice about how to spend the little money they have? As long as they aren't literally cheating the system, don't they have the right to purchase whatever they want with the money they have?

But I do think it's a good thing to stigmatize free-rider behavior, and it seems to me that the lack of a stigma against gaming the welfare system has been a problem for the system. So in that context I do think that these kind of anecdotes can be useful. People should be shamed publically and socially if they're gaming the system and not pulling their weight, but that doesn't mean we should turn off the system for everyone without objective proof that it's not working.

Posted by hugo | January 6, 2008 2:25 PM

Hugo,

I think I would agree with you that stigmatizing free rider behavior is probably a good thing. But I don't think we should make policy on that basis- particularly when we don't know how many of these free riders there really are.

By the way, does anyone have any evidence that Sharon Jasper isn't working? Lots of people do work and live in subsidized housing. If she is working, then a lot of the commenters in this thread look more than a bit ridiculous as well as uncharitable.

Posted by Hector | January 6, 2008 6:44 PM

JonF re: David Brooks' column. This is not hyperbole. FAR more people in the US are affected negatively long-term by divorce than by outsourcing or layoffs. Unemployment from all causes has been running around or below 5% for a long time. Check the stats on divorce. As your experience demonstrates, plenty of people manage to do okay coming from single-parent households, but the idea that this isn't a big and measurable problem for millions of people is false.

Hugo-- "gaming the system" is much less of a problem than the way the system has created dependency and reinforced negative, self-destructive behaviors among our most vulnerable citizens. I don't care if Sharon Jasper has a tv in every room. The issue underlined in the original article is her angry and unrealistic sense of entitlement, and lack of perspective on her objective situation relative to homeless people. As demonstrated by a number of studies including one linked in comments on the original post on this subject, people defined as "poor" in the US today have it better in many ways than working or lower-middle class people a few decades ago, and vastly better than most of the genuinely poor people around the world. Welfare should be a hand up in tough times, not a handout or a permanent way of life.

Real concern about the less fortunate is not properly expressed by simply throwing money at a problem with much deeper social and cultural roots than the loss of manufacturing jobs in American cities. Large-scale social programs have major consequences, not all of them positive or intended.

Posted by Robert Powell | January 7, 2008 4:16 AM

The issue underlined in the original article is her angry and unrealistic sense of entitlement, and lack of perspective on her objective situation relative to homeless people.

Right, because Lord knows that middle class and upper class Americans have no sense of entitlement.

What drives me bonkers is that conservatives lionize a system that makes the hoarding of personal wealth and material goods the end-all be-all of human existence, and then attack poor people for having the wrong priorities. Look, the same phenomenon that spurs the lower middle class into being good little worker bees and generating capital-- commodity fetishism and the almost religious emphasis on buying things-- causes poor people to misappropriate their resources. Maybe you guys should be leading the charge against the incredibly crass materialism that has taken hold in every corner of our society.

But then, you wouldn't be good capitalists, would you?

Posted by Freddie | January 7, 2008 9:30 AM

I agree with Freddie. The materialist emphasis on more and better personal possessions, which is the engine of capitalism, is the same thing that encourages people to live beyond their means or, worse yet, to become criminal. Let's start by addressing the untramelled self interest that appears to be the predominant value in our society.

And once again, subsidized housing is not the same as welfare. "Welfare" is an income subsidy to the unemployed or unemployable. Subsidized housing exists so that low-wage workers can afford to live in the cities where many of them have grown up and have family, friends, existing ethnic communities, etc. people who might be making a decent working class wage are often still eligible for subsidized housing, at least in expensive cities like Boston. The fact that subsidized housing isn't necessarily (and probably is not usually) an alternative to work makes a very big difference. Unlike welfare, it's not _supposed_ to be something that you are on temporrarily as a "hand up".

Posted by Hector | January 7, 2008 9:48 AM

The problem with Mr. Douthat's line of criticism is how straightforwardly condescending it is. What he is saying is that because Ms. Jasper is having her housing paid for by the government, she is no longer permitted to have negative opinions about her living conditions or to enjoy luxuries like large televisions. The comments reek of a paternalistic stench. It is as if the absence of obsequy in the face of the magnanimity of the state should be sufficient reason to disenroll someone from their housing subsidy. Or, as we all know, as if only working folk deserve nice things.

I understand that beggars can't be choosers. But the expression of gratitude is not a prerequisite for being a recipient of welfare. This is a good thing. Perhaps Jasper has unrealistic expectations regarding her living conditions. So what? What the hell does the psychological make up of a human being have to do with whether they should receive government assistance? I don't know what the ideal arrangement of a welfare program might be, but if we accept the premise that the state should provide some kind of safety net, then we are going to have to accept the further premise that people who aren't particularly likable are going to benefit from it. Pointing at these people and making ugly faces isn't going to change that.

Unless you want to come up with some personality-based requirements. We can ask all sorts of entirely trivial questions, and make them the basis for continued support. Is the applicant a nice person? Is she meek enough? Has the applicant demonstrated her unflinching fidelity to the State that provides for her welfare? How grateful has she been for the State's assistance? Does she get down on her hands and knees every day and thank God for her monthly rent check?

If she fails any of these tests, we can kick her to the curb, and feel really great about ourselves, since the worst thing the government can do (apparently) is foster a sense of entitlement among the nation's poor, who should know better than to imagine that they deserve anything at all. After all, they do absolutely nothing useful, unlike political pundits like Mr. Douthat, whose opinions make an immeasurable contribution to the nation's economy and to the greater good.

Posted by gerontion | January 7, 2008 10:32 AM

I agree with Freddie too. I have a 13-inch tv, drive an eleven-year-old Honda, and live in a small flat with a wife, a teenager, and two cats in a central European city which to this day has far too many monuments to the bankruptcy of the idea that The State is the ultimate source of wealth and responsibility for its distribution.

It's easy to comdemn conservatives for mean-spritedness. It's significantly less easy to address the very real issues and problems with government poverty programs. But if one is serious about doing the right thing rather than just feeling self-righteous, the latter is far more important.

Posted by Robert Powell | January 8, 2008 4:13 AM

Robert Powell writes: "I have a 13-inch tv, drive an eleven-year-old Honda, and live in a small flat with a wife, a teenager, and two cats in a central European city which to this day has far too many monuments to the bankruptcy of the idea that The State is the ultimate source of wealth and responsibility for its distribution."

That's hardly the only bankrupt idea in the world. The current dissolution of the Repiglican Party is evidence of that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 8, 2008 4:54 AM

I wouldn't consider that such a bankrupt idea anyway. The State is ultimately for the distribution of wealth in society, and has ultimate control over where it goes.

The real (morally) bankrupt idea is that only people like Powell should get to enjoy the material blessings of life.

Posted by Hector | January 9, 2008 9:59 AM