Unless you're lobotomized you've heard of the secretly taped video Mother Jones recently released (accessible here). Most of the press has been about his characterization of 47% of Americans as slackers, and therefore will never vote for him, the uber non-slacker. But Ruben Navarrette (at CNN) focuses on this Romney comment:
Doesn't matter that data on structural inequality are readily available. For example, poverty rates for Black and Hispanic children (something for which these children can hardly be held responsible) are significantly higher than those of whites, respectively 34, 27, and 10% (see p. 16 in this NCES report). Poverty is associated with physical health, and therefore with the capacity to learn. Impoverished children have lower school completion rates and have more learning disabilities, both which affect employment chances down the road.
This still doesn't matter in this narrative of victimhood where there are no structural conditions, just atomized individuals who manage well a string of circumstances, or don't. Interestingly, though, Americans as a whole are of two minds about this. According to a Pew survey, a sizable majority disagree with the statement "Hard work offers little guarantee of success" (see chart below)
However, the lower one's income, the more likely she or he would agree that "Success if pretty much determined by forces outside our control (see chart below). Still, over the years near half of low income people disagree with that statement.
However, when asked about whether its "circumstances" or "lack of effort" that explains poverty, more Americans say the former over the latter (46 to 38%). Predictably, answers vary significantly by gender, race/ethnicity, income education, and party identification. Women, Blacks and Hispanics, low income folks, and Democrats are more likely to attribute poverty to circumstances. Men, whites, and Republicans are more likely to say lack of effort (chart below)
How did she get from the potentially disastrous point A to the promising point B? Hard work, behavior changes, and perseverance. Instead of lamenting what she could not do (learning disabilities), she found other intellectual strengths to get her through. She stopped going out with unemployed guys with shady backgrounds, and found a dependable, caring partner. Despite her heavy workload, she has remained deeply engaged in her children's lives, including their schooling. She has bravely taken on managerial roles where she works, even though the training required scared her to death, since it reawakened all that insecurity and angst she had felt for years in school. She has learned how and where to get help and advice on managing the home and finances. Through force of will, she has turned her life around. That's the narrative of individual responsibility (the inverse of victimhood) that Romney touts.
But it's not the whole story, of course. We could start with observing that the conditions she lived with in those crucial early years of her life meant she had more barriers to achievement than her white middle class schoolmates. And while, happily, she made it over those barriers, she didn't do this on her own. She learned and earned her high school degree with care and attention of public high school teachers. She has enjoyed free childcare from family and friends over the years. She got a couple of rent-free years by living with her parents. The court assured her at least some child support. Medicaid covered much of the expensive healthcare for the children (as well as her two difficult deliveries). The federal earned income credit allowed her to amass money for a downpayment on a home, and HUD subsidized her mortgage. So this is the other narrative, one of structural inequality. She started out behind, but a combination of her family's social and financial capital, and local and federal government programs, enabled her to, if not catch up, at least not be so far behind in terms of economic and social stability.
Clearly, these two versions are compatible, yet the way we are talking about inequality makes them incompatible. Thus we end up with Romney's facile line about that 47%, and responses like that of Navarrette which become more fodder for Romney's victimhood narrative. I don't expect the campaigns to take this conversation to a more useful place, but we can.
My dad, as you probably know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico... and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this ... I mean I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino.
It's a bizarre conjecture, as if there were a single Latino voting bloc, as if Romney's whiteness has been such a detriment to his political career. Talk about playing the victim. Anyway, Navarrette points out that being Latino certainly didn't help Bill Richardson, and adds:
. . .if Mitt really wants to get in touch with his inner Mexican, I think he'll find that it's not all churros and chocolate or pinatas and pan dulce. You see--and you might find this hard to believe, Mitt--but there is still a lot of discrimination in this country against Latinos as whites hunker down and try to hold on to what they have in the face of changing demographics.This response, though, would probably roll right off Romney's back given his belief that this slacker 47% of Americans see themselves as victims--that's the narrative, people who link inequality to discrimination are simply whining about being victims rather than taking individual responsibility for their position in life.
Doesn't matter that data on structural inequality are readily available. For example, poverty rates for Black and Hispanic children (something for which these children can hardly be held responsible) are significantly higher than those of whites, respectively 34, 27, and 10% (see p. 16 in this NCES report). Poverty is associated with physical health, and therefore with the capacity to learn. Impoverished children have lower school completion rates and have more learning disabilities, both which affect employment chances down the road.
This still doesn't matter in this narrative of victimhood where there are no structural conditions, just atomized individuals who manage well a string of circumstances, or don't. Interestingly, though, Americans as a whole are of two minds about this. According to a Pew survey, a sizable majority disagree with the statement "Hard work offers little guarantee of success" (see chart below)
 |
| Pew Research Center: Trends in American Values, 1987-2012 |
 |
| Pew Research Center: Trends in American Values, 1987-2012 |
 | |
|
Clearly, the way the question about poverty is framed shapes American responses. And it also gives us a clue as to why Romney's 47% comment resonates with a broad spectrum of Americans, but also why it got so much criticism. As well, when put into a simplistic either-or sort of way, we're bound to get a picture of polarization and contradictions.
Let me illustrate with a quick story about a young Latina I know. Her early years were passed in poverty, in urban projects and shelters, surrounded by addiction. She moved in with a foster family, already behind in school, and with some severe learning disabilities. She did earn her high school degree and get a job in a restaurant chain, but she also had a couple of abusive boyfriends, and two children out-of-wedlock, one of whom had serious health problems. Now in her mid-twenties, she owns a home, has a partner whom she adores, her children are doing well in school, and she is poised to become a manager.
How did she get from the potentially disastrous point A to the promising point B? Hard work, behavior changes, and perseverance. Instead of lamenting what she could not do (learning disabilities), she found other intellectual strengths to get her through. She stopped going out with unemployed guys with shady backgrounds, and found a dependable, caring partner. Despite her heavy workload, she has remained deeply engaged in her children's lives, including their schooling. She has bravely taken on managerial roles where she works, even though the training required scared her to death, since it reawakened all that insecurity and angst she had felt for years in school. She has learned how and where to get help and advice on managing the home and finances. Through force of will, she has turned her life around. That's the narrative of individual responsibility (the inverse of victimhood) that Romney touts.
But it's not the whole story, of course. We could start with observing that the conditions she lived with in those crucial early years of her life meant she had more barriers to achievement than her white middle class schoolmates. And while, happily, she made it over those barriers, she didn't do this on her own. She learned and earned her high school degree with care and attention of public high school teachers. She has enjoyed free childcare from family and friends over the years. She got a couple of rent-free years by living with her parents. The court assured her at least some child support. Medicaid covered much of the expensive healthcare for the children (as well as her two difficult deliveries). The federal earned income credit allowed her to amass money for a downpayment on a home, and HUD subsidized her mortgage. So this is the other narrative, one of structural inequality. She started out behind, but a combination of her family's social and financial capital, and local and federal government programs, enabled her to, if not catch up, at least not be so far behind in terms of economic and social stability.
Clearly, these two versions are compatible, yet the way we are talking about inequality makes them incompatible. Thus we end up with Romney's facile line about that 47%, and responses like that of Navarrette which become more fodder for Romney's victimhood narrative. I don't expect the campaigns to take this conversation to a more useful place, but we can.
No comments:
Post a Comment