I interviewed Brown University history professor James T. Patterson about his book examining the tragic rise of illegitimacy rates, and the American political elite’s refusal to address the problem for decades. MP3, 50 minutes. During the course of our discussion, I mentioned my own writing about successful early intervention programs for at-risk children; that writing is contained in this Barry Law Review article, text at notes 214-28. (A much more detailed analysis is contained in my book Guns: Who Should Have Them?).
Bartman says:
the American political elite’s refusal to address the problem
Ahh, paternalism: good for thee, but none for me, thanks.
May 17, 2010, 9:38 pmEric Rasmusen says:
A good question with no obvious answer is whether the bottom 70% of black people are better off now or in 1960. They are richer now; they have more political power now; but women don’t have husbands, children don’t have fathers, and crime and drugs are pervasive.
May 17, 2010, 9:59 pmmack says:
Sounds like that was money well spent – a lot cheaper than court, probation, and incarceration costs. I wonder if people were taught social and parenting skills along with a good education and the values of respect, honor, and duty as part of it – if it would not vastly improve our society. Moyihan had one thing right – we certainly defined deviancy down. The mocking of traditional values and the celebration of infamy are some of the sign posts of our decline.
May 17, 2010, 10:10 pmRoyLitmus says:
The political elite are liberals and they need black people to win elections. Hence why they ignore problems in the black community in order to keep them on the government plantation. If Black people weren’t dependent upon the government they might just vote Republican and the Democrats would never win another election.
Liberals will just spend the next 50 years convincing Black people that whitey is causing all their problems and all they need is just another affirmative action program and another government check to get ahead in life. And that is just plain sad.
May 17, 2010, 10:20 pmBruce Hayden says:
The Moynihan Report was interesting reading. I first read it shortly after it was written as a freshman in college (David – the small liberal arts college 60 miles south of you). That was 1968. What it highlights, even today, I think, is the role of government assistance, in the form of the War on Poverty, on the continued destruction of “The Negro Family”. It is interesting that the Report called for national action, but much of the national action that resulted naturally increased, not decreased, the matriarchal nature of “The Negro Family”. In particular, rewarding women for having children out of wedlock and without the father present would naturally incentivize just that behavior.
Another thing that is a bit scary about rereading the Report is that even then, Black youth unemployment was seen as a significant problem. Yet, this year, we have again raised the Minimum Wage (back then, it was $1.25 an hour), and, not surprisingly, Black youth, and in particular, young Black males, were the worst hit by it, with, I believe, the highest unemployment rate of any demographic.
The one thing that may have changed is the assumption back then that the problem with the Black matriarchal society is that the dominant situation in this country is patriarchal. I would suggest that there has been a lot of research since then indicating that, esp. in a modern society, matriarchy, and in particular a society that fails to give respect and responsibilities to males, is grossly inferior to one that does, in terms of outcomes.
Or, to maybe better phrase this, raising kids in a fatherless home, or at least in a home without a strong male influence, is suboptimal, since males are better at setting the limits that younger males need to adopt to and succeed in society, and to give younger females enough self-worth that they delay raising families of their own, especially without making sure that they have a male involved.
What is a bit disheartening is that at the time the Report was written, the education gap between Black males and females was narrowing. Since then, the trend has apparently reversed, and the problems that they were describing have gotten significantly worse.
May 17, 2010, 11:04 pmEvilDave says:
Maybe but they consistently and without thinking vote Democratic and I think that was the point.
May 17, 2010, 11:29 pmEvilDave says:
Heresy!!!
May 17, 2010, 11:35 pmHeresy!!!!
Kill the unbeleiver!
.
Have 50+ of years of enlightened feminism taught you nothing? We all know men are per se bad. Removing children from men’s testosterone violent nature can only be a good thing.
Maybe you should receive “counseling” or “re-education training”?
.
Any good divorce court will be happy to teach you that men have no value except as a sperm donor with a wallet.
Steve says:
If the liberals were all well-intentioned yet deeply misguided, and the conservatives were all advocating genuinely helpful policies yet deeply misunderstood, who were those guys with the fire hoses, anyway?
It is amazing that liberal policies are so malignant that liberals have been able to singlehandedly destroy the prospects of the black community, even though everyone in America wants nothing but to see them succeed.
May 17, 2010, 11:58 pmporterhouse says:
One thing that has been in the news lately that disproportionately impacts African-Americans is illegal immigration. What Katrina showed us was how African-Americans in New Orleans were reluctant to move to Houston, which is only 6 hours away with dynamic economy, because they could not compete with illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants will work for lower wages and in worse conditions. The Katrina evacuees that moved to Houston had to accept lower wages and some were shut out of the jobs they had in New Orleans such as hotel maids.
What made matters even worse is that illegals have now flooded into New Orleans, New Orleans had a very small Latino population before Katrina due to the relatively high unemployment rate (illegals tend to migrate to cities with low unemployment rates in which work is plentiful).
I am for comprehensive immigration reform, but I think at this point we must “complete the danged fence!” Wages will go up and the cost of living in border states will rise (some of this will be offset by increased tax revenue and less spending on social safety net programs), but it is the right thing to do.
May 18, 2010, 1:56 amLN says:
Yeah I love how the rampant anti-paternalism here disappears on certain issues. Not to speak of the principle of revealed preference. Whee!
May 18, 2010, 1:56 amMatthew Carberry says:
Is it “anti-paternalism” to simultaneously promote early intervention based on poverty and real need while removing/changing entitlement (paternalistic) policies which have had the unintended consequence of making things worse by devaluing the need to have the real paternal element actually in the family?
May 18, 2010, 3:48 amNorthern Dave says:
Ah, but isn’t this precisely what B.O. was groomed for by the Democratic/Marxist Central Committee? To be the role model for American Black Males?
We’ll have to see how this particular venture works……………….
PS. – mack wrote:
“I wonder if people were taught social and parenting skills along with a good education and the values of respect, honor, and duty as part of it — if it would not vastly improve our society. ”
I agree as far as it goes. The problem is that my view of what the fundamental values ought to be is different from my neighbours’, n’est pas? Further when a child of any colour asks, “Why should I (not live by instinct like an animal)?” the answers creating self policed behaviour cannot spring from the Materialistic Weltanschauungs of the Day. As an example my 14 year old came home laughing from school. His science teacher was trying to teach Darwinism and then proscribe extending it to human beings. My son (who is not a Darwinist or Materialist) found the hypocrisy hilarious….
May 18, 2010, 6:45 amNorthern Dave says:
Quid? The position David is presenting is that the paternalistic framework for one American subgroup that has been built mostly by one of the main US parties
May 18, 2010, 6:54 amis a failure – and seems to be being continued in spite of decades of data indicating the dependency culture inculcated is a failure.
Linus says:
Either your son was misunderstanding, or lying, or you are, or your son has an almost unbelievably bad science teacher. “Darwinism,” as any half-decent biology teacher knows, is an observed scientific phenomenon. Either it applies to humans or it does not (it does) – the concept of “proscribing” is incoherent. It would be as if your son’s physics teacher explained Newton’s law of universal gravitation, and then proscribed (or recommended) extending it to human beings. It makes no sense.
Social Darwinism is something else entirely. It has a tangential connection to “Darwinism,” but is not at all the same type of thing. There would be no hypocrisy in teaching “Darwinism,” and then “proscribing” Social Darwinism, if that’s what the teacher was doing. It would be as if your son’s physics teacher explained Newton’s law of universal gravitation, and then cautioned against dropping bricks off the overpass. No hypocrisy.
(Although honestly, it would be better to leave Social Darwinism out of a biology class altogether, and put it in history or social sciences.)
Sorry for the derail.
May 18, 2010, 7:10 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Reparations for slavery are legally doomed, if politically popular in some circles. But I wonder if a lawsuit by conservative Blacks – there are some – against elements of the Liberal Establishment for the damage done to Black families in the last fifty years, in disregard of the warnings in “The Moynihan Report”, might not bear fruit. Congress may be immune, but is the Democratic party, or other unofficial but important players?
May 18, 2010, 7:44 amHocking Hick says:
Ummm… aren’t they doing the same thing as the guy who votes for the Township Trustee who plans to fix his particular road? They’re not thinking about being on the teat, and he’s not thinking about his property being revalued to pay for his road repairs…
Isn’t it all gimme-gimme…?
May 18, 2010, 7:54 amCC says:
I don’t think you many of you read David’s article: it praises and touts expanded and more expensive education/welfare initiatives for young children and their families in at risk groups. The opposition for this comes from the right because they continue their long tradition of being hostile to the poor and minorities.
May 18, 2010, 8:00 amJoseph Slater says:
Ah, another VC thread in which people attribute black voting patterns to blacks “not thinking” and being deceived by liberals — or maybe just misguided short-term greed that misunderstands long-term interests. It must be great to have such profound insight into the culture of a large group of Americans that you can’t even imagine principled, defensible reasons for the behavior of folks in that group.
May 18, 2010, 8:42 amJoe says:
As to why blacks vote for Democrats, see Republicans and the Black Vote by Michael K. Fauntroy.
Is the “T,” used to stop confusion with the mystery author?
May 18, 2010, 9:01 amHouston Lawyer says:
I predicted that Mexicans would rebuild New Orleans as soon as the displaced hit Houston. Those who boldly support the illegal immigrants do so at the expense of young Black men.
What I don’t know is how you rebuild Black nuclear families. Not even Bill Cosby is allowed to point out the problems of the Black underclass. As long as anyone who points out that single motherhood is a problem is labeled as a bigot, I predict more of the same.
May 18, 2010, 9:14 amDavid TheMan says:
I would say the plight of the black family is over exaggerated, especially the so called absence of black fathers.
Newsweek had an article about it, http://www.newsweek.com/id/136335 , plus The Journal of Early Childhood studies has a study on the modern black family, http://ecr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/245
The key point in both articles is that black men are involved in their children’s lives more than any other race that is non-married, but for some reason black men get the deadbeat label.
I would also say as a black man, I don’t think its the government’s job to fix or establish any programs to help “the black family”
May 18, 2010, 10:34 amMAM says:
I’m not convinced that black progress is not on course, by and large. Did we expect it to be smooth and pretty? As the late, great Donny Hathaway sang “…it’s a long hard road from which there is no return…”
May 18, 2010, 11:14 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
David, of course, reminds us of Frederick Douglass’s speech, given in 1865.
May 18, 2010, 11:35 amBenjamin Davis says:
Dissing black men is a very old staple of American discourse. We are seeing the fruits of Moynihan’s successful call for benign neglect and trying to turn the reasons for those results on their head. Very conservative mind game that has been going on for a long time.
I have traveled across the South from Toledo, Ohio this past week with my son to my daughter’s graduation at Texas Woman’s University(magna!). I have been pleased as a 54 year old that my son and daughter (19 and 22) have been spared the experiences of my parents (84 for mom and would have been 87 for my dad) in being served wherever we went(ice cream parlors, hotels, gas stations, getting into that University). That is not on their radar screen – it is an echo on my radar screen that influences me though I try not to mention it directly as I do not want to dampen their enjoyment of the naturalness of their freedoms – freedoms of association, strong friendships across all kinds of race, ethnicity,and nationality lines. Thanks to all those efforts by those in my parents’ generation and in my generation.
(TWU has a cool t-shirt. In front it says “Texas Woman’s Football” and in back it says “Still Undefeated”. The in joke is that they do not have a football team.)
The absence of dads and/or moms (including grandparents stepping in to take over parenting roles)is a problem that goes across race lines in this country and I have seen the problem in other countries too. It is a big problem. The antecedents for this in slavery for the experience in blacks descendants of slaves (for example, blacks raised as crops like barn animals and the effect on black family structures down the generations) are complicated and very heavy to behold. Cosby is renewing with the responsibility tradition which is nothing new -just a riff on the race man and race pride stuff of an earlier generation.
The turbulent economic times also form a part of this along with wealth disparities I suspect.
On the trip South, walked in Memphis and visited Graceland. Very heavy experience. The Hall of Gold with all/many of Elvis’ gold and platinum records is something to see. The links in the music even when born in segregation are heavy.
All of the staff, except maybe one guy, was black. Did the Elvis stance with one other black guy working there about my age for a picture my son took.
While waiting for the shuttle, the guy came by and asked me if I had been in the service. I said no (me being confused with being a member of the family of General Benjamin O Davis is an old riff in my life though I remembered I had not said my name). The guy reaches into his wallet and pulls out a card – Queen of Spades (Isn’t that a song by the Police? maybe Queen of Spain) which has Elvis in uniform on one side and Elvis in his gold lame suit on the other. Wow!
I sometimes see black hip hop and white Honky Tonk Ba Donka Donk as two sides of the same coin.
Well I guess I digressed. Did Tai Chi(Sunwalking)on Graceland’s front steps.
This post feels like a modest impersonation of Leopold Bloom musing in James Joyce’s Ulysses with me as the protagonist.
Best,
May 18, 2010, 12:41 pmBen
Mark Field says:
Apparently revealed preferences and rational expectations only apply to white people.
May 18, 2010, 1:04 pmJoseph Slater says:
Yeah. To be fair, this blog has also had a few “how come Jews don’t understand that they should all be voting Republican?” threads too. But the those are somewhat less creepy given that the (i) authors of the posts are often Jews and (ii) you don’t get as many implications that Jews aren’t smart enough to figure out their own interests.
May 18, 2010, 1:29 pmDeep Lurker says:
Right-wing liberals. Like the more conventional liberals they were well-intentioned yet deeply misguided, and like the more conventional conservatives they were deeply misunderstood.
May 18, 2010, 1:48 pmThey were viewed as malicious – but actually they were trying to be helpful by suppressing dangerous 19th century “radical republican” views in favor of progressive 20th century government management of racial relations.
Joseph Slater says:
Right-wing liberals
Oh, the contortions one has to attempt if one wants to write the very clear support of racial segregation in the 1950s and 1960s out of the history of American conservatism. Was William Buckley also a “right-wing liberal”? And do “right-wing liberals” get together and party with “left-wing conservatives,” or are they mortal enemies?
May 18, 2010, 3:04 pmJoeSixpack says:
I thought we couldn’t say “illegitimacy” any more.
May 18, 2010, 3:59 pmNorthern Dave says:
Linus wrote:
….”It has a tangential connection to “Darwinism,” but is not at all the same type of thing. There would be no hypocrisy in teaching “Darwinism,” and then “proscribing” Social Darwinism”
Ah, but there would. You’ve just made a logical error. If the Universe is simply survival of the “fittest” – with the convienent tautology that the “fittest” are those who survive :-) – then “Social” Darwinism is the only logical model of social behaviour. It is hypocrisy to try and separate the two.
PS – Darwinism is not at all on the same level as the Laws of Physics and is already failing (propped up for political and physical reasons with massive funding and media support, but oddly – or not so oddly – failing miserably at the scientific level) and will soon be recognized as the weird fairy tale of the late 2nd Millenium…..
May 18, 2010, 4:24 pmLinus says:
The logical error is yours. “Darwinism” is an “is” (that is, it is descriptive, not prescriptive or normative). Social Darwinism is an “ought” (that is, it is prescriptive or normative). There is no necessary logical connection from an “is” to an “ought.” The truth of “Darwinism” may be a useful tool for social Darwinists, just as those who wish to wreak havoc on the interstate could find aid from the law of universal gravitation, in my example. But the truth of “Darwinism” does not of necessity lead to the wisdom of social Darwinism.
The truth of evolution is supported by mountains of empirical evidence and is accepted as scientific fact by most educated people. All or nearly all of those who reject it do so out of either ignorance, religious fundamentalism, or some notion that it is associated with “liberalism” and must for that reason be opposed (or some combination of the three, of course).
I would be glad to see your evidence that evolution is “failing miserably at the scientific level.” I have no desire to believe anything that isn’t true. As such, I believe what is supported most strongly by evidence. If evolution is no longer supported by evidence, I would be happy to know about it so I can correct my beliefs.
May 18, 2010, 4:58 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Linus,
Only a guess here, but I’d imagine that Dave’s son’s teacher was expressing hostility to sociobiology rather than to Social Darwinism. In other words, warning against (e.g.) explaining differences in human male and female psychology by pointing to the respective reproductive strategies evolutionary theory would predict — to take the most familiar and most contentious example.
Which is probably good advice. Not that we aren’t beings shaped by evolution; of course we are. But the danger of seeing something in present-day human behavior and crafting an evolutionary “Just-So Story” to ratify it as hard-wired is very great. “The proper study of mankind is man,” sure; but in this particular area it’s very difficult for particular men (and women, despite my example above) to avoid finding just what they expected to discover.
May 18, 2010, 5:16 pmNorthern Dave says:
To Linus and Michelle:
Social Darwinism is the logical outcome of Darwinism. There are many still in denial about this because they don’t like the realities of it.
Michelle, the teacher was explaining Darwinism and then said something about it of course not applying to the survival of the fittest with regard to human social engineering (or governance).
Linus, think about it out of the box for a minute. Most people on the Volokh have children so the odds are you do too. Think of the birthing process alone. How many simultaneous processes must act to see the live birth of a single human. The random generation of even two simultaneous processes is outrageously improbable. The generation of a hundred?
Homochirality’s origins alone should sink Darwinsim as a scientific theory, but Darwinism has developed into a tautological pseudo-scientific cult where it is by definition non-falsifiable.
For more extensive arguments dealing with the issues, two good websites dealing with contemporary issues are:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
and
http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page
Darwinsim will go the way of the theories of Galton and de Lapouge though not without the fight any established Myth does…
May 18, 2010, 6:07 pmcityduck says:
Meanwhile Red States have higher illegitimacy rates than blue states, and conservatives are lining up to pay Bristol Palin $30K a pop to lecture on abstinence.
But, hey, life’s funny.
May 18, 2010, 6:18 pmJoseph Slater says:
Oh the irony of someone touting “intelligent design” claiming (falsely) that Darwinism / the theory of evolution is “non-falsifiable.”
May 18, 2010, 6:29 pmPerseus says:
And yet another tedious, patronizing comment by you bemoaning a supposedly patronizing VC thread about blacks.
May 18, 2010, 6:43 pmJoseph Slater says:
Nothing requiring you to read my posts, Perseus. And to spare you the effort of telling me there’s nothing requiring me to read these threads, I’ll say I think it’s absolutely worth noting that certain posters here refuse to even consider the possibility that the vast majority of black folks have good, principled reasons for voting the way they do — or to even consider the idea that black folks can figure out their own principled interests better than these posters can. Your lack of response on the substance of that is telling.
May 18, 2010, 7:04 pmLinus says:
I suppose that’s plausible, but I don’t think it likely. Since he uses the term “Darwinism” rather than a term with some accepted meaning, it’s impossible to tell, but if you are right, then I think I agree with everything else you said.
There’s really no point in my disagreeing with this. I’ve explained that it’s wrong, and in fairly simple terms why it’s wrong. You have the right to persist in your misbelief.
I do.
All of these arguments have refutations, but they aren’t even relevant to the discussion. Evolution does not concern itself with the emergence of life from non-life. If you want to debate theories and hypotheses of abiogenesis, I’ll have to bow out. Evolution deals with the change in life over time. And once you have life, the process by which life evolves is more than adequately explained, with the explanations supported by observations, etc.
Amazing. Joseph Slater (6:29) said it all.
I’ll see your good websites and raise you The TalkOrigins Archive.
And I feel bad enough about the derail that I’m not going to respond to whatever you have to say next, if you decide to respond to this.
May 18, 2010, 7:54 pmPerseus says:
Whether your characterization of the posts is accurate or whether “principled interests” is a meaningful concept is of secondary concern when compared to the abject failure of liberal social engineers. But if you want me to discuss interests and principled reasons, I’d start with school choice, which enjoys greater support among African-Americans, but enjoys far less support among white liberals, and especially among the egregiously self-interested and unprincipled teachers’ unions.
May 19, 2010, 4:38 amJoseph Slater says:
Perseus:
Appreciate the substantive comment. Vouchers lose popularity when people realize that $1,500-$2,500 isn’t going to pay for any private school except maybe a Catholic school. One can believe that tax dollars should be used to prop up enrollments at Catholic schools, but one should be clear that this is what vouchers do. They don’t get inner city kids into suburban elite private schools because they aren’t nearly enough money. And the fantasy that voucher programs would create a bunch of other types of private schools and thus provide all kinds of choices is just that, a fantasy, as actually schooling kids actually costs a lot more — as teachers’ unions, among others, correctly noted.
But this is now far off topic, so I’ll leave it at that.
May 19, 2010, 10:27 amJoseph Slater says:
Oh, one final note: My point was really that conservative / Republican posters should try to understand why black folks vote overwhelmingly democratic without assuming that black folks are dumb, deluded, only able to see short term gains at the expense of long term interests, etc. Because you’re not going to get anywhere unless you take seriously the idea that there may be some very good, principled reasons for this voting behavior.
For what it’s worth, I would give the same advice to folks on the left (and there are some) who constantly tell certain sub-groups of less-than-affluent whites that they don’t really understand their own interests, and are being deluded, etc. On either side, it’s not good analysis and it’s not good politics.
May 19, 2010, 10:31 amDavid TheMan says:
I have to disagree with you Joseph Slater. In my experience as a black man, dealing with other blacks, the funny secret is that only a minority of blacks actually vote for democrats because they believe in their policies, most vote democrat because they have been raised all their lives that Republicans are racist and that Democrats are the only option.
Go to any HBCU and ask the students what poitical party they support and what their beliefs are, 9/10 those students will have a conservative leaning fiscal and social belief system, but if you ask them what party they support they will say the Democratic party, it is mainly indoctrination not an informed opinion.
May 19, 2010, 11:19 amSarcastro says:
Add to this anecdotal masterstroke that blacks love the welfare that Dems use to keep them down to buy the black vote!
And also that the Democratic party is the party of racism cause they were back in the day and also Robert Byrd.
May 19, 2010, 11:29 amBenjamin Davis says:
I think there are studies that note that blacks were overwhelmingly Republican (party of Lincoln) before FDR and then switched to Democrats over a period of time following FDR and which accelerated with Kennedy and LBJ’s policies.
The Northern Democrat/Dixiecrat a la 1948 schism with desegregation and the Dixiecrat resistance morphed into the shift of some white Dixiecrats to the Republican party as part of the Southern Strategy of the Republicans.
Blacks can smell the wolf in sheep’s clothing whatever the party. As can whites, Asians, Hispanics, gays, lesbians etc.
As to welfare, I remember the wonderful moment when a bunch of us law students were criticizing some representatives of Chrysler for the bailout in the late 70′s early 80′s and one of the Chrysler reps said, “You guys get student loans?” and when people nodded affirmatively, he said, “So you get a piece of that action.”
That people vote for people who line their pockets does not appear to be a novel idea. Whether the welfare is corporate welfare, military industrial welfare, or good ole welfare, it is a piece of the action. Except that poor people actually need welfare as my grandmother did during the Depression (being on the dole).
But we are more complex than homo economicus only!
Best,
May 19, 2010, 12:00 pmBen
David TheMan says:
I would agree with this if it wasn’t for the fact that a lot of Democratic social programs aren’t effective, so therefore blacks aren’t getting a piece of the action. As for myself, the dixiecrat/southern strategy talk comes off as a cop out, I still know plenty of people my father’s age who were alive during the 60s, but still vote Democrat because “Republicans are racist” even though they know for a fact that Bull Connor and GEorge Wallace were life long dems.
May 19, 2010, 12:36 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I agree with David.
Hopefully everybody has the same goal: economic prosperity for all Americans. The way I think of it is that everyone should be able to get to the limit that his ambition and ability will take him.
Where we people of good will on either side of the aisle part ways is that we differ on the best path to get to that spot. To say that people with whom we disagree are (a) only trying to keep black people dependent so they will vote Democrat or (b) nixing social programs only so that black people will be kept down, dumbs down the conversation to the point that the process of finding the right path can’t take place.
May 19, 2010, 12:45 pmzuch says:
MLKII agreed that freedom wasn’t enough. He was out organising garbage workers when he was assassinated.
Black children? “Lincoln made them free, Sam Colt made them equal…”
Cheers,
May 19, 2010, 1:36 pmChloe, WGBH "Basic Black" says:
45 years after the publication of the Moynihan Report on “The Negro Family”, PBS’s Basic Black will be looking at the current state of the black family and how it has evolved since the report’s publication. Join us TONIGHT, Thursday June 3rd at 7:30 pm EST LIVE at http://www.basicblack.org or on channel 2 in Boston. You can also participate in a live chat at basicblack.org starting at 7:20 pm
June 3, 2010, 2:39 pm