Strong Families, Strong Schools, Stong Government

David Brooks, even when I disagree with him, always picks topics that I find interesting. I admire Kristof's dogged pursuit of ending human genocide, but it's hard to make a good blog post about that. Can't really say more than "go, Nicky."

In Today's Times, Brooks makes the case for a socially conservative and economically progressive agenda to increase social mobility. To increase the wages of Americans, Brooks puts forward an agenda that pumps money into improving schools and families. I'm not really sure why improving schools and strengthening families is conservative, but we'll let that one go for now.

Brooks proposes diverting money from the wealthy by keeping the inheritance tax and giving it to America's families. These funds will give parents an option for one parent to stay home, to invest in savings accounts for their children, and to help find ways to make single men more marriageable. He proposes universal pre-school and schools that are geared to individual student needs.

Fifth, schools need to be tailored to the way children actually are. Different human beings have radically different learning styles. So long as diverse individuals are forced to sit in the same classroom and endure uniform teaching techniques, they’ll underperform. It doesn’t matter whether the school is public, charter or administered by Martians.

I'll take second helpings on the good schools, please.

The truth is that I like all those things that Brooks proposes. I like good schools. I think that families are important. But first of all, those things are more expensive than Brooks lets on. 'Ya think we are going to completely restructure America's schools with just the little ol' inheritance tax? Parents are suddenly going to stop getting divorced and will be more attentive to their kids with a mere thousand dollar or two tax credit? Nah. You are going to have to think bigger and more liberal, David. We're talking about a major fiscal investment. But if Republicans want to cough up the money, it's fine with me.

The second problem is that we still need to do all sorts of other things like job training, increasing the minimum wage, increasing social services. It's hard to be a good parent, especially when you can't find work and when you have demons eating away at you.

We're presently dealing with a family that's in crisis. Three children with well meaning, loving parents, but.... Unemployment. Food kitchens. Domestic abuse. Restraining orders. Children found wandering down major roadways. Depression. Addiction. Hocked engagement ring. It's bad and unbloggable, but it has helped me see how well meaning people can have so much working against them.

I agree with Brooks that struggling families give birth to children who later have their own struggles. Children who witness abuse at home are likely to replicate it in the future. Children need attentive parents who monitor their homework and keep them safe. Good foundations are a necessary step towards social mobility.

However, healthy families need a little more than a tax credit. The parents need help finding work that pays the mortgage. Waitressing doesn't cut it. The pressure of poverty makes parents distracted and irritable and exacerbates any weaknesses or mental illness. These families need counseling and pharmaceuticals to help with addictions or mental illness. They need support from the community.

I'm happy that Brooks recognizes that market alone won't help working class and poor Americans. I'm happy that he recognizes that government can play a positive role in removing obstacles towards social mobility. He just has to be willing to open his wallet wider and make his government a whole lot bigger to achieve his goals.

Comments

[Amy P]

Calling Jane Galt!

[Amy P]

I think David Brooks is brilliant as an anthropologist of the American elite, but he's way out of his depth dictating public policy. It was wrong and wasteful of the NYT to try to make him into an opinion writer.

[Sam]

The thing about Brooks is that he is totally disingenuous. Here he puts forth all sorts of "reasonable" social policy. But he fundamentally supports a ruling party that will never let this happen. Repealing the "death tax" is a core Republican principle. As is resistance toward livable wages. The day he detaches himself from his ideologically-blinded conservative brethren, is the day we can begin to take him seriously.

[Jackie]

I agree with Sam-- it cracks me up, in a sad way, to see Republicans advocating for things that progressives and Democrats have been pursuing for years, as if these are new ideas.

Other than that, this post is exactly what I would have said! so, um, "go, Laura." and "go, Nicky."