David Brooks: Moron or Liar?

David Brooks's op-ed this past Tuesday brought me to the edge of my seat (which is a cube skeleton made solely of edges). It's the latest installment in his long-running performance art piece, David Brooks: Moron or Liar? David's columns rivals the Cremaster cycle for beautiful incomprehensibility; he keeps threatening to prove something, only to whirl away from logic at the last instant like a toreador. "The Limits of Policy" dares to ask why brown people are poor. Dare we answer? Oh wait, David Brooks has the answer. They did it to themselves!

"Roughly a century ago, many Swedes immigrated to America. They’ve done very well here. Only about 6.7 percent of Swedish-Americans live in poverty. Also a century ago, many Swedes decided to remain in Sweden. They’ve done well there, too. When two economists calculated Swedish poverty rates according to the American standard, they found that 6.7 percent of the Swedes in Sweden were living in poverty."

Folger's was wrong; the best part of waking up is reading lies in your newspaper. First of all, there was more than one wave of immigration from Sweden to the U.S. Wikipedia says:

"Swedish migration peaked in the decades after the American Civil War (1861–1865). By 1890 the U.S. census reported a Swedish-American population of nearly 800,000...After a dip in the 1890s, emigration rose again, causing national alarm in Sweden." This isn't an error, more like a lazy guess David is using to warm up for some real fact-annihilation. But fine, yes, although Brooks makes it sound like like the first wave of Swedish immigration started in the early 20th century when it really began about forty years before that, what he said was so vague that I can't nail him.

Secondly, look at the last sentence. Swedish poverty rates calculated according to the American standard. Wikipedia says: "The poverty threshold, or poverty line, is the minimum level of income deemed necessary to achieve an adequate standard of living in a given country." If you're calculating that 6.7% of Swedes in Sweden live below the poverty line according to the American standard, that means your data indicate that 6.7% of Swedes living in Sweden aren't earning enough income to achieve an adequate standard of living in America.

But Swedes don't live in America. They live in Sweden, where they pay significantly more income tax than Americans, and as a result have much better social programs. I think it's possible that the cost of living in Sweden is much lower (due to superior social programs, among other things), which means that assessing the Swedish population below the American poverty line won't tell you much about how many people are poor in Sweden. The CIA world factbook doesn't have a statistic for Swedes below the poverty line in Sweden, but I'm glad Brooks made one up for our benefit.

"A similar pattern applies to health care. In 1950, Swedes lived an average of 2.6 years longer than Americans. Over the next half-century, Sweden and the U.S. diverged politically. Sweden built a large welfare state with a national health service, while the U.S. did not. The result? There was basically no change in the life expectancy gap. Swedes now live 2.7 years longer."

The Food Stamp Act was passed in 1964. Medicare and Medicaid (national health services) were created in 1965. Brooks doesn't credit them with helping to keep pace with Swedish life expectancies, of course.

"Again, huge policy differences. Not huge outcome differences."

Those dumb Swedes! All that socialism for naught. Now, please ignore our own socialist programs while we move on to the next point -

"As you’d expect, ethnicity correlates to huge differences in how people live. Nationally, 50 percent of Asian-American adults have a college degree, compared with 31 percent of whites, 17 percent of African-Americans and 13 percent of Hispanics. Asian-Americans have a life expectancy of 87 years compared with 79 years for whites and 73 years for African-Americans. Even in struggling parts of the country, Asian-Americans do well. In Michigan, for example, the Asian-American life expectancy is 90, while for the average white person it’s 79 and for the average African-American it’s 73. Income and education levels are also much higher."

Brooks cites Michigan as one of the "struggling parts of the country," but the life expectancy for white and African-American people is the same as the national average he cites two lines before that, and the Asian-American life expectancy in MI is above the national average, so I'm not sure what he's proving here. Money? Were you wondering when money would come up? I was, too. Oh, there it is! Income and education levels are also much higher. "Where?" and "for whom?" and "so what?" are questions he doesn't address.

"The region you live in also makes a gigantic difference in how you will live. There are certain high-trust regions where highly educated people congregate, producing positive feedback loops of good culture and good human capital programs. This mostly happens in the northeastern states like New Jersey and Connecticut. There are other regions with low social trust, low education levels and negative feedback loops. This mostly happens in southern states like Arkansas and West Virginia."

High-trust region? What? I googled that phrase so you wouldn't have to. Businessdictionary.com says that a high-trust arrangement is a "work arrangement where employees have a great deal of autonomy and control. Accompanied by corresponding accountability and responsibilities."

Brooks does not deign to clarify what "positive feedback loops of good culture" are (George W. Bush going to Yale as a legacy admit?), nor does he explain what he means by "good human capital programs." New Jersey and Connecticut are the number two and number three richest states in the U.S., respectively. Arkansas and West Virginia are 48th and 49th. So, rich people get very educated and move places, creating shangri-las of locally-grown food wherever they settle. Marvelous. If only we could convince these lazy southerners to stop being so stupid and eating so poorly, they'd get rich!

"If you combine the influence of ethnicity and region, you get astounding lifestyle gaps. The average Asian-American in New Jersey lives an amazing 26 years longer and is 11 times more likely to have a graduate degree than the average American Indian in South Dakota."

If I ever meet David Brooks, I am going to introduce him to the concept of intervening variables.

"When you try to account for life outcome differences this gigantic, you find yourself beyond narrow economic incentives and in the murky world of social capital. What matters are historical experiences, cultural attitudes, child-rearing practices, family formation patterns, expectations about the future, work ethics and the quality of social bonds."

Now we're getting to the heart of this column: the poor are poor for a bunch of reasons, none of which are the fault of the rich. It's a shame, but what can you do?

"Researchers have tried to disaggregate the influence of these soft factors and have found it nearly impossible. All we can say for sure is that different psychological, cultural and social factors combine in myriad ways to produce different viewpoints. As a result of these different viewpoints, the average behavior is different between different ethnic and geographic groups, leading to different life outcomes."

All we can say for sure is that Native Americans have a different viewpoint, with different outcomes. It's just that way! No one knows why this is so. Are they sad?

"It is very hard for policy makers to use money to directly alter these viewpoints. In her book, “What Money Can’t Buy,” Susan E. Mayer of the University of Chicago calculated what would happen if you could double the income of the poorest Americans. The results would be disappointingly small. Doubling parental income would barely reduce dropout rates of the children. It would have a small effect on reducing teen pregnancy. It would barely improve child outcomes overall."

I laughed out loud at this part at first, but now I think I can imagine how such a calculation would work: keep all variables but income constant (race, age, location) and then compare outcomes at the lower income level (Professor Mayer used $15,000) with those at the higher income level ($30,000). Unfortunately, I can't find refutation for this; it just sounds completely absurd. This is a stock Republican position; the poor are poor because of laziness or sin (recast in this column as "different viewpoints") and they remain poor because they deserve it. Calvinism! If you're rich, it's because you and your positive feedback loops earned it!

If money matters so little, why do tax cuts help the poor, again?

"Therefore, the first rule of policy-making should be, don’t promulgate a policy that will destroy social bonds. If you take tribes of people, exile them from their homelands and ship them to strange, arid lands, you’re going to produce bad outcomes for generations. Second, try to establish basic security. If the government can establish a basic level of economic and physical security, people may create a culture of achievement — if you’re lucky. Third, try to use policy to strengthen relationships. The best policies, like good preschool and military service, fortify emotional bonds."

Brooks is bravely condemning the theft of Native American lands (though not the genocides against them, and nor is he suggesting that we do anything akin to reparations). Say what you will about David, but he's not afraid to take controversial positions. Establish basic security - check. Maintain homeostasis - check.

"The best policies, like good preschool and military service, fortify emotional bonds."

Preschool!? You've gone too far, Brooks. But, uh, military service fortifies emotional bonds? Do you have a cite for that? Which part of the military fortifies emotional bonds: the fact that the suicide rate for veterans is double that of average Americans? Don't ask, don't tell? Stop-loss?

"Finally, we should all probably calm down about politics. Most of the proposals we argue about so ferociously will have only marginal effects on how we live, especially compared with the ethnic, regional and social differences that we so studiously ignore."

Dudes, dudes, just chill. Let's just let the status quo ... status, you know?

David Brooks casts himself as the calm voice of reason (the Barack, if you will) in a discourse full of angry ideologues, but this column is just a reiteration of the conservative platform. The status quo is the status quo because nature/god/justice made it this way (it certainly wasn't our white male government and business interests). This is a great position to take if you and your donors are beneficiaries of the status quo. Brooks' contribution to this intellectual dynamite is a big ol' shrug. Some weird mix of culture and social differences must be screwing up things for African- and Native Americans, but it's so hard to know what, exactly. But let's not get worked up trying to use policy to fix the legacy of slavery (unmentioned), jim crow laws (unmentioned), workplace discrimination (unmentioned), genocide (unmentioned), reservations. Nothing can be done!

“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”
- a man who inherited a sixty million fish

Works at a furniture store. Taking the LSAT this fall. Loves Audrey, puppies, and frisbee. Hates gradually losing his ability to feel outrage.