Krugman: U.S. Is Totally Racist Because Of No Welfare State And White Flight 40 Years Ago

Democrats very much want a “national conversation” on race post-Charleston shooting. Well, what they really want is a soliloquy, as well as a massive amount of Blamestorming, particularly of Republicans. It seems that Democrats haven’t gotten over losing the Civil War 150 years ago, along with losing when it came to eradicating Jim Crow/Segregation laws and the passage of the Civil Rights laws. Here’s comes Paul Krugman

Slavery’s Long Shadow

America is a much less racist nation than it used to be, and I’m not just talking about the still remarkable fact that an African-American occupies the White House. The raw institutional racism that prevailed before the civil rights movement ended Jim Crow is gone, although subtler discrimination persists. Individual attitudes have changed, too, dramatically in some cases. For example, as recently as the 1980s half of Americans opposed interracial marriage, a position now held by only a tiny minority.

Yet racial hatred is still a potent force in our society, as we’ve just been reminded to our horror. And I’m sorry to say this, but the racial divide is still a defining feature of our political economy, the reason America is unique among advanced nations in its harsh treatment of the less fortunate and its willingness to tolerate unnecessary suffering among its citizens.

Of course, saying this brings angry denials from many conservatives, so let me try to be cool and careful here, and cite some of the overwhelming evidence for the continuing centrality of race in our national politics.

OK. Let’s see it.

The first, by the political scientist Larry Bartels, analyzed the move of the white working class away from Democrats, a move made famous in Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” Mr. Frank argued that working-class whites were being induced to vote against their own interests by the right’s exploitation of cultural issues. But Mr. Bartels showed that the working-class turn against Democrats wasn’t a national phenomenon — it was entirely restricted to the South, where whites turned overwhelmingly Republican after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Richard Nixon’s adoption of the so-called Southern strategy.

So, white flight from Detroit, which started well over 40 years ago. Perhaps Mr. Krugman could explain why Whites fled Detroit. Oh, wait, we can see the results of what happened: falling property values, a massive increase in crime, a collapse of the education system, a collapse of the economic values, a collapse of social capital. Can Paul explain why, in the absence of the fleeing Whites, Detroit, went from being called the Paris of the West to being called the Mogadishu of America? Why it has been called the murder capital of the US many times? Why Whites were no longer considered welcome per the words of the first Black mayor of Detroit, Coleman Young, who also said that Detroit was now a Black city? And spent oodles of money only on Blacks? Oh, right, we aren’t allowed to have that conversation, because it doesn’t fit the soliloquy.

The second paper, by the economists Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote, was titled “Why Doesn’t the United States Have a European-style Welfare State?” Its authors — who are not, by the way, especially liberal — explored a number of hypotheses, but eventually concluded that race is central, because in America programs that help the needy are all too often seen as programs that help Those People: “Within the United States, race is the single most important predictor of support for welfare. America’s troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state.”

Interesting. We can certainly discuss the idiocy of not having a welfare state being raaaaacism, but, let’s wonder about Liberals thinking that Blacks cannot survive without welfare and massive help from government. Is that not racist, believing that Blacks are too stupid, too lazy, to succeed on their own? Have you ever seen Liberal like Paul Krugman call for a welfare state for Asians, Latinos, or Whites, among others?

And it’s not just health reform: a history of slavery is a strong predictor of everything from gun control (or rather its absence), to low minimum wages and hostility to unions, to tax policy.

So, unless you follow the far, far left Progressive policy prescriptions, you’re racist. Soliloquy.

But that hasn’t happened yet. Every once in a while you hear a chorus of voices declaring that race is no longer a problem in America. That’s wishful thinking; we are still haunted by our nation’s original sin.

Of course, Democrats will never let this meme go, and will never work to better race relations (which, interestingly, have gotten worse with Obama’s election). How better to keep Blacks in the box Democrats put them in? Is it not racism to see Blacks as an interest group, rather than individuals with different hopes and aspirations? Dems raise money off of this, get support from the Black community, despite Liberals being very bad for Blacks. Republicans freed the slaves: Democrats did all they could to put them back in chains. Today’s chains are ghettos of crime and despair in mostly liberal cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Newark, Chicago, Birmingham, and others.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Krugman: U.S. Is Totally Racist Because Of No Welfare State And White Flight 40 Years Ago”

  1. Jeffery says:

    We can certainly discuss the idiocy of not having a welfare state being racism, but, let’s wonder about Liberals thinking that Blacks cannot survive without welfare and massive help from government. Is that not racist, believing that Blacks are too stupid, too lazy, to succeed on their own?

    Do you really believe that helping someone in need indicates that the recipient is “too stupid, too lazy, to succeed on their own?”

    Is that in the Bible or something? Don’t help the less fortunate, especially if they’re different?

    You misrepresented Dr. Krugman’s thesis. Krugman posits that the reason behind conservatives’ vehement opposition to any sort of help for our citizens (unemployment, “welfare”, universal healthcare, education, mass transit, economic stimulus etc) is racism. This is not a novel idea. Most liberals recognize this anti-intellectual flaw in our conservative brethren. Poor whites are collateral damage in the conservative war on the Negro. It’s not a coincidence that conservative policy prescriptions hurt minorities.

    Have you ever seen Liberal like Paul Krugman call for a welfare state for Asians, Latinos, or Whites, among others?

    That’s stupid. The answer is yes. Social welfare would benefit all the less fortunate, whether Asian, Latino, Black or white. No liberal is advocating help to only Blacks.

  2. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Do you really believe that helping someone in need indicates that the recipient is “too stupid, too lazy, to succeed on their own?”

    Is that in the Bible or something? Don’t help the less fortunate, especially if they’re different?

    2 Thessalonians 3:10 will indicate what my position is.

    The problem is cultural: when welfare started, it was a disgrace to have to rely on handouts, and the vast majority of people who used welfare really needed help. But as the years passed, the stigma of being on welfare decreased, and people who could work became willing to accept welfare in exchange for not having to work, and that population ballooned.

    Now we’ve gone from a cultural feeling of accepting that there would be some cheating, to insure that everybody who needed help got it, to one in which some people, myself certainly among them, would rather see some truly needy people get hurt in order to cut welfare for the malingerers.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    I understand that conservatives believe the following:

    But as the years passed, the stigma of being on welfare decreased, and people who could work became willing to accept welfare in exchange for not having to work, and that population ballooned.

    But is this true? How many people are malingering?

    And when you say “welfare” what do you mean? Cash payments? Or the full panoply – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP etc? When liberals describe the welfare state we’re talking about the total of redistributive programs – education benefits, healthcare, Social Security, unemployment payments, food assistance.

  4. John says:

    Teach you are sounding like Dylann Roof here
    Are black Americans the problem ?

  5. John says:

    Teach you are sounding like Dylann Roof here
    Are black Americans the problem ?
    Crab legs
    They are eating crab legs

  6. jl says:

    “Conservatives vehement opposition to any sort of help for our citizens…is racism. ” Drama queen award! First, hardly anyone is opposed “to any sort of help”, but rather a never-ending handout system. And of course “our citizens” -most opposition is against free hand-outs to non-citizens, Break the law, get rewarded. It has nothing to do with racism.

  7. Jeffery says:

    j,

    Can you be specific regarding what you oppose?

    Congressional Republicans (and some Dems) are looking for ways to “rein in” entitlement spending which would involve cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

    Congressional Republicans want to “rein in” unemployment payments.

    22 red states refused federal Medicaid expansion to help their poorest citizens.

    Congressional Republicans want cuts to education, food security.

    Congressional Republicans want to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy.

    Do you really just object to benefits going to illegal aliens?

Pirate's Cove