Thomas Frank: What's the Matter with Liberals?

[Frodo]

this is one of the best analyses yet of the 2004 election that i have read.  it describes how since the closing days of the Vietnam War, the mantle of populism has passed decisively to the conservatives taking advantage of cultural resentments of ordinary Americans, using them to advance their agenda that works to the disadvantage of working class Americans but nonetheless seems utterly ignored by the Left.  his advice is one we should heed:

What's the Matter with Liberals?
By Thomas Frank
1.

For more than thirty-five years, American politics has followed a populist pattern as predictable as a Punch and Judy show and as conducive to enlightened statesmanship as the cycles of a noisy washing machine. The antagonists of this familiar melodrama are instantly recognizable: the average American, humble, long-suffering, working hard, and paying his taxes; and the liberal elite, the know-it-alls of Manhattan and Malibu, sipping their lattes as they lord it over the peasantry with their fancy college degrees and their friends in the judiciary.

Conservatives generally regard class as an unacceptable topic when the subject is economics—trade, deregulation, shifting the tax burden, expressing worshipful awe for the microchip, etc. But define politics as culture, and class instantly becomes for them the very blood and bone of public discourse. Indeed, from George Wallace to George W. Bush, a class-based backlash against the perceived arrogance of liberalism has been one of their most powerful weapons. Workerist in its rhetoric but royalist in its economic effects, this backlash is in no way embarrassed by its contradictions. It understands itself as an uprising of the little people even when its leaders, in control of all three branches of government, cut taxes on stock dividends and turn the screws on the bankrupt. It mobilizes angry voters by the millions, despite the patent unwinnability of many of its crusades. And from the busing riots of the Seventies to the culture wars of our own time, the backlash has been ignored, downplayed, or misunderstood by liberals.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17982

[dazzleman]

Well, at least he assigns some blame to liberals for their current predicament, unlike books like "What's Wrong with Kansas" that basically argue that it is all the fault of devilishly clever conservatives that ordinary people have been hoodwinked into voting Republican.

Still, I disagree with the major premise of this article - which implies that liberal policies really would be better for the middle and working class.

The situation as I see it is this.  In the 1960s, as the New Deal morphed into the Great Society, liberals crossed the line from seeking to help the ordinary person to targeting help at a smaller segment of society, and implicitly blaming the moderately successful for the plight of the poor.

As this took place, liberals became more and more elitist.  And while professing great concern for the poor, blacks, women, etc., liberal behavior never matched up to their rhetoric.

The liberal answer to the race issue was largely to attempt to impose, through undemocratic means, forced integration between the white lower middle class and the black underclass.  This would ease the liberal conscience about the race situation, while conveniently exempting more wealthy liberals from the actual results.

By the late 1970s, liberalism was a caricature.  Liberals supported and applauded US defeat in Vietnam, and were doing all in their power to undermine our national security at the climax of the Cold War.  Liberals, from their wealthy neighborhoods, defended criminals who preyed on those with lesser means.  And liberals supported ever higher taxes on the middle class via bracket creep - lower income people moving into higher tax brackets through inflation, not through actually accumulating greater purchasing power.

Liberal behavior, attitudes and policy have left "ordinary" people (as if there's really any such thing) no other place to go but the Republican party.  The idea of "ordinary people" is sometimes another form of liberal condescension, though conservatives use the term also.  But for those without the means to exempt themselves from the actual results of liberal policies, there really is no other place to go.

The issue is not just class jealousy, though there is a component of that.  It really is the accurate perception that the effect of liberal policies on day-to-day life is negative for most who are not wealthy.  The lower middle class has, in many places, has lost the ability to get a good education for their children due to forced integration with violent ghetto neighborhoods.  This is just a fact, though liberals would call me a racist for pointing it out, while sending their own kids to lily-white suburban public schools or expensive and exclusive private schools.  This is a practical result of liberal policies, and their resentment is not based on class jealousy, except to the extent that liberals have exempted themselves from what they have forced on others.  Liberal softness toward crime is another thing that has had a large negative effect on those who live on the front lines of crime, and not in far-off suburban neighborhoods or in places with private security of some kind.

I think liberals need to really take an honest look at what their policies have done to the working class before they keep insinuating that the working class is stupid for not supporting them.

[opebo]

It hardly seems fair to blame a political ideology or movement for being above the simple minds of the masses. 

[Rob]

Thomas Frank is an excellent writer. Of course, he's biased, but for the most part his analyses are good.

[dazzleman]

It hardly seems fair to blame a political ideology or movement for being above the simple minds of the masses. 

Since you explicitly stated in another thread that half the motivation of liberalism was to punish lower class whites for their oppression of blacks, while exempting upper class whites from such negative effects, maybe it's just that the "simple minds" have finally picked up the animus directed at them by the liberals, and have pulled away.

It's delightful how your hypocritical political views are tailored to your own selfish interests, no matter what.

But you're right about one thing - if there was a greater level of intelligence among the public, liberals would have no support whatsoever.

[opebo]

It hardly seems fair to blame a political ideology or movement for being above the simple minds of the masses. 

Since you explicitly stated in another thread that half the motivation of liberalism was to punish lower class whites for their oppression of blacks, while exempting upper class whites from such negative effects, maybe it's just that the "simple minds" have finally picked up the animus directed at them by the liberals, and have pulled away.

Only when their behaviour and views are stupid and intolerant, which alas is frequently.  But I never said that half the motivation of liberalism was to punish lower class whites, I said that half the motivation of liberalism was to make the intolerant oppressors miserable, regardless of whether it helped the oppressed (though obviously it did do the latter as well).  You made the leap that the oppressors were lower class whites.  Personall I think this category included the vast majority of whites of all classes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As should those of all reasonable men.

[dazzleman]

Since you explicitly stated in another thread that half the motivation of liberalism was to punish lower class whites for their oppression of blacks, while exempting upper class whites from such negative effects, maybe it's just that the "simple minds" have finally picked up the animus directed at them by the liberals, and have pulled away.

Only when their behaviour and views are stupid and intolerant, which alas is frequently.  But I never said that half the motivation of liberalism was to punish lower class whites, I said that half the motivation of liberalism was to make the intolerant oppressors miserable, regardless of whether it helped the oppressed (though obviously it did do the latter as well).  You made the leap that the oppressors were lower class whites.  Personall I think this category included the vast majority of whites of all classes.

Well if it's the case that most whites are oppressors, why should only the poorer ones suffer?  That's the practical effect of liberal policies, and much of the aim of liberal policies, as you acknowledged.  The real goal of liberalism is to make poor whites pay the whole freight for the "historical crimes" of the white race, as you and migrendel made clear in your attitude toward busing in South Boston.  Thank you for explicitly confirming what I've been saying about liberals for a long time.

[TeePee4Prez]

Well, at least he assigns some blame to liberals for their current predicament, unlike books like "What's Wrong with Kansas" that basically argue that it is all the fault of devilishly clever conservatives that ordinary people have been hoodwinked into voting Republican.

Still, I disagree with the major premise of this article - which implies that liberal policies really would be better for the middle and working class.

The situation as I see it is this.  In the 1960s, as the New Deal morphed into the Great Society, liberals crossed the line from seeking to help the ordinary person to targeting help at a smaller segment of society, and implicitly blaming the moderately successful for the plight of the poor.

As this took place, liberals became more and more elitist.  And while professing great concern for the poor, blacks, women, etc., liberal behavior never matched up to their rhetoric.

The liberal answer to the race issue was largely to attempt to impose, through undemocratic means, forced integration between the white lower middle class and the black underclass.  This would ease the liberal conscience about the race situation, while conveniently exempting more wealthy liberals from the actual results.

By the late 1970s, liberalism was a caricature.  Liberals supported and applauded US defeat in Vietnam, and were doing all in their power to undermine our national security at the climax of the Cold War.  Liberals, from their wealthy neighborhoods, defended criminals who preyed on those with lesser means.  And liberals supported ever higher taxes on the middle class via bracket creep - lower income people moving into higher tax brackets through inflation, not through actually accumulating greater purchasing power.

Liberal behavior, attitudes and policy have left "ordinary" people (as if there's really any such thing) no other place to go but the Republican party.  The idea of "ordinary people" is sometimes another form of liberal condescension, though conservatives use the term also.  But for those without the means to exempt themselves from the actual results of liberal policies, there really is no other place to go.

The issue is not just class jealousy, though there is a component of that.  It really is the accurate perception that the effect of liberal policies on day-to-day life is negative for most who are not wealthy.  The lower middle class has, in many places, has lost the ability to get a good education for their children due to forced integration with violent ghetto neighborhoods.  This is just a fact, though liberals would call me a racist for pointing it out, while sending their own kids to lily-white suburban public schools or expensive and exclusive private schools.  This is a practical result of liberal policies, and their resentment is not based on class jealousy, except to the extent that liberals have exempted themselves from what they have forced on others.  Liberal softness toward crime is another thing that has had a large negative effect on those who live on the front lines of crime, and not in far-off suburban neighborhoods or in places with private security of some kind.

I think liberals need to really take an honest look at what their policies have done to the working class before they keep insinuating that the working class is stupid for not supporting them.

I know I'm going to PA 13-ize this, but I think the conservatives love the fact that focred integration and Section 8 housing is placed in working class white neighborhoods such as those in Northeast Philadelphia so they can garner votes from places never thought possible.  This also coupled with the socially conservative attitudes of white cops that have to make their homes within city limits plus the Catholic schools enforcing a strict "moral" doctrine, if you can call it that.  This is why I oppose school vouchers, though I went to Catholic school K to 12 myself.  I think the voucher idea is an excuse to ultimately destroy public education and underfund schools in underprivileged areas.  I find many white parents go into deep debt to avoid sending their kids to public school so they send them to these schools that are nowhere near as good as the suburban ones such as Abington or Council Rock and pay almost $5,000 per student with tutition and fees.  Is this fair?  Your "choices" are pay $5,000 for a school that is roughly in the 40th-50th percentile in overall performance or a run down public school.  IHMO, neither of these choices will prepare even a top student for a nationally ranked university.  Now, I could have probably went to Central or Masterman, which are magnet public schools and are pretty decent in terms of education.  At the time I was so used to the Catholic school system, I chose not to.     

For the record, I grew up in a neighborhood like the one you were just talking about.  I find a fair number of people get an automatic penchant for a conservative attitude including many of my own friends and family.   

[dazzleman]

I know I'm going to PA 13-ize this, but I think the conservatives love the fact that focred integration and Section 8 housing is placed in working class white neighborhoods such as those in Northeast Philadelphia so they can garner votes from places never thought possible.  This also coupled with the socially conservative attitudes of white cops that have to make their homes within city limits plus the Catholic schools enforcing a strict "moral" doctrine, if you can call it that.  This is why I oppose school vouchers, though I went to Catholic school K to 12 myself.  I think the voucher idea is an excuse to ultimately destroy public education and underfund schools in underprivileged areas.  I find many white parents go into deep debt to avoid sending their kids to public school so they send them to these schools that are nowhere near as good as the suburban ones such as Abington or Council Rock and pay almost $5,000 per student with tutition and fees.  Is this fair?  Your "choices" are pay $5,000 for a school that is roughly in the 40th-50th percentile in overall performance or a run down public school.  IHMO, neither of these choices will prepare even a top student for a nationally ranked university.  Now, I could have probably went to Central or Masterman, which are magnet public schools and are pretty decent in terms of education.  At the time I was so used to the Catholic school system, I chose not to.     

For the record, I grew up in a neighborhood like the one you were just talking about.  I find a fair number of people get an automatic penchant for a conservative attitude including many of my own friends and family.   

I don't deny that Republicans have picked up votes from conservative Democrats as a result of forced integration in urban areas.  But that is not the same thing as developing a bad policy, and forcing it on a group of people, from without, through undemocratic means.  That is what liberals have done to the white working class.  Republicans would be stupid not to try to capitalize on this situation, and working class whites deserve some representation, having been abandoned by the party to which they previously gave their loyalty.

I am well acquainted with the urban education situation that you described.  Forced integration effectively brought all or most city schools down to the level of those in ghetto neighborhoods.  It has been a bad policy which has been directly aimed at the working class white population, and forced on them by liberals through undemocratic means. 

I notice you didn't disagree with my main point on this.  In fact, you went out of your way to present facts that say I'm right about the urban education situation.  You just seem to somehow equate Republican attempts to translate the effects of this bad policy, which they did not support, into additional votes with the guilt of those who conceived and executed the policy in such an incompetent and hateful manner.  That is, sad to say, typical liberal logic.

[opebo]

Well if it's the case that most whites are oppressors, why should only the poorer ones suffer?  That's the practical effect of liberal policies, and much of the aim of liberal policies, as you acknowledged. 

That is because we retain capitalism, where you can normally buy your way out of any situation you find uncomfortable.  The most obvious method is private schooling.  The only way I can think of around that is to tax the rich to pay for numerous scholarships to private schools, thus exposing them to the presence of blacks in a similar fashion to the exposure of poor whites to blacks caused by the integration of public schools.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When you say 'pay the whole freight' you obviously don't mean financially - you mean suffering the deleterious effects of the proximity of black people.  That viewpoint is racist, but I won't object to it, as I understand that poor whites are themselves in a desperate situation, and highly vulnerable to crime and so forth regardless of whether the cause is (as they seem to think) some innate bad qualities of blacks, or in fact what is being done to them by their oppressors.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Liberals, from their wealthy neighborhoods,

Yer funny.

[phk]

Liberals, from their wealthy neighborhoods,

Yer funny.

I think he's referring to Rockefeller Republicans who have morphed into what we call a latte liberal.

[Beet]

Thomas Frank is a greater writer.

The only problem is that the liberals didn't "sacrifice the liberal economic policies that used to connect them to such voters on the altar of centrism". The problem was their economic policies just kept getting more and more liberal, and then-- pop! Between 1966 and 1982, the Dow Jones Industrials Average lost 80% of its value, once you adjust for inflation. That's almost a great a fall as 1929-1932. The rise of the neoclassicists, the monetarists, the the supply-siders, in the 1970s were all brought about by episode after episode of economic collapse, stagflation, and unemployment. Again and again the liberals tried their policies-- big government, price controls, regulation-- only to be beaten down by the most revolutionary transformation of the developed economy since the end of World War II. By the mid-1980s 'structural re-adjustment' applied not only to the U.S. but to virtually every country around the globe, including the communist bloc. When Walter Mondale defeated economic centrist candidate Gary Hart in the 1984 primaries with the line "Where's the Beef?" he went on to lose in one of the most humiliating landslides ever. By 1992, with the fall of the Soviet Union and Reagan's economic policies, the DJIA had gained over 300% to record highs.

It was in this historic context, not a vacuum, that liberals "sacrified" the go-go economic policies of "the affluent society" that had characterized the 50s and 60s. So while it is easy for Frank to point fingers, he should remember what it is that got us here in the first place.

[opebo]

The only problem is that the liberals didn't "sacrifice the liberal economic policies that used to connect them to such voters on the altar of centrism". The problem was their economic policies just kept getting more and more liberal, and then-- pop! Between 1966 and 1982, the Dow Jones Industrials Average lost 80% of its value, once you adjust for inflation.

Mostly due to oil prices.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And during this period of high stock market returns the wages of the working class plummeted.  As they have been doing for 30 years.

[Beet]

The only problem is that the liberals didn't "sacrifice the liberal economic policies that used to connect them to such voters on the altar of centrism". The problem was their economic policies just kept getting more and more liberal, and then-- pop! Between 1966 and 1982, the Dow Jones Industrials Average lost 80% of its value, once you adjust for inflation.

Mostly due to oil prices.

I often wonder what would have happened had not Nasser closed the port of Aqaba and made belligerent threats towards the vulnerable Israel in the spring of 1967. The Six Day War would not have happened, so Islamic fundamentalism would not have arisen from the subsequent discredition of pan-Arab nationalism. Thus there would have been no Yom Kippur War of 1973 to avenge the Six Day War. Thus there would have been no first oil shock in response to American resupply of Israel during the Yom Kippur war. Thus the Iranian regime would not have mismanaged any newly acquired oil wealth. Thus there would have been no the second oil shock resulting from the Iranian revolution resulting from the government's mismanagement of oil wealth expectations. Thus there would have been no high interest rate austerity policies of the early 1980s in order to control inflation arising from high oil prices. Thus there would have been no Latin America's lost decade and a 20-year slowdown in world economic growth resulting from the interest rate hike. Thus the beginning of that slowdown would not have led to the rise of the neoclassicists and the "washington consensus" to muck our way out of the misery. Thus there would have been no 25 years of reduced productivity growth in the OECD as the global economy "restructured". Thus there would have been no age of globalization and inequality we have today as a result of that restructuring. God does find a way of making what goes on in the Holy Land relevant, doesn't he?

Ok, now that I've gotten that out of my system, I was just joking in the above paragraph. Blaming all of that on the Six Day War is like blaming a wrong turn by Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand's chauffeur for Hitler-- it probably would have happened eventually anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't "plummet" but rose more slowly than the upper classes.

[opebo]

The only problem is that the liberals didn't "sacrifice the liberal economic policies that used to connect them to such voters on the altar of centrism". The problem was their economic policies just kept getting more and more liberal, and then-- pop! Between 1966 and 1982, the Dow Jones Industrials Average lost 80% of its value, once you adjust for inflation.

Mostly due to oil prices.

I often wonder what would have happened had not Nasser closed the port of Aqaba and made belligerent threats towards the vulnerable Israel in the spring of 1967. The Six Day War would not have happened, so Islamic fundamentalism would not have arisen from the subsequent discredition of pan-Arab nationalism. Thus there would have been no Yom Kippur War of 1973 to avenge the Six Day War. Thus there would have been no first oil shock in response to American resupply of Israel during the Yom Kippur war. Thus the Iranian regime would not have mismanaged any newly acquired oil wealth. Thus there would have been no the second oil shock resulting from the Iranian revolution resulting from the government's mismanagement of oil wealth expectations. Thus there would have been no high interest rate austerity policies of the early 1980s in order to control inflation arising from high oil prices. Thus there would have been no Latin America's lost decade and a 20-year slowdown in world economic growth resulting from the interest rate hike. Thus the beginning of that slowdown would not have led to the rise of the neoclassicists and the "washington consensus" to muck our way out of the misery. Thus there would have been no 25 years of reduced productivity growth in the OECD as the global economy "restructured". Thus there would have been no age of globalization and inequality we have today as a result of that restructuring. God does find a way of making what goes on in the Holy Land relevant, doesn't he?

Ok, now that I've gotten that out of my system, I was just joking in the above paragraph. Blaming all of that on the Six Day War is like blaming a wrong turn by Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand's chauffeur for Hitler-- it probably would have happened eventually anyways.

What a lot of typing.  The point was that the economic polices were not at fault, the rise in oil prices was.  Had the economy been laissez-faire at that time the increase in oil prices would've caused great misery and dislocation as well.  Not unlike the minor ill effects being caused by our current comparatively tiny increase in oil prices.

[dazzleman]

When you say 'pay the whole freight' you obviously don't mean financially - you mean suffering the deleterious effects of the proximity of black people.  That viewpoint is racist, but I won't object to it, as I understand that poor whites are themselves in a desperate situation, and highly vulnerable to crime and so forth regardless of whether the cause is (as they seem to think) some innate bad qualities of blacks, or in fact what is being done to them by their oppressors.

Yes, it is somewhat racist, but realistic.  While there are ignorant people who dislike blacks just because of their race, that's not the whole story.  Proximity to UNDERCLASS blacks has a huge deleterious effect on anybody's quality of life.  Everybody knows this, including blacks who don't fit that description.  People of all income levels and races perceive - correctly - that proximity to underclass blacks will make their lives much worse.

The difference between well-off white liberals and poor whites is that well-off white liberals will never admit this, since they have enough money to exempt themselves from the forced integration that they advocate.  I don't think that those of us who are able to use financial means to escape the effects of forced integration with underclass blacks ought to be critical of those who object to that which we ourselves would never accept.

Your logic that somehow white "oppressors" force the black underclass to act the way it does is tiresome.  With friends like you, they don't need enemies.

[Beet]

Unfortunately for the "working class" is the sad fact that one of the biggest preservers of the wealth disparity in this country is that the upper classes have successfully divided the "working" classes based on race. As long as people put racial prejudice ahead of their economic interests, they won't progress, but they seem perfectly happy with that.

[dazzleman]

Unfortunately for the "working class" is the sad fact that one of the biggest preservers of the wealth disparity in this country is that the upper classes have successfully divided the "working" classes based on race. As long as people put racial prejudice ahead of their economic interests, they won't progress, but they seem perfectly happy with that.

I really don't agree with that line of reasoning.  There is definitely a greater degree of racial animus among the lower classes, but that arises largely from objective conditions, not as a result of upper class manipulation.

The working class is not as mobile as the upper class, and can't necessarily afford to move if their neighborhoods become infested with crime, or their local schools become violent.  The associate blacks - not totally without reason - with this threat of crime and violence.  Their lack of mobility creates a sense of vulnerability that makes them much more hostile to any perceived threats to the modest degree of success they have obtained.

I think you make a mistake to equate the white working class with non-working underclass blacks.  This is the mistake many have made, and it is an explosive combination.

One thing I have noticed is that other minorities - most notably Asians and Puerto Ricans - are increasingly openly hostile to blacks, in the same way working class whites have been accused of.

Upper middle class whites don't express the same hostility toward blacks, but are they (we in my case) really any better?  We just have the money to live far enough away from crime-infested neighborhoods and to avoid violence-plagued schools.  Upper middle class liberal whites would be singing a very different tune if they actually had to deal with these things.

Even though I am of Irish descent, I never knew much about the history of the Irish in America until recently because my parents discouraged identifying with any heritage other than American.  But I have discovered that the history of the Irish is remarkably similar to the history of blacks.  The Irish pulled themselves out of the poverty that afflicted them for so long, and the lack of acceptance from the larger society that plagued them for so long, by taking upon themselves to ostracize the members of their own group who were bringing them down.

This is something blacks will have to do in order to improve their position.  By embracing and defending what is worst about their community, they allow what is worst to define them in the public eye.  Many blacks know this, but are afraid to say so, for fear of being called "Uncle Toms."  It's a very sad situation, and it's not being helped by liberal condescension on race, or theories that somehow absolve blacks of any responsibility for their problems, or finding a solution to them.

[WMS]

One thing I have noticed is that other minorities - most notably Asians and Puerto Ricans - are increasingly openly hostile to blacks, in the same way working class whites have been accused of.

Hispanics do the same thing here. I've heard the n-word far more from Hispanics than from whites in NM...

[Storebought]

The premise of Frank's argument is essentially Marxist: the poor aren't conscious of their sufferings as a class by the ruling elite. Ho-hum

[opebo]

Proximity to UNDERCLASS blacks has a huge deleterious effect on anybody's quality of life.  Everybody knows this, including blacks who don't fit that description.  People of all income levels and races perceive - correctly - that proximity to underclass blacks will make their lives much worse.

The difference between well-off white liberals and poor whites is that well-off white liberals will never admit this

I redily admit this, and have never denied it.  However I would say that proximity to 'underclass' whites is also very bad.  The difference is attributable to the fact that poor whites are somewhat less oppressed than poor blacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nevertheless it is an obvious fact, whether you find it tiresome or not.

[angus]

Neither downplayed nor ignored.  Just misunderstood.  I blame the schools.  And they're largely run by "liberals" so yes, I guess I blame the "liberals"

You feed the schoolkids a diet of processed fatty foods and constant political correctness, and you end up with a generation of hapless overweight geeks who decide they want to become "feminists"  That's just reality, man.  And bitching about it won't solve the problem. 

I also think there's some duplicity.  Flyers makes a good point.  But keep in mind that both sides are guilty of this sort of aggrandizing.  But as I pointed out in the Krugman thread, and Dazzleman points out here, this is typical of "liberal logic", or to use Frank's own words, they simply "misunderstand" the problem.  And it's going to get worse before it gets better.  That's one view I have acquired from posting here and reading posts.  The posters are mostly from the under-30 crowd, so it's a nice window on the failings of the American educational systems.

[WMS]

Neither downplayed nor ignored.  Just misunderstood.  I blame the schools.  And they're largely run by "liberals" so yes, I guess I blame the "liberals"

You feed the schoolkids a diet of processed fatty foods and constant political correctness, and you end up with a generation of hapless overweight geeks who decide they want to become "feminists"  That's just reality, man.  And bitching about it won't solve the problem. 

I also think there's some duplicity.  Flyers makes a good point.  But keep in mind that both sides are guilty of this sort of aggrandizing.  But as I pointed out in the Krugman thread, and Dazzleman points out here, this is typical of "liberal logic", or to use Frank's own words, they simply "misunderstand" the problem.  And it's going to get worse before it gets better.  That's one view I have acquired from posting here and reading posts.  The posters are mostly from the under-30 crowd, so it's a nice window on the failings of the American educational systems.

Re: the failings of American educational systems:

In my school, it was possible to get a good education...if you took the 'honors' or 'enriched' level classes, that is. (If you took the 'regular' level classes...eh.)

Know what the local liberals are doing here? They're eliminating all of the honors and enriched classes and forcing everyone into regular classes. They claim it's so that the rest of the students can benefit from the same level of education, or that all students will have the same level of education, or some dippy left-wing theory of the local lefty College of Education. What they will actually do, of course, is drag down everyone's level of education and make it so everyone is mediocre together.

You think it's bad now...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Re: the failings of American educational systems:

In my school, it was possible to get a good education...if you took the 'honors' or 'enriched' level classes, that is. (If you took the 'regular' level classes...eh.)

Know what the local liberals are doing here? They're eliminating all of the honors and enriched classes and forcing everyone into regular classes. They claim it's so that the rest of the students can benefit from the same level of education, or that all students will have the same level of education, or some dippy left-wing theory of the local lefty College of Education. What they will actually do, of course, is drag down everyone's level of education and make it so everyone is mediocre together.

You think it's bad now...

Those aren't liberals. You can stop your liberal bashing now.