“You’re a racist.”
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan received variations of
this epithet when he recently commented on the connection between culture and
poverty:
“We have got this tailspin
of culture in our inner cities, in particular, of men not working, and just
generations of men not even thinking of working, and not learning the value and
the culture of work. So there’s a real
culture problem here that has to be dealt with.”
The response was immediate from the denizens of the left,
including MSNBC commentators and congressional liberals.
Typical was the reaction of Ryan’s fellow representative
and Congressional Black Caucus member Barbara Lee of California:
“Ryan’s comments about inner
city poverty are a thinly veiled racial attack and cannot be tolerated. When he says ‘inner city’ and “culture”,
these are simply code words for black.”
This reflexive response from the left, in a broad sense,
is disheartening if not unsurprising.
I do not know Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, so I am
unable to offer a personal assessment of his motivation. But as a House leader and former Vice Presidential
candidate, apparently well regarded both for his intellect and industriousness,
he deserves a serious hearing without being called names.
Let’s start with some undisputed facts. In the poor areas of most major American
cities, unemployment is higher than in places not impoverished. Many of these poor areas – inner cities –
have mostly black residents.
You might say that’s a meaningless observation. Of course, if people don’t have jobs, they’re
poor. But that fact begs the
question. Why?
To the Barbara Lees of the world, the only agreeable
explanation is racial prejudice (or “racism” as the attitude is now commonly
termed). Otherwise she might, as a black
leader, have to assume some responsibility for a problem caused by factors not
related to race.
Has the blight of racial bias in America weakened over
the past sixty years, for instance?
That’s another indisputable fact.
So what conclusions can we draw from another historical
reality?
In 1954, the unemployment rate among blacks was 10%; in
2013, it was over 13% [the American economy was stronger in 1954 than last year
suggesting that in a healthy economy the black unemployment rate would be lower
than the current level].
If racial prejudice were the sole – or primary – factor
in determining black unemployment levels, one would have expected dramatic
declines over the last sixty years. In
the same period, the unemployment level for whites was relatively stable at
roughly one-half the black rate. With
the change in attitudes in the workplace and broad enforcement and
anti-discrimination employment laws, why hasn’t the rate dropped to the “white
level”?
Logically, therefore, there must be other explanations
for the high jobless rates among blacks that make more sense than “race”.
Ryan referred to “culture”. I doubt he used the word in the sense that a “cultured”
person would appreciate the opera. He
meant the values, ways and customs that influence the manner in which all of us
conduct our lives as they pertain to our employability.
Those with education, skills, discipline, proper attire
and a desire to work are people who possess traits sought by employers. Those who have them are more likely to find
jobs than those who don’t.
A healthy community fosters such a culture.
Alas, over the past sixty years, such a culture has
become less evident in many black communities.
Traditional families – critical to the inculcation of the
positive virtues recited above – have become a small minority of black
households. The illegitimacy rate was
20% in the 1950s. It’s now over 70%. Dependency saps the incentive – need – to
work.
Government dependency has become increasingly common. Nearly one-third of American blacks are on
food stamps! That percentage is
dramatically higher than, say, twenty years ago. [White Americans are also susceptible to the
siren call of Uncle Sugar – 11% receive such benefits – again, sharply more
than decades ago.]
Negative culture is color blind but has apparently made greater
inroads in some communities than others.
This is not a matter of race. All
people are subject to negative influences.
For instance, such negatives appear to be accelerating at a higher rate
among non-black households. To
illustrate, the white illegitimacy rate was 2% in the 1950s. It’s now nearly 30%.
No comments:
Post a Comment