Pry the vassals from their squires.  John Kass of Chicago's Tribune concurs.
For decade after decade, Democrats have controlled policy and politics in the broken cities. This is the proof of Democratic success.

The broken schools have been run by Democrats for decades. The broken institutions are run by Democrats.

The political corruption in these cities is Democratic corruption, where government is the hammer used to beat others into forking over their cash.

The corruption tax presses down upon the economic wastelands, where there are no jobs to be had.
Roger Kimball concurs, seeing Donald Trump attempting to pry the vassals from their squires.
As patronizing Democratic programs stifled freedom and individual initiative, and erected an increasingly burdensome (and expensive) governmental cocoon around their minority charges?

The black vote has been largely in the pocket of its new plantation owners.

The "Great Society" did not abolish poverty. That was never the intention. It institutionalized poverty.
Jennifer Rubin of Washington's Post cautions, pointing out failures is easy, suggesting improvements is harder.
Trump doesn’t say, for example, if he’d be willing to spend more on worker training, education and other targeted programs that might address youth unemployment; he does, however, favor a tax plan that hugely benefits the rich. Until Friday, he hadn’t talked much about his plans to fight poverty and discrimination and we still don’t know what he would do, for example, to increase the success rate of African Americans in college or increase access to capital for African American entrepreneurs.
But liberating the vassals isn't only for conservatives.  Witness Jake Johnson's "The Scourge of Neoliberalism: Why the Democratic Party Is Failing the Poor."
Though Democrats were happy to take their votes on election day, lower-income Americans were increasingly faced with a party that had taken on a managerial posture, one characterized by both a growing commitment to market principles and an abandonment of the notion — fostered by the New Deal period — that government could play a significant role in improving the material conditions of the population.
Mr Johnson puts his marker down in favor of more explicitly redistributionist policies, including the creation of more "affordable housing" in prosperous neighborhoods, something that the Democrat-voting squires have none of.  "[P]rogressive attempts to lift poor families in the city — to provide better opportunities for housing, education, and other means of upward mobility — have been met with strong resistance from wealthier communities that, though they increasingly vote Democratic, are wary of attempts to integrate poor and rich neighborhoods."  There are merits in allowing housing markets to work in such a way as to expose poor people to the life-management skills of the middle class, rather than warehousing them in high rises or clustering them in decaying neighborhoods.  That's a post for another day.

At the same time, as Right Wisconsin's Savvy Pundit notes, too frequently policy responses to poverty come in the wake of riots.  "We do all these individuals and organizations a disservice if we act as if the recent riots need to somehow 'spur the community into action.' They’ve been in action for decades!" Generally not in a good way.

No comments: