The Achievement Gap

Hello

keep up the good work


Bye

This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title The Achievement Gap. Thanks for informative article

Re: Dating Republicans... let me guess. It's the "stretching out" part, yes?

I'm said anonymous commenter. I wasn't trying to be mysterious - I must have mis-hit something.

A few points:

1. It is impossible to discuss Democrats without recognizing that there are at least two groups to address. The first is the stereotypical Democrat, who may still exist, particularly at the higher levels of the party - someone who is inclined to look to the govt. for solutions.

But the second group, which, in my milieu is an enormous majority, puts its trust in the market and in competition. We are, for lack of a better term, more libertarian than those who proceeded us. To the extent we are more comfortable with taxes than Republicans or Libertarians, it's because we're sure that while effort and other merit characteristics play a significant part in success, we're under no illusion that (a) it is the whole story, or (b) that the individual is clearly the appropriate unit of productivity. And that, in the end, is probably what we want most - return on investment.

Freedom - hell, we're all about freedom. We're not the ones bitching about Desperate Housewives or clothing malfunctions or blowjobs in the Oval. We deeply don't care.

2. Given that, it's incomprehensible to think that you vote Bush if you want to accomplish things. What metrics could you possibly be looking at? Iraq has moved from "Democracy in the Middle East" to "Allawi - 50% less brutal than Saddam." We took the world's good will from 9/11 and spent it on …what? Clinton moves the unemployment rate bar lower, and this President promptly resets it - "historically, we're doing very well." That'd be great if we hadn't just seen that unemployment could go lower without inflation going crazy.

In that context, Republicans' desires to "stretch" or whatever, are great, but it basically sounds like hippie talk to me - what have they actually accomplished?

I should probably say that the Republican party can probably be split into centrists (GHWB) and the red staters (GWB), as well. The difference between the centrists of the two parties is minimal. That's why you see any number of Democratic fantasies about McCain or (in my case) Weld or GHWB or who will you. If you're a centrist, the reason you chose the Democratic party is b/c we're closer to control there; you've got no shot with the Republicans - that's why Powell's gone and Cheney's not.

3. To the extent that you hear about Dems that want more federalism, it's b/c we can't believe that Republicans looked at this incompetent and pulled the trigger for him. We don't think "oh, you're evil" or something like that. We just now know that you have such a vastly different criteria for success and failure that (a) it's hard to imagine how we'll get together on this, and (b) we're more than a little scared that you're going to drive the country into a ditch, so we'd like to preserve (to the extent possible - we're still one nation) the blue bits if we can.

"How the Democratic Party expects to win the favor of 'King Normal Average' while publicly professing its love for the 'Anti-Normal-Average' crowd is beyond me."

Those on the political fringe often purport to speak for what the lumpen would want if they could just get shed that darned false conscousness.

Ever notice the overlap between indie/alterna-hipster geeks, academics, artistes, and leftists?
All of whom fancy themselves out on the good tail of a bell curve.
Elites, or underappreciated outcasts, but NEVER the 'Normal Average.' (Perish the thought!)
But America really IS a democracy, so the 'Normal Average' is King.
How the Democratic Party expects to win the favor of 'King Normal Average' while publicly professing its love for the 'Anti-Normal-Average' crowd is beyond me.

the annonymous poster wrote:

"the fact that people in the upper echelons of the income brackets appear to agree with Dems on social policy and be voting Republican primarily for the tax cut, etc."

But isn't that the point? The tax cut for the higher tax brackets is at the heart of the issue. The whole point is to be pro-achievement! And as to "social policy", I guess it all depends on what you mean. If you refer to abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, these influences are outside the scope of the post. If you are refering to the pro-whining big government policies, then these voters would be somehat incoherent as you suggest.

I think that the Republicans did so well in part because they communicated that being thought of as strong as arrogant is a better option than being thought of as weak yet liked. It's a hard task to convince someone in Ohio who will never be able to afford to even go to Europe that it's more important to be respected there than it is to be safe in our own country. Besides, when I was there it seemed that many of the type of people most concerned about this just put Canadian flags on their backpacks anyway...

"Talent needs no apology"? Even in New York City, talented people inspire more resentment than admiration, and in my experience there is no place in the United States where intellectual talent is openly welcome. Perhaps Mr Sullivan's remark needs to be read against the background of findings that so many incompetent Americans consider themselves talented.

Regarding the mystery commenter:

It's quite a neat trick to redefine "people in the upper echelons of the income brackets" that vote Republican as Democrats simply because they support abortion or gay marriage or whatever it is that you suppose falls under "social policy." Using such trickery, we can also say that lower-income red-staters agree with Dems about income redistribution and are only voting Republican to persecute the homosexuals and criminalize abortion. Why, it's so plain to see: there are nothing but Democrats in this country!!!


With such tr

I think this rhetorical and philosophical difference is exactly why Republicans win elections in spite of the factors that the anonymous poster mentions above. As Will pointed out a few posts ago, the Republicans have put together an identity narrative that appeals to some distinctly American sensibilities, and not just the applique-sweater-wearing, megachurch-worshipping, Left-Behind-reading, fag-bashing kind.

When Democrats lament the long-gone factory jobs that every American is entitled to and they will somehow conjure up with the right government program, it turns people off. When the Democrats start to categorize every voter according to what type of victim he or she is, it is an affront to some very American principles. This is what Sullivan is talking about.

Similarly, the whole question of "moral values" involves more than just the Christian Right and its political influence. Lots of Americans might believe in both the separation of church and state and the social benefits of private and public virtue. Republicans have become the party that argues for the cohesive benefits of a moral consensus (and the smart, libertarian-minded ones know that it ought not necessarily carry the force of law), while Democrats argue for social permissiveness and protection of the individual from the oppressive effects of the moral consensus. The Clinton impeachment was a good example of this. The Democrats argued that a president's job was to keep the economy ticking, and his private business was his own problem. The Republicans, on the other hand, thought that leadership ought not be entrusted to someone who can't keep his hands off the help.

Whatever the merits of either argument, Americans want their grand narrative to include the idea of civic virtue. I think this is where the "moral values" poll response comes in. When some of us hear "moral values" in a political context we think George Washington, not Pat Robertson.

"This would be more compelling if there were any evidence that Republicans were actually good at anything."

Well, there's always winning elections.

"Twice the achievement, half the whining."

This would be more compelling if there were any evidence that Republicans were actually good at anything. See any number of social statistic breakdowns along red/blue lines, the Clinton era vs. the GWB era, the breakdown of political affilliation at elite institutions (including, it now appears, the scientific schools), the fact that the "engine of industry" areas in the country (Sillicon Valley, Rte 128, RTP, Seattle) are bluer than blue, the fact that people in the upper echelons of the income brackets appear to agree with Dems on social policy and be voting Republican primarily for the tax cut, etc.