McWhorter's article on reparations presents one view of the state of race relations in this country. Nat Hentoff in the Village Voice presents another. Whlie it is difficult to tell who is closer to the mark, Hentoff's article does not cite results, but rather percentage decreases and levels of "wealth" which goes undefined. To me, what you have here is the focal debate that will define whether or not we have a democrat in the white house come 2005. If the party stays the middle course and brings back the middle class group that was the crucial piece of the New Deal Coallition in the 1960's, they should win. If they lurch back to the liberal litmus testing policies of the 80's, W will be re-elected in a landslide. It is the difference from looking honestly at the past 10 years and what policies worked, and which one didn't. It's not whether, "we reduced appropriations for housing for the poor at the federal level by over 80%" rather, the issue is, are there over 80% more homeless people. If not, what replaced those federal appopriations are clearly working and need not be re-instated. Why? Because that money is better spent elsewhere and the attempt to ramp up federal appropriations for any program by 80% is a losing platform, plain and simple.
- posted by levinson @ 7/18/2001 10:16:00 AM