There are many negative things you can say about US Representative Paul Ryan, chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee and the Grand Old Party’s (GOP) de facto intellectual leader. However, you have to admit that he is a very articulate guy, an expert at sounding as if he knows what he is talking about.
So it is comical, in a way, to see Ryan trying to explain away some recent remarks in which he attributed persistent poverty to a “culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working.” He was, he says, simply being “inarticulate.” How could anyone suggest that it was a racial dog-whistle? Why, he even cited the work of serious scholars — people like Charles Murray, most famous for arguing that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Oh, wait.
Just to be clear, there is no evidence that Ryan is personally a racist, and his dog-whistle may not even have been deliberate. However, it doesn’t matter. He said what he said because that is the kind of thing conservatives say to each other all the time. Why do they say such things? Because US conservatism is still, after all these years, largely driven by claims that liberals are taking away your hard-earned money and giving it to “Those People.”
Indeed, race is the Rosetta stone that makes sense of many otherwise incomprehensible aspects of US politics.
Americans are told, for example, that conservatives are against big government and high spending. Yet even as Republican governors and state legislatures block the expansion of Medicaid, the GOP angrily denounces modest cost-saving measures for Medicare. How can this contradiction be explained? Well, what do many Medicaid recipients look like — and I am talking about the color of their skin, not the content of their character — and how does that compare with the typical Medicare beneficiary? Mystery solved.
Or Americans are told that conservatives, the Tea Party in particular, oppose handouts because they believe in personal responsibility, in a society in which people must bear the consequences of their actions. Yet it is hard to find angry Tea Party denunciations of huge Wall Street bailouts, of huge bonuses paid to executives who were saved from disaster by US government backing and guarantees. Instead, all the movement’s passion, starting with Rick Santelli’s famous rant on CNBC, has been directed against any hint of financial relief for low-income borrowers. What is it about these borrowers that makes them such targets of ire? You know the answer.
One odd consequence of the still-racialized politics is that conservatives are still, in effect, mobilizing against the “bums on welfare” even though both the bums and the welfare are long gone or never existed. Santelli’s fury was directed against mortgage relief that never actually happened. Right-wingers rage against tales of food-stamp abuse that almost always turn out to be false or at least greatly exaggerated. And Ryan’s “black-men-don’t-want-to-work” theory of poverty is decades out of date.
In the 1970s it was still possible to claim in good faith that there was plenty of opportunity in the US and that poverty persisted only because of cultural breakdown among African-Americans. Back then, after all, blue-collar jobs still paid well and unemployment was low. The reality was that opportunity was much more limited than affluent Americans imagined; as the sociologist William Julius Wilson has documented, the flight of industry from urban centers meant that minority workers could not get to those good jobs, and the supposed cultural causes of poverty were actually effects of that lack of opportunity. Still, you could understand why many observers failed to see this.
However, over the past 40 years, good jobs for ordinary workers have disappeared — not just from inner cities, but everywhere: Adjusted for inflation, wages have fallen for 60 percent of working US men. And as economic opportunity has shriveled for half the population, many behaviors that used to be held up as demonstrations of so-called black cultural breakdown — the breakdown of marriage, drug abuse and so on — have spread among working-class whites too.
These awkward facts have not, however, penetrated the world of US conservative ideology. Earlier this month the US House Budget Committee, under Ryan’s direction, released a 205-page report on the alleged failure of the “War on Poverty.” What does the report have to say about the impact of falling real wages? It never mentions the subject at all.
And because conservatives cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the reality of what is happening to opportunity in the US, they are left with nothing but that old-time dog-whistle. Ryan was not being inarticulate — he said what he said because it is all that he has got.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US