"Inner city men not even thinking about working" has no racial connotations in Paul Ryan World?

Raw Story:

Paul Ryan attempted to walk back Wednesday’s comment in which he described

a “culture in our inner cities in particular of men not working, and just generations of men not even thinking about working and learning the value and culture of work.”…

“This isn’t a race based comment it’s a breakdown of families, it’s rural poverty in rural areas, and talking about where poverty exists — there are no jobs and we have a breakdown of the family. This has nothing to do with race,” he insisted.

Paul Ryan can't be totally stupid. Which leaves the obvious conclusion that he's disingenuous to the point of total cynicism. The problem with his racial dog-whistling is that he doesn't have the courage to stand by it and ends up assuming we're as stupid as he wants us to believe he must be to see no racial connotation in his "generations of lazy inner city men" discourse.

"Income, Race and Voting

Professor Krugman ventures into Poli Sci, @ NYTs:

Still thinking about the new GOP idea — hey, let’s go for white voters! Why didn’t we think of that before? ... I’m venturing into political science territory here,and would be happy to have real experts weigh in; but I’m pretty sure I have the basics right here.

So, let’s look at some exit poll data, and cross-tab it with Census income data. In the figure below, the red lines show the income-voting relationship from the Times summary of exit polls, which also supplies the broad ethnic group data. For incomes, I use Census data on median household income for 2011, which is also available for regions. For voting I use Alabama to represent the South, Ohio to represent the Midwest.

So here’s my picture:

Contrary to what some people keep saying, people with higher incomes, other things equal, tend to vote Republican. Cut through the noise and fog, and it is true that Democrats broadly want to redistribute income down, and Republicans want to redistribute income up — and on average, voters get that (which is why “libertarian populism” is hot air). But race and ethnicity also matter, a lot. What you can see right away is that there are three groups that are fairly anomalous.

What's The Matter With Red States? The "Entitlement" Hustle

Paul Krugman at NYTimes describes the almost absurd predicament of much of "red state" America. They're hooked on so-called "entitlements" while the GOP's  "severe conservative" pols are angrily pointing their fingers at some imagined class of moochers who are bleeding the government dry, immersed in a "culture of dependency." 

(What Krugman doesn't mention is that there's often a racial sub-text to the opportunistic political rhetoric, which explains the willful blindness and hypocrisy that drives this version of anti-government white populism within the GOP.)  Krugman:

Rick Santorum declares that President Obama is getting America hooked on “the narcotic of dependency.” Mr. Romney warns that government programs “foster passivity and sloth.” Representative Paul Ryan ... requires that staffers read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” in which heroic capitalists struggle against the “moochers” trying to steal their totally deserved wealth, a struggle the heroes win by withdrawing their productive effort and giving interminable speeches.

Many readers of The Times were, therefore, surprised to learn, from an excellent article published last weekend, that the regions of America most hooked on Mr. Santorum’s narcotic — the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasn’t Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don’t eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts? ...

Omigod! David Brooks reads another book...but doesn't really want us to know what it's actually about.

Brad DeLong catches David Brooks in another embarrassment - like not forthrightly telling his readers what the true subject of the book he's frothing over happens to be:

"David Brooks sure reads a lot of books."

Charles Murray's new book is called: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.

Now David Brooks:

"The Great Divorce: I’ll be shocked if there’s another book this year as important as Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart.” I’ll be shocked if there’s another book that so compellingly describes the most important trends in American society…"

How can a book that explicitly leaves out Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Amerindians, African-Americans, people of mixed race, and Arab-Americans possibly describe "the most important trends in American society"?

"Liberals play a central role in unfairness."

How can the New York Times editors publish a piece without asking David Brooks why he does not dare mention the subtitle of the book he is puffing?

Charles Murray, of course, is the right-wing "think-tanker" currently writing for the American Enterprise Institute and, notoriously,  co-author of "The Bell Curve" tome which argued that differences in intelligence were embedded in race.

About half-way into Brooks' latest adulatory column he notes that  Murray "is at his best" analyzing "behavioral differences" between the well-educated and the poorly educated and that "he’s mostly using data on white Americans, so the effects of race and other complicating factors don’t come into play." 

That Murray's entire study of "the most important social trends" is premised as a meditation on the circumstances of white Americans exclusively is rather conspicuously evaded by our deep-thinking gadfly, Mr. Brooks.

Update: A commenter at Brooks' NYTimes column site, Aaron Hamburger, offers this cogent observation:

Brooks writes "he’s mostly using data on white Americans, so the effects of race and other complicating factors don’t come into play." Why is "white" not a race? What are the other "complicating factors" that don't come into play?

And why do I get the feeling that this whole column reeks of nostalgia for a time when people who had "complicating factors" were kept at society's margins, not needing to be accounted for.

Eye of the Newt

"Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog...
For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."
                                        Macbeth (IV, i, 14-15)

Newt Gingrich is a chameleon-like charlatan who appears to constantly reinvent himself for his audience du jour, in variations on his persistent grandiosity, pretensions to power and ambition to accumulate wealth. His conduct in the GOP debates has been a study in resentment honed into startlingly effective demagogy. But there's really  nothing new here. Lest we forget one of his more shameless recent-but-pre-GOP-primary moments of shabby moral dissolution - having nothing to do with ex-wives - Charles Blow, at The New York Times, reminds us:

In September 2010, he told the National Review Online that President Obama followed a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview. Gingrich continued, “I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true.”

Gingrich was commenting on a Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza, the president of the King’s College in New York City. In the article, D’Souza said of President Obama:

“Our president is trapped in his father’s time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”

Gingrich called the article the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”

Ironically, what Newt was offering us was a profound insight into his own lack of intellectual integrity or moral boundaries, which would come to full fruition in his more recent conduct as a presidential aspirant.

9-9-9: "Raising Cain" or just raising taxes on those who can least afford it?

"Don't condemn me because the first black one was bad."

Republican Presidential aspirant, pizza Godfather and book tour star Herman Cain has caused controversy with various remarks. He's labeled peaceful demonstrators "anti-American" because they call into question income inequality, waves of foreclosures after bailouts of banks and tax-fairness issues.

Worse, he has called African-Americans "brainwashed" because they've trended overwhelmingly toward the Democratic Party - their "plantation masters" according to Cain - since the 1960s when the GOP first ran a presidential candidate who opposed the Civil Rights Act and Republicans began eagerly embracing Dixiecrats who couldn't accept change.  In recycling that racial attack and posing as the "responsible" black man, Cain is giving cover to bigots like Rush Limbaugh who routinely smear black Democrats in the same vein.

And, while pandering to the GOP's racial polarization, Cain has the temerity to describe himself as a "real black man" - as opposed to President Obama.  That one is worthy of contempt, but no further comment.

In all of the brouhaha about Cain's rhetoric as he's rising in the GOP polls, appealing directly to the Tea Party base that is steeped in white resentment and hatred of President Obama, Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan tends to get overlooked. It's a 9% tax on income, a 9% tax on business profits and a 9% national sales tax.  Cain would entirely eliminate capital gains taxes - making even worse one of the most unfair income tax loopholes on the books.

On it's face, Cain's 9-9-9 scheme is obviously a tax break for the rich. Worse, it's a tax increase for the folks with the lowest incomes.  And as formulated it's even a bad deal for many businesses and for job creation.