Bob Herbert’s new book Losing Our Way: An Intimate Portrait of a Troubled America is one of the most important, most compelling books that I have read in many years. For those of us who have felt that something has gone seriously wrong in our country, Herbert connects the dots. He provides a carefully documented, well-written account of what went wrong and why. As he pulls together a sweeping narrative, he weaves it through the personal accounts of individuals whose stories are emblematic and heartbreaking.
Herbert reminds us of a time when America’s policymakers had great visions for the future and acted to make them real, whether it was the building of the Erie Canal or the transcontinental rail system, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s TVA, or Dwight D. Eisenhower’s national highway system. He reminds us that the American dream was to create a nation where there were good jobs for those who wanted to work, where there was increasing equality, and a growing middle class.
What we have today is a nation dominated by plutocrats and corporations, which are allowed by the U. S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision to dump unlimited amounts of money into elections and to write legislation that favors plutocrats and corporations; what we have is historic levels of wealth inequality and income inequality, where corporations outsource good jobs and many people are slipping from the middle class into minimum wage jobs or even poverty. Herbert explains that our failure to invest in rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure has left us with crumbling bridges, tunnels, water mains, sewers, and gas lines, which are dangerous and sometimes fatal to citizens who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, as bridges collapse, levees fall, and gas lines explode.
He goes into detail about the corporate assault on public education, fueled by the plutocrats’ desire to turn education into a free market. He points out that the plutocrats’ favorite reform—charter schools—enroll a tiny percentage of students and have on average an unimpressive record. Their relentless attacks on the teaching profession will damage that profession for many years into the future. Herbert spent time in Pittsburgh, meeting the activists and parent leaders there. He saw at ground-level the harm inflicted by massive cuts in the state budget and the determination of parents to fight back. He describes the emptiness of the reformers’ boast that they can close the achievement gap by privatization and by union-busting. Having talked to teachers, parents, and principals, he knows the harm that poverty inflicts on children, the pain caused by living without adequate food, shelter, and medical care.
Herbert writes movingly about the endless wars in the Middle East of the past decade. Did the policymakers know what they were doing when they launched the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did they have a strategy for victory? No, they did not. They launched wars with a goal (victory) but not a plan. He quotes Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who assured the American public that our invasion of Iraq would not last longer than five months. Herbert writes about a remote sector in Afghanistan called “the valley of death,” where American troops struggled to establish a base. It was portrayed in an award-winning documentary called “Restrepo.” Many young Americans died there, but no one could explain why our troops were sent there; eventually, the disaster ended, and we abandoned that forlorn valley. Herbert cites economists who calculate that the wars of the past decade will cost trillions of dollars, as well as thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of lives of people in the countries we went to “save.” There is no end in sight. Does anyone still believe that Iraq or Afghanistan are on their way to become stable democracies or even a country that will no longer harbor terrorists?
Herbert pulls all these events and issues into a coherent whole. We have lost our way. Our elected officials dream no big dreams. They have little or no concept of major public works programs to rebuild our nation’s infrastructure, which would put millions of people to work and invigorate our economy. They willingly waste blood and treasure on wars in distant lands, yet they cannot bring themselves to invest in our nation and create jobs by rebuilding the vital roads, tunnels, bridges, sewers, and other public assets that are now in disrepair, rusting, crumbling, threatening lives. We have money aplenty for war, but no money to put people to work fixing our infrastructure. Plutocrats buy politicians to protect their fortunes and reduce their taxes. Corporations buy politicians who will deregulate their activities and cut their taxes. The stock market rewards corporations that cut their payroll, firing experienced employees who had served those corporations loyally for decades. Men like Jack Welch of GE and “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap became famous as business leaders who coolly and heartlessly fired tens of thousands of workers to increase shareholder value in their corporations.
Herbert writes:
“How did things go so wrong? How is it that so many millions were finding it so difficult to get ahead, to emerge from the terrible, demoralizing rut of joblessness and underemployment? In a country as rich as the United States, why were so many being left behind?
“The biggest factor by far was the toxic alliance forged by government and America’s megacorporations and giant banks. That alliance of elites, fueled by endless greed and a near-pathological quest for power, reshaped the rules and regulations of the economy and the society at large to heavily favor the interest of those who were already well-to-do. In the process they trampled the best interests of ordinary Americans.”
Herbert’s book comes alive through his account of the experiences of two individuals: one, a woman in Minnesota who was driving across a bridge that spanned the Mississippi River when it collapsed in 2007; the other, a young man who was grievously wounded in Afghanistan and struggled to regain the ability to walk. In these and many other accounts of individuals and families, Herbert uses his superb journalistic skills to bring major issues to life. Along with the data and the documentation to make his arguments, Herbert vividly portrays what matters most: the human impact of political decisions.
If you read only one book this year, make it Bob Herbert’s “Losing Our Way.” It will change you. It will make you want to get involved, take action, make a difference. As he says at the end of the book, it doesn’t have to be this way. Changing it depends on us.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
Just bought it on iBooks. Thanks for the lead.
And read Herbert’s book now since much of the money made off of the endless wars, helped fund this most recent mid-term election purchase.
The chaos of the wars deliberately obscured the political strategy.
Direct and indirect war profits were funneled into ALEC and many others.
An intentionally, war-induced “austerity” was used to justify the fiscal assault on public schools and teachers.
Well, we all can add to this list but Herbert’s book is all about right this minute and how we arrived here.
I just bought it and will read. I hope books like this will make a difference before the next election two years from now. Why do people think the only choice is between Dems and the GOP? You are mad at Obama so you will vote for Republicans who will make things worse. You hate the Common Core so yyou will vote for a GOP Senator or Governor who will now want to completely defund public education. We need a third Progressive alternative. We need to form a true Progressive Party which will represent the real working and middle class Americans. Social justice without economic justice is meaningless.
Or, maybe the Dems just need someone like Elizabeth Warren as their standard-bearer….
Funny, I had the same conversation with my son who belong to the Young Democrats here in New York. He said exactly the same thing. I now think Elizabeth Warren is probably the best hope to save the party. We cannot nominate another Republicrat.
Hve been saying it for at least a year…
Elizabeth Warren for President.
When I yelled it out as she walked off stage in LA a few months ago, she looked at me as though I was demented.
Ellen,
At this time, there is no indication that Warren wants to run for president. Don’t forget that Washington didn’t want to be president either.
We can’t force Warren to run unless she wants to and thinks she has a good chance of winning.
However, she might be tapped to run on a ticket as vice president and she might agree to that but I think even that would be a long shot.
It is a wonderful book in describing the difficulties we are in now. It is a very accessible account of what went wrong. My despair was Herbert offers little hope for turning things around (not that that is his job, but in some ways I was more despondent than when I began reading the book). At the end, I thought my kindle had not downloaded the final chapters that might have given me some real hope that we can turn things around. With only 12 percent of the millenials coming out to vote, where is the leadership we need? People vote against their own self interest (electing a governor in Illinois who wanted to DECREASE the minimum wage…there is proof of the real failure of education!!!!
“Misled”
We’ve lost our way, the map’s been changed
The GPS shut down
The sign says “This way ->”, off the cliff
To Heaparubble town
Lost our way are soft and kind words to express what is happening in our nation. Where do we go from here to divert the current trajectory? The police are under the thumb of the government. We have seen what happened with the Occupy movement. The Oligarch class is not about to relinquish power easily. We have become a totalitarian plutocracy, with so many of those affected asleep at the wheel.
It is important to be aware of how we got here. Yet more important to answer is how do we take back our power and the keys to our destiny.
Well put, Madame.
These are seminal and pivotal questions.
You have a way with thought and words like no other!
WHO are you? Do we know each other?
I will need to read this; your blog is compelling, thank you!
Want to tweet this more? The copy and paste this Tweet.
Ravitch Reviews what she calls the Most Important Book of the Year
Bob Herbert’s “Losing Our Way”
http://wp.me/p2odLa-8Vd via @DianeRavitch
Some readers might appreciate an academic reference:
Herbert, B. “Losing Our Way.” Doubleday, publisher’s information at http://bit.ly/10YVoPP, an excerpt is online at http://bit.ly/10YVoPP / “Read an Excerpt” where “/” means “click on.” Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/1E8ymlI , note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.
A previous attempt to post this comment evidently failed. Here’s a second try:
Some readers might appreciate an academic reference:
Herbert, B. “Losing Our Way.” Doubleday, publisher’s information at http://bit.ly/10YVoPP, an excerpt is online at http://bit.ly/10YVoPP / “Read an Excerpt” where “/” means “click on.” Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/1E8ymlI, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.
Diane,
FYI – see link below to my blogs that are following a similar theme. Today’s update is a ‘post-election guide’ to our community.
http://sites.socsdblogs.org/superintendent/
Ken
“..into minimum wage jobs or even poverty”? Are those two different?
NO!
How could they be, unless you live in Uganda.
Thanks for the info;
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
History repeatedly tells of nations which fall, not from the outside necessarily, but from becoming rotten on the inside.
I am reading it and loving it; although it makes me feel sad a lot.
Also, interesting to hear on the radio today that the one thing Obama and Congress agree on is getting to the point of not reacting to crisis as an MO. But if you don’t prepare, how can you do anything but react? Being prepared will mean spending some money. Spending some money will mean there has to be revenue. It means thinking ahead to what disasters could befall us. It means figuring out the lifespan on our bridges and preparing ahead for repairs ahead of time. It means a capital reserve, right?
Can we do that? Can they do that? Will they?
To answer your last three questions:
Not sure.
No!
NO!
These are all the results of globalization and a populous without the skills necessary to shift from a manufacturing-based workforce into an information/service based workforce. Taking an “occupy” type approach is just knocking down straw men. The impact of poverty upon education is very real, but the drivers of that poverty are more complicated than “corporate profits.” Increasing public debt to build infrastructure so people displaced from manufacturing jobs have work is not the solution, nor is pouring more money into “smart boards” or tablets for kids to learn.
I am a public school teacher in a union, I work with a many competent and motivated people, and also a few who are….not so much….Maybe the republicans have a point, in a private economy workers who are unproductive are replaced by those who are more motivated and skilled. My only disagreement would be with the measures in place to determine teaching “effectiveness” (i.e. test scores rather than strategies to engage). I can confidently say a centrally planned structure of guaranteed incomes or more social benefits is not going to solve (and perhaps accelerates) the largest problem facing our society… reduced personal responsibility and motivation.
I follow the writing of the author of this blog because I appreciate her insights into public education. However I have to disagree with all of this “oligarch” talk in favor of more govt intervention. Our government is incompetent, overblown, and provides the apparatus for any of these corporations to seize power, not the other way around. Centralized control of anything is a ineffective option, and that is what “populists” still seem to favor. These accomplished scholars neglect the reality that the people they write about pitifully may not share the same motivation and intellect that they take for granted in writing such books.
Jay, there is no shortage of skilled workers; the jobs they are qualified to do have been outsourced to countries where workers with similar skills work for a few dollars a day. Technology has eliminated many jobs that were once performed by skilled workers. When almost all the gains of the recovery go to the top 5%, there is something very wrong, which education can’t fix. The government does have responsibility to reduce income inequality; individuals can’t do it.
I want to add to “Technology has eliminated many jobs.” I bank with CHASE. Yesterday, I went to the bank and they are doing construction remodeling the bank. I asked what was going on, because recently they had remolded and that recent remodeling job had been stripped away.
The teller said they were replacing most of the human tellers with machines. I asked if she was going to lose her job or be paid to stand by a machine and greet people. She didn’t seem to know.
Technology can do many of the jobs humans do. What happens when there are not enough jobs to support consumerism.Will the corporations replace human consumers with robot consumers programed to buy their products so they can save money on advertising?
In construction, will they replace carpenters with machines that can use a saw and swing a hammer?
Will Bill Gates and other Silicon Valley billionaires turn humans into an endangered species?
These were the questions asked during the industrial revolution about the cotton gin, the steam engine, and so forth, then when the internet first became accessible to the masses. Machines break, they need to be programmed and repaired, they introduce new problems – that creates jobs. The historic statistics on mechanization or industrialization generally show a net job multiplier in the long-run, while it takes some time for job seekers to re-align their skills — “structural unemployment.” If you are a computer programmer or engineer right now you can pick your job and salary. While we complain about incomes not rising, the cost of the retail/consumer merchandise we wish to purchase has never been lower. The income gap statistics depend on who is aggregating them and their interpretation. True wages have been stagnant but have not decreased.
Diane, your comment about the returns going to the top 5% is partly true… those with the most invested in the stock market did not divest during the crash, they bought more… Those with less invested in stocks or with none pulled their investments because they A. panicked, B. had to use the reserves. Those were bought low, then recovered higher than their original levels. Those who rode that out made money, those who sold off were stuck with their losses. Its a simple product of market correction… the government policies make the bubbles. In my opinion it is short sighted thinking to believe that the government CAN do anything about income inequality (smart money avoids regulation, and REALLY avoids over-regulation), its the result of their monetary policies. If that teller has the qualifications to become an analyst, or investigate fraud via forensic accounting, they can enter a booming growth industry that exists because of the problems created by electronic banking. These are all concepts of equilibrium… what we are suggesting in this book is protectionism, that’s never worked historically.
I dont mean to sound disrespectful and I apologize if my tone comes off as such, but as a millenial i’m surrounded by angst filled peers who are upset with society because they chose to pay $100k to study ancient literature or become an artist and cant find employment. They complain about capitalism from their iphone while wearing designer clothing. Forcing someone to give them a job that there is no need for/value to the employer is not going to solve the problem. This seems to be then general messaging of the current democrat party, when those promises dont come true because economic reality sets in, they focus on single issue voters/social justice issues. I would like to know if the author of this book is giving away his product for free or donating the proceeds to charity. I prefer to read about educational policy on this blog, I think you do a great job at covering those issues.
Jay, I used to go along with the commonly accepted proposition that technological change, the “demand for skill” (SBTC-skill-biased technical change), and globalization, are the main causes of rising inequality. I now agree with Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman’s that the commonly accepted “supply and demand” hypothesis provides far from a complete picture at best, and may indeed be less important than other factors. Krugman doesn’t discount the effect of skill-based technological change, but provides a very well thought out and clearly written argument that, since the 1970s, sizeable changes in institutions, such as the strength of labor unions, social norms (which he discusses at length), and political power are more important than “anonymous skill-biased technical change” as an explanation for rising inequality.
If you haven’t already read it, I highly recommend Krugman’s 2009 book The Conscience of a Liberal (pages 128-152) for a fresh look at the issue. I think that Krugman examination of the issue provides a much more complete and thus better hypothesis. It seems that this fuller, although more complicated, explanation is gaining support among economists, although of course, more simplistic ideas have greater appeal to the average person.
Along that line of thought– the appeal of simplistic ideas—I am sorry to say that your very “confident” pronouncement that “the largest problem facing our society… [is] reduced personal responsibility and motivation.” fits into that category, particularly when discussing the present economic problems. Economists, and even we teachers know that productivity has risen greatly, that many people are working longer hours, often holding several jobs, and yet have achieved little or no real pay gains; while at the same time many people are dealing with the disastrous effects of the “Great recession.” Those facts just don’t comport with the idea of our “main” problem being “reduced responsibility or motivation.” But everyone is entitled to his or her opinions.
Oops, I was just signing off, and saw your second post, with more pronouncements and theories, which I will not discuss, because, as you said, this is an education blog. I do however, have a comment related to education, and which is a different issue. First you said “I don’t mean to sound disrespectful and I apologize if my tone comes off as such,” and then in the same paragraph you write about the “general messaging” of the current “democrat party.”
I do indeed feel disrespected by your use of the epithet “democrat party.” unless of course it was just a typo.
I presume that, as a teacher, you know that there is no “democrat party,” that the correct term is “Democratic Party,” and that the term “democrat party” is grammatically incorrect. You may not know that creators of the epithet “democrat party” openly state that the reason they had to change the English language is “because the Democratic Party is not democratic,” and thus it was designed and is used as a slur. You also may not know that the use of the epithet has been an ongoing tactic in certain circles for some time. I’m sure it was just a mistake, and I’m only pointing it out to raise awareness, because language matters, and because I know that anyone who does not approve of such questionable tactics will want to assiduously avoid such typos.
Helene Stone
I intend to read the book, but haven’t so far. My impression however is that an old saying from my Grandfather(born 1897) that I first heard in the late 70’s, will likely prove to apply in part to Herbert. “Anybody my age who starts talking about the good old days is either going senile, lying, or is a republican.” To be honest with you I was born in 1948 and could make a very similar statement today. When I first became politically aware women and minorities could not realistically aspire to public office or most professions and in many places could not even vote. Abortions were illegal everywhere and birth control was illegal most places. Our rivers and air were horribly polluted to degree that today it hardly seems possible that we let it occur. Censorship was rampant (“banned in Boston). It was considered perfectly acceptable to draft 18 year old kids (boys only) against their will to go serve in a stupid war where they might die, but not let them vote. Life expectancy was about 10 years less than it is today. The entire population lived in constant (and realistic) fear that a nuclear war might wipe them out at any time. People still lived in fear of polio, although it would turn out that was a problem of the past. ETC, ETC, ETC. We definitely have problems today, and it sounds like Herbert has correctly identified some of them, but things have gotten a lot better, not a lot worse.
I’d also like to point out that there is no practical difference between the Teachers Unions /Anti-reform movement and the other wielders of power mentioned in the blog.When are they going to wake up and realize that it is in their best interests in the long run to put the children first and their own selfish needs second?
Jay, I used to go along with the commonly accepted proposition that technological change, the “demand for skill” (SBTC-skill-biased technical change), and globalization, are the main causes of rising inequality. I now agree with Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman’s that the commonly accepted “supply and demand” hypothesis provides far from a complete picture at best, and may indeed be less important than other factors. Krugman doesn’t discount the effect of skill-based technological change, but provides a very well thought out and clearly written argument that, since the 1970s, sizeable changes in institutions, such as the strength of labor unions, social norms (which he discusses at length), and political power are more important than “anonymous skill-biased technical change” as an explanation for rising inequality.
If you haven’t already read it, I highly recommend Krugman’s 2009 book The Conscience of a Liberal (pages 128-152) for a fresh look at the issue. I think that Krugman examination of the issue provides a much more complete and thus better hypothesis. It seems that this fuller, although more complicated, explanation is gaining support among economists, although of course, more simplistic ideas have greater appeal to the average person.
Along that line of thought– the appeal of simplistic ideas—I am sorry to say that your very “confident” pronouncement that “the largest problem facing our society… [is] reduced personal responsibility and motivation.” fits into that category, particularly when discussing the present economic problems. Economists, and even we teachers know that productivity has risen greatly, that many people are working longer hours, often holding several jobs, and yet have achieved little or no real pay gains; while at the same time many people are dealing with the disastrous effects of the “Great recession.” Those facts just don’t comport with the idea of our “main” problem being “reduced responsibility or motivation.” But everyone is entitled to his or her opinions.
Oops, I was just signing off, and saw your second post, with more pronouncements and theories, which I will not discuss, because, as you said, this is an education blog. I do however, have a comment related to education, and which is a different issue. First you said “I don’t mean to sound disrespectful and I apologize if my tone comes off as such,” and then in the same paragraph you write about the “general messaging” of the current “democrat party.”
I do indeed feel disrespected by your use of the epithet “democrat party.” unless of course it was just a typo.I presume that, as a teacher, you know that there is no “democrat party,” that the correct term is “Democratic Party,” and that the term “democrat party” is grammatically incorrect. You may not know that creators of the epithet “democrat party” openly state that the reason they had to change the English language is “because the Democratic Party is not democratic,” and thus it was designed and is used as a slur. You also may not know that the use of the epithet has been an ongoing tactic in certain circles for some time. I’m sure it was just a mistake, and I’m only pointing it out to raise awareness, because language matters, and because I know that anyone who does not approve of such questionable tactics will want to assiduously avoid such typos.
Helene Stone
My immediately prior post should have appeared as a “Reply” to a post by Jay Schickling rather than here. Sorry–I was in a hurry.
Helene Stone