This powerful article appeared recently on the front cover of the New York Times Week in Review section.
Nicholas Kristof and his wife Sheryl WuDunn returned to his hometown of Yamhill, Oregon. They discovered that an extraordinary percentage of the hardworking, ordinary working class people Nick grew up with had died an early death. They asked “Who Killed the Knapp Family?” I regret that they include the obligatory swipe at “failing schools,” since the schools attended by this family did not fail them and did not kill them, but the rest of the article is indeed an indictment of the vast social, cultural, and economic unraveling of our society, as represented by this one community.
YAMHILL, Ore. — Chaos reigned daily on the No. 6 school bus, with working-class boys and girls flirting and gossiping and dreaming, brimming with mischief, bravado and optimism. Nick rode it every day in the 1970s with neighbors here in rural Oregon, neighbors like Farlan, Zealan, Rogena, Nathan and Keylan Knapp.
They were bright, rambunctious, upwardly mobile youngsters whose father had a good job installing pipes. The Knapps were thrilled to have just bought their own home, and everyone oohed and aahed when Farlan received a Ford Mustang for his 16th birthday.
Yet today about one-quarter of the children on that No. 6 bus are dead, mostly from drugs, suicide, alcohol or reckless accidents. Of the five Knapp kids who had once been so cheery, Farlan died of liver failure from drink and drugs, Zealan burned to death in a house fire while passed out drunk, Rogena died from hepatitis linked to drug use and Nathan blew himself up cooking meth. Keylan survived partly because he spent 13 years in a state penitentiary.
Among other kids on the bus, Mike died from suicide, Steve from the aftermath of a motorcycle accident, Cindy from depression and a heart attack, Jeff from a daredevil car crash, Billy from diabetes in prison, Kevin from obesity-related ailments, Tim from a construction accident, Sue from undetermined causes. And then there’s Chris, who is presumed dead after years of alcoholism and homelessness. At least one more is in prison, and another is homeless.
We Americans are locked in political combat and focused on President Trump, but there is a cancer gnawing at the nation that predates Trump and is larger than him. Suicides are at their highest rate since World War II; one child in seven is living with a parent suffering from substance abuse; a baby is born every 15 minutes after prenatal exposure to opioids; America is slipping as a great power.
We have deep structural problems that have been a half century in the making, under both political parties, and that are often transmitted from generation to generation. Only in America has life expectancy now fallen three years in a row, for the first time in a century, because of “deaths of despair.”
“The meaningfulness of the working-class life seems to have evaporated,” Angus Deaton, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, told us. “The economy just seems to have stopped delivering for these people.” Deaton and the economist Anne Case, who is also his wife, coined the term “deaths of despair” to describe the surge of mortality from alcohol, drugs and suicide.
The kids on the No. 6 bus rode into a cataclysm as working-class communities disintegrated across America because of lost jobs, broken families, gloom — and failed policies. The suffering was invisible to affluent Americans, but the consequences are now evident to all: The survivors mostly voted for Trump, some in hopes that he would rescue them, but under him the number of children without health insurance has risen by more than 400,000.
Nick Kristof is a brilliant thinker who accepts conventional wisdom about public schools and needs to read Ravitch’s new book.
Absolutely right Lauren.
Please, someone, send Nick Kristof a copy of my book.
Why in the world would someone as smart as Kristof blame schools for the opioid crisis?
He didn’t blame them for the opioid crisis. The opioid crisis and the failing schools were separate contributing problems.
The opioid crisis is real. The “failing schools” narrative is propaganda.
“Conventional” conservative wisdom that ignores the consequences to societies when women have little policy impact.
So it’s all Jimmy Carter’s fault? Not only did Jimmy Carter reject all the good social policies of LBJ (which is why Ted Kennedy ran against him in the 1980 primary), but Carter’s awful embrace of every right wing idea led to the defeat of the leading progressive Democrat Senators in 1980.
Wrong. It isn’t Jimmy Carter’s fault. The Democrats could have fought harder and should have fought harder, but then again, we saw a good Senator like Russ Feingold get defeated by a public who embraced the most far right economic policies and rejected everything Russ Feingold stood for.
What good does it do to say “the German Democrats were just as responsible for Hitler’s policies as Hitler was”. No they weren’t and columns like this simply normalize the “both sides equally bad, Trump and the Republicans are no different than the Democrats”.
It was Democrats — FDR. Truman, LBJ — who were responsible for many of the good social programs we now take for granted.
The Democrats just need to return to our roots. Jimmy Carter may be to blame for starting the drift to the right, but he did it because he was forced to do it.
Jimmy Carter was better than Ronald Reagan. I hope no one starts pushing the dishonest propaganda that both Carter and Reagan are equally to blame for the right wing takeover of America.
One party is to blame. The OTHER party should return to its pre-Jimmy Carter roots. It is as simple as that.
“The Democrats just need to return to our roots.”
When do you suppose they’re going to get around to doing that?
Bernie is the only one who is trying to do that, yet the Democrats (and their supporting “liberal” media like CNN and MSDNC, er, I mean, MSNBC) fight him and smear him at every turn. Why do you think that is?
Why do I think the media smears Bernie at every turn?
For the exact same reason they smeared HRC at every turn. For the exact same reason that they smear Elizabeth Warren at every turn. For the exact same reason they smeared Al Gore and John Kerry and Michael Dukakis at every turn. For the exact same reason they smear Biden at every turn.
If anything Bernie Sanders has, like Obama, been given far less harmful treatment. The media did not smear their CHARACTER and push the narrative that they were liars who should not be trusted. If and when that happens to Bernie — and I will certainly be outraged when it does — you might understand what real smearing is. Saying that Donald Trump is “oranged haired” or “uncouth” is not a smear. It isn’t damaging. What is damaging is telling Americans that Trump is lying to them and that he should not be trusted since his entire goal is to enact policies that only help himself and his billionaire friends. The media doesn’t do that to Trump, which is ironic since in that case it is true!
Take a look at the other Democrats I listed at the top. Think about the opinions that a majority of voters had about their dishonest, crooked characters. That is a smear. I should have added that the media had a reckoning after they destroyed Michael Dukakis and refrained from doing the same to Bill Clinton in 1992. Bill cheated on his wife, but that was different than telling voters that his campaign promises were worthless and he was secretly planning to enact policies designed to hurt them all, so they might as well re-elect G HW Bush.
I suspect you will realize that if Bernie wins the nomination and experiences the real trashing of his character that happens whenever a Democrat runs for President (except Obama).
dienne77, would you vote for Jimmy Carter if he was running against Donald Trump, or would his “neoliberal” and “neocon” views lead you to believe that it is no big deal if Trump has another term because Jimmy Carter is no better?
(Carter got pretty lousy media coverage, too, despite his embracing so many of the right’s neoliberal views on economic issues and forcing Ted Kennedy to have to run a primary campaign against him to try to force Carter to start embracing the traditional Democratic positions that Carter had rejected so strongly.)
Speaking of DINOs, I a report today that union-busting law firms are contributing a lot of money to Biden’s campaign.
Union busting law firms would certainly want a Republican victory. Maybe that’s why they are contributing to Biden — not because he’s anti-union but because the anti-union folks think he is the weakest candidate against the Republican.
Not that I know anything about Biden’s positions. Is he considered anti-union? Do union members hate him? I can’t imagine he’d win the primary if the unions hate him.
Agree with NYCpsp, one party is to blame for the fix we are in now. The GOP has become a far, far right wing libertarian/Ayn Rand destructive and hyper-regressive cult. There’s no comparison between the 2 parties at this point. It’s not that the Democrats are that great, it’s that the GOP is so overwhelmingly terrible and awful. Trump is loading up the courts with rightwing/libertarian apparatchiks who will be there for decades. If Trump gets another term, he will replace Ginsburg and Breyer (who probably won’t be able to last another 4 years) with 2 more Kavanaughs or even worse. Trump is making cuts to Medicaid, cutting taxes on the rich, loves fossil fuels, cuts regulations that protect us and mocks the notion of climate change. Oh, and did I mention that he is a horrible human being, a lying demagogue and a threat to democracy, freedom, truth and justice.
What triggered your comment? Not the Kristof article, which sets the beginning of harmful changes at ’68-’69:
“We have deep structural problems that have been a half century in the making, under both political parties, and that are often transmitted from generation to generation.”
“If the federal minimum wage in 1968 had kept up with inflation and productivity, it would now be $22 an hour. Instead, it’s $7.25.”
“It would be easy but too simplistic to blame just automation and lost jobs: The problems are also rooted in disastrous policy choices over 50 years.”
I suspect it goes back further: Carter presumably squeaked in past Ford in part because of the horrendous “stagflation” of the ’70’s [which economists blame on 15yrs of Dem AND Rep monetary policy]- but then got trounced by Reagan due mainly to the severe recession caused by reversing it. No one’s saying today’s inequitable economy is Carter’s fault – but surely you’re not claiming current economic issues stem solely from the Republican party.
I believe the Knapp family were victims of our neoliberal policies and emergence of globalization which decimated blue collar careers for millions of working class families. Union jobs provided working class families with a living wage, benefits and livable pensions. Today there are few of these jobs available to non-college educated, blue collar workers. It is naive and irresponsible to blame schools for our current economic realities. People with few options often descend into addiction when they find themselves at the end of their rope and no way to climb out.
If we’re going to obsess about personal responsibility, let’s also have a conversation about social responsibility.
Yes, And that includes NOT blaming social probems on “failing public schools” and expecting that “great public schools” can be conjured from the fantacies of billionaires.
If we’re going to obsess about personal responsibility, let’s also have a conversation about social responsibility.
AMEN!!!
Kristoff using the phrase “failing schools” is evidence of the lack of understanding he has of education. Many writers who daily fill the media with their sentences have other failures. Economics confounds the many. Politics confuses most people. History fades into distant memory. Who among us understands all of what we need to? Has our world become too complicated for direct democracy? If it has become too complex, where are we to turn for protection of our fundamental freedoms?
In fact, dysfunction is a disease that feeds on itself. We do need to talk about personal responsibility. The more we take personal responsibility, the less the government will be required to step in to solve problems. But there is the other matter. Social responsibility has been required historically to be forced on the minority by a government. Consider a few examples.
Efforts to regulate food purity in the early 1900s grew out of horrendous practices on the part of food distribution and processing companies. When legislation began to level the playing field of economic competition by making all the food companies play by the same rules, food purity got better. Rules that governed the relationship between unions and factories settled disputes without violence once the rules were in place. You have to have rules, referees, and regulators.
In the wide open game of imperialism, British merchants pried open the Chinese market with opium from India in a haunting tale that ended in the Opium War of 1839, and the dissolving of the Chinese government. This was largely responsible for the power vacuum that allowed for the rise of Japanese militarism, the Mao revolution, and the turbulence of the past century of Chinese history. Few historians would argue that the individual Chinese people were to blame for this process. Today, however, many argue suggest that there is nothing wrong with the Sackler family reaping the windfall from their opium sales. Those drug addicts are to blame for what ails the body politic.
Concentrated wealth is inconsistent with a functioning society.
Exclusively male rule is inconsistent with a society that advances for all. There are only 13 GOP women in the U.S. House and, 2 are retiring (186 white men). Conservatives are forcing women out of the U.S. Senate. A Trump ally, Doug Collins, is going to unseat a female, incumbent, GOP senator in Georgia.
Obviously, religion has no impact in the nation’s humanity. Governors, Senators and House Representatives are full of faith-spouting Republicans.
“The meaningfulness of the working-class life seems to have evaporated,” Angus Deaton, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, told us. “The economy just seems to have stopped delivering for these people.”
Fancy that. The noliberal economics of the past 40 years seems to have stopped delivering for the working class.
Then again, maybe it never was delivering for them — and quite by design.
Perhaps, just perhaps the nainstream economists are largely responsible.
Neoliberal economics
But noliberal works too
LOL
“Neo” means no
“Neo” means no
And “over” below
Leftie” means rightie
Language is hidey
And there is no Nobel Prize in economics.
It’s a fake, a lie, a fraud.
https://www.alternet.org/2012/10/there-no-nobel-prize-economics/
And the people who keep repeating this LIE are contributing to the fraud.
Infidelity to truth. A lack of fidelity to truth.
You are being far too nice Duane.
If more people called the economics “Nobel” a LIE, it’s recipients would not have the undeserved influence they do in making government policy that affects billions of people worldwide.
Friedrich Hayek warned about this in his “Fauxbel” (fake Nobel) acceptance speech.
Paul Krugman has a particularly bad case of the Fauxbel disease.
He’s only about 5’6″ in height but his head is at least 10 feet in diameter. Its so big he must have to use a Home Depot flat bed truck to get himself from one “news” talk show to another.
Hayek s speech is well worth the read
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1974/hayek/lecture/
And for anyone who believes I exaggerate about the so called “Nobel” in economics, read whatt William Black (an honest economists) says about it here
https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/10/economics-science-economists-scientists.html
He calls it a near-beer variant.
Pure water is also near beer, by the way.
While most people don’t know that the econ “Nobel” is a lie, economists DO know it.
But only the honest ones admit it.
The dishonest ones pretend that receiving it from high onMount Oilimpus makes them a Greek oracle.
The financial sector drags down GDP by 2%. WuDunn who worked for Wall Street exploiters like Goldman Sachs failed to identify it as a cause for poverty, preferring to indict public schools far removed from her limousine experience. What a surprise since she grew up on the affluent upper west side of NYC. And, Nick’s rarefied college experience in the ivy leagues insulated him from the inconvenient truth about those funding his career.
WuDunnit?
And WidWatt?
Kristof and WuDunn.
Sheryl was raised on NYC’s upper west side, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city. Does she propose spending the amount her parents spent for her education on all kids? Oh, and she worked for Goldman Sachs.
Nick reports that he learned his love of journalism at the public school he attended. Evidently, he assess his success at Harvard as independent of what he learned among the middle and working class students in Oregon.
Kristof, nor his wife show brilliance when they indict the wrong factor because they heard about it among the CAP limousine liberal crowd.
Not part of the argument, but Yamhill was the childhood home of Beverly Cleary, which somehow makes it sadder.
;Yes
Tuesday, the State of the Union. Trump, the moron made President by almost half the voting population of our nation, will stand up and read a speech written by Propaganda Minister Stephen “Goebbels” Miller. Miller will have been careful not to include any big words that the Donald wouldn’t understand. The speech will be all about “the best economy ever.” It won’t mention the one million poor kids Trump’s misadministration just cut from the free school lunch rolls in the Western democracy that has the highest percentage of kids living with chronic food insecurity. He will struggle through reading this speech three days after he issued regulations that will make people clinging to life and struggling through each day have to get others around them to struggle through mountains of paperwork every two years in order, they hope, to renew their Social Security disability payments. Because, you know, he really cares. He’s the champion of regular folk. Make America Grate Again. Blah blah blah. The kids in the cages at his detention centers won’t hear this speech, of course. Neither will the guards molesting them.
It’s a lot worse than farce. There’s nothing the least bit funny about it. So, the SOTU. Then, the next day, the Repugnican leeches on the body politic in the Senate will acquit their useful fool, knowing as they do so that he is an ignorant, slimeball conman, a distillation of neediness and kneejerk nastiness, and a traitor to his country, and they will do this because it’s easier for them to be on the take with someone of his limited mental capacity in the Offal Office in the now so much Whiter House.
cx: Then, the next day, in the Senate, the Repugnican leeches on the body politic will acquit their useful fool, knowing as they do so that he is a caricature of a comic book villain, an ignorant, slimeball conman, a distillation of neediness and knee-jerk nastiness, and a traitor to his country, and they will do this because it’s easier for them to be on the take with someone of his limited mental capacity in the Offal Office in the now so much Whiter House.
Having digested this more and had some time to think on it, it strikes me the the article left out analysis of the spiritual part of the United States. I do not mean the phrase to be in reference to the religious aspects of life, but to the parts of existence that tie people together in community. The commentary they quote above in the article that suggests the meaningful existence of the working class is fleeting in modern times may have a point, but there is far more to life than a job.
John Prine spoke to the generation of people who might have written this essay. His English teacher admonishes the listener: “..onomatopoeia, I don’t want a seeya, working at a boring job.” These authors departed their hometown and were in position to see the decline of small town America during their lifetime, a theme revisited often by authors who, like these, chose to pull their talent from our small places, heading out into a distant and adventuresome world. Celeste Krenz, a Nashville singer from rural North Dakota, said her father encouraged her on this American quest for self-actualization. “Go on,” he told her, “You can’t whip the world from here.”
Some of us stayed. I live in a county where my forebears settled over 200 years ago. While they left or were driven from their communities by forces they did not understand, my line of folks stayed. None of us has ever been that productive. No Nobel prizes or Rhodes scholars. No patents or major novels.
My father used to say good soil makes good communities and churches. That was too simplistic for the modern life. I recall thinking of his postulate one day as I stood looking at a church nestled in the rich farming country of the alluvium of the Missouri River in northern Missouri. Vines wound in and out of the stained glass that once made congregations sing louder and raise their children better and smarter until they understood that they had to leave to whip the world. Vines pushed into the symbols of the faith by the very soil my father knew would create good communities.
Thornton Wilder went home too. Our Town chronicles the pain of normal life, seen from a distance. Wilber’s characters stand from their place in the graveyard and lament the things that he saw as lost. From a distance, it must have seen to him that all of this was futile, a sordid tale of loneliness cloaked in community. But underneath the cloak in a community is warmth in the association with friends and family. Perhaps economic factors are the underpinnings of community, but we should recall that there was community before the industrial revolution began to spew out life like extruded pencils.
We must focus on community. All of us.
“Good
fencessoil makes good neighbors”You should have your own podcast because your pieces are ideally suited to radio — and FAR better than most of what one hears from sources like NPR..
The difference — what makes you credible — is that you have actually lived the life you are talking about.
Thanks for the compliment. I would have no more idea how to make a poscast than I would how to make a plaster cast.
Thanks. I guess I do not really even know what a podcast sounds like.
I don’t listen to podcasts but I understand from younger people that they love them.
RT, THAT IS FREAKING BEAUTIFUL.
RT, May I reprint this on my blog? If so, can you give me an attribution to include?
I am flattered. Of course you may print it. I do not really know what you mean by an attribution.
I want to tell people who wrote this beautiful, beautiful piece!
RT
Churches – bastions of racial segregation but, with one meaningful outcome- black men like Martin Luther King grew and honed their leadership skills in the American religious apartheid.
Churches and mosques train women as second class citizens. What message is gleaned from the patriarchy and the now, kowtowed Nuns on the Bus?
In Ireland, during the great hunger, when 1,000,000 died of starvation, the church’s role was to coalesce congregants against the revolutionaries fighting the Koch-like, social Darwinist rulers- “good neighbors”- similar to today.
White- washing with nostalgia, politicized religions that attack public education and abet the election of Republicans – buying into it feels wrong.
RT, Thinking on your post re:– pre-industrial, & pre-industrial-flight eras [say, mid-’60’s & before]… Yes, community was a huge part of “purpose” in life – spiritual purpose, whether part of a church or no.
“Perhaps economic factors are the underpinnings of community, but we should recall that there was community before the industrial revolution began to spew out life like extruded pencils.” But, those economic changes steadily chipped away at the ability to create and maintain community.
In agrarian times, three generations lived in the same farmhouse, with additions and houses added to cover all the aunts/ uncles/ cousins. Only one or two shopping & supply outlets, so families met & re-met at least wkly. Even as farms began dwindling, the housing/ shopping/ supply model hung on in rural areas past mid-20thC, due to jointly-owned family property & slower suburban growth.
During the post-war industrial boom, the nuclearized family compensated. Decent breadwinner salaries allowed the vast majority of women to stay at home while raising kids, & community-building was baked into that job. Time-saving devices had cut household chore time in half. Schools and churches/ temples sprouted ancillary clubs & charities where women volunteered, got acquainted, organized & staffed community fund-raising and social activities that brought local families together regularly. This model persisted right into the ’90’s.
But (at least around NY/ NJ suburbs) that model got choked off in short order as rising housing costs began to demand not just one job, or a job-&-1/2, but two careers just to get a toe in the door w/a 3-br/2-bath residence for a growing family. I associate that change w/the flight of mfg, the increasing clustering of remaining good jobs in urbs, & consequent rise in value of near-urban housing. Community is now something we have to fight for, & spend precious, tired after-wkhrs doing, & steadily encroached on by longer wkhrs, multiple gigs, & anti-public-goods moves by the oligarchs, e.g., fragmenting community schools w/ “choice.”
As usual, you have given me a lot to digest. First, I want to address your picture of agrarian times. I think you have the right picture, but perhaps with adjustments. I always pictured good agricultural regions as very stable, with generation after generation of the same family bringing stability to the community. Poor soil areas I expected to be less stable.
So I did a study some years ago of an area I knew was a good solid agricultural region from 1880 to 1910. I looked at the names of people who paid taxes on particular pieces of land over that thirty year period. Only about 30% of the names were the same over that period. what I expected to show a lot of stability instead showed quite a bit of instability in the ownership of farms.
I think we have always had a lot of instability in terms of population movement. What we used to have in urban America was the stability you mention in the one income family. I have been blaming the problem on the increased dependence on automation for the increased productivity of the few who are watching the machines.
Thanks for putting some facts into my hopper, RT, very interesting. Shows how one’s idea of “how things always were” is often just a reflection of what’s out their window of time as they pass through. My window is partly what I saw around me growing up in rural upstate – but was strongest influenced by my Dad’s Indiana clan. His immediate family shared one old farm among four houses/households, & the extended clan others. But your research may not show as much mobility as you think, unless it was buttressed by some genealogical detail. E.g., the farm road my Dad grew up on was named after his mother’s clan, but was gradually divided into adjacent family properties, whose deeds bore offspring’s surnames—grandsons thro dghtrs a different surname, etc…
BTW believe it or not some of this goes in my adopted NJ suburb, which you’d think would be all transient nuclear families. It’s thanks to a strong & stable housing market w/easy commute to both NYC & Philly outskirts. We know many families (at least one per block) where boomers like us raised kids in the home their parent or grandparent bought. It’s a way for middle class to stay on in an expensive state.