Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/land-of-opportunity
The Atlantic
June 2007Maybe it’s time to stop calling America the “land of opportunity.”
by Clive CrookRags to Rags, Riches to Riches
Opportunity is the crux of the American idea. Opportunity is what the New World has always represented: struggle, risk, self-determination, and the hope of spiritual and material progress. Even now, to new immigrants, that or something like it is the pull—and for them at least, it is no false promise. If you move to America, you move up, and this is true whether you are rafting across the Rio Grande or negotiating the hazards of the H1B visa program. British emigrants (I am one) are fond of Spain and the United States. They go to Spain to retire; they come here to rise to new challenges. This lure, barely diminished after more than three centuries, has ever been an incalculable source of national strength.
But is America any longer a land of opportunity for the people born here? The evidence, such as it is, points to a surprising and dispiriting answer: no, not especially.
[...]
Most researchers now give America much lower marks than they used to for intergenerational economic mobility—the ease with which successive generations move up or down relative to their parents.
[...]
More telling, maybe, is the international comparison. America stands lower in the ranking of income mobility than most of the countries whose data allow the comparison, scoring worse than Canada, all of the Scandinavian countries, and possibly even Germany and Britain (the data are imperfect, and different studies give slightly different results).
Strikingly, the research suggests that mobility within America’s middle-income bands is similar to that in many other countries. The stickiness is at the top and the bottom.
[...]
In America, more than in other advanced economies, poor children stay poor. Other data show that in America, more than in, say, Britain, rich children stay rich as well.
[...]
In general, a little less tolerance of inherited privilege would not seem amiss (hard for Americans to hear from a Brit, I understand, but look at the facts).
Would it hurt, for instance, if the admissions preferences granted by America’s most prestigious universities to the children of benefactors and alumni aroused more disgust, or maybe just some mild disapproval?
[...]
- - Clive Crook is an Atlantic senior editor.
* * * * *
Maintaining inherited privilege doesn't just happen.
It's organized.
It's done via vast affirmative action programs.
But when the programs are done by and for the privileged, they aren't called "affirmative action".
if we would know our politicians right away by their names - Like if it's a 'Clinton' it can not be
an honest plumber and if it's a Bush it can not be a surgeon - like in good old Europe where you can identify whole professions by their names - because that's where this madness started that the son (brother, cousin, nephew) of a doctor, lawyer, plumber tried to pick the same job as his father - and I always understood why the son of a plumber or a doctor or a Hollywood producer would try to pick his father's job- but to become a 'politician'? Isn't that still one of most despised job on this planet? - Just right after being a lawyer?!
Fine examples, all of which make me cringe; they all sound very middle-ages to me. As for Prince, that isn't what he calls himself anymore; I approve of the symbol much more, whatever it means.
While I certainly agree that nepotism (and I'm defining the term to mean ascension through family ties rather than merit)is a bad/damaging political practice, I'm not sure it's fair to dismiss every politician with the same surname as a predecessor as a beneficiary of nepotism. At least, I don't think it's fair to label them as unworthy office holders or even office winners.
Well, I'm glad I didn't do that then:
"It's certainly true that one can find, in individual cases, instances of self-sufficiency and merit even among those benefiting from nepotism and family names."
Summoned her young grand vezir
"It is best to be begotten of a fine familial back bone
That our fine fellaheen of the field can all respect with
Reverence and
Fear..."
"Yes indeed your grace"
Replied the grand vezir
Queen Hep-pant-suit looked down to the grand vezir
Patted his head
Spoke the magic words
"Now away with you my dear..."
This article means nothing to me unless I have some means to compare current and past trends. In particular raising the case of Kennedys isn't too helpful, because that's been going on for half a century already, which is a big fraction of the existence of this nation.
Making matters worse, a schoolchild can easily come up with examples from the past. Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams. Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of William Henry Harrison. TR and Eleanor Roosevelt were related, and FDR more distantly. That's six presidents and a president's wife right there.
There is nothing clear about this supposed trend.
kudos to sysprog but you still can become president of this country out of nowhere (Hawaii)
about the author of a book on Nancy Pelosi who was giving a talk on his book. He celebrated, celebrated, that Pelosi was appointed to her House seat by her predecessor on her death bed. This woman, dying, said that she knew who she wanted to succeed her and named Nancy Pelosi who, at the time, was a housewife to a wealthy San Francisco businessman. Pelosi, summoned, "could not refuse." The author then went on to talk about Pelosi as a House member, and said nothing whatever about the electoral process.
Here in San Diego, Duncan Hunter was just elected to his first term in the House. That's right, I said "first term." His father has just sort of quietly retired. I wonder how many in the polling booth thought they were voting for the father.
This is how oligarchies are made.
As time goes on, the model of a congress elected to do 'our' bidding seems flawed by design. The minute the elected get to Washington, the force that rules their lives is not their constituents, but the climate of Washington. Yes, they have to get elected again, and yes, they can be recalled (when does that happen?), but other than that, they have 2-4-6 years free.
Once in, money plays a role in getting re-elected (as it does the first time around), and with a demoblized populace (and that is what we are folks...) they can stay in office for years - or forever. And then their name gets stuck on baby, and the cycle repeats itself.
The most democratic institution I have ever been in is a union, which has meetings every month, and votes on everything. Contrast that with a corporation, which has one annual meeting, all scripted, and votes with its money. Or a workplace, which is ruled by benevolent or not so benevolent dictators. The U.S. needs institutions that make democracy live more than once every 4 years. Councils, in neighborhoods, towns, companies or office parks, would give democracy real meat. Which it is sadly lacking in this society, and which is being reduced every day.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
