GOP Distrusts College? What Manner Of Numskull Inhabits This Party?

Above: Loyola freshman Theology class, ca. 1964.

When I first arrived on the Loyola University (New Orleans) campus on scholarship, it was perhaps the headiest experience of my life up to then. Not only in terms of the new found freedom (from overly solicitous parents) but the sheer exposure to so many novel ideas in the courses. Apart from that, in the fall of 1964, there were the 'bull sessions' when opinions and ideas were exchanged with other students in the dorm (Biever Hall).

The college experience, then, was one to open a mind and also to excite it to plumb new depths. For this Loyola had the good sense to sponsor intellectual debates and lectures through the 1964-65 term, including one involving the French Existentialist, Jean-Paul Sartre.  That exposure, in fact, began my path to atheism after reading his book ('Being and Nothingness') available at the Loyola Bookstore.

No one at that time, certainly not me or even the conservatives attending Loyola as well (most of whom were backing Barry Goldwater in fall of 1964) could conceive of college being a 'bad thing' or causing "negative effects".  Yet that is exactly what the case seems to be now with the Republican Party's perception.

A new Pew Research Center poll released on Monday revealed that there is one U.S. institution perceived through a larger partisan divide than even the media: It’s college.

This is nothing short of astounding, especially given - for the first time ever- a majority (58 percent)  of Republicans believe  "colleges are having a negative effect on the way things are going in the country", according to Pew.

Specifically, the poll found that positive or affirmative views of college for Repubs under the age of 50 sunk by 21 percentage points from 2015 to 2017. This is nothing short of breathtaking. Even more flabbergasting, given conservos since William Buckley always strongly advocated the intellect,  65 percent of ALL identified conservatives now say colleges and universities have a negative impact on the country. (Positive  views of college even among Repub college graduates have declined 11 percent in the past two years.)

What gives here? What's going on? I suspect there are two primary perceptions at work: one is that colleges and universities are almost exclusively the preserve of the "left".  The other is that they are preserves of "political correctness" and all the academic theories the Right has come to hate, e.g. anthropogenic climate change, Darwinian evolution etc.

The former is more a pathetic excuse given most conservos have always been more interested in making money than the world of ideas.  Or teaching ideas.  Hence, they've leaned to business, becoming Wall Street big shots or CEOS, or running their own companies - not plodding the lecture halls of colleges with pay about one tenth what a banker earns -- so the whining rings hollow.

The second might have slightly more heft, but not much. This is because much of the Right reads into anything that isn't outright in the face as "politically incorrect".  Also, their opposition to highly intellectual theories have been known since the year  dot.

In his book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,  Richard Hofstadter delves into the reasons that intellectuals – mainly on the Left – have been historically detested  by the American Right. The reasons often aren’t pretty, or even comprehensible,  and in fact are often downright puerile and smack of envy, i.e. that the Right simply detests the brainpower of the nation’s liberals.

One of the best examples is provided in Hofstadter 's account of how Adlai Stevenson was relentlessly skewered ca. the 1952  presidential campaign. (pp. 221-22). This included barbarous and savage verbal assaults in the media(p. 225), portraying Stevenson as "a Harvard lace- cuffed liberal who trilled his speeches in a fruity voice.".  As Hofstadter notes (ibid.) Stevenson's wit was also detested even more than his intellect. Of course, wit often functions in the service of intellect, to amplify intellect's intent and render its goals more efficacious. Or to smooth the delivery of information related to weighty issues.

Fast forward to 2014 and one finds a National Review story by Charles C. W. Cooke entitled “Smarter Than Thou”. Therein, Cooke whined about “the extraordinarily puffed-up ‘nerd’ culture that has of late started to bloom across the United States.”

Then there  Fox host Greg Gutfield who, during one panel exchange on the news 'Cosmos' series,, burped out:

"I hate this guy! I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about Neil deGrasse Tyson and he was just salivating. White liberal nerds love this guy so much, he could defecate on them like Martin Bashir’s fantasies and they would dance in the streets.”

This, spoken by a confirmed moron who isn’t fit to lick the soles of Tyson’s shoes. Which brings us to Cooke’s polemic against Tyson in the National Review.  We pretty well know what’s coming as we eye an illustration of Tyson on the cover, drawn to look like a self-satisfied Elite who looks down his nose at any and all crackers.  This despite the fact Neil deGrasse Tyson hardly gives off that vibe in real life. He's an affable gentleman who's accepting of all and that trait carried over into his Cosmos appearances.

The actual article (it’s more like recovered anti-intellectual dreck from the 1950s)  more than lives up to the cover art’s promise of the “green-eyed monster”, as Cooke expands his attack beyond one of the country’s pre-eminent scientists to include policy-oriented journalists, economists, other scientists, and “anybody who conforms to the Left’s social and moral precepts while wearing glasses and babbling about statistics.” (Cooke also drags in economist Paul Krugman and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, neither of whom he considers the real deal. Instead, he argues that the emphasis by liberals, on things like evidence, rationality, and empiricism is purely insincere,  adding it’s “nothing more than a way to signal that you are better than southern, politically conservative, culturally traditional” types.)

If one critically reads much of the Right polemics against climate science or evolution, one finds the same sort of tawdry, two bit attacks. It is then but a small step to generalize the animus to the sources of funding and intellectualism that harbor such "nerds": Colleges and universities!

Sadly, with these latest Pew survey results the Repubs have merely shown even more convincingly they are the new "Whigs" - a party bereft of ideas and solidly anti-intellectual. Just look at their god-forsaken "health plan".

Revenge on the Nerds II: Why Conservos Hate Smartiepants Liberals

In his book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,  Richard Hofstadter delves into the reasons that intellectuals – mainly on the Left – are detested with such verve by the American Right. The reasons often aren’t pretty, or even comprehensible,  and in fact are often downright puerile and smack of envy, i.e. that the Right simply lacks the brainpower of the nation’s liberals.

 One of the best insights into hatred of the Left intellectual is provided in Hofstadter 's account of how Adlai Stevenson was relentlessly skewered ca. the 1952  presidential campaign. (pp. 221-22). This included barbarous and savage verbal assaults in the media(p. 225).  As Hofstadter notes (ibid.) Stevenson's wit was detested even more than his intellect. Of course, wit often functions in the service of intellect, to amplify intellect's intent and render its goals more efficacious. Or to smooth the delivery of information related to weighty issues.

 For this Adlai was repeatedly slandered and referred to as a "comedian" or "clown" and portrayed in cartoons with a jester's cap and bells. The New York Daily News (cf. p. 227) once referred to him as "Adelaide" and charged that he "trilled his speeches in a fruity voice."  Fruity voice? Hmmmm…so the implication was that Adlai was also a “fruit” – eh? And hence the generalization might be inferred by the knuckle-draggers that all intellectuals were “fruits”.

 Thereby rendering an additional slur - one that directly ties intellectual display or wit with homosexuality. This was reinforced by the description of Stevenson’s followers as "typical Harvard lace-cuff liberals." At lower levels of society today, this pernicious virus can still be seen - in our public high schools. There, day in and day out "geeks", "dweebs" and "dorks" are relentlessly assaulted by feeble-minded "jocks" for openly displaying any intellect. Many are also accused of being "gay" simply because they prefer the life of the mind and books- to football, mailbox 'baseball' or cow-tipping.

No wonder little has changed.

 We now fast forward to the 21^st century  (“Revenge II”) and the latest screeds against smart people on the Left as embodied in a despicable article in the recent National Review story by Charles C. W. Cooke entitled “Smarter Than Thou”. Therein, Cooke whined about “the extraordinarily puffed-up ‘nerd’ culture that has of late started to bloom across the United States.”

 “Started of late”? You effing moron! It was always there, but only recently has occupied more public prominence because more of these Left intellectual voices are afforded platforms they weren’t before. We now have an intellectual president, after all, who really did earn his place at Harvard and wasn’t allowed in as  a “legacy” – as Bush Jr. A fact that continually eats at the Right’s innards.

Then there is the Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, whose voice has consistently skewered the assorted shibboleths of the economic Right.  Finally, we beheld the charismatic and articulate Neil deGrasse Tyson who most recently provided perspective and voice to the remake of the Cosmos series. Tyson frequently interjected examples of scientific discoveries that infuriate the Right, especially to do with global warming, and evolution. (Presenting nearly one whole episode on each, with enough detailed, documented evidence to even educate a high school science flunk out).

But these presentations particularly enraged the Righties to distraction. A month ago, for example, it was none other than Fox host Greg Gutfield who, during one panel exchange, burped out:

I hate this guy! I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about Neil deGrasse Tyson and he was just salivating. White liberal nerds love this guy so much, he could defecate on them like Martin Bashir’s fantasies and they would dance in the streets.”

This, spoken by a confirmed moron who isn’t fit to lick the soles of Tyson’s shoes.

Which brings us to Cooke’s polemic against Tyson in the National Review.  We pretty well know what’s coming as we eye an illustration of Tyson on the cover, drawn to look like a self-satisfied Elite who looks down his nose at any and all crackers.  This despite the fact Neil deGrasse Tyson hardly gives off that vibe in real life. He's an affable gentleman who's accepting of all and that trait carried over into his Cosmos appearances.

The actual article (it’s more like recovered anti-intellectual dreck from the 1950s)  more than lives up to the cover art’s promise of the “green-eyed monster”, as Cooke expands his attack beyond one of the country’s pre-eminent scientists to include policy-oriented journalists, economists, other scientists, and “anybody who conforms to the Left’s social and moral precepts while wearing glasses and babbling about statistics.”

 Oh, wearing glasses? So you don't know about the link between poor eyesight (myopia from young) and I.Q.? Babbling about statistics? Well perhaps because your I.Q. is too low to grasp even the most basic statistics, say like simple correlation and linear regression. So obviously you wouldn’t be able to handle Poisson statistics!

 Cooke, realizing that he’s fired a broadside against anyone who dares to actually do things like examine evidence or consider the logic of an argument, hastens to add:

 “The pose is, of course, little more than a ruse — most of our professional ‘nerds’ being, like Mrs. Doubtfire, stereotypical facsimiles of the real thing.”

Which is not only incomprehensible but misplaced. For one thing, if those like Tyson were mere “facsimiles” I am sure Cooke wouldn’t have been allotted so much prime magazine space to go after him and his cohort.  I mean why joust at a windmill facsimile of a “monster”? You’d have to be mad or crazies, as the well attuned former IRS official Ms. Lerner described the Right in a recent email to a friend. I mean, you have to be crazy to assert anyone (“nerd” or other) is a “facsimile” especially given you don’t know enough about their work to make that determination!

 But this is what Cooke – who’s probably never even taken a high school physics course-  argues!  That it’s all a big pose and all these people are just dummies pretending to be smart because they are “popular kids indulging in a fad.”

Hmmmm…..looks to me more like a pathetic excuse for a hack practicing a massive exercise in sour grapes, because he knows in his heart he will never be as gifted as those he mocks.  So he projects his obtuseness on his targets and hopes enough people will bite. Well, maybe the readers of the National Review and a bunch of FOX-ites but few people with any sense.

 How else explain calling Tyson a poseur, a stretch that even his extraordinarily gullible audience isn’t likely to buy. Oh, Cooke grudgingly admits that Tyson “has formal scientific training,”  you know the type that prepares one to do any kind of serious research?   But he refuses to go so far as to allow that the Director of the Hayden Planetarium is actually a scientist-  as opposed to some hipster in a lab coat costume.

 But the poseur scorn isn’t reserved only for Tyson.. This cornpone twit Cooke also drags in economist Paul Krugman and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, neither of whom he considers the real deal. Instead, he argues that the emphasis by liberals, on things like evidence, rationality, and empiricism is purely insincere,  adding it’s “nothing more than a way to signal that you are better than southern, politically conservative, culturally traditional” types.

 WhAAAAT?   Well, if those “southern, political conservative, culturally traditional” types aren’t well versed in science then we are superior – at least in science! (I do grant them other superior advantages in: picking out the best pickups, hunting ducks,  collecting guns, and finding chapters and verses for Bible quotes…..oh and cooking up great pulled pork!)

 But to do like Cooke does, and declare a whole swatch of Left intellectuals “insincere” because he’s too dumb to grasp what the hell they’re doing, is well……pathetic to the point of sickening.

 Sadly, this  whining BWAAHAA! behavior is hardly an anomaly. “You think you’re so cool” actually became the basis for an entire book by the formerly named Fox News dunce, Greg Gutfeld (the same goober who declared white nerds love to be “defecated on” by black elites like Tyson.)  Gutfield wrote an entire book called Not Cool: The Hipster Elite and Their War on You.

 It’s main talking point is that it gives the delirious, brainless Right base a bunch of pointy-headed Left intellectuals on the coasts to hate – while the banksters and corporate tycoons like the Kochs (who really fucked them) get to walk free without any complaints. It’s called adjusting the target and generally works for the lowest quintile of intellects. The key is to head off hatred of the genuine elite targets at the pass, convince the base not to listen to the critics’ arguments in the first place. Hence, they can’t actually hear the evidence for global warming if they’re too busy slagging on the messenger for thinking he’s so smart with his PhDs and his facts.

 Which 'Romper Room' is exactly where conservative leadership wants their audiences to be, and where most of them (who can’t think for themselves and lack adequate education) are. So much also for the conservative claim that individuals who work hard toward the top should be rewarded for their contributions to society. Not if you’re a successful liberal scientist, writer, or even just an actor. Oh no!  You are now one of the “termites of life” – who presumably should be extinguished, if not physically then by prohibiting your words,  ideas from gaining a major forum. (You can, of course, blog to your heart's content for a few dozen people.)

There's no sign this hostility of the American Right to the intellect will change any time soon, so very likely we will soon have 'Revenge on the Nerds III'.

Dallas: The City With A 'Death Wish' In Its Eye?

TIME cover image of Clint Murchison Sr., the 'King' of the Oil Depletion Tax Allowance which JFK threatened to have repealed. He is numbered amongst the right wing hot shots in Big D, ca. 1963


"For 50 years, Dallas has done its best to avoid coming to terms with the one event that made it famous: the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. That's because, for the self-styled 'Big D', grappling with the assassination means reckoning with its own legacy as the 'city of hate', the city that willed the death of the president."  -James McAuley, New York Times Sunday Review, Nov, 17, p. 5

If you are a Millennial- maybe watching CBS Early Show yesterday -  then you would have possibly taken the segment with Mo Rocca's antiseptic take on Dallas to heart given you had little else to go by.  Rocca made reference to how much Big D has obviously changed since the dark days of 50 years ago, but he also belittled the extent of venom in the city back then - referring to "small  groups of right wingers" but dissing the notion that hate was entrenched.

This is in marked contrast to how the authors of the new book, Dallas 1963, document how Dallas had become a cesspool of KKK, John Bircher and Confederate hate by late 1963. This was thanks to the likes of "leading citizens" - such as c(who ran The Dallas Morning News as a prominent, anti-Kennedy hate rag), Bill Criswell- Baptist Preacher who made a thing of preaching racial and political hate, and H.L. Hunt - the oil tycoon - who used his "Facts Forum" as one of the first radio hate platforms, against Catholics, Blacks, Jews ....oh and the Kennedys.

Rocca did mention the infamous incident in which Adlai Stevenson, on a UN visit in October, was smacked with placards and spat upon by anti-UN protestors.  But this was also not made into much, other than one extreme incident. When asked by a reporter from the rival Dallas Times Herald if he hated Dallas, Stevenson- after wiping off a gob of spit and blood from a head wound - replied:

"I don't hate the people of Dallas, I just want to educate them."

Of course, he then warned Kennedy not to come on his planned November trip. Did Stevenson see more in the Big D zeitgeist than Rocca has been able to? I believe so, and so does a descendant of one of the "Big Men" of Big D (from 1963), James McAuley - a Marshall history scholar at the University of Oxford. This was in an article he wrote for the Nov. 17  New York Times Sunday Review, p. 5 ('The City With A Death Wish In Its Eye'). 

McAuley writes of some of these men:

"Those 'men of Dallas'-  men like my grandfather- oil men and corporate executives, self-made but self-segregated in a white collar enclave in a blue collar state- often loathed the federal government at least as much, if not more than the Soviet Union or Communist China"

adding that:

"For these men, Kennedy was a veritable enemy of the state, which is why a group of them would commission and circulate 'Wanted for Treason'  pamphlets before the President's arrival."

A poster is shown below:


In another sentence, McAuley refers to his grandmother, taken not long after the assassination who "smiles a porcelain smile" and:

"Her eyes are intent, fixed on a target: liberalism, gender equality, gays,"

He also refers to the woman who struck Stevenson and spat upon him the month before JFK arrived noting:

"It was the wife of a downtown insurance executive, not a derelict, who struck Adlai Stevenson."

Evidently, thousands of such "frustrated" women got into Dallas' regressive politics, energized by what they saw as outside traitorous liberalism, brought to a peak by JFK's policies  - especially on integration in late 1963. According to McAuley they "turned to politics as a means of garnering the validation they were otherwise denied. With time and money at their disposal they would outdo their husbands and even themselves."

McAuley's problem with Dallas-  despite Mo Rocca referring to the Dallas Cowboys and the TV series "Dallas" as helping to rehabilitate its image (what McAuley describes as "transient triumphs in the face of what's always left unsaid"), was that it had never come to terms with its dark past. And even he admits:

"The far right of my grandparents and the radicalism of my grandparents' generation may have faded in recent years, but they remain very much alive in Dallas. Look no further than the troop of gun rights activists who appeared just days ago just outside a meeting of local mothers concerned over gun violence....if this is what counts as responsible civic dialogue Dallas has a long way to go."

Unmentioned is an earlier demonstration with gun rights Dallasites packing heat and marching down Elm Street - in front of the Texas School Book Depository (according to a number of commenters on a Dallas Morning News forum barely 3 weeks ago.  Can anyone say 'tone deaf' to history?

So McAuley isn't surprised that:

"Once again, spectacle is likely to trump substance"

Referring to a planned jet flyover tomorrow, a performance by the Naval Academy's Men Glee Club and remarks from historian David McCullough on Kennedy's legacy.  As he notes:

"Not one word will be said at this event about what exactly the city was in 1963, in what the president arrived in what he called, just moment before his death, 'nut country;"

So look for another opportunity at true redemption to pass, and the city can  dismiss the evil of November, 1963 as an aberration. Once more content in the notion that one sad-faced "commie loner" in its midst did the dirty deed - and it can wash its hands since the Warren Commission (created by a Texan) had the sense to generate the de facto scapegoat (who was killed before he could have his say).

Sadly, Dallas may never learn the lesson that 'he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it' and that Death Wish may never abate from its Eye.

The 'United States of Tex-Ass"? Don't Make Me Laugh!

In the lead up to the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald, it's documented how a paid Oswald impostor arrived at a Dallas car dealership in March, 1963 and remarked to a salesman (after denigrating American -made cars): "If someone wanted to give America an enema, all they'd have to do is stick the nozzle right here....in Dallas, Texas!"

The Oswald impostor certainly got the salesman's attention and probably went overboard, though the authors of the new book, Dallas 1963, document how Dallas had become a cesspool of KKK, John Bircher and Confederate hate by late 1963, thanks to the likes of "leading citizens" - such as Ted Dealey (who ran The Dallas Morning News as a prominent, anti-Kennedy hate rag), Bill Criswell- Baptist Preacher who made a thing of preaching racial and political hate, and H.L. Hunt - the oil tycoon - who used his "Facts Forum" as one of the first radio hate platforms, against Catholics, Blacks, Jews ....oh and the Kennedys. (The Reich wing kool aid drinkers at 'The American Spectator' insist Dallas "was never a city of hate" - but then they didn't read the same book I did!)

The authors also noted the level of hate crimes in the city including the practice by Dallas cops of grabbing black men off the streets, hustling them blind -folded into some garage, removing their pants then using thick belts on them and daring them to name the person wielding them. All this perhaps a prelude to several cases where - just before JFK's arrival in November, 1963, one black man was dragged out of his home, had gasoline poured all over him and was set on fire by the "upstanding" disenchanted, anti-liberal yahoos of good ol' Big D.  Of course, this itself was preceded by the infamous incident in which Adlai Stevenson, on a UN visit in October, was smacked with placards and spat upon by anti-UN protestors.

When asked by a reporter from the rival Dallas Times Herald if he hated Dallas, Stevenson- after wiping off a gob of spit and blood from a head wound - replied:

"I don't hate the people of Dallas, I just want to educate them."

Of course, he then warned Kennedy not to come on his planned November trip.(Which was intended to shore up a split between the Texas Democratic party's liberal faction led by Sen. Ralph Yarborough, and the conservative faction led by Gov. John Connolly).

All this is a prelude to the question of whether Dallas and Texas have changed much in the intervening years, at least to the level of minimum civility. Also, how it is that the latest issue of TIME magazine features a 'puzzle' map of Texas on its cover, with all 50 states jack-screwed into it, and the header 'The United States of Texas'.    And then in the sub-header we read:

"Why The Lone Star State Is America's Future"

And I then looked askance, wondering what manner of ignoramus or half-idiot could write such dreck. It either had to be Rick Perry, or some libertarian jackwad who probably just got high on some kind of rope. Well, it turned out it was the latter, a libertarian prof from George Mason University named Tyler Cowen.

Cowen's piece was fairly readable and at least he's honest in parts. It also helps (in the other parts of the article)  if you don't easily have the wool pulled over your eyes by Libertarian propaganda and nonsense about "self reliance".  As I said before in other blogs, if the Libbies really believed this bullshit they'd have their own defense departments and health departments. (Btw, Libertarian icon Ayn Rand's answer was for all communities in the country to "buy enough insurance" to protect themselves from rapes, murders, arson and ordinary accidental fires .)

Is Texas more civilized now than it was in '63 when black men were snatched off the streets and beaten in the dark by white apes with badges and KKK hoods hidden in their trunks? You be the judge. Here are some markers of modern Texas from the pen of Cowen himself (p. 32):

- The state's social services are thin and welfare benefits are skimpy

- Roughly a quarter of residents have no health insurance.

- Texas schools "are less than stellar" and rank in the bottom quintile of U.S. education.

- Rates of murder and rape, as well as property crimes are among the nation's highest.

- Texas  "led the nation as the place the most people got punched or kicked to death in 2012"

Wow! Sounds like Tex-Ass really really progressed since 1963! The place where most people get stomped to death or punched to death! But he left out a number of other aspects such as:

- Half the state is a chemical -fracking nightmare, especially in the region known as "the Barnett shale" where most fracking is ongoing. People are having such problems (respiratory, skin lesions, brain dysfunction etc.)  that it's affecting their health - causing them to move from homes and engendering flammable water (as shown in Gasland II.) Water testing of wells - when it is done, which is seldom - shows: boron, methane, strontium, benzene, and  toluene.

- The state is ground zero for the new "normal" as climate change accelerates to a new tempo. People in the  state will face the same massive fires the Aussies (in New South Wales) are enduring now.  This past summer 97% of the state was in persistent drought.

- As Rachel Maddow noted three nights ago, the new Texas Voter ID law will disenfranchise nearly 1.4 million already registered voters in the state, of whom only 50 so far- may have succeeded in getting what they need before next year's mid terms. Democracy? Hell no!

- A new anti-abortion law passed in Texas will limit abortion clinics to barely 13 across the state. Women who need it will be forced to take a "Mexican prescription" of assorted herbs and chemicals to try and induce abortions themselves - as Rachel Maddow also pointed out. In other words, yeah ladies, go ahead and move to Tex Ass but just hope and pray you don't get raped there and become pregnant! Or at least you can get some of that Mexican concoction if it happens!

- Texas is another one of the states that's disallowed the Medicaid expansion that would have provided health insurance to some 4.3 million needy people mainly in poor families. Now they will have to fend for themselves.

- On the educational scene, Texas is an abomination - leading the charge for textbooks that attempt to deny climate change and evolution, as well as rewriting parts of American history to make it more favorable to the Johnny Reb traitors.

A more recent outrage, as highlighted in a recent piece in salon, is the adoption of a curriculum known as "ResponsiveEd"   founded by Donald R. Howard, former owner of ACE (Accelerated Christian Education). ACE is a fundamentalist curriculum that teaches young-Earth creationism as fact as well as teaching the crappola that Darwin’s theory of evolution was adopted by Hitler ("survival of the fittest") and was responsible for the Holocaust. These morons don't even know that "survival of the fittest" was never used by Charles Darwin but by philosopher Herbert Spencer - who attempted to (falsely) extrapolate evolution to social regimes.

Anyway, Cowen makes sure at least we know (in his own way) that the minimal social  safety net of Texas is what awaits the rest of America if we don't fight now like rabid ferrets to make sure the Neoliberal asswipes don't destroy what's left of the Middle Class. That includes preventing them from cutting the prime programs that now support most of the elderly Middle Class: Social Security and Medicare.

Texas, or what Cowen writes Marshall Whitman once called "America's America" (sic) "is already one of our most unequal states" and "its safety net was already built frayed".  But hey, don't despair! Americans are moving to Texas at the rate of 106,000 a year (net migration) because the cost of living is cheaper! You can buy more home for the buck, and there are no state taxes! Ah, but unsaid is that the wages are generally lower for most paid work, and there are few or no job benefits- so you damned well better have that "untaxed" money saved up in case you need to buy your own health insurance!


Entrepreneurial wannabes also are flocking because the state features "a less regulated climate in which to do business". Cowen invokes this regulatory "freedom" to point to Texas' phenomenal growth (p. 35) as well as it's relatively low (6.4%) unemployment. But who is he fooling? Only the unread.


What is Texas' secret? Economists have summarized the template thusly:

"low wages, low taxes and light regulations"

In other words, applied to the first, wages for most are kept at just state minimum wage level, meaning most Texans with such jobs lack benefits and have to find at least another gig to make ends meet ...to pay their mortgage, buy groceries or get health care.

As for the second, any corporations entering to set up business are given passes on property taxes and other (state) income taxes while those burdens are passed on to the state's citizens. Meanwhile, in order to pay for them, cuts are made to programs including education, school meals, and Medicaid. (Another reason why Rick Perry insisted on no Medicaid expansion.)

The third means that new companies are free to pollute to their hearts' content including chucking toxic runoff (i.e. dioxins, chromium III, potassium perchlorate, toluene etc.) wherever they want and no reg cop will look, as well as easing up on the labor safety regs - so workers may be forced to work under risky conditions and well....if they lose a hand or foot...they will have to take care of it themselves!

Not surprisingly, Texans' health issues have exploded, and as many as 100,000 new cancers are forecast over the next five years, most of which (cancer of the breast, liver, lungs, prostate, bladder) citizens will have to take care of on their own with precious little in the way of medical insurance (which they can't afford given the low quality of 85% of Texas' 1 million great jobs).

The most loathsome thing about this whole hyped up sham is how Perry has not just let many companies go tax-free, but actually showered largesse from his "slush fund" for setting up shop! For example, The Dallas Morning News reported three years ago this October that more than $16 million of Perry's special fund had gone to companies with substantial links to some of Perry's campaign backers.(Ibid.)

Perry himself is a throwback neo-Confederate almost in the old Ted Dealey mold, who - after Obama was re-elected- had also been espousing secession like his Confederate ancestors. The guy is also best known - or perhaps maybe just from my perspective - for issuing hidden threats regarding Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke coming to Texas a couple years ago.  See, for example:

http://branespace.blogspot.com/2011/08/degenerates-may-let-perrys-comments.html

 Cowen's last observation bears repeating:

"Americans heading to Texas and other cheap living states are a bit like the mythical cowboys of our past, self-reliant for better or worse."

Actually, the cowboys existed in a truly more self-reliant world where mega-corporations hadn't yet taken over the food supply with industrial genetic farming, Monsanto techniques, etc. and there still existed wide open spaces- which hadn't been compromised by fracking wells, or corporate redoubts - not to mention million square foot properties owned by rich oilmen, corporate honchos earning 50,000 times more than their workers, and mountains debased to make room for immense play areas for the investment bankers and celebrities.

Today's Americans running to Texas for relief, remind me more of  Tom Joad-  the forlorn, dispossessed share cropper in The Grapes of Wrath. Unable to afford barely a  pot to piss in, his family's only recourse was to try to make it to California where they at least might have a chance.

In short, Cowen's prescription of "moving to Texas" signals a submission and a surrender to the Neoliberal imperative that citizens are no longer entitled to any protections, and the world and nation is owned by the corporatists, the capitalists and their war monger and security spawn. At least I am glad I will likely not be alive to see how this morose narrative fully plays out.  In the meantime, I suggest that we not give in so amicably but fight like Devils so as not to become the lowest common denominator symbolized by Texas and its misplaced priorities.