J. Anthony Lukas, my hero
I started re-reading J. Anthony Lukas' "Common Ground" because I remembered the book's incredible narrative drive. But this time I came away thinking more about its politics.
"Common Ground" is an account of three families caught in Boston's forced-busing debate of the 1970s. It breaks a big political topic into wonderful tiny stories, then layers those stories together to create a deep portrayal of 20th century city life.
Twenty years after the book's publication, forced busing seems a quaintly irrelevant idea. Its goal was to improve the lives of minorities by desegregating schools in a city where the segregation had been caused by residential patterns (rather than actual dual school systems, as down south). Nowadays, regardless of their makeup, inner-city schools are still a mess. Turns out both the proponents (who hoped busing would improve the education of black slum-dwellers) and the fiercest opponents (who opposed mixing of races) were wrong. Society as a whole is now much more integrated -- and much better off for being so -- but kids from the slums still fail to acquire the skills we wish they could.
Lukas' genius was to get beyond the black and white of the issue, so to speak, to find real heroism in more moderate positions. In the narrative, most poor whites who oppose busing simply want the benefits of community, including community-based schools -- a sense that Charlestown High has won something for everyone in the neighborhood. Indeed, strengthening that school-community link turns out to be a force across ethnic and class boundaries. Some wealthy idealists form an integrated neighborhood school, but their kids are instead bused across town. Blacks are bounced around as if racial percentages rather than education is what matters.
Only makes sense to me. Raising children is a valuable function of neighborhoods. And in this case these neighborhoods almost *have* to be geographic (rather than based on class, career, etc.). Why violate such principles for a vague idea about the value of desegregated schools? Even back then, research showed that the best predictor of performance was what was going on in your family, not your school.
In the book, the idealistic couple eventually decides that when it comes to changing society, liberals are always coming up with ideas. But what matters is not so much the ideas themselves as their acceptance by the wider and the efficiency of administering them. I suppose you could characterize this as the beginnings of disillusionment with 1960s idealism...
Except for one problem. Look how society has reversed.
Today, it is conservatives who believe in the power of ideas. Actually one idea, albeit powerful: free markets. Free markets will save Iraq, free markets will save Social Security, free markets will save education. But these ideologues are equally uninterested in how to implement their ideas. So why would the ideas work any better than forced busing?
Maybe it's time to stop drawing lines between "liberals" and "conservatives." Maybe we should instead draw the lines between "ideologues" and "implementers." Do you just have an idea? Or do you have a desire to plan and re-plan and re-plan the implementation of that idea so as to benefit society?
I think that's why, his moral failings aside, Bill Clinton was a good president. He was a policy wonk. That's why, charisma failings aside, I had hopes for Al Gore and John Kerry. They had ideas for how government should work. And, oddly, that's why Colin Powell or Rudy Giuliani might make good presidents. They're administrators. I love John Edwards' ideas, but if he ran against one of those two, we'd have a reversal of the last two elections. At least in terms of the political divide that -- according to "Common Ground" -- makes the difference as to whether or not policies improve people's lives.
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/
"Common Ground" is an account of three families caught in Boston's forced-busing debate of the 1970s. It breaks a big political topic into wonderful tiny stories, then layers those stories together to create a deep portrayal of 20th century city life.
Twenty years after the book's publication, forced busing seems a quaintly irrelevant idea. Its goal was to improve the lives of minorities by desegregating schools in a city where the segregation had been caused by residential patterns (rather than actual dual school systems, as down south). Nowadays, regardless of their makeup, inner-city schools are still a mess. Turns out both the proponents (who hoped busing would improve the education of black slum-dwellers) and the fiercest opponents (who opposed mixing of races) were wrong. Society as a whole is now much more integrated -- and much better off for being so -- but kids from the slums still fail to acquire the skills we wish they could.
Lukas' genius was to get beyond the black and white of the issue, so to speak, to find real heroism in more moderate positions. In the narrative, most poor whites who oppose busing simply want the benefits of community, including community-based schools -- a sense that Charlestown High has won something for everyone in the neighborhood. Indeed, strengthening that school-community link turns out to be a force across ethnic and class boundaries. Some wealthy idealists form an integrated neighborhood school, but their kids are instead bused across town. Blacks are bounced around as if racial percentages rather than education is what matters.
Only makes sense to me. Raising children is a valuable function of neighborhoods. And in this case these neighborhoods almost *have* to be geographic (rather than based on class, career, etc.). Why violate such principles for a vague idea about the value of desegregated schools? Even back then, research showed that the best predictor of performance was what was going on in your family, not your school.
In the book, the idealistic couple eventually decides that when it comes to changing society, liberals are always coming up with ideas. But what matters is not so much the ideas themselves as their acceptance by the wider and the efficiency of administering them. I suppose you could characterize this as the beginnings of disillusionment with 1960s idealism...
Except for one problem. Look how society has reversed.
Today, it is conservatives who believe in the power of ideas. Actually one idea, albeit powerful: free markets. Free markets will save Iraq, free markets will save Social Security, free markets will save education. But these ideologues are equally uninterested in how to implement their ideas. So why would the ideas work any better than forced busing?
Maybe it's time to stop drawing lines between "liberals" and "conservatives." Maybe we should instead draw the lines between "ideologues" and "implementers." Do you just have an idea? Or do you have a desire to plan and re-plan and re-plan the implementation of that idea so as to benefit society?
I think that's why, his moral failings aside, Bill Clinton was a good president. He was a policy wonk. That's why, charisma failings aside, I had hopes for Al Gore and John Kerry. They had ideas for how government should work. And, oddly, that's why Colin Powell or Rudy Giuliani might make good presidents. They're administrators. I love John Edwards' ideas, but if he ran against one of those two, we'd have a reversal of the last two elections. At least in terms of the political divide that -- according to "Common Ground" -- makes the difference as to whether or not policies improve people's lives.
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/
