False Logic: Red vs. Blue Inequality

In today’s column, The Wrong Inequality – NYTimes.com, David Brooks says there are two types of inequality:

• Blue – which is the inequality that has been in the news lately and exemplified by the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. He says this is the inequality experienced in places like New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles…basically, major metropolitan areas. In this case, inequality refers to the difference between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.
• Red – which is the inequality experienced in small towns like Scranton and others like it.  In this case, the inequality experienced is “between those with a college degree and those without.”

In the Red case, Mr. Brooks further explains that the inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment.” This, he says, is the more important inequality and that it should be getting more attention than the Blue type.

To improve this type of inequality, he says, we should be focused on “the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.”  We should be trying to improve it.

Here is where this logic is false.  First, the reason that this Red inequality exists to such an extent is largely because of policies enacted to created this gap.  Policies that, in practice, say that government cannot solve any of the nation’s problems.  These policies also say that, if we leave the problems to the free market and private enterprise, charitable giving will take care of the social problems.

Mr. Brooks, in saying that we need to take care of this Red inequality, is saying that we need more social stability and opportunity.  However, as a conservative, he is probably also thinking that charities and the private sector should be the ones to do something about it.

Second, Mr. Brooks does not make a causal connection between the Blue and the Red inequalities when, in fact, there is a glaring relationship.  The Blue-type inequality is a direct (but not sole) contributor to the Red. Today, we live in an age where the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people and that spending money is a form of free speech.

It follows that the more you are able to spend, the louder your voice.  Very few of us (none in the bottom 99%) have the wealth or disposable income of a corporation.  If your are running for state or federal office today, you have no chance of succeeding without the monetary support of corporations.  In fact, the corporation is the citizen group you most depend on.

In a way, I agree with Mr. Brooks column.  The Red inequality is a major problem and one that must be addressed.  But it cannot be successfully addressed without doing something about the Blue inequality first.  To be clever, one might say the underlying issue is green.