|
|||||||||||||||||
RELATED LINKSInternal LinksGrants to:
Profiles:
Related stories:
Cursor.orgMediaTransparency.org sponsor More stories by Phil Wilayto Institute for Justice Media Transparency writersAndrew J. Weaver FundometerEvaluate any page on the World Wide Web against our databases of people, recipients, and funders of the conservative movement. |
ORIGINAL RESEARCHPhil Wilayto The Bell CurveRoadmap to the "Ideal" Society[Editor's note: The following is from The Feeding Trough, 1997]. "Charles Murray is someone who this foundation has been associated with from the very beginning...Charles Murray, in my opinion, is one of the foremost social thinkers in the country." -- Michael Joyce, [former] President of the Bradley Foundation, quoted in the Spring, 1994 edition of the Milwaukee education newspaper Rethinking Schools Of all the examples of Bradley Foundation funding of "scholarship" designed to pave the way for right-wing attacks on progressive programs, the most notorious, of course, is the book "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life." Charles Murray was the author of the book "Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980," which argued that government programs to help the poor did more harm than good and should be abolished. Poverty, according to Murray, isn't the result of plant shutdowns or layoffs, the boom-and-bust cycles of capitalism or even racial and sexual discrimination. Rather, said Murray, some people are just too dumb to better themselves. The book took a beating from social scientists but was hailed by the Reagan Administration, which was planning on cutting social programs anyway. Murray's next avenue of "scholarship" had him exploring the question as to whether there might be a racial basis to intelligence. According to an article in the New York Times, Nov. 30, 1990, "He [Murray] is asking one of the most explosive questions a social scientist can pose: whether there are differences in intelligence between blacks and whites that help explain differences in their economic and social standing." In other words, does race predetermine social position? Are millions of Black people, for example, poor and oppressed because of institutional and historical racism, or because there's something inherently inferior about being Black? If you believe the first explanation, then social programs, including affirmative action, are both necessary and just. But if you believe the second, those same programs are both useless and wrong. Murray's writing of "Losing Ground" came at an opportune time for U.S. capitalism. By 1990, the Soviet Union and much of what had been known as the socialist camp was collapsing and the U.S. no longer had a strong ideological rival to compete with on the world arena. As a result, the U.S. capitalist system no longer had to try and pretend it could uplift the downtrodden better than the socialist model. ...For over 60 years, there had been an unwritten "social contract" that required government to provide a social safety net to protect the most vulnerable sections of society from capitalism's periodic recessions and depressions. Then along comes Murray with an intellectual justification for dumping that contract. And the justification was this: the so-called "underclass" isn't poor because of the boom-and-bust-cycles of capitalism, and certainly not because of institutional racism, sexism and discrimination. No, the poor are poor because they were born with defective, inferior genes. Preconceived intention met intellectual justification. It was a match made in heaven. Well, not heaven, exactly. At the time Murray was exploring these ideas, he was employed by the Bradley-funded Manhattan Institute. His sociological explorations led him into a collaboration with the late Harvard psychologist Richard Hernstein, who was already attracting student demonstrators accusing him of spreading racist ideology. According to The New York Times, Hernstein "...predicted that as a society became more meritocratic, individuals with low I.Q.s could congregate on the bottom of the economic scale, intermarry and produce offspring with low I.Q.s." At this point, even the Manhattan Institute suggested that Murray find another place to roost. The Bradley Foundation, however, which had been providing Murray with a $90,000 annual grant, simply arranged for him to continue his work at the American Enterprise Institute. "Charles Murray, in my opinion," said Bradley's Michael Joyce, "is one of the foremost social thinkers in the country." Murray identified the birth of children out of wedlock as the source of much of society's problems and it was the increasingly high rate of children born to single white mothers that was actually causing him the most concern -- specifically, for the fate of Western Civilization. In an October, 1993 article in the Wall Street Journal, Murray wrote, "The brutal truth is that American society as a whole could survive when illegitimacy became epidemic within a comparatively small ethnic minority. It cannot survive the same epidemic among whites." In her article in Rethinking Schools, Barbara Miner noted: "To counter illegitimacy and restore the rewards of marriage, Murray called for economic penalties including an end to all government programs that provide economic support for single mothers such as AFDC, subsidized housing, or food stamps. The only exception would be medical coverage for the child, although not necessarily for the mother." [Our emphasis.] It was this type of thinking -- funded by the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation -- that was laying the intellectual basis for Wisconsin taking the lead on "welfare reform." Murray and Hernstein then went on to write their now infamous book "The Bell Curve." Published in the fall of 1994, this piece of pseudo-social science claimed that whites are intellectually superior to Blacks, that Blacks were by nature more likely to "fail" in society and that therefore social programs like Head Start and affirmative action are useless and should be eliminated. Building on their individual research into the supposed relationships between IQ, race and class, these two intellectual mercenaries asserted that a "cognitive elite" was rising to the top of society where it was intermarrying and passing their genetic "advantages" on to their children. Meanwhile, at the other end of society, the "cognitively deficient" were sinking to a permanent underclass status, intermarrying, and bearing children with a genetic inferiority. This was basically a rehash of de Tocqueville's elitism wedded to some 1930s eugenics theory. Furthermore, since there are more poor people than rich people, Murray and Hernstein warned that the general intelligence of the population as a whole was gradually being lowered, a process they called "dysgenesis" -- thus the threat to the future of the United States and Western Civilization as a whole. So poor people aren't poor because capitalism can't provide for the needs of all the people. The unemployed aren't jobless because official, bipartisan government policy calls for a raising of interest rates to "slow down" the economy when unemployment dips below five percent. The racism of top executives in companies like Texaco is irrelevant to Black advancement in U.S. corporations. There is no "glass ceiling" for women workers. And no lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered worker ever lost a job because of blatant bigotry. No, the problem is so much simpler: inferior poor people marry other inferior poor people and produce even more inferior poor children. The authors further declared that this growing "underclass" with its low intellectual abilities would never be able to meet the needs of employers and would be destined for welfare dependency, poverty, drugs and crime. In particular, Murray and Hernstein (presumably members of the "cognitive elite") targeted poor and single women, African Americans and immigrants, as well as the working class as a whole. To provide their profoundly racist and classist "theory," Murray and Hernstein reduced intelligence to scoring well on standardized IQ test scores, a bit of intellectual sleight-of-hand that ignored the class, race and gender bias of such tests. [EDITOR'S NOTE: A very complete debunking of the Bell Curve's "science," which included mathematical errors and convoluted logic, can be read on the web site Slate. Click here to read it.] It also dismissed the effect of individual and institutional racism and sexism, both present and historical. And it perfectly fit the needs of a corporate/banking class that was looking for a justification for eliminating all progressive social programs. Predictably, the book provoked an outcry of protest, but Bradley was ready. "Controversy," commented Joyce, "while painful at times, does help to to push along the agenda." Joyce also said he was pleased to be part of Murray's effort to push the subject matter discussed in the book to the front burner of public discussion. [Milwaukee Journal, 10/23/1994] But Bradley support wasn't just of the moral variety. From 1986 to 1989, the foundation had been giving Murray an annual grant of $90,000. In 1989, the year Murray was dropped by the Manhattan Institute, Bradley gave him a raise to $100,000. By 1991 it was paying him $113,000. In September of 1994 about the time "The Bell Curve" came out, the foundation raised his annual stipend to $163,000. [Milwaukee Journal, 10/23/1994] Joyce wasn't alone in his enthusiasm. Peter Brimelow, senior editor of Forbes magazine (the self-described "capitalist tool"), praised Murray and Hernstein as "formidable talents." William Bennett went on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" to praise the book. The Wall Street Journal devoted an entire op-ed page to "Bell Curve" excerpts. An entire issue of The New Republic dealt with the book. During the eight years it took to research and write the book, Bradley had given Murray nearly $1 million in grants [Milwaukee Journal,10/23/1994], but others also helped. "Major financing came from the Pioneer Fund, Inc., an organization founded in 1937 by a prominent group of eugenicists. The so-called eugenics movement, first promoted by the Nazis, was a campaign to 'purify' the human race through 'selective breeding.' It was used to justify the extermination of Jews, Romany, Servs and others in Europe in the 1930 and 1940s. When the Pioneer Fund was founded, the initiators stated that their purpose was to study human genetics and encourage the supremacy of 'white persons who sttled in the original thirteen colonies.' Business Week has linked the fund to the initiation of Proposition 187 in California -- aimed at denying all social and medical services to undocumented immigrants, particularly Mexicans." [Desiree Rivera, Workers World, 11/17/1994] Here's Charles Murray speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live" on November 1, 1994: "When you're trying to deal with child neglect, one of the things that social workers ignore is the fact that many of these mothers have low intelligence." This is a perfect justification for accelerated child-snatching by the government, as well as state-spnosored orphanages and financial incentives for cross-racial adoptions. Here's another bit of Murrayism: "For many people, there is nothing they can learn that will repay the cost of teaching." So much for Head Start, job training or higher education funding for welfare moms. [Milwaukee Journal, 10/23/1994] It's important to note here that Murray and Hernstein aren't just saying that social programs should be eliminated. If people are poor because of diminished mental capacity, it's not enough to throw them off welfare. Who wants social chaos? No, the answer is to take these poor unfortunates firmly by the hand and put them to work! Here's Murray again in his Wall Street Journal article: "Unless the permanent welfare class begins to exhibit certain behavioral changes like finishing high school, like getting married and like being in the workforce, you are going to have an expanding welfare class or underclass which will by the turn of the century be a considerable segment of the population." But how can an "underclass" that is viewed as being poor because of inferior mental capacity be transformed into a productive, useful -- and profitable -- segment of the working class? Won't "those people" need support, counseling, training, supervision -- and discipline? Won't they need a whole structure to promote those "certain behavioral changes"? sign in, or register to email stories or comment on them.
|
MORE ORIGINAL RESEARCHBill Berkowitz PERC receives Templeton Freedom Award for promoting 'enviropreneurs'Right Wing foundation-funded anti-environmental think tank grabbing a wider audience for 'free market environmentalism' On the 15th anniversary of Terry Anderson and Donald Leal's book "Free Market Environmentalism" -- the seminal book on the subject -- Anderson, the Executive Director of the Bozeman, Montana-based Property and Environment Research Center (PERC - formerly known as the Political Economy Research Center) spoke in late-January at an event sponsored by Squaw Valley Institute at the Resort at Squaw Creek in California. While it may have been just another opportunity to speak on "free market environmentalism" and not the kickoff of a "victory tour," nevertheless it comes at a time when PERC's ideas are taking root.
Bill Berkowitz Neil Bush of Saudi ArabiaDuring recent visit, President’s brother describes the country as a 'kind of tribal democracy' In late February, only a few days after Saudi Arabia beheaded four Sri Lankan robbers and then left their headless bodies on public display in the capital of Riyadh, Neil Bush, for the fourth time in the past six years, showed up for the country's Jeddah Economic Forum. The Guardian reported that Human Rights Watch "said the four men had no lawyers during their trial and sentencing, and were denied other basic legal rights." In an interview with Arab News, the Saudi English language paper, Bush described the country as "a kind of tribal democracy."
Bill Berkowitz Newt Gingrich's back door to the White HouseAmerican Enterprise Institute "Scholar" and former House Speaker blames media for poll showing 64 percent of the American people wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances Whatever it is that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has come to represent in American politics, the guy is nothing less than fascinating. One day he's espousing populist rhetoric about the need to cut the costs of college tuition and the next day he's talking World War III. One day he's claiming that the "war on terror" may force the abridgement of fundamental first amendment rights and the next he's advancing a twenty-first century version of his Contract with America. At the same time he's publicly proclaiming how "stupid" it is that the race for the presidency has already started you know that he's trying to figure out how to out finesse Rudy, McCain and Romney for the nomination. And last week, when Fox News' Chris Wallace cited a poll showing that 64 percent of the public would never vote for him, he was quick to blame those results on how unfairly he was treated by the mainstream media back in the day.
Bill Berkowitz American Enterprise Institute takes lead in agitating against IranDespite wrongheaded predictions about the war on Iraq, neocons are on the frontlines advocating military conflict with Iran After doing such a bang up job with their advice and predictions about the outcome of the war on Iraq, would it surprise you to learn that America's neoconservatives are still in business? While at this time we are not yet seeing the same intense neocon invasion of our living rooms -- via cable television's news networks -- that we saw during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, nevertheless, a host of policy analysts at conservative think tanks -- most notably the American Enterprise Institute -- are being heeded on Iran by those who count - folks inside the Bush Administration.
Bill Berkowitz After six years, opposition gaining on George W. Bush's Faith Based InitiativeUnmentioned in the president's State of the Union speech, the program nevertheless continues to recruit religious participants and hand out taxpayer money to religious groups With several domestic policy proposals unceremoniously folded into President Bush's recent State of the Union address, two pretty significant items failed to make the cut. Despite the president's egregiously tardy response to the event itself, it was nevertheless surprising that he didn't even mention Hurricane Katrina: He didn't offer up a progress report, words of hope to the victims, or come up with a proposal for moving the sluggish rebuilding effort forward. There were no "armies of compassion" ready to be unleashed, although it should be said that many in the religious community responded to the disaster much quicker than the Bush Administration. In the State of the Union address, however, there was no "compassionate conservatism" for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Bill Berkowitz Frank Luntz calls Republican leadership in Washington 'One giant whining windbag'On the outs with the GOP, legendary degrader of discourse is moving to California He doesn't make great art; nothing he does elevates the human spirit; he doesn't illuminate, he bamboozles. He has become expert in subterfuge, hidden meanings, word play and manipulation. Frank Luntz has been so good at what he does that those paying close attention gave it its own name: "Luntzspeak."
Bill Berkowitz Spooked by MoveOn.org, conservative movement seeks to emulate liberal powerhouseFueled with Silicon Valley money, TheVanguard.org will have Richard Poe, former editor of David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine as its editorial and creative director As Paul Weyrich, a founding father of the modern conservative movement and still a prominent actor in it, likes to say, he learned a great deal about movement building by closely observing what liberals were up to in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Bill Berkowitz Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action jihadFounder and Chair of the American Civil Rights Institute scouting five to nine states for new anti-affirmative action initiatives Fresh from his most recent victory -- in Michigan this past November -- Ward Connerly, the Black California-based maven of anti-affirmative action initiatives, appears to be preparing to take his jihad on the road. According to a mid-December report in the San Francisco Chronicle, Connerly said that he was "exploring moves into nine other states."
Bill Berkowitz Tom Tancredo's missionThe Republican congressman from Colorado will try to woo GOP voters with anti-immigration rhetoric and a boatload of Christian right politics These days, probably the most recognizable name in anti-immigration politics is Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo. Over the past year, Tancredo has gone from a little known congressman to a highly visible anti-immigration spokesperson. "Tancredo has thoroughly enmeshed himself in the anti-immigration movement and with the help of CNN talk show host Lou Dobbs, he has been given a national megaphone," Devin Burghart, the program director of the Building Democracy Initiative at the Center for New Community, a Chicago-based civil rights group, told Media Transparency.
Bill Berkowitz Institute on Religion and Democracy slams 'Leftist' National Council of ChurchesNew report from conservative foundation-funded IRD charges the NCC with being a political surrogate for MoveOn.org, People for the American Way and other liberal organizations If you prefer your religious battles sprinkled with demagoguery, sanctimoniousness, and simplistic attacks, the Institute on Religion and Democracy's (IRD) latest broadside against the National Council of Churches (NCC) certainly fits the bill.
|
|||||||||||||||
Don't look to Wisconsin as model for welfare reform
Printer friendly
