AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > June
June 2008
Should the U.S. have allowed low-mileage vehicles to become so common?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
You know what? I wonder if we should ever have allowed automobiles to become so common in the first place. We’d have no gas-price problems. Maybe when buggy-whip makers started struggling we should have created incentives to buy harness horses and told Henry Ford to take a hike. Or a bike.
But wait - people wanted automobiles, and for good reason: they made life easier and vastly expanded national productivity. They also introduced many new challenges, but those challenges were better managed when the government put certain boundaries around the market — such as judicious gas taxes to pay for better roads — and then got out of the way.
Letting the free market work isn’t the fastest process, but it is by far the best in the end. Today’s issues provide a great case study. The same consumers who wanted gas-guzzler SUV’s - like the 10 mpg Hummer H2 — are now selling them and buying more efficient vehicles. Even before oil hit $100 per barrel, Hummer sales were down 25 percent in the first two months of 2007. And hybrid sales are skyrocketing — up 58 percent in April 2008 alone. I bought a Toyota Camry hybrid myself last year, and am really enjoying getting 35 mpg right now! With hybrids being snapped off the lot at premium prices within hours of arrival, car manufacturers are highly motivated to produce more — and to develop even more fuel-efficient vehicles. That’s the free market working. No taxes or laws needed.
Andy wants higher gas taxes? The last time we saw these oil prices was 1981, and today’s gas taxes (adjusted for inflation) are already 50 percent higher than they were then! Our politicians must avoid the understandable temptation to go for the short-term, knee-jerk responses that will further skew the market’s ability to deliver the best solution. If any government intervention is needed, it isn’t to impose more costs but to provide incentives for rapid private-sector development of alternative technologies and fuel sources that can then be tested in the market.
As Sheldon Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education put it in an interview, “F.A. Hayek called competition a discovery procedure. We learn things in the open market better than we can learn things in any other way.”
What’s behind the liberal - conservative ideological divide in America?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The fault for the widening liberal-conservative divide can be laid largely at the feet of an unwitting minority: those liberal intellectual elitist university professors and media leaders who are disproportionately influential in society. They probably have no intention of being agents of intolerance, division or elitism, but they are.
Barack Obama infamously commented that small-town, economically disadvantaged folks, “get bitter [and] cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them … as a way to explain their frustrations.” Hiding in those words are two chilling assumptions held by many a liberal elitist. First, Obama assumes the worst motivation for conservative values — social policy disagreements must be rooted in “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” Second and more scary, liberal elitists believe no rational person would even hold conservative beliefs unless there was something incredibly wrong in that person’s world - those couldn’t possibly be a sane person’s real values.
As the late television journalist Charles Kuralt once put it, “What on earth did conservatism ever accomplish for our country?” Or as New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger proclaimed at a 2006 graduation, “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it’s …the rights of gays to marry or the rights of women to choose… For that, I’m sorry.” Or actress-activist Janeane Garofalo: “The dumb and the mean find a nice home in the GOP…..What you have now [are] people that are closet racists…[and] homophobes … identifying [themselves] as conservative.”
Most liberals aren’t this elitist and condescending. But the small minority that are tend to have built strongholds in positions to spread their beliefs and influence how others think. For example, a 2007 American Enterprise Institute study found that liberal professors outnumbered conservatives five-to-one in fields like political science, and 20-to-one in fields like sociology. And the volume of bias is staggering. The Institute for Jewish and Community Research found that 3 percent of professors viewed Jews unfavorably, Nine percent viewed non-evangelical Christians unfavorably - but 53 percent viewed evangelical Christians unfavorably.
It is ironic that in their evangelical fervor to spread their beliefs, surrounded by others of like mind, liberal elitists may not even see how dangerous is their own “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”
Rebuttal
We all come across as patronizing at times. That’s human nature. Yet to suggest in this day and age that “a certain type of liberal intellectual elitist” is responsible for the division between left and right is downright laughable. With daily battles playing out in the media, with commanders like Karl Rove and foot soldiers like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, the epicenter of the fault line can be emphatically traced to….political science professors? Charles Kuralt?
Though the left has its share of verbal missteps and deliberate put-downs, it simply can’t compete with the far-right arsenal when it comes to divisive rhetoric. Janeane Garafalo’s Air America is no match for legions of followers addicted to the bellicose braying of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, the top junkyard dogs of political discourse. I won’t pretend that Democrats lack the stomach for down-and-dirty name-calling — the blogosphere proves otherwise every minute. Yet, for some reason, liberals aren’t drawn to the siren call of major media provocateurs in nearly the numbers that conservatives are. Keith Olbermann’s blistering attacks on the current administration have made his MSNBC show “Countdown” a money-making hit, yet fellow word warrior O’Reilly has more than twice as many viewers.
Rather than keeping score, however, why don’t we look at facts that indicate a new reality? The current election cycle is proving that many of us are putting down the weapons, trying to find a way to work together; it’s why John Edwards’ battle cry of “two Americas” rubbed voters the wrong way. You know that instead we’re looking at a New America when some young evangelicals find themselves drawn to Barack Obama and some older Democrats find a compatriot in Republican John McCain.
I’m as guilty as anyone for engaging in the childish “Mom, she started it!” debate about who created the poisoned atmosphere between liberals and conservatives. So let’s agree that, no matter who widened the divide, we’re all responsible for moving past resentment and blame. I propose the following plan for liberal Democrats and Christian evangelicals alike: We won’t think you’re insane for holding your beliefs if you won’t think we’re going to hell for ours.
Can I get an amen?
Is red-state / blue-state America just a mirage?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Some say a speech ignited Barack Obama’s meteoric rise in politics. Yet it wasn’t his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that sealed the deal. It was one line from that speech: “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America.”
Obama went on to describe a society where blue staters pray and red staters value their civil liberties, images that resonate with many who feel that “red” and “blue” fail to summarize our political and cultural leanings. They don’t even sum up our geography; only 12 states had greater than a 60/40 split in the last presidential election.
Nonetheless, trumped-up stereotypes march on, giving us the old razzle-dazzle. “Is America ready for an elitist, arugula-eating president?,” elitist, arugula-eating pundits demand. “Is McCain another George Bush?” some ask, referring to a candidate who actually toyed with leaving the Republican party a few short years ago.
I don’t blame anyone for angle-hunting. “Two Americas” of any sort makes for better theater than one where the vast majority of us agree on our problems: an economy on the skids, insufficient health care and education systems, a war urgently in need of resolution. Even on issues where we’re supposedly irrevocably divided—say, abortion—we’re really not. Recent ABC/Washington Post and Gallup polls word their questions differently, yet come up with a similar conclusion: in both, exactly 82 percent of Americans feel that abortion should be legal in some circumstances. It’s not a number that provides solutions, but it sure points to common ground.
Make no mistake: we have two very different choices this fall in Barack Obama and John McCain. So things will get heated; attack ads will try to sell ugly lies, commentators will seize upon every unfortunate remark as though not doing so aids and abets terrorism.
Yet bear in mind that although technology allows networks to track the election in real time, switching color combinations with a wave of the hand, opinion makers can’t make people out to be caricatures if they insist on being real. Bigwigs and bloggers can stir things up with a red-state/blue-state reality show, but it’s American voters, colorful and complex, who will ultimately script the ending.
Rebuttal
I appreciate Andy waving the purple flag and declaring one nation under arugula, but I beg to differ. I wish we weren’t so divided - but wishing doesn’t make it so.
As I travel, the red-blue divide is stark and obvious. In red states, for example, most people regularly go to church — or feel like they have to explain why they don’t. In blue states, you have to explain why you do. Red states have a much higher rate of marriage; blue states a much higher rate of living together. Although, of course, blue states are also redefining marriage to include homosexuals — something most red state residents strongly oppose.
I actually saw this cultural divide when I watched one of my books become an unexpected water-cooler bestseller a few years ago. The buzz was largely spreading from church-goers outwards, and one major secular bookstore chain showed me the number of copies sold each week in each region. It went something like this: Southeast Region A: 632 copies. Southeast Region B: 450. Midwest Region C: 578. And so on. I had to laugh when I saw New England: 8. The most populous area sold eight copies that week. Why? That big cultural difference: the majority of people in New England simply don’t go to church, and thus had never heard the church-based word-of-mouth.
In politics, the red-blue divide is similar to 2004. A Gallup survey shows that McCain leads Obama by 19 points with people who attend church weekly and by 13 points with married couples. In the secular northeast, Obama polls ahead of McCain by 10 points.
Andy believes we share the same priorities, but issues like healthcare and Iraq are what liberals complain about at parties, not conservatives. According to several Rasmussen polls, 69 percent of Republicans think we’re winning the war on terror — but just 23 percent of Democrats do. And Republicans who see the Iraq surge working are perplexed by Obama’s rhetoric that “we must end this war!” To them, Supreme Court appointments are far more important.
We can’t ignore the unfortunate blue-red cultural divide. And I believe it is made far worse by politicians who proclaim “one America” but show obvious derision for red-state values.
Should public education promote single-sex schools?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
For years, we’ve done little to stem the tide of boys falling behind in most areas of education. We’ve done well at mending old gender inequities against girls - but some of those very efforts have inadvertently hurt our boys.
In an interview, Dr. Leonard Sax, author of “Boys Adrift: The five factors driving the growing epidemic of unmotivated boys,” shared something he’d recently heard from Princeton’s admissions director: if Princeton had “blind” admission today, 70 percent of those admitted would be girls - they have better grades, test scores and are keener on academics. And national enrollment numbers bear this out. Sax said, “Twenty years ago, 70 percent of those in college were men. Today, it’s only 42 percent. Even fewer men are earning masters degrees. We need to ask ‘where are their brothers?’ Why can’t Justin keep up with Emily?”
One of the most foundational reasons is that boys have come to see education, studying and effort toward good grades as “a girl thing” - uncool. And one of the only solutions to that is single-sex education - especially in public schools.
In an e-mail interview, psychologist Dr. Michael Thomson, author of It’s “A Boy!: Understanding your son’s development from birth to 18”, provided great context. He explained, “As the psychologist at an all-boys’ school and as a graduate of all-boy education, I see that boys cannot outsource learning to girls in that environment. They cannot define school, writing, reading, and so on, as ‘girl stuff.’ If the top student in the class is a boy, then every other boy has to measure himself against that boy. Also, all-boys’ schools have a majority of men teachers. Men who both teach poetry and coach football have an electrifying effect on boys. Women can do a great job teaching boys in elementary school, but they cannot embody learning as a road to masculinity. Only male teachers can do that.”
In response to the obvious need, Dr. Sax founded the National Association for Single Sex Public Education. The idea is controversial, but as he points out, “This is a matter of social justice. If you want to go to a single-sex school, there are lots of options if you have $20,000 to spend each year. Parents should have those choices in public schools.”
Rebuttal
In last month’s clarifying report from the American Association of University Women, an analysis of testing and other data indicates that boys are improving in their academic success, but that girls are improving at a faster rate. Does this constitute a “boy crisis?”
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it does. I still remain perplexed by my colleague’s specific rationale for taking a single-sex education remedy into the public school system. In her look at “why Johnny can’t read,” she leaves so many of the usual suspects out of the line-up. Why, video games and absentee fathers aren’t even mentioned here. So whose fault is this anyway?
Surprise! We learn it is girls who are to blame, turning schools into pink ghettos with their intimidating scholarly behavior. One such ruffian lives right down the street from me, taking some poor boy’s rightful place at Yale this fall. I’d call her up to chastise her, but she’s on her way to a summer volunteering in Rwanda. How disappointed her parents must be in this emasculating overachiever.
Listen, some single-sex options might make sense as educators continue to explore ways to work with differing learning styles. My nephew Sam recently graduated from an all-boys middle school and clearly thrived there. Yet I still can’t imagine wanting a radically different classroom environment for him than for my own daughter his same age.
Single-sex education advocate Dr. Leonard Sax disagrees, recommending special accommodations for boys to improve their performance: more classroom movement, learning to read when one is ready, experiential lessons that keep kids focused.
Sounds great, but it’s hardly original theory. It’s called a progressive education, available from enlightened school districts across the country, and it’s great for both boys and girls.
Maybe female students are navigating the waters a bit better in our current educational environment, but that doesn’t mean that we’re doing right by them either. Both genders suffer when imperious state and federal administrators demand that talented teachers strip innovation from an increasingly “teach to the test” curriculum. If Dr. Sax and others truly want social justice in the classroom, they should want it for all.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Commentary
By Andrea Cornell Sarvady
Few expected gas to hit four bucks a gallon but everyone knew it was on its way up. Therefore, the consequences of a light-truck surge should have been clear to all of us, especially given our recent history. John Duffield, author of “Over a Barrel: The Costs of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence” told me in a recent interview that U.S. consumption of oil has declined only when the price of gas went up dramatically, precipitated by events like the Arab oil embargo and the Iranian hostage crisis.
One could view this as proof positive that the free market works. Yet do we really want overseas incidents by rogue governments to be the driver of our free markets?
Increasing gas taxes when the price was right would have been sensible intervention. Higher prices would have cushioned the impact of the inevitable gas hikes and lessened our hunger for oil, funding much-needed highway improvements. Duffield agrees that “the most economically efficient solution is a tax because it leaves it up to consumers how they’re going to cut back on consumption.”
Wrongful government intervention? Consider that at the peak of the SUV frenzy, policy makers were intervening in the opposite direction: a $25,000 tax write-off, not just for ranchers or contractors with a true need for light trucks, but folks hauling nothing on perfectly paved roads. Add to that the watering down of mandated fuel economy standards and it’s pretty obvious that we’ve spent the last decade driving too much car, cruisin’ for a bruisin’.
Consumers are driving more sensibly now, but pinning too much hope on an offshore drilling fix. Experts agree that it’ll be a decade before we can bring domestic oil to market; even then, it’ll cover only a fraction of U.S. consumption. Conservation is likely to reduce foreign dependency more than domestic drilling — and who says the two are mutually exclusive?
Our lack of foresight on this front reminds me of all those SUV commercials; macho trucks tearing blindly up the side of a hill, reaching a desolate plateau. Now we’re all sharing that vista and what do we see? National security risks, economic hardship, and continuing environmental costs. Some scenery….