An article in the Arts & Ideas section of today's New York Times discusses American analysis of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. "One could go further and argue that the C.I.A. underestimated the crushing effect on the Soviet Union of America's social welfare programs (which blunted the Communist critique of capitalism)," the Times writes.
This is really classic. There's certainly a case to be made for a social safety net in America. But the notion that American housing projects and the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program are what crushed the Soviet Communist empire is just a gem that is typical of the New York Times approach to the Cold War. If it was social welfare systems that those trapped behind the Iron Curtain wanted, they could have stuck with communism. The Soviet government was bombarding its people with propaganda images of American homelessness and poverty that undermined the idea that America had a healthy social welfare system, and the president who won the Cold War, Reagan, was the one who launched the attack on Cadillac-driving welfare mothers that led ultimately to the 1996 welfare reform. What leaked through the wall of Soviet propaganda and helped motivate the fall of the Communist regime was not news of Social Security and Medicare but of the wealth that could be obtained in America and the West and of the freedom and democracy that are its foundations. The passage in the Times article does mention the pull of "an open and democratic society" but only after "the crushing effect on the Soviet Union of America's social welfare programs."
Thin on Education: The New York Times devotes acres of newsprint in its metro section this morning to Sean "Puffy" Combs sobbing about his ex-girlfriend Jennifer Lopez, not to mention the earth-shattering news that some tiles in a Chelsea gallery have been painted the color of avocado. That's all entertaining, but Smartertimes.com gets the sense this morning that it is coming at the expense of serious, substantive coverage of policy matters like education.
In an article this morning about an effort to let Edison, a for-profit company, operate five New York public schools, the Times reports that the president of the United Federation of Teachers yesterday urged parents in two of the five schools to vote against the plans. The Times report leaves readers wondering whether the UFT supports turning the other three schools over to Edison management, or whether the union is simply neutral on those schools. And the newspaper never says how an Edison takeover would affect the unionized teachers at the schools, instead taking the union president at her word that she was coming out against Edison at the two schools because she perceived "unequivocal opposition by both parents and staff" and because the schools had improved in the past year. If there is already "unequivocal opposition" by parents to the plan, why is the union president, as the Times reports, "urging parents . . . to vote against the privatization plan?" That is, if they are already unequivocally opposed, why do they need to be urged? Again, the Times doesn't try to answer any of these questions or even probe them in any seriousness. Maybe there wasn't enough space, what with all the coverage of Puffy Combs and the avocado tiles.
An article about the schools chancellor's hiring of two campaign aides to Hillary Clinton is even thinner. How is this likely to affect the chancellor's relations with Mayor Giuliani, who is not on the best of terms with Mrs. Clinton? Is hiring a $120,000-a-year press secretary a politically astute move for a schools administration that is in the midst of difficult contract negotiations with teachers who say they are grossly underpaid? Is it a politically smart move for a schools administration that is constantly complaining to the state that it lacks the resources to teach students to read? It's great that the Times got this news into the paper, but it would also be great if it were developed into something more than a five-paragraph brief.