Commentary

Deep residential segregation underlies every major social inequity we have in New York City. The de Blasio administration promises a new era of activism and community participation, but will the energy generated ultimately reduce or perpetuate segregation? A great deal hinges on the nature of the community organizing that is encouraged.

In the Barack Obama and Bill Clinton version of the Democratic Party, the goal is to have “conversations about race.” Or, at least, these two presidents have wanted to have intermittent conversations to the extent convenient. Once upon a time, those in favor of civil rights (as Obama and Clinton surely are) were more direct: they demanded action, not talk.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was ecstatic last week, announcing that the city’s population had swollen to an all-time high. Unfortunately, the mayor remains completely dissociated from the many negative consequences already arising from the city’s population “boom.”

In an address that otherwise reprised many of the noblest principles from this country's history, President Obama's remarks on education offered only a bleak vision of schools as training grounds for employers. Neither the principle that a good education is an essential requisite for developing active citizens nor the idea that education has intrinsic value independent of its utility in the job market made it into the speech.

Former Senator George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic candidate for president who issued a clarion call to “Come home, America,” died earlier this week. His New York Times obituary reflected all too well the problem of image over substance in our politics, and failed — 40 years on — to appreciate the consequences of the 1972 election.

The current system clearly hasn't been so good for those to whom the benefits were supposed to trickle down. But the U.S. remains a mighty economic force, one that could push back effectively if it wished to, and cross-national cooperation could yield a mutual defense pact to protect countries from having to compete in a race to the bottom.

Having become disoriented in the fog of Corporate Uncertainty, I was trying to find my way when, suddenly, over the Fiscal Cliff I went. I plunged straight down — deeper and deeper into the abyss. I thought all was lost. But then I saw the Grand Bargain waiting for me, beckoning to me. For a moment, I rejoiced.

The Medicaid expansion portion of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act was most fundamentally a decision to reorder the relationship between the federal government and the states, a decision to subordinate the idea of nationhood to judge-made deference-to-states theory. Voters, we were told, were not savvy enough to figure out the respective roles of federal and state officials and apportion credit or blame accordingly.

A recent CBO report on the long-term budget outlook has reheated deficit hysteria. But the points of fiscal stress the CBO highlighted were misleading, its alternative budget scenarios lacked range or nuance, and its treatment of "excess" growth in health care costs cavalier.

Of all the fantasies indulged in by a society speeding toward self-destruction, none is as consequential as the idea that continuing growth has a happy-ever-after ending. But even if ever-increasing population were survivable, is it really desirable? Can't we figure out any adaptations to enable an aging society to be economically and socially robust?