|
cimmaron: i have no problem at all with that information. none. but that may follow from seeing very little in the way of difference between moderate democrats and republicans, particularly during that unfortunate period of neo-liberal hegemony---here it was called "the washington consensus" when it was called anything at all--you know markets are rational and all that. i emphasize the role played by republicans because, well, historically they were at the forefront of constructing neo-liberalism and selling it. democrats like clinton were moderate republicans. policies at the federal level are significant constraints on what states and cities can do, given the role the federal government plays in allocating monies. so neo-liberal federal policies constraint states and cities to move in parallel ways.
personally, i see the problem as following from way too much conservative economic domination, but that doesn't parse the way you'd like. the policies that would be required to address these structural inequalities are social-democratic in nature. and i have no problem with that.
sadly i have to work at the moment.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|