🔍
Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality. Here’s How. | NYT Opinion - YouTube
Channel: The New York Times
[0]
There is a question I’ve
had for a very long time.
[2]
And it has to do
with this map.
[6]
This is a map of the
18 states in the U.S.
[8]
where Democrats control the
legislative and executive
[12]
branches or else have
some veto-proof majority
[15]
in the legislature.
[16]
Democrats in D.C. often
blame the G.O.P. for foiling
[20]
their progressive vision.
[21]
“When middle-class families
see their taxes go up,
[24]
they’ll know Republicans
are to blame.”
[26]
But if you zoom
in to these 18 states,
[28]
there’s effectively
no Republican standing
[30]
in the way.
[31]
So my question is, what
do Democrats actually
[34]
do when they have
all the power?
[37]
To answer this question, I
teamed up with the Times
[40]
editorial board writer
Binya Appelbaum.
[42]
OK, you got my attention.
[44]
He’s been thinking about
and writing books about
[47]
and reporting on this
topic for decades.
[50]
I think Americans
tend to view politics
[53]
as a competition
of us versus them.
[55]
And they tend to think that
if they would just get out
[58]
of the way, then we can do
the things that we want to do.
[61]
There is no them
standing in the way.
[63]
There’s just the
we of Democrats
[65]
and their supporters.
[66]
And they get to decide
what policy should
[68]
look like in those states.
[69]
And that is an opportunity
for them to implement
[72]
their vision.
[72]
For this story, I also delved
into this giant document.
[76]
It is the 2020 Democratic
Party platform.
[78]
If you want to really
understand what Democrats say
[81]
they want, what their
vision is for America,
[84]
it’s found inside
of this document.
[86]
This document serves as a
guide as we zoom in to these
[89]
states to answer
this question:
[91]
What do Democrats really
do when they have all
[94]
the power?
[95]
“Nearly 554,000
homeless people —
[98]
“— from the 25 wealthiest
Americans shows they’re
[101]
paying little in income taxes
compared to their fortunes,
[104]
sometimes nothing at all.”
[105]
“We cannot, in good faith,
blame the Republican Party
[109]
when House Democrats
have a majority.”
[110]
“There’s still very intense
segregation happening in all
[114]
kinds of forms all
over this country.”
[120]
OK, so let’s start
with California.
[121]
To me, California is, like,
the quintessential liberal
[125]
state.
[126]
From the state legislature
to the whole executive branch
[128]
to most of the big cities,
Dems hold majority control.
[133]
So what do they do
with all this power?
[134]
Looking at California, you
have to look at housing.
[137]
OK, now wait, listen,
when I hear the words “housing
[140]
policy,” I tend to
sort of doze off.
[142]
But Binya insists that housing
policy and what is happening
[145]
in California is definitely
worth looking at.
[148]
You cannot say that you are
against inequality in America
[151]
unless you are willing to
have affordable housing built
[153]
in your neighborhood.
[155]
And Democrats
completely agree.
[156]
Here in this document, the
word “housing” is mentioned
[159]
over 100 times.
[162]
The neighborhood where
you were born has a huge
[164]
influence on the
rest of your life.
[166]
Children who are born in
neighborhoods with degraded
[169]
environmental conditions,
with a lack of access
[172]
to high-quality public
services, poor schools,
[175]
poor public transit are at
a permanent disadvantage.
[179]
And they even say verbatim,
“Housing in America should be
[182]
stable, accessible, safe,
healthy, energy efficient
[186]
and above all, affordable.”
[189]
“Housing is a human right.”
[191]
“Housing is a human right.”
[193]
“The rent is going
through the roof.
[195]
Housing is a human right.”
[197]
How does California do
when it comes to housing?
[199]
You know where
those signs are,
[201]
when you drive into
a state, it says,
[202]
“Welcome to California”? They
might as well replace them
[204]
with signs that say “Keep
out.” Because in California,
[207]
the cost of housing is so
high that for many people,
[210]
it’s simply unaffordable.
[211]
The state has simply,
for the most part,
[213]
stopped building housing.
[215]
I mean, there are cranes.
[216]
There’s housing going up.
[217]
But it has slowed down over
time really, really sharply.
[221]
And it is nowhere near
sufficient to keep pace with
[223]
California’s population.
[225]
So what you have is not enough
housing and too many people
[228]
trying to get it.
[229]
And the inevitable result is
that prices have gone up, up
[232]
and away.
[232]
“The median price of a home
in San Diego County is now
[235]
a staggering $830,000.”
[240]
All around California, there
are cities full of people who
[243]
say that they are
progressive, they’re liberals,
[245]
they believe in a
more equal America,
[248]
a more diverse America.
[249]
They show up to the marches.
[250]
They put in the lawn signs
about everyone being equal.
[253]
But at the same time, they’re
actively fighting to keep
[256]
their neighborhoods
looking like this.
[260]
OK, wait, but that
doesn’t look so bad.
[262]
It’s just a bunch of houses
in a neighborhood, right?
[265]
No.
[266]
It turns out that
this is actually
[268]
the result of
specific policies,
[271]
intentional
policies that keep
[273]
these neighborhoods
spread out and full
[275]
of single-family
homes, as opposed
[278]
to higher-density buildings
like duplexes or apartment
[281]
complexes.
[282]
This is a real, serious fight.
[284]
And you can get
a glimpse into it
[285]
by looking at a zoning map.
[287]
Yes, we’re looking at a
municipal zoning map of Palo
[290]
Alto, Calif.
[291]
Don’t leave yet.
[292]
This is really
where it sinks in.
[294]
So just stick around.
[295]
So everything on this
map that is yellow
[297]
is zoned for single-family
homes, like this and this.
[301]
One family can live here.
[302]
But here in Palo Alto,
there are a lot of new jobs.
[305]
This is a desirable place to
live for new opportunities.
[308]
Over the past eight years,
the San Francisco area
[310]
has added 676,000 jobs but
only 176,000 housing units.
[317]
So a few years ago,
the City Council
[319]
voted to change the zoning
of one section of the city
[322]
right here, specifically,
this two-acre plot of land.
[327]
They wanted to change it
from low-density housing
[329]
to higher-density
housing so that they
[331]
could build a 60-unit
affordable housing
[334]
complex for elderly
members of the community.
[337]
OK, so they
changed the zoning.
[339]
Start building the
60-unit complex.
[341]
No.
[342]
The overwhelmingly liberal
residents of Palo Alto
[345]
decided to hold a vote
to overturn the decision,
[349]
to revert it back
to low-density,
[351]
single-family housing.
[353]
Back to yellow.
[354]
And it passed.
[355]
And the zoning was overturned.
[356]
So now when you go
to this plot of land,
[358]
instead of an affordable
housing complex
[360]
for the elderly, what
you’re going to see is this,
[363]
a row of just a few houses,
all of them massive,
[367]
and worth around
$5 million each.
[370]
I think people aren’t
living their values.
[372]
You go to these meetings in
these neighborhoods where
[374]
they’re talking about
a new housing project,
[376]
and it’s always the same song.
[377]
And it goes like this.
[379]
“I am very in favor of
affordable housing.
[381]
We need more of it
in this community.
[384]
However, I have some
concerns about this project.”
[387]
“We have the
hearts to do this.
[389]
But we’re doing it wrong.
[390]
And we’re dictating harm
onto the neighborhoods.”
[394]
And then off we go
with the concerns.
[396]
And then nothing
ever gets built.
[397]
This is happening
all over California.
[400]
And the result is that
these neighborhoods are
[402]
so expensive that they keep
anyone out who isn’t a part
[405]
of this small group of
superrich residents,
[408]
many of whom bought their
properties decades ago
[411]
and who spend their time
fighting vigorously to keep
[413]
the value of their real
estate assets superhigh.
[416]
“If you want to keep Palo
Alto the kind of neighborhood
[419]
and community that we all
treasure — low intensity,
[422]
low density, safe for
kids to walk to school —
[425]
you’ve got to vote
against Measure D.”
[427]
There’s an aspect of sort of
greed here and of nervousness
[431]
about actually sharing
those opportunities.
[435]
Let’s go to another liberal
bastion up here in Washington
[438]
State.
[442]
The Democratic Party
talks about taxation,
[444]
saying that our tax
code has been, quote,
[447]
“rigged against the American
people.” Democrats all
[450]
the time are decrying the
fact that tax cuts are going
[453]
to the wealthiest Americans.
[454]
“It is time for a
wealth tax in America.”
[459]
Democrats believe in a
progressive tax system,
[462]
where the rich pay a larger
share of their income than
[465]
the poor.
[466]
This is like the most
basic policy vision
[468]
of a progressive movement.
[470]
It’s front and center in
Democrats’ policy platform.
[473]
But if you go and look
at Washington State,
[475]
what you find is that
in Washington State,
[478]
if you look at the state and
local taxes that people pay
[480]
there, less-affluent families
pay a much larger share
[483]
of their income in taxes
than the wealthiest residents
[487]
of Washington State.
[488]
So people like Bill
Gates and Jeff Bezos,
[490]
two of the state’s most
famous and wealthy residents,
[493]
are in this lovely situation
of paying less in taxes
[498]
as a share of their income
than the poor people who live
[501]
in that same state.
[502]
And this is a fundamental
inversion of the values
[504]
that the Democratic
Party professes.
[506]
There is no state with a more
regressive system of taxation
[509]
than Washington State.
[511]
And I’m talking, like, the
most regressive, meaning,
[514]
Texas, which is the
conservative bastion of
[518]
anti-taxes, is more progressive
than Washington State,
[521]
liberal Washington State.
[523]
How is that real?
[524]
Oh, and guess what: Other
states on our map also are
[528]
in the top 10 of most
regressive tax regimes,
[530]
like Nevada and Illinois.
[532]
There have been some changes,
particularly in recent years.
[535]
But the overall situation
remains resistant to change.
[539]
“So I am very concerned
that, at this time,
[541]
which is a very poor time to
disincent people from
[544]
creating jobs in
Washington State,
[545]
that we’re even
considering it.”
[547]
From that paycheck
that you earned,
[548]
more of that money is
going to state government.
[551]
And so the effect of that
is basically to exacerbate
[553]
inequality.
[554]
OK, so rich liberals
don’t show up when it comes
[557]
to housing or taxes.
[559]
Another major theme in this
policy document is education.
[564]
And the wording in here
I find quite interesting.
[567]
The Democrats say, quote,
“We must provide a world-class
[570]
education in every ZIP
code, to every child,
[573]
because education is a
critical public good.” They
[577]
use this word “ZIP code”
to represent the fact that
[581]
in America, schools get their
funding based on the
[584]
real estate taxes of the houses
within that school district.
[588]
The more expensive
the neighborhood,
[589]
the more funding
goes to the school.
[592]
So over here in Illinois,
which is the quintessential
[595]
liberal state, there’s this
one county that contains
[599]
the city of Chicago.
[600]
It’s called Cook County.
[601]
The residents here
voted overwhelmingly
[603]
for Democratic
candidates in the
[604]
presidential and senatorial
elections last year.
[607]
Often, what would happen
is that this would just
[609]
be one big school district and
that all the taxes from all
[612]
the towns in this county
would be put into one bucket
[615]
and distributed equally
throughout the county.
[616]
But the residents of this
very blue Democratic county
[620]
have actually decided
to divide themselves
[622]
into more than 140
school districts.
[626]
So now you have all these
tiny school districts,
[628]
like this one, which
are like gerrymandered
[630]
around the richest
part of town.
[632]
And so all of the taxes from
these rich homeowners go
[636]
into one little bucket and
then only get distributed
[638]
to the schools within this
rich region of the county.
[641]
It can be on the same block
that the town line runs
[644]
through the middle of it.
[645]
And if you live on
one side of that line,
[647]
you’re consigned to an
inferior education by virtue
[649]
of the fact that you and your
neighbors don’t have as much
[652]
money.
[652]
And if you live
on the other side,
[654]
you’re basically a member
of a club that is sponsoring
[656]
a private school, essentially,
for the benefit of that small
[659]
group of kids who are lucky
enough to live in that
[661]
affluent community.
[662]
And the result is that poor
communities have less money
[666]
to educate their children
and rich communities
[668]
have more money to
educate their children.
[670]
This is crazy.
[672]
It means, basically, that the
kids who have the greatest
[674]
needs have the
fewest resources.
[677]
The same thing is
happening in wealthy,
[679]
liberal Connecticut, where
the inequality in education
[682]
opportunities is shameful,
with some schools having huge
[687]
budgets for their
libraries and facilities
[690]
and others in the same state
having to use duct tape
[694]
to keep wind and snow
out of their windows.
[697]
Like, this is a real thing.
[699]
“We need your help in
establishing guidelines,
[702]
procedures and funding to
address issues negatively
[706]
impacting our students, like
extreme temperatures, mold,
[711]
lead exposure and poor
water and air quality.”
[715]
So, yeah, Binya tells me that
the states could change this.
[718]
They could actually just
collect all the real estate
[720]
taxes and then equally
distribute them.
[723]
But if you look at some of
our liberal strongholds,
[725]
that is exactly what
they are not doing.
[731]
Let me be clear
about something.
[733]
In blue states, progress is
being made, albeit slowly.
[737]
For instance, a few weeks
ago California finally
[739]
passed a law that gets rid
of single-family zoning.
[743]
It’s a small step in
the right direction.
[744]
And in many cases, blue
states provide more and better
[748]
public services.
[749]
And historically have
given better chances
[751]
to low-income families to
climb the economic ladder.
[754]
But for some of these
foundational Democratic
[757]
values of housing equality,
progressive taxation
[761]
and education equality,
Democrats don’t actually
[764]
embody their
values very well.
[766]
“We’re talking, once again,
about a system that’s been
[769]
rigged.”
[770]
“Republicans, today —”
[771]
“— are to blame.”
[772]
What we’re talking about
here is that blue states are
[774]
the problem.
[775]
Blue states are where the
housing crisis is located.
[778]
Blue states are
where the disparities
[780]
in education funding
are the most dramatic.
[783]
Blue states are the places
where tens of thousands
[786]
of homeless people are
living on the streets.
[788]
Blue states are
the places where
[790]
economic inequality
is increasing
[792]
most quickly in this country.
[793]
This is not a problem of
not doing well enough.
[796]
It is a situation where the
blue states are the problem.
[800]
Affluent liberals tend to
be really good at showing up
[802]
to the marches and talking
about how they love equality.
[806]
They’re really good at putting
signs in their lawns saying
[808]
that all are welcome here.
[809]
But by their actions, what
they’re actually saying is,
[813]
yes, we believe
in these ideals,
[814]
just not in my backyard.
[816]
We are not living our values.
[818]
People who live in
blue states, people
[820]
who profess
liberal values, you
[822]
need to look in
the mirror and need
[824]
to understand that they are
not taking the actions that
[827]
are consistent
with those values —
[829]
not just incidentally,
not just in small areas —
[831]
but that some of the most
important policy choices,
[834]
we are denying people
the opportunity
[836]
to prosper and to thrive
and to build better lives.
[840]
And it is happening in places
where Democrats control
[843]
the levers of policy.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage