'Coming Apart': Charles Murray sees an America divided, but not by race
As the topic of inequality reemerges in the national conversation and stirs controversy on the national airwaves 鈥� from 鈥淥ccupy鈥� protests to the 鈥淚 don鈥檛 care about the very poor鈥� Mitt Romney gaffe 鈥� a contentious new book by social scientist Charles Murray is adding fuel to the firestorm.
鈥淐oming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010鈥� boldly describes an America that is 鈥渃oming apart at the seams.鈥� Murray paints a picture of a deep social and cultural schism dividing Americans into an upper class defined by educational attainment, professional productivity, traditional values, and shared cultural norms, and a lower class characterized by the opposite 鈥� lack of education, lack of industriousness, a breakdown of traditional values like marriage, and a widespread political and social disengagement. The result, writes Murray, is a social balkanization of American society that has political ramifications and is only bound to deepen over time.
鈥淭he people who run the country have enormous influence over the culture, politics, and the economics of the country,鈥� Murray said in . 鈥淎nd increasingly, they haven鈥檛 a clue about how most of America lives. They have never experienced it. They don鈥檛 watch the same movies, they don鈥檛 watch the same television shows 鈥� they don鈥檛 watch television at all, in many cases 鈥� and when that happens, you get some policies that are pretty far out of whack.鈥�
Of course, to understand 鈥淐oming Apart鈥� is to understand the man behind it, a libertarian social scientist who has become a pariah of sorts for his 1994 book with Richard J. Herrnstein, 鈥淭he Bell Curve.鈥� The 845-page book about race, class, genetics, and I.Q. was denounced by social scientists, liberal academics, even, , 鈥渁 little-known Chicago civil-rights lawyer named Barack Obama, who in a commentary on NPR accused the authors of calculating that 鈥榳hite America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism as long as it's artfully packaged.鈥欌��
In contrast, "Coming Apart" focuses only on whites (to show class divisions transcend race), painting a picture of an America 鈥渋ncreasingly polarized into two culturally- and geographically-isolated demographics,鈥� as . In upscale Belmont, 鈥渄ivorce is low, the work ethic is strong, religious observance is high, and out-of-wedlock births are all but unheard of.鈥�
鈥淢eanwhile, in Fishtown, where the bottom 30 percent live, what Mr. Murray calls America鈥檚 four 鈥榝ounding virtues; - marriage, industriousness, community and faith 鈥� have all but collapsed.鈥�
In the book, Murray between 鈥淏elmont鈥� and 鈥淔ishtown,鈥� specifically for upper-middle class Americans to 鈥渄rop their nonjudgmentalism and start preaching what they鈥檙e practicing.鈥�
It鈥檚 a stark contrast with a controversial prescription. Not surprisingly, 鈥淐oming Apart鈥� has sharply divided readers.
鈥淚鈥檒l be shocked,鈥� writes noted conservative and , 鈥渋f there鈥檚 another book this year as important as Charles Murray鈥檚 鈥楥oming Apart.鈥欌��
He goes on to praise Murray for bursting the ideological class-divide bubble both parties have been blowing hot air into: 鈥�Republicans claim that America is threatened by a decadent cultural elite that corrupts regular Americans, who love God, country, and traditional values,鈥� . 鈥淭hat story is false. The cultural elites live more conservative, traditional lives than the cultural masses.鈥�
鈥�Democrats claim America is threatened by the financial elite, who hog society鈥檚 resources. But that鈥檚 a distraction鈥he liberal members of the upper tribe latch onto this top 1 percent narrative because it excuses them from the central role they themselves are playing in driving inequality and unfairness.鈥�
But calls Brooks鈥� argument, above, a 鈥渟leight of hand鈥� that Murray鈥檚 latest work has enabled conservatives to perform to 鈥渟afely steer the [inequality] debate back onto comfortable conservative terrain.鈥澛�
鈥淭he appearance of income inequality on the political agenda has left conservatives casting about for a response,鈥� , "and after several months of floundering, it has increasingly narrowed down to two words: Charles Murray.鈥� Chait goes on to write that the focus on deteriorating social norms is simply 鈥渁n attempt to change the subject鈥� from 鈥渢he problem of income inequality.鈥�
But perhaps the most impassioned critique comes from conservative Republican journalist and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, David Frum, in .
Frum calls 鈥淐oming Apart鈥� 鈥渁n important book that will have a large influence. It is unfortunately not a good book,鈥� he writes, arguing that Murray details the social problems that have burdened the working class with 鈥渞emarkable 鈥� and telltale 鈥� uncuriosity as to why any of this might be happening.鈥�
鈥�'Coming Apart' is an important book less because of what it says than because of what it omits,鈥� he writes, 鈥渓ess for the information it contains than for the uses to which that information will be put."
No doubt 鈥淐oming Apart鈥� will continue to divide readers. But if it sparks awareness, conversation, and hopefully, action towards uniting Americans, then perhaps it will have accomplished what it was after.聽
Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.
Join the Monitor's book discussion on and .
