Will — June 12, 2008 at 3:10 pm

So what’s the conservative/libertarian response to the “you can take people out of the hood but not the ‘hood out of the people” problem? I’m not a big fan of massive government mandates, but to me this piece suggests that the only way to deal with persistent poverty is to buff up our early-childhood intervention programs.

I used to think that people would naturally grasp the desirability of obtaining certain beneficial social skills once they were exposed to the right environment, but now I’m not so sure.

Sonny Bunch — June 12, 2008 at 3:21 pm

I don’t think there is one. The government can’t force people to behave like civilized members of society, short of implanting shock collars in recalcitrant criminals or locking up everyone we deem unfit for polite society. I think the real trick here is for liberals to give up on the idea that they can develop a magic bullet to cure poverty and bad behavior by the poor. We could also consider the possibility that it is better to have concentrated pockets of poverty/crime than spreading it all over the place and impacting decent people more than is necessary.

Will — June 12, 2008 at 4:29 pm

I’m willing to accept that poverty may always be part and parcel of the human condition, but what really worries me are the systemic barriers to social mobility that seem to be locked in place for generations.

For years, conservatives have eloquently described how a lack of “social capital” can hamper individual development, and I think this article’s findings confirm a lot of what they’ve been saying. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much effort to reorient the welfare state around dealing with persistent social deficiencies. I think that’s a better option than consigning our urban poor to crappy inner-city ghettos.