Robert Putnam’s portrait of today’s America is grim, bleak,
depressing and demoralizing. In the good old days when he was growing up, Port Clinton,
Ohio was a vibrant community where people had access to opportunity and a good
life. The time was the 1950s.
Today, Putnam sees a Port Clinton divided between
the rich and the rest, between the affluent and the left-behind. Over the past
several decades this small American city has disintegrated.
Putnam is a Harvard professor. He wrote a wonderful
sociological study called Bowling Alone.
His views are always worth serious consideration, even if, as I believe, his
premise, that Port Clinton, OH is a microcosm for America is flawed.
Allow Putnam to compare and contrast yesterday’s Port
Clinton with today’s:
My
hometown — Port Clinton, Ohio, population 6,050 — was in the 1950s a passable
embodiment of the American dream, a place that offered decent opportunity for
the children of bankers and factory workers alike.
But a
half-century later, wealthy kids park BMW convertibles in the Port Clinton High
School lot next to decrepit “junkers” in which homeless classmates live. The
American dream has morphed into a split-screen American nightmare. And the
story of this small town, and the divergent destinies of its children, turns
out to be sadly representative of America.
One’s first thought is that Port Clinton seems to be an apt
representative of the decline and fall of certain parts of the industrial
Middle West. Yet, Putnam wants to see it as a microcosm for all of America. To
my mind, that is one leap too far.
It would be like saying that Detroit is a microcosm for all
of America.
Whether it is or is not Putnam’s intention, by nationalizing the problem he opens the door for a national
solution. That means a solution imposed by the federal government.
If, as Joel Kotkin suggests, the problem is localized,
cities like Port Clinton have lost out in a competitive marketplace.
They need to emulate the example that is being set in other, more successful
cities.
The American dream is alive and well… just not everywhere.
In some of what Kotkin calls “aspirational cities” people are thriving. In
other places, like Port Clinton, they are hanging on for dear life.
The American middle class is doing well in aspirational
cities like Austin, TX and New Orleans, LA, followed by Houston, TX, Oklahoma
City, OK and Raleigh, NC.
And if you move down the list, you find that
some Midwestern cities have emerged from their funk.
Kotkin writes:
Perhaps
more surprising is the high aspirational ranking of some old Rust Belt and
Great Lakes cities. The middle part of the country has been losing people and
jobs for half a century, but more recently several urban areas within or
bordering the Midwest have established enough of an aspirational culture to
reverse the pattern of out-migration and begin luring people from the coasts.
These include such diverse places as No. 15, Columbus, Ohio; No. 17 Louisville,
Kentucky; No. 21 Pittsburgh; and No. 23, Indianapolis.
One must say that some places have adapted to change better
than others. Perhaps they have been under better and more competent management.
A place like Port Clinton seems mired in the past, wallowing in nostalgia for a
lost past. Putnam might be trying to console them with the thought that things
are just as bad everywhere else, but such is not the case. And one does not see
the value in feeding a nostalgia that has brought some parts of America to
their knees.
Kotkin’s aspirational cities share many of the qualities
that Putnam finds lacking in today’s Port Clinton:
People
must also make tradeoffs when they decide where to locate. Some value a big
house and yard, while others cannot abide a city without a decent opera or good
Thai food. And those obsessed with, say, their children’s educations will
clearly find a broader variety of schools and cultural institutions in San
Francisco or New York than in Oklahoma City.
But for
those who lack these specific demands, and for those whose priority is
achieving a middle- or upper-middle-class quality of life, the less expensive,
often smaller, and less congested cities seem to have the greatest appeal. This
may offend the sensibilities of retro-urbanists, who tend to cluster in the
great legacy cities, along with our tribes of cultural tastemakers, but the
hard reality shows that, for the most part, people move to places that offer
not merely the best lattes or artisanal pizzas but the great opportunity for
advancement.
Strangely, Putnam sees the 1950s as a halcyon age for Port
Clinton. I say that this is strange because certain political thinkers have
been drumming it into our heads for these past four decades that the 1950s
represent the worst about America, that they were a soul-deadening mix of
conformity and prejudice. By this theory people in the 1950s were all bigoted,
mindless automatons.
Putnam’s vision of Port Clinton in the 1950s shows a cohesive
community, comprised of strong families where people held down good jobs and
could provide for their children:
Growing
up, almost all my classmates lived with two parents in homes their parents
owned and in neighborhoods where everyone knew everyone else’s first name. Some
dads worked in the local auto-part factories or gypsum mines, while others, like
my dad, were small businessmen. In that era of strong unions and full
employment, few families experienced joblessness or serious economic
insecurity. Very few P.C.H.S. students came from wealthy backgrounds, and those
few made every effort to hide that fact.
Putnam seems to wax nostalgic for the “strong unions” but he
does not mention the role that those unions might have had in chasing
manufacturing jobs to other parts of the world and other regions of the country.
Those who want a revival of the union movement often point
to lost communities like Port Clinton. They fail to notice that unions
contributed mightily to the unreal expectations that lulled people into
believing that they did not have to compete or adapt. Unions have not always
been the best friends of innovation and corporate efficiency.
Putnam describes the change that befell Port Clinton:
The
manufacturing foundation of Port Clinton’s modest prosperity in the 1950s and
1960s began to tremble in the 1970s. The big Standard Products factory at the
east end of town provided nearly 1,000 steady, good-paying blue-collar jobs in
the 1950s, but the payroll was more than halved in the 1970s. After two more
decades of layoffs and “give backs,” the plant gates on Maple Street finally
closed in 1993, leaving a barbed-wire-encircled ruin now graced with
Environmental Protection Agency warnings of toxicity. But that was merely the
most visible symbol of the town’s economic implosion.
Manufacturing
employment in Ottawa County plummeted from 55 percent of all jobs in 1965 to 25
percent in 1995 and kept falling. By 2012 the average worker in Ottawa County
had not had a real raise for four decades and, in fact, is now paid roughly 16
percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars than his or her grandfather in the
early 1970s. The local population fell as P.C.H.S. graduates who could escape
increasingly did. Most of the downtown shops of my youth stand empty and
derelict, driven out of business by gradually shrinking paychecks and the
Walmart on the outskirts of town.
Of course, Putnam is exculpating the unions by saying that
they had, for two decades been offering “give backs.” He does not suggest that
it might have been too little, too late.
He is also blaming Walmart for having run all of the small
businesses out of town. He does not offer a view of what the absence of Walmart
would do to the local quality of life.
As the social fabric has frayed and the middle class has
found itself descending into poverty and anomie, a new, monied upper class has
sprung up around Port Clinton.
Putnam describes the scene:
But the
story of Port Clinton over the last half-century — like the history of America
over these decades — is not simply about the collapse of the working class but
also about the birth of a new upper class. In the last two decades, just as the
traditional economy of Port Clinton was collapsing, wealthy professionals from
major cities in the Midwest have flocked to Port Clinton, building elaborate
mansions in gated communities along Lake Erie and filling lagoons with their
yachts. By 2011, the child poverty rate along the shore in upscale Catawba was
only 1 percent, a fraction of the 51 percent rate only a few hundred yards
inland. As the once thriving middle class disappeared, adjacent real estate
listings in the Port Clinton News Herald advertised near-million-dollar
mansions and dilapidated double-wides.
No one is going to solve these problems with nostalgia for
bygone days. Kotkin offers a more positive assessment when he points out that
many declining communities have re-invented themselves:
In
thinking about the future, then, it is important to recall that not long ago
some of the cities near the top of today’s aspirational list were facing
seemingly irreversible economic decline, demographic stagnation, and even loss
and deterioration of basic infrastructure. You only have to recall the dismal ’70s
in Seattle, where post-Vietnam budget cuts inspired some to ask that
“whoever is last to leave turn out the lights,” orHouston
and Dallas–Fort Worth after the oil bust in the ’80s, when those
cities were widely known for their “see through” office buildings and abandoned
housing complexes.
It’s
always possible that unpredictable and major shifts could topple today’s
aspirational cities from the top of the list. However, given current conditions
and the most likely accrual of current trends, we can expect that most of the
cities at the top of the aspirational rankings will remain there for some time
to come.
While Putnam seems to be suggesting that the problems of
Port Clinton can be solved by income redistribution and stronger labor unions,
Kotkin respects the results of competition between cities and emphasizes that some cities adapt, survive and thrive… with entrepreneurship and public policies that
favor growth.
When manufacturing was strong in places like Port Clinton, in the 1950s through 1970s, academics and social critics were generally VERY hostile toward what they saw as the "degrading" work done in a mass-production factory. The term "anomie," drawn from sociologist Emile Durkheim, was frequently used to describe the mentality and social climate believed to be a consequence of mass-production manufaturing work.
ReplyDeleteSee my post Faux Manufacturing Nostalgia:
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/11680.html
...for more on this theme.
Thank you, David, for reminding us of this point. And thanks too for the great post that you linked, providing more detail.
ReplyDeleteSo. What it is, is, Putnam's nostalgic.
ReplyDeleteMy 2 cents: I couldn't care less what "parlor Bolsheviks" (Orwell's term) think.
ReplyDeleteI was born in 1946. Pa was a bartender, Ma, a waitress. We owned a modest home in bucolic Lake Villa, IL. I got a terrific education at Grayslake HS & U of IL. Served in VN. Became a speechwriter for Pentagon.
NOBODY can convince me that times weren't better back then.
P.S. I hope my Comments here are welcome. -- Rich Lara
Always...
ReplyDelete