Archive for the 'Discrimination' Category

The Left vs Right Economic Model (aka Europe vs United States model)

My good friend Jon asked an important question: why not prefer the European economic model vs the United States economic model? I didn’t want to bog down his comments section with a long response, so I thought I’d post my longer response here.

Basically, there are two paradigms, two “visions” of an economy. The first, is generally considered left (or European): an economy with a large safety net, strong unions, and generally high taxes. The second, and my preferred, is considered right (or USA model): an economy with a large percentage of immigration, weak unions, weak safety net, and generally low taxes. The leftist economy tends to grow slowly. The rightwing economy tends to grow in a boom and bust way, with higher average growth than the leftist economy.So which one is better? Well that depends on personal preferences. The answer will be different for each person, depending on their personality (It would be like asking someone if they should join a union – it depends). If you are ambitious, entrepreneur minded, and generally a high achiever, you would prefer the United States model economy, where it’s easier to strike it rich (and, similarly, you would tend to oppose union membership). If you are someone who, for example, prefers small gains over large risks, and doesn’t have any ambitions to be CEO one day, you just want a steady pay with little growth – then the leftist economy is better for you (and, similarly, you would probably tend to favor union membership).

It’s kinda like asking someone should you invest their money in stocks or bonds? There is no right answer…it depends on the personality. Stocks give you better long term gains, but they are a lot riskier and volatile. Bonds are safer, but you sacrifice long term growth. It depends on the person (and age group – which is why the young around the world tend to prefer the USA, while the older Canada, see here).

Here is the important thing you have to notice about these two economies: they are mutually exclusive (please, click on the link and read the blog, it’s very pertinent to this discussion ). You can’t have a large safety net, for example, and a large immigration class. And you don’t need high taxes if you don’t have a large safety net. And you don’t get high growth with high taxes. etc. It’s all a domino.

So for example, in the United States, you have a dynamic corporate sector with one company rising to prominence in one decade, and going bankrupt in the next decade. Whereas in Europe, it’s usually the same companies, decade after decade (see here and here). Again, the United States model gives you boom and bust, with more growth, while the European model gives you steady growth, with less long term growth.

Or take immigration. Germany, for example, is not very friendly to the immigrant Turks (only recently, beginning to change, see here). And Germany – like the Scandinavian countries – is generally homogeneous (White).

More importantly,  these dynamics feed off of each other. Because safety nets are indeed zero sum – your welfare gain really is my loss – large safety nets foster an ant-immigrant culture (it’s the same reason that during a recession, anti-immigration sentiment increases – the people feel that in a time of scarce jobs, immigrants are “stealing” their job).

Matthew Yglesias, who lived in Europe, writes on the cultural difference between Europe and the United States:

There’s often a kind of conventional idea on the left that the United States is an unusually racist society. And I think there’s also often a kind of image of Europe as a place where more of the progressive agenda has been achieved than in the USA. But I think that you’ll find if you look at Europe through the eyes of the liberal agenda that while the German left has certainly been more successful than the American left at securing universal health care, it’s been much less successful at promoting a tolerant, integrated, multicultural society. And allowing for the errors implicit in making any kind of sweeping generalization, I’d say that’s pretty generally the case across Europe. …

In the US, in other words, racial problems have been more salient for a long time since we’ve been a racially diverse society for a long time. But by the same token, for all the problems we have with us today, we’ve made enormous progress over the years. Racial and ethnic tensions are a common problem in the world, and the United States manages diversity pretty well in comparison with other places (not just in Europe) even if we fall short in some absolute terms. Just look at Barack Obama. I think we’ll be waiting a while yet before someone of non-European ancestry is elected head of government in a European country. Denmark has some great public policy ideas, but it’s also kind of made itself into the gated community of nations in a way I don’t find particularly appealing.

Just look at this youtube video on Black soccer players to see how different race relations are in Europe compared to the United States.

The United States is much more tolerant of immigrants not because we are inherently different than Europeans, but precisely because of our smaller safety nets. Because immigrants that come here are largely excluded from our safety nets, we don’t feel that they come to steal our piece of the pie – instead they are viewed as coming here to enlarge the pie for everyone (unless of course, you are a poor Black person – in that case you do feel threatened from immigration, and rightly so – which helps explain the high anti-immigration sentiment in the poor Black communities) .

That is not to say that the European economic model is bad for everyone. I agree that some people probably are better off under the European model. If you are a White, not very ambitious member of the middle to lower upper class (think liberal arts university professors, or White union members), the European model probably is better for you than the United States model.

But liberals often speak as if all that mattered were White union members (another example of this is in the minimum wage debate), but immigrants and minorities count as well and so do the non union members (White or not) and the very poor and even the very rich. And so the question is: are they better off under the European economic model?  And on that I would say no. In addition to the exceptions mentioned above, the unemployment rate is significantly higher in European than in the United States (and especially higher if you have the bad luck of being a minority in Europe). And strong welfare nets notwithstanding, having a job counts for a lot (Highly recommended article here). It’s a source of self respect, pride and happiness. Furthermore, the unhappiness associated with being unemployed swamps out any happiness gains from the slightly higher job security gains of others.

And don’t say that ‘a couple percentage points of unemployment is worth it’, since even a couple points of unemployment could have a drastic affect on happiness levels. An economist explains: ‘Think about how hard it was to find a job back in January 2009 when our unemployment rate was 7.2%. The plight of the job-seeker wasn’t 30% worse than it was in May, 2008,  when the unemployment rate was 5.5%.  It was probably more like two or three times worse. Now imagine turning 7.2% unemployment into a way of  life.  It’s pretty awful to imagine, isn’t it?  Well, you don’t just  have to imagine it, because in France and Germany, 7.2% is normal.  The horror!”

So to summarize: the European economic model is better for low ambition White union prone citizens. It’s worse for immigrants and minorities of all  stripes. White non-union members. The United States model is better for those at the bottom and top of the economic ladder, and those who prefer risk and growth over stability.

Quote Of The Day

“Neither legal nor market forces have brought employment parity between whites and blacks in the United States. Parallel with the struggle of blacks for parity, Jews, East Asians, and immigrants generally, have made rapid economic progress and indeed (at least in the case of Jews and East Asians) largely overcome discrimination, yet without significant help from the law. An open economy provides opportunities even to victims of discrimination, especially if the victim group is large enough to achieve economies of scale in trade within the group. As members of the group grow modestly affluent and thus achieve a standard of living that enables them to assimilate to the larger culture, as by consuming similar goods and services and sending their children to good schools, discrimination against them declines because they cease to seem “different” from the majority. When members of a minority group talk and think and act like the majority and have the same tastes and in short share the same culture, the fact that they may have a different physical appearance ceases to count greatly against them, as indicated by high rates of intermarriage in the groups I have mentioned. Assimilation to the dominant culture, as yet incomplete for a great many blacks, may thus be the major force in reducing discrimination, with competition and law playing lesser roles.” — Richard Posner, blogging at the Becker-Posner blog on the Economics of discrimination

What Capitalism Is Doing To India

A great article in the New York Times, see here.

A couple of snippets:

Mr. Prasad was born into the Pasi community, once considered untouchable on the ancient Hindu caste order. Today, a chain-smoking, irrepressible didact, he is the rare outcaste columnist in the English language press and a professional provocateur. His latest crusade is to argue that India’s economic liberalization is about to do the unthinkable: destroy the caste system. The last 17 years of new capitalism have already allowed his people, or Dalits, as they call themselves, to “escape hunger and humiliation,” he says, if not residual prejudice.

There are about 200 million Dalits, or members of the Scheduled Castes, as they are known officially, in India. They remain socially scorned in city and country, and they are over-represented among India’s uneducated, malnourished and poor.

The survey, financed by the Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania, finds that Dalits are far less likely to be engaged in their traditional caste occupations — for instance, the skinning of animals, considered ritually unclean — than they used to be and more likely to enjoy social perks once denied them. In rural Azamgarh District, for instance, nearly all Dalit households said their bridegrooms now rode in cars to their weddings, compared with 27 percent in 1990. In the past, Dalits would not have been allowed to ride even horses to meet their brides; that was considered an upper-caste privilege.

Mr. Prasad credits the changes to a booming economy. “It has pulled them out of the acute poverty they were in and the day-to-day humiliation of working for a landlord,” he said.

The full article can be found here.

Milton Friedman On Race, Poverty And Government


From an old speech but just as relevant today as it was then.

Quote Of The Day

“There was very little civil rights law before Title VII; nevertheless the black-white income differential narrowed more rapidly in that benighted era than it has since. It is possible that antidiscrimination laws do not benefit their intended beneficiaries, because they give the beneficiaries a sense of entitlement and victimhood, foster tokenism, increase employers’ costs, cast a shadow over the real achievements of outstanding members of the “benefited” group, create an unhealthy preoccupation with racial and ethnic identity, and cause white backlash. It is also possible that the sexual revolution of the 1960s promoted the break-up of the black family–of the white too, but the whites were in a better position to adapt. To the extent that the “Great Society” programs of the 1960s and the social disorder of the same period are correlated phenomena, together constituting a lurch to the Left, the net effect on black progress may have been negative”. — Richard Posner, writing about The Black-White Income Differential

Why The Slowing Of Black Progress?

Gary Becker’s answer:

Why did the progress of blacks stop well short of achieving full equality with whites, and is the slowdown during the past 20 years in black progress only temporary, or is it an indication of what the racial situation will be during the next few decades? The sharp slowdown is surprising mainly because institutionalized and personal discrimination against African-Americans has continued to fall into this century. Probably the most important offset to the decline in discrimination is the rapid growth since the 1960’s in the fraction of black children raised in households with only one or no parents-these households also grew among whites, but at a much slower pace. Moreover, white single parent households mainly arise from a divorce between parents who had their children while married (or while living together), whereas never-married and quite young mothers raise many black children.

In addition, there is social pressure on young blacks growing up in segregated neighborhoods to engage in crime, including selling drugs, and to not “act white”, where acting white sometime is taken to mean studying hard and investing in one’s human capital. These pressures act more on black boys rather than girls, which help explain why the achievements of black women are much closer to those of white women than is the gap between black and white men.

It is too early to tell whether these and other forces that have prevented blacks from achieving full parity with whites are temporary or more long lasting. A disturbing fact is that growing up in families that invest less in their children casts a long shadow since children brought up in these families tend also to invest less in their children. This process gets to be repeated to some degree over subsequent generations.

This is one of the reasons why I am not a liberal. The problems of poverty today are not discriminatory in nature, they tend to be cultural and family related, problems that are far better addressed on the right than on the left. Arnold Kling has more here.

Quote Of The Day

“The idea that an American could, under any circumstance of naturalization, become a governor of an Indian province, or be elected to high office in Austria seems remote. Yet we take the inverse for granted here. On Sunday night I spoke to a Jewish group in Fresno in support of Israel; on Wednesday I debated at a local mosque. The two venues were not more than 5 miles distant in the same city. Both were peaceful, both conducted to an accepted American sense of lecture, questions and answers. For all the talk of lack of diversity and rampant exploitation and prejudice, this is about the only country in the world in which a myriad of races, religions, and tribes get up each morning, work side by side, and are more likely to marry than kill each other.” —  Victor Davis Hanson

The Difference Between Statistical Discrimination And Racism

It always annoys me when someone confuses true racism with statistical discrimination. VivirLatino gives a perfect example of that here. More on statistical discrimination here.

Abolish The SAT

So argues, persuasively and surprisingly, Charles Murray here.

Because upper-middle-class families produce most of the smartest kids, there is no way to reform the system (short of disregarding intellectual ability altogether) to prevent their children from coming out on top. We can only make sure that high-ability students from disadvantaged backgrounds realize that the nation’s best colleges yearn for their applications and that their chance of breaking out of their disadvantaged situations has never been better—in short, that the system is not rigged. Now, the widespread belief is that the system is rigged, and the SAT is a major reason for that belief. The most immediate effect of getting rid of the SAT is to remove an extremely large and bright red herring. But there are more good effects.

The Minority Case Against The Minimum Wage

Most of you have heard the standard arguments against the minimum wage – that it is a weak poverty reduction tool, it increases prices, increases unemployment, hurts small businesses, makes the economy less efficient, etc, etc, but what I want to write about today is the harm done by the minimum wage that is least discussed – its affect on minorities, especially poor and unskilled minorities.

Have you ever wondered why poor areas have more empty lots than rich areas? Why unemployment is much higher in poor areas than in rich areas? Why minorities, especially blacks, high school drop outs and those with the least amount of skills have a harder time finding a job than others? A lot of the reason for all of this is the minimum wage, and that is what I want to write about today.

Before I go on, we have to ask who is on the minimum wage? If you look at government stats (see here, here and here) you will see that most of the people that are on minimum wage are part time workers and a full four-fifths of all minimum wage workers are not poor. People like, stay-at-home moms who want to supplement their full-time spouse’s earnings, teenagers working after school, and other students. These are students that tend to live in good neighborhoods, are relatively well educated, and are already doing okay, being that mommy and daddy pays most of their bills. Of course there are some ‘single mothers of four’ and other truly poor people living on the minimum wage but they are an extremely small percentage, by far the bulk of people on the minimum wage are young college kids starting their working lives. In addition, most people on the minimum wage are on there for a relatively short amount of time. In other words, the minimum wage is only their first step in a long road ahead of higher wages and more opportunities. The minimum wage in this respect is the gate way, the entry point, where an employer takes on a relatively small risk to hire you and see what you can do, after all, a teenager fresh into the work force has little to no work experience to be evaluated on.

Okay, so what happens if the minimum wage starts to increase? While economists may disagree on the magnitude of the effects of the minimum wage, here are a few things that economists universally would agree, and all things that primarily affect minorities.

1. The minimum wage harms the least productive most

What politicians won’t tell you but what ALL economists know is that the people who are most likely to lose their job due to an increase in the minimum wage are the least educated, the ones with the least skills, and the ones that are likely to keep their jobs are the more educated, the ones with the most skills. For example, if you had to lay someone off, with all things being equal would you rather lay off someone with or without a high school diploma? With or without the ability to speak english? With or without a criminal record? Remember, as the minimum wage goes up the market becomes an employers market (supply increases and demand drops) so that employer now has more people to choose from.

So being that minorities are the ones that tend to be less educated either because of a poor public school system, or the lack of english speaking parents at home, it is primarily poor minorities that feel the brunt of the minimum wage – while middle class white students reap most of the rewards.

Free exchange, a blog provided by the Economist magazine, explains it this way:

It seems very likely to me that the small number of people made redundant as a result of a modest minimum wage hike are very likely to be the worst off of the poor: convicted felons, recovering drug addicts, welfare mothers, the cognitively disabled, high school dropouts, those whose backgrounds were too chaotic to impart good work habits. The well-connected, well-socialised middle class teenaged and twenty-something students, on the other hand, seem disproportionately likely to keep their jobs.

In short, the minimum wage is a subsidy to relatively affluent workers at the expense of poor, less educated workers.

2. The minimum wage harms poor areas over rich areas

In addition to harming primarily poor people, the minimum wage harms primarily poor areas. Think of it this way, lets say that you were a person looking to open up a new business and you were looking for communities to open that business in. Well, if you wanted to open up that business in a poor neighborhood you would have alot of things working against you – you would tend to have a lower educated work force, customers with less buying power, and sometimes an area with a high crime rate (higher security risks and costs etc). Well, if you were able to pay whatever you wanted, you could pay your employees lower wages to compensate for some of those disadvantages but a minimum wage takes that option away. So now, especially for those companies that are not extremely profitable, your choices are more limited. You can’t, even if you wanted to, open up in a poor neighborhood because your costs will exceed your profits. So what is that poor community left with? Nothing – with less companies opening up shop there. Have you ever wondered why poor neighborhoods have so many empty lots? Well the minimum wage is a big reason for that…and of course the neighborhoods that benefit are those neighborhoods with more educated citizens, with less crime, and with more disposable income. In short, the minimum wage harms the poor communities to the benefit of the richer communities.

To think of this another way, it is important to note that the minimum wage was first passed at the national level in 1938, around the time of the second wave of the great depression. If you were to look at the voting record of that legislation, one of the things you would discover is that the northern senators voted almost unanimously in favor of the minimum wage and the southern senators voted almost unanimously against the minimum wage. The reason for that is that wages were alot lower in the south, the south being the part of the country with the most ex-slaves. So the minimum wage was basically set at a level above southern wages but below northern wages. The minimum wage was set by the northerners as a way to keep jobs in the north by preventing businesses from moving to the south to take advantage of the lower wages. Who paid for this minimum wage? Unemployment during that time was almost all poor southern workers, primarily black southern workers, who were basically priced out of the labor market (the minimum wage was also used to price women out of the labor market, see here ). In short, the more you raise the minimum wage, the more you harm poor areas at the benefit of rich areas.

Is it a coincidence that the minimum wage is primarily supported by legislators from San Francisco, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other high cost areas, where the minimum wage is more symbolic than anything else, because wages already have to be high to cover the extremely expensive living costs? I don’t think so.

3. The minimum wage makes discrimination less costly, therefore easier to discriminate

Lets talk about racism and how the minimum wage helps racists. Lets say that I was a racist and I wanted to open up a restaurant but I hated Mexicans so much that I refused to hire any in my shop. My shop is to have whites, and whites only. Well one of the first things I will learn, as any restaurant owner will tell you, is that Mexicans are extremely productive at such a cheap price. To put it another way, it is hard to get any other group of people to work so hard for such little money. Try hiring a bunch of middle class white kids to wash dishes, clean tables, sweep the floor, cook the food, all for close to the minimum wage, it just isn’t going to happen. So okay, I am a stubborn racist and decide to do it anyway – problem is, to get the same quality of workers I have to now pay them more per hour, say $8, or $10/hour. That is the beauty of the market system, I now have to pay for my racism. Whereas the non-racists are getting the same productivity from their works as I am but at a much lower rate, I have to forego precious profits to support my racist beliefs. Furthermore, in a really competitive market this is enough to put me out of business!

Now, factor in the minimum wage and what happens? Well you have just made it easier for me to be racist. Now I may have to pay $8/hour or $10/hour but you know what, so does everyone else, in other words, you have reduced and spread out the costs I previously had to incur to follow my racist beliefs….and the Mexicans that used to work there? Sure, some of them keep their job but some would surely be replaced. Think of it this way, if you were an employer and you had to pay an employee $10/hour no matter what, would you rather have one that spoke english or one that didn’t? One with more education or less? One with a criminal record or one without? In other words, the minimum wage is to the benefit of those who have more skills and makes it less costly to discriminate. For more on this, go here, here, here, and here.

With the accumulation of the above taken into account, it is easy to understand why the harm of the minimum wage falls primarily on poor, low educated, low skilled, minorities, especially blacks.

David Neumark, professor of economics at UC Irvine and Olena Nizalovaof have a NBER study on the long-run effects of the minimum wage, it states ( here ):

Exposure to minimum wages at young ages may lead to longer-run effects. Among the possible adverse longer-run effects are decreased labor market experience and accumulation of tenure, lower current labor supply because of lower wages, and diminished training and skill acquisition. Beneficial longer-run effects could arise if minimum wages increase skill acquisition, or if short-term wage increases are long-lasting. We estimate the longer-run effects of minimum wages by using information on the minimum wage history that workers have faced since potentially entering the labor market. The evidence indicates that even as individuals reach their late 20’s, they work less and earn less the longer they were exposed to a higher minimum wage, especially as a teenager. The adverse longer-run effects of facing high minimum wages as a teenager are stronger for blacks. From a policy perspective, these longer-run effects of minimum wages are likely more significant than the contemporaneous effects of minimum wages on youths that are the focus of most research and policy debate.(emphasis added)

The more the minimum wage is lifted, the harder it is for those with less skills, less education, and more barriers to climb (english, racism, etc) to overcome, leading to more and more people being priced out of the labor force, and so it should be no suprise that the minimum wage hits hardest those who are most vulnerable to racism, living in bad areas, and low education.

In addition to all of this, the minimum wage benefits large businesses and harms small businesses, it causes an increase in prices, it increases unemployment and it reduces competition, all in all, things that primarily harm the poor. But hey, it brings in votes, so who cares right?

Quote Of The Day

“The great virtue of a free market is that it enables people who hate each other, or who are from vastly different religious or ethnic backgrounds, to cooperate economically. Government intervention can’t do that. Politics exacerbates and magnifies differences.”–Milton Friedman

Quote Of The Day

” In 2001, comparing men and women who never married, never had a child, worked full time, and were college educated, women earned 117% of what men earned. That is, after controlling for marital status, having children, hours worked and education, men earned 85% of what women earned”. — Dr. Mark J. Perry, professor of finance and economics at the University of Michigan-Flint in the School of Management

Quote Of The Day

“The youth unemployment rate is largely an artefact of French law. If employers were free to fire employees without cause, as under “employment at will,” the most common form of employment contract in the U.S. private sector, they would be much more willing to take a chance on hiring workers without a record of satisfactory performance. Tenuring just-hired workers may be good for those people lucky enough to land a job (though average wages will decline because the expected productivity of a worker will be lower than if he could be fired easily), but like other labor protections it is bad for the marginal workers, such as the Muslims who rioted the last time, and for the economy as a whole. It is part of a complex of unwise laws in Europe that are contributing to Europe’s economic stagnation”. —Richard Posner, blogging about the latest French Riots

Quote Of The Day

The greatest dilemma in attempts to raise ethnic minority income is that those methods which have historically proved successful — self-reliance, work skills, education, business, experience — are all slow developing, while those methods which are direct and immediate — job quotas, charity, subsidies, preferential treatment — tend to undermine self-reliance and pride of achievement in the long run.” —Thomas Sowell, in 1975

Quote Of The Day

“My mother arrived in Britain penniless, but fortunately for her—and for Britain—no one sought to persuade her that she need not learn English, and no one set up expensive and ineffective services for her in case she did not. She was not obliged to give up her tastes or conform in private respects, but she was expected (de facto) to blend into society as much as possible, rightly and reasonably, in my opinion. There was no ideology seeking to Balkanize the sensibilities of the population, enclose people in ghettoes and so forth, in the process acting as an employment opportunity for hordes of officials and bureaucrats. Although it is not a complete answer, a flexible labor market is very important, because there is nothing like work to integrate people. One of the problems in France is that youth unemployment is very high, and you only have to ask a plumber or a carpenter why he does not employ anyone to find out why. Thus, huge numbers of young immigrants or descendents of immigrants gather in one area—”social housing”—without realistic prospect of work”. —Theodore Dalrymple, writing at Cato Unbound on Integration and “Savage Liberalism”

The Crazy 60’s

Thomas Sowell sets the record straight on many supposedly good things that came out of the 1960’s:

While liberals may think of the 1960s as the beginning of many “progressive” trends in American society, cold hard facts tell a very different story. The 1960s marked the end of many beneficial trends that had been going on for years — and a complete reversal of those trends as programs, policies, and ideologies of the liberals took hold.

Teenage pregnancy had been going down for years. So had venereal disease. Rates of infection for syphilis in 1960 was half of what it had been in 1950. There were similar trends in crime. The total number of murders in the United States in 1960 was lower than in 1950, 1940, or 1930 — even though the population was growing and two new states had been added. The murder rate, in proportion to population, in 1960 was half of what it had been in 1934.

Every one of these beneficial trends sharply reversed after liberal notions gained ascendancy during in the 1960s. By 1974, the murder rate had doubled. Even liberal icon Sargent Shriver, head of the agency directing the “war on poverty,” admitted that “venereal disease has skyrocketed” even though “we have had more clinics, more pills, and more sex education than ever in history.”

Liberals looking back on the 1960s take special pride in their role on racial issues, for civil rights laws and the advancement of blacks out of poverty. Those riots that threatened to tear the country apart were race riots — and supposedly the liberals saved us all.

But what do the facts show?

Both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had a higher percentage of Congressional Republicans voting for their enactment than the percentage of Congressional Democrats.

You can check it out in The Congressional Record.

As for black economic advances, the most dramatic reduction in poverty among blacks occurred between 1940 and 1960, when the black poverty rate was cut almost in half, without any major government programs of the Great Society kind that began in the 1960s.

Liberals love to point to the rise of blacks out of poverty since 1960 as proof of the benefits of liberal programs, as if the continuation of a trend that began decades earlier was proof of how liberals saved blacks.

As for saving the country from riots, the facts show the direct opposite. It was precisely when liberals were in power that riots rocked cities across the country. There were never as many riots during the two presidential terms of Ronald Reagan as during one term of Lyndon Johnson.

Even during the 1960s, riots were far more common and deadly in liberal bastions like New York City than in Chicago, where the original Mayor Daley announced on television that he had given his police orders to “shoot to kill” if riots broke out.

Daley was demonized for saying such a thing, even though Chicago did not have the loss of life suffered in liberal cities where mayors pandered to grievance-mongers and pleaded for restraint. In other words, the net effect was that Daley saved lives while liberals saved their vision.

The full article can be found here.