Yoni Appelbaum's Stuck examines the historical significance of geographic and social mobility in America, its recent decline, the factors contributingYoni Appelbaum's Stuck examines the historical significance of geographic and social mobility in America, its recent decline, the factors contributing to this shift, and its societal impacts. The book contends that America's defining characteristic of frequent migration, driven by various aspirations, has been curtailed. This evolution included the progression from the philosophical "freedom to leave" to the legal right to move and belong to a chosen community.
Appelbaum argues that the perceived "affordable housing crisis" is fundamentally a "mobility crisis," limiting the ability to relocate for opportunity, especially for those with lower incomes. Over the past half-century, this mobility has drastically decreased both interstate and intrastate
Key factors identified in this decline include the rise of zoning (initially for segregation, later for public welfare and single-family homes), restrictive covenants (evolving into tools for exclusion), and federal programs like the FHA (reinforcing segregation). More recently, environmental reviews and historic preservation efforts are also cited as hindering new development and access to desirable areas.
The consequences of this reduced mobility are significant, contributing to diminished economic and social opportunity, particularly for marginalized groups, increased political polarization due to less interaction between diverse populations, and a profound loss of personal agency, fostering feelings of being "stuck."
The book advocates for policy shifts based on tolerance, consistency, and abundance to restore American mobility. This includes embracing organic growth, simplifying land-use rules across wider areas, and increasing the supply of affordable housing in opportunity-rich locations. The ultimate goal is to empower individuals to pursue opportunities and choose their communities, thereby revitalizing the American ideal.
One significant area for potential critique concerns the emphasis placed on land-use regulation as the primary driver of declining mobility and increased inequality. Although the sources meticulously detail the history of zoning and its exclusionary effects, attributing the complex phenomenon of mobility decline predominantly to this single factor may be perceived as a form of reductionism.
The text not give sufficient weight to other potential contributing factors, such as
changes in the labor market, the decline of manufacturing jobs, changes in family structure, other macro-economic shifts.
There is also the general decline in America鈥檚 migratory character, stemming from the disappearance of unexplored places and the disappearance of overt discrimination.The main internal migrations in American history have been the Westward migration in the 19th and early 20th century and the northward migration of African Americans during the Jim Crow era. The conditions fueling such large scale migrations no longer exist. the rise of suburbanization, which, though unintended, turned out to be an engine of homogenization. The effect is the erasure of the need to move in search of a distinct flavor. With few exceptions, most suburbs in America are just like other suburbs in other cities in America. This erases the need to move in search of a particular flavor. If I blindfold you and drop you into a suburb in any part of America, unless you are an expert in architectural styles you will not be able to tell where you are. the increase in the costs of moving, not just from the cost of moving into a new place but the costs of leaving the current place. The difficulty of finding jobs, the difficulty of finding schools, and the increase in the properties of the average family. All these show that other factors such as the existence of school districts and periods of low labor mobility also play a role in the dampening of high mobility. The fact that America has lost its early vibrancy because it is no longer a young nation.
Another critique is that this tendency to exclude newcomers and marginalized people is not exactly new. Americans have always excluded the outsiders. What this book documents is the indirect and legal exclusions used when the principle of non-discrimination was enshrined constitutionally.
I recommend the book ONLY as an analysis of the rise of the indirect use of the law to enforce discrimination, this book is excellent.
The attempt to make the claims of the book fundamental to the problem of housing or even to make such exclusionary tendencies recent (relative to American history), doesn't really work. ...more
Isolationism is and has always been a cudgel word. It is a word that is meant to signal that the person you are engaging in conversation or debate is Isolationism is and has always been a cudgel word. It is a word that is meant to signal that the person you are engaging in conversation or debate is out of step with the orthodoxy. But like all over-used cudgel words, it suffers from lack of definition.
The book's central thesis is that the widespread belief among policymakers, particularly in Congress and the media, that the American public has become isolationist and wants to withdraw from global engagement is a myth
The authors point out that what policy makers identify as isolationism is not really isolationism. The authors acknowledge the potential for the misuse of polls by manipulated wording but argue that carefully designed polls, including those testing specific arguments and correcting misperceptions, consistently show support for engagement.
For example,
On closer questioning, though, it became clear that this attitude was not based on real isolationism; no participants called for the United States to truly withdraw from the world. Rather there was criticism of the specific character of U.S. international engagement: that the United States is excessively playing the hegemonic role of the dominant world leader. For many this role was rejected because it could lead the United States to be arrogant or high handed, and to incur justified rancor toward Americans. More often participants rejected it because it could lead the United States, for noble reasons as well as the desire to be dominant, to take on more than its fair share in dealing with international problems. Many believed that carrying this burden has been at the expense of deserving domestic priorities.
And again
most Americans want U.S. defense spending to be gauged to the requirement of defending other countries together as part of a multilateral operation, not on its own. The commitment to protect specific countries such as Saudi Arabia and South Korea appears to be quite weak when posed in a unilateral context but quite strong in a multilateral one
These points indicate public preferences for specific types or modes of international engagement (cooperative, multilateral, burden-sharing) as opposed to others (unilateral, hegemonic), and distinguish them from a general desire to withdraw or become isolated.
The book delves into various possible reasons why policymakers might misread the public, including dismissing polling data due to skepticism about its methods, reacting primarily to a vocal minority, underestimating the public's capacity to understand foreign policy issues.
This book is recommended because I personally believe that such misreadings of the public are happening again. All sorts of criticisms of the current engagement with international affairs are lumped into the single bucket of isolationism without any attempt to sift out the real concerns.
We have become so used to associating the principle of transparency with freedom of the press. But there is a deeper and more important level of transWe have become so used to associating the principle of transparency with freedom of the press. But there is a deeper and more important level of transparency in every healthy society: this is the one that does not just prevent the press from asking questions, but operates under a duty to inform.
In 鈥淏ackroom Deals in Our Backyards鈥�, Miranda S. Spivack illuminates a toxic (pun fully intended) threat to both democratic principles and the well-being of communities across America: the increasing tendency towards secrecy on the part of governments and corporations. Spivack argues (with convincing cases) that this information blackout is not just a bureaucratic nuisance, but a deliberate strategy used to maintain power and protect interests, often with devastating consequences for ordinary citizens. The book is structured around the stories of a handful of people the author calls 鈥渁ccidental activists鈥�. These individuals, with no prior experience in research or community organizing, found themselves facing hidden problems in their own backyards. They confronted 鈥渢he unfair alliances鈥� between governments and businesses that allowed negligence and collusion by concealing vital information. The stories presented are varied, but all highlight the same basic problem: that of deliberate cover up and its real-life implications. There is the case of Hoosick Falls, New York, where Michael Hickey, who became an accidental investigator due to his father's death from cancer, uncovered a cover-up by the local government about poisoned drinking water.
There is also Richard Boltuck's fight in Maryland which revealed state concealment and failure to act on accident data, fearing that the public might challenge or sue private contractors. And then there is the investigation by Diane Cotter, which revealed how manufacturers and government agencies, in collaboration with the firefighters' union, allowed known risks to be concealed about toxic chemicals (such as PFAS) in firefighters' protective clothing.
The book does not stop at highlighting the problems. It offers a guide on how ordinary citizens can fight this bureaucracy of secrecy. These 鈥渁ccidental activists鈥� learned to use tools such as public records access laws, build support networks (often through social media), seek legal help, communicate with journalists, and strategically lobby politicians and bureaucrats. Despite difficulties, personal adversity, and powerful opponents, their efforts have been successful in exposing hidden risks and forcing action from governments and corporations. The central idea that emerges from the sources is that transparency is not just an abstract idea, but a fundamental element of a functioning democracy that protects the health, safety and freedom of citizens. The book concludes with a strong call for vigilance, stressing that the public holds power, but must actively exercise it, demanding an end to secrecy and fighting for the principles of public notice, observation, participation and consultation.
Although not directly addressed by the author, I argue that the main takeaway of the book is that the well-known saying 鈥榙emocracy dies in darkness鈥� is not just about the importance of journalists, but about the looming threat to a society of a government which does not have the legal imperative to warn its citizens of the kind of threats highlighted in this book. In a healthy society citizens should not have to expend so much energy and resources in finding out about dangerous things that are either covered up or just not revealed.
Loading...
