An Interesting Article on a Possible Dichotomy of Society

I recently read a very interesting article by Charles Murray about what has happened to Non-Hispanic White Americans from the 1960s until the present day.  For those who do not know, Charles Murray writes for the American Enterprise Institute, one of the three leading conservative think tanks in the U.S.  This article he writes, titled "Belmont & Fishtown" is surprisingly not overtly over-the-top in right wing ideology.

The basic premise of this article, which is actually a summary of Murray's book, is that White Americans, while once a culturally similar group, are now on divergent paths based on wealth. 
Belmont, in this article, is the tribe of economically wealthy White Americans, such as those who the Occupy Wall Street people are protesting against and most of friends in real life.  Fishtown represents working-class White Americans who used to work in manufacturing jobs through the Rust Belt.  In the 1960s, the residents of Belmont and Fishtown lived similar lives, drank the same beer, were married, did not have children outside of wedlock, and had more or less similar lives with only slight degrees on the differences in material goods.  Since then, the two tribes of White Americans has diverged.  Residents of Fishtown, are participating less in the work force (in times of good and bad), their marriage rate has plummeted, they go to religious services less, and a full 44% of Fishtown's children are born out of wedlock.  Meanwhile, residents of Belmont are richer than ever and still are fairly monotonically married and have children inside of wedlock.  They are also taking European vacations.

Murray's problem with this dichotomy is that the Upper Class and Working Class are becoming increasingly isolated.  Given that policy makers come almost exclusively from the Upper Class, it can be troubling that policy-makers for the Working Class do not have first hand experience with the Working Class world.  Also, the Working Class is experiencing many qualities of a degenerating society as evidenced by plummeting marriage rates, more children outside of wedlock, high amounts of television viewing, and decreased participation in the work force.

This article also contains a simplistic, but fun elitist quiz.

While the problems are very real, the solutions proposed seem fickle at best.  Murray's solution seems to be that Upper Class people should voluntarily spend time with their Working Class brethren.  Not only does this solution seem implausible, but it does nothing to reverse the deteriorating social conditions in Fishtown.

Leading conservative op-ed writer for the New York Times, David Brooks, wrote a response to Murray's book in which Brooks suggested a National Service Program for upper-class and working class youths to have to socialize and work together.  While this sounds like a good idea, it has some disturbing similarities to Mao Zedong's Learn from the Peasants program.

Overall, the issues highlighted by Murray do not have easy solutions, they may not even have hard solutions.  However, the idea that policymakers should have a first-hand experience with all the kinds of people they are making policy over is a good idea.