Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
When it comes to standard of living I can’t complain. Between a pension and social security I live comfortably, though definitely without luxury. I have no investments and minimal savings so that I in essence live from check to check, as do most Americans less fortunate. Would I like thousands in the bank, of course? Would I like to travel overseas, as I never have, of course I would. It would also be nice to have a luxury auto that accommodates my long legs, 72” 3D plasma TV and many other accoutrements of our consumer society. I know I’d enjoy them, but frankly I am content with what I have and do not begrudge those with far more material things, savings and income. In this respect I am decidedly a creature of what has been known up to now as the “Middle/Working Class”. It is a vanishing citizen category that I identify with most closely and is gradually through conservative policies being driven down towards underclass status.
In addition, my entire working career was spent dealing with those people who can be roughly characterized in American terms as the “Underclass” due to poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, mental illness, criminality and addiction. I know first hand the depredations suffered by this portion of our citizens and this knowledge via experience, is something not shared by most Americans. My work exposed me to the basic unfairness of our system and I must admit my experiences fill me with rage towards those who lack empathy for the ignored and maltreated. Some say that this disparity is merely the result of lack off effort on their part, or of the natural result of lack of ability. Those that do are basically people ignorant of how the American system works and the fact that the putative “race” towards the top is a fixed affair, in all of its’ aspects. Since this is a legal opinion blog I would be giving its purpose short shrift was I not to mention that inequity of result has been a standard of our legal system since our Country’s inception. With a few exceptions used to demonstrate the opposite, the truth is as Leonard Cohen states so eloquently “Everybody knows the game is rotten”.
To me it is a fact that inequality is inherent in our system. Please indulge me to look at what I find most perplexing in this state of things and why I think it exists. Why does it seem that many people, who have received so much benefit from the fruits of this nation, are so begrudging of having those less fortunate at least live more comfortable lives?
The tax cut that G.W. Bush bestowed on the wealthy came at the point that we had balanced the budget and were on the cusp of two wars. For those this tax cut benefited most, the gains were minimal compared to their incomes. Given that now the same party that pushed these tax cuts, causing the huge deficits, are now declaiming from sea to sea that we are drowning in deficits, yet refuse to let these cuts die. What is going on here? Their propaganda of course is that tax cuts stimulate the economy, in the face of the fact that the mass of Americans suffered economically under Bush II and that reality has proven their claims fallacious. The mythology of small government, tax cuts for the wealthy and tax relief for business is proffered by both parties, in thrall to the 1% and to the multinational corporations paying them campaign dollars. Bill Clinton played this game, as did Al Gore as they helped move their party rightward and then were “shocked…..shocked I tell you” that the elected officialdom in this country became more and more creatures of the extreme right wing and almost destroyed them. Barack Obama, has adopted Clinton/Gores adoption of the “government is the enemy theme”, put forth by a washed up movie star, repackaged as a “Potemkin President”. That Reagan recently polled as the “Greatest American President” is evidence of the effectiveness of the money expended on political propaganda, used to destroy the faith of the American people in its government and putative democratic processes.
After many years of being a political junkie and a partisan of a humane world, I have come to see that the various economic theories, the various political “Isms” and philosophies are mere chimeras used to gull the majority of people into acting in their own worst interest. While I can discern the logical methodology being used to complete the domination of the people, the purpose of doing so by ensuring that the lives of the middle/working classes and the poor become ever more horrible is more elusive to define. Although via my training in Gestalt Psychotherapy, I was taught to forget about the “why” and concentrate on “how” and what, nevertheless I need to discern the motivation because it seems so damned illogical to me. If you have enough of “everything”, so that what you don’t have ceases to be of importance, why want it all? You can only have so much wealth, own so many homes, drive so many extravagant autos and bed so many beautiful people. When does it become enough? When do you throw crumbs to the unwashed masses, so that they won’t rise up in distress and rage to overthrow you?
In my mind there are two strains that follow the motivation of those in power and seeking more. These two strains may overlap, or remain separate in different people, but in tandem they explain to me the why of this illogical behavior of destruction. The first strain I would call Narcissism, but not as narrowly defined as in the psychological sense. The Narcissist faction would include those born to be elite and those who struggled to enter the elite. The world is literally their oyster. They deserve it all. They are in their minds of a finer cut of cloth than the masses and so are entitled to be put on a pedestal of privilege.
The Narcissists require that they appear decidedly different from the masses. In a nation living in political and economic equality how would they stand out? In a nation not concerned with materialism, the advantage of their wealth would make them ordinary and “ordinary” is intolerable to the Narcissists.
This is a historical tendency best illustrated by sumptuary laws:
“In the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie of medieval cities, and they continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.”
With the rise of the bourgeoisie, the merchant classes, the nobility whose wealth was land-based found that these “merchants” were becoming as wealthy as them and could dress in equal finery. Thus people on first glance could not differentiate who was “noble” and who was “common”. This was intolerable to the nobility, who in their narcissism felt their elite status was threatened. Indeed, the sumptuary laws in the end proved futile, as the merchant/banking classes succeeded to exceed royalty and nobility in wealth and bought titles, previously won hundreds of years before by combat. The merchant classes having equaled and in some cases replaced nobility, now became imbued with a similar narcissistic need. They had no desire to, nor could they “win their spurs” in battle. They could, however, become patrons of intellectuals who were more than willing to develop philosophies that would begin to exalt the benefits bestowed on the masses by this new elite and their necessity for the maintenance of a stable society. The end result was the same; however, wealth, privilege and most importantly status were maintained. “Winners” and “Losers” were once again apparent.
Today in America, among the modern Narcissists we can count the Bush Family, the Koch Brothers, the Mars family, the Walton’s, Mitt Romney and their Court Jester, Donald Trump. Having inherited everything they have, having been advanced far beyond their capabilities, they need to stifle the empty suspicion in their guts that they are not worthy. So they latch onto paeans to selfishness made up of empty concepts of political philosophy. The masses, so undeserving, are not entitled to any assistance. Their lives are meaningless in their scheme of things except as servants and canon fodder for wars that vicariously elevate Narcissists to noble status. The masses must be distracted by entertainment, cowed by embarrassment and kept economically helpless. At the same time the insecurity of the masses must be enforced by the propaganda of the “American Dream”, so that even with modest success they are deemed failures in the scheme of things.
The second strain that I see as being the underpinning of American class warfare is what I call the “Hucksters”. These are the opportunists, many of them sociopaths, who have intuitively understood that a large percentage of humanity wishes to follow rather than lead. Their followers, identified as “Right Wing Authoritarians” in the book I mentioned here: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/21/the-authoritarians-a-book-review-and-book/ by Bob Altemeyer, are people who are slavish to the “wisdom” of authorities they listen to, excluding other viewpoints. These slavish, authoritarian personalities are not just denizens of the right wing either. Left or right the “RWA’s” as Altemeyer calls them, look for simple answers to the complex problems we humans face. They prefer the solutions that lead them to casting blame upon groups identified as “the other”, they want easy answers to issues of great intricacy and if cruelty and violence are deemed part of the solution, more the better.
The Hucksters have learned how to manipulate the RWA’s, through political philosophy religion and/or bigotry. A huckster may or may not even believe what they are selling, because to them the sale and their advancement towards power are the end game. When they do believe in something they are willing to sacrifice those beliefs in the service of the maintenance of their own status ala Bill Clinton. The current public examples of the Huckster are Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and perhaps even Barack Obama.
This is my explanation of the phenomenon we see repeated repeatedly in human history of the elite abusing the mass of people in the service of their own glorification. They have always been able to do it as shown by that earliest of human edifices the Pyramids. No doubt the thousands that slaved for years to create these edifices believed that the fortune of their Pharaohs was tied to their own and in this foolish belief we see the power that falsehood has in driving human activity. My point in the end is that the real impetus for the politics, policies and beliefs that seem to impel us to action, are merely the extensions of human egos at all levels of notoriety. Nevertheless, knowing this and imbued with the cynicism this knowledge causes, I still retain my idealism. My desire is to work to perform tikkun olam, a Hebrew phrase meaning “repairing the world”, despite its seeming futility in the face of rampaging ego-centric behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam That is why I write here, for given my rage at the unfairness at the heart of our society, I must do something.
You’ve presumably now read my take on why the seeming selfishness of the “Haves” has driven our world, when the wealth of it is such that all humans can live a good existence, even while the elite flourish. What is your opinion? Perhaps you can add to my knowledge with your perception of other motivations driving this irrational need to have it all at the expense of those with less?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger.
“My desire is to work to perform tikkun olam, a Hebrew phrase meaning “repairing the world”, despite its seeming futility in the face of rampaging ego-centric behavior. ” -Mike S.
It’s a wonderful phrase. (Thank you.)
Mike –
Cogent points, as always, and I appreciate the underlying emotion. However, I suspect that you are probably far too wise, to continue the logical fallacy of pigeonholing the 1%, or asking anyone else to. My early-morning, slightly spastic knee-jerk reactions – for what they are worth – are these:
1. What motivates Bill Gates? Tom Hanks? Oprah & Ellen DeGeneres? Is the argument here really that society is better off without them?
2. Jamie Johnson? One of the wealthiest women in society. The concept of the 1% wouldn’t exist without her. What motivates her?
3. Although I’m sure you’d like answers to your questions sooner rather than later, you do of course realize you’ll be able to ask Sandra Fluke, in the very near future. As a likely graduate of Georgetown Law, Ms. Fluke will, in all likelihood, join those grads who find a job within a year. At that point, she’ll become an immediate member of the “lucky 97%” alumni, and as such, well on her way towards wealth. What motivates her?
To those who spout “sociopath” well, you might want to get a better grip on reality. If reports can be believed, Oprah & Ellen DeGeneres are as honest & generous as anybody alive. There are literally thousands of folks who’ve worked hard and made huge incomes, and then, to their credit as members of the human race, they hire, support & give billions.
Some may think we’d be better off without the uber-rich, and maybe we would be. But I’d personally pay a bit of my own income, for an accurate picture of how much better off our truly poor would be.
Because right now it’s kinda fuzzy.
Hedgehog,
Did not mean to pick a fight, rather to point out that I had difficulty differentiating you from RWAs (have you read any of it yet, only 60 pages for me).
You could, am sure, come with more references like your 80 year old neighbor, so won’t compete there. Rather say shall we look at his parents, his social background, his education, and the world of opportunities available to him when leaving school?
That yours should be taken away from you was not my idea, and did not really think you were in the zero sum game, although many are, but I feel that those far farther up the economc ladder than you or I, should be contributing to a better educated society—-educated not only in book learning but to be a better functioning member of society also.
Making a guess, you belong to the moderately successful who don’t want to support the lazy or the satsified. You are, you feel, just getting by, and don’t wish to subsidize them. But it’s not your money I want, It’s your understanding that the Bush tax cuts is your burden and the rich’s rebate.
So support the system which will lead us out of having 48 percent on or below the poverty line—–a disgrace to us all.
As for playing the poor boy game, my mother, my brother, I at five years and the dog climbed under the covers together because we could not afford coal to heat with. So let’s not play that game. I admire your drive, ambition and achievements; they exceed mine.
Thanks Gene. That was a hilarious clip!
Swarthmore,
I will give Mrs. Romney some help. Yes, Ann, with $250 Million, you are wealthy. With several million dollar plus homes, you are wealthy.
“The top 1% is too broad for me.”
SwM,
You are correct in your analogy. However, after 30 years of untrue talking points propagandizing the public, such as “Big Government”, people with humane outlooks need their own metaphors. The 1% is the most effective metaphor to come along and it wouldn’t work if it was the more realistic: .1%.
BTW I love Sam Seder, he is brilliant.
Michaelb,
Am heading out for the afternoon, so I could only view part of “I Am Fishead”, but even the first three minutes are exactly on target, I’ll view the rest later.
Excellent post, Mike. I share your perplexity at those who can never conclude that they have “enough.” My circumstances are similar to yours, and I also feel blessed to have what I need for living a good life.
My hypothesis is that this reflects a core difference in personalities, with some people’s primary motivation in life being to pursue ever more wealth. What can the Koch brothers do with evermore wealth? It’s not like they’ll splurge on anything additional, and it’s hard to comprehend how they could further differentiate themselves from the rest of us. Are they simply in love with their spreadsheets?
I will go one step further and express sympathy for those who have the disease of “never enough” because unlike them, I am happy and content with (and profoundly grateful for) my simple life of good friends, good books, good music, good food, a functional vehicle, health insurance, and a roof over my head. That feeling of satiation is worth more than gold.
Could it be that the ever-grasping are simply expressing their inability to ever find true happiness, and instead use wealth as its proxy? Are they simply missing the capacity for both satiety and gratitude, similar to the sociopathy resulting from a lack of empathy?
SwM
Thank you, for the clip and the link.
I feel queasy. Maybe it’s because of the rage over the exposure to an analysis of her position and hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy isn’t it? It must be conscious lying.
She can’t really regard herself as middle-class. Sorry for the rant.
“As for Hedgehog I respect him and his achievements; but suspect him for being an unwitting RWA, being convinced that the poor are content, and being concerned they might get it for free—-negating the value of his struggles.”
idealist, you are wrong. I do not view the world as a zero-sum game. It is not necessary to hold someone down in order to get ahead. My neighbor to the back is 80, and is quite proud of the fact that he’s never owned a book in his life. Is that not contentment? Is it not contentment to go through the same motions every day, and never wonder if there’s a way to move up? I believe in equal opportunity, and doing the best you can with the resources you have available. I do not believe in equal results for unequal effort.
This is a very good article and I appreciate reading it greatly. There is an aspect to the One Percenters which I think is important here. The One Percenters can not vote anyone into office on their own. They need folks who aspire to be One Percenters or who think that they already are One Percenters. I see these folks at the marina. They like to sit around the marina clubhouse and talk about Obumba, and welfare cheats, and the taking of our rights. They might have a hundred grand in their SEP accounts, a nice fat car and a power boat that cost them plenty. But they do need that Social Security check and they do silently appreciate Medicare.
What under lies their fascism is their bigotry, combined with their hatred of others who get social program aid of any sort, and their desire to be Bush, Henry Cabot Lodge, Teddy Roosevelt. Not necessarily silver spoon One Percenters, but one who make it on his own. Forget her own, these are largely males talking.
This is basically Willard Romney’s favorite target audience. He wants the dis enchanted baby boomers in his pocket.
eniobob,
That made my day. Thanks for sharing. 😀
” Since this is a legal opinion blog I would be giving its purpose short shrift was I not to mention that inequity of result has been a standard of our legal system since our Country’s inception.” What writing, and thinking of course.
To your question:
Where are the powerful who could have succeeded our FFs and established demcracy as a functioning model. Someone quoted Adams as saying democracy destroys itself.
Or another way, why has there not developed a philanthropic class matching the philosophies and religions proposed. The jews of the Pale put many poor students through school, and supported their poor. Why has this not developed?
The other is that besides the motives you give is the fear that rising standards of consumption and education will lead to loss of power.
Keep ’em poor, no threat. And keep ’em dumb=Santorum’s anti-education theme.
As for Hedgehog I respect him and his achievements; but suspect him for being an unwitting RWA, being convinced that the poor are content, and being concerned they might get it for free—-negating the value of his struggles.
As I’ve mentioned before, we had a maid who came in once a week, and she was black, and proud of putting 3 kids through college, in ca 1950.
As for the use of benefits first, and improvement later: the HUD sec’y was on the Jon Stewart show and mentioned their wising up that the best way to go with homeless was housing first and then get them off drugs and onto jobs. He said there were figures to prove it, thus asking a man on the street to quit drugs was useless.
“In April of 1961, the inimitable Groucho Marx received a glossy annual report from the Franklin Corporation, a company in which he had recently become an investor. After flicking through the report, Groucho had some concerns, and so wrote the following letter to the company’s President, Herman Goodman, to inform him.”
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/go-easy-with-my-money.html
raff,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMRo5XCKddQ
*******
Mike,
Excellent job.
http://youtu.be/6MWpxH-RlFQ
The top 1% is too broad for me. An ER doctor making $375,000 at the bottom of the top1% cannot be compared with Carlos Slim who is worth 69 billion.
well done Mike. The 1% I think are also afraid that if the 99% get more, somehow the 1% will lose what they have. The bottom line is greed. Without it, millions would be enough. With greed, no amount is “enough”.
Greed and lack of empathy, certainly.
I read every single word of your post Mike.
“The current public examples of the Huckster are Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and perhaps even Barack Obama … What is your opinion? Perhaps you can add to my knowledge with your perception of other motivations driving this irrational need to have it all at the expense of those with less?”
WOW!!!!
Words written by an honest, concerned, and decent man who should be president.
Mike, you know my opinion is that they are psychopaths. Plain and simple.
Check out the videos at the end of the post “Fighting Terrorism For 200 Years“, and you may understand why I think so.
“You’ve presumably now read my take on why the seeming selfishness of the “Haves” has driven our world, when the wealth of it is such that all humans can live a good existence, even while the elite flourish.”
I take issue with this statement. Nowhere in the animal kingdom is there a situation where all can live a good existence. Trying to establish such a situation would require the cruelest of population controls.
And there’s the issue that I will call “the niches”. It is a maxim that for every niche, there will be a population. The niches that neither you nor I would even consider living in – the lower classes – are gladly filled by those who live there. Of course, they would be even gladder to have a few $Million thrown at them, but they live under the conditions that they know. If we don’t want people to live in the underclass niche, the only choice is to eliminate it, not to give money to those who occupy it.
Now before you get upset with me, understand that I was born to an extremely poor family in western Kentucky. We lived within 40 miles of my birthplace until I was 16. A few years later, I joined the service, and after that, I got into a lucrative technical field. I never made it “big”, but I did all right and am now retired. My daughter just finished her MS, and just interviewed at a multinational oil firm. My point? America remains the land of opportunity. While it is a reach to believe that the average poor guy really has a shot at the 1%, it is totally within the realm of reason that his grandchildren (or their children) may, if the power of education and generational wealth is employed.
I have some sympathy for the lower classes, but not a terrible lot. I’ve been there, but I do not romanticize it as so many pundits do. For the most part, those who are poor are living within their comfort zone, and there’s not a lot we can do about that.
I have always been preferential to the psychopath model that you touch on. Rather than being skilled in delegating and leading, they are supreme in manipulation by using forms of blackmail and appreciation of human greed/ego.