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.
“If you strive for equality of outcome you need to make people all the same but even if we all looked like Carey Grant or Maureen O’Hara and were as smart as Isaac Newton, we would still have nurture to contend with and different experiences which would lead to different outcomes.”
Bron,
Your whole premise in the comment this quote comes from is incorrect. I’m not in favor of equality of outcome, a notion such as that is ridiculous. How many times do I have to tell you that I am not a Marxist, or an any ‘ist” for that matter. I AM for an “equality of opportunity”. Set up a fair system for everyone and let the best person do their best. I’m not against people being wealthy, far from it. I’m not even against parents being able to pass on wealth to their children. I am against a “rigged” social system that lets “the few” start life’s race a lap ahead of everyone else and then puts obstacles in the racecourse not allowing people to catch up.
Very interesting, the FHmovie was very well worth the hour to watch, and also the various comments are revealing – one fact is that several folks here, including Mike, have a sort of Oliver Wendell Holmes attitude (he only wanted one good brownstone, one really good easy chair, a supply of really good cigars….)(AND HE HAD THEM)… IF you had billions and could no longer get a buzz getting more ( much like any addiction that gets hard to satisfy) you too might start social power meddling, getting your narcissistic buzz by proving that money is everything: make the dogs get out there and chase it! Some of these people have a Roman God syndrome. They may also be way more paranoid than people who have less and inexplicably have taken the loss of what they did have with astonishing equinimity.
“I will disagree with you about the conclusion that all that is needed is more education.”
Hedgehog,
You do me an injustice on two counts.
1. I never said that more education ends poverty, if I did, that would have been nonsense.
2. “Middle/Working Classes” from my blog refers to the same people you think I ignore. I have been saying here for years that liberals by focusing solely on the problems of the poor are alienating the middle/working classes to the detriment of their cause. The policies from that have been put in place since Ronald Reagan have shown to be destroying the middle/working classes. Conservatives have used that discontent to create an “other” (poor and people of color) in order to garner support by from those middle/working classes who are feeling their fortunes fading, by blaming the underclass. This is a reverse class warfare and has been very effective. Were I running for office I would focus almost all of my economic message towards the M/W classes and how to save them from the depredations of an economic system constructed to eventually destroy them.
“If that is the case, then isnt the solution to have the government leave us alone and only act as referee? Isnt the answer limited Constitutional government and free markets?”
Bron,
We have had this conversation before. It is precisely the large concentrations of wealth that have brought government into the equation on their side and have used it to oppress us one way or another. As long as these concentrations of wealth are not regulated by government, this will remain the systems. Secondly, a “free market” as you have continually defined it has never existed in the history of humankind. Even the coiner of the term, Adam Smith, believed it important that wealth be regulated lest it become oppressive to society. I keep telling you Bron that Ayn Rad didn’t know her ass from her elbow.:)
“Most of us are content with our lives”
Hedgehog,
I’m glad that you feel that way and obviously from what I wrote I’m content with my own life. However, the evidence is readily available that the majority of people are not content with their lives.
“It seems to me that you have accepted the moral hazard of supporting the poor as the natural state of man Why are the poor so precious to you?”
In my youth I was bullied at school and at play, thus having had more fistfights than many a professional boxer. My mother suffered from an extremely severe heart ailment and Major Depressive Disorder. My father a brilliant man, with a Mensa IQ, was stunted by an early, non-violent, minor felony conviction that haunted him throughout his life. By the time I was eighteen both were dead and I was completely on my own.
I can remember at the age of about eight crying in some bushes over an injustice done to me. I vowed to myself that I would never forget the injustice I had experienced, would fight it in my adult life and that my motto would be “Don’t Hurt Little People”. I grew tall, smart and strong. Spent years examining my own psyche and learning to be honest with myself, about myself. Until I was disabled by my family’s genetic heart problems, I spent thirty-seven years standing up to bullies and reaching out to “little people” ground down by an unfair system, lopsided in the protection and advancement of those to the manor born. For better or worse, this is who I am as a person, as most who have known me will attest, even those knowing me who think me a “bleeding hearted schmuck”. I trust that answers your question. 🙂
Let me go further and say that although we disagree on much, I am enjoying your comments, which are thoughtful and presented in a non-confrontational manner. A well thought out opposing viewpoint, expressed without rancor, is always most welcome here.
“However, the evidence is readily available that the majority of people are not content with their lives.”
Mike, can you give me some examples of this evidence? I just don’t see it in the poverty class. If I wasn’t content with my life, I would 1) try to identify the problem, 2) identify a solution, 3) decide if it’s worth the “pain of effort” and risk of failure. From my viewpoint, I see the deciding point for the poverty class as being step 3. It takes a lot of motivation to step out of your comfort zone; which could also be called your contentment zone.
As i tried to say in another post: it is a mistake to presume that the other person has the same needs and desires that you do, or even that his lot in life troubles him as much as it does you The person who is living in poverty is, indeed, probably unhappy about it. That does not mean that he is not content with his lifestyle. I would suggest that any discontent is merely about the amount of resources that his lifestyle can provide, not the lifestyle itself. None of us would object to money falling out of the sky. Few would make the effort to climb the tree to get it before it hits the ground, even if that means they would have to be satisfied with much less of the fallen money. And that pretty much defines the mentality of those who live on public assistance.
What Bron said!.
Mike Spindell:
“This has never been about economics or political philosophy as I stated clearly above. It is about the need to order society in such a way that those on top can feel good about themselves and their privileges.”
If that is the case, then isnt the solution to have the government leave us alone and only act as referee? Isnt the answer limited Constitutional government and free markets?
Mike Spindell:
interesting article.
Isnt human liberty important? It seems to me all of your solutions come from government. Maybe some solutions are found in government but historically that doesnt seem to me to be so. For example at the start of the 20th century about 80-90% of the people were in what we, today, would call poverty, by the time Johnson’s Great Society kicked in most of poverty had been eliminated. I have heard at the time it was around 15-20%. After trillions of dollars it is around the same 50 years later.
What about all the money rich people give to various charities? Maybe the Kochs arent perfect but they employ many thousands of people and the taxes they [both Kochs and employees] pay provide for people employed by government and who receive benefits.
How do you define fair? The quality and length of life has increased substantially from levels pre-industrial revolution. The infant mortality was huge and the reason people had large numbers of children. If they had 10 or 12 maybe 2 would make it to adulthood. Many good things have come from economic and political freedom.
So how do you limit economic freedom and with it political freedom, to ensure a more egalitarian society? In my opinion you cannot have both a free society and an egalitarian one. Some people are born smarter, better looking, stronger, healthier, with natural talents [a good nose which makes them great cooks or scotch blenders or perfumists], etc.
If you strive for equality of outcome you need to make people all the same but even if we all looked like Carey Grant or Maureen O’Hara and were as smart as Isaac Newton, we would still have nurture to contend with and different experiences which would lead to different outcomes. So then you are required to force a uniform existence on humans and at that point there is no liberty.
The only equality possible to achieve is equality in law. We are all equally valuable as humans but nature and nurture do not permit equality of outcomes.
“No, Mike, not for the long term without introducing cruel population controls. Yes, it is possible that we could have an adequate, or even good, living standard for the 7 Billion people on the planet.”
Hedgehog,
I would reply that it ain’t necessarily so. The population explosion in itself is the result of poverty, ignorance and the evolutionary desire to have as many offspring as possible to maximize the chances of one’s genes continuing their path. Studies have clearly shown that increased living standards have served to depress population growth.
“Ending poverty is a simple matter, but one that we are not willing to take because then we wouldn’t have any poor.”
That is actually the point of my blog Hedgehog. Poverty is necessary for the self-esteem of the elite who see themselves as “nobility”. This has never been about economics or political philosophy as I stated clearly above. It is about the need to order society in such a way that those on top can feel good about themselves and their privileges.
“That is actually the point of my blog Hedgehog.”
Here we disagree, again. I don’t think you’ve taken the time to read my post. We reward poverty in America, by giving them opportunities that the middle-class doesn’t have. Ending poverty cannot begin until those rewards are transferred from the poverty class to the middle-class. As long as we continue to insist on a system where the middle is discouraged from having children, while the poor are encouraged, we will continue to have a surplus of poverty.
I will agree with you that statistics show that where there is more education, there is less poverty. I will disagree with you about the conclusion that all that is needed is more education. The poor are, by and large, far too content to submit to an education. The idea that all that’s needed is an education totally ignores the cultural resistance to education that exists among the poor.
And there’s the undiscussed (and perhaps undiscussable) issue of affinity evolution’s impact on the intractability of poverty.
Idealist707 says: “Can we agree that: “The darkies are singing tonight”
is not a defensible position or a sign of contentment culture, as you claim.”
I think you have perhaps conflated contentment with happiness. My 80 year old neighbor is content with his life. I know this because he is proud that he never owned a book, other than a vehicle repair manual. Most of us are content with our lives: As children we learn the discourse of our parents, and as adults we act out our roles in that discourse. The same is true of most of us whether we are wildly rich or tragically poor. Some of us do not accept our discourse and get a better education and join a different discourse. But, for the most part, people are content to do the same things that their parents and grandparents did – even if the result is terrible in the eyes of another.
Mike Spindell: “We have definitely evolved to the point where an adequate living standard can be had by all, with little, or no sacrifice on the part of those we deem the elite.”
No, Mike, not for the long term without introducing cruel population controls. Yes, it is possible that we could have an adequate, or even good, living standard for the 7 Billion people on the planet. I am doubtful about this, but let’s say that we could. What would happen next? There can be no doubt that there would be another population explosion, and if possible, another one after that. As idealist707 responded: “the results of unrestrained exponential growth in a closed environment is well-known.” We, as humans, are not exempt from nature.
Mike again: “However, I would urge you to delve deeper into your own beginnings and perhaps you will see that while your struggle was courageous, those around you were held back by other factors not related to “contentment”, but by an acceptance of the false logic of their being “losers” in the race for the America Dream.”
i think you are making an unwarranted assumption here. Are you looking at others through the filter of your own education? As a kid, I never gave any great thought to what or why. I certainly wasn’t competing for some “American Dream”. The thought of winner or loser just wasn’t there. I did what I did. I worked hard, and I excelled at school. Others excelled at sports and at womanizing. Should I reward them for their choices?
It seems to me that you have accepted the moral hazard of supporting the poor as the natural state of man Why are the poor so precious to you? How did it become the case that poverty is a “protected species”. Why is it so important that we have so many people living in poverty? Before you say that I am arguing backwards, look at the situation we have set up in America whereby the poor are rewarded for living in poverty, and the middle-class are punished for not being poor. I say that this is absolute insanity. Ending poverty is a simple matter, but one that we are not willing to take because then we wouldn’t have any poor.
svengelska
tes = thesis
Hedgehog,
Can we agree that:
“The darkies are singing tonight”
is not a defensible position or a sign of contentment culture, as you claim..
I would even mention a more obvious example:
The jews, and others, in the concentration camps may not have protested or revolted, but they realized the hopelessness of their position.
So many in America don’t see others as being in that locked-in-by-the-rotten-system situation.
Hope Mike S has enlightened you where I could not.
And to all the same recommendation as I gave to Hedgehog.
This man will open your eyes, as his appearances at TED support.
The world can be cured, is his tes and he proves it by national statistics from the whole world. And he’s amusing besides.
http://www.ted.com/search?q=rosling
Mike,
I was so busy working on my post about “pink slime” that I just got around to reading yours.
“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.”
My daughter and son-in-law are both social workers for the Department of Children and Families. I was a teacher for many years. We have seen how unfair life is for many children.
I am also filled with rage toward millionaires and billionaires who lack any kind of empathy for those who are so much less fortunate than they. The system is stacked in their favor. Look at what happened with the bailout. We the taxpayers subsidized the financial shenanigans of the wizards of Wall Street. Few of them have suffered for what they did to the this country’s and the world’s economy. They sat back, got bailed out, and still got huge bonuses.
*****
I thought you might find the following article interesting:
Why it matters that our politicians are rich
The Boston Globe
2/19/12
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-19/ideas/31074206_1_politicians-money-wealth
Excerpt:
This striking wealth among politicians goes beyond the GOP. One of these four men will face off against the now wealthy Barack Obama, whose book royalties alone ran to $2.5 million in 2008. Beyond the Oval Office, there’s Congress, whose members have a median net worth of $913,000, compared with $100,000 for the rest of us, according to a recent New York Times report. (Massachusetts’ own John Kerry is one leader of the pack, with a fortune that in 2009 was estimated at $167 million.)
Politicians would like us to believe that all this money doesn’t matter in a deeper sense—that what matters is ideas, skills, and leadership ability. Aside from a little extra business savvy, they’re regular people just like the rest of us: They just happen to have more money.
But is that true? In fact, a number of new studies suggest that, in certain key ways, people with that much money are not like the rest of us at all. As a mounting body of research is showing, wealth can actually change how we think and behave—and not for the better. Rich people have a harder time connecting with others, showing less empathy to the extent of dehumanizing those who are different from them. They are less charitable and generous. They are less likely to help someone in trouble. And they are more likely to defend an unfair status quo. If you think you’d behave differently in their place, meanwhile, you’re probably wrong: These aren’t just inherited traits, but developed ones. Money, in other words, changes who you are.
As voters consider which presidential candidate to support in November, one thing is for sure: Whoever wins is going to have money and power to spare. In a world where our politicians are inevitably better off than most of the people they govern, the new research sheds fresh light on the nature of our elected leaders—and offers insight into why they so often seem oblivious to our problems. And, given that some of us may one day build a successful business or win the lottery, it also begins to offer some hints of how we might face down the corrupting influence of wealth and power ourselves.
HERE IN THE home of the American dream, most people are convinced that gaining a lot of money or changing social status abruptly wouldn’t change who they are as people. Think about all the books, movies, and TV shows where a poor or middle-class person is suddenly elevated to a high position. Typically, his basic humility and decency shine through the trappings of power: “The Prince and the Pauper,” Matthew Crawley on “Downton Abbey,” John Goodman in “King Ralph.”
Psychology has now found ways to test that narrative, however, and basic decency is not coming out on top. There are two ways to gauge the difference between how wealthy and nonwealthy people think: You can make people temporarily feel rich (or prompt them to think about money) and see if that creates changes, or you can sample rich and nonrich people and see if they think differently to begin with. Both kinds of studies yield results that point in the same somewhat disturbing direction.
Kathleen Vohs, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management, started working on the issue of “feeling rich” in 2006 along with coauthors Nicole Mead and Miranda Goode. In their research, subjects were given subliminal suggestions to think about money—a clue in a descrambling puzzle, a dollar-bill screensaver on a computer screen, a sheaf of Monopoly bills on a table—before being asked to make a number of decisions: How soon do you ask for help on an impossible drawing task? Do you help the clumsy lab assistant who just dropped all her pencils? Do you donate to a made-up charity? Do you choose to work in a team or alone?
The mere hint of money, the researchers found, made people less likely to ask for help, less helpful in gathering the lab assistant’s pencils, significantly less generous to the made-up charity, and far less likely to look for teammates. “When people are reminded of money, they get better at pursing their personal goals,” Vohs said. “On the negative side, they become poor at interpersonal functioning. They’re not all that nice to be around. They’re not openly mean or disagreeable, but they can be insensitive.”
Insensitivity can cover a range of sins, from the minor (being unhelpful) to the more serious—say, treating others like they are less than human. Further studies by Vohs and her colleagues have shown that prompting people to think about money—a technique known as “priming”—makes them less likeable and friendly, and more likely to agree with statements that support an unjust, social-Darwinist status quo (for example, “Some groups of people are simply inferior to others”). In a particularly disturbing part of one study, the team primed people with money, then gauged their empathy by eliciting reactions to a theoretical scenario involving a belligerent homeless person. The researchers offered the subjects a chance to agree with statements that dehumanized others (“Some people deserve to be treated like animals”). The money-primed group was more likely to agree.
OT, maybe…
“Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision ‘Wasn’t Even Close’”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/09/441313/scalia-rewrites-history-claims-5-4-bush-v-gore-decision-wasnt-even-close/
“However, I suspect that you are probably far too wise, to continue the logical fallacy of pigeonholing the 1%, or asking anyone else to.”
Patric,
You’re right, but as I admitted in my first comment to SwM, I use “the 1%” as a metaphor/meme because it is an effective characterization. After Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 there has been a concerted effort by the M/I complex, in tandem with the “elite” to dumb down America, via effective propaganda based on false metaphors/memes. They spent billions in the effort and have convinced millions in America to vote against their best interests. Taxation has been one of their great themes and they have gulled people into voting for politicians promising not to raise taxes. The truth is that the tax burden has fallen for the very wealthy and risen on the backs of everyone else. Some people may get income tax refunds, but the rise of taxation that is not graduated such as sales tax, municipal ticketing and the various forms of licensing/registration has been precipitous. Even when it comes to property taxation the disparity in local evaluations cause the burdens to fall unequally on those with lesser property values. In NYC, for instance the property tax rates are quite low, even though Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens are three of the top five most expensive property locations in the US. As I said that is but one of the memes used to con people into voting against themselves, therefore I latch onto the “1%” as the best meme so far that can be used to counteract the artful simplifications used by the rich.
Now you give examples of people in the “1%” who do not seem selfish and do want generosity for all. I myself have personally known many wealthy people in my life who are commendable and expansive in their view towards the rest of us. I know one man personally, who I admire, that was able to rise from poverty to the point where he could lose many millions to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and still retain great wealth. He is an ardent liberal, who well remembers his own beginnings and sees clearly that his success was against almost impossible/unfair odds. Even though he is clearly a member of the 1%, he understands the need for this meme to combat the superficial lies, framed as memes by the elite.
“Mike, you know my opinion is that they are psychopaths. Plain and simple.”
Dredd,
We differ only on semantics. Psychopaths are incapable of feeling anything towards others, that’s why I prefer Narcissists as terminology. However, you and I agree upon the results they produce, so definitions are merely splitting hairs. However defined, these are people that produce misery, death and destruction in their wakes and we are the ones suffering from their excesses. I definitely will check out your article and links, because I’m sure that as usual with your output I will be more informed afterward.
“Mike, I have only recently been introduced to the ideas of “political science” and “game theory”, and I have arrived at the same conclusion about our leaders. Some argue that they are sociopaths, but I would argue that they merely suffer from personality disorders.”
Hedgehog,
Sociopathy is a mental disorder, as is narcissism, but I agree with your overall conclusions about our leaders, obviously. As to game theory and political science, I was formally trained in the former in a Psychotherapy Institute and have devoured the latter since being introduced to it by my parents in the “McCarthy Era”. They are among my intellectual passions.
“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.”
Nowhere in the animal kingdom is a species like ourselves that have been so productive outside of the normal animal functions of eating, excreting and reproduction. We have definitely evolved to the point where an adequate living standard can be had by all, with little, or no sacrifice on the part of those we deem the elite. The real state of things is that we live in a “rigged game”, where the odds are stacked against the average person. Just one example of this situation: http://www.opednews.com/articles/No-Jobs-For-Americans-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-120310-338.html
“I would argue that there is a culture of contentment in poverty that hinders advancement. There are those who rise above it and establish an environment where their offspring will do even better. This is called hard work. And there are those who will remain poor throughout their lives, and pass that on to their children. This is called bad luck, for some reason. And as it turns out, where there is more government support for the poor, there is also more of this “bad luck”.”
Hedgehog, this is where we differ the most. Until disabled my career was spent working with people in poverty. The causes of which are too complex to deal with here without a book-length explanation. There is no contentment in poverty, but there is for many a lack of hope and an inability to find a way out, leading to an acceptance of their condition. You rose above it through struggle, but seriously how many of those you grew up with did the same. Were they all “lazy” people afraid of hard work, I doubt that. Perhaps though, they weren’t blessed with your intelligence to see beyond the awful circumstances of your/their lives If you re-read my post you will see that I allude to this:
“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.”
That some make it beyond the poverty of their births is an absolute fact and your life is a testament to that. However, I would urge you to delve deeper into your own beginnings and perhaps you will see that while your struggle was courageous, those around you were held back by other factors not related to “contentment”, but by an acceptance of the false logic of their being “losers” in the race for the America Dream. You were too perceptive in your youth to accept yourself I those terms, while you have every right to be proud, all such success stories are at base “there but for the Grace of God”, or at least the laws of chance.
Hedgehog,
Thanks for your input.
There are statistics from many nations that show that family size decreases sharply with the rise of education. And education should work here against the need of littering. Yes, there is welfare mommaing, but let’s try other approachs.
Let me offer something I think you will enjoy: Hans Rosling.
Here’s a medical doctor who’s studied national health for 35 years, and has been acclaimed for his unique presentations all over the world, including TED.com, where he has been re-invited many times.
Most recently he made a presentation to the US State Department on myths of development.
His tales are remarkable: realizing aa a grad student in India that the students there were long ahead of him (as he explains), as a young doctor in Africa facing certain death going to an outbreak of an unknown disease, why he feels the washing machine is the most important household machine, and not the least why he has no problem showing that the earth’s resources will be enough for all, and all can become wealthy and healthy..
Enjoy:
http://www.ted.com/search?q=Rosling
idealist said: “If we say the same child had been adopted (as indeed happens with adopted children) from this culture of contentment and placed with a family of “hard workers”, the would we agree that the outcome would be different due to culture.”
I believe that studies on separated identical twins have pretty much proved this assertion, so I am in agreement with you.
“What my contention is, is that we can not abandon the contententeds solely on the basis of the demerit that they have no vision, etc. I don’t feel christly motivated, a do-gooders, but someone who wants them to stop producing problems, and won’t practice genocide”
It is a real problem, and one that cannot be solved without all sorts of moral outrage. This blog item is about what what motivates the 1%, but this question of what to do about the contenteds more directly addresses what motivates the so-called 99%.
I’ve discussed this issue with my daughter, and she believes that much of the anger among the 99% goes to the fact that they cannot afford to have children. So, who can afford to have children? Well, their rage is directed at the 1%, but I suggest that it would more rightly be directed at the government’s support of the contenteds. The very poor can afford to have children, by the litter-full, because the government pays for it all. As a result of our public policies, we have a situation where those at the top can afford to have children (obviously), and those at the bottom, as well. But, Middle-America is left out once again, and their discontent is growing. “Good Christian Compassion” has disenfranchised the middle, and they (we) are not happy about it.