Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
In my Social Work career I spent 37 years working primarily with people in poverty, whether from Race, ethnicity, economic situations, criminal history and/or addiction. In my Psychotherapy practice (part time) my patients were middle to upper class economically and yet as the years have passed my memory of them has faded. Still remaining though, burned into my memory, are the lives of those I met who lived in poverty. We see in this current Presidential election a sharp contrast between the philosophies of the two candidates. One believing in lowering peoples expectations for and the receipt of, what he deems “entitlements”. The other who defends what he calls self-funded programs and championing the Federal Government’s intervention to make health care more accessible. There is, however, one economic/social area where both candidates fully agree and this agreement represents exactly what is wrong with our country.
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, by their words and deeds, both believe fervently in the notion of the “American Dream”. If we look at the history of their lives we can understand how from their perspective, their lives have typified the “America Dream”. Romney was born wealthy, went to the best schools and came from a family that was highly prominent in his community. Obama, though born the child of an unwed mother, had the benefit of her intelligence, in addition to Maternal Grandparents who were relatively well to do. Their lives, though having different arcs, led them both to the point where they are competing for the highest office in the land. Neither man is lying when they extol America as the world’s shining light of opportunity for all, because their own lives bear that out. To me the problem is that reality shows that they are wrong in their belief and in their clinging to the myth of the “American Dream”, they ignore the most important issue of our time, American inequality of opportunity.
This week I read an article by Prof. James Karabel, of the UC Berkeley. Its title was: Grand Illusion: Mobility, Equality and the American Dream. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/grand-illusion-mobility-inequality-and-the-american-dream_b_1933238.html I believe my many years working both on the front lines of poverty and as an executive in most areas of Social Services I qualify too as an expert on poverty and its scarring effect on people. Then too in my experiences as a psychotherapist I’ve learned something about the human psyche and how it can be negatively affected. So in my own mind at least I believe that I am enough of an expert to state categorically that the professor knows what he is talking about and that I completely agree with him. Professor Karabel writes:
“[T]his cherished view of America is now a myth. The reality is in fact quite the opposite: Family origins matter more in the United States in determining where one ends up in life compared to other wealthy democratic countries. This is a recent development. Studies of social mobility as far back as the 1950s and 1960s showed that rates of movement in the United States were generally comparable to other developed countries. This finding itself challenged the longstanding image of America as exceptionally open, but it is a far cry from today, when the United States rates at or near the bottom in comparative studies of social mobility.
To take just two examples, a study by Jo Blanden and colleagues at the London School of Economics found that a father’s income was a better predictor of a son’s income in the United States than in seven other countries, including Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom. And a review article by Miles Corak at the University of Ottawa, based on 50 studies of nine countries, found the United States tied with the United Kingdom as having the least social mobility, trailing not only Norway and Denmark but France, Germany, and Canada.”
There are many studies that back Professor Karabel’s thesis. One such from the moderate Pew Research Center states the following in its summary of findings regarding the vitality of the “American Dream”. http://www.pewstates.org/research/reports/pursuing-the-american-dream-85899403228
“ Those born at the top and bottom of the income ladder are likely to stay there as adults. More than 40 percent of Americans raised in the bottom quintile of the family income ladder remain stuck there as adults, and 70 percent remain below the middle.
African Americans are more likely to be stuck at the bottom and fall from the middle of the economic ladder across a generation.
The renowned Brookings Institution, which is economically “Centrist” also, did a study on upward mobility in America, which was intertwined with how the reality affected the “American Dream” meme. In it they examined all sources including the Pew Report cited above. Among the Brookings conclusions were:
“What is clear is that in at least one regard American mobility is exceptional: not in terms of downward mobility from the middle or from the top, and not in terms of upward mobility from the middle — rather, where we stand out is in our limited upward mobility from the bottom. And in particular, it’s American men who fare worse than their counterparts in other countries.[16] One study compared the United States with Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom. It found that in each country, whether looking at sons or at daughters, 23 to 30 percent of children whose fathers were in the bottom fifth of earnings remained in the bottom fifth themselves as adults — except in the United States, where 42 percent of sons remained there.” http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2011/11/09-economic-mobility-winship
A New York Times article in January 2012 by Jason DeParle titled: “Harder for Americans to Rise from Lower Rungs” examined the research available and also noted that even many o the Right, like Rick Santorum, were beginning to express concern for this American decline of “Upward Mobility”:
“Benjamin Franklin did it. Henry Ford did it. And American life is built on the faith that others can do it, too: rise from humble origins to economic heights. “Movin’ on up,” George Jefferson-style, is not only a sitcom song but a civil religion. But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.”
“One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents’ educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.
At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints. Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
At the end of this piece I’ll offer more proof and studies on the desperate state of the “American Dream”, but I think what I’ve presented so far makes the case that the “American Dream” has become more myth than reality. Now I’d like to examine what I think about all of this and why it is mostly absent from the discussions of the issues in this coming election.
Thinking about the breadth of American History and the fact that it is intertwined with racial, ethnic and economic strife throughout, it is amazing that this country, made up of so many ethnicities and races, has been as stable as it has been when compared to other industrialized nations. I contend that this is because a vast majority of the population has bought into the myth of the “American Dream”. This myth where every child can grow up to be famous, rich and President has lowered the discontent of those born on, or near the bottom and filled them with the demonstrably false presence that rising from a lower caste social state can be done only if they try harder. While on the anecdotal level this is true in that many instances can be found of the “rags to riches” story, on the statistical level the truth is that it is a very rare occurrence. As the studies show if you are born at, or near the bottom you tend to remain there.
When “rags to riches” stories occur it is simply because a given individual has been born with superior abilities and/or has had extraordinary luck. As I have mentioned many times on the Turley blog, the Horatio Alger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger,_Jr. the 19th Century novelist, provided much propaganda for the concept of the “American Dream”, during America’s “Gilded Age” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gilded_Age , the great industrial and economic spurt that followed the Civil War and lasted until the end of the 19th Century. Alger’s books contained one overarching theme: The poor boy that with hard work and “pluck” rose from abject poverty to enormous wealth. The fallacy was that in every one of his many novels, the “poor boy” was taken in hand by a wealthy gentleman, who helped his rise and even offered his daughter’s hand in marriage. Nevertheless, to a population made up of the rural poor moving from farms to factory work and of immigrants freeing the chains of European and Asian autocracy, these books had a tremendous influence on their aspirations.
We must understand that after the Civil War killed 600,000 and maimed so many more there were plenty of jobs available during this country’s rise into the Industrial Revolution. Also comparatively at that time the living conditions for most in other countries were characterized by rigid class systems and oppressive governance enforcing the class distinctions. As the 19th Century drew to a close the “American Dream” became entwined in the fabric of American mythology and simultaneously fostered the concept of “American Exceptionalism” that was the main foreign policy feature of “Progressivism”
At this point the “Right” and the “Left” of this country established their main point of agreement, which has lasted until this day. Both sides of the political spectrum accepted the idea that America was a shining land of opportunity for all and exceptional in its system. By both sides of course I’m talking about almost all of the politicians in both parties, in the two party system, which became rigid after Teddy Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose Party” run in 1908. This is ot to say that there weren’t many dissidents to the “American Dream” meme, but those dissidents were marginalized in the discussion by the press and the developing media.
So here we are today with evidence that the “American Dream” is in shambles and yet the Presidential Candidates and the majority of people supporting both parties still mouth the myth of America as the land of the greatest opportunity for all. This is destructive, not only because it isn’t rue, but because it prevents any real discussion of the problems we face in this country if we are to begin to return to its purported ideals of opportunity for all. How many of you reading this can say that your own lives were not touched by privilege of some sort? The “American Dream” is in my opinion a chimerical myth, with little substance behind it. Rising from importune circumstance though has always been the lot of humanity, though in our distant past it did depend initially on brawn and/or brains. What we are seeing in America today is the diminution of opportunity and the collapse of our once robust middle class. That as a nation we are so inculcated with this myths that even if a politician had the temerity to tell the truth about the eroding “American Dream” she/he would find their career buried under opprobrium.
I write this because of my anger at the continuing failure of this country to address the real problems endemic in preventing our society from being one of relatively equal opportunity for all. “All men are created equal” has never meant that there aren’t some among us who have greater ability than others. To me it has always meant that most people should at least have a fairly equal chance to achieve their aspirations dependent on their innate abilities. Is that too much to ask?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
NOTE: The picture used up front is of Horatio Alger, Jr. Those who have read my writing here will see that this is a continuing concern of mine and consists of much of what I have written. I would also recommend Gene Howington’s Propaganda series as providing a view of how this issue continues to be hidden from our political debate. Some links backing my premise:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/class-mobility_b_1676931.html
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/29/153918852/on-the-economic-ladder-rungs-move-further-apart
http://jonathanturley.org/?s=Gene+Howington
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/30/portents-of-the-new-feudalism/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/29/the-nfl-and-whats-wrong-with-america/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/07/07/mythology-and-the-new-feudalism/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/10/what-motivates-the-1/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/07/americas-transcendent-issue/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/18/forget-wall-street-occupy-corporate-boardrooms/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/20/jobless-in-georgia/
Bruce,
Seldom do I agree with you. And actually I don’t know what is happening in America, but have seen some signs that show that this statement by you, has some basis in reality.
“People immigrate to this country to improve their life in the millions. It’s sad that people here don’t grasp the opportunities that are here.”
Yes, the immigrants do. However Americans have not the understanding of how it works here. Here we don’t understand the hard reality of the need for education, to rise if the entrepreneur sense is not there.
Many immigrants come fully or almost prepared, taking their MS and PhD in the USA, acquiring contacts and job market knowledge, contacts and what is needed to have a successful life here.
The problem is however that it was the sweet life in America which attracted them. And as the societies in India, etc. mature, then the jobs will be moved there, as they already are to a considerable degree.
Why the American middle class is scheduled to disappear next is perhaps due to them being regarded as equivalent to the “paper society”, ie replaceable by a computerized system at a high investment cost, but one with a very low operational cost. It is a matter of future planning, manipulation of the society and laws, and pure profit which drives their control system.
MikeS,
congratulations. you have brought out all kinds of people, more dare I not say.
bill McWilliams,
Just a quick comment, can’t hold back like most 3 yearl olds.
Thanks for the Democracy Now video, after quickly comparing Jill Stein and Roseanne Barr, it seems to me that she is genuine person, whereas Barr is a egotistical streber. Who would make a better president? Who cares, none hare a chance. Building a movement is the only hope we have. They could not handle an administration. Actually, no President can. They are formally head, but don’t steer the ship of the nation.
MikeS,
“Mike Spindell
1, October 6, 2012 at 2:20 pm
The saddest thing seeing Dredd’s?, Genes and ID’s comments is this is a tale that practically writes itself since there is so much proof out there. Yet the majority of the people still don’t know it’s true.”
We still believe in Jehovah, Allah, Christ, and the holy muffin in the sky, so why not this legend.
Like I said, it is like heaven which the christian church held out to theirs, a promise to help endure the hell of today. Not originally my thought, but I will allow myself a repeat of it.
Carlin did a masterful bit on the “American Dream”. Look for it on YouTube and get schooled by Carlin’s iconoclastic genius.
“It’s called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
“It’s a big club — and you ain’t in it!”
“You have no choice. You have owners. They OWN you!”
“Why do we keep voting for these rich @&$?suckers who don’t give a $&@ about you and me?” (Romney rings a bell)
Mike lamented:
“I am and always have been a blessed person and I think it is because my treatment of people has protected me. But who knows if that is just my self centeredness.”
All good people are blessed, but not all are Honorable. You sir are both.
“I can’t believe that an entity of such power and wisdom would be interested in playing a game to which it knows the ending. How more elegant it would be to set in motion the Universe and follow its development, perhaps with a little tweaking?”
Agreed, Mike. A predetermined universe is like reading the end of a novel first. It makes the rest of the book merely an exercise and probably a futile one at that. That being said, any sort of god is simply beyond our ability and too far outside our frame of reference to understand. They/he/she/it may enjoy futility and empty motion. We’ll simply never know.
“He explained certain Opec members were deliberately increasing their stated oil reserves to flout Opec regulations, which allowed oil-producing countries to only produce oil at a rate calculated as a certain percentage of its total reserves.”
Dredd,
I don’t doubt the truth of this.
“You had mentioned, probably in another thread that you subscribed to a “Dieest (sp) belief”. Essentially from what I had gathered you believe with such marvels nature has to offer, it could be only of such beauty that it could only be of divine creation.”
Darren,
I do consider myself a Deist (as were most of the Founding Fathers), who uses Judaism merely as what for me is a comfortable way of dealing with the ineffable. I must explain further because just the descriptive doesn’t capture the entirety of where 68 years of pondering the world has left me. By Deist I mean that I believe there is some creative force in the Universe that informs it, but that by the nature of this force, its motivations (if we could even call it that) are probably unknowable to us. Philosophically I believe in the teachings of
Rabbi Hillel the Elder:
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn”
“If I am not for myself, who will be? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?”
As you know Jesus also believed this and stated it in his “Golden Rule”. What you may not know is that this was also formulated by Confucius in 600 BCE and by the Buddha in 500 BCE. Versions of it are also extant in almost all religions to the point where I think there is some Universal meaning behind it. I am not averse to the belief that the creative force that informs the Universe may have set in motion some universal law, like the conception of Karma, that actuates this. However, I wouldn’t bet the farm that this is reality and I also don’t negate the possibility that Atheists may be right. However, a thinking person has to develop their independent conception about what life is about and I choose Rabbi Hillel as my mentor in this and try to live my life accordingly.
From a really personal sense as someone who back in the day experimented with hallucinogenics, particularly LSD, Mescaline and Marijuana, I learned that our perceptions of “reality” can be very different at times. From those experiences with the malleability of reality, I believe that much is possible that our senses and science can’t grasp.
As you may remember I almost died two years ago ad received the blessings of a Heart Transplant. Being on the verge of death and recovering is obviously a life altering experience. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/22/from-the-bottom-of-my-new-heart/ What it did for me was it allowed me to re-examine the premises of my life (ten years of psychotherapy previously also helped) and put my experiences in context. I grew up amidst much sickness and death in my own family. I was a rather sheltered young man who suddenly had to fend for himself at 18, with no safety net other than my wits. From that I had developed an internal narrative whereby I was a victim of bad luck on many accounts.
However, therapy and then later being almost dead, only to be saved, sparked a revelation in me that in truth always existed below the surface. In my life, no matter what dangers I faced, things always worked out well. My sense, perhaps ego, is that because I’ve lived my life fairly close to Rabbi Hillel’s teachings I have been somehow protected and blessed in life. Neither wealthy nor famous, I have had all my personal needs met and blessed with a loving family and friends. Though without luxury, I live fairly comfortably. Without any apparent intervention I received a heart transplant in seven months which is unusually fast and it came just at the point I was despairing life. I am and always have been a blessed person and I think it is because my treatment of people has protected me. But who knows if that is just my self centeredness.
As far as pre-destination goes I am not keen on the idea for this reason.
If the creative force (God?) exists as a sentient entity, pre-destination would mean that the Creator is little more than a puppeteer, who has created the Universe for its own amusement. I can’t believe that an entity of such power and wisdom would be interested in playing a game to which it knows the ending. How more elegant it would be to set in motion the Universe and follow its development, perhaps with a little tweaking?
“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” — Napoleon
In the title of this post Mike S contrasts “dream” with “reality”, then focuses on the dream vs the reality in the sense of economy, specifically equal economic opportunity or the lack thereof.
The U.S. Department of Energy makes an interesting statement about American economy:
(The Fleets and Terrorism Follow The Oil). If oil is the lifeblood of the American economy then it is also in substantial part the lifeblood of the American Dream which Mike S’s post concerns itself with.
A recent report would indicate that this portion of the dream, like Mike S indicates, is not real enough:
(The Peak of The Oil Lies – 2). If the lifeblood of the economy is affected by reality then the dream is likewise affected.
Mike S.:
An enjoyable read. Thought provoking and I and more importantly many others appreciate your insights. A couple of thoughts:
1) Could it be that one factor in this might be that some people have accepted their station in life within their socio-economic class and were at least content with remaining there? Not to say that anyone in a destitute situation would prefer this by a large measure but could it also be some people chose not to move from their current situation because there was social pressure to remain within the subculture that they had identified with during their life and not wanted to move up or down the stratification levels?
2) You had mentioned, probably in another thread that you subscribed to a “Dieest (sp) belief”. Essentially from what I had gathered you believe with such marvels nature has to offer, it could be only of such beauty that it could only be of divine creation. (if I may point out). That within science lies the notion of a divine creation due to the complexity of such.
For me, in the past few months, I finally came to somewhat of a resolution to a philosophical point a had in the background tried to address for over 30 years. Some elements within my church had argued for the notion of pre-destiny. That is, as you are certainly aware, the belief that God’s will is such that humanity is destined to follow His intent, and that all things happen for a reason. For nearly all of those 30 years I had catagoricaly rejected this notion, preferring the idea that free will overcame this. I have, for whatever it matters, come to a different conclusion recently.
I came to the decision that there is most likely only two outcomes for this and it is entirely dependent upon one fact. That is, either all things follow strict and absolute adherence to laws of nature, or there is randomness at even the most granular of properties.
If there is truly randomness at some level, meaning that laws of nature are not strictly applicable, then there exists truly random events and from this destiny or outcomes are not set in stone.
If it is the case where at the most elementry and basic level, all laws of nature, even at the quantum level and below absolutely and totally without exception must follow a predetermined set of rules, then everything that has happened or will happen in the present, the past, or in the future is already pre-determined and will only have one possible avenue or path for the future.
We as persons if the pre-determined, strict adherence to laws of nature is to be the case, we do not have even the slightest ability to predict what will happen in the future. The reason for this is we will never have the intelligence, nor will it ever be possible to construct a device or computer that will have the capacity to fully compute all the possible switches to analyize all the interactions that will result in a model of sufficient complexity to predict beyond a moment what is to happen in even the most local sense. The more time involved where the prediction is to happen or the area wider than beyond something of very narrow scope the more exponentially difficult it will be to determine with certainty the outcome. After all, it has to record events on every quantum level within the test area. Simply put, our minds will never be able to determine something of true “Fee Will” because our minds are factors of this strict adherence to laws of nature (by way of the biomechanics of brain function) and we believe we had “free will” when in fact since the functioning of our brains must follow the same laws of nature, the neuro-chemical changes that we process as thought are still of that same set of events that the laws of physics and nature have already determined to be of a particular outcome, which we interpret this as our own decision process.
So what for me came full circle in this long struggle with trying to accept what has become of “predestiny”. That is if the laws of nature at the most basic and granular level are strict and invariable, than we can at least take some consolation that there outcome might really be predetermined, and that despite all our worries what is going to happen is going to happen. We might be just here for the ride. Perhaps it might be just as well to take comfort in knowing this.
I suppose if the latter postulate I have made is of God’s intent when according to many beliefs he created this universe, it would surely follow if the laws of nature were unchangable, it could be argued that perhaps the unchangeable nature would infer God’s will. But this is just another part of faith I suppose.
just a thought.
“Could it be that one factor in this might be that some people have accepted their station in life within their socio-economic class and were at least content with remaining there? Not to say that anyone in a destitute situation would prefer this by a large measure but could it also be some people chose not to move from their current situation because there was social pressure to remain within the subculture that they had identified with during their life and not wanted to move up or down the stratification levels?”
Darren,
I think you are describing one of the effects of social stratification that impacts upon people. From my own background, which is originally lower middle class, I can remember the effects on me. Growing up my parents only took me out to Kosher Deli’s, Diners and Chinese Restaurants that were decidedly not upscale. They were dead by the time I was 18 and so my social life became more dependent on friends who had grown up far wealthier than I had. They exposed me to what were upscale establishments like “Trader Vic’s” at the Plaza Hotel, The Rainbow Room, Copacabana and “The Playboy Club”. Back then you could drink at 18. I was very frightened at first and they took me in hand and introduced me to how I should handle myself. Instead of saying “can I have…..”, it was “would you get me”, etc. It took awhile, but I learned the nuances.
I think that many people born to lower circumstance fear the change and see themselves as being judged harshly if they step into what they perceive as a more upscale environment. Extrapolated into a multiplicity of social situations this might prevent them from attempting to move out of their comfort zone. There are numerous memoirs of poor kids getting into Yale, or Harvard and being looked down upon by their fellow students. These “nose in the air” attitudes become part of the way that social stratification remains strongly in place. Given my background and also my many interactions with people who believe their own bodily products have no odor, I abhor such social stratification and I think it harmful to society. This stratification exists precisely so that the “masses” are kept in their places and has been effective throughout history in that function.
Correction: Barack was not “born the child of an unwed mother” Anne and Barack Sr. were married in Feb. 1961 and Barack Jr. was born in August 1961.
The opportunity to live the American dream is still alive. People immigrate to this country to improve their life in the millions. It’s sad that people here don’t grasp the opportunities that are here.
There is a great logical fallacy in the notion of the American Dream. It will always be true that “anyone” can get ahead. HOWEVER, it violates the laws of logic and of economics to extrapolate that to mean that “everyone” can get ahead. A society can only support so much economic activity, and that caps the number who can succeed, even though any particular person can be one of the ones who does. This is an example of what is called the “fallacy of composition.”
An analogy: Any American-born citizen can be President. But can **every** American-born citizen be president?
Or, consider education. If any one person gets (say) an MD, a JD and PhD, his or her employment opportunities go up. But if everyone had these degrees, the effect would just be a lot of overqualified and unhappy unemployed people.
Neither the words “Conservative” nor “Liberal” are defined very well in America in the year 2012. If you run across a proud, jolly conservative in the South and probe him and scratch for some pontification, you will eventually get to some the major tenants of Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy, The guy does not approve of people living off welfare, being uppity, and essentially being a minority. A self described Liberal these days will say the reverse on the race issues and focus on things like education, loans for education, fair play in work issues, no war, and civil rights, particularly the right to take care of one’s own body, with a high regard for real science and not Todd Akin pregnancy or to hell with global warming rants. A good prep school education seems to be a warming pool for a mind like Todd Akin. They can go there and wink and nod and then go home and listen to daddy go on and on about Obumba. Somehow daddy’s rant takes hold.
Make,
They are only 47% off…… Then again from nals thread this day….the MOE is only 1%………
Bill McWilliams,
An answer to Jill Steins candidacy and the meme that both Presidential candidates are alike: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105746735/The-2012-Election-My-Attempt-to-Be-a-Responsible-Voter
“it is a more corrupt world and there is no rule of law anymore unless you are brown skinned.”
Jim2,
A true statement as in:http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/26/the-incarceration-of-black-men-in-america/. Criminal laws attack upon Black people continues to make it hard for them to achieve the “American Dream”.
“A bunch of pointed headed college edumacted folks talking together agreeing on something.”
“What amazes me today is how negative liberals are about American life. It is even more disheartening about how liberals and too many Democrats are so negative about the American Dream and people doing things for THEMSELVES and creating their own wealth.”
“What amazes me today is how negative liberals are about American life.”
Glenn,
I don’t mind at all that you disagree with me, but what is disheartening is instead of attacking the studies I listed by Pew and Brookings, with facts of your own, you go off on a rant. Why do you assume I’m a liberal? Is it only conservatives that believe in the American Dream and are willing to fight for it?
I don’t think the facts show that either. While your father went off to war believing in this dream and you fought for it in the 60’s with Saul Alinsky as your model, most of today’s prominent conservatives have spent their lives pursuing wars that they and their children won’t fight in. As far as Alinsky goes I to admire him: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/28/who-in-hell-is-saul-alinsky/ , as I showed awhile back.
I’m negative about the “America Dream” because the facts show it is dead, or dying. By refusing to listen to the facts you are assisting in its death. The only way to keep it alive is to realize that there are people who are succeeding in their attempt to destroy it and to spread the truth about them. It may be too late, but that’s what I’m trying to do. I’m trying to revivify the dream if possible and that rebirth will not come when there are people like you that won’t pay attention to the reality of what is happening.
“Whatever happened to the Party that use to ask – “Ask NOT what your Country can do for you. Ask what YOU CAN DO for your Country.” ”
While I admired Kennedy greatly, that line grated on me when I heard him speak it at his inauguration. It grated because that was the same line of reasoning followed by Dictators like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. Their belief was that the individual should subsume their need to that of the “Fatherland”.
Kennedy use of it was unfortunate.