Since the first of the year I’ve been working to catch up. A friend had sent a useful article by Chrystia Freeland, “The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent,” and I finally got around to clicking through and reading it.
Freeland has an interesting story to tell about Venice. The city went from a vibrant, growing culture to one dominated by an oligarchy that slowly sucked the vitality of what in the late middle ages was the most wealthy and powerful city in Europe. Her concern is that the growing divide between the super-rich in America and everybody else may lead us to evolve in the same direction.
Inequality, of course, has always been with us. Freeland quotes a letter from Thomas Jefferson that expresses the usual American delusions about equality. Freeland accepts Jefferson’s self-deceptions, writing, “In the early 19th century, the United States was one of the most egalitarian societies on the planet.” Huh? Have we airbrushed chattel slavery out of our historical imaginations. Yes, today there are billionaires in New York who live according to very different rules than everybody else, but it’s hard to see how today is less egalitarian than early 19th century Virginia and the tens of thousands of men and women then in slavery.
That said, Freeland and others are right to worry about the divide between the super-rich and everybody else. She gives proper credit to Charles Murray’s observations about the way in which the rich have abandoned moral leadership, or more accurately have developed an esoteric morality for their children (“healthy choices”) while promoting moral relativism (“inclusion”) for everybody else. And she’s right that globalization has created new paths to wealth for some while shutting down the old paths to middle class prosperity for many.
There are two basic intuitions about what to do about our present inequality, intuitions that have been around for a long time.
One is to use government to level things out and put people into roughly the same material circumstances, or at least less disparate ones. The cultural revolution in China during the 1960s was a particularly radical and brutal version of this strategy. Stiff taxes and generous redistribution, a public health care system that prohibits private insurance, regulations requiring open access to elite colleges and universities, are of course far less destructive but reflect a similar impulse.
The other is to emphasize the bonds of solidarity that transcend inequalities. Patriotism is a good example. Downton Abbey has a season of shows set during World War I. During those shows the distance between top and bottom of society is by no means eliminated, but it was in a real way bridged, at least emotionally, and with lasting consequences for political culture. Religion is another bond that transcends. In more modest ways dignified public spaces create solidarity. Everybody from the rich Westchester commuter to the working stiff heading to the subway is uplifted while walking through Grand Central Station. It’s a luxury we hold in common.
I’m not opposed to moderate redistribution and other uses of government to limit the distance at which the super-rich live from everybody else. That’s one reason I’m opposed to the sale of human organs and other market “solutions” to scarce health resources. It’s one thing for the rich to enjoy a radically different kind of luxury; private jets and so forth. It’s another for them to have radically different kinds of health options. But I’m not optimistic about the results of this strategy. Looking at history, redistribution and the use of government to suppress inequalities hasn’t done much to build up social solidarity. On the contrary, when pressed too far it rends the fabric of society.
We need to give more attention to the transcending bonds of solidarity. Sadly, the multi-cultural agenda has undermined the pedagogy of patriotism in many schools. There’s no reason we can’t have an affirmative American pluralism rather than the critical one that often dominates, the one that points out America’s failures rather than successes. And of course our elite culture is very nervous about religion—a lost opportunity for solidarity. Ash Wednesday is a great day of equality: from dust you have come, and to dust you shall return.
We also need to give more attention to public space and the need to create an environment in which everybody is lifted up and we share in the achievements of our society. The old Penn Station in New York was a good example. The poorest travelers passed through a building fit for kings. Today’s Penn Station? Banality and ugliness, which is why anyone with money hurries to a private club, exclusive hotel, or upscale restaurant. One success in New York has been the investment in revitalizing and expanding public spaces and parks over the last two decades. Central Park, the High Line, Riverside Park: these are supremely luxurious places that we all share.
To my mind shared public commitments and spaces are more powerful expressions of solidarity (which is what most people want when they express worries about inequality) than tax increases or wealth redistribution, however necessary or justified the latter may be. Freeland’s has the right sorts of concerns, and what we need is a greater sense of shared common identity and shared public goods.
January 9th, 2013 | 1:34 pm
Let me rearrange a few sentences:
“One is to use government to level things out and put people into roughly the same material circumstances, or at least less disparate ones. The cultural revolution in China during the 1960s was a particularly radical and brutal version of this strategy. Moderate redistribution and other uses of government to limit the distance at which the super-rich live from everybody else are of course far less destructive but reflect a similar impulse.”
Do you have this destructive impulse too or are you saying that where you stand is where the impulse dies?
How destructive we believe the impulse to be is a function of how much inequality we’re willing to consider just. Everyone believes it’s here and no further.
January 9th, 2013 | 4:40 pm
Wow, R.R. Reno — nicely summarized. I’ve been wrestling with similar thoughts, but hadn’t organized them this well.
I’ve recently spent time among the libertarians, worshiping freedom. But the collapse of working-class families (where a lot of kids are raised) is making me appreciate the need for social cohesion.
To a large extent, freedom and social cohesion seem to be in tension. Can polices promote both values? And where we must make trade-offs, what principle should guide the trade-offs? What does the ideal mix look like?
I understand that cohesion can come from some level of shared circumstances (associated with equal wealth or social status), from shared world views (religion, patriotism, tribalism, a common threat, etc.). I hadn’t reflected on how shared public spaces – especially celebrated spaces – also can promote a shared sense of place, of home. That’s a nice addition.
Here’s a classic libertarian conundrum: Is it better for the state to rule by raw force, or by propaganda? Raw force is expensive and ugly – and honest. Propaganda is arguably cheaper and less brutal – but more invasive. But if the state doesn’t embrace the use of propaganda – appeals to religion, patriotism, tribalism, etc. – then it’s left with raw force.
For me, taxation is kinda force-like: the state extracts wealth and spends/distributes it whether you ascent or not. I appreciate the honesty of this approach. But I’m also coming to appreciate the limits of what can be accomplished with wealth, and wealth transfers. Even if poverty has contributed to the collapse of working-class families, it’s unclear that simply injecting money would provide a sufficient cure.
It looks like we need a socially constructive message – and if that sounds like propaganda, well, maybe that’s the price we must pay to ensure that kids grow up in stable homes.
January 9th, 2013 | 6:35 pm
Hmm, I don’t suppose changes in economies, trade routes and worldwide economics had anything to do with Venice being eclipsed by other nations.
January 10th, 2013 | 5:36 am
Rousseau observes
“I have already defined civil liberty; by equality, we should understand, not that the degrees of power and riches are to be absolutely identical for everybody; but that power shall never be great enough for violence, and shall always be exercised by virtue of rank and law; and that, in respect of riches, no citizen shall ever be wealthy enough to buy another, and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself: which implies, on the part of the great, moderation in goods and position, and, on the side of the common sort, moderation in avarice and covetousness.”
And
“If the object is to give the State consistency, bring the two extremes as near to each other as possible; allow neither rich men nor beggars. These two estates, which are naturally inseparable, are equally fatal to the common good; from the one come the friends of tyranny, and from the other tyrants. It is always between them that public liberty is put up to auction; the one buys, and the other sells.”
January 10th, 2013 | 8:41 am
The unsettling thing about this post is its unquestioning acceptance of certain presumptions–which, although popular, are still presumptions. The first is that income inequality is a problem. And its corollary–it’s a problem which must be solved. And the next corollary–the solution must come from legislation.
To me, the burden of proof is on those who assume a problem in the first place. In a more-or-less free market, different levels of income are a sign of simple justice being played out. Those who contribute more receive greater compensation.
For in fact, there is a wide disparity in the value of individuals’ contributions. One can see it easily in any workplace, including the editorial staff of First Things. Reno is paid the big bucks because his contribution is more valuable than that of a recent hire working for him. What if all of us subscribers and contributors should “legislate” that our dollar contributions are contingent on equal pay among the staff? Or, let’s say, no greater difference than 10%, all the way from editor-in-chief to mail clerk (our particular threshold of inequality.) You can easily see that this is not only unjust, but that the magazine and this site would quickly fold up and disappear.
There’s a further good which disparity in income serves. Besides being an instance of justice, such disparity contributes to the common good, by making the economic system more effective. Differences in compensation signal where the value lies. A person contemplating a career sees that the rewards of being an editor are greater than those of mail clerk. This influences him to get educated and prepare for an editorship, thus improving the social capital of the community. His editorial skills not only benefit him, but provide a place where the mail clerk can also earn a living–and a place where the rest of us can become…
January 10th, 2013 | 3:50 pm
The new 300-word limit is a good innovation, except where it truncates my thoughts!
I was about to say where we could become better educated (by reading FT and this site.)
Also, I concede that income and economics are not everything, not even the most important thing. But they are the thing of this post, and when economics is the subject, I urge economic knowledge and logic.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact