The New York Times, despite everything conservatives find reprehensible about it, still showcases interesting and arguable ideas, especially on Sundays. One such article turned up the other day, The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent. There is plenty right and plenty wrong with it. It is a modern Progressive’s portrayal of a static, class-based, social order that does not comport with reality. Unless things are really different now and going forward, how does anyone miss the fact that America is always churning through a new set of “elite” individuals and families? Few families that were truly wealthy still are in three generations, and new people become wealthy all the time. Prosperity is not static nor class-based in America and our main social problem isn’t wealth.
“You can see America’s creeping Serrata in the growing social and, especially, educational chasm between those at the top and everyone else. At the bottom and in the middle, American society is fraying, and the children of these struggling families are lagging the rest of the world at school.” I am as ready as anyone to complain about the state of education in America. However, lack of education never kept anyone from making a fortune in America. Are we really frozen into classes in some immutable hierarchy based on education? Heck, winner takes all and loses it. Then another winner takes all and eventually loses it. Those names on the Forbes or Fortune lists of the wealthiest people change over the decades as different people come up with new and better ideas, regardless of education. Of course, while education might not be necessary for the entrepreneur, it is very necessary for anyone in management, as the successful prefer to be advised by the educated. “An elite education is increasingly available only to those already at the top.” When has this not been mostly true? When in history has this not been the case that while those few of merit might gain scholarships and grants, some organizational indulgence as an aid to education, most people in prestigious colleges and universities are there because their parents can afford to send them.
In addition, this article makes the argument of some conservatives, that government always ends up benefiting the wealthy. Again, when has this not been true? It is one of the best arguments going for smaller government. Bureaucracy is the defense of the wealthy against democratic forces that destabilize the status quo. I do not think Chrystia Freeland is a conservative. Still, she notes that, “In the early 19th century, the United States was one of the most egalitarian societies on the planet. ‘We have no paupers,’ Thomas Jefferson boasted in an 1814 letter.” America did have poor people, but opportunity was lying on the ground and anyone with a Lockean bone in his body could go make property out that. As some of the early Progressives did, she blames industrialization and a closed frontier for changing the dynamic. But we knew national prosperity. Heck, “America may have needed its robber barons; Roosevelt said the United States was right to accept ‘the bitter with the sweet.’” She is taking that statement out of a context. FDR’s normal campaign rhetoric was of economic warfare. However, his actual assault on wealth through progressive taxation was abated for those businesses that knew how to work with and within government. Bureaucracy protects some wealth, that of those who are favored by government protection. Yes, she’s so right; government protects the wealthy more than it does the poor, despite standard political rhetoric from both major political parties. Still, people like this author clamor for more bureaucracy as a defense of the rest of society, the middle class and the poor. They suggest that the situation can be changed by simple public policy adjustments, but that actually never makes a difference. Given the rhetoric, we’ve been “adjusting” in that direction for well over a hundred years and still wealth is the primary influence in government.
“It is no accident that in America today the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider than at any time since the Gilded Age.” (Possibly true, and yet the poor have never been better off at any time or place than they are in America today.) “Now, as then, the titans are seeking an even greater political voice to match their economic power.” (I say, tell it to Herbert Hoover and FDR who believed exactly the same thing and purported to create government to prevent that.) “Now, as then, the inevitable danger is that they will confuse their own self-interest with the common good.” (Doesn’t everyone do that?)
If we premise that government protects the wealthy and gives them an unequal voice, then why do we want a larger government that will, presumably, give the wealthy an even larger voice? That’s the confusion of progressives.
October 16th, 2012 | 3:02 pm
“this article makes the argument of SOME conservatives, that government ALWAYS ends up benefiting the wealthy”
The SOME must be stressed. This position has been quite subdued and marginalized among conservatives in my memory, which admittedly only goes back a few decades. But it has come on with a vengeance with the post-2008 rise of the Tea Party. The establishment GOP, including Mitt and most of the DC leaders, isn’t there by a long shot, but this view is going to take over the party, given the incredible unlikelihood of our fiscal situation being resolved by anything the establishment (of either party) is capable of conceiving.
The ALWAYS must also be stressed. For example, when things like HSA/FSAs have been introduced, with rhetoric about “free markets” and “individual responsibility”, why have they been tied to being employed by large corporations? Why can’t the self-employed or those working for small businesses enjoy these tax benefits? Because the government sure does always seem to benefit the wealthy…
It’d be nice if distributism and other smaller-is-better movements of conservatism weren’t being constantly savaged by the portions of the movement that are most represented within the establishment, of course. Also if lazy propagandists didn’t throw such folks in with anarchists and libertarians and nihilists, etc.
October 16th, 2012 | 3:28 pm
Well, I for one am not confused by it in the least. In fact, I’m royally annoyed about it.
From 1945 to 1980, Americans at every level of economic life made real gains in wealth and income. Since 1980, only the top 2/5 of the economic scale made real gains in wealth and income and the bottom 2/5 have barely kept pace with inflation.
Moreover, and ironically, the top 2/5 actually gained much more from 1945 to 1975, than they did from 1980 to now! Only a very small handful, perhaps 250,000 in a country of 3.3 million, have actually done better than in 1945-1980.
Having lived through most of the first period and all of the second, it is my unequivocal opinion that America as a whole led a far better and happier life in the first period than in the second. The only real improvements have been much more effective medicine (when you can afford it) and a proliferation of digital toys to play with.
There is every reason to posit a direct causal relationship between this relative impoverishment of all but a handful of Americans and the immense increases in military spending under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II; combined with the systematic deregulation of the economy, and monetary policy that has been gravely distorted by the other two factors.
It s not a matter of how big the government is, but one of attitude and action on the part of the people we have chosen to govern us. Largely, and empirically, we have chosen the wrong people and they have taken the wrong actions since 1980.
October 16th, 2012 | 4:22 pm
Joseph Marshall, the ratio of military expenditure to gross domestic product increased during the period running from 1978 to 1985 from about 5.6% to about 7.4%. The same ratio increased from 3.7% to 5.7% during the younger Mr. Bush’s term of office. The notion that this had an immensely disfiguring effect on the political economy during these years cannot be taken seriously. By the way, that ratio stood at around 11% in 1956 and and averaged 9% during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, smack in the middle of your post-war nirvana. In fact, bar during the period running from 1993 to 2000, it was lower during the younger Mr. Bush’s tenure than at any other time after 1940.
As for ‘deregulation’, one might make an argument that the various innovations in financial sector regulation after 1978 came completely a cropper. Keep in mind, though, that the financial sector was not deregulated, but rather the regulatory architecture was amended in various ways. And, is it really your contention that airlines should be run as a state supervised cartel or that the content of broadcasting should be constrained by the phony ‘fairness’ doctrine? (See Nat Hentoff on what that meant in practice after 1948). Deregulation was at its most vigorous in the realm of transportation and communications. (And these initiatives were begun under Mr. Carter’s administration, by the way).
October 16th, 2012 | 8:05 pm
The notion that there has been an “explosion” of military spending in any real sense in the last 30 years is just plain silly. The math is pretty simple and accessible to everyone.
October 16th, 2012 | 10:12 pm
“Deregulation was at its most vigorous in the realm of transportation and communications. (And these initiatives were begun under Mr. Carter’s administration, by the way).”
Indeed, but remember, Carter had the failure of transportation regulation shoved in his face. He took office in 1977, the year after the failure of the Northeast railroads resulted in Conrail.
The new enterprise found itself saddled with obsolete equipment and dilapidated rights-of-way, as well as Interstate Commerce Commission mandated accounting and business practices that dramatically underestimated the real costs operation (very important with regulated rates) and prevented the abandonment of unprofitable routes in a timely matter. Soon, the federal government realized that federal rail laws and the ICC made it impossible to run a railroad.
Starting with the Staggers Act of 1981, and ending with the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, the federal government allowed the rail industry to develop naturally. (although the onerous ICC was ended, regulation continued-economic aspects being regulated by the Surface Transportation Board, and safety regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration)
In recent years, the trend has been reversing. The railroads are being saddled with the “Tier 4″ emissions regulations issued by the EPA, and is creating enormous problems with locomotives,
necessitating the creation of expensive and experimental “gen-set” locomotives, that are inordinately expensive, despite the fact that large portions are rebuilt, rather than new construction. They use high-speed diesel engines that don’t have the proven reliability of the EMD and GE engines and often the costs are being borne by the public through Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) grants and similar programs.
In addition the RSIA (Rail Safety Improvement Act) required conductor certification under 49CFR Part 242-something the ICC never even thought of in its 108 year reign of error.
October 17th, 2012 | 4:41 am
The U.S. has relatively high defense spending if you think global. Also add in a lot of foreign aid(which isn’t a huge piece of the puzzle)… then add in the cost of wars…and a certain non-insubstantial portion of the department of energy. The U.S. accounts for close to 50% of all global defense spending, and is also a major exporter of weapons. When protestors in Egypt look at the source origin and sponsorship of tear gas they see (in between tears) the good ole USA.
If J. Marshall changes the denominator to billion he can get .33 billion… but with millions it is closer to 330 million.
But the military industrial complex, if you can think about it does seem to be a good challenge for your thinking. It is an industry that is in every way favored and controlled by government. It is a patent and trade secret story. (and trade secret, which in many ways is the opposite of patent, and perhaps the science or art of preventing wealth from trickling down (preventing the Iranians from getting nukes…thus protecting the progressive direction and economic relevance of the U.S. Military Industrial complex…).
I also agree with J. Marshall that the majority of the improvement has been medicine (with not insubstantial agricultural improvement)… of course most noticeable improvement in regards technological toys. But J. Marshall may or may not agree with me that all progressivism always was about Article I section 8, clause 8, with a focus on patent. At the end of the day the controversial progressive position is to argue that only patent really brings progress, and that only patent is guaranteed to trickle down or can be said to form the basis for trickle down economics.
But as Lawler noted, both Obama and Romney are relatively “puritan”…. and basically the ways in which they are puritan probably does represent good ethical technology. Perhaps Pete is still hunting the Romney roses story. But old time habits like those could represent serious tech in the field of familly law. (completly oblilerating the educational need for feminism).
So basically there are ways of doing things which are better. Interestingly enough it is possible that Iphone apps are worth more than college educations.
In terms of the portions of Kate’s post which I find most questionable. The idea that entrepreneurs don’t need educations. (perhaps that is start-up capital they can’t afford to invest in formal educations.)
“it is very necessary for anyone in management, as the successful prefer to be advised by the educated.” Maybe, largely however something like Obama or Romney’s “puritaness” is basically what the succesful prefer. That might be an intangible only available to the Harvard J.D./MBA, and I am sure it might help. But I don’t think the price tag is quite that high. The trademark of the Harvard J.D. leans heavilly upon the notion that no one else can deliver, and in this election season much is still made about the “exceptionalism” of these uber managers/leaders of the democratic and republican parties.
“Now, as then, the inevitable danger is that they will confuse their own self-interest with the common good.” (Doesn’t everyone do that?)
I should think not. A good chunk if not all of the Harvard Exceptionalism/Puritan moral tech (made in Mass)…Is the capacity to cordon off self-interest from the common good, or from the enterprise good, or from the good of the client or agent.
There is of course a sort of lazy propagandist (a progressive practicing copyright) who might indeed conceptualize libertarians, anarchists and nihilists as essentially agents of trade secret and obfuscation as to objectively correct moral truth about correct habits/Li/technique. The live and let live nature of Libertarianism is in many ways an explosive character difference from the slightly anally retentive puritan. Loosely speaking the puritan isn’t far off from Japanese exceptionalism, or professionalism taken to the level of mechanical habits of body motion (ergonomics), in a manufacturing context.
I think my final answer is that the “common good” doesn’t exist, and that my own self-interest is difficult enough to pin down, but almost always distinct in some ways from proffesional interest. Proffesional interest ends up being the “common good”… if I am working in the military towards some sort of mission… If I am working in a factory building a transmission, the techniques of a given job are so far off the live and let live imprecession of Libertarianism, as to seem contradictory as a form of Li.
You can’t as a habitual lifestyle be a Libertarian and be a soldier, a lawyer, or a factory worker. You can only be Libertarian as a Rock Star…but even here, this Libertarianess…it seems like copyright in service of a trademark, or designed for obfuscation of trade secret. (i.e. contrary to progressivism or trickle down competence/wealth) While Carl Scott may disagree, the mechanics of being a rock star seem complicated. The Ergonomics of playing any instrument well is not served by a live and let live attitude, a drunk or high muscian on some level dissapoints even his fans, except those willing to trade down for the exceptionalism of “wasted” competence, or a sort of showmanship of technical skill (If Honda let them, some portion of workers are so good they might be able to do the job drunk…which of course would be more impressive as showmanship…but against the Li/policy/habits and corporate puritan/confuscian religion.)
What if prosperity is Class based but the class is organized by Li/Habits, and the articulation of best habits. The rich can buy habits of excellence(or hire lawyers as life coaches of property), and provided they stick to being relatively puritan and do not embrace the showmanship of Libertarianism as anything more than nihilistic trade secret cover, for true habits of greatness(eternally antagonistic to the live and let live spirit of those who have fallen short of technical greatness).
Lawyers as life coaches of property mainly do provide services which contribute to the dominion of those who are already wealthy. So the increase in wealth is for the most part lawyers doing a good job…The worst part of the gaffe that Romney made is that it doesn’t actually apply as strongly to Romney as it does to the legal culture at large. To borrow from Obama one could say: Romney didn’t build that.
In answer to Joseph Marshall:
“It s not a matter of how big the government is, but one of attitude and action on the part of the people we have chosen to govern us. Largely, and empirically, we have chosen the wrong people and they have taken the wrong actions since 1980.”
True… to an extent, but like Romney also says, the rich are going to be alright no matter who wins. This is because the rich do not have to settle for this weak ass un-narrowly tailored representative democracy, that is largely greek in so far as its dependence upon rhetoric/copyright goes. They hire lawyers, like Romney or Obama… or if they are really poor folks from Yale.
If only folks understood the extent to which Romney and Obama told the story of the END OF HISTORY.
The problem with politics is thinking Obama or Romney represent you. The rich do not make the same errors. No rich person writes to Obama or Romney about his concrete legal issue…but unless it is pure rhetoric (which it sometimes might be), poor people do this all the time. I suppose some rich people with concrete legal issues do this… maybe that is how the concrete proposals of the Romney platform get there: approve the XXL pipeline!
There is more clear eyed thinking in taking the “representation” comments of Obama and Romney seriously. As a factual matter a lot of folks do “cling” to Gods and Guns, if mechanically this means that they listen to and are represented by the NRA and NRL…at least that is a representation mechanic. If you care a lot about the 2nd ammendment, or abortion, it is really hard to argue that these groups don’t represent you with a much more narrowly tailored focus. As to Romney not representing the 47%… it is possible to argue that this group is really outside of typical legal representation anyways. Indeed progressivism works! But american progressivism only works for people with property. Joe isn’t the Phosita…only the well educated Stanford Grad? So the progressivism of patent at least only works for people with an intellectual property basis in the prior art…(because you didn’t build that:) Does criminal law work? somewhat… but notice torts and legal liability, only acts essentially to restrain the behavior of those with something to lose. So there are more layers and lawyers the more you move up the wealth chain… The more wealthy you are the more puritan/professional you are, or the more you are regulated via your property.
Essentially Patent is Progress(ivism) and Trade Secret is Confusion… both in a larger sense part of “Progressivism” as the art of governing/regulating property…
But if it isn’t a property interest, it can’t effectively be represented. So those who cling to “guns and god”, while a poor or politically incorrect formulation perhaps…have at least reduced representation to a sort of property interest, strenghtening the trademark and bargainning power of the NRA and the NRL in order to be more robustly and narrowly represented on those issues. In truth I am not sure Mitt Romney has a clue how he will represent the 47% that don’t look favorably upon the NRA or the NRL. Modified in this fashion Romney’s statement strikes me as most honest. They probably aren’t going to vote for him…just as those who screen by the NRA or NRL aren’t going to vote Obama (maybe).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact