Chris Hedges, On the Failure of the “Liberal Class”
While I obviously don’t agree with him in every particular (he appears to be pro-choice, for example) I think his diagnosis of the central problem is basically right: the Democratic Party has allowed (even encouraged at times) the dismantling of the New Deal institutions that had been put in place to protect the economically vulnerable from the predations of greed and the power of the wealthy.
I see the Tea Party movement (the rank and file, not the astroturfing financiers) mostly as a symptom of the betrayal of the lower two-thirds of the US wealth scale by the institutions in our society whose historical role has been to defend them. The Democratic Party has been deeply corrupted by the limitless wealth available to the oligarchy who seek, and the evidence would indicate too often succeed at, buying their souls.
Someone once asked Sherrod Brown, a Democratic senator from Ohio, why people in southeastern Ohio were becoming a reliable Republican voting bloc. He answered, “Because the Democrats stopped talking to them.”
Precisely.
The thing is, eventually the people in Southeastern Ohio and the rest of the underclass across the nation will reach a point where they Will Not Be Ignored. I pity whatever institutions are in the path of their wrath then. I don’t think the United States as a functioning entity will survive the coming convulsions. In fact, in many respects it is already gone, sacrificed on the twin altars of Greed and Imperialism.
Comments are closed.
The United States never has been what it claimed to be. Not for everybody, anyway. The information glut is now, slowly, making a larger and larger percentage of the population aware of the true situation, whereas in the past only that small percentage of the population that read serious books–and a few small circulation periodicals–was knowledgable about the truth.
That is indeed a reason for hope, Rodak.
I also agree with MLK Jr., on when justice will be done:
i mean….well said matt!
This doesn’t explain why the Tea Baggers are uniformly against Obamacare, and not just the compromised bill, bu the very idea of “socialized medicine.”
I find it highly dubious that Tea Party members and sympathizers are upset because of the dismantling of New Deal institutions and structures. On the contrary, their primary refrain is that they want government to leave them alone. Yes, a lot of people were upset by the financial crisis, but what really got the movement rolling was the government’s seeming to use the occasion to get its tentacles even further entwined in the private sphere.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t argue that financial regulations should not made or be enforced. But there’s a difference between the referees enforcing the rules, and actually taking part in the game.
I find it highly dubious that Tea Party members and sympathizers are upset because of the dismantling of New Deal institutions and structures.
But that’s not my claim: my claim is that they are upset because of the consequences of that dismantling, and have been convinced by the oligarchy to blame their troubles on the only institution with the power to challenge the oligarchy.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t argue that financial regulations should not made or be enforced. But there’s a difference between the referees enforcing the rules, and actually taking part in the game.
But what the New Deal demonstrated is that it is essential for the Federal Government to “take part in the game” (that is, move beyond the libertarian conception of government’s role as limited to things like contract enforcement) in order to provide economic and social stability.
In a medieval world of craft guilds, and town merchants and so forth, the libertarian conception of government’s proper role can (I guess) work; in the context of mass industrialization, however, the result is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few rich people at the top, and social and economic instability.
“I don’t think the United States as a functioning entity will survive the coming convulsions”
The execrable tyrant, Abe Lincoln, killed America but it takes a long time for a country with its head cut-off to stop running around before it, finally, keels over.
Well, it has been over for a long time and the coming collapse and, hopefully, the coming secessions will be arrived at without too much bloodshed.
I’d be quite content to live in a regional Confederation of southern states and let the entire north go straight to hell.
A few Confederation of states in America would be much more manageable and more conducive to the Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity.
Vermont Crank – that all sounds more like the bitterness of a “the South shall rise again” unreconstructed confederate than a Vermont Yankee.
What essential quality about America was “killed” by Lincoln, in your view?
Sadly – a true assessment on your part. Excellent post though and I thank you for that.
“Yes, a lot of people were upset by the financial crisis, but what really got the movement rolling was the government’s seeming to use the occasion to get its tentacles even further entwined in the private sphere.”
I agree with this assessment, but it’s highly problematic, isn’t it? Tea Baggers don’t like government handouts to Big Business, but they REALLY hate government handouts to private citizens.
This is why I think Hedges assessment is wrong: the Tea Baggers WANT preferential treatment for the rich.
Phosphorious – while I recall that you and I agree on many things in the political realm, I ask that you not use the term “Tea Baggers,” for the same reason I object to the term “Democrat Party” – it is bound to generate more heat than light.
To the substance of your comment:
Tea [Partiers] don’t like government handouts to Big Business, but they REALLY hate government handouts to private citizens.
This is why I think Hedges assessment is wrong: the Tea Baggers WANT preferential treatment for the rich.
Well, sort of. I think the Tea Party rank-and-filers have been convinced (by an oligarchy prepared to spend effectively unlimited money on propaganda to so convince them) that the government is the entity that caused the financial crisis, rather than the oligarchs’ greed and recklessness. They are being convinced by the oligarchy to point their ire at the only institution that is capable of restraining the oligarchs’ power: the federal government. The oligarchs appear to be succeeding at protecting their interests.
Democratic republics can survive only so much game-rigging by elites before they cease to be de facto free and become instead imperialist plutocracies. I think we are past that point already.
(I will of course refrain from using that term in the future)
I think you are underestimating the Tea Partier’s willingness to be persuaded against the government. The American civic religion encourages deference to wealth. . . and I’m afraid American Christianity plays a role in re-enforcing this deference.
In short, I honestly don’t believe that the Tea Partiers are dupes. They know what they are doing. . . protecting the wealthy.
They know what they are doing. . . protecting the wealthy.
Yes: what they are not clear on is why it is not in their interests to do so.
But they have a story to cover that:
1) They are not acting out of interest, but a sense of principle. Everyne has the right to what they earn, and taxation is theft, period.
2) It is in their interest to protect the rich, since the rich create jobs. I recall some quote by Reagan to the effect that a poor man won’t hire a pipe-fitter.
My point is that it’s not mere inattention to the facts that misguides them, but rather a deep seated deference to wealth that is deeply entrenched in the culture. It’s something they are proud of.
You make a persuasive point there. I’ll definitely ponder that.
I ask that you not use the term “Tea Baggers,” for the same reason I object to the term “Democrat Party” – it is bound to generate more heat than light.
Your logic is sound. But wouldn’t the same be true of the term “Reptilian Corporate Masters”?
Your logic is sound. But wouldn’t the same be true of the term “Reptilian Corporate Masters”?
There are folks who need to be offended, Blackadder. “Comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable,” and all that.
Matt,
The people you call “Reptilian Corporate Masters” don’t care that you call them that. Heck, they don’t even *know* that you call them that. Your use of the term does nothing to afflict, offend, or annoy them.
On the other hand, your use of such rhetoric does affect you, and I doubt it is in a positive way.
Your use of the term does nothing to afflict, offend, or annoy them.
That’s both true and not true, BA. Enough people start thinking in those terms (as I believe they must) and Our Reptilian Corporate Masters will be plenty afflicted, but in a way that will ultimately be to their (long term) benefit.
Blackadder, it occurs to me that I didn’t use that phrase in this thread – it would probably be better to continue this discussion in the thread where I did.
The very use of the term “Obamacare” contain within it the explanation for why “the Tea Baggers are uniformly against Obamacare”–it’s Groupthink, plain and simple: bleating merinos on parade.
Perhaps, Rodak – but my point remains: the rank-and-file tea partiers have legitimate grievances: they’ve just been convinced to point the blame at the only institution that historically has been able to restrain the people who are the cause of their problems.
Rodak:
Thank you for that contribution to the elevation of the level of political discourse.
Phosphorious writes, “My point is that it’s not mere inattention to the facts that misguides them, but rather a deep seated deference to wealth that is deeply entrenched in the culture. It’s something they are proud of.”
Wealth after all is what has made this country … you know, wealthy.
Agellius – no one is objecting to wealth, per se: the objection comes when the wealthy use their wealth to rig the whole game for their exclusive benefit. It’s about economic fairness.
“no one is objecting to wealth. . .”
Well, no one except Christ, who claimed it made it difficult to get into heaven.
But Agellius’comment proves my point: conservatives explicitly and willfully give preferential treatment to the wealthy. They are acting in what they have decided to be their best interest.
Can you explain why it can’t be assumed that they believe they say they believe: That the country as a whole prospers better when the government taxes less and butts out of the market? Why must this imply a “deference to wealth”?
Come to think of it, what does “deference to wealth” mean anyway? I have taken it to mean a sort of reverential attitude towards the rich. Was it intended to mean something else?
The problem with believing this is that it is not supported in history. This nation’s greatest gain in wealth came after the New Deal was implemented. As the reforms set in place by Roosevelt took hold and were expanded we saw the greatest growth in wealth and the wealth of the middle class in history. As those reforms have been attacked and slowly dismantled we have seen the banking industry collapse twice and the shrinking of the middle class.
Matt: You are addressing a different subject than what I was addressing. There is no one who doesn’t object to the rich using their wealth to rig the market, etc. What I was responding to was Phosphorius’ seeming to imply that there was something wrong with valuing wealth.
What I was responding to was Phosphorius’ seeming to imply that there was something wrong with valuing wealth.
Well, someone or other once said, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” Forget who said that, but as I recall it was someone Catholics would want to take seriously.
Matt writes, ‘Well, someone or other once said, “The love of money is the root of all evil.”’
I believe the key is whether you love money — or anything else — inordinately. We work in the temporal sphere for the purpose of providing for our temporal needs and those of others. Politics is a temporal concern, and government is a temporal entity charged with (among other things) protecting the temporal well-being of its citizens.
I see nothing wrong in this context with wanting to pursue those policies which one believes will result in the greatest temporal prosperity for the greatest number of people. Temporal prosperity, after all, is what feeds people and provides them with extra resources with which to help feed others.
“Can you explain why it can’t be assumed that they believe they say they believe:”
This is my point. They are not misinformed about the facts, they have not been hoodwinked. They have simply signed on to a worldview where the rich deserve special treatment.
As for what “deference to wealth” means, I thought it was obvious from this thread: it’s the belief that the rich deserve special treatment.
But this leaves me asking the same question again: Why can’t it be assumed that they really believe that lower taxes and less government involvement are good for the economy, rather than that their views have an ad hominem basis, i.e. they are TP’ers only because they love rich people?
“There is no one who doesn’t object to the rich using their wealth to rig the market, etc. ”
This is not strictly true: conservatives are very reluctant to believe that the rich are “rigging the market.” The attitude is that the wealthy know what they are doing better than we do, and so we should leave them alone to do it. Less regulation, less oversight.
We can trust them. . . after all, they’re wealthy.
We’re talking about two different things. I said that no one doesn’t object to the rich rigging the market — *actually* rigging the market. Whether or not people *believe* the rich are rigging the market is another question.
In any case, if you think that conservatives believe the rich never misbehave, I can only conclude that is based on a caricature of conservatives that exists in your mind, and that you don’t know many actual conservatives.
I have no idea how many conservatives I know. But certainly economic conservatism, embodied by such thinkers as Rand and Friedman and Sowell are predicated on the intrinsic virtue of the wealthy.
But as far as believing that the rich never misbehave, it seems to me to be bedrock conservatism that government regulation is bad. The market, left to itself, will always produce the fairest most just outcome. Which is another way of saying that the rich, once completely unencumbered, will take care of us.
Conservatives pay lip service to “sensible regulation,” of course, but it seems that the current amount of regulation, whatever it is and whenever the question is raised, is ALWAYS too much.
Conservatives aren’t against regulation as such, they are just against whatever level of regulation they are currently subject to.
Again I consider this a caricature. (Or should I call it a straw man?)
Look, there may indeed be a pure and platonic conservatism out there, to which I am not doing justice.
But Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich to where they are a few points lower than they were under Reagan, and is denounced as a socialist.
I am simply not up to caricaturing the conservatives there actually are.
“Can you explain why it can’t be assumed that they believe they say they believe:…”
I do assume that they believe what they say they believe. I also assume that they have no facts and figures upon which to base that belief. It is demonstrable by facts and figures that it was precisely the government’s failure to regulate Wall Street and/or the banking industry, after having lowered taxes, that got us into the economic sink hole that we are in today. The last time the federal budget was balanced, and the economy was booming–i.e. under Clinton–the tax rate was higher than it has been under Bush/Obama. Yet the proposal that in order raise revenues and decrease the deficit, the tax rates should be restored to what they were under Clinton is met with howls of pain from ideological conservatives and libertarians. There is an obvious disconnect in that. It seems clear that what the Tea Party contingent “believes” is: a) what they’ve been told to believe by their corporate overlords, coupled with; b) what they want to believe. There was a time when I believed in Santa Claus. And there came a time when I put aside childish things.
Rodak: I don’t claim the expertise to be able to argue the causes and effects of the worldwide economy in specific instances. However I will say that I don’t believe things are as black-and-white as you portray them.
“I see nothing wrong in this context with wanting to pursue those policies which one believes will result in the greatest temporal prosperity for the greatest number of people. ”
But this is not what capitalism. . . the kind of capitalism that conservatives defend with their dying breath. . . seeks.
Capitalism doesn’t care about wealth for “the greatest number.” Concentrations of wealth, stark economic inequality. . . these are not problems for the capitalist, indeed they are what drive the economy.
Frankly, I would be satisfied if some conservative, somewhere, admitted that there is a whiff of paradox surrounding a political/economic theory that draws equally from the Gospels and “Atlas Shrugged.” But they seem to see no conflict whatsoever between “Love of money is the root of all evil” and “Greed is good.”
Perplexing.
Again I can only conclude that your views are based on a caricature of conservative beliefs. The ones I know are conservative because they believe conservative economic principles bring the most prosperity to the largest number of people. And prosperity, as far as it goes, is a good thing. It’s not the only good thing, and it’s not the highest thing, but it’s a good thing that does good for a lot of people.
But if that were the basis of their commitment to conservatism, then there would not be the hostile and reflexive response to criticism of inequality.
Growing inequality is a sign that the game may have been rigged. . . but conservatives don’t see inequality as a bad thing at all. In fact it provides the correct incentives that keep the economy growing.
C.S. Lewis warned that a favorite trick of the devil is to teach us to be on guard against the sin we are least likely to have; a licentious age such as ours is taught to fear “puritanism.”
Well after eight years of the financial industry being de-regulated, to the dismay of us all, conservatives are on guard against “socialism.”
This is problematic.
“if that were the basis of their commitment to conservatism, then there would not be the hostile and reflexive response to criticism of inequality.”
The hostility is not to criticisms of inequality per se, it’s to the perceived implication that because of a perceived inequality, wealth should be redistributed by force, and that certain people are qualified to decide how much should be taken and how much given to others. Of course, that perceived implication may be based on a caricatured understanding of liberal doctrine. And we all know that it’s not good to criticize your opponent’s views by caricaturing them.
“Growing inequality is a sign that the game may have been rigged. . . but conservatives don’t see inequality as a bad thing at all.”
I think conservatives believe that inequality is inevitable. The main point is not that everyone be equally wealthy, but that conditions exist which provide the best chance for everyone to prosper. However unjust our society may be considered to be, people are still coming here in droves for a chance at prosperity.
I believe that conservatives are willing to persuade themselves that whatever present level of inequality there is is inevitable.
Paul writes, “The problem with believing this is that it is not supported in history. This nation’s greatest gain in wealth . . .”, etc.
I am not debating which view is true. That would be beyond my expertise. I’m just questioning whether TP members are TP members because they *believe* the TP view is true, or merely because they fawn over rich people and/or they are sheep.
By the way it’s a good thing liberals are not sheep. No, not one. They are absolutely uniform in this respect.
“I am not debating which view is true. That would be beyond my expertise. I’m just questioning whether TP members are TP members because they *believe* the TP view is true, or merely because they fawn over rich people and/or they are sheep. ”
You speak as if these are mutually exclusive propositions. They are not. They fawn over the rich because they believe that it is in their best interest to do so.
Conservatism equates wealth with virtue. Any “attack” on the rich is an attack on the virtuous. Any attempt to help the poor is wasting wealth on the unworthy.
This might be a perfectly consistent and workable system, but it is at odds with what i have always considered common sense.
It dawns on me, belatedly, that part of this argument is silly: If you guys didn’t agree that wealth and prosperity are good things, then you would have no reason to complain of the loss of prosperity that has allegedly resulted from the evil machinations of the super-rich.
Exactly, Agellius – it is not wealth and prosperity per se, it is how they are used/distributed, etc.
Agreed. There is nothing wrong with valuing wealth. Like anything else, it needs to be used properly and not loved inordinately.
Except that we are not talking about a mere “loss of prosperity,” but rather real suffering that has resulted from economic policies that favor the rich.
We are not talking about people who have to choose between a luxury car and a more modest car, but between going to the doctor and eating three meals a day.
The Tea Partiers complained loudest about policies intended to help these. . . and not because such policies would fail to help, but because the rich were “Taxed Enough Already.”
“We are not talking about people who have to choose between a luxury car and a more modest car, but between going to the doctor and eating three meals a day.”
Of course. But if these people were prosperous they would not be suffering in these ways. Therefore prosperity eases suffering and is therefore good. That’s all I’m saying. But again, I consider it a silly argument. No one really disagrees with this.
If you think the argument is silly, I won’t continue.
But you are trivializing the nature of the criticism.
Or maybe I just don’t understand your criticism.
This particular sub-thread was started with my comment saying that “If you guys didn’t agree that wealth and prosperity are good things, then you would have no reason to complain of the loss of prosperity that has allegedly resulted from the evil machinations of the super-rich.”
The point being, obviously, that since you do complain of the loss of prosperity, and attendant suffering, then you must agree that prosperity is a good thing.
It’s a simple and obvious argument, in my opinion. Yet for some reason you have seen fit to quarrel with it. I admit that your reason for doing so is a mystery to me.
“It’s a simple and obvious argument, in my opinion. Yet for some reason you have seen fit to quarrel with it. I admit that your reason for doing so is a mystery to me.”
Because it’s an attempt to distract from the main argument of the thread. the thread concerns particular economic circumstances. You declared the argument to be “anti-wealth” and therefore silly.
What, I wonder, do you NOT consider “silly” about this thread? Or is any criticism of the status quo by definition anti-wealth, and therefore silly?
The argument I considered silly (which I thought was clear) was whether it’s a bad thing to value wealth; whether doing so puts one in danger of going to hell, etc. I believed that some people here had implied those things, which contradicted their own professed concern over the recent catastrophic loss of prosperity suffered by many people.
If you acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with valuing wealth, then we have no quarrel and I attribute no silliness to you.
The hostility is not to criticisms of inequality per se, it’s to the perceived implication that because of a perceived inequality, wealth should be redistributed by force, and that certain people are qualified to decide how much should be taken and how much given to others.
Saying “by force” is in some technical sense true, (if you don’t pay your taxes, you can be sent to prison; if you try to escape you’ll be shot, and so on. Remember, I was once a Republican and used that very argument myself) but paints a deceptive picture. I mean, the top marginal tax rate in the 1950′s was 91 percent. I’ve studied history pretty extensively, and I don’t recall jack-booted thugs holding guns to the heads of the Mr. Howells of the country and forcing them to hand over their wallets. The worst thing that happened as a result of those policies is Ayn Rand wrote a ridiculous and wooden (but also deeply dangerous) book that seduced a certain narcissistic slice of the upper-crust young, who then went out and tried their best to implement what they’d read. The ashes of our banking system, “structural unemployment”, and yawning inequality are the result.
(Side note to Rand-heads: Congrats. You’re in the process of learning that narcissism, made into public policy, leads to Very Bad Things Indeed.)
Matt
Something else many people forget: the way wealth has been accumulated has often been by force. Many of the practices of corporations (and the wealthy) in their accumulation of wealth has been through, not only force (seeking to “destroy” competition), but through immoral means. This is why justice often requires redistribution of wealth –to overcome the immoral force. Interestingly enough, the same people who act against this usually favor other kinds of forces, questionable kinds of force, when dealing with injustice: how many of them approved of the Iraq War?
Henry – thanks, and yes, in the era of Blackwater and large mercenary armies, I can imagine forced redistribution of wealth in the other direction, too – toward the top, that is.
I mean “by force” as opposed to voluntarily, or through the working of the market. Alternatively you could say compulsive redistribution, or mandatory redistribution. However you phrase it, it amounts to the same thing.
Please bear in mind that I am not making an argument of my own here, but only characterizing how some people react to complaints of “income inequality”.
I personally don’t care how rich those at the top of the heap become, so long as no one at the bottom goes without a decent standard of living w/r/t housing, food, clothing, education, health care, transportation, and meaningful employment. There can be the rich, so long as there are not the poor. This society is too wealthy for there to be any excuse to allow persistent poverty. Nor does anybody need to be “deserving” in order to obtain those basics. Our love for our fellow man is to be unconditional. Jesus made that quite clear.
‘Nor does anybody need to be “deserving” in order to obtain those basics. Our love for our fellow man is to be unconditional. Jesus made that quite clear.’
Then again: “For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.” 2 Thes. 3:10.
Conservatives love to quote that line, but that argument doesn’t hold up when you consider the context of that quote. Christians were living in close-knit communities, with some members free-loading. In the context of a close-knit community, the threat of denying someone sustenance makes perfect sense; small communities are better able to judge the merit of a person’s claim on community property (and to remember mercy when making such judgments).
Note, though, that there is such a thing as “a claim on community property” for the purpose of justice. If, in these early Christian communities, there had been members with as disproportionate a share of the wealth as there are in our society today, it is eminently reasonable to speculate that St Paul would have had problems with that as well.
Shouldn’t we also consider the context in which I offered the quote? My point was to respond to Rodak’s assertion that ‘Nor does anybody need to be “deserving” in order to obtain those basics.’ St. Paul’s statement, and your exegesis thereof (“small communities are better able to judge the merit of a person’s claim on community property …”), indicate that merit can and should be considered.
Please note also that I never denied that there is such a thing as a claim on community property.
Agellius–
w/r/t 2 Thes. 3:10 – If you find contemporary Americans who are refusing to work for the reason that they are expecting the Second Coming to be immediately imminent, I think that the Lord will waive your obligation to feed those individuals (for He said, that we know not the hour when He comes.)
Why? Are such people “undeserving”?
No, but they are “exceptional” as identified by St. Paul, who apparently takes it upon himself to contradiction the Son of God.
Yes, Teabaggers hate the liberal class, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that it is because the liberal class abandoned working people. Teabaggers have been convinced that BEING liberal is bad. These SAME people would hate liberals EVEN IF they still ACTED like liberals.
Then again, if liberals successfully beat back anti-government, anti-tax, anti-equality, pro-corporate forces we wouldn’t HAVE these problems that we have now and the Tea Party would not exist anyway.