(Thanks to David Flanders. Post title courtesy of Woody Allen.)
When access to the essentials of living—for example, food, water, shelter, education, and medical care—depends on our individual access to money, those who control the creation and allocation of money hold tremendous power. The more corrupt the money system, the greater the opportunity and incentive to abuse that power. The greater the abuse, the faster the wealth/power gap spirals out of control. The greater the power of those at the top and the greater the desperation of those at the bottom, the more intense the competition to improve one’s position on the wealth pyramid by any means—no matter what the cost to the society…. The moral calculation is clear and simple: Be a winner or be a loser. Experience the unbounded power and privilege of the winners or bear the burden of desperate servitude to the winners’ arbitrary whims.
America today finds itself at a crossroads. Income equality is at record levels, and the disparity continues to grow. The question we face is simple: What, if anything, do we do? Are we to continue down the path we’re on, where the gap between haves and have-nots becomes wider? Or do we work to create a more just and equitable society, where one’s power, access, and privilege aren’t solely determined by the size of one’s bank account?
American generally don’t resent wealth and success; I believe it was Alexis de Tocqueville who said that America is a nation of people who believe that they’re on they way to being wealthy. We value and cherish success. We hold the successful up as role models. Achievement is not denigrated as a bad thing…but Americans do expect to be able to compete in a system that’s fair and allows for equality of opportunity. One of the revelations of our current recession is that the playing field is nowhere near level. It’s become increasingly apparent that the game is rigged to the advantage of the already wealthy. The current Presidential election has brought this reality home with chilling clarity, as the Republican nominee is a man who’s been not inaccurately described as a “vulture capitalist,” a corporate greedhead who profits off the misfortune and misery of other, lesser mortals. Mitt Romney personifies the enforced stratification of America, and his candidacy symbolizes the reality that there are those who see nothing wrong with the creation of a permanent underclass.
So, what it’s going to be? Do we allow the wealthiest 1% of Americans to continue to mold a social and economic system tailored to serve their interests, or do we use the electoral power of the 99% to create an America in which ALL of us get to play a game in which the rules allow equality of opportunity and access? Which of these two competing visions of America’s future will win?
If recent history is a guide, millions of Americans will be propagandized into voting against their own interests. Yes, I refer to the electorate as the “American Sheeple” for a reason.
One vision holds that inequality is an essential and beneficial precondition to unleash the economic growth needed to end poverty and heal the environment. Freeing the rich from taxes and cumbersome regulation will unleash a wave of productive investment, job creation, and prosperity that eventually will trickle down to enrich us all.
The other vision holds that inequality bears a primary responsibility for the political, economic, social, and environmental failures that threaten the future of America and the world. America already has the world’s largest economy and one of the world’s highest per capita income levels. Further growth for growth’s sake is not the answer. Our priority need is to reallocate and redistribute our economic resources to get the outcomes we really want.
Depending on your ideological orientation, Vision #1 is either “vulture capitalism” or the free market unfettered and doing what capitalism was meant to do: create wealth and grow the economy. Vision #2 is either about fundamental fairness and humanity or “Socialism.”
Judging by the current level of public discourse, there seems to be no middle ground available.
From my perspective, this is no mere academic exercise. The question of what we want our future to look like is a serious one, if for no other reason than the impact it will have on future generations.
British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson has done an exhaustive review of the evidence on the relationship between the distribution of wealth and indicators of physical, mental, and social health across and within countries. His research demonstrates that on virtually every indicator, more equal societies enjoy more positive outcomes than less equal societies.
From a purely selfish standpoint, it’s actually in the best interests of the 1% to work toward creating a more equal society. That’s not advocating for Socialism, or anything close to it, but more equality is a rising tide that lifts all boats. Conversely, creating a deeply stratified, two-tiered socio-economic system in which most of the population are effectively serfs is in no one’s best interest.
I don’t begrudge Mitt Romney or those of his economic strata their success. In many cases, they’ve worked long and hard and have take substantial risks to get to where they are. Those who work hard deserve their success. The question that we need to answer is what responsibility those who’ve achieved success have to society as a whole? Given that success is never achieved in a vaccuum, the wealthy need to (and in most cases do) recgonize that their wealth was created with the help of government and their workers. In many cases, it’s a team effort, though one that’s seldom acknowledged.
The problem is that we live in a society that has become so stratified that far too may of the 1% see their wealth and privilege as their birthright, and they see those who question their greed and acquisitiveness as the impotent bleatings of lazy shirkers consumed by envy. Those who have too often believe they deserve even more. They too often believe that those who advocate that the 1% pay their fair share in taxes are Socialists who want to redistribute their wealth to those who haven’t earned it.
This is an interesting debate, I suppose, but it doesn’t really even need to be that. If the 99% vote their interests in November, there’s every chance that we can begin to create a more equal and equitable socio-economic order. It’s not a difficult thing to do, but we have to participate. We have to vote, and we have to vote sensibly.
What’s it going to be, America??
