The Grand Illusion
Americans are dissatisfied, in a wide range of areas, but particularly in their current political choices, and I’m afraid that the dissatisfaction is only going to get worse because, as a nation, we refuse to face certain realities.
The first unpleasant reality is that no society, even the U.S., can offer the higher standard of living which most Americans want to all its population (unless the society is small and relatively homogenous). In the U.S., there aren’t enough resources and energy sources to do that (not to mention the “small” problem that using that much energy would increase global warming). The second is that we’re producing twice as many college graduates for high-paying “elite” jobs than there are jobs, which means that more than half of those degree holders are unlikely to ever be able to pay back the debt they’ve incurred in pursuit of those degrees, and each year those numbers increase, and so does dissatisfaction.
Then there’s the fact that tens of millions of people outside the U.S. are more than willing to come here, because almost any form of subsistence in the U.S. is better than what they face where they are, and there’s at least some hope by coming here.
Add to that the fact that the majority of Americans are looking for a one-size-fits-all perfect solution. No system, plan, or method works perfectly all the time, and the greater the diversity of those relaying on a system and the greater the range of problems the system has to deal with, the lower the probability of agreement among the users of the system. For large systems to work, political or economic, compromise is necessary, like it or not.
On top of that, a significant percentage of Americans don’t want to compromise. Those with great wealth are piling up more wealth, and those with few or no financial resources feel their comparative situation is worsening. The wealthy have the political power and resources to avoid compromising, and the poor have comparatively less and less.
All of these facts and factors are well-known. They’re everywhere. So what are our politicians doing to address them?
In recent political debates, especially among Republicans, I’ve observed that, for the most part, the politicians who assess the current situation more realistically and also advocate at least semi-realistic changes appear to be the least popular. I see the same problem among the Democrats.
Could it be that everyone fears that any actual realistic solution will hurt them or go against what they believe? And that any politician who’s realistic faces getting thrown out of office?
It’s certainly possible, since the U.S. continues to spend far more than its revenues and the politicians appear unable to cut spending (because too many people will suffer) and unable to raise taxes on the wealthy (despite the greatest income disparity in U.S. history)… and yet they’re unwilling to work out a realistic compromise, because it’s clear that too many voters find compromise unacceptable… and are demanding the unworkable and unobtainable perfect solution.
The wealthy could be taxed at 90% with no loopholes, and they’d still have options, like leaving. They always have more options, at least if they’re smart enough (or hire smart and reliable financial managers) to hang onto their wealth. And it would not raise nearly enough money for the level of spending. Nor would it even satisfy by appearance, since those that get power from discontent would hardly stop that strategy.
And it’s fundamentally a lie. The poor are not poor because the wealthy are wealthy, but because they lack the skills, will, or sometimes capacity to do what (lawfully) will make them non-poor. There may be a large element of “injustice”, but everyone has challenges both external and internal to overcome, so if they’re still alive, that’s an excuse. If I’d blame anyone external to an individual, it would probably be their parents, more often than not. And schools that are forced (and given politics, all too willing) rather than teaching needed skills, to babysit or deal with on the one hand negligent parents, and on the other, those who think their child is perfect and should be in all ways indulged. The gap in testable ability coming out of high school probably is not dissimilar to the poverty gap.
There’s certainly a place for learning on the job (as long as it’s not a dead end) and for trade schools and other alternatives to college. But the people entering that level (say 17 and up) will be at a vast disadvantage to learn practical skills if they don’t have the STEM and some civilized people skills to build on by then.
A small tax increase on the wealthy wouldn’t hurt much, but “wealthy” where tax increases are concerned usually ends up being middle class too. And it ends up going to more spending, not deficit reduction.
Someone will have to suffer, and I see no reason why those who are doing what is lawful to do well should suffer more than very minimally on behalf of those who aren’t, except by voluntary private charity.
Enforce laws. If the demographics of convicts are skewed, that’s a product ultimately of doing the crime, not of poverty or oppression or desperation. This is no longer the deep south where the mere allegation of whistling at a white woman will get one convicted and executed (that has I think happened, but not for awhile now). There are some bad cops (some bad in any profession or group), but not most, and riots certainly don’t improve anything.
I don’t always blame living victims, but if they’re complicit in their victimhood, I certainly blame them at least in part.
The ‘Belief in a Just World’ is one of the fundamental delusions that fuel what LEM is talking about, and infests nearly everything you (RH) write. Unfortunately, the real world is full of events and circumstances that make it difficult or sometimes impossible for people to get themselves out of without help.
If, to take a completely random example, your neighbour infects you with a potent virus he caught on holiday in China, and you need intensive care to survive, you may be driven from comfortable to impoverished very quickly without any ability to affect this outcome. There are many other examples. The BJW leads to victim-blaming, which seems to come through as one of your (RH) memes.
Daze, this is very well said!
It’s human nature, apparently, to treat good and bad luck as a judgement of the universe, the fates picking winners and losers. This has gotten to the point where folks have internalized these beliefs in their own worth.
Someone who works hard and is fortunate in their timing can become well-off, and is seen as worthy. Someone who is barely competent but “chose” well-off parents is also seen as worthy.
Another person who works hard but can barely make ends meet is seen as unworthy.
These days, those fortunate few who have become the 1%, convinced of their exalted worthiness, use their economic clout to insulate themselves from society.
And those who strive but are unfortunate, become angry at their feeling of unworthiness.
Add to this mix extremely powerful corporations that lack any conscience, and the anger of their powerless victims just increases.
The vast wealth of the 1% and the mega-corporations distorts politics. The politicians are far more beholden to the rich than they are to the folks who voted for them.
Good or bad things happen without being judgements. People die for no good reason. Some things ARE consequences, whether that’s a judgement or not. You step in front of a rapidly moving vehicle, your odds aren’t good, that’s that. If your brain or your ears or eyes aren’t up to recognizing hazards, where’s your parent or guardian? Extend the notion, except there will never be guardians for all; most will have to do that for themselves, and as much else of what they can as possible too; nothing else is scalable. (there may well be judgements, but I’m neither God nor claiming to speak for God nor a judge nor presently serving on a jury, so they’re not MY judgements)
The universe IS NOT FAIR. Our burden to make it fair, if at all (I think we do have one, limited to mostly specific people and problems we’re aware of), should be mostly private, voluntary, and finite, because we (even all of us collectively) are small compared to all the problems that may exist.
If you care about someone personally, help them if you can. I’ve frequently said that (and done it, too). If not, admit that Darwin has a role to play by getting rid of the weak, however unfair that may seem. Any pretense at caring about the fate of all persons everywhere is IMO a pretense only. People you don’t know are statistics, analogous to a quantum wave function before a measurement is made. Presumably there’s someone they’re real and not just statistics to, and that’s where the responsibility for them lies. Some may have nobody. A minimal safety net may catch a few, but we have to accept that people will STILL die for no good reason, we can’t destroy ourselves to prevent that.
That does not imply that all services should be abolished, merely that they should NOT be attempted to be extended to meet all critical needs for everyone; however much that may be desired, it is not possible. And even if magic could violate the laws of physics and economics to make it possible, I strongly doubt that it would turn out to be a good thing; far too many would end up dying early as couch potatoes.
If I catch a disease and don’t have insurance, I die, good riddance to me. Doctors are my last resort even with insurance (I do my own research and know how to avoid ads and fads and get to real papers, so I’m not clueless). And yes, I did get my dang flu and COVID boosters just a few days ago, at Costco, because I’m visiting someone in their late 90’s soon via a long flight – on which I’ll wear an arguably almost useless mask, and don’t want to put them at risk just in case those precautions might make that less likely. I’d have paid simply to avoid paperwork, but as of a couple years ago, they started automatically running insurance searches based on just name and address, so I’d have to raise a big stink to pay cash. Crazy. I am of the opinion that insurance would be cheaper if it weren’t overused, it’s not something to expect most people getting more out of than they pay in.
I think that those who expect government to meet needs are usually* making things WORSE, because government is inefficient and has an interest in NOT solving problems but simply expanding, and more, because people think that if government has a program, they don’t have to go out and volunteer or donate or make a difference themselves.
* we do have a collective responsibility for those injured in the line of duty in government service on our behalf. But I’m very leery of collective responsibility being extended much beyond that.
Donald Trump would be an unemployed bum if not for the stake provided by his father and the connections that family provided him. Moreover his father bailed him out of bankruptcy at least once. Read the NYT seminal piece on the Trump family financial history and tax returns from Susanne Craig. This gets to the point that other contributors have made regarding luck, power and influence.
Further, the fact that he has enjoyed special priveleges by our justice system that leave him free and able to threaten potential jurors, actual witnesses, and presiding judges would NEVER be allowed by anyone without his special priveleges and political history.
To LEM’s point that Republicans and democrats have their fringe members I would agree. However, they don’t tend to elect those at the fringe to lead their caucus. Biden was not even close to Sanders, Warren or anybody else vying for the presidential nomination in terms of policies leaning far left – he was the centrist. That’s not been true of the Republican party in recent memory.
Another example is the indictment of Senator Bob Menendez from NJ. Since that announcement his popularity with his Democratic colleagues has tanked – with many calling him to resign including his fellow NJ Senator and former Speaker Pelosi. His polling ratings in NJ have dropped to 5% favorability and that wouldn’t happen unless Democratic voters have also abandoned him – on principle rather than party affiliation.
The point here and in other positions that contributors to this blog have made is that positions and opinions vary but the Democratic party has more often shown a willingness to compromise to favor a more encompassing view of the world. The conservatives, especially as of late, have postioned themselves as a ‘burn it all down’ party without a coherent ideology.
What you claim isn’t supported by the facts. Study after study shows that the top one percent of Americans now control 32% of all wealth in the U.S. From after WWII until 1974, the relative wealth of all income classes grew at approximately the same rate. Since 1974, the share held by the top one percent has skyrocketed, increasing the wealth disparity to the point where the top one percent have more wealth than the entire American middle class(defined as the middle 60% by income). As a result, the top one percent holds roughly $50 trillion dollars. In point of fact, the wealthy pay in percentage terms a smaller share of their income in taxes than does the middle class.
The other thing RH and too many Republicans as well leave out of their calculations is that the more the rich say “Let them eat cake,” the more they ensure that the sentiment to put them all to the guillotine increases.
The French Revolution was a disaster, especially to the French. I don’t want to see something similar happen here. Ever.
But more and more I’m expecting it. Someday.
Many would side with the forces of order (the wealthy in your scenario, not the revolutionaries/rioters, however much one may emote over their grievances). The self-described poor and oppressed rioters would lose badly.
I don’t think the rich are saying “let them eat cake”. At least a couple of the richest people on the planet (Gates, Buffett) have expressed an intent to donate most of their fortunes at their death rather than leave more than a modestly comfortable (ok, more than that by many people’s standards, but a drop in the bucket compared to their wealth) amount to their heirs. Most of the wealthy support charities (even if for PR and tax purposes rather than from being heartfelt philanthropists). Lots of non-wealthy people do too; and IMO that far more than government is how needs should be met, because it will have the discretion to choose where to be effective rather than trying to do everything badly.
The rich are just an excuse for socialism and power grabs that are always corrupt, incompetent, and at least as harmful to the liberty of the middle class as to that of the rich.
RH, I’m sorry, but when you say “Our burden to make it fair, if at all…should be mostly private, voluntary, and finite,” what I hear is “Let them eat cake.”
You don’t *sound* like you care about others’ suffering, at least not enough to do anything about it. That’s fine, but in a country where we’re all supposed to be equal, but income inequality keeps getting worse and worse, I don’t think the majority are going to stand for it.
And then everyone will lose badly. Because no one can in any meaningful way “win.”
I have made the point consistently that I personally have donated, volunteered, etc, and though not so active anymore, continue to do so. Sometimes more than my taxes, without deducting it or other unusual deductions. I don’t think that’s not caring (but I don’t think much of caring as an _emotion_ rather than as an action; and I don’t think that paying more taxes particularly constitutes action OR caring).
But I think that barring saints, claiming compassion for all humanity or even all citizens or other vast numbers of strangers, except in the case of disastrous events, is emotion, not substance. And expecting any particular institution, esp. government which should be enforcing a relatively limited set of laws not too intrusive on liberty (or property, though that’s not the primary concern) to end suffering, is not realistic, but incredibly prone to corruption and eventual totalitarianism.
And yes, I do think that sometimes just letting for example a chronic addict die is probably better than letting them continue to harm others. I’ve seen it and regret their loss, but not more than I regret the harm they did.
Income inequality is ONLY significant in terms of image. Unless someone is engaged in human trafficking or other criminal enterprise to get wealthy, they are NOT taking away from anyone else. The rich will always get richer, they have the resources to do that and either the smarts or the smart people working for them if they manage to stay rich. There is nothing wrong with that. Rather than complaining about the rich being rich, how about thinking in terms of what needs to be fixed to improve opportunity, so that the poor may at least aspire to become middle class. Education and values top the list; doubtless reducing real discrimination also continues to have a role. Redistributing wealth, by and large, does not; people that aren’t earning for themselves will simply burn through it to no good end, whereas people that are aided in supporting themselves will eventually aid in supporting others, which is scalable.
I can’t say I especially care what anyone feels about me or anything, only what they do; and that is at least part of my point right now, that emotions are incredibly unreliable and people that behave unwisely based on emotion should not be indulged but opposed. Violent behavior or behavior that harms others (burning or looting a business definitely hurts its owners and employees!) should not be tolerated, but punished as severely as the law allows.
Socialism is a disease of the mind, because it never works. Bread and circuses wasn’t sustainable either.
Even if one wants to go all religious (I’m not opposed to that), love (also translated as charity in the chapter I’m thinking of) is vastly more compassion resulting in personal action rather than passive emotion or government actions.
I have made the point consistently that I personally have donated, volunteered, etc, and though not so active anymore, continue to do so. Sometimes more than my taxes, without deducting it or other unusual deductions. I don’t think that’s not caring (but I don’t think much of caring as an _emotion_ rather than as an action; and I don’t think that paying more taxes particularly constitutes action OR caring).
But I think that barring saints, claiming compassion for all humanity or even all citizens or other vast numbers of strangers, except in the case of disastrous events, is emotion, not substance. And expecting any particular institution, esp. government which should be enforcing a relatively limited set of laws not too intrusive on liberty (or property, though that’s not the primary concern) to end suffering, is not realistic, but incredibly prone to corruption and eventual totalitarianism.
And yes, I do think that sometimes just letting for example a chronic addict die is probably better than letting them continue to harm others. I’ve seen it and regret their loss, but not more than I regret the harm they did.
Thank you for your opinions, which of course you are entitled to. And, just for the record, I don’t have a bleeding heart. It’s simply my opinion that your solutions are no more workable than socialism is, that you go too far in the other direction.
It’s difficult, because I often try to approach things from an order-of-operations perspective (in other words, while many things need to happen, this particular thing needs to happen first), and I think a lot of the country feels the same way. But it certainly seems as though several things need to happen simultaneously in terms of prioritizing political compromise, changes to our energy mix, re-envisioning our economic structure, etc. It’s hard for me to even imagine a way to fix one of those without simultaneously fixing the others.
And sustaining that level of complex, whole-systems thinking while also competing against all the other areas demanding focus, seems to require a degree of effort that is currently close to impossible. Here’s to hoping that “close to” is correct, and isn’t just overly optimistic.
The ‘complexity’ of data can be dealt with perhaps AI, and a big computer, or if necessary by something such as “Dimensionality Reduction” as suggested in https://www.academia.edu/75174674/Dimensionality_Reduction_in_EH_and_S_Data_Analysis?email_work_card=thumbnail. It will still need human input to specify the axiomatic questions of the objects value being subjective psychological states, or objective states of the world.
However, to identify and then to solve any problem or even formulate a policy (perfectly or imperfectly) will require awareness of the factors involved. Models to assess such awareness in politics are being developed at least at a mathematical level: https://www.academia.edu/71115586/Awareness?email_work_card=thumbnail Academia Letters, January 2022.
But right now we need to have our congress and administration be aware of national problems that need immediate action: the awareness of internal and external affairs of the nation should overwhelm their personal sovereignty concerns. Let’s all hope … “that “close to” is correct, and isn’t just overly optimistic.” I would hate wearing ‘Trump’s Collar’.