NavigationThe World
ColumnsPaul Rogers Li Datong Fred Halliday Mary Kaldor Daniele Archibugi |
![]() |
America's Working Poor Unready to Revolt
All these hopeful
All these hopeful "ignorant" masses who believe in themselves and their potential refuse to rise up and revolt. It must be very frustrating for you to miss out on all the blood in the streets you seek. Here's some more to mull over. 99% of American households have at least one television http://www.blurtit.com/q540527.html In 2001, 90% of Americans drove to work in cars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States The unemployment rate rose to 5.7 percent on August 1st 2008...a 6-year "high" when economists debate full employment to include 4-7% unemployment. You attribute the failure of the American people to rise up to be the result of their delusions and misplaced faith in God or Obama. At some point you will have to examine whether it is YOUR paradigm which is flawed, not theirs. Same as it ever was.
In
Same as it ever was. In the 19th century Marx complained of the lack of class consciousness of the "lumpen proletariat". I think people from the chattering classes make the mistake of considering us proles not worth more than the fleeting glance which this study amounts to. If you only look at the surface you'll see casual racism, homophobia, misogyny and a lack of interest in anything but sport and television soaps. Anyone taking the time will find that these things are skin deep and you'll often find that your average "red neck" is often more open and receptive to discussion and analysis than many of their so-called betters who have been much more effectively brain washed. In America of course you have the twin problems of superstition and racism. Why fight for a just society when you'll get everything you deserve in heaven? And why blame the ruling class for your plight when of course it's an under-qualified African American or Hispanic who got the job you were entitled to under affirmative action. But then these problems have been the case elsewhere (Tsarist Russia for example) and the great unwashed have still come through. I think the delusion here is not in democracy itself. It is in the idea that democracy is something which can be delivered from above. In this paradigm when the poor fail to participate it is they who are blamed for not acting in their own interests (the left is as guilty of this as the right). Democracy amounts to government of, by and for the people. If any of these prepositions do not apply then it is the model of democracy itself which is awry - not the masses whom it is meant to serve.
Quote: In this paradigm
[quote] In this paradigm when the poor fail to participate it is they who are blamed for not acting in their own interests (the left is as guilty of this as the right). Democracy amounts to government of, by and for the people. If any of these prepositions do not apply then it is the model of democracy itself which is awry - not the masses whom it is meant to serve. [/quote] Interesting. Because the poor fail to participate in a democracy and act in their own interest, it is the failure of the democratic model? There is no personal responsibility (and accountability) on the individual in this social contract? Of course, once you accept the poor are incapable of acting in their own interest, then it is an easy step to empowering a benevolent state to step in and act on their behalf in loco parentis. But as we've seen throughout history, rarely does the state remain benevolent. The state is no longer serving the masses; the masses become servant of the state.
Quote:Interesting. Because
[quote]Interesting. Because the poor fail to participate in a democracy and act in their own interest, it is the failure of the democratic model? [/quote] No. The poor do not "fail to participate". Unless the model engages all then it is not a democracy. [quote]There is no personal responsibility (and accountability) on the individual in this social contract?[/quote] How do you come to that conclusion? It is certainly not implicit in anything I said in my post. [quote]Of course, once you accept the poor are incapable of acting in their own interest, then it is an easy step to empowering a benevolent state to step in and act on their behalf in loco parentis. [/quote] Socialism is the workers acting in their own interest. It depends on a politically active working class. In fact I think you'll find that the model you're suggesting is the one Leo Strauss, the ideological father of the modern American variant of what I call fascism and you call conservatism, subscribed to: The Good, The Wise, The Herd. The idea of poor people acting in their own interest is the ultimate nightmare for your ruling classes: both Democrat and Republican. [quote]But as we've seen throughout history, rarely does the state remain benevolent. [/quote] Not unless you're a bank working a scam to lend money to people who can't pay it back so that you can make a killing by re-possessing their homes. When the scam fails the state can be very benevolent - though not to the victim of the scam of course.
Quote: How do you come to
[quote] How do you come to that conclusion? It is certainly not implicit in anything I said in my post. [/quote] It is your own words which lead inevitably to that conclusion. [quote] In this paradigm when the poor fail to participate it is they who are blamed for not acting in their own interests... Democracy amounts to government of, by and for the people. If any of these prepositions do not apply then it is the model of democracy itself which is awry - not the masses whom it is meant to serve. Unless the [democratic] model engages all then it is not a democracy. [/quote] You suggest when the poor fail to act in their own interest, it is no longer a government OF the people; it is therefore the model of democracy which is awry, not the poor. You further clearly put the responsibility on the democracy to engage the individual instead of the responsibility of the individual to engage the democracy. That is a very significant distinction. A viable democracy requires active participation to succeed, but also must respect individual choice NOT to participate. The individual however, bears the ultimate responsibility for failure to participate, along with accountability for the consequences. It is not a flawed model; it is a flawed individual who is awry.
Quote:You suggest when the
[quote]You suggest when the poor fail to act in their own interest, it is no longer a government OF the people; it is therefore the model of democracy which is awry, not the poor.[/quote] I think the lack of clarity here is my fault. I should have put the word "fail" in inverted commas to make it clear that this is your view of what is occurring. It is not a concept I accept at all [quote]The individual however, bears the ultimate responsibility for failure to participate, along with accountability for the consequences. [/quote] I remember, in a previous incarnation, pointing out to a product manager the opaqueness of the manual he released with a software package I was to support. He replied that the stupidity of the users was the problem and this was beyond his remit. The fact that I proved him wrong by writing my own manual is not relevant here. The point is that one man's "individual responsibility" is another man's moral cop out. [quote]A viable democracy requires active participation to succeed, but also must respect individual choice NOT to participate.[/quote] Why? Surely you are therefore supporting the idea of carrying people who refuse to pull their weight? [quote]It is not a flawed model; it is a flawed individual who is awry.[/quote] A "flawed individual"? By what criteria? |
![]() |
Once upon a time when governments no longer served most of their citizens it was the most economically disadvantaged that could be counted on to rebel against tyranny and injustice. Times have changed, for the worse, despite the spread of democracy.
Here we are with a two-party plutocracy that preferentially serves corporate and wealthy interests and lets the middle class suffer and sink. Plausibly, the middle class is unready to revolt because it still maintains a relatively good standard of living despite rising economic insecurity. But what about the lowest 40 percent of Americans that are the working poor?
A recent survey of this group by the Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University conducted this past June looked at the beliefs of adults ages 18 to 64 working 30 or more hours a week, not self-employed and who earned no more than $27,000 in 2007. The results show a fascinating dichotomy. Though there is widespread pain and discontent there is also a stubborn faith in the American dream despite little help from government.
Ninety percent of this group sees the current economy negatively, either not so good or poor, with 52 percent feeling financially insecure and 50 percent feeling less secure than a few years ago. The fractions saying they have difficulty affording basic things are severe, including: 88 percent that cannot save money for college or other education for their children, 82 percent paying for gasoline or other transportation costs, 81 percent saving money for retirement, 65 percent paying for health care and health insurance, 65 percent handling child care, close to 60 percent paying credit card bills, monthly utility bills and rent or mortgage costs, and 47 percent buying food. Three quarters say it has gotten harder to find good jobs and nearly that fraction for finding affordable health care, and 68 percent finding decent, affordable housing.
In the past year this group has had to take many actions to make ends meet, including 70 percent that cut electricity use and home heating; 62 percent that took an extra job or worked extra hours, 51 percent that postponed medical or dental care and 50 percent that took money out of savings or retirement funds.
All this sounds pretty bleak. But are these people mad and pessimistic? Not exactly.
An amazing 69 percent are hopeful about their personal financial situation, 59 percent believe they are more likely over the next few years to move up in terms of their social class, 59 percent believe that their children will have a standard of living much or somewhat better than theirs, and 56 percent think they will achieve the American dream in their lifetime.
Do these lower economic class, hardest hit Americans that account for 25 percent of the adult population believe that government helps them? No. Only 22 percent believe that government programs are making things better for them. But apparently they have bought hook, line and sinker into Barack Obama’s change rhetoric, with a 2 to 1 margin favoring him over John McCain. And when it comes to beliefs about which candidate will do better for them the margins favoring Obama go up to 3 or more to 1 for improving their own financial situation, the national economy and the national health care system. Similarly, Obama is seen as much more concerned with their needs and better represent their values. All very good news for Obama, except that only 70 are registered to vote and about a third saw no difference in whether Obama or McCain was in office.
Faith in Obama, however, pales in comparison to the other source of comfort for dealing with hard economic times. A striking 78 percent find religion or faith in God helps them get through tough economic times.
The unmistakable conclusion from all these data is that no rebellion against the power elites running the two-party plutocracy seems likely. If the bottom 40 percent of Americans in terms of income still believe in the American dream and change-spouting politicians like Obama, it is hard to believe that the more affluent middle 40 percent of the population are ready to support more radical change through political rebellion.
Interesting how gasoline prices are dropping as we approach the Republican and Democratic conventions and Election Day. Apparently, America’s ruling class knows what it is doing. It can keep channeling more and more of the nation’s wealth to the rich, Upper Class producing more economic inequality without fearing the kind of political revolution that Thomas Jefferson thought the nation needs periodically. Consider this: In the three decades after World War II household inflation-adjusted income of the bottom 90 percent increased 83 percent compared to 20 percent increase for the top 10 percent. In contrast, in the past three decades, the bottom 90 percent saw only a 10 percent increase while the top 10 percent received an increase of 232 percent! The two-party stranglehold on our political system has produced rising economic inequality.
Forget all that nonsense about the proletariat. Most Americans use their faith in God or religion or conventional politicians to cope, even in some of the most insecure economic times in American history. They remain overly confident in voting as the path to change. The ruling class has successfully used propaganda to dumb down and manipulate most of the public because delusion has become the opiate of the masses.
In God and Barack Obama We Trust could be placed on all our currency if the views of millions of Americans are taken seriously. Don’t you feel better?
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]