SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tekboy who wrote (65543)1/12/2003 4:52:02 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
A very good column by Brooks. We all want to be "Bobos" I guess.

THE TRIUMPH OF HOPE OVER EXPERIENCE

By DAVID BROOKS

NASHVILLE ? Why don't people vote their own self-interest? Every few years the Republicans propose a tax cut, and every few years the Democrats pull out their income distribution charts to show that much of the benefits of the Republican plan go to the richest 1 percent of Americans or thereabouts. And yet every few years a Republican plan wends its way through the legislative process and, with some trims and amendments, passes.

The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?

Well, as the academics would say, it's overdetermined. There are several reasons.

People vote their aspirations.

The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them.

It's not hard to see why they think this way. Americans live in a culture of abundance. They have always had a sense that great opportunities lie just over the horizon, in the next valley, with the next job or the next big thing. None of us is really poor; we're just pre-rich.

Americans read magazines for people more affluent than they are (W, Cigar Aficionado, The New Yorker, Robb Report, Town and Country) because they think that someday they could be that guy with the tastefully appointed horse farm. Democratic politicians proposing to take from the rich are just bashing the dreams of our imminent selves.

Income resentment is not a strong emotion in much of America.

If you earn $125,000 a year and live in Manhattan, certainly, you are surrounded by things you cannot afford. You have to walk by those buildings on Central Park West with the 2,500-square-foot apartments that are empty three-quarters of the year because their evil owners are mostly living at their other houses in L.A.

But if you are a middle-class person in most of America, you are not brought into incessant contact with things you can't afford. There aren't Lexus dealerships on every corner. There are no snooty restaurants with water sommeliers to help you sort though the bottled eau selections. You can afford most of the things at Wal-Mart or Kohl's and the occasional meal at the Macaroni Grill. Moreover, it would be socially unacceptable for you to pull up to church in a Jaguar or to hire a caterer for your dinner party anyway. So you are not plagued by a nagging feeling of doing without.

Many Americans admire the rich.

They don't see society as a conflict zone between the rich and poor. It's taboo to say in a democratic culture, but do you think a nation that watches Katie Couric in the morning, Tom Hanks in the evening and Michael Jordan on weekends harbors deep animosity toward the affluent?

On the contrary. I'm writing this from Nashville, where one of the richest families, the Frists, is hugely admired for its entrepreneurial skill and community service. People don't want to tax the Frists ? they want to elect them to the Senate. And they did.

Nor are Americans suffering from false consciousness. You go to a town where the factories have closed and people who once earned $14 an hour now work for $8 an hour. They've taken their hits. But odds are you will find their faith in hard work and self-reliance undiminished, and their suspicion of Washington unchanged.

Americans resent social inequality more than income inequality.

As the sociologist Jennifer Lopez has observed: "Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got, I'm just, I'm just Jenny from the block." As long as rich people "stay real," in Ms. Lopez's formulation, they are admired. Meanwhile, middle-class journalists and academics who seem to look down on megachurches, suburbia and hunters are resented. If Americans see the tax debate as being waged between the economic elite, led by President Bush, and the cultural elite, led by Barbra Streisand, they are going to side with Mr. Bush, who could come to any suburban barbershop and fit right in.

Most Americans do not have Marxian categories in their heads.

This is the most important reason Americans resist wealth redistribution, the reason that subsumes all others. Americans do not see society as a layer cake, with the rich on top, the middle class beneath them and the working class and underclass at the bottom. They see society as a high school cafeteria, with their community at one table and other communities at other tables. They are pretty sure that their community is the nicest, and filled with the best people, and they have a vague pity for all those poor souls who live in New York City or California and have a lot of money but no true neighbors and no free time.

All of this adds up to a terrain incredibly inhospitable to class-based politics. Every few years a group of millionaire Democratic presidential aspirants pretends to be the people's warriors against the overclass. They look inauthentic, combative rather than unifying. Worst of all, their basic message is not optimistic.

They haven't learned what Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt and even Bill Clinton knew: that you can run against rich people, but only those who have betrayed the ideal of fair competition. You have to be more hopeful and growth-oriented than your opponent, and you cannot imply that we are a nation tragically and permanently divided by income. In the gospel of America, there are no permanent conflicts.

David Brooks, a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, is author of ``Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There.''



To: tekboy who wrote (65543)1/12/2003 5:43:15 AM
From: paul_philp  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 

I think, in other words, that the hardliners still really see this as a zero-sum game, and worry that they will take Pal war-weariness as an excuse to increase their demands rather than an opportunity to move forward somehow. I hope I'm wrong.


Tekboy,

How do you see 9-11 and security concerns factoring into the US hardline thinking? I imagine that a successful peace between Israel and the Palestinians would remove some of the fuel that fires Arab terrorists willing to attack the US on US soil. If this is the case, wouldn't just 'fixing the damn problem' fit the hardliner worldview more than seeking an optimal solution. I imagine that 9-11 has made pragmatists of the hardliners.

Of course, it serves no purpose right now, the pragmatic thing is to wait for Nadine's 4 events to transpire. I suspect that some American war weariness will start emerging soon:
- we beat the Taliban and are rebuilding the country;
- we stared down N. Korea and got what we wanted (that my not be what really happens but N. Korea knows about allowing Bush to save face at home);
- we beat Saddam, lost a lot of good soldiers and now are rebuilding the country; and,
- we a still chasing and catching the AQ with some success and Osama is now a living ghost but very powerful still dead or alive.

I can see at that point that Americans might not feel very happy about another campaign. There may more awareness and urgency for a succesful peace in America that ever before.

Tekboy, this is all involving the US pschye in a way which has never been eganged. It is the sons and daughter of America dying now. It is our towers being blown up now.

Paul



To: tekboy who wrote (65543)1/12/2003 12:45:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
What I worry about, however, is that hardliners in Israel and here really do think that the status quo is freezable indefinitely, and have no intention of ever granting the Pals anything more than a subordinate, unsatisfying, deeply circumscribed autonomy. I think they really believe that the settlements can and should stay, that the Pals can and will be beaten into submission, and that Israel won't in the end have to accept something like the Clinton plan.

It remains to be seen if the Israeli hard-liners think as you describe (Sharon has said not, but he has not had to prove any of it yet). What is clear - this was one point that Ari Shavit made the other night - is that the majority of the Israeli voters no longer think this way, and they will change in a flash towards any government that they think is spurning a real chance at peace.

IMO the Israelis do want peace badly, so the situation is prone to psychological tipping points. All a Palestinian leader (obviously it's not going to be Arafat) has to do is offer to give his speech to Knesset in Arabic (so the Palestinians as well as the Israelis hear it), and it will be a whole new ballgame.