It’s something I have complained to my wife loudly about. I often find anecdotal evidence for it.
The it is feudalism.
The so-called Republicans are making America into a feudal society.
Fans of the old Blackadder series will recognize this chappie. It’s Baldrick, the "dogsbody" of Rowan Atkinson’s Blackadder in four series, set in different eras of British history. It first appeared in the 1980s. And there’s a happy ending. Tony Robinson, the actor who played Baldrick, later became a member of Labour’s National Executive Committee.
Will our experience end up so well? I doubt it. What else do you call this?
- Estate taxes are eliminated, so all wealth passes to wastrels like Paris Hilton.
- Many of today’s stars in business (Donald Trump), the arts (Angelina Jolie), politics (Jonah Goldberg) and sports (Barry Bonds Jr.) practically inherited their positions.
- The poor keep getting poorer, with taxes shifting from income to sales.
- The number of truly destitute is rising to record levels.
- Millions of Americans are losing their middle-class status to job loss, illness, and foreclosed mortgages.
That’s anecdotal, of course. How about this?
- Marriage is becoming an upper-class affectation.
- Poor people don’t make good families.
Basically, as Digby notes,
Republicans have been running a scam on the middle class for 40 years.
Bad choices are blamed on people being bad. Those who try and succeed
are lionized, but those who try just as hard and fail are condemned
utterly.
The result is a society that has a lot more in common with really Olde England (or modern Zimbabwe) than we would like to admit.
Yet, anyone who points out these facts is accused of engaging in class
warfare. By the elite media (top reporters are now as rich as those
they cover), by top politicians (also rich), and by our academic
thought leaders (ditto).
To be a hero today, you are in fact part of the upper class. This goes
for all the heroes of our parents’ generation — baseball players,
singers, journalists, stock car racers.
In fairness it should be said that our capitalistic society naturally
tilts toward such outcomes. Competition yields a few winners, and lots
of losers. (Look at the upcoming NCAA basketball tournament — I
guarantee you 63 teams of the 64 will lose.)
The odds need to be better than that if we expect the mass of people to support it.
It’s the fact that the masses of people have been quiescent during this
process, buying the marketing and political spin of the wealthy — that
leads corporations and their rich overlords to believe things will
continue in this way forever.
But they never do. We are building incredible instability into the
system. When the next recession hits, someone will have to step forward
and save capitalism.
The next recession is just around the corner. And I have a cunning plan…
I’d agree with your point about inherited success re: Trump, Jolie and Goldberg, but Barry Bonds Jr.?? Perhaps you should leave the baseball analogies to fans of the game.
Barry’s dad was named “Bobby”, not Barry. He also was an alcoholic who squandered his considerable physical skills chasing non-baseball pleasures. Barry grew up with little attention but clearly motivated not to make his father’s mistakes. To that end he adopted a workout and conditioning regimen unlike that of other players – staying in shape 12 months a year and spending more hours in the weight room than nearly any other player on his team. He doesn’t drink but apparently he, like other players, used any and all food and drug supplements to improve the elements of his game. And he’s an arrogant son of a bitch who walks the walk as well as talking the talk. It’s this last feature that he shares with his father (and infuriates others in the game) but it’s not an inherited trait that accounts for his success. Unlike your other examples, Barry’s a success despite, not because, of his father.
I’d agree with your point about inherited success re: Trump, Jolie and Goldberg, but Barry Bonds Jr.?? Perhaps you should leave the baseball analogies to fans of the game.
Barry’s dad was named “Bobby”, not Barry. He also was an alcoholic who squandered his considerable physical skills chasing non-baseball pleasures. Barry grew up with little attention but clearly motivated not to make his father’s mistakes. To that end he adopted a workout and conditioning regimen unlike that of other players – staying in shape 12 months a year and spending more hours in the weight room than nearly any other player on his team. He doesn’t drink but apparently he, like other players, used any and all food and drug supplements to improve the elements of his game. And he’s an arrogant son of a bitch who walks the walk as well as talking the talk. It’s this last feature that he shares with his father (and infuriates others in the game) but it’s not an inherited trait that accounts for his success. Unlike your other examples, Barry’s a success despite, not because, of his father.
Like so many bloggers, you seem to have mistaken your intuitions for Received Truth, and from that assume that no further research is required. Unfortunately, you misuse terms like “feudalism”, you fail to grasp how mobile American society is, and you confuse numerical data with normative statements.
While we still have a few family dynasties- The Kennedys come to mind- the list of the wealthiest people in America changes from decade to decade. Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs- these names weren’t on the top twenty years ago. And where are the Vanderbilts, or the Carnegies, or any of the names once considered to be the Brahmins of American society? Far down the line.
And though you may not be happy about it, culture makes a difference in the success of societies. There is a wealth of sociological data of the past one hundred years that shows the economic consequences of raising children without the support of a family structure, and your indignation doesn’t make it any less true.
Like so many bloggers, you seem to have mistaken your intuitions for Received Truth, and from that assume that no further research is required. Unfortunately, you misuse terms like “feudalism”, you fail to grasp how mobile American society is, and you confuse numerical data with normative statements.
While we still have a few family dynasties- The Kennedys come to mind- the list of the wealthiest people in America changes from decade to decade. Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs- these names weren’t on the top twenty years ago. And where are the Vanderbilts, or the Carnegies, or any of the names once considered to be the Brahmins of American society? Far down the line.
And though you may not be happy about it, culture makes a difference in the success of societies. There is a wealth of sociological data of the past one hundred years that shows the economic consequences of raising children without the support of a family structure, and your indignation doesn’t make it any less true.