My golly, Arthur - you are getting nearly as good as Karen. I don't know whether he is right - but he's plausible.
I usually cannot see the Republicans ever winning - yet they somehow manage to. Maybe? Harry ------------------------------------------------- Arthur wrote:
> January 12, 2003 > The Triumph of Hope Over Self-Interest > By DAVID BROOKS > > > ASHVILLE - 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.'' > > > Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002