How else does one explain the silence when Enron, Worldcom etc. fail, the managers run off with bags of money and workers are cast out, pensions are lost. Major companies such as Ford and GM also have "underfunded" pensions and yet, and yet, people seem to say very little. There is surprisingly little violence. It seems to be the Lord's (or the market's) will.
America seems to be a religion. Once you buy in, you buy in. The market works in mysterious ways and it is not for us to qustion what is really part of a larger seemingly mysterious pattern. Question part of the picture and you are suspect. Remember Viet Nam, "America, love it or leave it." The metaphore of the school cafeteria in the article rings true. We have our group, they have theirs. We happen to like ours, they happen to like theirs. Tough to organize politically. Everyone just wants to go shopping, to the store of their choice, of course. arthur -----Original Message----- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:22 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Triumph of Hope Over Self-Interest When I compare this to the community that I know in the Arts and that I am a part of developing, I don't understand how people can believe that they will be able to create a quality environment and equal opportunity without sacrificing for it. I sent a recommendation recently for one of our Indian high school graduates with a collage of pictures showing her accomplishing the program that she wants to enter. The same sort of thing that we do for high school drama students all the time. But since I was her Priest and it was an organization with a Cherokee name and it stressed community, the high school counselor eliminated it from her applications and we are in the process of sending them privately since she needed the recommendation to fit the requirements. My antennae went up immediately. I've seen this kind of action before in relation to Indian kids. Suddenly the most put upon groups in the country are White Males and Rich Folks. No one owes anything for what they get from this place. Take, take, take and give back nothing. Creepy! This Brooks article equates a lack of community identity with hope? They believe that the reason they are poor is that they deserve to be? or their parents or community did, or they are doing something wrong? And once they "get it right" they will be OK. That reminds me of the poor voice students who believe if they have good enough technique they will make a living in a market with a 98% labor glut. Someone has been fed a lot of Horse doo doo in this world for them to be so easily hoodwinked! How about the reason they like too much salt in their food and have heart failure has nothing to do with the fact that they never experienced a healthy diet in their socio-economic class? That the reason their child eats lead paint is because the parent isn't home with them but if they were they would be living in a shelter instead. And on and on and on. Should I send you all the slightly obscene incredibly angry mail that comes my way around these folks that Brooks describes? I started a political list and included some of the religious mall folks on the list and they couldn't wait to close the discussion but they are willing to send their kids into a profession that has less a possibility of success (ballet) than making a living at Reno or Atlantic City Casinos. I don't think that people who have a problem with reality should be encouraged. Does Brooks? Double binds are the name of the game for most of these folks and choices for the hooligans are always easier than for the people who don't talk much. One of the polls was about how many people voted on the online polls. Republicans voted twice as often as Democrats so when you hear a negative of any type in relation to the wealthy or others you can consider that the people making the noise are probably in the minority. After all of the sleazy things said about Democrats and their Presidential candidate by the cable all day news and the almost 100% radio propaganda Al Gore still won more of the popular vote than almost anyone except Reagan at his most popular. That makes me believe that Brooks is blowing in the wind and wishing it so. Probably because he is a part of that upper class group. Let him come down here and more than interview the natives. We could open his eyes. Remember what the women did to Custer since he didn't believe anyone but himself. They stuck knitting needles in his ears to open his hearing in the next world. I'm afraid it simply is a matter of the wealthy having the wealth to exert the same kind of influence the politburo did in the old Soviet Union. Most of the Russians I've met didn't hate Stalin either. And how did the Germans feel about ........? Ray Evans Harrell ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:57 AM Subject: [Futurework] Triumph of Hope Over Self-Interest > > > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
