I have to admit that David Brooks is my favorite conservative pundit. He is articulate, can turn a phrase, smiles a lot and nods when listening to his debate opponent. As far as I can tell, he is a moderate conservative, not a diehard let them go to hell if they don' agree with me guy. He is supportive of this administration but has spoken out when it seemed to wobble.
David's prose is this piece was catchy and painted a familiar picture in our minds that we would identify with, the high school cafeteria. But he underestimates that the student body is changing. He plays up to the myth of America, that still beats in our hearts, of self-improvement the old fashioned way, so heavily dependent on the Judeo-Christian ethic of reward for the good. Why do you think that this Prayer of Jabaz is so popular right now? He has cleverly portrayed the affected classes of recession, downsizing and pension fraud as good-natured about the disparity growing in society. He has reinforced the image that everyone's goal is to 'be like Mike' so why criticize those who made it, even when they cheated or the system is staked in their favor? Those were the most popular guys in school, the ones everyone liked. But there is an edgy, unpredictable anxiety out there. You hear it in catch-phrases, like people who really want to support the president right now because damn it, after what happened on 9/11 something has to be done, but don't want to think a lot about what that support might involve or where that support might lead. We have spirit, maybe not good eyes and hearing, but we have heart. It's chin-up time, face the wind, whiners go to the back of the bus. Who wants to be a whiner? They were the ones nobody wanted to be with in the school cafeteria. Naturally, we must have storytellers from many perspectives, to remind us of the myths that build, the myths that join, the myths that teach good over evil. It remains to be seen whether more people will come to suspect stories told that remind them how happy they are supposed to be with the less they have and the greater uncertainty they have about keeping it. As the progressives and the preachers say, it will take a long time to bring about deep change in society. One heavy heart at a time. History says that big changes only happen fast under terrible circumstances, and those we'd all like to avoid. There are enough problems out there in our immediate future that it isn't surprising we should be told not to worry, don't rock the boat, be happy. Karen January 12, 2003 The Triumph of Hope Over Self-Interest 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.'' 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
