Jim Hightower comments on David Brooks’ notion that the poor haven’t tried to curtail the privileges of the rich from time to time in America. Says Brooks, “”The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment.”
Responds Hightower:
Whoa, professor, get a grip! Better yet, get a good history book (Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” would be an eye-opening place to start). While our schools, media and politicians rarely mention it, America’s history is replete with class rebellions against various moneyed elites who act as though they’re the top dogs and ordinary folks are just a bunch of fire hydrants.
Check out the Tenant Uprisings of 1766, Shay’s Rebellion in the 1780s, the Workingmen’s Movement of the 1830s … on into the post-Civil War populist movement that confronted the robber barons, the bloody labor battles at Haymarket and Homestead in the late 1800s, Coxey’s Army in 1894, the Bonus March of 1932, the Penny Auctions by farmers in the 1920s and ’30s, the rise of the CIO in the Depression years … and right into modern-day fights involving environmental justice, fair trade, women’s pay, workplace safety, tenant rights, janitors, farmworkers, union-busting, bank redlining, consumer gouging, clean elections and so forth.
It’d be great to see the poor rise up against all the damage done to them by government policies– from education to labor market regulations, Social Security, farm subsidies, payroll taxes, state income taxes (in 17 states including Indiana), and various redistributive efforts to the non-poor.
You know, it’d be great to see more “compassionate” and “progressive” people in politics rise up– on behalf of the poor– as well.
And yet, time after time, what gets them riled up is the pooling of wealth at the very top. Stupid poor people.
Hightower just lost ten points off his final grade and I hope the ghost of Daniel Shays haunts him forever.
The rebellion was led by Daniel Shays, so the correct spelling is Shays’ Rebellion or Shays’s Rebellion.
Obviously Hightower’s schools also forgot to mention the correct use of the apostrophe.
I don’t mind the poor getting “riled up” about “the wealthy”. But whatever the cause-and-effect of that correlation, why not get exorcised about the certain damage done by a range of government policies– mostly to help a variety of special interest groups.
And why shouldn’t “progressive” and “compassionate” people do that on their behalf? Nah, it’s more fun, easier, and scores more political points– even if it’s not nearly as effective.
This really might boil down to differences in one’s definition of terminologies.
I’m not sure I would define all of those events listed as “class rebellions against the priveleges of moneyed elites”.
For the US, most residents hope to achieve a modicum of moneyed privelege (or more), it’s part of the American Dream. Rising up to remove such priveleges would be seen by many as shooting one’s own dreams in the foot. It is a partial explanation for why certain groups continue to vote against the own current self-interests. They hold out for the hope that those priveleges will trickle down somehow to them in the future.
The United States really hasn’t had much unrest that might be considered “class warfare” in the Marxist-Leninist sense. Most of those events listed are probably best described as reactions to extremes in priveleged behavior (perhaps better called ultra-greedy behavior).
Priveleged moneyed elites may actually owe FDR and LBJ for the somewhat surprising lack of reaction to the current economic mess. Somehow, the social programs of both Presidents may have mitigated the potential for worse economic disparities, which would likely have led to socio-economic unrest between the haves and the have-nots. Hmm, interesting.
If the poor have a legitimate beef with the rich and take the proper measures to assure they THEY are no longer down-trodded, then good for them…
But to falsely “empower” ANY member of ANY society who claims to be of the poor class by freely and arbitrarily GIVING to them (at the expense of the middle class, many times over) risks dangers unimagined.
Every person has the same opportunity here, just not the same results.
It’s the whole “GIVE a man a fish for a day, or TEACH him to fish for life” gig all over again.
We are still a democratic REPUBLIC…not an aristocracy OR an oligarchy.
And that works for me just fine.
I think the use of language by Brooks is very telling. “…curtail the privileges of the rich”? Yes, there’s some class warfare going on, to be sure.
Why would any civil being want to reduce any other person’s station in life? Why wouldn’t it be more valuable, and more civil, to elevate the opportunity of others instead?
I was once quite dirt-poor. All I ever wanted was the chance to make better decisions. In my most financially distressed and despaired hours, I never saw that knocking someone else down a peg would result in some elevating of my status.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I get the sense that some of the pooled wealth sucks the opportunity out of the air — think: tall trees blocking out the sun, limiting the opportunities of the plants in the undergrowth.
I don’t really care too much what another guy has. But, if that guy is limiting the opportunities of those who come after, it bears looking into. If the rich guy got rich through his own thrift, industry, and ingenuity, you should probably tread lightly when infringing upon his prerogatives. I think the tread need not be as light when discussing wealth acquired by other means.
That’s what drove me crazy when they were talking about eliminating the estate tax. That effectively shifted the tax burden to income and other taxes. For the life of me, I can’t fathom why folks think an heir has a greater claim to an inheritance than a wage earner has to his wages after a week’s work.
Practically, in what ways do the wealthy such opportunity out of the air (through economic markets rather than through politics).
On the basis you mention, an estate tax is fine. But what about the (in)equity of multiple taxation on the same income? And a slippery slope concern would be that by your logic, you could completely tax estates away.
And which govt policies that harm the poor get you equally upset?
I don’t think money flowing to an heir from an inheritance is “the same income” — it’s new to the heir. We tax the money as it’s used to buy a widget, then we tax it again as it’s paid to the guy who made the widget, then we tax it again when the guy buys gas for his car.
With respect to the wealthy sucking out the oxygen – it’s not a complete answer, but check out this interesting study showing that folks with limited resources had an easier time accumulating wealth on the frontier than in established economies.
Gov’t policies that harm the poor that get me equally upset – not sure I’m emotional enough to characterize it as “upset,” but an example that jumps to mind are the garnishment laws that give priority to a divorced dad’s child support – protecting it from garnishment; whereas the dad who does the right thing and stays with his family can have his income garnished without any protections for the money necessary to support his children.
Some people are happy with multiple taxation of the same resources (albeit different “incomes”); others not so much.
The study is not surprising since land and resources were there, more or less, for the taking. In an established economy, property rights become more important– but are, to your point, restrictive in that sense.
Do the child support laws disproportionately affect the poor? By contrast, what about the “garnishment” that happens to ALL of the working poor through the 15.3% payroll tax with no deductions or exemptions?
I’d just like to note that whatever is wrong with the “politics of the poor” or the “progressive” and “compassionate” people who are being urged to speak for them (and Populists, eric?), “insufficient volume of input from people who are none of the above” isn’t it.
You know..you used to be my be prof. and you need to wake up…it is all Keynasian now..and you could explain it..but your poltical views won’t let you….worse than the Republican claim that university profs. are liberal…they could be libertarian that are even less relevant and less useful in THIS ECONOMY!
Social Darwinism didn’t work out that well the last time we tried it. In fact, it delivered an economic collapse just like what we have today. Yet people still sing its praises and long for its whole hearted return.
I’m not sure why economic liberals, like the Libertarian Party and certain segments of the GOP,continue to cling to ideas that have already fallen flat on their face. Voters REALLY don’t like being told it’s okay for people to starve to death because it strengthens the business world. “Survival of the fittest!!! Now give me that food stamp!!!”
You would think that losing election after election would give them a hint. They are educated individuals after all.
Purist forms of anything rarely are a good thing, whether it be religion, science, or economics.
” Purist forms of anything rarely are a good thing, whether it be religion, science, or economics.”
And that includes ‘pure pragmatism’.In today’s political dialogue *pure* hints something conservative-ish.Pure science is the only kind of science there is,otherwise it isn’t science.Pure democracy is anarchy to be sure. Was the economic system we just suffered through ‘pure freemarket’?
My religion is as pure as anyone’s once I define the essentials of belief,but can a liberal politically be allowed to say he follows *pure religion*? Others are offended.
Defining *pure* certainly is a good discussion question and we need more of that generally.
Yes, in about the same way laws against stealing bread disproportionately affect the poor.
The way it usually works is this. Let’s say my client has a judgment for $5,000 against a guy.
Guy #1 is married with children and works a job that nets $400 per week. I can get a garnishment that leaves him with $300 per week to support his wife and kids as my client gets $100 per week.
Guy #2 is divorced with children, works a job that nets him $400 per week before his child support order takes out 1/3. $133 is taken off the top for the benefit of his kids. Meanwhile, because he already has more than 25% coming out of his check, my client can’t get money from him for a garnishment. He keeps $267 for his own survival.
The Times has apparently adopted the Post’s “multi-layered” fact checking procedures.
Leon is correct. It’s all about Keynesianism in terms of policy now (and has been, in part, even since the 1970s). Keynesianism is still largely bankrupt, but it is the operative approach right now.
Chris: Very few people, if any, advocate Social Darwinism in terms of near-term approaches to public policy. And of course, since the 1930s, we’ve never been anywhere close to a SD approach to public policy.
Doug: Thanks for the clarification on child support. Any thoughts on the far larger issue of payroll taxes?