by von
WOW: SNIDELY REFERENCE Kevin Drum’s snidery toward the rich — i.e., "it’s nice to know that there are a few rich people who aren’t complete assholes, but it seems safe to say that the majority fall pretty safely into this category" — and catch it, well, in the ass. (Read the comments.) But does one snide turn deserve another? Or do I have a point? Or am I horribly below standards, vitriolic, hysterical, and quite likely very stupid — as many commentators claim?
Yes, Yes, and No, of course, as you would expect me to answer. Drum’s offhand snidery is a nod to the Democratic party’s unfortunate predilection to slam the rich when all else fails. Indeed, a general comment that "the majority of the rich are complete assholes," as if this distinguishes them from the poor or middle class, followed by general assent among the commetariat here and there that, yes, the rich are all assholes seems to be a pretty good example of class warfare — even when presented in jest. And, if not meant to be ironic — which neither Drum nor our commentators are attempting — class warfare is a sloppy way of thinking.
Yes, sloppy. Drum (and others on this blog) want to make the point that there is something wrong with a society where a relatively large portion of the pie belongs between a relatively small number of folks. Maybe there is. Or, maybe not: the gilded assholes of the story that is the source of Drum’s lament did not, by and large, inherit their vast fortunes. They earned them, dollar by dollar, by creating things that others — lots of others — found to be useful and interesting. And now they are enjoining the dividends of their labors. Maybe that’s a good thing.
So, now, on to our commentators, whom, nearly to a man, think I’m out of line for the following reasons (among many others):
Let’s not consider it. It’s just a throwaway line. Von, you’re being hysterical. Everyone knows what Drum means. He’s just engaging in some rhetoric. The rich are a bunch of assholes, anyway. Rhetorically at least. Probably really too. So let’s move on. What, you’re still here? Why are you dwelling on this, anyway? Everyone who’s a Democrat doesn’t see any problem with this. Everyone who thinks like me agrees that the rich are assholes. Every blog I hang out at thinks Drum’s right on. And that you’re taking it the complete wrong way. You can write better posts than this. C’mon, criticize InstaPundit or something. Get into it with Charles Bird. Reinforce my preexisting views on Iraq. Quit ruining the blog. Asshole.
Yes, I am (an asshole). You shouldn’t listen to my views on the subject of the super-rich. Just like you shouldn’t listen to the French regarding Iraq because, you see, the French are complete assholes. Just like you shouldn’t listen to Al Gore on the environment because, well, he’s a complete asshole. So: you also shouldn’t consider whether allowing folks to become very, very wealthy actually produces net benefits to society because, after all, does anyone doubt that the majority of the uber-rich are complete assholes? Move on, already.
That’s class warfare — a dumbed down ad hominem, really. It deserves to be mocked. Yes, on this blog, too.
So, here’s an open thread. Feel free to debate (1) the above; (2) whether the phrase "catch it in the ass" is homophobic; (3) whether it’s permissible for me to be snide from the right, or whether only lefty snidery is acceptable at ObWi; and (4) whether the word "asshole" should be banned from ObWi’s front page as work-unsafe. (My views on the last two subjects should be reasonably clear already.)
UPDATE: A commentator asked what I thought of the NY Times article Drum was discussing. For what it’s worth, I thought the article was ridiculously stupid and filled with editorilizing (the rich regard themselves as "heroic"? Really? I must have missed that quote). As a portion of GDP, the uber-rich have a much smaller share during this alleged "gilded age" than during the last. By order of magnitudes smaller. It’s disingenous to talk about a modern gilded age when it’s not even close. And most of these folks created real, massive value — the same way that such value has always been created: by selling things that people want. (More on this here.)
“Drum’s offhand snidery”
Again, I think you’ve made a simple misreading of a sloppy sentence. The context makes it clear he’s talking about a limited set of very rich people of a particular sort as described in the article he’s discussing.
“It’s not class warfare until the poor start shooting back.”
Why is “Class warfare” always described as something bad, anyway? I almost always see it invoked by conservatives, which makes it especially weird, since I thought conservatives were all for competition.
I mean, leaving aside the fact the rich have been carrying on undeclared class warfare against the poor (i.e. everybody else) for years now.
Why is “Class warfare” always described as something bad, anyway?
Well, my answer (re: why “class warfare” is bad) is reflected in the above post.
The context makes it clear he’s talking about a limited set of very rich people of a particular sort as described in the article he’s discussing.
Maybe that’s what Drum intended, though it’s not what he wrote. But the quick turn of phrase — and the fact that so many folks are defending Drum even broadly understood — makes the point worth discussing. Indeed, if, at the end of the day, Drum comes out and says “hey silly folks, that’s not what I really meant,” would it change much (if anything) regarding my point? I mean, I’m saying “that’s class warfare” and a not-insubstantial number of commentators are responding “bring it on.”
if i call you an “asshole”, are we at war ? is that warfare ?
if i call you an “asshole”, are we at war ? is that warfare ?
Possibly. Are you (1) killing the vonnites and/or (2) blockading the vonnite ports whilst doing so?
Okey dokey. I have tried to stay out of this one, except for apparently futile attempts to get back to the topic, and to tone down the vitriol, but what the heck.
First, on a tangential matter: this was von’s blog before I was ever involved with it, and I would really appreciate not being enlisted in any argument that purports to show that he shouldn’t have written any post he ever writes. Fwiw, I can’t speak to Gary’s traffic stats, not being familiar with them, but I do follow ours; and while our readership has gone up a lot since I joined, that’s true of the blogosphere as a whole; and I think our position in it is roughly what it was when I joined. Maybe a bit higher, maybe not, but not much. It was von, Moe, Edward, and Katherine who did the hard work of getting into the upper middle tier, not me.
So everything I am about to say should be read with the caveat: this is my opinion, and it has, if anything, less weight than von’s. At least, according to me.
Onwards: I thought that von’s post made a mountain out of a molehill, and that if you read Drum’s line in context, especially if you’ve already read the article he’s commenting on, it’s pretty clear that he’s talking about the very very very rich, not the merely rich. I also am not wild about slamming commenters on the front page, or about the particular word von is making so much of.
But jeez: it in no way warranted the comment thread that followed. Honestly.
Personally, I suspect that a bunch of people share Jes’ motivation: we know perfectly well that von can write stellar posts, and this wasn’t one of them. Plus, a lot of us wish he’d post here more often. So when he turns up and posts something that’s slight, — well, you know the rest.
But this reaction, while understandable, is so completely not the way to fix any of the problems that lead to it that it makes me want to tear my hair out.
Likewise, von’s reaction.
I think I’m going to run out and buy a wig now, while whistling “Kumbaya” through gritted teeth.
If your point is worth discussing, it ought to be worth discussing outside the controversial reading you’ve made of Drum’s sentence. Perhaps you could give your view of the Gilded Age article, for example – it might be more useful than implying people in the conversation are opposed to “allowing folks to become very, very wealthy”.
von, it’s funny how it’s always “class warfare” when the poor harp on the rich and laudable “business as usual” when the rich screw the poor.
Von, you seem to be defining class warfare as just as people attacking the rich. So I ask you, which is more fitting of the term “warfare”, calling someone an asshole, or bribing and lobbying politicians to enrich yourself and your company at the expense of everybody else, and to make sure you don’t have to pay taxes on it? Which is more like warfare, suggesting that the rich taxes of the same kind of percent of their income as everyone else, or having your company throw its pension promises on the government to make the profits for next quarter?
Somehow, a general agreement that yes, rich people are assholes seems much less like warfare than enriching yourself and your buddies at the expense of the public, or writing IP laws for Congress that let you sue kids and grandmothers for tens of thousands of dollars for every song they download, or moving your factory to China to avoid environmental laws and pay almost nothing, or constantly requiring your employees to change health care plans and pay more, or buying up a newspaper and cutting the budget so the local reporting goes down the tubes and the rest of the reporters are so busy they just reprint press releases, or…
No wonder the rich are winning the class war, calling them assholes is like taking a peashooter against a howitzer.
“The context makes it clear he’s talking about a limited set of very rich people of a particular sort as described in the article he’s discussing.”
Maybe that’s what Drum intended, though it’s not what he wrote.
Oh, but he did, von, he did, which is clear to anyone who clicks through, and as I quoted in the other comment thread. You apparently think we are all too stupid to click through. So be it.
The rest of this is so chock full of dumb strawmen and misguided defensiveness that I begin to suspect that there are two people who post as “von.” One is an intelligent, educated, successful attorney, and the other is . . . not.
Von – you are making the classic mistake of thinking class is about money – it’s not. It’s about privilege. Money is tied into the whole equation, in the US especially, but it’s far from the whole story.
Class is why Scooter Libby gets a commutation, his client Frank Rich gets a pardon, and no-name regular guys get hard time for the exact same offenses. Class is why prosecutorial misconduct directed at members of a high status sports team at an elite university gets front page coverage and widespread appeals for help with legal fees, while vastly worse conduct directed at people with no connections to power won’t even make the Metro section of the local paper.
Class is why there will never be a wind farm off the Hamptons. It’s not a matter of money alone, and it’s not a Democrat/Republican issue. It’s a simple matter of one set of rules for those with connections to power and another set of rules for everyone else.
Possibly. Are you (1) killing the vonnites and/or (2) blockading the vonnite ports whilst doing so?
let’s just call it Tough Sanctions .
“I think I’m going to run out and buy a wig now, while whistling ‘Kumbaya’ through gritted teeth.”
I wrote a very long response to Von in this thread, which after some thought, I’ve chosen not to post.
But the gist was that Von can do much better, and I hope he will again. Elaboration of how and why he’s not probably won’t help.
“…I would really appreciate not being enlisted in any argument that purports to show that he shouldn’t have written any post he ever writes.”
I don’t think anyone did that, but insofar as you seem to be responding to my tangential point that you, and to some degree Katherine, have pushed ObWi’s visibility up very strongly in the liberal/left/Democratic blosophere in the past year or more in no way reflects anything in the least negative about any other blogger here, or all the hard work Moe and Edward and Von and Katherine, of course. That seems utterly unnecessary to say, since one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other — that Einstein did great work doesn’t insult Isaac Newton’s great work — but since Hilzoy seems to be concerned, I’ll redundantly restate the obvious that everyone knows.
Which is a poor way of saying that, despite my own perception of what I’ve said, to any degree that I expressed any such thought that bothered Hilzoy, as regards the contributions of other ObWi contributors, I apologize.
Perhaps you could give your view of the Gilded Age article, for example – it might be more useful than implying people in the conversation are opposed to “allowing folks to become very, very wealthy”.
OK, I’ll play: I thought that the Gilded Age article — particularly the portion Drum focused on — to be beyond stupid. Businessmen assign themselves a “heroic role”? Really? I didn’t get that from Lew Frankfort’s comment that “To be successful … you now needed vision, lateral thinking, courage and an ability to see things, not the way they were but how they might be.” Which seems, by the bye, to be a pretty accurate statement. Now, would it have been more complete — and less egotistical — for Lew to also acknowledge the role of luck? Sure. But, though luck might have been necessary, it wasn’t sufficient.
Nor did I find the article particularly distressing. Or, aside from its poor reporting and editorilizing, distressing at all. As the article concedes, as a portion of GDP, the uber-rich have a much smaller share during this alleged “gilded age” than during the last. By order of magnitudes smaller. And most of these folks created real, massive value — the same way that such value has always been created: by selling things that people want.
I’m also not impressed by Drum’s reluctant concession that maybe it’s OK to be wealthy if you’re really innovative. A lot of what the folks in the article did was innovative — and brought far more pleasure, and higher standards of living, to more of the world than anything Bill Gates did.
I’ve known some pretty decent very, very wealthy people – through various family connections, folks like the managing producer of what was at the time the #2 record company, a number of famous actors and their families, and so on. I’ve also met some very nice guys in big gangs. Just as gang members as a class are responsible for a lot of urban violence and drug abuse, despite some of them being fine folks individually, so the very, very wealthy as a class are responsible for a big chunk of the support for the class welfare policies of the conservative movement machine. Personally, I’d prefer to mostly ignore the rich, and I will be glad to do so when (for instance) wealth and income are again treated as equal in the eyes of the tax code, there’s no more mass shifting of risk and misery down on the lower classes, our physical and social infrastructure are no longer being neglected or actively destroyed, and like that. When the rich are again more like the rest of us when it comes to burdens and rewards from government, much of my attention will go elsewhere, and I’m sure that many others who are currently feeling the class warfare bite would do likewise.
But it’s hard to do when as a matter of simple fact the state is advancing a set of agendas that has been part of the society of the topmost in wealth since the late 19th century. These folks have spent the last three to five generations dreaming of undoing everything since the Gilded Age, and working to make it happen. It’s not paranoid to note that, nor mean-spirited to deny them an unopposed triumph.
Well, the point is, people who become rich in our society do so in part as a result of their own efforts, but also because of the efforts of millions of other people who built a society in which it was possible to become rich that way. They wouldn’t be billionaires today if they’d been born into a family of Nigerien goat herders. Microsoft
was the creation of millions of people, not just Bill Gates.
Rich people who forget this, who act as if they owe nothing back to the society that made them what they are, are aptly described as assholes.
I’d prefer Smart Sanctions. Tough sanctions are too clumsy and easy to game. Intelligently designed smart sanctions provide the poor with enhanced target behavior modification tools and improved rich re-education flexibility.
And for togolosh, it’s “Marc Rich” (although for a moment it was fun wracking my brain trying to remember what NY Times columnist Frank Rich did to deserve a Presidential pardon).
Oh, but he did, von, he did, which is clear to anyone who clicks through, and as I quoted in the other comment thread. You apparently think we are all too stupid to click through. So be it.
Yes, Phil, I think you are all too stupid to click through. I mean, it can’t be that I have a different opinion. I must regard you, and everyone else who reads this blog, to be stupid.
“Fwiw, I can’t speak to Gary’s traffic stats, not being familiar with them,”
Trivially, if you click on the SiteMeter icon on the bottom of my page, there they are: public. That they’re way down in the past year is only my own fault, of course: I’ve been highly depressed, and up to only relatively little posting (chattering in comments on other blogs involves almost none of the blocks I have, for reasons I won’t go into here).
I’ll sign onto Nate’s 2:29 PM, and togolosh’s 2:32, save for this amusement: “his client Frank Rich gets a pardon”
Free Frank Rich! Pardon his columns!
Don’t believe he’s related to Marc Rich, though. (Who is not “Mark Rich,” either.) 🙂
“Possibly. Are you (1) killing the vonnites and/or (2) blockading the vonnite ports whilst doing so?”
I fail to understand this remark: are poor people killing rich people for being rich in the US these days? Did I miss some news stories?
More interesting, is, in fact, “class warfare” something that can only be waged (via speech) by the poor and middle class against the rich? Is it possible for the rich to wage class warfare? Could you give three examples of that, in your view, or is that not possible in your view, Von? I’d really like to know, and I bet I’m not the only one.
The actual words that Kevin actually wrote, and the subset of “rich people” he was clearly discussing, are not actually a matter of opinion, von.
although for a moment it was fun wracking my brain trying to remember what NY Times columnist Frank Rich did to deserve a Presidential pardon
Just wait.
Von – you are making the classic mistake of thinking class is about money – it’s not. It’s about privilege. Money is tied into the whole equation, in the US especially, but it’s far from the whole story.
Class is why Scooter Libby gets a commutation, his client Frank Rich gets a pardon, and no-name regular guys get hard time for the exact same offenses.
No, no, no. Now you’re talking connections, not class. There’s overlap, but they are not the same thing.
And if the poor really wanted to make it difficult for the rich to continue their hegemony, they’d enact and enforce a strict No-Fly Zone for the rich across the entire continent.
The luxury rail and sea travel industries could probably be talked into supporting such a plan.
Snidery — left, liberal, centrist, or right — directed in the main post at commenters who have no equivalent forum in which to respond, is bad form.
Delivering such snidery and then bailing on the thread for the rest of the day and half the next is also bad form.
For the sake of ObWi’s worksafeness and general reputation it would be best if post titles were ‘asshole’-free zones. Although it’s a somewhat offensive term, I have no problems with its use — in moderation — in posts or comments.
Von, many of us look forward to future posts from you on other subjects.
Rea makes the point I wanted to, but better than I can with the lost sleep I’ve had lately: yes, that’s exactly it, the wealthiest don’t get that way without a tremendous amount of support from others. The good ones acknowledge this and try to preserve the system that makes it possible. There aren’t enough good ones.
“Really? I didn’t get that from Lew Frankfort’s comment that ‘To be successful … you now needed vision, lateral thinking, courage and an ability to see things, not the way they were but how they might be.’ Which seems, by the bye, to be a pretty accurate statement.”
No, no, nothing self-idolizing about that sort of self-characterization! How could anyone think that?
And, absolutely, in the U.S., wealth is generated by merit: privilege has nothing to do with it in our classless, non-European, society, that stands for freedom!
Jack Abramoff epitomizes how accurate it is to attribute being “successfull” only to vision, lateral thinking, courage and a lot of bribes.
Michael Ovitz getting $140 million he was paid for 14 months of work as president at Walt Disney? Complete deserved, since he sent Disney’s stock and business into the tank! Merit!
Merit!
Merit! Vision!
Courage! Ability to see clearly!
Boldness! Success at losing billions!
Meritmeritmerit! Who can deny it?!
Looks like I’m having a busy day, so just dropping back to urge people to resist the meta.
Now you’re talking connections, not class.
Just to note Scooter Libby is the son of an investment banker.
“Class warfare”, I’ve always thought, is a term with a specific meaning that has been deployed by von to describe something else (ad hominem, sweeping generalization), in somewhat the same way as another front-page poster misuses “race-baiting” (a far more egregarious sin).
I think it would have been nice for Lew to acknowledge the massive government intervention in the economy — organized by people like himself — necessary to make him and the rest of the people in the article so incredibly rich.
This really isn’t a difficult thing to understand. Adam Smith was writing about it in 1776.
@rilkefan: Good advice, discretion better part of valor, substance usually prefereable, etc. But this is an open thread in which von invited discussion on the questions I addressed.
“No, no, no. Now you’re talking connections, not class. There’s overlap, but they are not the same thing.”
Connections and class pretty much are the same thing, actually. Nobody denies that there’s some flexibility in being able to move from class to class in the US (although your odds of becoming one of the top 1% of the wealthy turn out to be 99 to 1, all other things being the same — but the odds actually vary according to your status when born).
But having connections is precisely a key example of the privileges some have via family and birth — or through having risen purely by merit — into a position where you have opportunities and privileges not available to those in the classes now beneath you.
A bum with connections to billionaires is pretty much an oxymoron, absent perhaps relatives who are junkies, or successful people who fell into being junkies, maybe. And whether a billionaire has connections to bums doesn’t matter.
Basically “connections” means “having the ability to use those connections to leverage yourself into greater success.” That, in turn, tends to lead to rising in economic class.
Gary, that was great. I needed a laugh, and “Merit!” did it precisely.
I will say, seriously, that I would begrudge the uber bonuses to the successful very much less if there were genuine risks for failure.
This wasn’t Drum’s only sloppy post. To me, this one was much worse because he misleadingly focused on Iraqi troops at Level 1 status and said nothing about those at Level 2 (in the lead but with coalition logistical support). Cite.
far more egregarious sin
I like this new word. “Egregarious”: denoting maliciousness disguised as chumminess, perhaps?
this just in : Dems grow a pair, threaten to restore traditional meaning of ‘filibuster’.
“To me, this one was much worse because he misleadingly focused on Iraqi troops at Level 1 status and said nothing about those at Level 2 (in the lead but with coalition logistical support).”
Since that’s apparently relevant, Charles, could you address your sloppy and misleading posts in which you go on and on about statistics of Iraqis killed, and Americans killed, and whatnot, while never ever ever focusing on the fact that that military stats are completely irrelevant to the actual political benchmarks the Iraqi government continually fails to meet?
This wouldn’t seem relevant to this thread, but it’s an open thread, and since you’re a blog-owner and opened the topic, I assume you wanted responses about your topic of Iraq. I look forward to your post correcting your endless “sloppiness” (obviously not a word you’ll find offensive when applied to a fine blogger).
OK, Charles, I’ll bite: Why is it misleading to focus on units at Level 1 readiness, if one takes as given — as is clear from the context — that the goal is for us to be the hell out of there one day? I mean, he stipulates three different times what kind of readiness he’s referring to, so what, exactly, is “misleading” here?
I feel like I woke up like Robert Klein in that Twilight Zone episode where all of a sudden words have completely different meanings.
I like this new word. “Egregarious”: denoting maliciousness disguised as chumminess, perhaps?
I invented it! All royalties and movie rights belong to me.
Basically “connections” means “having the ability to use those connections to leverage yourself into greater success.” That, in turn, tends to lead to rising in economic class.
But this feature of human behaviour is not unique to the ueber-rich, the upper class or even capitalist socities.
Marc, Frank – either way, they’re Rich and I’m not 🙂
As far as connections vs. class – They all tie together, and money can buy connections as well. There are also layers and levels of class, with hyperfine divisions that are only visible to people in the thick of it.
“But this feature of human behaviour is not unique to the ueber-rich, the upper class or even capitalist socities.”
No, it isn’t. But having connections to the uber-rich isn’t typical of middle class or lower class people. Having such connections to a specific class of people — at whatever level of wealth — isn’t unique to that class of people, but it is typical.
Observations about groups and classes of entities are, necessarily, generalities, with exceptions: they accurately describe tendencies, not individuals.
Gary’s “merit” post captures a lot of my thoughts on this. I don’t mind people making a lot of money, even giant gobs of it, the old-fashioned way. The incomes of top athletes and performers, for example, track pretty directly to their performance, and the willingness of fans to pay to watch it. Fine.
The income of many entrepreneurs comes from producing products people want. Fine. Even the income of some CEO’s is earned by their work for a company. But for too many it isn’t. It’s just cronyism. And even when it’s not, it often is attributable to factors outside their control.
Want a big bonus because your stock went up? Well, the whole market went up. Stock prices are strongly correlated. The company was exceptionally profitable all because of the CEO?
Bertolt Brecht had something to say about that.
Another point. Whatever the sources of wealth, the recent tax code changes do, in my opinion, tend to create an aristocracy. Combine reduced or nonexistent estate taxes with reduced taxes on capital income and you have a strong formula for entrenched wealth that has little to do with its holders having provided something valuable to society. Imagine tens of thousands of Paris Hiltons running around.
So there are indeed plenty of undeserving (as well as deserving) rich in the country.
Shouldn’t “E-gregarious” mean “to be gregarious online”? And iGregarious is what Mac users are?
Complaining about class and connections in America always makes me want to say “Compared to???”. So I will.
Compared to Communist societies where connections and party membership were almost everything?
Compared to France or Germany where class determines getting into one of the top high schools and then very few top universities and is much more linked to success in government than the parallel Ivy League system in the US? (And where success in government is much more important than the US).
Compared to the UK?
Compared to Saudi Arabia, where you are actually born into the royal family or not with enormous ramifications based soley on that?
Class and connections get you lots of things (many of them nt even money) in every society in the world. Complaining about that fact is fine, but has very little to do with the ‘evils’ of capitalism. You’re reaching back to a much older complaint–human nature.
“Even the income of some CEO’s is earned by their work for a company. But for too many it isn’t. It’s just cronyism. And even when it’s not, it often is attributable to factors outside their control.”
Exactly. To note this isn’t to deny that plenty of people are “legitimately” rich, and it isn’t to be against people getting or being rich, of course.
In case Von is unclear, I’m all for people getting rich! In fact, I’d like everyone to get rich. And I’d like government to help provide a level playing field for that to happen.
I’m all for actual merit being highly rewarded! I have nothing against people earning a few million dollars a year.
But the idea that most or all wealth is produced by merit, and merit alone, is absolute horsepucky. Complete garbage. Nonsense. Right-wing myth, which has nothing to do with the real world, save to be an argument against taxation or government spending on helping people in need.
It’s plain fact that while plenty of people get to be successful through hard work and cleverness and being in the right place at the right time with the right skills, being in the right place at the right time with the right skills is utterly necessary.
If you’re alone on a desert island, or in the Gobi Desert, you’re not going to be earning any wealth, no matter how goldarned clever and bold and free-thinking you are.
It’s the idolization of people as if they somehow personally generated wealth in vacuo, with no necessary context, that’s objectionable, and it’s the claim that wealth is almost always generated only by merit, that’s objectionable (and a lie), but what’s truly objectionable is the use of wealth in political power to gain further wealth for one’s self or fellows while being indifferent to the poverty of others.
That is what “class warfare” is. Because people die of it.
Unlike mean widdle statements about the rich which hurt poor widdle rich-sympathizing people’s feelings.
“Class warfare” is that which actually hurts people. It isn’t, I daresay, free speech, which Von says “must go.” (Was that “sloppy”? Who can say but Von?)
Sebastian Holsclaw: Complaining about class and connections in America always makes me want to say “Compared to???”. So I will.
Fine, but in fact Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt (The State of Working America, 2005, said by the Financial Times to be “the most comprehensive independent analysis of the American labor market” already asked “Compared to?” much more exhaustively than you just did (comparing the mobility of American workers with the four biggest European economies and three Scandinavian economies). They found that:
(Britain was the other country with low levels of social mobility in the study: I’ll growl as much as anyone how a bunch of Labour MPs who themselves got through university on full subsistence grants and all their fees paid, then got into power and calmly cut off the ladder behind them. Assholes.)
In the department of utterly trivial, what are the words “SNIDELY REFERENCE,” all in caps, with a link to this blog, just after the start of your post, intended to mean? I keep trying to parse “WOW: SNIDELY REFERENCE Kevin Drum’s snidery toward the rich — i.e. […] and catch it, well, in the ass” and can’t get meaning out of that as English. What’s it all mean, Mr. Natural?
(I got the gist, but not that sentence.)
Sebastian,
I largely agree with your 4:03 post, and would even go further to say that class warfare is less prevalent in this country than many across the globe. On the other hand, it is not absent, and, contra von, its most pressing manifestation is not using obscenities to describe members of other classes.
Now I’m embarrassed: I remembered The State of Working America in news references in 2005, and assumed it was a book that had come out that year. Which it is, kind of: but it’s considerably more. Someday I will learn to check all references, even the ones I am most sure of, in Google. 🙁
Seb: I don’t think capitalism is evil. I don’t think that no one should get rich. I do think, as I said in the earlier thread, that the super-duper rich have a certain set of experiences that most of us don’t have, and that those produce effects. I also think that it is obnoxious when rich people whose riches derive in part from either the work of others or the structure of the society in which they live — that is to say, all rich people — act as though they alone are responsible for their success. It’s sort of like the way I felt at my previous job, where there was a significant number of objectivists who were forever going on about he virtues of selfishness. One of my colleagues said, and I agreed: the thing is, here are these kids who have been given everything, whose parents have worked hard to get them where they are, who take it for granted, quite rightly, that they can come by our offices any time for help or advice, and now suddenly, when for the first time they are about to find themselves in a position to give something back, lo and behold! they discover that selfishness is a virtue!
I would quite happily compare the US today either to: the US in 1950, or to Norway or Sweden today. I have, as you may have gathered, no particular interest in the US becoming the USSR, but surely that’s not the only option.
“Fine, but in fact Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt (The State of Working America, 2005, said by the Financial Times to be “the most comprehensive independent analysis of the American labor market” already asked “Compared to?” much more exhaustively than you just did (comparing the mobility of American workers with the four biggest European economies and three Scandinavian economies).”
And that is ‘income’ right? Not influence, not class, not connections? So….
“Complaining about class and connections in America always makes me want to say “Compared to???”.”
I’m unclear if you actually meant “say,” rather than “ask.”
But if you’re actually asking, rather than talking to yourself, I’d answer “compared to America.”
HTH.
“…but has very little to do with the ‘evils’ of capitalism.”
Of course, you’re the first person here to claim there are “‘evils’ of capitalism,” so you’re introducing a classic straw man of your own choice.
Personally, I have no desire to get rid of capitalism. Anyone else? Anyone?
I do wish to see it have a humane edge and foundation, but I’m a New Deal sort of person, not a communist. When people here start actually saying they want to eliminate capitalism, refuting them might be relevant.
Meanwhile, I’ll spare you, Sebastian, an exposition on how much better America is than Franco’s Spain, which would be equally relevant.
Gary, I think he’s using the construction “perform action X and receive consequences Y” (“make one little mistake and get kicked out of the club”, said with a shrug, eyeroll, or similar gesture of disbelief); “reference” is being used as a verb, if that’s not clear.
(My 4:27 is in response to Gary’s 4:19; I didn’t expect the burst of comments in between.)
Complaining about that fact is fine, but has very little to do with the ‘evils’ of capitalism.
What, which people here have argued that it does, or that capitalism qua capitalism has “evils”? By name, please.
Yes, but it’s my way of thinking that class mobility IS IMPORTANT. For one thing, it lessens “class warfare” naturally and substantially, if people can easily move upward (AND downward); you’re not going to take potshots at the rich if you know that someday you can be part of it.
I just think von’s screed is treating the symptoms and not the cause.
Thanks.
Weirdly, when I wrote that, I’d swear that the link Von used only went to the whole blog, but now it goes to his prior post. Assuming he didn’t change it without note, I must have been in error and misread it, somehow, which was part of my puzzlement.
(Purely digressively, I hate hate hate use of “reference” as a verb when the word “refer” is a better verb, but people engage in all sorts of usages I find dreadful and poor.) (See also the near-extinction of “affect” for “impact”: it’s one thing to change a word’s meaning, or adopt a new one, because it’s more useful, or elegant, or efficient — that’s the natural evolution of language — but it’s another thing to switch to a worse choice of words, because it’s trendy: that’s also a natural evolution, but I don’t have to applaud it.)
My reply:
Von,
Jesus, never said the rich were assholes, but…and it is pretty big but…he did make clear that the rich would spend eternity in hell [see below].
That’s right Von, Jesus said most of the rich deserved damnation, that’s pretty harsh stuff…huh? I think Kevin was being pretty mild by comparison don’t you? Well, Kevin was always one to try to strike the middle pose.
Apparently, Jesus was one heck of a class warrior. It’s clear, Jesus was pretty good at spreading the love, but he drew the line when it came to wealth.
Call me an asshole? Sure. Damn me to hell for eternity? Hmmm…could it be they’re are some hidden clauses in the “free to choose” ideology?
So the way I see it Von, either you owe Drum an apology, or you need to go after Jesus with a cudgel for being a class warrior.
So which is it Von?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“…it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for rich man to pass through the gates of heaven.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The anxiety that the privileged classes display about “class warfare” always makes me think that maybe it’s a good idea, after all.
The only surprise is that “asshole” & its cognates falls within the posting rules.
Gray, true, but I think the only way to rectify the power and wealth concentration in the upper echelons is to radically change the law as it pertains to corporations, wealth and taxation. The GOP certainly won’t do that, but the Democrats have never challenged the status of the upper upper class in any serious way either and never will. That is so because, say, 90% of Americans wouldn’t want such a change and instead prefer to believe in the American dream and a society based on merit – if you want to change that, you have to change the beliefs of this vast majority, and I don’t think you ever will. Meanwhile humna nature will stay the same.
Also, I think connections not based on merit are not very important in the upper echelons of business, as opposed to politics – there’s simply too much money at stake.
Compared to France or Germany where class determines getting into one of the top high schools and then very few top universities and is much more linked to success in government than the parallel Ivy League system in the US?
You’re most definitely wrong about Germany.
That’s class warfare — a dumbed down ad hominem, really.
No. That is your attempt at trivializing the real issues in income inequality and the rules that apply to the rich vs. the middle class and poor.
It has nothing to do with people being assholes (at least directly), but since Kevin’s asinine post you seem to have grabbed it as a poser-child for attacking those who understand the injustices that exist between the rich and poor.
oops, I menat “Gary” of course 😉
I’m with Charles here.
Why isn’t Kevin blogging about all the Iraqi Security Forces who aren’t having gun battles with US troops?
“You’re most definitely wrong about Germany.”
It is possible, though it is one of the few things my 3 close German friends (only two of them university educated) agree on. They all name the same university too, though I can’t for the life of me remember it.
Anderson: The anxiety that the privileged classes display about “class warfare” always makes me think that maybe it’s a good idea, after all.
I’ve never noticed that the privileged classes mind class warfare: they only seem to think it’s a bad thing when the other side start shooting back…
novakant: “Gray, true,”
(Being actually addressed to me.)
Sorry, which of my various comments is “true”? I assume you’re not referring to my last comment, which was about personal preferences in word choice.
I’ve never noticed that the privileged classes mind class warfare: they only seem to think it’s a bad thing when the other side start shooting back…
Good point.
Fear of the mob, historically, has been one of the main checks on the wealthy few. The American elite thinks that it’s sufficiently drugged the mob with second-rate education, bread and circuses, and an 18th-century representative democracy that leaves no one accountable for anything.
But nothing lasts forever.
On the other hand, it is not absent, and, contra von, its most pressing manifestation is not using obscenities to describe members of other classes.
I don’t think that was my actual point, Dan the Man.
Drugging the mob with good jobs, good benefits, and economic security, on the other hand, is an excellent strategy for eliminating class warfare.
When the poor and middle class stop feeling taken advantage of, and stop being taken advantage of, there won’t be any class warfare any more. Or, as I wrote here yesterday:
I think it would be great if Von would actually make eliminating the grievances and economic problems of the poor and the middle class (“ending class warfare”) one of his pet causes.
But it doesn’t seem to be a particular concern of his yet, judging from his lack of blogging about it. However, the future may always bring hope.
things that are class warfare:
repealing the estate tax.
not addressing AMT.
stacking the NLRB with pro-management board members.
keeping the minimum wage at sub-poverty levels.
failing to raise and expand the EITC.
the Farm Bill (mostly).
failing to develop adequate worker retraining programs concurrent with free trade bills.
failing to mandate that compensation for senior corporate executives be set by truly independent compensation boards.
employer-based health care.
things that are not class warfare:
complaining about the foregoing.
market-based compensation.
Note: none of this is to suggest that America is in any way inferior to any other country in the world. (quelle horreur.) but we can always try to do better.
Apparently my VRWC ass-kicking boots (TM) didn’t give me deeded access to right-wing mythology, so: please show me where it’s a right-wing myth? I mean, even Ayn Rand’s books had people that possessed wealth obtained not by merit.
Gary, sorry, it’s a bit hard to keep up with you, but I should have quoted:
But having connections to the uber-rich isn’t typical of middle class or lower class people.
This is true and it certainly puts people who have such connections at an advantage.
Sebastian:
The German education system is awfully complex, but to cut a long story short:
German schools and universities are almost exclusively state owned, which cuts out a lot of the influence money and class might have. There is a tripartite school system and it is somewhat based on class, but in the end all that matters are your grades. The quality of universities differs a lot depending on the subject, there is to my knowledge not one that is in the top ten in every subject, so having been to a certain uni doesn’t come with the aura of elite that certain Anglo-American schools will provide you with. Access to universities is only restricted for certain subjects and then mainly grade based. If you study a non-restricted subject, you can study where you want. Tuition has been free for a very long time and only now are they talking about fees and are met with a lot of resistance.
Obviously it’s not a classless society, but compared to Prep Schools, the Ivy League and Oxbridge I think it’s fair to say the system is rather egalitarian.
“I don’t think that was my actual point, Dan the Man.”
I agree that your actual point was not that “[class warfare’s] most pressing manifestation is not using obscenities to describe members of other classes,” but it was Dan’s point, and a good one.
So far, all you’ve identified as “class warfare,” that I’ve noticed, was that it’s what Kevin Drum said, and that it’s speech, and that such speech “has to go.”
Your only other statement of clarification, such as it was, that I’ve seen, was this:
I’ve repeatedly asked you, and others have asked you, if you have any further or more expansive definition, but if you’ve explained this somewhere I’ve missed it. So, once again, rather than complaining that other people don’t understand you, I invite you to give your definition of class warfare, Von.
Given how much it upsets you, this should be a simple task.
See also, again, my 2:46:
Alternatively, if mine eye has skipped over some responsive or relevant comments of yours, please do, if you care to, direct my attention to what what I’ve missed from you on this.
I’ve never noticed that the privileged classes mind class warfare: they only seem to think it’s a bad thing when the other side start shooting back…
The problem is that there really aren’t two “sides.” A heckava lot of folks in the “privileged classes” used to be not very privileged at all.
Hm. I’ve liked the (few) rich people I knew who inherited or married into their wealth, and disliked the (few) rich people I know who earned it. This doesn’t prove anything, of course. I _do_ think Kevin Drum was out of line, and I say that as someone whose politics economically are pretty far left. Calling people assholes on the basis of no personal offense was an asshole thing to do.
But I use “earned” with hesitation. As far as I know, the most common way to get truly rich in this country involves being placed in charge of a company that is already large and successful. It doesn’t necessarily involve running that company with any noticeable skill.
For that matter, I have a hard time with the assumption that lawyers, doctors, or baseball players “deserve” more money than child-care workers, plumbers, miners, or teachers. I have a degree in Economics; no one needs to explain to me why they _are_ paid better (and I certainly side with the baseball players against the baseball owners in salary disputes). But is a mediocre corporate lawyer doing more for the general good than a gifted environmental lawyer or, indeed, a gifted gardener? I don’t see how. So the aspect of “class warfare” that involves pointing that out, I’m down with.
I’ve repeatedly asked you, and others have asked you, if you have any further or more expansive definition, but if you’ve explained this somewhere I’ve missed it. So, once again, rather than complaining that other people don’t understand you, I invite you to give your definition of class warfare, Von.
Given it in the original post. Thanks.
More interesting, is, in fact, “class warfare” something that can only be waged (via speech) by the poor and middle class against the rich? Is it possible for the rich to wage class warfare? Could you give three examples of that, in your view, or is that not possible in your view, Von? I’d really like to know, and I bet I’m not the only one.
Sure, but how about one example since I’m pressed for time: If your assume that poor folks are assholes because they are poor, and you draw a policy conclusion based on that, you are engaging in class warfare.
“Apparently my VRWC ass-kicking boots (TM) didn’t give me deeded access to right-wing mythology, so: please show me where it’s a right-wing myth?”
I could point to Horatio Alger to start, but I’m content to point to this:
But, you know, it’s not. Gary Smith at Ciena, Jure Sola, the CEO and chairman at Sanmina-SCI, Sun Microsystems’s Scott McNealy, Albertsons’ CEO and Chairman Larry Johnston, and CEO Peter Dolan at Bristol-Myers Squibb actually exist, and one could give dozens more such examples, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lesser examples of people who wind up being paid vast amounts for doing terribly bad jobs, for reasons little connected to merit. (This is a separate topic from that of inherited wealth vs. uninherited wealth, mind.)
But the idea Von was trying to sell, that the quoted characterization of “successful people” is “a pretty accurate statement” is both false, and a highly popular notion that Republicans tend to love to believe. (This doesn’t mean all Republicans love to believe it, if it’s necessary to point that out.)
Generally speaking, believing that people deserve what they get (“I am successful because of my unusual vision, lateral thinking, courage and an ability to see things, not the way they were but how they might be!”) is a most comforting belief for those who are well off, and less comforting for those who are not. Funny, that.
Interesting, Gary, but none of that, as far as I can see, appears to speak to right-wing mythology.
I can provide you with a datum, though, and note that it’s not part of MY mythology, but what I’m looking for, here…well, it’s not really clear at all that there is any particular right-wing mythologies at all that apply. One would be nice, though.
I mean, I’m not sure how you would begin to substantiate such a statement other than just admitting to that it fits with your preconceptions. Or polling data. Other than that, it seems mostly air to me.
A heckava lot of folks in the “privileged classes” used to be not very privileged at all.
And that proves … what? Sorry?
A heckava lot of folks in the “privileged classes” used to be not very privileged at all.
What’s “heckava lot”? 50%?…20%?…1%?
Quite a few people here have provided citations that show the concentration of extreme wealth in the hands of a very few is near historic levels in the United States, and that income mobility is not great currently either.
The problem is that there really aren’t two “sides.” A heckava lot of folks in the “privileged classes” used to be not very privileged at all.
OK, the what now? Can you quantify “a heckava lot” for us? Maybe some links, statistics, that sort of thing?
Apparently, von, you think that “class warfare” means . . . jesus heck, I can’t figure it out. Something to do with some class-based version of the argument ad hominem, which . . . no. That’s not what “class warfare” is. At all. I mean, it’s just not even close.
novakant: “Access to universities is only restricted for certain subjects and then mainly grade based.”
Could you expand on that slightly? As in, some examples of such subjects, and some words as to why they’re “restricted”? Just general curiosity on my part. And thanks for the clarification.
Francis’ 5:53 PM is entirely correct.
Von:
How is that relevant to a question of whether you’re, say, for or against a decent minimum wage, or for or against any political question, which is what, in my view and usage, defines whether or not someone is engaging in “class warfare”? Either they’re, as I said, using their wealth to affect politics on a specific set of policies, or they’re not — that‘s what defines whether someone is engaging in “class warfare” or not, as I understand it.
What their own wealth used to be is as relevant as whether they like bananas or not: who gives an eff?
Perhaps you’d humor me by quoting the relevant passage? Thanks.
I appreciate that you have far less free time than I do, and, of course, that you’re responding to multiple people. I still greatly desire some kind of definition from you of “class warfare,” not recognizing it in either this post or your previous one (does anyone else feel Von provided an adequate definition?) and in trying to understand this response, it seems to say that you believe that class warfare is engaged in when people make certain assumptions and conclusions.
Is that right or wrong?
Because putting it another way, it seems to say that you believe that engaging in “class warfare” is a matter of holding certain views.
Which goes back to my 1:50 p.m.:
Thanks for any substantive answers.
I mean, it’s like Charles’s use of “race card.” The usage you’re proposing here is apparently a solecism, or some highly idiosyncratic something-or-other, but it has nothing to do with the term “class warfare” as used by, well, most everyone.
von: I have to say: I can’t see a definition of class warfare in your earlier post either. One example — saying that most of a given socioeconomic group are a-holes — but nothing like an actual view. And since you’ve already disclaimed the most obvious extrapolation — that calling people names on the basis of class is class warfare — I’m as stumped as Gary et al.
No, that’s not true.
Most common way is to either start your own company or to take over a moderately well off company and make it big. This has nothing to do with stocks or public trading or IPO. It’s more the millionaire next door type of wealth.
Now that’s more getting from the middle class to the upper middle and upper class. I’m still more concerned with getting from lower to lower middle/middle class. THAT’s what’s harder these days.
For what it’s worth, the current Wikipedia entry for “class conflict” says:
Nothing about it being what people think, or what they say, but Wikipedia is always a work in progress.
There’s also an entry for class envy. A portion of that:
But that’s just some people’s view, of course.
Slarti, is this another of those “I’ve never even heard of this Grover Norquist fellow” things? Is it suddenly controversial that conservatives generally hold that the only real impediment to “making it” in this country is not working hard enough? That we don’t need a minimum wage in this country because if the pay is too low people are welcome to start their own businesses or take more jobs or work more hours? That affirmative action is bad partly because any time a black person achieves something people will think he didn’t do it on his own?
Seriously, I woke up in the Bearded Spock universe or something, right?
Still kind of wierded out by the suggestion that right-wing mythology was authored by Horatio Alger.
I’ve heard stranger suggestions, though; I’m still trying to decipher “eat the rich”, and am still wondering if that is an expression of the utterer’s inner Dahmer.
Possibly. I know of no such conservative orthodoxy, though, and if I’m having a Grover Norquist moment, there ought to be a Wikipedia entry handy to throw at me.
on the meta issue, I’ve come to think that those with posting privileges and the regular commenters enjoy a somewhat higher standard of debate than was demonstrated in this post, the prior post or the prior thread.
C’mon, it sounds like a boy’s high school locker room — you’re an a*****e; no, you’re the a*****e.
I respectfully request that we all try to elevate the tone. Earthier tones can be found just about anywhere else.
thanks.
“Still kind of wierded out by the suggestion that right-wing mythology was authored by Horatio Alger.”
That wasn’t the suggestion.
To phrase it as you might, and leave it there, as you might. Helpful, eh?
“I know of no such conservative orthodoxy, though, and if I’m having a Grover Norquist moment, there ought to be a Wikipedia entry handy to throw at me.”
No offense, Slart, but there are limits to how much time some of us want to spend educating you about elementary Republican history and facts.
(I wrote a long comment on pretty much the same point about your general obliviousness to Republican history, including Grover, but deleted it as having an insufficient ratio of useful content to what might give offense I wouldn’t intend to give.)
So, we’re not substantiating. Ok, then.
Air it is.
Could you expand on that slightly? As in, some examples of such subjects, and some words as to why they’re “restricted”?
I’m really not up to date on this, so don’t quote me, but here goes:
Historically the need to restrict the number of places for certain subjects has to do with the implementation of the ‘mass university’ in the late sixties, ‘(free) education for all’ was the battle cry. The number people of getting a high school certificate (not comparable with the US one because of the tripartite school system) which qualifies them to study at university has risen steadily since then. Studying at a German university also means going the whole nine yards, i.e. there’s only a Master or equivalent at the end, no BA (even though there are efforts to change this for certain subjects). These two factors (large number of applicants, long study time), and also the no tuition policy, have led to restrictions. The subjects restricted seem to depend on the demand and the cost to the university for e.g. equipment in the natural sciences. The restrictions and allocations are handled centrally by a government department based on grades, but also in recent years to a certain degree by the states and universities themselves, I don’t know who has what weight in that process. You apply and get allocated a place somewhere, if not, there is a waiting list. Generally high-demand and high-maintenance subjects like medicine, natural sciences, engineering, law and business are more prone to be restricted in this way, than the liberal arts.
Morning all,
Only two things to share, one, that an acknowledgement that it isn’t right to pull commenters into the bright glare of ridicule on the front page might lower the temp on this thread and two, TiO is open for all your meta needs. There’s also an excellent post by OCSteve about the HERO act. If you haven’t read about it, please take a look, it is important.
That is a good post. 500k kids with deployed parents – yikes.
The meta – it’s got me – I think von gets to fp comments of that tone – must run away
– the meta, it’s
“So, we’re not substantiating.”
You declared your lack of interest in answering my polite queries, yesterday, in case you’ve forgotten. I see no reason to uninterest you further. If you return to being interested in what I have to say, I’ll be much more interested in saying it to you.
Thanks for the expanded answer about the German education system (a topic I know extremely little aobut), novakant.
Oh, my. You know, my entire family leans conservative to one extent or another, and not one of us holds that hard work per se is the key to wealth.
Anecdata, I know, but there are a lot of us. Hardly any of us are what you’d consider wealthy, on any reasonable scale of measure, but some of us have done ok. Hard work ain’t ever enough. I’ve done some pretty tough work in my life, and none of is has paid more than 15% of what I make right now, driving a desk. Not saying that what I do isn’t hard, necessarily, but it’s not hard in any physical sense of the word. What I get paid for at present is knowing how to do something that relatively few people can do, but I don’t get paid all that much.
In general, your aghastness and general outrage are as uncompelling as usual. But, hey, why provide a link when a couple of hundred words might serve?
You declared your lack of interest in answering my polite queries, yesterday
No, I declared my lack of interest, politely, in having you fully understand a discussion that I was having with Liberal Japonicus. Which misunderstanding was, apparently, due to your failing to understand that it was in fact a discussion between myself and LJ.
Once I’d made that clear, your continuing efforts to understand and admonish me for my poor netiquette (uninvited advisements, all) were uninteresting to me.
But, easier to dodge than to just answer the question.
“Which misunderstanding was, apparently, due to your failing to understand that it was in fact a discussion between myself and LJ.”
Yes, I apparently missed that I was reading private e-mail that somehow was posted as blog comments; I hadn’t understood that this was the problem until you just explained; apologies for the intrusion into your private discussion.
“But, easier to dodge than to just answer the question.”
Alas, I believe the relevant words you found apt were “I don’t care.” (I may misremember.)
But do rest assured that if you return to caring about answering my polite questions or requests, I’ll return to caring about yours. Otherwise, however, I’m as uninterested as you are. Up to you. (A simple declaration of interest will do.) Because unlike your statement of yesterday, I do care whether you care.
So, the only way to talk about things is to link to them on the Internet? Um, OK. Start here and have fun, Slarti. Like Gary, I’m going to suggest that sometimes the conventional wisdom about things — like the idea that conservatives are fond of the Horatio Alger myth — is actually true, and that you take the opportunity to educate yourself about it rather than expecting others to fill in the gaps for you.
That you appear not to know things about conservatives and Republicans that a majority of non-conservatives somehow do know is somewhat confounding, but is not an excuse for contrarian gainsaying.
FWIW, Slart, Phil‘s 6:52 is pretty much entirely conventional wisdom among liberals I read (applied to current influential conservative activists, anyway). I don’t think you need a wikipedia link to Norquist’s Weltanschauung, but perhaps someone can dig up a post from Kevin Drum from before the Abramoff scandal cut his visibility down.
Of course no doubt I believe a variety of things much to my lack of awareness but which are readily apparent to conservative blog readers, and if informed of that I’d probably want to see a few links.
“No offense, Slart, but there are limits to how much time some of us want to spend educating you about elementary Republican history and facts.”
Or more likely a left-wing view on Republican themes. The problem with that being that from the OUTSIDE it can be difficult to tell how they are effecting things on the INSIDE.
So when people here say things like “Is it suddenly controversial that conservatives generally hold that the only real impediment to “making it” in this country is not working hard enough?”, from the INSIDE of conservative circles I can safely say that your modifiers have made the statement false.
I think that this represents a fair exemplar of conservative thought on the subject:
I don’t entirely agree with the statement, but it would be a fair understanding of general conservative thought on the subject.
Hopefully you can discern the difference between the blockquoted statement and the caricature statement.
Part of the problem is “making it”. Strange but true, most people who vote conservative don’t really care about the rich. “Making it” is about the middle class. I suspect you are using “making it” to talk about the fabulously rich, but honestly that isn’t what most conservative voters care about.
But if we were talking about say the upper 10%, a fair version of conservative thought would be:
Just to check, these blockquotes aren’t actually quotes from someone else, they are what you are writing, right Sebastian?
Yes. Sorry I was just trying to set them apart from the text. They don’t represent exactly what I think, but rather how I’ve experienced general conservative thought on the topic.
SH – I think Phil‘s “hard work” is metonymy for “virtue”, and if so his statement is sufficiently equivalent to your elegant restatement for a casual blog conversation.
Oh so late to the party.
von, I truly can appreciate where you come from, but one comment that really got to me is “the Democratic party’s unfortunate predilection to slam the rich when all else fails.” Please give me an example.
Like most here, I have no real problem with people earning a substantial income. Being rich does not preclude one from being an a–hole, nor does it require that characteristic. Same for all levels.
I do have a problem with the hypocrisy of some on the Right that it’s okay to make a lot of money as long as you don’t do it by being a trial lawyer suing companies for their wrongdoings.
Seb, I really don’t care what is the reality in those other systems and countries. I don’t live in any of them so they are irrelevant to this discussion.
I do believe the rich should be taxed at a higher level simply because since they have gained the most by this country they owe the most back, and not just in raw dollars.
As far as class warfare, I am currently agnostic, simply because I don’t see two sides going after each other in a significant manner, only one.
“Start here and have fun, Slarti”
A good link, but this gets it a little better.
A review of William E. Simon and Irving Kristol (I have no idea if Slart has ever heard of either; anyone know if these obscure guys have anything to do with conservatism?):
The Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans. Are they conservative? Here is their funding. Who are the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation? See here:
I don’t want to go out on a limb, but I suspect they might be conservatives.
Concerned Women of America: perhaps Slart has never heard of them, and needs proof that they’re conservative.
Amusingly, here are the notes of an Objectivist Randite on how to make Alger better:
That was from the July 1997 issue of the Houston Objectivism Society Newsletter. This is from the Horatio Alger FAQ. But perhaps Objectivists are actually liberals.
The Conservative Book Club (possible conservatives, I speculate) reviewing Richard Brookhiser, longtime National Review editor and onetime leader of Yale’s Party Of The Right (where I met him in passing in late 1978, which he’d never remember):
(That may be a quote from PW, but the Conservative Book Club made the Alger line a headline.)
Oh, look, here’s Rich deVos again, lecturing conservatives:
Here is a fellow named “Clarence Thomas.” I may be all wrong, but I have reason to think he might be a conservative. And what’s weird, since there’s no conservative affection for or mythology about Horatio Alger, is this:
Here are more liberals, like Sam M. Walton, John Warner, Jack Kemp, Norman Vincent Peale, Ronald Reagan, Lou Dobbs — oh, whoops, Richard M. DeVos turning up again, Robert J. Dole, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Milton S. Eisenhower, Gerald R. Ford, John R. Silber, Phil Gramm, Chuck Hagel, Paul Harvey, Billy Graham, and many more lefties. Clarence Thomas has presented that award, which is weird, given how Horatio Alger has nothing to do with conservatism.
Alger is actually hated by conservatives. For example:
From page 27 of the book The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America which “profiles the most significant conservative journals of the past century,” a discussion of a symposia on Alger. This was probably accidental, and they probably intended to examine a more conservative author.
Another National Review article:
But this shouldn’t be taken as expressing any conservative admiration for Alger because… of a reason I’ll think of later.
Here is some guy named “William F. Buckley” — I dunno if he’s a conservative — using Alger as praise:
Say, here’s a 45 minute video by some dude named “Ronald Reagan,” made:
But Reagan was, after all, a liberal in the 1930s, so it’s probably dubious to consider him an authentic conservative.
Here are some liberal wingdings named “The Heritage Foundation” with a paper on “The Intellectual Origins of Ronald Reagan’s Faith” and discussing this Reagan guy’s favorite childhood book, whose protagonist was:
Whatever.
Etc., etc., etc. I’m clearly engaged in fantasy when I say Republicans have had an affinity for Alger. Air.
I am fine with rich assholes, but this–
“They earned them, dollar by dollar, by creating things that others — lots of others — found to be useful and interesting”
–is a peculiar way to describe convertible bond trading. Or for that matter being overcompensated by a friendly, lazy board.
I’m impressed by Gary’s comment at 9:42.
Bizarre as it seemed to question the connection between the Horatio Alger story/myth and American conservatism, I still would not have expected the number and variety of ways in which HA is explicitly evoked on the right today. I thought they’d gotten subtler than that.
Fond of Horatio Alger myth? What myth are you talking about? Are you saying, somehow, that working hard and applying yourself has no moral value? That it’s not, in general, more likely to advance you than sloth?
But that’s of little consequence. Gary’s statement was “But the idea that most or all wealth is produced by merit, and merit alone, is absolute horsepucky. Complete garbage. Nonsense. Right-wing myth, which has nothing to do with the real world, save to be an argument against taxation or government spending on helping people in need.” I’m not seeing much in your Google search to substantiate that.
And, still, Phil, your righteous indignation is somehow failing to make your point for you. There may in fact be a point there to be made, but pissiness doesn’t seem to be of much use in making it.
Gary’s series of links are more indicative that conservatives hold hard work to be virtuous, not that hard work alone can earn you billions. And, in any case, they’re more indicative of a recent trend in conservatism than they are of any deep-seated embedding of Horatio Alger, or (because Alger didn’t really, in general, write stories that showed people achieving HUGE success from hard work) anything at all resembling the notion that one can only achieve monetary success through hard work, in the roots of conservative mythology.
But thanks for those links, Gary, even though they, as Sebastian mentioned, are marbled through with left-wing mythology about the supposed right-wing mythology.
Gary, if it’s any consolation, I’m slack-jawed in amazement at Slartibartfast’s response.
I hate to introduce data, but according to this poll taken in 2000, 56% of conservatives versus 37% of liberals believe that the poor are poor primarily because of their own failures.
That is not precisely the issue that Gary raised, but I do think it is related.
Oh, sure. Relatedly, I’d guess that any number of conservatives would confess to holding hard, honest work as a virtue. Some of them might even (shudder) indulge in such frippery, even if it doesn’t gross them $20 million a year.
So, naturally: what a bunch of putzes.
Worse news: I actually know some liberals who hold the same values. Probably not REAL liberals, though.
Slartibartfast:
Oh for god’s sakes.
You wrote:
I responded:
You responded:
I subsequently responded to you saying:
You replied:
Let’s recap. You challenge my associating Horatio Alger with conservatism and saying “I could point to Horatio Alger to start.”
You ask me these words in response:
You then mock me for not caring enough to substantiate what I’ve said with links.
You declare that “we’re not substantiating.”
“Air it is,” you say.
I then give you more than a few pieces of substantiation.
And your response is but that’s of little consequence?
I have no polite words for this. Others spring to mind, in the second person imperative, so I will disengage now.
Has anyone considered the possibility that something has gotten into the water?
Just asking.
One of my favorite lines, from one of my favorite favorite movies: “It must be the heat.”
Not really explicable out of context, unfortunately.
Better lines out of context (Raisuli is Sean Connery; Eden is Candice Bergen):
Well, that really needs context, too. Everyone go rent the DVD now.
I’m also fond of:
Gary you seem to be having a serious forest for the trees moment here. No one has claimed that conservatives don’t believe that hard work is useful for many of the forms of success.
Your cites to conservatives talking about don’t suggest that conservatives believe the ONLY way to wealth is through hard work. We’ve heard of lotto millionaires and are aware of 4th generation trust babies. We’ve seen fathers struck down in the prime of life leaving children to be cared for by their mothers.
You cite conservatives talking about Alger, but you certainly don’t prove what you think you are proving.
Your statement was a little bit more harsh and absolutist than “conservatives talk about Alger and think that hard work often pays off”. You’ve proven something no one disagreed with at any time. You have not proven, but rather have merely asserted, that conservatives believe: “the idea that most or all wealth is produced by merit, and merit alone, is absolute horsepucky. Complete garbage. Nonsense. Right-wing myth, which has nothing to do with the real world, save to be an argument against taxation or government spending on helping people in need.”
I stand by my statements about what conservatives believe, and I’m frankly in a much better position to know.
(Comment revised because it was too harsh. I hope no one saw that.)
Bah an entire thread about class and class warfare and no decent marxism.
There is only one “class” labour, and it is only a class as it becomes conscious of itself in alienation from capital. The Bourgeois are not a “class” but a tool and creation of Capital, a means for Capital to continually expand itself.
“Class warfare” can indeed only be fought by labour, and the “war” is against Capital, not against capitalists or the rich. Redistributive liberal social welfare policies are Capital seeking greater efficiency and expansion. But of course they will fail.
One could study the arguments of Ricardo and Malthus on the General Glut, and as of the moment, I think that unproductive consumption is required to maintain equilibrium. Keynes statist solution appears inflationary, so the best capitalist solution is likely the one proposed by Malthus, of a wasteful and unproductive idle rentier sector.
So be nice to Paris Hilton, until she becomes impossible.
The rich don’t and can’t (Lukacs) see themselves as in warfare against the poor, but as agents of efficient capitalism. As you have seen in the arguments above. So the rich are not ever engaged in class warfare.
They are correct. Exploitation (not normative) of labour is not feudal, but capitalism itself. Capital and capitalism must concentrate and expand until it becomes socialism.
At risk of further inflaming an already overheated thread, let me just agree with Gary that everyone ought to procure a copy of, and watch, The Wind and the Lion. It really is an excellent flick.
Sebastian:
I don’t know what this has to do with what I was asked about and responded about, which was my statement that “I could point to Horatio Alger to start,” and Slarti’s asserting that he was “Still kind of wierded out by the suggestion that right-wing mythology was authored by Horatio Alger” and that “I know of no such conservative orthodoxy, though, and if I’m having a Grover Norquist moment, there ought to be a Wikipedia entry handy to throw at me.”
He was having a “Grover Nordquist moment” about the conservative fondness for Horatio Alger, so I threw the equivalent of several Wikipedia entries at him.
For thanks I’m told that responding to his mockery and demands that I “substantiate” is but that’s of little consequence.
Clearly it was worth all that time I spent.
“You cite conservatives talking about Alger, but you certainly don’t prove what you think you are proving.”
No, I certainly did prove what I thought I was proving. It doesn’t appear to be what you thought I was proving, though, I’m afraid, judging from your non-sequitur response.
“You’ve proven something no one disagreed with at any time.”
Remind me never to bother to respond to such demands for substantiation again.
No, come to think of it, that won’t be necessary. I won’t be forgetting.
“It doesn’t appear to be what you thought I was proving, though, I’m afraid, judging from your non-sequitur response.”
Well, ok, I guess I can’t read your mind if you aren’t clear. Slarti wasn’t talking about any old right-wing mythology. He wasn’t suggesting that conservatives have never mentioned Alger. He wasn’t suggesting that conservatives don’t think that hard work is an important component of lots of types of success. He was talking about the allegation that conservatives in general believe: “the idea that most or all wealth is produced by merit, and merit alone, is absolute horsepucky. Complete garbage. Nonsense. Right-wing myth, which has nothing to do with the real world, save to be an argument against taxation or government spending on helping people in need.”
You seem to be setting up that as the common right wing understanding of wealth. I’ve provided what my experience of that understanding is, but you seem to think cites to cites of Alger are more dispositive. But your cites eon’t defend your initial statement.
Sebastian, if you and/or Slarti agree with me that “the idea that most or all wealth is produced by merit, and merit alone, is absolute horsepucky” and “complete garbage,” and “nonsense,” then I’m certainly not going to attempt to argue you out of your claims that I was right.
Well we’re clearly having a failure to communicate. I tried. I clearly stated what I think most conservatives ACTUALLY think, but you seem stuck on what you want to believe they think. So I guess there we are.
“I clearly stated what I think most conservatives ACTUALLY think, but you seem stuck on what you want to believe they think.”
?
I just noted your agreement with me. Did you read me as writing the above in invisible ink between the lines? Where did you get your mysterious information on “what [I] want to believe [conservatives think]”? Because I obviously didn’t say anything of the kind in the comment you’re responding to.
You seem to be awfully unwilling to note agreement. Would you rather I actually disagreed with you about something? Uh, your favorite color is aquamarine. Will that do?
Meanwhile, I’m watching Apocalypse Now Redux for the first time (and wishing I had a big screen tv, or at least one which didn’t have one out of two speakers broken), and it occurs to me that there’s really no good reason Martin Sheen wasn’t parachuted into Marlon Brando’s headquarters.
Of course, that would have made it a half hour long movie, and completely defeated any point to the film, but, you know, looking at the internal logic of the plot.
I think we disagree about the importance of your myth but maybe I’m wrong. So are you saying that conservatives don’t in general believe that myth? Well great! Though now I wonder why you brought it up in the first place.
Isn’t the question of interest not why some of the rich are rich, but why the poor stay poor? I thought the important difference was (broad-brushly) lack of virtue vs systemic hindrances and (perhaps on another axis) what the govt should do about the above. If we’re stuck with the rich, then the question would be what the ratio of virtue to luck is, and to what degree of class/misuse of the commons/etc is important and if/how that should be reflected in the tax system.
I see Jes has covered the point about relative social mobility in the US and Europe.
Re: your update and “orders of magnitude”. Ahemmmm, you may want to revisit your basic math class if you think today’s rich have less money by “orders of magnitude” than during the original gilded age. Two orders of magnitude makes 1% equal to 100%. You can’t have meant that.
All Hail Innumeracy!
it occurs to me that there’s really no good reason Martin Sheen wasn’t parachuted into Marlon Brando’s headquarters.
Cause running into a tree during even a controlled descent is not the best thing to happen? Look what happened to Trini Lopez in Dirty Dozen.
Re: parachuting Martin Sheen into Brando’s HQ: parachuting a single guy deep in the jungle in the hopes he’ll land near enough to the objective to accomplish his mission is nothing more than rolling the dice. Military commanders, as a rule, prefer to execute operations with much greater chances of success.
Re: TRA 1 vs. TRA 2 units. This is a complicated issue. The Iraqi Army now has a sizeable fraction of its battalions at TRA 2; I was told it is around 75% as of this morning, although I cannot speak to the accuracy of that claim. Moving from TRA 2 to TRA 1 is the most difficult thing any Iraqi unit can do, as TRA 1 means a unit that can be effective on the battlefield completely on its own, while TRA 2 is a unit that can be effective but requires some assistance from the Coalition. Given the slow progress in standing up the Iraqi Air Force and numerous difficulties with Iraqi logistics, getting over that hump is extremely difficult because it requires fixing a number of systemic issues that run pretty deep in Iraqi culture. This is an important hurdle to clear, but I believe that an assessment of IA security forces that fails to take into account those forces at TRA 2 misses the bigger picture.
The Iraqi government is currently working with a net. This creates moral hazard: they know they can do certain things that they wouldn’t otherwise dare on the assumption the U.S. will fix their problems. For example, IA units that have difficulty getting ammo or fuel currently have U.S. troops working with them who can often fix those problems. As long as that safety net exists, a number of TRA 2 units may simply not move into TRA 1 because they don’t have to. As Coalition forces draw down and that net is removed, it is plausible (depending on many other variables, it should be noted) that some of those difficulties will be addressed properly because the GoI has no choice but to fix the problems at that point.
This is not intended to advocate the withdrawal of Coalition forces from Iraq (or to argue against it, for that matter), only to note that it is important to understand that simply judging the IA by the number of TRA 1 units is missing the bigger picture.
There are many other variables to be considered, and it should be noted that, to the best of my knowledge, TRA does not assess a unit’s degree of ‘Iraqi-ness’ as opposed to their sectarian bent, so this remains a complex problem to assess accurately.
Sebastian: So are you saying that conservatives don’t in general believe that myth?
You yourself cited the myth of American social mobility as if it were fact here.
The rich aren’t assholes. They don’t need to be assholes. They can hire people to be assholes on their behalf.
“And now they are enjoining the dividends of their labors.”
I don’t know if Drum was being sloppy in his writing, but I’m pretty sure von was. And now I think I’ll go enjoin a cup of tea.
As this is an open thread, shall we consider the awful badness of “Buy Blog Comments”?
“You won’t even be able to tell our blog comments apart from the rest. So the blogger is safe, it will look completely like a legit comments that someone reading the blog post wrote. In fact, most blogger will like the free comments to help with their with there community…”
*boggles*
“(I wrote a long comment on pretty much the same point about your general obliviousness to Republican history, including Grover, but deleted it as having an insufficient ratio of useful content to what might give offense I wouldn’t intend to give.)”:
So, we’re not substantiating. Ok, then.
Air it is.
I’ve never seen a better argument for archiving the comments you don’t post.
Hilzoy and Gary –
Re: definition of “class warfare.”
I won’t offer a complete definition of class warfare, but I will offer the one I thought I had expressed in this series of posts (and again above, in response to Gary). Class warfare, as used in reference to Kevin’s original post, is basing policy or argument on an assumption regarding the character of members of a class. As in: The rich are assholes. Accordingly, please support policy X.
As I note, that’s an ad hominem, and a logical fallacy. It’s not simply a matter of calling someone a name (although, in this example, calling someone a name is necessary — but not sufficient).
“Class warfare, as used in reference to Kevin’s original post, is basing policy or argument on an assumption regarding the character of members of a class. As in: The rich are assholes. Accordingly, please support policy X.”
Not even close.
So, what policy did Kevin encourage people to support, because of rich people being a-holes, that leads you to accuse him of class warfare? I’ve read his post a dozen times and see no policy prescriptions.
Phil,
Please don’t encourage discussion of such an off-base definition of class warfare. The wikipedia definition Gary cited at 6:50 last night is workable, and requires nothing related to ad hominum argument in support of policy, just policies to maintain (on the part of the capital class) or break down (on the part of the labor class) the differences between the classes.
Similarly, Francis’s list at 5:53 last night is largely correct (I’d quibble with a few of them, and add some more) and ad hominums play no role in any of those policies.
oh, I know, Dan – I’m trying to get von to see both that his own usage isn’t even consistent and that he’s so far off base with his definition he’s in the dugout.
I’m even later to the party. Anyone still here?
In terms of thinking about public policy, it’s really not relevant whether rich people are jerks or not. What’s relevant is whether the increased concentration of wealth is, net/net, constructive or not for the society as a whole.
And, whether it is a good thing or not, what to do about it, if anything, is another thing altogether.
IMVHO, the increased concentration of wealth, as we see it here in the US over the last couple of decades, is a bad thing for two reasons. They’re pretty obvious ones, not hard to understand.
1. A lot of wealthy folks are rich far, far beyond the value they have created, and are wealthy at the expense of others. I’m thinking in particular of American corporate executive management. They are not inventors, they are not putting their own capital at risk, they are not the primary creators of value. They are managers. They should be seen, and rewarded, as stewards of other folks ideas, capital, and labor, nothing more or less.
If you drive a company into the ground, you should not be rewarded with millions of dollars. Enough said.
2. Wealth brings influence and power, and the interests of wealthy people are quite often given consideration above those of others, not just in the market, but in law and public policy.
Both of these issues have to do with fairness.
Very few people are all that resentful of someone getting rich. Most folks hope that their turn is next.
Resentment comes when some folks are rewarded out of all proportion to the value they create, and/or when wealthy folks use their position to gain unfair advantage over others.
And yes, those things happen quite a lot, and more so when the concentration of wealth is increased.
When there is a sense of proportion between value created and reward, and a sense that value created is shared fairly between all of those that participate in its creation, there isn’t a problem.
Thanks –
When a rich man complains about “class warfare”, he’s really complaining about insubordination.
I’d like to see some examples of courage which the CEO of a luxury-goods handbag company has exhibited.
“The rich aren’t assholes. They don’t need to be assholes. They can hire people to be assholes on their behalf.”
Nevertheless, they often are assholes. This suggests they do it for the sheer enjoyment.
i think the emotions behind class resentment are real.
the disconnect between real populist reform and washington legislation is rarely mentioned, but the resentments run deep.
the bankruptcy bill. no money for education. crumbling infrastructure. not enough money to guard our ports. tax cuts for the rich. no healthcare. crushing student loan debts. more insecurity in the job market than ever before.
personally, i think the emotions building up are not helpful to rational debate on a better, more equitable, more reasonable economic policy, but the resentment is building like a pressure cooker and the greivances are real.
people have a vague sense that iraq is expensive, they are still paying taxes, but what do they get?
the rich are getting richer. that’s obvious.
but the Bush WH exhibits no sense that they are pissing our money away in Iraq while teachers beg for money.
if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.
to be rich in this country is to possess a greater share of responsibility for our government’s failings.
of, for and by the rich.
Behind all great fortunes lies great crimes. – Balzac
If you drive a company into the ground, you should not be rewarded with millions of dollars. Enough said.
How would that work?
Would we change the tax laws? If a company goes bankrupt, have the income tax take 99% of the president’s salary and bonuses above $90,000 total? $70,000?
How would that work?
Simple.
The board of directors says, “We’re cutting your salary and you get no bonus until performance improves”.
If performance doesn’t improve, the board says “You’re fired”.
It’s not freaking hard.
Thanks –