What's the Matter with Us?

The collective psyche of a nation, like the psyche of individual human beings, has many facets, and I'm fascinated by that. But much of my  fascination is laced with angst because much of the pain and suffering that exists in this country is self-inflicted and totally unecessary. It almost seems like we're a nation of masochists. I'm not saying that we're all masochists but there is an alarmingly significant number of people who act and vote against their own self interest.

It's often clear what motivates the decision-makers, ie. politicians and bureaucrats, and those that have the greatest influence on the decision makers, the rich and powerful. The wealthy want to attain greater wealth and they try to do so by influencing politicians, either directly, through lobbyists or just by supporting certain politicians and policies, so that laws and public policy favors them and their objectives as much as possible. I don't mean that all wealthy people do that. Some get rich mostly by working hard and being smart. Some inherited their wealth and maintain or increase it by investing wisely. But there is a significant number of wealthy and powerful people, and it doesn't take many to corrupt the system, whose will is reflected in public policy in a way that is highly disproportionate with and detrimental to the needs of the rest of society, and they don't seem to care.

The vast majority of the people in this country are wage earners. Most people can't afford to miss one paycheck. And virtually everyone is in debt. The reason so many people are in debt is because things have reached such a state that often it's the only way to achieve middle class status. Rampant, unbridled materialism fueled by easy credit—that's the recipe for a debt laden nation.

Historically, being in the middle class was considered to be a pretty comfortable position in American society. There was a time when a person or family could achieve middle class status without going into the staggering debt that is so common today. Moreover, middle class households only needed one breadwinner. Today they generally need two and they most likely work more hours to achieve the same standard of living as their middle class predecessors. Their is data that shows that over the past several decades productivity and corporate profits have increased while real income has remained stagnant.

The formula today for achieving middle class status is hard work (maybe two jobs) and lots of debt. And who benefits the most economically by this set up? Could it be the wealthy few  who have the most influence on economic policy? You know, the ones who were able to convince a very significant number of Americans over the past several decades that the more the tax code and economic policy favors them the more their wealth will trickle down to us. The same ones who argued that they are the job creators and that somehow without them no one would be working at all. Could it be the triumvirate of investment banks, politicians and the investment class that has been at the root of all this income disparity? What a perfect arrangement for the already wealthy: lower taxes and a huge number of Americans in debt. Heavy debt and economic desperation creates a more malleable workforce while financial institutions become a very attractive investment opportunity for the investor class.

So, what we've got is a relatively small group of people who have the economic wherewithal to shape economic policy. Financial institutions and multinational  corporations influence politicians through their lobbyists. Their economic power allows them to fund political campaigns and use the media extensively to promote their interests. Some corporations even own media outlets. Then there are private investors who vote, invest and make political contributions to keep the money flowing in their direction. Even though economic policy, including the tax code, over the past several decades has harmed the middle class, its voting patterns have done little or nothing to remedy the situation.

Why has it been possible for the wealthy and powerful few to get so many people to vote against their own interests? Books can and have been written to answer that question. But the short answer is that through legalized bribery between lobbyists and legislators, the rules of the game have been rigged in favor of the rich and powerful while average Americans have been asleep at the switch numbing their minds with new gadgets, "reality" TV, mass quantities of junk food, a sense of prosperity, albeit false, made possible by easy credit and a whole array of drugs and alcohol, making them easy prey to predatory elements.

So, a significant number of American's have been voting and acting against their own self interest and I would say that the start of this trend goes back to the so-called Reagan revolution, over three decades ago. Since then the Republican party has constantly promoted policies that have hurt average Americans trying to achieve or maintain middle class status. Not that the Democratic party deserves no criticism but we're pretty much caught in binary system: 0 = Republican policy which offers no support for the middle class and every advantage to the rich and powerful; 1 = Democratic policy which doesn't fight hard enough but at least opens the way for some support of the middle class.

No honest person can compare Republican policy with Democratic policy over the past three decades and come to the conclusion that Republican policy has benefitted the middle class. In fact, the neo-cons have been quite transparent in their intention to make the rich richer using their smoke and mirrors arguments of trickle down economics to justify it. But not only that, many prominent Republicans have spoken openly about destroying the New Deal, arguably a set of government policies that has helped the middle class more than any other in our history. Public education, social security, medicare and every other social program has also been in their crosshairs. Their argument is that it's a question of economic freedom when what it really is is a greedy attempt to hoard as big a piece of the economic pie as possible.

So it is my contention that the first step towards re-establishing the strength of the middle class is to stop voting, under most circumstances, for Republicans while we vote for Democrats and hold their feet to the fire. For more moderate conservatives this could be a temporary measure until the out of whack status quo is brought more in line with a fair set of economic rules. Then we can get back at least to a political discourse where both sides agree that a healthy America means having a healthy middle class and policy should be set accordingly. At that point we can have a more rational discussion and engage in more meaningful political battles about how to achieve that. So why have Americans been supporting economic policy that has gone against their own self interest?

The reasons are myriad. One book that explains it quite well is What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank. Part of it has been the neo-con's ongoing effort to understate and even denigrate the importance of government policy as it relates to the well-being of society as a whole. There has been a gross undervaluation of a system in which a reasonable number of people have a reasonable degree of access to the things in a modern society that will bring them a reasonable standard of living and a chance at prosperity—things like education, health care, jobs that provide a living wage, decent food and shelter. Without this, the overall health of society suffers and when the degree of suffering becomes too great, even the wealthiest  among us aren't fully insulated from the suffering.

The crux of the Republican message has been: average Americans have had it too good and liberal economic policy that has helped to bring about a thriving middle class has become an obstacle for people at the top to increase their wealth. So the Republican party has indeed engaged in a sophisticated form of messaging designed to get citizens to undervalue the importance of government as it relates to economic policy. They've done it by using the same principles and techniques used by the most successful advertising firms of Madison Avenue along with a constant flow of lies, distortion of facts and hyperbole. This kind of anti-government rhetoric began in earnest starting with President Reagan's assertion that government doesn't solve problems; government IS the problem. And so began the insidious onslaught against the very institution, our institution, that can most effectively even the playing field of economic activity.

Daniel DeCamp

Next:

Why do Republicans fight so hard for the concept of limited government when it comes to laws and policies that have to do with the distribution of wealth but have no qualms about resorting to the heavy hand of government when it comes to personal choices such as safe abortions, contraceptives and gay marriage?