What Social Democracy Can Do For You
I think part of what's underlying some of Dana's objections as well as Scott's pointed critique is the sense that the in some deep sense The Trap is heaping a whole lot of attention on the injustices suffered by a group that is really doing quite well: the young, over-educated members of the elite who have dreams of saving the world, or writing a novel and still want the basics of bourgeois comfort. Do we really want a government that caters to their needs?
The answer is no, and I think Daniel would agree. But that's not what he book argues. What The Trap does is make an argument to this relatively well-off cohort that the rise of inequality and the winner-take-all society isn't just a problem for other people -- the urban poor, midwestern factory workers, non-unionized service workers -- but a problem for them as well. If the book were a magazine article in one of those service-y glossies you see at checkout counter the headline would be "What Social Democracy Can Do For You!"
It doesn't mean the book is arguing that people like, say, Dana, Scott, Daniel and myself aren't tremendously privileged, or that government should craft policy with our preferences foremost in mind. What it's trying to do is recruit a potentially influential, thoughtful group of people into the movement for social democracy by showing that a bunch of the limitations and frustrations that they face aren't just general bummers, but the specific result of policy choices that the government makes, and as such require political engagement. Better living through politics!
I remember reading a Desmond Tutu quote once (which a quick perusal of Google isn't turn up, so maybe I'm making this up) in which he talked about how apartheid was not only unjust and degrading for blacks, but corrosive in a deep sense to whites. Obviously, Daniel Brook is not Desmong Tutu and early 21st century America is not apartheid South Africa. But a similar point holds: the current distribution of income, wealth and power, as well as the enfeebled public sphere have a negative and corrosive effect not just on the poor and the working and middle classes, but even on the people who are the putative elite. Even the winners aren't winning.
I think that fundamental message is both borne out by the data (the rise inequality really has been the result of a very tiny percentage pulling way ahead, certain goods like education and housing have been bid up as a result) and potentially quite politically powerful.
You asked, "Do we really want a government catering to their [admittedly, my] [bourgeios] needs?" The answer, I think, is yes. That was actually sort of the point of America- we don't have noblemen, and we don't have peasants. We're a country founded on middle class ideals. The issue highlighted here is that the middle class is rapidly fading. So what does the "reasonable man," as we much-maligned lawyers say, do when forced to choose between rich and poor? Well, assuming you have the option to do so, you choose rich.
Now, we all know of the plight of people forced into poverty on a personal level, and there's a growing awareness of what this does to society in general. What this book highlights is (at least some of) the personal and societal costs resulting from forcing people into wealth. But whichever way you look at it, at the root of all of these negative consequences is the disappearance of the middle class.
And so, many of the problems on both sides of the issue can be fixed precisely by programs catering to the bougeois. One of the most obvious solutions is to make education affordable, so that people a) can get an education allowing them to move up in the world, and b) aren't forced into very high paying jobs by the necessity of paying for private schools- either for themselves or their children. If America is going to avoid regressing into a feudal society, we must dedicate ourselves to rebuilding the middle class.
October 18, 2007 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This bit about who the government should cater to sounded good at first but now it strikes me as dangerous and wrong.
Look at the S-CHIP debate. Bush and his party have argued that the program shouldn't be expanded because it helps too many people. See, not even Republicans will argue directly against aiding the poor these days. Instead they want to set thresholds like "If you make $40k a year, you're on your own."
Should there be programs hat cater to aspiring people from the middle and upper-middle class? Yes, there should. People should not be denied government assistance just because Republicans think they can afford things on their own. We should help aspiring people have more leisure time, more choices and more freedom.
At this point, it's not like our government caters to the poor. It caters to the rich and it takes marginal care of the poor. If you're in the middle, you're completely adrift. You might need some help, or want some help, but the government refuses to give it to you. They'll take your tax dollars, though.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 18, 2007 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
When we talk about the "young, over-educated members of the elite who have dreams of saving the world," we're talking about the people who run the domestic violence shelters, the people who help the urban poor get food stamps, the people who campaign for universal health coverage, the people who sue the government when it breaks its own rules. I should think it would be a goal of liberals to get as many passionate, talented people as possible working to further their causes, and to do what it takes to keep them. No one saves the world without support.
October 18, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've got it. Much of the criticism is misplaced; the book fundamentally is making an *enlightened self-interest* argument (and a very accurate one) to a particular group.
If you're not in that group and aren't trying to convince anyone in that group, find a different book which makes the slightly different enlightened self-interest pitch for *your* group.
October 19, 2007 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
What we've succeeded in doing in our globalized economy, I think, is broadly recapitulating in the middle class the anxiety, sense of desperate dependency and individual and class-wide sense of powerless that has been a constant in the ranks of impoverished Americans.
.
So you're right on target. We're back to feudalism, but without even the pretense of a larger guiding light (the church) to offer any hope.
October 19, 2007 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, not even Republicans will argue directly against aiding the poor these days.
It's noteworthy that, in a survey done last spring (my synopsis), 48% of self-described conservatives felt that the government should give greater priority to expanding help for the poor even if it means increasing the deficit. If it isn't anomalous, this is pretty striking.
I don't doubt that Brook is right that insecurity and untenable sacrifices are on the rise among educated and middle class Americans. Together, these things do suggest that we are at a very interesting moment: a nearly even number of conservatives support programs for the poor, and the interests of the middle class are no longer clearly distinguishable from those of the working class. The right messenger with the right ideas ought to be able pull this together a coalition of support among the electorate for some very interesting changes.
FDR isn't available; who's the new New Dealer on the scene?
October 20, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink