(Posted by John Birkimer)
Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President Obama’s transition advisory board. He just authored a new blog titled “The Perfect Storm That Threatens American Democracy”. He lists three great threats: income inequality (The top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now earn as much as the bottom 120 million of us), a relatively few of the very wealthy are buying elections and doing it legally and secretly, and many Americans are in a very bad way economically, many without jobs and/or losing their homes, but Washington says nothing can be done about it because we don’t have the money, even though the very wealthy pay lower tax rates than many of the rest of us.
(And Americans appear ready to put the Republicans back in control of Congress.) Read Reich’s article and add any comments to this blog.
Here is his article.
October 23, 2010 at 3:38 pm |
The data seems to continue to accumulate that the rich who keep their money are negatively affect our economy and democracy.
October 23, 2010 at 10:48 pm |
This sort of information is indeed discouraging, and if we ignore it these warnings the injustices will keep getting worse. Ida B. Wells wrote, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” She is right, but leaves out the other part. Along with vigilance we must also go the next step that Gandhi admonishes: “Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.” I’m just having trouble figuring out how to not cooperate.
October 27, 2010 at 1:39 pm |
The wikipedia article on plutocracy reminds us that the birthplace of “democracy” (Greek city-states) was actually a plutocracy, and some of the best art and sculpture of Western civilization came from the plutocracies of Florence and Venice. Perhaps all we can realistically hope for is a sort of benevelont plutocracy. If the rich spend their money on yachts, someone is given the jobs to make them. Sad as it is, most of us benefit when the stock market goes up because our 401K’s “make money” with no sweat on our part. I don’t know what the answers are, but sometimes it’s helpful to accept the reality as it is and be thankful for the work we have. But, I’ll continue to vote for progressive candidates and hope for miracles.
October 27, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
I just looked at the lectionary reading from Luke 19 for this week. Too bad the plutocrats don’t adopt the Zacchaeus model, giving half of what they have to the poor and remunerating those they’ve defrauded.
October 28, 2010 at 12:18 am |
The part of this analysis that I disagree with is that I don’t think “they” (the rich plutocrats) are taking anything away from me, what I see more of is me giving it away.
Much of the debate seems to pivot on what is the best way to get what I want: we need to be nice to the wealthy (tax breaks, for instance), so that they will be willing to continue to bless us with a part of their riches (job creation). We really want cheap oil/electricity, therefore we have to be willing to allow the “drill baby drill”/mountaintop removal mentality…which produces even more wealth for them, at what expense to us?
The power they have, we gave to them…with our thirst for low cost, short-term gain. It was my hunger for more, that gave them their wealth. Therefore, I think it is only when I can begin to consume less, that I can actually take back some of that power…when I curb my thirst for consumption beyond my means, then I can begin to be self-reliant. (Do I need a new car, new computer, more books, new clothes, more channels? If I do, then I have to pay.)
If I don’t, of course, this hurts the economy as well, since the economy has been based on consumption–remember the government’s answer to 9/11 and how to show the terrorists that they won’t win? “Go shopping.” In another interview the president said: “”Get down to Disney World in Florida…Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed.”
Rather than first calling others to account, I think I have to deal with my own issues. Instead of pointing at them, I think I have to figure out how the finger is pointing at me. I’m not giving half of what I own to the poor. Most of the time, I have trouble even giving a dollar to someone on the sidewalk….a dollar.
Can I live with less? Can I sacrifice? (Can a dollar even be called a sacrifice?) If I can live with less, then I think I come closer to living out the idea of community that we are called to embrace.
Another application falls closer to home: sometimes I hear it said that we need to do more to structure our church life around those who are paying the bills, lest they take their funds elsewhere. (I don’t know who is actually paying the bills, but we generally assume that it is the wealthier members, just like we assume that it is the wealthier members of the society who keep our economy afloat.) However, like in our culture, when we buy into that thinking, we disempower ourselves, and decide that some in the society actually are more important than the rest of us.
I think we do it, because we aspire to a higher standard of living than we can actually afford, and we fear the consequences of having less. If someone else can help me get to this higher standard of living, then I’ll do whatever they want.
Mostly, I think, the real challenge is me. When I want a more just society, I have to look at myself first and consider how I can live more justly, before I put the blame on “them.” When I stop giving them power, the balance of power already starts to form a new equilibrium.
October 29, 2010 at 4:20 pm |
I would never argue that Barry’s approach of seeking less and thus giving the plutocrats less of his power is faulty at the individual level. Any who can live with less can somewhat ameliorate the injustice of the wealthy’s increasing their share of the nation’s wealth, somewhat ameliorate the effect of that injustice on himself. But only if many do so, and that changes the power balance enough to somehow restore the middle class, would I find this a sufficient solution the the problems Reich described.
The issue is analogous to one I encountered recently in a book of John Dominic Crossan’s that I’m reading. He was distinguishing between individual evil and systemic evil. He said (roughly) that if a man in ancient Judea beat his slave, this was clearly a personal evil.. If the man did not beat his slave, this did not absolve the man of participating in the systemic evil of slavery as it existed in the Roman empire.
I believe Barry’s solution, so far as that were all he did about the problems Reich describes, would be only at the personal level, leaving the systemic evil still extant.
Barry’s wording suggests that is not how he would ultimately leave things. Reading Crossan as we have this discussion, I am struck that Barry’s solution is somewhat like that Jesus adopted in reaction to the evils of Roman occupation and dominance of his homeland. In many respects he “dropped out” of the life most were leading under the Romans. But when his movement spread he generated enough resistance from the powers of his time to lead to his execution. I wonder if Barry’s solution were adopted by enough of us if our own powers that be would react with violence or other means of retribution?
October 29, 2010 at 10:47 pm |
I guess you also have to look at how to beat systemic evil. One method is to name it as evil…I get the sense that this is some of what the prophetic element does — call things what they are. But does this change them? I don’t think it does.
The method of MLK, Jr., Gandhi, and even Jesus, it seems was to make that evil embarrass itself, and show it for what it really is. When you live within the system, you often can’t see it. If you fight the system, then its reaction seems like a fair response to the active attack. (Even in school, it was the person who hit back that often got into the most trouble.)
This isn’t an easy option at all, you have to be willing to play it out to the end, and typically you lose the short-term game. But in that loss, even the evildoers see their evil for what it was. The centurion sees that the person he just killed was surely the son of God. Or the police chief in Birmingham sees his own inhumanity in unleashing angry dogs against protesters. The larger society sees its own evil nature, and recoils in horror, changing the system. But you have to play it out to the end, if you short-circuit the response, and respond in your own anger, you undo the good that you previously achieved.
What would this look like for the economy? How would non-violent active resistance unfold? My suspicion is that the beast is hungry…if I don’t feed it, it growls. So, I try hard not to feed it, and then I hold on.
I try to buy local, or American, if not local. Rather than my money going to a corporation who has exported jobs to the third world, where I know the craftsperson is seeing only a fraction of what I pay for the item, I try to buy here, or from a fair trade organization. I received an ad today from the All American Clothing — they have a new feature that is pretty cool — traceability. You buy their jeans, and you can see the US farmer who grew the cotton that was used to make the pants. They may be a little pricier, but I’m making a difference…both in connecting me to the land, and to a farmer, and to fair trade. I don’t think this is just individual justice…I think it gradually changes the entire system.