But the question needs refinement. I tend to think that the real profiteers, the ones pulling unconscionable amounts of wealth out of our common economy, are the .1%ers and the .01%ers--that is, the deca-and centa-millionaires, who can't possibly justify having 'earned' the wealth they enjoy. Mere millionaires, 1%ers? Not so much.
Now that Bernie has made it acceptable to direct ethical challenges to these hoarders, and Hillary has thought it prudent to follow suit, and even some Republicans are trying to get in on the act, it becomes possible to reflect on just how harmful such egregious inequality is to the social fabric--and to consider policies for taking some of it back. Right on!
But it's not as simple as that: 1/99, them vs. us. There are other ways to slice the pyramid, so to speak, and in some ways the more important distinctions may be between the 10% or the 20% who still have access to middle class norms, affluent American norms and expectations, and the rest: the 50% in the middle, who used to be the middle class but can no longer buy a house in a coastal city like Boston, or send their kids to private universities or even public ones without incurring disastrous debt. Who can't raise a family on a median salary, or save a dime for retirement (and thus will plan to work till they die). Who juggle major expenses and credit card debt and pray that somehow things will change.
And this doesn't even begin to address the remaining 30% or so, 'the poor' but also--if you consider not just income but wealth--the excluded, the African-Americans historically barred from acquiring home equity over generations, the immigrants, with or without documents, who can't participate in middle class life, the unfortunate who become ill with inadequate insurance, and on, and on.
What is true for both of these groups--the struggling middle and the out-the-bottom--is their dependance on the public sector, its schools and clinics and subsidized housing, its libraries and teen centers, its social workers and youth workers and public health workers and all the other publicly-supported service providers. The vaunted 'global economy' will not provide these folks--let's call them the 80%--with the means to live decent lives. The highly skilled, privileged professionals who settle into the upper 10-20%--many enjoying the subsidy of accumulated family wealth--will do just fine, even if they resent the excesses and vulgarities of those much wealthier than themselves. But the rest are sinking in a morass of unpayable debt, unrealizable aspirations, unaffordable necessities. The anger one hears on all sides of these Presidential campaigns is the sound of these people, going under.
My impression is that candidate Clinton really doesn't get it--though she's trying to sound like she does. Parallel to their political careers, she and her husband have worked relentlessly to reach the .1% or perhaps the .01%, and it's just too hard from that vantage point to see the little people and their struggles. None of the Republicans are even trying to see--though they are pretty good at choosing scapegoats and fanning the flames of anger.
Bernie Sanders is a less-than-ideal candidate, whose grasp of foreign affairs seems sadly limited and whose irascible tone will finally not wear well. But he alone in this field of candidates really does see the social catastrophe inequality is causing. His tepid socialism is the only plan in view to build up the public sector so it can at least try to support the immiserated 80%. I don't think he'll get to be President (though I may be wrong), but he already has earned the job of Prophet. Like other prophets he will be the target of much abuse in the weeks to come. But that's because what he says is the urgent truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment