Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Wealth Transfers
I've just skimmed it, but from what I can tell Paul Krugman has written yet another excellent piece, this time on The Great Wealth Transfer. This is an important story that deserves to be told. Alas, the media, whether populated by nominal liberals (which is actually worse than the following -- as when nominal liberals are seen as both liberals and neo-feudal, it gives traction to all the Republican spin about effete, out of touch limousine liberals ... sometimes ya gotta wonder if having liberals in the media -- having a media that is other than out of the closet conservative; i.e. having the media be populated by Faux News Democrat types rather than simply by openly conservative Mallard Fillmorons -- is not a bug but a feature for the right, if only as it allows them to so effectively work the refs) or de facto conservatives, is so wedded to the establishment and to neo-feudalism, they dismiss this sort of story as class warfare, mere politicking and such.
And such criticism gains traction because of a distinct and while often hinted at, rarely analyzed wealth transfer: "The Little Wealth Transfer" from the very poor to the struggling. One effect of places like WalMart is that they enable those of us making not so much money to have most of the goods we want to have -- at the cost of oppressed workers elsewhere that we don't see. While Joe Sixpack may worry about his job being outsourced, the fact of the matter is that he benefits greatly from the exploitation of others and at some level knows it. This is perhaps why "class warfare" hasn't been able to work for the Dems.: not only does the media represent the views of the establishment and does it make sure those views are so normative most people are afraid to think any other way as they don't want to be "outside the mainstream", but also people know on which side their bread is buttered. Indeed, being able to not exploit the most exploited -- to have enough money to buy fair trade goods, to give your girlfriend a nice diamond that's not a blood diamond, etc. -- is a luxury: the upper middle classes have the luxury to be liberal while the lower classes do not.
This dynamic started with the Vietnam war where the professional classes had the luxury to protest (of course the rich had the luxury to sit out the Vietnam war without even having to pay the cost of protesting the war) the war where the working classes did not (this is why Clinton gets a free pass on his "draft dodging": for someone of his socio-economic class to avoid 'Nam took so much gumption and cleverness that it, in and of itself, indicates his fitness to be Commander in Chief in a way that, e.g. landing a spot in TANG 'cause you come from the right kind of family does not). And changes since then, especially "free-trade" and the rise of big-box stores, have made the degree to which liberalism is a luxury even more stark: and that liberalism is seen as a luxury makes those who cannot afford it even more resentful of it and sour grapes about it: "these effete snobs claim to speak for my asperations? well, how come I can't afford to join them? I guess since I cannot, I'll say 'sour grapes' to it all and say my asperations are to rid our body politic of them!". There was always a proletarian toryism and a limousine liberalism, but Reagan and his successors in the GOP rode an unprecidently strong wave of it, as Nixon showed them they could with his "Southern Strategy" (itself suggested by the electoral results in 1964 when the luxury of protest was just become an obvious dynamic).
If we Democrats want to ride a counter-wave of populist progressivism, to address The Great Wealth Transfer, we also need to realize that the beneficiaries of "The Little Wealth Transfer", who cannot afford to give it up, have a powerful incentive not to rail against the larger, Great Wealth Transfer". Unless we can demonstrate that our policies will not result in a net loss for the beneficiaries of "The Little Wealth Transfer", we won't be able to really help those hurt by The Great Wealth Transfer, which include -- even if they don't care to realize it -- those beneficiaries of the "Little Wealth Transfer" which historically have been conservatives, even before that "Little Wealth Transfer" gave them all the more reason to side with the beneficiaries of The Great Wealth Transfer.
I.e. we need not to abandon our commitment to the rights of "icky people to do icky things", but we need to renew our commitment to the expanding the opportunities of Joe and Jane Sixpack rather than letting ourselves be perceived as wanting to undo the Little Wealth Transfer that allows Joe and Jane Sixpack to have the few comforts they have.
And such criticism gains traction because of a distinct and while often hinted at, rarely analyzed wealth transfer: "The Little Wealth Transfer" from the very poor to the struggling. One effect of places like WalMart is that they enable those of us making not so much money to have most of the goods we want to have -- at the cost of oppressed workers elsewhere that we don't see. While Joe Sixpack may worry about his job being outsourced, the fact of the matter is that he benefits greatly from the exploitation of others and at some level knows it. This is perhaps why "class warfare" hasn't been able to work for the Dems.: not only does the media represent the views of the establishment and does it make sure those views are so normative most people are afraid to think any other way as they don't want to be "outside the mainstream", but also people know on which side their bread is buttered. Indeed, being able to not exploit the most exploited -- to have enough money to buy fair trade goods, to give your girlfriend a nice diamond that's not a blood diamond, etc. -- is a luxury: the upper middle classes have the luxury to be liberal while the lower classes do not.
This dynamic started with the Vietnam war where the professional classes had the luxury to protest (of course the rich had the luxury to sit out the Vietnam war without even having to pay the cost of protesting the war) the war where the working classes did not (this is why Clinton gets a free pass on his "draft dodging": for someone of his socio-economic class to avoid 'Nam took so much gumption and cleverness that it, in and of itself, indicates his fitness to be Commander in Chief in a way that, e.g. landing a spot in TANG 'cause you come from the right kind of family does not). And changes since then, especially "free-trade" and the rise of big-box stores, have made the degree to which liberalism is a luxury even more stark: and that liberalism is seen as a luxury makes those who cannot afford it even more resentful of it and sour grapes about it: "these effete snobs claim to speak for my asperations? well, how come I can't afford to join them? I guess since I cannot, I'll say 'sour grapes' to it all and say my asperations are to rid our body politic of them!". There was always a proletarian toryism and a limousine liberalism, but Reagan and his successors in the GOP rode an unprecidently strong wave of it, as Nixon showed them they could with his "Southern Strategy" (itself suggested by the electoral results in 1964 when the luxury of protest was just become an obvious dynamic).
If we Democrats want to ride a counter-wave of populist progressivism, to address The Great Wealth Transfer, we also need to realize that the beneficiaries of "The Little Wealth Transfer", who cannot afford to give it up, have a powerful incentive not to rail against the larger, Great Wealth Transfer". Unless we can demonstrate that our policies will not result in a net loss for the beneficiaries of "The Little Wealth Transfer", we won't be able to really help those hurt by The Great Wealth Transfer, which include -- even if they don't care to realize it -- those beneficiaries of the "Little Wealth Transfer" which historically have been conservatives, even before that "Little Wealth Transfer" gave them all the more reason to side with the beneficiaries of The Great Wealth Transfer.
I.e. we need not to abandon our commitment to the rights of "icky people to do icky things", but we need to renew our commitment to the expanding the opportunities of Joe and Jane Sixpack rather than letting ourselves be perceived as wanting to undo the Little Wealth Transfer that allows Joe and Jane Sixpack to have the few comforts they have.
# posted by alberich @ 1:48 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Very good post DAS. But this is a little innocent:
...sometimes ya gotta wonder if having liberals in the media -- having a media that is other than out of the closet conservative; i.e. having the media be populated by Faux News Democrat types rather than simply by openly conservative Mallard Fillmorons -- is not a bug but a feature for the right...
Ya think?
This is a favorite topic of mine and I can't help but pass out three long reading assignments. Here's some bio background that might be new to you (and DAS, the picture suggests the two of you could engage in some inter tribal bonding rituals).
Bob Somerby wrote a four part series and if you would scroll down at both links to the header Special Report -- Sunday, pundit Sunday!
Part 3
Part 4
I don't think "you gotta wonder" at all, I think it's pretty clear what's going on in the corporate media.
...sometimes ya gotta wonder if having liberals in the media -- having a media that is other than out of the closet conservative; i.e. having the media be populated by Faux News Democrat types rather than simply by openly conservative Mallard Fillmorons -- is not a bug but a feature for the right...
Ya think?
This is a favorite topic of mine and I can't help but pass out three long reading assignments. Here's some bio background that might be new to you (and DAS, the picture suggests the two of you could engage in some inter tribal bonding rituals).
Bob Somerby wrote a four part series and if you would scroll down at both links to the header Special Report -- Sunday, pundit Sunday!
Part 3
Part 4
I don't think "you gotta wonder" at all, I think it's pretty clear what's going on in the corporate media.
Here's some bio background that might be new to you (and DAS, the picture suggests the two of you could engage in some inter tribal bonding rituals). - cmike
Actually, I was generally aware of most of the bio background. Perhaps Moyers and I could indeed get together, and I could convince him that J. Campbell (didn't Campbell look an awful lot like Jack Gilford?) channeling Jung ain't da bomb the Rev. Moyers thinks he is. Brazilian cigars are making a come-back too, so Moyers should be happy with that, eh?
I'm not too surprised that Moyers was saying what he said about the Dems, though ... someone that obsessed with Jung as channeled by Campbell is probably quite ready to swallow certain scripts, nu?
So now Tweety admits to his man-crush on Rudy? To think, he used to work for JC ...
Actually, I was generally aware of most of the bio background. Perhaps Moyers and I could indeed get together, and I could convince him that J. Campbell (didn't Campbell look an awful lot like Jack Gilford?) channeling Jung ain't da bomb the Rev. Moyers thinks he is. Brazilian cigars are making a come-back too, so Moyers should be happy with that, eh?
I'm not too surprised that Moyers was saying what he said about the Dems, though ... someone that obsessed with Jung as channeled by Campbell is probably quite ready to swallow certain scripts, nu?
So now Tweety admits to his man-crush on Rudy? To think, he used to work for JC ...
I find it interesting that Moyers and Jimmy Carter are such fringe characters. You'd think they'd have value to news shows just for the sake of the controversy they can create. However, they are shut out. My point with Moyers' bio is that he's an authentic New Deal/Great Society peacenik not some media/party careerist blowing in the wind.
Meanwhile you have these Rev. Moon sponsored nobodies like Tony Blankley and Jack Welch favorites like Mrs. Alan Greenspan given bullhorns to weigh in on every topic that comes along. Year in and year out, these infotainers perform within narrow and well understood bounds. None of this is by accident or determined by ratings.
On a separate matter, I see that you are not an admirer of Moyers' brand of spirituality.* It seems to color your opinion of him and, perhaps, his political judgment though you may have been making just an off the cuff comment to show your familiarity with the PBS Moyers. I know you're willing to discuss religious matters patiently with those who are not like minded.
Me, in forming opinions about others, I just tend to ignore most any one's proclaimed spiritual convictions in deciding whether they're bright and of sound judgment. Unlike you, spirituality is just not that important to me. Does a devout person always feel a certain distance towards those who are not like minded? Are some versions of spirituality wrong and some versions, but not just one version, right?
(*Moyers put together a show about the song "Amazing Grace" and the different groups and persons who perform it. One of the choirs shown was made up of prison inmates, including lifers. When you see someone who is destined to live out their life trapped in a prison who admits to the wretchedness of their past conduct you sure can be empathetic when they discuss and then belt out:
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear,
The hour I first believed!
Even I "got it.")
Meanwhile you have these Rev. Moon sponsored nobodies like Tony Blankley and Jack Welch favorites like Mrs. Alan Greenspan given bullhorns to weigh in on every topic that comes along. Year in and year out, these infotainers perform within narrow and well understood bounds. None of this is by accident or determined by ratings.
On a separate matter, I see that you are not an admirer of Moyers' brand of spirituality.* It seems to color your opinion of him and, perhaps, his political judgment though you may have been making just an off the cuff comment to show your familiarity with the PBS Moyers. I know you're willing to discuss religious matters patiently with those who are not like minded.
Me, in forming opinions about others, I just tend to ignore most any one's proclaimed spiritual convictions in deciding whether they're bright and of sound judgment. Unlike you, spirituality is just not that important to me. Does a devout person always feel a certain distance towards those who are not like minded? Are some versions of spirituality wrong and some versions, but not just one version, right?
(*Moyers put together a show about the song "Amazing Grace" and the different groups and persons who perform it. One of the choirs shown was made up of prison inmates, including lifers. When you see someone who is destined to live out their life trapped in a prison who admits to the wretchedness of their past conduct you sure can be empathetic when they discuss and then belt out:
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear,
The hour I first believed!
Even I "got it.")
My point with Moyers' bio is that he's an authentic New Deal/Great Society peacenik not some media/party careerist blowing in the wind. - cmike
True about his bio, I guess ... but he still tends to blow in the wind a bit. And while Moyers himself may have not been entirely a suck-up, just before LBJ was JFK who, in many ways, pioneered the cult of personality with journalists that Reagan perfected and Bush II supporters used to their own ends.
None of this is by accident or determined by ratings.
I guess maybe my worst fears are right? You are right, Bill Moyers is far above these yahoos.
It seems to color your opinion of him and, perhaps, his political judgment though you may have been making just an off the cuff comment to show your familiarity with the PBS Moyers.
A little from column A, a little from column B. What colored my opinion of him maybe is a lingering dislike of all things to which we were over-exposed in high school (e.g. Campbell, Emerson). I guess it's time for me to grow up and let go considering I've been out of high school more than 10 years?
I know you're willing to discuss religious matters patiently with those who are not like minded.
I'd like to think so. I know it sounds cliche and bad besides, but some of my best friends are conservative Christians, and one would have a username similar to yours (hence one of my off-hand remarks to/about you at one point).
Your later questions, though, deserve further thought: at what point is it wrong to write off people's views on some issues because of your deep disagreements with them on other issues? Is it ever?
Moyers put together a show about the song "Amazing Grace" and the different groups and persons who perform it.
I've not seen this show. I guess I ought to, for a new take on Moyers if nothing else? I love that hymn. Many Jews think it's too Christian, but other than some words tacked on about a century after it was originally written, it is not a Christian hymn per se at all (although only a certain kind of vaguely-Calvinist Christian would have thought to write such a hymn) -- different spiritualities may have different understandings of divine grace and its "mode of operation", so to speak, but the general language can be harmonized enough to make this hymn palatable to people with vastly different soterologies, to generalize a Christian term.
True about his bio, I guess ... but he still tends to blow in the wind a bit. And while Moyers himself may have not been entirely a suck-up, just before LBJ was JFK who, in many ways, pioneered the cult of personality with journalists that Reagan perfected and Bush II supporters used to their own ends.
None of this is by accident or determined by ratings.
I guess maybe my worst fears are right? You are right, Bill Moyers is far above these yahoos.
It seems to color your opinion of him and, perhaps, his political judgment though you may have been making just an off the cuff comment to show your familiarity with the PBS Moyers.
A little from column A, a little from column B. What colored my opinion of him maybe is a lingering dislike of all things to which we were over-exposed in high school (e.g. Campbell, Emerson). I guess it's time for me to grow up and let go considering I've been out of high school more than 10 years?
I know you're willing to discuss religious matters patiently with those who are not like minded.
I'd like to think so. I know it sounds cliche and bad besides, but some of my best friends are conservative Christians, and one would have a username similar to yours (hence one of my off-hand remarks to/about you at one point).
Your later questions, though, deserve further thought: at what point is it wrong to write off people's views on some issues because of your deep disagreements with them on other issues? Is it ever?
Moyers put together a show about the song "Amazing Grace" and the different groups and persons who perform it.
I've not seen this show. I guess I ought to, for a new take on Moyers if nothing else? I love that hymn. Many Jews think it's too Christian, but other than some words tacked on about a century after it was originally written, it is not a Christian hymn per se at all (although only a certain kind of vaguely-Calvinist Christian would have thought to write such a hymn) -- different spiritualities may have different understandings of divine grace and its "mode of operation", so to speak, but the general language can be harmonized enough to make this hymn palatable to people with vastly different soterologies, to generalize a Christian term.
...just before LBJ was JFK who, in many ways, pioneered the cult of personality with journalists that Reagan perfected and Bush II supporters used to their own ends.
Alberich, that's a very good point you make about JFK, Reagan and Bush II - though the blame for this belongs to others. I'm not sure I can get you to read another Somerby post so I'll get around that by posting a long excerpt here. (I'll just say that White was considered a consummate objective journalist and his Making of the President books, particularly the 1960 and 1964 ones, were granted iconic status back in the day. )
________________________________
And —- after ten years in which the press corps trashed Clinton, then trashed Gore —- some of our pundits still pull on their chins and lament that ol’ debbil, liberal bias. They should probably take a lesson from Clinton. This week, the wise ex-POTUS chatted up Katie Couric. Republicans say that the mainstream media is massively liberal, Katie reminded. “They say that,” Clinton masterfully sighed. “But that hasn’t been true for a long, long time.”
When was “liberal bias” really real? We’re not experts on that matter, but in his landmark book, The Making of the President, 1960, Theodore White seems to describe a Golden Age of the much-maligned press corps preference. By the end of the 1960 campaign, reporters covering Candidate Kennedy had abandoned all pretense of objectivity, White says. Scribes amused themselves on the Kennedy plane singing satirical songs about Nixon (with JFK staffers singing along). Why did reporters favor Jack so? Because he pandered, White seemed to suggest:
WHITE (page 337): He would ask advice of newspapermen, which, though he rarely followed it, flattered them nonetheless…There is no doubt that this kindliness, respect and cultivation of the press colored all the reporting that came from the Kennedy campaign.
Forty years later, it’s embarrassing to read White explain how JFK’s “kindliness” tilted the coverage—and it’s embarrassing to read his credulous account of the hopeful’s great love for the press corps. Kennedy “has an enormous respect for those who work with words and those whom write clean prose,” the scrivener gushed. “He likes newspapermen and likes their company.” Nor did White fail to note the way Kennedy staffers co-opted the press. “It was not only that they respected the press,” he wrote, “but somehow as if they were part of the press—half hankering to be writing the dispatches themselves.” But where, oh where had the skeptic gone as Teddy White churned these embarrassing lines? Was it true? Were Kennedy’s aides “hankering to be writing the dispatches themselves?” You can bet your sweet bippy they had such a hankering—and, according to White’s landmark text, their fawning conduct allowed them to “color” all reporting that came off their plane.
With Nixon, though, things were different. The Republican “held himself aloof,” White said. “[E]rratically, he would sometimes permit reporters to ride his personal plane and other times forbid it.” And according to White, “the hostility between the press and the Nixon campaign” was, at least in major part, “a fruit of this trivial disdain.” Reporters have feelings too, dear reader. “[T]he sense of dignity of these men, their craftsmen’s pride in their calling, was abused by Mr. Nixon,” White says. And guess what? “Nixon’s personal distrust of the press colored the attitude of his press staff, too.” The results of this axis of evil weren’t pretty. “At the beginning of the campaign,” White judged, “the reporters assigned to Mr. Nixon were probably split down the middle between those friendly and those hostile to him.” But by the end of the race, “he had succeeded in making them predominantly into that which he had feared from the outset—hostile.”
Wow! There’s the very image of that very well known and much bruited ol’ debbil, “liberal bias!” Reporters sang songs on JFK’s plane and rolled their eyes when thrown in with Tricky Dick! The irony, of course, is that similar images emerged from Campaign 2000—but the party affiliations were plainly reversed.
...To Teddy White, it was all Nixon’s fault. He couldn’t make himself say the obvious—that his colleagues engaged in gross misconduct as they sang their songs on the Kennedy plane. Forty years later, it was Gore who was trashed—and pundits said it was all his fault, too. Remember the immutable, Hard Pundit Law—when the press corps engages in egregious misconduct, it’s always the other guy’s doing.
__________________________________
Then again, Nixon was a special case.
Post a Comment
Alberich, that's a very good point you make about JFK, Reagan and Bush II - though the blame for this belongs to others. I'm not sure I can get you to read another Somerby post so I'll get around that by posting a long excerpt here. (I'll just say that White was considered a consummate objective journalist and his Making of the President books, particularly the 1960 and 1964 ones, were granted iconic status back in the day. )
________________________________
And —- after ten years in which the press corps trashed Clinton, then trashed Gore —- some of our pundits still pull on their chins and lament that ol’ debbil, liberal bias. They should probably take a lesson from Clinton. This week, the wise ex-POTUS chatted up Katie Couric. Republicans say that the mainstream media is massively liberal, Katie reminded. “They say that,” Clinton masterfully sighed. “But that hasn’t been true for a long, long time.”
When was “liberal bias” really real? We’re not experts on that matter, but in his landmark book, The Making of the President, 1960, Theodore White seems to describe a Golden Age of the much-maligned press corps preference. By the end of the 1960 campaign, reporters covering Candidate Kennedy had abandoned all pretense of objectivity, White says. Scribes amused themselves on the Kennedy plane singing satirical songs about Nixon (with JFK staffers singing along). Why did reporters favor Jack so? Because he pandered, White seemed to suggest:
WHITE (page 337): He would ask advice of newspapermen, which, though he rarely followed it, flattered them nonetheless…There is no doubt that this kindliness, respect and cultivation of the press colored all the reporting that came from the Kennedy campaign.
Forty years later, it’s embarrassing to read White explain how JFK’s “kindliness” tilted the coverage—and it’s embarrassing to read his credulous account of the hopeful’s great love for the press corps. Kennedy “has an enormous respect for those who work with words and those whom write clean prose,” the scrivener gushed. “He likes newspapermen and likes their company.” Nor did White fail to note the way Kennedy staffers co-opted the press. “It was not only that they respected the press,” he wrote, “but somehow as if they were part of the press—half hankering to be writing the dispatches themselves.” But where, oh where had the skeptic gone as Teddy White churned these embarrassing lines? Was it true? Were Kennedy’s aides “hankering to be writing the dispatches themselves?” You can bet your sweet bippy they had such a hankering—and, according to White’s landmark text, their fawning conduct allowed them to “color” all reporting that came off their plane.
With Nixon, though, things were different. The Republican “held himself aloof,” White said. “[E]rratically, he would sometimes permit reporters to ride his personal plane and other times forbid it.” And according to White, “the hostility between the press and the Nixon campaign” was, at least in major part, “a fruit of this trivial disdain.” Reporters have feelings too, dear reader. “[T]he sense of dignity of these men, their craftsmen’s pride in their calling, was abused by Mr. Nixon,” White says. And guess what? “Nixon’s personal distrust of the press colored the attitude of his press staff, too.” The results of this axis of evil weren’t pretty. “At the beginning of the campaign,” White judged, “the reporters assigned to Mr. Nixon were probably split down the middle between those friendly and those hostile to him.” But by the end of the race, “he had succeeded in making them predominantly into that which he had feared from the outset—hostile.”
Wow! There’s the very image of that very well known and much bruited ol’ debbil, “liberal bias!” Reporters sang songs on JFK’s plane and rolled their eyes when thrown in with Tricky Dick! The irony, of course, is that similar images emerged from Campaign 2000—but the party affiliations were plainly reversed.
...To Teddy White, it was all Nixon’s fault. He couldn’t make himself say the obvious—that his colleagues engaged in gross misconduct as they sang their songs on the Kennedy plane. Forty years later, it was Gore who was trashed—and pundits said it was all his fault, too. Remember the immutable, Hard Pundit Law—when the press corps engages in egregious misconduct, it’s always the other guy’s doing.
__________________________________
Then again, Nixon was a special case.
<< Home
