I know a lot of you don't care for Sullivan, but he has written a really excellent essay that summarizes exactly what I think about inequality in the US
( Read more... )
I am not very inclined to judge an essay by its author. If Hitler wrote an insightful article about cute, fuzzy kittens, I'd probably link to that, too.
It doesn't rise for me to the level of judging the essay. I don't care to read it for the same reason I'm not interested in what Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann or Eugene Delgaudio or Orly Taitz or a whole bunch of other craven whores have to say.
So true. Places that have gone communist in the past were always places with extreme exploitation by the ruling class. Places that were capitalist (or whatever) but had some equity in the system and all or most of the people could benefit from it saw no need for an extreme solution
( ... )
I would classify the battle with physicians to bring in medicare in SK as class warfare. It was a relatively short, brutal war, however. Although by the mid 19th century most of the US and Canada was significantly democratic, with indigenous peoples' lives being the major exception.
Liberal meritocracy is a utopia. Structural mechanisms are needed to check the human failings of those who would rule, be it in Parliament or on Bay Street.
WRT the labelling of left right socialist etc etc - the actual issue is whether power is distributed, or concentrated in the hands of a few. Which ideology (brand name) you apply is somewhat random since they get redefined at every opportunity anyway.
I believe there are some social structures that permit/encourage the concentration of power, such as Chinese and Russian, and it doesn't matter what colour tie the oligarchs are wearing there is a tendency to allow the consolidation of power by individuals.
Yeah, I think there is some truth to that. The USSR in particular might have been more characteristically Russian than characteristically Communist. However, ideology arguably matters more in the US because it is not so inherently egalitarian OR oligarchic, but more malleable and influenced by the style of government than other countries. It certainly helps to be a relatively "new" country without so many entrenched habits to deal with.
Our culture of optimism is fairly distinctively our own and it's an important factor in our resistance to redistribution of wealth. We consistently assess our prospects as rosier than they really are. Every year since 1977 Gallup has asked Americans if they will be better off financially a year on and every time--regardless of the state of the economy--more people answer "yes" than "no". About a third of us believe we will get "rich" in our lifetimes (however we define that) and among young adults the percentage is over half. And this isn't a new thing. Europeans were remarking about American optimism and belief in self-reliance from before we became a nation.
I remember Sullivan from decades ago when he wrote for more liberal rags. I like reading him then. When he turned right he came off as an ass. This article is fairly right on, although his veneration of Reagan is a bit much. I think your comments are right on as well.
Inequality is what drove much of Asia and Russia to communism and Western Europe to a socialism that is too controlling. I had always thought that the US was immune to those two and only feared the far right's fascism. While I have some concern about medicare and social security, the rising inequity in the US, if not addressed, could lead us to more violent demonstrations and responses from the government, creating a vicious cycle.
Comments 11
There are very sound reasons for that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I would classify the battle with physicians to bring in medicare in SK as class warfare. It was a relatively short, brutal war, however. Although by the mid 19th century most of the US and Canada was significantly democratic, with indigenous peoples' lives being the major exception.
Liberal meritocracy is a utopia. Structural mechanisms are needed to check the human failings of those who would rule, be it in Parliament or on Bay Street.
Reply
I believe there are some social structures that permit/encourage the concentration of power, such as Chinese and Russian, and it doesn't matter what colour tie the oligarchs are wearing there is a tendency to allow the consolidation of power by individuals.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Inequality is what drove much of Asia and Russia to communism and Western Europe to a socialism that is too controlling. I had always thought that the US was immune to those two and only feared the far right's fascism. While I have some concern about medicare and social security, the rising inequity in the US, if not addressed, could lead us to more violent demonstrations and responses from the government, creating a vicious cycle.
Reply
Leave a comment