Tuesday, October 04, 2005
I want to start by saying that it occurred to me this morning that Kleinheider and I, if both given our wishes for the world, would probably live in very similar small villages. Outsiders who didn't look too closely would see little differences. And in B-ville, Kleinheider would be slang for a sex act involving gin and an open flame. In Kleinheiderton, an Aunt B. would be a delicious flaky pastry that the Kleinheidertonians ritually spit on once a year.
At both our village meetings, we would spend an inordinate amount of time plotting each other's downfall: "Marry her off at gun-point!" "Punch him in the face!" I'm just saying, you're welcome to visit each village, but I wouldn't stand in the space between them.
Part of what infuriates me so much about Kleinheider is that I often feel like he and I see the landscape very similarly and yet come up with entirely different ideas about what it is we're seeing.
Let's take his recent post on the poor put-upon white man. For those of you who don't want to follow the link, let me summarize: blah, blah, blah, you want to see who has it really bad? Poor white men, blah, blah, blah. There it is, tossed out there, like it's a known fact.
But why do poor white men have it so bad? Is it the fault of the Black Caucus or Hollywood or radical feminists or godless commie heathens or homosexuals? Is rap music keeping the poor white man down?
White men, today I'm going to explain to you how things work.
Democracy is a joke. It's the best joke we can come up with for governing a large body of disparate peoples, but it is a joke. It doesn't work because most people don't want to govern themselves; they want someone to tell them what to do.
Which is fine, because the people in power want to stay in power. Democrats, Republicans, whatever. At the end of the day, they want to stay in power.
We have, in this country, a power structure based on race, class, and gender disparities. It doesn't mean that the people in power are inherently racist, classist, and sexist--though it doesn't mean they are not--it just means that they use racism, classism, and sexism to remain in power.
Who has power in our country? By and large, rich white men.
But, rich white men are a small minority of the actual people in this country. Most people are poor, many people are non-white, and most people are women. So, how, in a democracy, can a small minority of people retain power?
They must keep the majority of people distracted.
Now, the majority of people in this country aren't stupid. They see that rich white men are in power.
And here's where the most important and insidious superstition we have comes into play. We say that we're a meritocracy, that anyone, regardless of where they start out in life, can raise themselves up in the world and "be" someone. It's important that we continue to believe this because it serves an important purpose: it camouflages the real class disparity among white people.
Camouflaging the class disparity within the "white" group serves many, many important purposes.
1. It distracts us from seeing the ways in which race, gender, and class feed into each other. If you feel like The Man has been holding you down and you don't recognize the class component to that, why should it bother you if poor white people are suffering? At least some white people are suffering.
2. It keeps poor people fighting among themselves, rather than banding together in common interest against the powerful.
3. It distracts poor white men from seeing their real power.
Three is the hardest to understand, so let me dwell on it a minute.
As I said, we have a power structure that thrives on exploiting class, race, and gender differences so that the powerful can retain power. Racial differences are visible. Gender differences are visible.
There will have to be RADICAL change in this country for women and minorities to achieve real power and not just continue to be let imitate the rich white men who are really in control.
But white guys look like white guys. If you look at Bob Krumm or Bill Frist, can you tell just by looking who has more money? Who's the person in power?
Just by looking, how can you say?
And that, my friends, is the real, insidious threat to the people in power. It's not the folks they can see coming--women or minorities--they can thwart us. It's the people who look just like them, but who don't belong.
So, white guys, of course you feel persecuted. Of course you feel like the deck is stacked against you. Of course you feel like you're bearing the brunt of a lot of harsh winds. You are! You are so that the people really in power don't have to.
And you are so that the people in power can keep you distracted, keep you down here fighting with us and fighting us off, so that you're never really a real threat to the people who have and want to keep power.
28 Comments:
What is the word I'm thinking of, oh yeah, horsehit, that's the word.
Most people are not poor. Can you name a state in this country where more than 17% of the population is poor? Not exactly "most people", now is it?
Rich white men may not be the majority, men and women who want to be, are. That is how power is retained. The American Dream that hard work and ambition will pay off for the future keeps most people playing the game. People who climb the socio-economic ladder are the real movers and shakers in this country, not those who loiter at the bottom rung. Those without a stake in the future tend not to be politically involved. That must be why there is such a low voter turn out in the meth-cookin', rap listening, trailer park out in the rural outskirts of B-ville.
As for the Black Caucus, Hollywood Meatheads, radical feminists and godless pinko fags, they certainly would NEVER exploit race, class, or gender in order to further their agendas, achieve power, or make a really trite and preachy M*A*S*H* episode.
On the other hand, you do make a good point....
In 1992, the median net worth of a member of Congress was $365,000. If you take my income and assets and subtract my debts, I have a net worth of... well... approximately one dog.
So, by what standard are we measuring "poor"?
And don't be knocking my trailer park(s). Where do you think all the pot in Kleinheiderton is coming from?
What have you done to increase your net worth? Are you due some large amount of money and a seat in Congress due to what, exactly? Having your own town?
Do you have any statistics from this century? 1992? Did you dig up an old term paper on the subject and use that for the basis of your argument?
How about this load of data from the Coalition for Human Needs(www.chn.org)? If they aren't lefty enough, name another one, we'll go by their stats. They put the percentage of people living below the poverty line as of 2004, at 14.4% for Tennessee. New Hampshire is at 5.8%. They give a total number of 37 million poor people in this country. Out of total population of 295 million makes it 12.5% nationwide.
The Pot-Irie Barn in Sarcastropolis is one of our biggest employers. Tell your friends.
Hahahaha, "poverty line", indeed. To be considered under the poverty level by the government is, for a family of 4, $18,850 a year. Double that amount of money, and a family of 4 *still* has to struggle. Housing prices are obscene. Same with gas prices and daycare. I wonder, if we did statistics for people living under $37,000 a year, what those numbers would be?
If someone makes 18k per year, what are they doing having two children? You'd think they would have figured out they can't afford to feed, clothe, or shelter one kid, much less two.
Oh, God. Someone please help me. I have blood pouring out my eyeballs.
"most people want someone to tell them what to do."
What fairy tale state is this? Is it a country of four-year-olds? If "Most people" truly wanted to be bossed around we'd have no problem. The arrogant sumbiches who want to do the bossin' would have free reign and everyone else could hang their heads in Orwellian relief and submit to brandishments from on high. But, reason would tend to bear out the conclusion that people by and large want to keep their junk and get more junk. (Where Junk serves as N and N =power, money, privelege, security, drugs, sex, liquor, God, etc.)
That is the life of American (Hu)Man in one easy theorem:
Whereas N+1 > N, and D=N+1, how do we arrive at D?
Liberals seem to believe that we arrive at D by convincing those in power to align society to provide all people with N+1, because some people actually have N+2 or N+3, and can afford to make sure that those who solely have N can get to N+1 without trouble. Bville would seem to be a place where, if you had 3 joints and I had none, I could make Sarcastro take one of your joints and pass it over to me. (It's good to be kickin' it with a White Man!)
Conservatives tend to believe that if you have N and you want N+1, then get the frak off your ass and work for it. Don't have that second baby, don't drop out of school, don't spend all your time burning spliffs down in Bville.
And whatever you do, don't go to Kleinheiderton, because they shoot all the immigrants.
Oh, perhaps they did have good jobs but lost them due to "downsizing". Possibly one of them made good money and the other made crap for money, and the one that made good money became disabled and could no longer work. Maybe they got pregnant by accident and had twins. Or maybe they're just stupid and their children deserve to starve, who knows?
Forgive me, Katherine, I'm terrible at math, but getting N+1 by getting off your ass and working for it would be a heck of a lot better if there was a more level playing field.
That's all I, as a liberal, want for people. I don't want to hand everyone everything, and I'm damn sure not giving up my joints to anyone unless they're showing some effort, but I'd like those joints to be easier to get. ;)
This is why Dave Ramsey has a gajillion dollars. On him.
Feeling superior to others is great, when you consider the alternative.
The hows of the mythical family making it on 18k isn't really important. It is used as a prop in any argument about poverty in this country. You hear it again and again. "You can't support a family of four on (usually the minimum wage, but only a complete dumbass would try that, so know it is 18k for example) x amount of dollars.
At some point in any equation involving poverty, personal choices and responsibility are involved. Good and bad choices. Sure, fortune smiles on the fortunate. Otherwise, what fucking good would it be to be fortunate?
Not all of us like to feel superior to people. Some of us like to feel that all men are created equal, & in so believing that to be true we expect all men to be equally responsibile. That's how this system is set up. What the hell else do you want us to do? We already give free education, subsidised meals and free condoms to 14 year olds. Would you feel better if Sarcastro and I stood shifts behind high schoolers. "You there. Drop that X! You there, close your legs." Quit tossing around bromides about this failing system (which has resulted in one of the most prosperous nations in the history of the frakkin' world...) and have enough respect for your fellow human beings to demand they be accountable for their actions.
Interestingly enough, both Pick & Ivy have unknowingly highlighted an overlooked truth about poverty in America.
It isn't static
The statistic is relatively unchanged, but the actual people who are below the poverty line one year are not always the same people. Sure, this year that family of four may be under that line because Dad broke his leg in four places. But, next year Dad'll be back at work and they're off the list.
There are some years for every family that are N-1. That doesn't mean anyone feels superior to that family. Well, not me. Maybe Steve Pick.
Bad luck streak in typing school.
That should have read "...so now it is 18k..." instead of "know".
Also, another one of Steve's points I have to take issue with is the feeling of obligation he mentions. that those who "have somewhat benefited" have to help those who haven't. If you've somewhat benefited, does that imply a somewhat obligation? And if you owe that person some obligation, does that person owe you something in return?
"They proclaim that every man is entitled to exist without labor and, the laws of reality to the contrary notwithstanding, is entitled to receive his "minimum sustenance" his food, his clothes, his shelter, with no effort on his part, as his due and his birthright. To receive it, from whom?" Ayn Rand
Bad luck streak in typing school.
Sarcastro, you are bound to make me smile.
Just for that I'll not make the comment I was gonna make about the clove cigarettes.
Hey, don't be knocking the clove cigarettes!
I like hanging around wherever sarcastro and katherine are having a discussion.
I like hanging around wherever sarcastro and katherine are having a discussion.
Well, that makes one of us. (KIDDING!)
My god, so much to refute, so little time. But I love a good challenge.
1. Sarcastro. You found me out. I am secretly a brat with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. La, la, la, give me the world.
2. Sarcastro, snark aside, I did pull those statistics off Google, which is, basically, the same as pulling them out of my ass. Fair enough.
3. Kat, you say "If 'Most people' truly wanted to be bossed around we'd have no problem. The arrogant sumbiches who want to do the bossin' would have free reign and everyone else could hang their heads in Orwellian relief and submit to brandishments from on high. But, reason would tend to bear out the conclusion that people by and large want to keep their junk and get more junk."
I don't see how the accumulation and preservation of one's stuff negates my point. People do like to be told what to do. They also like to bitch loud and long about the people who boss them around, but in general, people don't want to make decisions for themselves.
How can you not see this? Why else are there trends? Because people like what other people like. Why don't more people vote? Because, in the end, they don't give a shit who's in charge as long as it's not them. Why do we have a republic instead of a true democracy? Because most people don't want to be bothered with voting on every little issue. Etc.
My personal opinion, based on my own observation, is that people respond well to being told what is expected of them and knowing the rules. This does not bode well for any form of government which relies on the people who don't want authority having to wield it. I don't see any better option; I'm merely pointing out that there are inherent problems.
4. Ivy. Exactly.
5. Kat. "All men are created equal." I don't know what you mean by that. Do you mean that all people have the same inherent value? Then I agree with you. Or do you mean that all people have the same opportunities? Because, clearly, they don't.
6. Kat, the way you use "you" and "us" means "What do you [liberals] want us [conservatives] to do? We [conservatives] already..." But so do we.
And no one is saying that this isn't a great country, that things here aren't better than they are most places. But what's the use of qualifying every statement with that? So what if things are good. They could be better. How can they be better?
Isn't that what we're talking about now (since, obviously, we've veered way off my initial post)? We have a lot of power and a lot of potential. Now we're arguing about what to do with that.
I mean, I guess we are. Are you and Sarcastro fine with how things are now? If so, then I guess this is probably the stupidest fight in the world to be having, because it's based on the premise that both sides agree that improvements can be made.
7. Pick on me, that's cool. Please refrain from personal potshots at others.
8. S. of course we have obligations to each other. What else is there? We aren't a bunch of free range individuals.
9. Mel, discussion, gang up on B., six of one, half a dozen of the other...
Well, that makes one of us. (KIDDING!)
I'd imagine that makes at least 3 of us, as Sar and I are both presumably willing participants in the badinage. We're not sure, though. We just like being told what to do.
but in general, people don't want to make decisions for themselves.
How can you not see this? Why else are there trends? Because people like what other people like. Why don't more people vote? Because, in the end, they don't give a shit who's in charge as long as it's not them. Why do we have a republic instead of a true democracy? Because most people don't want to be bothered with voting on every little issue. Etc.
This is all predicated on a very liberal point of view which seems to infer from others' life choices that they are unable/unwilling/undeserving to make different life choices. It's a founding principle of Marxism/Leninism and it's also why Alexander Hamilton was an ass.
There are trends because people change their minds. I was in marketing for a long time. "Trends" are different than "rules" or "instructions", and I think you'll find that labelling something a trend did not require that all particpate. Thank God, or we'd see everyone wearing Polkadots for eternity.
More people don't vote because they are disenfranchised, bored, indifferent, etc. If people truly did as they were told and followed trends as slavishly as you suggest, they would be out there Rockin' That Vote with Ben and/or Jerry like the good sheeple the left wing insists they be. Not voting is, I would contend, further proof of my belief that people don't like being told what to do. They don't like being told that Rich White Guy A vs. Rich White Guy B is a valid choice, and one they must make. In this specific instance, Not Voting is as much a choice as voting. It's a ridiculous trend in acedemic thought now that people can't handle too much choice. Virginia Postrel and others refute that handily.
My personal opinion, based on my own observation, is that people respond well to being told what is expected of them and knowing the rules.
Of course they do. It's called being goal-oriented. How does this get extrapolated in the sacrifice of personal liberty and responsibility?
All people have equal inherent value. They have equal responsibility--to stay alive or die trying. They do not have equal gifts or equal opportunities. For instance, I have to buy my own food. No one gives me food stamps out of the kindness of their heart. I have to pay my own full mortgage. No one pays for my mortgage out of the kindness of their heart. I had to qualify for college based on my grades and my SATs. No one was willing to give me special consideration for admission based on my skin color. I've lived many years below the poverty line, but no one noticed because I wasn't in that neighborhood or that potential voting bloc.
So what if things are good. They could be better. How can they be better?
They can be better by everyone realising that there should no longer be a protected class based on race. That's the point of Kleinheider's piece, and I guess kind of the point of your piece. The whole problem with entitlement programs in government is that someone always says "why them and not me?"
And that is a most frakking fair question. I wrote about the Strugglings a couple of weeks ago. The same thing still applies. There are hundreds of millions of Americans in this country who are just getting by. They want N +1 as much as the next guy. But someone, whether it is a politician or a well-meaning acedemician or minister, is always telling them that they have no right to want N+1, because their N is already bigger than the other dudes' N, and they didn't have to work as hard for it. So maybe the white guy in the middle class can make do with N-.25 because then it'll give the other guy--who through happy accident of skin color/country of origin--needs that .25 more.
Who are the arrogant bastards that get to decide how much N is good enough for everyone? I will always have more money than some, less than others.
I think you misunderstand me. I think it can both be true that people want other people to tell them what to do and that people don't like to be told what to do. I'm pretty sure I said that when I said that people both want to be bossed around and bitch about the boss.
I also don't see how you're concluding that I'm advocating the sacrifice of personal liberty and responsibility. One can talk about what people tend to do without insisting that they'll behave that way in every single instance. Isn't that the point of self-discipline and education, so that you learn to be more than just a seething unself-aware mess of desires and passions?
Plus, I don't see what trends in academic thought have to do with the price of tea in China. Are you insinuating that I'm overly influenced by academic thought?
And are you really going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that you don't think you've benefitted from being a woman? You don't think that had anything to do with the opportunities or lack thereof that you've had? Do you honestly believe, for instance, that the admissions committee at your college paid no attention to how many men they were admitting and how many women? Do you really think that the gender make-up of your entering class had only to do with what students had the highest grades and the best SAT scores?
If you had identical or slightly lower scores than a boy and you got in and he didn't and you knew it, would you feel bad about it? Would you feel you got an opportunity you didn't deserve?
I hope not.
The truth is that, for the most part, life is not fair. People get things they don't deserve and miss out on things they truly ought to have. Do you really begrudge poor folks their government cheese?
More importantly, do you really believe that our government, this one we have right now (not this administration, I'm speaking more broadly) is really going to willingly reduce itself in size? You know that it runs on patronage and cronyism and bloviated bureaucracies. You've seen well-meaning politicians who make promises get there and get corrupted by the system.
So why do you begrudge people who figure out how to benefit from an obviously corrupt system? You, too, could figure out how to benefit.
I mean, frankly, I think you're proving my original point. You clearly see the system is fucked up, but rather than talking about how to fix the system, you're talking about "protected" classes and being pissed off because someone is taking your shit and giving it to someone else.
Kat, can't you see that that's exactly what I'm saying? Powerful people DO NOT want you to have power. They do not want you to work towards dismantling the system that keeps them in power. Of course it pisses of struggling white people when they know they're struggling and they don't see how to work the system to their benefit. We're supposed to be busy fighting with each other, resenting the meager handouts one group gets that another doesn't. That's how it works.
The best we can do is try to balance the good intentions of us as individuals and small communities against the giant mess of the government. But we have to take into account that the government doesn't automatically act in our best interests and, as individuals, we can't make it.
Individuals band together to force the giant mess to sort of do what the group wants, at least momentarily. Does that mean that the results the group wanted are always what the mess spits back out at them? No.
Does that mean we should stop petitioning the mess to help us? I say, no, this mess is what we've got, we've got to be aware of the size, scope, and methods of the mess so that we can exploit the system for the most good for the most of us.
As for what your well-meaning minister says, have some mercy on him. He's only in sales and he's got to do what the Boss says--take care of the poor.
Do you really begrudge poor folks their government cheese?
I wish there still was government cheese, that stuff was tasty. :(
I have actual thoughts on this whole thread, but I think I'll take em over to my own blog, because I need some time to work out how I want to say things.
Yeah, tasty for the first third of the block and then that shit dried out on the edges. Mmm, mmm, nothing better than crunchy cheese on your bologna sandwiches.
[Before you Libertarians get your panties all in a bunch, my family did not take your hard-earned tax dollars in the form of cheese and use it to torture us kids. The day care housed in my dad's church took your hard-earned money in the form of cheese. My parents took what was expired and ruined bologna for ever for us with it.]
I feel so bad after you spent so much time typing to have so little to say but I do:
Individuals should be free to help as they so choose. I happen to be a very charitable person--although most wouldn't guess from what I write here.
I think that the source of helping our fellow man should be within us and not the government.
And I do like government cheese. It's good stuff.
Individuals should be free to help as they so choose. I happen to be a very charitable person--although most wouldn't guess from what I write here.
I think that the source of helping our fellow man should be within us and not the government.
How can I possibly argue with that? I don't see how that's anything but a reasonable response.
Is there anyone that hasn't ever had government cheese? The rich, white guys, maybe, I guess.
My grandpa used to get government cheese, for being old or a veteran, or something. He'd bring it home and whip out his pocketknife and cut off slices and put them on saltines for us kids to eat. One of the only happy memories I have of him.
Everytime government cheese is brought up, I get almost teary, thinking of my grandpa.
Sarcastro's a veteran. I wonder if he gets government cheese. I have to say, there's something delightful about imagining Sarcastro with a truck full of government cheese, cutting off little slices with his pocket knife while he sits in the cab and reads Neil Boortz, like some kind of dirty little liberal concession he makes towards life.
Or do they really not have government cheese any more? That's kind of sad.
Unlike the "Coming Home-Born on the Fourth of July" as biblical truth version of history, not all veterans are basketcases who require government cheese.
Some of us are fully functioning alcoholics who only require a hand over the eye to read about Virginia Postrel and her thoughts regarding choices and aesthetics.
Well, good lord, don't strain yourself with this "reading." I know they say your eyesight is the first to go. I'll gladly read to you while you drink yourself into a stupor. I'm working my way through "Twilight of the Idols" again and I'm sure there's plenty in there for you to object to.
Well, Toshi, obviously, you have found your people.
Once when I was young my Granny asked me if I wanted cheese on my sandwich. I asked her what kind of cheese. She wouldn't tell me, just called it cheese.
I pressed her on the issue. Finally she yelled, "It's government cheese, OKAY?!"
That was awkward.
Post a Comment
<< Home