Saturday, August 10, 2013
An elite without pity...
In America, a fabulously wealthy elite, more swollen than the robber barrens, eats unceasingly - takes food stamps from the poor - and scorns those who suffer, here and abroad. In the New York Times, Charles Blow has a true - and therefore remarkable - column on Washington as "A Town Without Pity." In it, he speaks of the Congressional representatives and others as "pariahs," as people who blame, he says, the very poor. That a tendency like this exists among the leaders of a supposed affluent society - a society whose representatives trumpet their Christianity while scorning the poor (Jesus preached for the poor, as his own words and the great philosopher Hegel remind us) - is repulsive. The rich are parasites or exploiters (even those innovators who also make some important contributons). They live off the labor of others and dominate the government as a particular tyrannical - oligarchic in Aristotle's terms - interest.
In addition, they are often sociopaths who have no concern for and blame others ("blaming the victim" - with indigenous people, the enslaved, the poor, the unemployed and the homeless as emblems - is a widespread elite trope). America is rapidly becoming, in high places, an odious society. (see Paul Krugman's reflections, invoking Michal Kalecki, on the war against Keynsian policies - science be damned - instituted by the rich here).
Obama has been forced by Edward Snowden to call for some balancing of the spying Bush-Obama apparatus he now heads (the Times says here, echoing an elite attempt to evade the law, that he has eschewed only "brutal interrogations" - the right word is torture which American and international law bars; again, it is remarkable that Blow's words appear in the Times. Still, Obama has concern for ordinary people and his Presidency is pretty well all that holds the American elite, in itself, from the starkest villainy.
Occupy - and in the future, hopefully a much stronger version - are the only things that will reestablish a modicum of wellbeing in America. We are a society which has always progressed through such movements from below (the Revolution, the abolitionists led by John Brown and Frederick Douglass, the women's suffrage movement, the union movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movements and the like).
Blow cites a Wall Street Journal poll and a study by Susan Fiske at Princeton alleging:
“'The stereotypes of poor people in the United States are among the most negative prejudices that we have. And people basically view particularly homeless people as having no redeeming qualities — there’s not the competence for anything, not having good intentions and not being trustworthy.'”
Fiske's report, as recounted by Blow, makes prejudice too democratic (though speaking unclearly or ambiguously this central issue, she also speaks very well on prejudice and her relationship with Gordon Allport's work here). But most of us want health care. Most of us want decent jobs, Most of us know that the danger of poverty is one accident, one hospital bill, one lay-off away...
The elite has manipulated elections, gerrymandering districts and often disenfranchising the poor. The right to vote is not actually a right, not sacrosanct (one major party from the very white Justice John Roberts to every Republican state legislature/Governor is a standing attack on it).
Perhaps this turn away from the condescension of the elite (as human beings, the elite need to be stopped and require pity) is why Blow's article made the Times.
Nonetheless, "A Town Without Pity" makes the need for movements from below glaring.
‘A Town Without Pity’
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: August 9, 2013
America was once the land of Lady Liberty, beckoning the world: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Today’s America — at least as measured by the actions and inactions of the pariahs who roam its halls of power and the people who put them there — is insular, cruel and uncaring.
In this America, people blame welfare for creating poverty rather than for mitigating the impact of it. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in June found that the No. 1 reason people gave for our continuing poverty crisis was: “Too much welfare that prevents initiative.”
In this America, the House can — as it did in July — pass a farm bill that left out the food stamp program at a time when a record number of Americans, nearly 48 million, are depending on the benefits.
In this America, a land of immigrants, comprehensive immigration reform can be stalled in The People’s Branch of government, and anti-reform mouthpieces like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan can warn that immigration reform will be the end of the country.
And in today’s America, poverty and homelessness can easily seep beneath the wall we erect in our minds to define it.
A December report by the United States Conference of Mayors that surveyed 25 cities found that all but 4 of them reported an increase in requests for emergency food aid since 2011, and three-fourths of them expected those requests to increase in 2013.
The report also found that 60 percent of the cities surveyed had seen an increase in homelessness, and the same percentage of cities expected homelessness to increase in 2013.
But poverty isn’t easily written off as an inner-city ailment. It has now become a suburban problem. A report this week by the Brookings Institution found that “during the 2000s, major metropolitan suburbs became home to the largest and fastest-growing poor population in America.”
Nor can economic insecurity be written off as a minorities-only issue. According to survey results published last month by The Associated Press:
“Nonwhites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, at 90 percent. But compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest jumps under the newer measure are among whites, with more than 76 percent enduring periods of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.”
How did we come to such a pass? Why aren’t more politicians — and people in general — expressing outrage and showing empathy?
Part of our current condition is obviously partisan. Republicans have become the party of “blame the victim.” Whatever your lesser lot in life, it’s completely within your means to correct, according to their logic. Poverty, hunger, homelessness and desperation aren’t violence to the spirit but motivation to the will. If you want more and you work harder, all your problems will disappear. Sink or swim. Pull yourself up. Get over it. Of course, that narrow conservative doctrine denies a broader reality: that there are working poor and chronically unemployed — people who do want and who do work and who do want to work, but who remain stuck on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.
In this regard, Republicans have all but abandoned the idea of compassionate conservatism and are diving headlong into callous conservatism.
But another problem may be more broad-based: the way that many Americans look at the poor with disgust.
As Susan Fiske, a Princeton professor who has studied people’s attitudes toward the poor for more than a decade, told me on Friday:
“The stereotypes of poor people in the United States are among the most negative prejudices that we have. And people basically view particularly homeless people as having no redeeming qualities — there’s not the competence for anything, not having good intentions and not being trustworthy.”
Fiske’s research shows that people respond not only to the poor and homeless with revulsion, but they also react negatively to people they perceive as undocumented immigrants — essentially anyone without an address.
If some people’s impulse is to turn up a nose rather than extend a hand, no wonder we send so many lawmakers empty of empathy to Congress. No wonder more people don’t demand that Congress stand up for the least among us rather than on them.
As Fiske so aptly put it: “It seems like Washington is a place without pity right now. A town without pity.”
For the table on attitudes accompanying Blow's article, see here.