The Middle Class "Welfare Queens"
I just found this article an interesting parallel back to Reagan's propaganda about "welfare queens" who drove their Cadillacs to pick up their welfare checks. Remember that? It was a very calculated, racially loaded image designed to offer political cover for cutting social programs for the weakest in our society.
Well, I think the image of debt may be a middle class version of the same thing. (WaPo)
See, if people are in debt because they're they're spending money frivolously, that's their fault, and under that set of beliefs, $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy is okay because those who are suffering under debt are simply foolish with their money. It's an unstated argument of social darwinism.
The propaganda of social darwinism is very appealing to "the elite" because it paints them as superior. But, left unsaid in their self flattering beliefs, is what it implies for the rest of society. Social Darwinism has been used since its inception to justify inequality from the robberbarons to Edwardian England to the Nazis. It's no longer stated outright, but the underlying beliefs have been incorporated into the "dog eat dog" conception of modern American capitalism.
This understanding of society as a darwinist struggle justifies sweatshops and other exploitations as an expected and necessary outcome. But this conceptual model ignores the reality of excess, that "the successful" are making millions, far beyond their survival requirements, while that little girl in Indonesia who is doing their labor is struggling to help feed her family.
I find myself thinking of the anarchist criticism, "Your wallet is full of blood."
(Man, I don't know where all that came from.)
(In nature, even assuming an individualist interpretation of animal behavior rather than the more common group social structure, the "most successful" life forms do not eat more than than they need.)
(Also, Lynne reproduced a nice chart on the distribution of the benefits of the proposed tax cuts.)
Well, I think the image of debt may be a middle class version of the same thing. (WaPo)
Why are Americans so deeply in debt? It's not because they are using credit cards to buy plasma TVs and premium coffee drinks at Starbucks. The real culprits, according to a new analysis, are the rising costs of housing, health care and education.
See, if people are in debt because they're they're spending money frivolously, that's their fault, and under that set of beliefs, $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy is okay because those who are suffering under debt are simply foolish with their money. It's an unstated argument of social darwinism.
The propaganda of social darwinism is very appealing to "the elite" because it paints them as superior. But, left unsaid in their self flattering beliefs, is what it implies for the rest of society. Social Darwinism has been used since its inception to justify inequality from the robberbarons to Edwardian England to the Nazis. It's no longer stated outright, but the underlying beliefs have been incorporated into the "dog eat dog" conception of modern American capitalism.
This understanding of society as a darwinist struggle justifies sweatshops and other exploitations as an expected and necessary outcome. But this conceptual model ignores the reality of excess, that "the successful" are making millions, far beyond their survival requirements, while that little girl in Indonesia who is doing their labor is struggling to help feed her family.
I find myself thinking of the anarchist criticism, "Your wallet is full of blood."
(Man, I don't know where all that came from.)
(In nature, even assuming an individualist interpretation of animal behavior rather than the more common group social structure, the "most successful" life forms do not eat more than than they need.)
(Also, Lynne reproduced a nice chart on the distribution of the benefits of the proposed tax cuts.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:20 AM
2 Comments:
I really feel that despite all the polls, despite everything one reads in the news on a daily basis, and despite all evidence to the contrary, the present administration really feels that they can act with impunity on any issue they choose and get away with it. Ergo, there's no reason for them to use the same kind of mud-smearing tactics employed by Reagan.
And why wouldn't they feel this way? We've given them carte blanche to wage war on nations which had not acted aggressively towards us. We sit and watch as they take away liberties and freedoms with the so-called "Patriot Act". We congratulate ourselves on getting a couple of hundred dollars in extra tax refunds while the top one percent of the country receive tens of thousands of dollars in extra tax refunds, and while they are working to slowly but surely dismantle the social security safety net. We listen as the CIA nominee tells us in the most sublime doublespeak that to preserve our liberties, the government has to spy on our phone calls.
Why wouldn't they think they can do whatever they want and get away with it?
And to watch our fearless leader smirking all over himself as he predicted a "Bush Legacy" which included brother Jeb running and becoming president? If that didn't turn your stomach, you've a stronger constitution than I.
By
Anonymous, at 12:01 PM
That's a reasonable argument. There's pretty good evidence to support that this admin has nothing to fear from congressional oversight no matter what they do, but this propaganda piece stretches way back before this admin. It is a larger part of the shaping of culture to support the existence of the ultra rich.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 12:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home