There are so many words we Americans throw around, assuming we are communicating–assuming that my understanding of term X is the same as your understanding of term X. Often, the similarities in understanding are sufficient to allow us to communicate, at least superficially–but sometimes, it’s worth delving into the nuances of words the meanings of which we take for granted.
Like “liberty.”
An article from Civic Ventures pointed to a reality that many economists have noted (a reality of which most of our politicians seem unaware): genuine liberty requires a measure of economic security. The expression of even the most basic civil and democratic liberties depend upon a basic floor of economic security–you are unlikely to indulge your right to free speech or participate in democratic deliberation if your entire life is spent scrabbling for food and trying to keep a roof over your head.
The article begins by quoting Nobel prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz on the effect of income inequality on democracy:
“As income inequalities grow, people wind up living in different worlds. They don’t interact. A large body of evidence shows that economic segregation is widening and has consequences, for instance, with regard to how each side thinks and feels about the other,” Stiglitz writes. “The poorest members of society see the world as stacked against them and give up on their aspirations; the wealthiest develop a sense of entitlement, and their wealth helps ensure that the system stays as it is.”
And because that gap between the haves and have nots has become so vast, he writes, something much more significant than personal wealth is at stake: Our very democracy is imperiled. “Democracy requires compromise if it is to remain functional, but compromise is difficult when there is so much at stake in terms of both economic and political power,” Stiglitz concludes.
Stiglitz also points out that economic security is an essential component of freedom. It doesn’t matter how “free” you are from government intrusion “if you’re one $500 expense away from total economic ruin and your rent goes up by hundreds of dollars every year. “
The article goes into a lengthy discussion of America’s economy, explains the successful performance of a variety of measures initiated by the Biden administration, and ends with a very important point:
After the success of the Child Tax Credit, it’s become clear that direct cash payments with no strings attached are a much more successful poverty reduction program than vouchers or other kinds of means-tested relief programs. There’s still a lot to debate about guaranteed income programs—I’m particularly concerned about them being misused as subsidies for low-wage employers—but it’s clear we’re entering a new phase of the public guaranteed income discussion.
The question is no longer about whether it makes good sense to make direct investments in people. Now, the conversation is turning to how and when we make those investments happen.
That conversation should include a recent, fascinating interview of philosopher Elizabeth Anderson in Persuasion. Anderson has long been focused on the workplace, and the relative absence of workers’ rights enjoyed by non-union employees. She echoes Stiglitz’ concerns about the effects of economic deprivation on democracy, and the individual’s ability to participate in political activity on anything remotely like an equal basis:
One of my agendas is to get us thinking more systematically about class inequality, because recent political discourse has been mostly focused on race, gender, sexual identity and sexual orientation issues. And one of the things I want to do is bring class back in. Looking at class, I think, provides us a better basis for building cross-cutting coalitions along the other identities. But also because we’re in a state now where our class inequality is quite extreme and it’s getting worse. And that’s not just a matter of how much money people have, but about their political power. In practice, a society which has lots and lots of billionaires is never going to be able to insulate politics from the overwhelming power that money supplies—political power, political influence. And so we have a threat to democracy here.
Read together, these articles–and really, hundreds like them–focus on a very troubling aspect of America’s current reality. We have millions of people who are effectively disenfranchised by poverty. They may have rights “on paper,” but the constant struggle to put food on the table precludes any enjoyment of those rights, and similarly precludes any meaningful participation in the democratic process.
Do the working poor really enjoy “liberty” in any meaningful sense?
Think about that–and re-read my arguments for a UBI…
I suppose it comes down to the point that we cannot solve our problems with the same kind of thinking that got us into the problem in the first place.
My neighbor asked if I like JD Vance. She had seen the movie and concluded that he must be great. I told her that I read the book and concluded he must be a jerk. He’s not a fan of the people he grew up with. He alone was good enough to get out.
I’m sick and tired of listening to politicians advising people who have no shoes to pull themselves up by the bootstrap. In my experience the divide between urban and rural is not as deep as the divide between the haves and the have-nots. We really need to get serious about that divide and fix it. The very least we can do is try a UBI.
Our continued “liberty” today is up for grabs; the final decision on November 5, 2024, regarding our future “leadership” is in a state of flux. The year 2015 brought us face-to-face with the choice of maintaining American democracy, Rule of Law and upholding our Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or turning away from it to a dictatorship via violence and increasing the profit margin of corporations and the wealthy. Eight years later we remain in that same state of flux and we are struggling even harder for personal liberty with the decision to “save the soul of America” based now on ageism and the economy. “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” as the possible dictatorship by the GOP candidate who is the same age as the current president was when duly elected in 2020 encompasses ageism ignored to allow the wealthy to rule over “…genuine liberty requires a measure of economic security.” The current GOP leadership is enlisting the “have-nots” with promises of becoming the “haves”; truth shows it will be the “have-nots” paying the taxes for the “haves” to maintain their liberty to increase their profit margins by the sweat of the working class.
Continue “Deconstructing Liberty” vs. “…saving the soul of America” will be answered in this most vital election since the 1860s.
VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO is the slogan with new meaning today. Are you listening, America?
Peggy; I was typing my comments before yours were posted but we seem to be on the same page regarding the questions and the answers. I am still not convinced a UBI is the answer; to me it still reeks of a Welfare system which will not encourage people to seek jobs or better jobs if they are currently working. Just my opinion; which I currently still have the right to speak but is in question in the future as November 5th draws nearer.
Poverty is a devastating thing. And once it has had you in its jaws, you never forget. It’s a type of desperation that has you weighing whether to buy new socks while juggling the water bill this month. Can you afford the kids school lunches this week, or wait to catch it up next week. It is a misery that causes so much anxiety that your sleep is wrecked. If poor white people in this country realized how much they have in common with poor people of color and banded together, they would create an enormous voting bloc.
We’ve mentioned or alluded to Karl Marx’s prophecy about capitalism. And here we are on that precipice. Call it what you will, but if we don’t turn away from the edge of the cliff, it will be the expansion of lords v. serfs until we have that all-out civil war.
The Trump dystopian theme appeals to those aggrieved. They want SO badly to have a champion for their grievances – whether real or imagined – that they will sell out the Constitution to a band of greedy idiots in order to “feel like Americans”. That fetid bill of goods that the Republicans are selling stinks the same as it did in 1933 Germany when the Nazis exploited the grievances of the people.
I struggle with the concept of a UBI as a solution to certain problems like economic inequality. To me, our economic systems appear to be far too predatory for the bottom half of our society for a UBI to truly work. I’ve always been amazed by the ways that the poorest of the poor kid ‘ripped off’ by our society. It’d systemic and its intentional. Add cash to the system as is, just seems to be adding incentives to bring even more bad actors to the table. And what was that famous lyric? Oh yeah, “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose!” For far too many, “liberty” and “freedom” are just words in books. So who cares how they are defined by the “haves”?
Melinda writes, “If poor white people in this country realized how much they have in common with poor people of color and banded together, they would create an enormous voting bloc.”
Martin Luther King, Jr., realized this shortly after his successful civil rights movement. He traveled to white churches in the Deep South, where people were struggling with poverty, and discussed the class struggle. He made nearly a hundred speeches about class struggle and the need for poor whites and poor blacks to come together. He was heading to Washington to open his Poor People’s Movement in 1968 and was assassinated in Memphis while speaking to striking sanitation workers.
And for Vernon, MLK read Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, but he said his inspiration came from Jesus – not Marx. Maybe Jesus was a Marxist! 😉
As I’ve said over and over, we are an oligarchy which is gone way beyond the red line or tipping point. A wealthy few just completed a coup on the sitting POTUS – not the people.
And speaking of oligarchy, or oligarchs, JD Vance is full of shit. He didn’t pull himself from his bootstraps. Peter Thiel did it for him. Yes, the gay multi-billionaire Libertarian was JD’s mentor and set him up to make lots of money. And Peter also had backing from the CIA to make his fortune. Thiel is entirely involved in our government and is responsible for why it does what it does. To start, he’s worth researching on Wikipedia. 😉
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/publications/autobiography-martin-luther-king-jr/chapter-31-poor-peoples-campaign
If you already have money, it’s easier to make more money. Interest and investment income can roll in while you enjoy your time, and do as you will. People are well aware of this general fact.
People seem less aware, or purposely avoid thinking on it, that it is the same for the poorer people but in reverse.
As the New Deal was dismantled and neoliberalism rose, these truths became more and more concrete. There is an _acceleration_ to your circumstances that is horrifyingly inexorable. You _can_ escape the bottom through diligence, education, and a heavy dose of luck, but it is incredibly difficult and unlikely. Conversely, rich people _can_ fall back to the middle, but it’s often through illegality and stupidity. And even then, they receive systematic support that makes this less likely to happen.
Overall, it’s hard not to see the neoliberal scheme as obscene. In my opinion, any politician that employs the “bootstraps” metaphor should be flogged in the town square. (Probably I just mean that metaphorically, but I’m open to counterarguments… 🙂 By promoting this myth, they are essentially telling people it’s their own fault for being poor. They are blaming the victim.
PS JoAnn, I really do hope to convince you one day that creating a world where a lot fewer people struggle and suffer is a good thing to do, regardless if a few of them decide not to go out and get that extra job or work longer hours. I like the idea that your place in the world doesn’t _have_ to be judged on your employment choices. It’s certainly this way for the wealthy already. 🙂
Todd,
The Marx extract I’ve always mentioned is that unregulated capitalism will destroy itself from within. Like Vance, Marx was full of shit about communism. He failed to grasp the fundamental hatred different groups of humans have always had for one another.
“Handouts for all” is not a great political slogan. Neither is “we will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year”.
I seem to recall hearing one about “give to folks according to need and take from folks who have more than they need”. That could fly….
Before we rush off to an UBI solution to our economic problems, how about enforcing existing laws and regulations that are suppose to govern our system of wealth distribution. And then add to those regulations and finally take on the banks and Wall Street.
Great thought processes this morning. Universal basic income is an excellent idea, but it definitely is not a panacea. I know I’ve put this in my comments for years, but people become so disenfranchised and so flummoxed at their condition, that they just worry about eating that day, maybe having a roof? That day! Do they even worry about education? No! Health care? They would love it, but for most it’s not available. Barack tried to fix it, but, he was attacked and he had to fight tooth and nail to get what there is today, which is not even a poor stepchild of what was being proposed. Remember the death squads? That if the ACA was passed, we’d all be judged by death squads.
The politicians have so mismanaged this country’s capital, and I’m talking about money here, that there is an impending disaster where everything is going to collapse. Those that have a little bit of change in their pockets, are buying stocks are propping up the stock market artificially.
So when everything goes down the toilet, those who had a little bit of change are going to be the losers, and those who actually control everything, are going to short the entire thing and become even more wealthy.
Look at all of the banks that were too big to fail, and were bailed out by the average taxpayers! You think that someone would have learned a lesson? No one that matters concerning the riffraff, government didn’t do a thing about it!
Teddy Roosevelt went after the robber barons, he saw that those monopolies were going to artificially enrich those stakeholders, and disadvantage the average working stiff, because they could manipulate the market and become even more wealthy. That blueprint is available. But these huge companies need to be broken up. Amazon, Google, and many of these huge oil companies, amongst others, but it will not happen in today’s political realm.
If the poor are too busy just trying to exist, the oligarchs as Todd would say, have won the battle. They know that people are so busy and so beat down They are the 99.99%, and, they’re not a threat to The 1/10 of 1% that really control everything.
It shouldn’t be a shock to anyone though, because history really shows this blueprint in all major governments from all time Periods.
You can see the Russians and the Chinese, the North Koreans and others, sold the people of Bill of goods trying to make everyone equal, lol! Well, the powers that be in those countries, regularly make people disappear, imprison millions as in China, the uyghurs, and the same in Russia! And the upper echelon have become open thieves. They don’t really try to hide it anymore. They were jealous of the United States because of the money flow, and they wanted some of that action.
Keep talking about the United States as a democracy, but it really is not. Like I mentioned above, the power in this country is wielded by a very small minority. And the Constitution was written by a very few individuals, and it was written with the thought of, or, that reality of the time, that white wealthy land and slave owners were the ones to bring about manifest destiny! Manifest destiny was no better than the Communist and or nationalistic socialist regimes existing today.
But as in everything, there will be a breaking point, because the more The ruling class get away with gutting the treasuries of all these countries, they will collapse. It is kind of odd though, thinking that someone could survive in a world where it ends up, “the lawless rule.” That’s when they start to eat their own. And yes, Jesus Christ talked about this very thing. And, Jesus Christ was not Karl Marx.
Christ’s followers, however, were not to reduce themselves to a state of poverty and then depend upon others for support!
They were to be content with sustenance and covering, not striving to become rich. Any who made material pursuits of prime concern were in danger of becoming involved in dishonest practices and losing their faith because of neglecting spiritual things. This did happen to some, as is shown by Paul’s words to Timothy: “Those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and hurtful desires, which plunge men into destruction and ruin. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains.” 1stTimothy 6:9, 10.)
FYI
Your ‘arguments for a UBI’ link leads to a WordPress error message – Sorry you are not allowed to preview drafts.
Valerie–I think I fixed it. This should take you to the post:https://sheilakennedy.net/2019/12/why-i-came-to-support-a-ubi/?preview_id=40272&preview_nonce=a68f171fee&_thumbnail_id=-1&preview=true
There are many rich people who performed honest, hard work to acquire their wealth and do not deserve to be castigated for their success. But their natural tendency is to feel that if they could do it, anyone willing to work hard could have done the same. They may not realize or fully appreciate how much they have been benefited by simple chance. Perhaps the chance of having good parenting or the chance of having good medical care in childhood or the chance of having genes that make them physically attractive or of above average intelligence or the chance of having encountered a mentor who provided something they would have otherwise lacked or the chance of having no inherited disease or disability, and on and on. By now you can probably add to this list. Our lives, ALL our lives are far more heavily influenced by chance than we are likely to realize unless we think seriously about it. It is far more likely that we focus on what we have contributed than on what chance has contributed. Just something to keep in mind while we debate policy.
“Arguments for UBI” NOT fixed, Sheila
I clicked on the link in my reply to Valerie, and it worked properly.
I clicked on your link and it didn’t work.
Sharon–I just clicked on it, and it did work. I don’t understand why it isn’t working for you.
“Well to do” is an old term that denotes action to build wealth. Health, knowledge, and civil cooperation are/were necessary. It’s privilege to have those assets.
I don’t understand all the resentment that some people have over student debt forgiveness. Their thinking must be I had to pay my debts back, so you have too also. Someone else shouldn’t have a benefit that I didn’t have.
I think it’s a powerful positive to relieve distress/need in others as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.
It’s a travesty that politicians are seeking office to enrich themselves personally. Some have no reservations to cater to big business/dark monies at the expense of most Americans. US monopoly laws and tax codes need to be revised, strengthened and enforced.
I agree if basic human needs are provided for all citizens i.e housing, nutrition and healthcare then more human resources would be freed up to build up. Many countries have blueprints on what works in these areas. We need to knock the blocks out of the way.
Also, no American when ask how they’re doing should have to answer “I can’t complain” when we know that’s not true there’s a lot to complain about. We all need to work to keep our freedoms and keep speaking up for what we need. That’s the American way.
Sheila — Link didn’t work for me either.
Maybe it works for you because you are the source for this link.
Sheila;
You are the author, so you automatically have access to the document. Somewhere in the settings is a place for you to grant permission. Alternately, just make it a PDF. I think that automatically makes it accessible to the rest of us.