People have gotten meaner because they have no vested
interest in worrying about their fellow human beings. That’s the conclusion of
Tom Clark (with Anthony Heath) in Hard
Times: The Divisive Toll of the Economic Slump¸ a recent book that sifts
through a slew of recent research and impressionistic interviews related to the
effect of the Great Recession on the economy and the fabric of society in the
United States and Great Britain.
Clark makes his argument through a series of assertions,
each of which he proves with research and illustrates with a handful of
conversations with people who suffered during the recession that ended a few
years ago if you belonged to the upper 1% in income/wealth, but continues for
everyone else:
1.
This last “great recession” essentially affected
a small part of the population, although everyone outside the 1% has suffered
from stagnant wages over the past 30 years.
2.
Those who suffered from the recession the most
have tended not to recover.
3.
Unlike other recessions, it was easy to predict
who would and would not be affected and not recover from the Great Recession:
the poor, the underemployed, the undereducated, primarily minorities and the
young.
4.
Compared to previous recessions since the Great
Depression of the 1930’s, Anglo-Saxon governments did much less for those who
suffered the worst effects of the Great Recession.
5.
The attitudes of the wealthy, middle class and
working poor towards victims of the Great Recession were much less generous to
victims of previous recessions. A blame-it-on-the-victim mentality replaced the
former generosity displayed in surveys in former recessions about whether people
liked government support of victims of economic dislocation.
Clark establishes these facts and then uses them to develop
a grand synthesis which he thinks explains what he sees as a hard turn right in
both the United States and Great Britain over the past 10 years: In former
recessions, the impact was widespread and serendipitous, so people supported
government intervention and support of victims out of self-interest: maybe they
would need the help. But we could predict who the long-term and permanent
victims of the Great Recession would be. The result: even though—or perhaps
because—most everyone else has been struggling, they did not think they would
need the government benefits and so did not support expansion of benefits.
Additionally, more of the middle class and working poor grew to believe that large
portions of those receiving benefits were “undeserving.” In a sense, 30 years
of static wages and a slow erosion of buying power made everyone hunker down
and get more selfish.
Clark’s argument resonates to a careful student of the
history of healthcare reform. In Remedy and Reaction: The Peculiar
Struggle over Health Care Reform, Paul Starr points out that
because most Americans already had health insurance through their employers,
Medicare or Medicaid, they had no vested interest in seeing the healthcare law
now called Obamacare pass, and in fact recognized that it would mean that they
would pay more without getting more to help fund those getting coverage under
the proposed new law. Republican Scott Brown, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
for what baseball people used to call “a cup of coffee,” expressed this
attitude best when he said he liked the recently enacted healthcare law in
Massachusetts but did not want the citizens he represented to pay for extending
the Massachusetts model to the rest of the country, which Obamacare essentially
did.
But although Clark makes a compelling case, I think he
discounts the impact of the constant barrage of propaganda we have endured
since the rise of Reaganism. We’ve had more than 30 years of the right using
code words to demonize the poor and downtrodden, such as “welfare queens,
“those people,” “the 47% who think they’re victims” and “urban culture
problems.” We’ve had more than 30 years of the glorification of the free market
and the nonsense that government always produces inferior solutions. For more
than 30 years, we’ve been told that the ultra-rich worked hard for their money
and deserve what they get, whereas those who fail have only themselves to
blame. More than 30 years of media bashing of unions, teachers and public
school workers. More than 30 years of hearing and reading the lie that giving
food stamps, medical care and other aid to the poor makes them dependent on
handouts and saps their self-reliance so that they prefer to sit on their duffs
and do nothing all day. We’ve been told the lie that the only thing that hurts
the economy more than giving money to poor people, who will spend it all and
thereby create jobs, is to cut taxes on the wealthy. The news media has drummed
into our minds that we have to pay down the debt, even if it means gutting
social welfare benefits.
In short, some 30 years of brain-washing has made
Americans—and evidently Brits, too—inured to the suffering of their fellow
neighbors and has atomized our communities into millions of selfish
individuals.
I am reluctant to recommend Hard Times as a read, because it’s written in an irritating
combination of styles, taking the worst from both a jargon-laden academic style
and the slang-and-case-history approach of pop sociology. What’s worse, it’s
not even U.S. slang, but that of the foreign tongue known as British. The ideas
are certainly worth assimilating and the book is relatively short, but still,
if you’re a stickler for good writing, its style will infuriate even as its
ideas captivate.
No comments:
Post a Comment