Topic: Economics
Working Poor Unready to Revolt Despite considerable economic pain, those at the bottom of the income spectrum seem more delusional than ready to revolt against an unjust political system.by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(centrist liberal libertarian)
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Once upon a time when governments no longer served most of their citizens it was the most economically disadvantaged that could be counted on to rebel against tyranny and injustice. Times have changed, for the worse, despite the spread of democracy.
Here we are with a two-party plutocracy that preferentially serves corporate and wealthy interests and lets the middle class suffer and sink. Plausibly, the middle class is unready to revolt because it still maintains a relatively good standard of living despite rising economic insecurity. But what about the lowest 40 percent of Americans that are the working poor?
A recent survey of this group by the Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University conducted this past June looked at the beliefs of adults ages 18 to 64 working 30 or more hours a week, not self-employed and who earned no more than $27,000 in 2007. The results show a fascinating dichotomy. Though there is widespread pain and discontent there is also a stubborn faith in the American dream despite little help from government.
Ninety percent of this group sees the current economy negatively, either not so good or poor, with 52 percent feeling financially insecure and 50 percent feeling less secure than a few years ago. The fractions saying they have difficulty affording basic things are severe, including: 88 percent that cannot save money for college or other education for their children, 82 percent paying for gasoline or other transportation costs, 81 percent saving money for retirement, 65 percent paying for health care and health insurance, 65 percent handling child care, close to 60 percent paying credit card bills, monthly utility bills and rent or mortgage costs, and 47 percent buying food. Three quarters say it has gotten harder to find good jobs and nearly that fraction for finding affordable health care, and 68 percent finding decent, affordable housing.
In the past year this group has had to take many actions to make ends meet, including 70 percent that cut electricity use and home heating; 62 percent that took an extra job or worked extra hours, 51 percent that postponed medical or dental care and 50 percent that took money out of savings or retirement funds.
All this sounds pretty bleak. But are these people mad and pessimistic? Not exactly.
An amazing 69 percent are hopeful about their personal financial situation, 59 percent believe they are more likely over the next few years to move up in terms of their social class, 59 percent believe that their children will have a standard of living much or somewhat better than theirs, and 56 percent think they will achieve the American dream in their lifetime.
Do these lower economic class, hardest hit Americans that account for 25 percent of the adult population believe that government helps them? No. Only 22 percent believe that government programs are making things better for them. But apparently they have bought hook, line and sinker into Barack Obama's change rhetoric, with a 2 to 1 margin favoring him over John McCain. And when it comes to beliefs about which candidate will do better for them the margins favoring Obama go up to 3 or more to 1 for improving their own financial situation, the national economy and the national health care system. Similarly, Obama is seen as much more concerned with their needs and better represent their values. All very good news for Obama, except that only 70 are registered to vote and about a third saw no difference in whether Obama or McCain was in office.
Faith in Obama, however, pales in comparison to the other source of comfort for dealing with hard economic times. A striking 78 percent find religion or faith in God helps them get through tough economic times.
The unmistakable conclusion from all these data is that no rebellion against the power elites running the two-party plutocracy seems likely. If the bottom 40 percent of Americans in terms of income still believe in the American dream and change-spouting politicians like Obama, it is hard to believe that the more affluent middle 40 percent of the population are ready to support more radical change through political rebellion.
Interesting how gasoline prices are dropping as we approach the Republican and Democratic conventions and Election Day. Apparently, America's ruling class knows what it is doing. It can keep channeling more and more of the nation's wealth to the rich, Upper Class producing more economic inequality without fearing the kind of political revolution that Thomas Jefferson thought the nation needs periodically. Consider this: In the three decades after World War II household inflation-adjusted income of the bottom 90 percent increased 83 percent compared to 20 percent increase for the top 10 percent. In contrast, in the past three decades, the bottom 90 percent saw only a 10 percent increase while the top 10 percent received an increase of 232 percent! The two-party stranglehold on our political system has produced rising economic inequality.
Forget all that nonsense about the proletariat. Most Americans use their faith in God or religion or conventional politicians to cope, even in some of the most insecure economic times in American history. They remain overly confident in voting as the path to change. The ruling class has successfully used propaganda to dumb down and manipulate most of the public because delusion has become the opiate of the masses.
In God and Barack Obama We Trust could be placed on all our currency if the views of millions of Americans are taken seriously. Don't you feel better?
The views expressed in this
article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Joel S. Hirschhorn is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-08-08 00:22:06
Hi Joel,
I wasn't sure what to make of this article so if I missed the point, well, it wouldn't be the first time. It seemed to start out as a fairy tale about revolution but then proceeded as if were a true story about faith. There may have been times in the distant past when working poor decide to quit their jobs and revolt while they starved but without a specific example to embrace, it just sounded idealistic for me to take as other than fairy tale. Revolt is usually led by the well to do who are in jeopardy of losing their advantage. They may pay the poor to die for their cause but the poor seldom lead the way. Maybe you were thinking of Spartacus? No. Slaves are quite a different demography than working poor, especially at a time when "poor" people have microwave ovens, television sets, cell phones and a car. If they don't have those basics they shouldn't be working, they should go on welfare and take the improvement in their standard of living. (not counting those who's poverty is due to drugs or gambling or other self-selected causes)
Anyway, however "poor" is defined, these are not the folks who revolt. (as in overthrow governments, just to be clear) When the time comes and revolution is nigh, things will be much, much worse than they are now. Facing mass starvation is a proper incentive but the troops lack the means to be successful so that is just a skewed form of suicide. People facing mass starvation will be eager to serve in a revolutionary army just for food, let alone any pay. My bet is when the time comes, there will be people willing to feed these people, and arm them too. It is also my bet that the time will not come. So we agree on that, but for different reasons.
History is full of examples of revolt, from bloody revolution to power coups within an otherwise stable framework, so I'm not going to go point by point. I just have a question. How can you tell if a person is ready to revolt? There are lots of times I'm ready to do something but just plain unable; whether it is telling off my boss or finishing that project I started 18 months ago but still needs several thousand dollars to complete. I'm ready, I'm even willing to devote the time and energy, but I'm financially unable. Maybe I should talk to Mrs. Fire Eater to be sure she doesn't think I'm not ready. I'd rather have her know we're broke than think I'm not ready to shoulder my obligations.
Revolution is economic, for sure, but only those who stand to lose the most have the means to fund it. We are still near the peak of prosperity for those people. Many still think they are financial genius just because they rode the same wave that took so many others into a financial world their fathers could have never imagined. These people aren't going to revolt either. At least not the ones I know...come to think of it, I suddenly know a bunch of people who are so seriously over extended that they will probably go from high-flier to destitute so fast that they will not even have time to think of a revolt.
No, it is the deep wealth, people who have had the time, and the reason, to think about how to protect their wealth for the long term. These are the people who will end up with all that wealth that average Americans were fooled into believing they once held. When this deep wealth faces a serious threat, that is time for a revolt. I don't think we will get there and I'm glad. Today's wealth is too mobile to really face a threat on the scale that will cause an uprising.
So the question remains, what to do about all those poor people. They are great to have around when the economy is on the up-swing and they can be fooled into believing they have licked poverty. When the depression comes, they are just...depressing. Nope, not a revolt. I'm predicting a flu epidemic to thin the herd for lean times and arson to sop up the excess housing, and lots of economic isolationist legislation to test that disasterous folly one more time for fun and (pork barrel) profit.
There are some revolt-ish things happening in the domain of the working poor, unions are being given more latitude to coerce workers into voting for a union. A fine enhancement of an already stifling economic absurdity. (That would be wage negations that don't acknowledge their inflationary impact on the world economy just so no idiot thinks I'm in favor of child labor or indentured servants due to my loathing of labor unions.) This is a typical Democratic Party tactic, when education and communication are contrary to your goals, opt for force of law or just plain force, thuggery and blackmail. Its the Democratic way. Oh the irony. Democracy is great...unless the stupid voters don't support our views. Then it's time to invent....SUPERDELEGATES. What a farce. Wow, I've gone way off topic.
The point in your article that I really wanted to comment on though is your characterization of the two-party strangle hold. This isn't just some unfortunate circumstance that could have gone another way; or that will go another way if Libertarians just get more self-righteous. (that seems to be the predominant tactic these days...) The two party system is the only logical structure for a government that is empowered by elections that require forming a coalition prior to the election. Other governments are structured so that coalitions are formed after an election and some use run-off structures, etc. They've all been tried. Ours is the best, so far but that race is far from over.
I've explained in several articles the futility in the efforts by 3rd parties to accomplish something they are not even remotely able to do. Their efforts are being applied to results contrary to their own reason for existing. It is maddening. Akin to someone holding onto a dream that their garden tractor will one day become a locomotive. The nature of the thing, the government, and the politics that select it's sitting officials is a consequence of the Constitution of the United States.
In many countries, your determination to end this nation and form out of whole cloth one that you think is more fair and that will provide puppies and ponies for everyone because 3 or 4 parties vye for voters would require revolt of the traditional kind. The funny thing is that our Constitution can be changed; this country can be dissolved and reformed under new documentation by the will of the people. It was not meant to stand for all time. If there were a popular uprising wouldn't it make more sense to use one of the only two tools powerful enough to convene a Constitutional Congress than to wait for the poor to rise up and save the day?
The answer my friends, is not blowing in the wind, it is written in the Constitution. The real problem for you is that our system is better than the multi-party utopia you dream of and most people know it, so you couldn't ever get the momentum needed to accomplish change the Democratic way...so it's back to force and bloodshed? I don't know. I suppose it is possible but I still agree with you that it isn't likely...but for very different reasons.
Today, those two Parties' leaders know that very few people will bother to even try to understand the political dynamics of coalition forming and the power structure of government. Since knowledge is power, that is where the stranglehold gets its grip. Keeping the most potentially effective individuals and groups willing to marginalize themselves, THEMSELVES, voluntarily and self-righteously!! is the most powerful force for the status-quo, and the tactic they need to attend to the least. It is a natural process that seems to work just fine without a lot of help, aside from the occasional nasty jab from a mainstream candidate. Ego seems boundless in its gullibility, at least so far, and both the Democrats and the Republicans rely on it to keep their detractors from every becoming effective, by infiltrating the party and purging the candidate pipeline.
That is a revolution I believe can happen. Oops, I was right, it is happening right now! and I helped. No faith needed, just effective actions.
Good article Joel. I agree with the comment tho that the "poor" in America are certainly disadvantaged but not poor by the standards of the rest of the world or the past. I wouldn't include in this the homeless, who I would concur are as poor as anybody in the world. And comparison doesn't excuse the fact that the richest country in history can't take care of its own people. And the wide disparity in wealth is also a huge problem. I don't really see a revolution coming for any reason, we are all too "well compensated".
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
