Mainstream Bernie supporters don't care about income inequality?
Hi! I'd just like to mention that this is my first time posting here. I'd also like to mention that I am from that massive slab of land up north (I think they call it Canada/s), so I apologize beforehand if I am intruding but read you were trying to get some Canadians here.
So I was recently browsing the comments on Bernie's Senatorial page on Facebook and was quite surprised at what I saw. Most of the populist memes that Bernie always posts concerning the environment, healthcare, corruption, etc. were getting overwhelming support as usual, with a lot of positive discussion except for the occasional trolls.
But when it came to income inequality - probably the most central issue of Bernie's campaign, I was startled to find many very popular posts heavily criticizing Bernie. There was near-universal expression of concern for large corporations who aren't "playing by the rules" or are otherwise acting in immoral ways, such as price gouging, tax avoidance, and underpaying workers. However, certain individuals and their businesses on the "good list" - that is to say, those who put work into building the company and act more morally - were vigorously defended, despite having exorbitant and rapidly-growing profits/salaries not seen before Reaganomics in the United States or anywhere else in the world.
That isn't to say, of course, that hardworking, good businessmen don't deserve to be very well-paid, with a massive personal fortune and even more money at their fingertips for investment, but people were defending personal salaries upwards of 100M/year and that's before considering the much larger amount they get from investment capital. Many went further, repeating Republican talking points like:
- people have no business questioning the wealth of CEOs no matter how much they make, and doing so amounts to greed and jealousy
-that we could not possibly imagine how incredibly hard the "job creators" work and the ordinary worker's job, no matter what it is, is really, really easy compared to that, stated as immutable and rigid fact
-accusations of being "anti-capitalist" or "communist"
-warnings of "government inference" or punishing job creators, causing them to move elsewhere
-dismissal toward unions
Heck, there were somewhat popular calls for flat taxes with no loopholes a la Ron Paul to make the system more "fair" and claims that the 1% already share way too much of the burden in taxes, and the suggestion of a 25-15 regressive income tax (though the likes could be the work of trolls).
Let me be clear that I have no problem with capitalism and investment, provided that big money is attempted to be held formally (i.e. organizations) or informally (i.e. people at least keep a watchful eye) accountable as to how it is being spent. Giving the better guys a total pass is unwise in a strongly neoliberal system where elites make the rules of the game and what constitutes a fair wages and fair business practices has already had their goalposts moved.
This has led me to the greater concern that young Berners, who constitute a bulk of the Sanders crowd, have been absorbed in the highly technocratic and meritocratic world created in part by the Clintons and continued with Obama, and aren't really that progressive. They're very anti-establishment and anti-corruption, and they jump out to condemn clear social ills like homophobia, racism, and poor treatment environment. But they're heavy skeptics of cultures outside the liberal American cultures, are very, very individualistic and self-centered and are fundamentally very supportive of ultra-globalized capitalism and ultra-elitism. They're the kind of guys who will line up to support the progressive policies on paper, but will backpedal heavily when asked if they support the taxes, regulations, and overall government involvement necessary.
Is Bernie's groundswell of support not what it appears to be?Maybe I'm extrapolating too much but if I'm on to something I have concerns for what this could mean for the Bern movement and the future of American progressivism. Will we be able to live in a world that combines cooperation and competition for joint prosperity or will we always live in a world where all life is about, as Bernie said, "making another couple million bucks"?
Comments
I Believe Your Fears Are Misplaced
I have to imagine that Bernie's Senatorial page is an obscure place where few supporters visit. My evidence is purely anecdotal, but I have never come across that attitude in any of the Reddit or supporter created Facebook groups. Also, I have a 20 year old son who is a fervent Bernie fan. He and his friends would have no problem with giving the most craven of these CEOs the Marie Antoinette treatment. I just don't see the attitude you refer to here in America among Sanders supporters, especially among millenials.
Some senators and congressmembers
restrict access to only their constituents, on the belief that those folks are who they're elected to serve. Not sure if Sanders is one of those but that could be a factor -- the comments may be from a small group of involved Vermonters, not from supporters from the country as a whole. I'd say looking for Bernie posts on Twitter and Facebook (for Twitter try searching the #FeelTheBern or #StillSanders hashtags, among others) gives a better picture of Sanders' support.
hardly
it has well over 3 mill likes. His post average 30,000 likes and generate thousands of comments.
Solidarity forever
It seemed to be
that several billion a year in personal wealth was okay as long as they were the more ethical ones. So we are allowed to go after Koch/the Waltons but not Gates/Buffett even though they have said they don't pay enough. Back in the old days, or so I'm told (I'm a millenial) the salaries were still very very high (and deservedly so) but not quite as exorbitant as today.
Income inequality is the biggest threat to the .01%.
They are the ones that have millions to dump into internet
outreachpropaganda meant to convice/troll the discussions. It makes sense that the biggest opposition would be against that since really, when you think about it, the Kochs don't give a shit about things like LGBT rights or even abortion. They use those to divide the 99% on what's important--maintaining power and wealth.There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
I've never been to his senatorial page.
I don't think it is a good barometer on his supporters views on income inequality. I think there would be lively debate on what constitutes rich. I fully support that gross incomes of 250K do not constitute rich. Put two working professionals together in a family and 250K is doable. It is the American dream. Given the lack of social and family supports in this country, it takes a ton of money to take care of elderly parents, college for kids, and to still have enough money let over to pay for one's own old age.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
It also depends on the region
In some areas of the country, 250K would put you in the top bracket in terms of wealth -- think places like Appalachia or some regions of the Midwest or Deep South. I've seen houses on House Hunters running for 300K or so that would be well over that here in Silly Con Valley, where 250K is barely blinked at.
The problem is, not everyone is geared up for a 250K income, nor should they be. Those single by choice or through circumstance (death/divorce), sometimes with children to care for. Or married couples where one doesn't work outside the home either by choice or necessity (illness, disability of either the parent or a child). I don't see too many folks in blue or even "pink" collar jobs (administrative support personnel) making that sort of money. Yet, those people still need affordable housing, the ability to feed and clothe themselves and their families, and maybe some money left over for a special family vacation or to get their kids into activity groups/classes (Little League, dance class, drama group, etc.).
As Bernie says, if you work 40 hours a week, you should not be living in poverty. And you shouldn't require two full-time working adults in a household to survive in this country. I was 6 years old when my mom went back to work to bring in some extra money to supplement my dad's income; even though she was only working part-time, I lost a lot of that life participation that my older siblings got, and had to be "on my own" a lot earlier. Maybe it was better that way in hindsight, but I sometimes wonder if that's one of the reasons I never felt that close to her. That's probably another essay in the making though...
I think a lot of liberals and progressives want it both ways.
And they have a problem with really thinking things through to the root causes of inequality. They lament that it exists, and want to pin the blame on conservatives, largely, but at the same time seem fine with the system that produces it:
capitalism.
No other economic system in the history of the world has generated more inequality, and it's legal, naturalized, a part of the woodwork, which makes it far too easy to miss.
The rampant acceleration of specialization, the atomization of labor, the separation of workers into myriad tiers, with ascending or descending salaries -- the division of labor on steroids -- have all contributed to this massive gulf between tiers and their invention in the first place. None of it is necessary. It's all fundamentally arbitrary. And we know this because even within the capitalist system, these tiers have shifted wildly in the past, increased here, decreased there. For instance, before the deregulation boom of the 1970s and beyond, bankers made a fraction of what they do now. People throughout the financial sector made a fraction of what they do now. Athletes and entertainers also saw their compensation skyrocket, and while all of this was happening, blue collar workers saw their compensation fall, as did teachers, nurses, social workers, EMT workers and the like.
There is no rational, moral or ethical reason for any of this. It's not as if CEOs, financiers, athletes and entertainers suddenly put in thousands of times more hours, or worked thousands of times harder than the rank and file. But their pay changed radically in relative terms to that rank and file.
Capitalism is a fiction, as are nation-states, religions, money, etc. etc. All of this is fiction that enough humans were forced to agree to to make it work across boundaries. But, in the case of capitalism, it's a fiction that benefits the few and hurts the many, and it's not something any of us should have ever accepted. It's never, ever worked for more than a fraction of the population, and it's not set up to. We need new fictions to agree to, willingly, via democratic processes, fictions that benefit 100% of the population, instead of 1% . . . . or, perhaps 10%.
Capitalism is the root cause of modern day inequality. Reverse engineer this. Capitalism must be replaced.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
In 1970, it was estimated the average CEO took in 40X
the annual salary of the average worker in that company. It's now 300X.
One of the dynamics behind this is the massive pay members of Boards of Directors get and they get this by greasing the skids for the company's executive officers.
Capitalism has created more poverty, despoiled more land, created more insecurity than any system yet devised. Monopoly capitalism is backed up by the US military - see Honduras - and US intelligence agencies. NATO often assists where it is active.
At particular risk are traditional agricultural societies which are now in the sights of industrial agriculture. Big Ag wants to acquire the farm land, as cheaply as possible, throw the farmers off it (converting them to seasonal day labor if they hang around), and grow monoculture for-export crops. This also makes the country being exploited food insecure meaning it has to import much of its basic staple crops where before the local farmers provided all, or virtually all, the foodstuffs.
TPP et al. hasten the corporate takeover and marginalization of labor and the environment. Big capital needs to go.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Well said.
In the 1950s, the average CEO made roughly 20 times the rank and file. In the 60s, it was roughly 25 times. I think it hit that 40 times more under Reagan, and then really exploded throughout the 1980s and especially during Clinton's eight years. He did absolutely nothing to curb growing inequality, and watched as it skyrocketed to near-record heights. We hit those record heights under Obama, who also did nothing.
We expect Republican administrations to do nothing. But in the old days, we could count on Dems to at least do something to hold back the tide. Now they accept it all as natural and inevitable and actually join in the fun on behalf of the 1%.
In reality, America has no viable party concerned with the massive, grand-canyon gap between the haves and the have nots. Only the Greens and the Socialists have platforms to change this, but they don't have any shot in this locked down system for the duopoly. They're frozen out of the picture by the two parties, the powers that be, the media, etc.
America is a plutocracy. It's not a democracy. We desperately need it to be the latter.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Hello to the "nice apartment above a crack-house"
As the great Robin Williams said about Canada.
But I'll just say, it's hard for people to break 30+ years of programming. Not everyone is ready to be unplugged from "The Matrix." The protests you cite have been drilled into people in the States over and over: "taxes bad, gummit bad, rich good, business good."
All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine. -- Jeff Spicoli
Much of my extended family
lives in the US of A, and I've been a lot. My cousin joked that America is just a giant corporation. I don't intend to be too pessimistic in this article, but I am concerned that so much has changed in the last 30 years that progressives have the values but fail to back the policies, esp. on economic issues.
Nothing personal, but I hope you're wrong.
But also, I am reminded of what I called in the 1970s "left libertarianism". We saw the government as an oppressive force - Chicago, Kent State, Jackson State, the drug laws, Cointelpro - I could crash c99 if I tried to write the whole list. There is a strain of distrust in authority in the American left that has a sound basis in fact, and this can easily lead to the belief that one has to acquire the resources to defend one's self, and therefore it is right to believe this, and that government is designed to obstruct that goal.
Just to be silly, but illustrative, I once had s couple of Canadian ambulance drivers in my cab who remarked on how I was driving 67 in a 65 zone - "Americans speed more than Canadians".
On to Biden since 1973
I hope I'm wrong too
We're definitely seeing a surge among young people (btw I'm a millennial) for anti-authoritarianism in the government but what I'm wary of is the economic issues. The results of the primaries led me in the past to conclude that the Koch-funded right-libertarian push has failed but now I'm not so sure. Has it affected young Dem-leaners. I sincerely hope not.
Ronald Reagan
Profit before people. Those of my grandfather's era were People before profit. They were young adults during the depression.
My grandfather was a minor timber baron. He owned a sawmill and a logging company. Once I went with him when a house in a neighboring town burned down. Riding in the lumber truck was fun for a five year old. We were the front truck in the line that delivered an entire new house worth of lumber. Every stick of it donated by local mills. It took a few weekends of everybody pitching in to build it. These small mill owners were the ones who set the tone for our town. It was a point of pride to them to gift their town or their workers with something. A big bonus at christmas, a baseball field and to be there when the poo hit the fan and some disaster like a house fire happened. This was how they showed how successful they were.
It was not unusual. I currently work in a town with a paper mill. It is a great place lots of parks, a public pool, the most incredibly great library all gifted by the mill between 1940 and 1980. People before profit.
In case you think this is dead a guy I went to high school with, who went on to become one of the first ten employees of microsoft, just bought one of the old lumber barns in town and revamped it into a market building for local craftspeople and a farmers market. Rent is a small percent of sales. It sits right next to the highway that is traveled by the estimated million tourists we get every summer. My town has chronic unemployment issues and some really great furniture makers, carvers, potters and glass blowers, not to mention the ladies from the reservation who have won national awards for their bead work.
Who is at the helm of the country matters because our values tend to follow theirs. Since Reagan we have not had a president that was able or willing to change the national motto. This is why I latched onto Bernies campaign. To turn things around we need a healthier more sustainable national attitude than greed is good.