But, but, but! That’s what the conservatives will say because that is what the conservatives have always said. Here in the United States, in the “land of opportunity,” we have less opportunity than pretty much every other advanced economy. If you want to grow up to be rich in the United States, the most important thing you need is a rich father. But if you want to grow up to be rich in Denmark, it really isn’t that important to have a rich father. So the United States is like the bad old times in Feudal England. It ought to be an outrage and indeed among some, it is. But among conservatives: nothing.

All we get from conservatives is, “But, but, but!” But what, we might ask. They have lots of reasons for this. My favorite is the most common reason—the racist reason: well those other countries are all homogeneous. They won’t say this, but the subtext is clear enough, “How can we be as equal was Denmark when we have all these black and brown people who are dragging us down?” Or there is Avik Roy’s definition of equality as simply the lack of explicit laws saying someone can’t do something. So as long as a law doesn’t say African Americans can’t be rich, there is equality. Neat trick, huh? But more and more, the conservative answer to inequality is that it doesn’t matter. As Josh Barro puts it:

This is why the work by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett is so important. Yesterday, I posted a TED Talk by Wilkinson that provides a summary. But below is a full hour and a half lecture by both of them that I encourage everyone to watch. The basic picture is that once a society gets to a certain level of wealth, it doesn’t help them out on average. It’s very much like studies that have shown that above a certain income, people don’t get happier. But the more inequality there is inside a country, the worse off it is. And it doesn’t just affect the poor. The rich in a country with more equality live longer than the rich in a country with less equality.

But, but, but! I can just hear the conservatives come up with their reasons for why this is not a problem. Americans, even rich ones, are fat! Americans are just more violent! And then finally: death is good!

Wilkinson and Pickett look at a lot more than that, though. On just about every measure you can think of, inequality makes a society worse. And they’ve controlled for just about everything you can think of. It is really amazing work. They also looked at the 50 United States. They found that the more unequal the states are, the more people they have in jail. Now one has to ask, “Is that not because there is more crime in high inequality states?” Well, that is 30% of the effect. But 70% of it is just the fact that states with more inequality that put more people in jail for longer periods of time.

Their hypothesis, which goes along with work in other fields, is that it has to do with how people are valued in society. In Wilkinson’s TED Talk, he provided this very nice graphic:

In societies that are more equal, people feel they are more valued. They don’t feel the need to look good or clever or, not to put to fine a point on it, worthy. I’ve often heard conservatives rant about the status symbols of poor kids: tennis shoes, iPads, whatever. I look at that and I think it’s sad—a social pathology indicating that society has not provided these kids with a feeling of self-worth that goes beyond them being consumers. But the conservatives look at it and think it just means they can’t manage their money and no wonder they’re poor. But, but, but!

Income inequality is killing us. We are the most unequal of the “advanced” countries and we have by far the most social pathologies. I have solutions—things like guaranteed minimum incomes, equality of education, and far more and higher tax brackets. I will be talking about them in the future. But you can bet that the conservatives won’t. They’ll have “solutions” of course—the same “solutions” they have to every “problem.” They’ll want to gut the social safety net because it has become a hammock, keeping poor people down. And they’ll want to cut the top tax rates because poor people look at them and think, “Why should I work hard when I’m going to be taxed so much!” Look forward to conversations like this:

And most of all: but, but, but!

My father’s favorite lines is, “What’s wrong with these people?” This is usually applied to how people drive. But it’s a good general question, because as I go on my way each day I wonder the same thing, “What’s wrong with these people?”

As you may remember, that great defender of liberalism, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law in 1996.[1] There are two important parts to the act. Section 2 says that if any states allow gay marriage, the other states can ignore them. Second 3 says that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Second 3 was found unconstitutional, but of course, four of the justices thought it was just fine. So DOMA is pretty much a thing of the past.

Side note: the whole one man and one woman thing is truly bizarre. The reason marriage is currently defined that way is because that is the way it is currently defined. Historically, powerful men had many wives and weak men had none. This is certainly the case through most of the Bible, which is where most conservatives get their ideas about what marriage is. Look at Lot: after his wife was turned into a pillar of salt, he effectively got two wives: his two daughters. (The Bible is very creepy.) So there’s no historical or religious precedent for this whole one man and one woman definition. What it all comes down to is what people are used to, and therefore, what they are comfortable with.

Same-Sex Marriage in the Military

So DOMA is off the table. And another of Clinton’s great liberal policies is gone too: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). So Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel declared that same-sex married couples could apply for benefits at state National Guard bases. And it all went fine, because after all, what’s the big fucking deal? It is just paper work. There are no physical examples—no one had to watch the couple copulate. But, of course, for some people it was a big deal. Six states balked:

1. West Virginia
2. Oklahoma
3. Texas
4. Louisiana
5. Mississippi
6. Georgia

First, I want to state for the record: it wasn’t the people actually doing the processing of paper work. I’m not saying that some or even a lot of them weren’t against same-sex marriage. But they were just doing what they were told, just like at any job. No, it was the political demagogues who were trying to make a point. That point is a little vague, I think it has something to do with standing up for stupidity, injustice, and the bigoted way.

Real Patriotism

Regardless, this is the United States armed forces. It amazes me. Let me say that again with feeling: it amazes me. The conservative idea of patriotism is that you support your country, except when you don’t want to. These people don’t love America; they love some idea of America that they made up in their own little pea brains. I’m not saying “America right or wrong.” But I am saying that breaking the law needs to be based on a hell of a lot more than the fact that you find gay sex icky.

Right now, we have a young lady named Chelsea Manning serving 30 years in prison. She saw that the United States military was misbehaving and lying about it. So she went to her supervisors and they were in on it too. They told her to just ignore it. But she did what a good solider is supposed do. She disobeyed those unethical orders. But in the case of processing same-sex marriage benefit claims, these states were not protesting the military doing something it claimed it was not. They just didn’t like the policy. It is as if Manning had released those files because she just didn’t think we should be at war in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, Chelsea Manning got 30 years, and these bigots get nothing.

But they did lose their battle. After all the tizzy fits and pompous proclamations, they all caved. Now same-sex married couples can file for benefits at state National Guard posts. But I still have the same question, “What is wrong with these people?”

Afterword

Want to write to a patriot? Here is Chelsea Manning’s address, but you still have to use the name “Bradley” on the envelope:

Her wish is to be referred to as a Chelsea and Ms inside the letter. We have a great deal to be thankful to her for.

[1] Some might defend him by noting that Congress would have easily over-ruled him if he had vetoed the bill. But it was quite simply an act of political cowardice, right before his re-election in 1996. Later, Clinton called for its repeal. I’m sure if he had been allowed, he would have signed up to fight in Vietnam in 1976 too.