I was looking at cartoons about income inequality last night and I came upon a number of them that I’d like to share. Click on them to go to the original websites. They all highlight different aspects of the problem. As Estragon said, “Nothing to be done.” That’s the conservative answer to income inequality: nothing can be done, and even if something could be done, we shouldn’t do anything. It is for the best that there be high levels of inequality. Why? Because!

Raise the Minimum Wage?

How could the companies possibly afford to raise the minimum wage? After all, profits are at all time highs! We need to wait until profits go back down, and when companies aren’t sitting on piles of cash. That’s when things will be “normal” and companies can make a good decision about how much they can pay. Of course, then they won’t be able to pay more because profits aren’t high enough and they aren’t sitting on such large piles of cash.

Start at the Top!

If you want to become rich in America, the surest way is to have a rich daddy. Just ask Tagg Romney. But the next surest way is to start at the top with the minimum wage:

What?

The big thing about the way that we think about economics in this country is that it is “natural.” But there is nothing natural about it. Income distribution is 99% determined by our laws. I understand that the rich don’t see that, because it would be very inconvenient to see that. But there is nothing natural about this:

Family Legacy

We have an economic system that just so happens to make some people unreasonably rich. No one would look from the outside and say, “That’s the way it should be!” Our economy is like a board game. If you are very good at it, you do well. But if the game were different, you wouldn’t do so well. Is the sorta free market economic system we have the best one? I don’t think so. This is a good example of just how “free” and “meritorious” our system is:

Shared Sacrifice

This is my favorite. I hear this coming from liberalish pundits all the time, “We all need to sacrifice!” How does that work exactly. For the poor, an economic downturn means they lose their jobs. In a normal cultural system, in a downturn, people would work more and harder. But in our screwed up system, they aren’t allowed to work at all. Of course the conservatives and “liberal” moderates aren’t sacrificing except that maybe their investments aren’t growing quite as fast as they’d like. “Shared Sacrifice” (which I’ve heard Obama say so much that it sickens me) is just another way of saying, “Screw the poor!”

Let Them Eat Cake

But leave it to Dilbert to put it just right: let them eat cake. Of course, it isn’t the employee who really doesn’t deserve a promotion who is the problem. The problem is the corporate system itself and the way that it enriches the rich beyond all reason. And despite what Milton Friedman used to say, this system is not also making the poor richer. But I’m sure if he were alive, he would just come up with a new apologia for why our unconscionable inequality was good. Regardless, let the rich eat cake:

And really: die. That’s when the rich do their best work.

Not that I really care about the 2016 campaign, but No More Mister Nice Blog is reporting, Iowa Republicans Apparently Live in Their Own Information Bubble, Not the Beltwy’s. It looks at how Iowa Republicans are looking at potential 2016 presidential nominees. They are big on Paul Ryan, which is just short of the most boring thing I’ve ever heard. Much of that is just that he’s attractive.[1] Big deal.

What was more interesting, but no more surprising was, “Iowa voters are apparently not obsessed with the post-2012 media flavors-of-the-month, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz.” The reason for this is simple, although most political observers just don’t seem to get it. Both Christie and Cruz are assholes. That doesn’t play most places.

Rural areas tend to be more conservative for a number of reasons. One is that they aren’t terribly diverse. It is so much easier to think that black folks are bad if all you ever see are black men charged with murder on the television news. What’s more, in low crime areas, people tend to take an over-sized approach to law enforcement—they want to “throw the book” at people for small crimes. These are unfortunately aspects of rural populations. But one fortunate aspect is that the people generally have a more rigid idea of decorum.

Ted Cruz, for all his Texas “charm,” comes off as the Princeton University elitist that he is. Every time I see him on the television, I’m not struck so much by his being wrong as I am by how he seems to be talking down to me. I get the very same thing from Rand Paul, who also doesn’t come off too well in Iowa. They both come off like they are trying to school me in basic economics. “If only you fools would read your Friedrich Hayek a bit more carefully, you’d understand how the world really works!”

I understand that Paul Ryan thinks the exact same things, but that’s not how he comes off at all. In fact, if you really listen to him (and I’m afraid most liberals do not), you will hear all kinds of populism coming from him. He talks about the unfair tax code and about how working people are being kept down. Sure: all his solutions will only make matters worse, but his pitch is directed at the middle classes and wanting to save them. The same goes for Rick Santorum, who has great economic rhetoric (and whose economic policies would actually be more populist).

As for Chris Christie, well what do you expect? The only reason the Villagers are so fond of him is that they see him as a “third way” kind of guy. He gets the same treatment that John McCain does. He’s a conservative, sure. But he doesn’t hate the gays! Except he does. He doesn’t want to limit access to abortions! Except he does. He doesn’t want to destroy the environment! Except he does. He’s also corrupt. But none of that matters, because to the beltway crowd, he seems reasonable. Of course, part of that is just that he’s a governor in a blue state. What do these people expect? Did they think he was going to go out of his way to prove how conservative he was during a re-election campaign?

As for the people in Iowa, I’m sure that he comes off as the very rude man from New Jersey that he is. He’s the guy that yells at reporters and teachers and anyone else who asks him a question that he doesn’t like. And don’t forget: he’s big. And that just makes him seem like a bully—which he is! The only places that Christie is likely to do well are the places that will be won by the Democrat in the general election: New Jersery, New York, California. So if the national Republican Party is stupid enough to nominate Christie, have at it. But it would seem that the people in Iowa are a bit smarter than that.

Afterword

I am well aware that there is right now a highly paid team of political consultants who are simultaneously working on ways to make Christie look more traditionally conservative (that is, fascist) and less like a total asshole. I just don’t think that second part can be done.

[1] I saw a blond woman on television talking about income inequality and how she dug herself out of poverty. All I could think was, “Yeah, but almost no one is gorgeous like you are. Do you really think your looks have nothing to do with your being on television?” Looks matter enormously in everything.

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.

I have to admit to a certain fascination with neo-Nazis and the like. A lot of them are just angry men who find comradery in their shared anger and hatred. But where does that come from? I mean, I’ve known a lot of violent assholes. And every couple of days some guy goes on a shooting spree. What would make someone grab onto what is about the purest example of evil we have and say, “I’m for that!” I mean, I’ve known young people who dabbled in what they thought was Satanism by reading old books on witchcraft. They just thought they were being naughty. If any adult identifies as a witch, what she means is that she thinks trees and herbal remedies are cool—it is nothing dark, much less evil.

Certainly, the neo-Nazis and the Klansmen depend upon racism. But the whole society is racist in its own way and most people at least try to hide their racism if not actively fight it. So again, we are back to the fundamental question: why do people want to be public assholes? Is it as simple as them wanting attention? I tend to think so. But that isn’t to say that they don’t completely accept all the vile thinking that goes along with the persona.

Bill White

Yesterday, the Southern Policy Law Center reported, Neo-Nazi Bill White Indicted for Internet Threats—Again! Mr. White has been indicted so many times, it is hard to keep track. And to me, he seems just like any number of other loud-mouths. But that’s what these people always seem like until they start acting on their rhetoric. There is, after all, a process. Unless one is actually dealing with arguments, rhetoric just has to get more and more extreme. But there is an end to that. Eventually, that rhetoric must lead to action. Or the people must just drop the whole matter, as I suspect is the more common path.

White’s path is, shall we say, unusual. Wikipedia reports his various political moves over the years:

It does have a certain consistency: authoritarianism. And once you reach Pat Buchanan, a neo-Nazism we will go! But it is interesting that it wasn’t until he got in with the “white power” crowd that he started making threats and generally being a real concern to the peace of our society.

Now let me just make a comment about leftist movements in the United States. It isn’t like they are lily white. In the 1960s, there were certainly leftists who wanted to start a revolution. Bombs were made; people died. And there will always be people on the extremes doing crazy things for their own crazy reasons. But the left learned valuable lessons from the 1960s that it has never forgotten. You just don’t get the kind of violent rhetoric from the left that you get from the right. The left seems to understand that violent rhetoric leads to violence while the right continues to pretend there is no connection.

I wouldn’t call Bill White a member of the political right in this country, although that is most certainly where he came from. I don’t think people like him have real political agendas anyway. “The Jews are greedy and lie” is not really a political statement. But clearly, he’s a searcher. And as such, he’s an example of our society not providing people with constructive ways of finding meaning. Regardless of whether White makes good on his threats and spends the rest of his life in prison, or reforms and becomes an advocate against racism, he has become “someone” in our society.

Finding Positive Meaning

Most of the people in the United States are “nobody.” In the old days of unions, people had that to identify themselves: they were members of a collection of workers who were making the country a better place. Remember “Union Strong”? There are lots of ways for people to feel valued, but work is one of the most important. But for most people, work has become nothing more than a paycheck. Being part of a union was being part of something. Despite the “We Are Walmart” ads, the workers there know that they are not Walmart. And the moment Walmart gives them their most recent paycheck, their connection with the company is over until their next hour of work.

Increasingly, I see the decline of unionization as a much bigger problem than just economics. The decline of unions in America is part of a larger problem where people don’t see where they fit into society and they certainly don’t see how it is they matter. So it is not a surprise that a man like Bill White, who has clearly spent much of his life looking for his place, has turned from one radical group to another, only to land in a world where his most vile and hateful tendencies have made him a star of sorts.

Our Cultural Cancer

As a society, we can deal with the Bill Whites of the world. We can put them in prison. Or we can at least keep tabs on them enough to stop them from physically hurting anyone. But he’s symptomatic of a larger and more difficult problem. How will our people find their places in our society where they can make things better? Part of that answer is increasing unionization and decreasing income inequality. But fundamentally, it is about our society abandoning its obsession with wealth as the ultimate gauge of a person’s value. I don’t think this problem can be cured. But it can be treated; it can be less harmful. Currently, it is metastasizing and will destroy our society if we don’t treat it.

The Bill Whites of the nation are just the most obvious symptoms.