In America, where food has been historically inexpensive and even people on Welfare have cable television and a car, the contrasts between rich and poor haven't been great enough to satisfy many radicals.
Allen Levite, in his book Guilt, Blame and Politics, discusses political guilt in wealthy people, from Siddartha/Buddha to Plato, the son of wealth whose Republic rejected private property. One could also add Bernadine Dohrn's Weathermen associate Diana Oughton, daughter of wealth who died in a bomb-making attempt in a Greenwich Village townhouse in New York.
Many wealthy young people, seeing the differences between their circumstances and the truly poor, have chosen to help – or actually embrace their situation, i.e., live as the poor. For many, this meant charity work and job creation for the poor. But for some, this has meant advocating an overthrow of societal differences — that is, advocating a Utopian society — generally of a socialist type where we would all be "equal" – theoretically.
In America, where food has been, until recently, fairly cheap and even people on Welfare have cable television and a car, the contrasts between rich and poor haven't been great enough to satisfy many radicals.
For years, when the price of gas in the US was around $2 a gallon and $5 a gallon in Europe (significantly impacted by taxes), political environmentalists advocated $5 a gallon gas in America. Why? In part to conserve oil, but the obvious byproduct of further impoverishing many was not a major consideration for them. Once again, I ask "Why?"
With increased poverty, not only could the political environmentalists blame the capitalists/Republicans, but they could – with major help from the liberal media and such "educators" as William Ayers — induce guilt in American school children for having "too much" of the earth's resources. Need I also mention Al Gore and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, shown in so many schools, some requiring parental attendance at the screening?
In short, the poorer the poor are, the more the leftist environmentalists believe wealthy and middle class youth can be made to feel guilty about their "wasteful" American Way of Life. And they hope and believe that more of those youths can be radicalized against their parents' way of life.
The English version of the Communist anthem, The Internationalle, begins with, "Arise you prisons of starvation." Well, in order to want to make people arise in a revolt, it helps to get them to first starve. That's the real hidden value for the Left of ethanol subsidies driving up the cost of food. It's the New Age version of Pol Pot.
One of the best ways to induce an artificial sense of guilt and privilege is to keep young people in school, without a break, into their late twenties. Having never shouldered real responsibility other than a term paper, they instinctively know they are leading a charmed life that is missing something. This isn't the universal experience of all college students, but it definitely is the cultural environment they live in. I want to mention a minor example or two from my college days, not as a personal claim to doing great hard work, but as an illustration I know well.
In college, I was in the federal Work-Study Program and was employed at various odd jobs between classes. I once put on hip boots and hosed down the floors of large dog cages for the Pharmacology Dept. I also was a photographer for the Physics Dept., mixing chemicals in a dark room and once climbing to the top of a room housing a cyclotron to take its picture. On returning to class the same day as these and other tasks, I often felt that I had crossed a divide from one world to another. And, mostly felt more challenged – and at times, more worthy – for the work I did.
All this is not new. In the 1976 book In Our Time, longshoreman-intellectual Eric Hoffer noted the boredom of twenty-year-old students and advocated a half-day of work mixed with a half-day of learning real world skills which would be taught by "Retired skilled carpenters, masons, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, gardeners, architects, city planners, etc."
Political Guilt - Don't Leave Home Without It
But why should one only feel guilty and unworthy at home? Now you can feel that way on vacation. We can buy carbon offsets when we vacation via airline jets. And we can also have, as our destination, EcoTrips. These are vacations to see the rain forest or LiveEarth concerts or polar bears. Priceline has William Shatner for its travel spokesman. GuiltTrips has Al Gore for theirs. There is a Jewish joke about some guy complaining his mother is a "travel agent for guilt trips." These aforementioned jaunts are literally and figuratively "guilt trips." Maybe you don't want to take your mother with you on your next vacation – but you can take your guilt.
The Guilt Wars
Of course, wealthy people, who fly often and drive on ethanol, can borrow a page from Al Gore's playbook and accuse the average person of wasting the earth's resources by "not doing enough." Well, they could for years, until the recent news of famine and food riots. Trendy people can accuse average (income) people of not saving the planet, even though, by definition, an average person can't afford to drive around town for hours in an SUV in the first place. If one is trying to create a perfect world as a political environmentalist utopian, you can point to the imperfections of others – and if they are poorer and less articulate than you, you can win a guilt trip argument just by making a Green accusation. This is better than older liberal attacks. If you call someone a racist, they can deny it, but it is hard to say you don't waste some of the earth's resources, i.e., create garbage every day.
Back to "Environmentalist" Angst
Of course, besides the advocacy for a green, perfect Utopia, the environmentalists are also attempting to impose a sense of meaning in society, as seen through their political perspective. It is a worshiping of the earth – without the full religious tenets and beliefs of true pagans. In the 1950s a television program about communism called I Lead Three Lives had an episode about the US Communist Party's attempt to organize the sending of money to Warsaw Pact Poland. In an artful phrase, they used someone else's religion and a double entendre of a name to organize "Christmas packages for Poland." Today the Left latches onto both scientific and pagan earth worship causes to advance their own. They are no more environmental scientists than they are earth-worshiping pagans.
The Political Environmentalists' Sampson Option
During the Vietnam War, a group of US soldiers was surrounded by the enemy and called for a close air strike aimed right on top of them. This was before the days of laser-guided bombs. The ploy worked, as the planes destroyed the surrounding enemy in close proximity. This is what the political environmentalist Left wants: to destroy the old order so they can build a new Utopia. Five dollar a gallon gas? Why not ten dollar? Tripling food prices? Why not ten times the 2005 levels? Anything that destroys the Old Order is fine with them – assuming the "Old Order" is defined, for the most part, as people other than themselves, their immediate family, and close friends. But, judging by the ethanol debacle, I don't think they have worked out their plans in such detail. They just see the old order coming down, just as Sampson brought the walls down on the Philistines.
But Sampson had the sense to bring the temple down far away from his own nation.
P.S. On page 34 of Guilt, Blame and Politics by Allan Levite, it talks about the 60s Weatherman and states:
Quite often, the most radical students were precisely those from upper class backgrounds. In the violent "Weatherman" faction of the SDS, could be found Jim Mellen, of a wealthy Chicago family, and Diane Oughton, the millionaire Illinois farmer's daughter previously mentioned. Also included was her paramour, Bill Ayers, son of the chairman of the Commonwealth Edison Company.
This is also referenced in Wikipedia as:
Ayers grew up in Glen Ellyn, a suburb of Chicago, attended Lake Forest Academy and earned a B.A. from the University of Michigan in American Studies in 1968. He is the son of Thomas G. Ayers, former Chairman and CEO of Commonwealth Edison (1973 to 1980), Chicago philanthropist and the namesake of the Thomas G. Ayers College of Commerce and Industry.
Ayers went on to bomb the Pentagon and New York City Police Headquarters – and befriend Barack Obama. Well, at least Ayers isn't one of those bitter people from rural Pennsylvania.
SundialMan@aol.com
Read more articles by Jack Kemp
It is easy to dismiss concern for the poor as the manipulation of totalitarian leftism, but some of us might be inspired by higher callings, such as:
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." Psalm 82:3-4
Nowhere does the word compassion emerge in your treatsie. Was Jesus on a guilt trip. Must the rich all ignore their poor brothers.
Or is raising up the antics of the misguided Left just an easy excuse for avoiding our responsibility to care for our poorer brothers and excuse our extravagances.
IC and yourself seem to be obsessed with the psychoanalysis of the fringe left, always a lot easier than dealing with more rational proponents of such things as universal health care or less regressive taxation.
It is as if I tried to understand your viewpoint by equating it to Pat Robertson, Coulter, Allende, Hitler, etc.
I would argue that a more egalitarian society is in the interest of all of us, rich and poor, and rather than hold up Pol Pot would look at most of the current democracies in the world.
Scandanavia is often held up as this terrible example of socialism, yet these countries have lower crime, better health, and the people are just as happy, if not happier than Americans. Indeed, surveys of self reported happiness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index
put the countries of Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Sweeden, in the top ten. The US does reasonably at 23rd of 178, with Zimbabwe at 177, so I won't advance the claim that our current status is the cause of great unhappiness, but I think the fallacy that higher levels of social welfare is detrimental to our well being is easily countered.
Other parameters, such as crime rates, life expectancy, rates of teenage pregnancy, also paint a better picture of the social democracies, which you might define as socialist, though I reserve the term for countries in which the government owns much of industry, which I oppose and is not the case in Denmark, Finland, etc. which have healthy capitalistic sectors, but do promote greater egalitarianism through progressive taxation policies.
I make six figures and have worked hard for it, but I understand that vast disparities in wealth leads to higher crime rates and a vast array of social ills and I see it in my own self interest not to have people starving in the street. I do not feel guilty in any way, but I also think the fact that my income might go from 120K to 80K as a small price to pay for less crime, happier citizenry, and less poverty for my countryman.
Guilt trip or loving my brother as myself?
Comment by yonkel | May 7, 2008
Jack:
One more addendum.
I couldn't agree with you more on the benefits of getting out and working, and I will agree with you that there is an artificial elitism rendered by seeing the working poor sentimentally through the vantage of one's college dorm.
I picked fruit in twenty states, paid my way through college and my first child driving taxi, and haved turned wrenches and banged nails prior to getting an MD at age 40. What it fostered was an appreciation and respect rather than a fawning sentimentality about the lives of people in the trades and manual labor. From my experience, rebuilding a carburator is a much harder job than studying Political Science or Organic Chemistry.
Comment by yonkel | May 7, 2008
Yonkel,
I believe that Psalm is an admonition to God, not to an all-powerful centralized collectivist government. If you read more than two paragraphs of the Bible at a time, it doesn't read like the socialist tract that liberals believe it to be, and Jesus comes off a lot less like a hippy selling hemp backbacks in the Village. Jesus instructed *individuals* to take care of the sick, weak, and disabled in their communities. He did not arrive in a Prius and admonish the Roman government to collect the fruits of one person's labor and hand it over to another.
That you are willing to pay 3/4 of your salary to the government in order for them to distribute it to "poor" people and selected permanent charity recipients, such as minorities and single women, in a misguided, futile, and ill-informed attempt to purchase yourself "less crime", is fine for you. Just don't come knock on everybody else's door and ask for the same. When people perform work in exchange for money, the only people who should be involved in the transaction are the person paying the money and the person collecting it. If the person collecting the money feels compelled, for whatever convoluted reason, to give a portion of it to people who make less money than he does, or to people who do not work, or to people who have a particular skin color, or to people who otherwise find themselves in permanent need of charity, his decision should be his own. Assuage your own conscience - everyone else can worry about their own.
Your feelings on the difficulty of varying forms of work are as subjective as the Happy Planet Index. Fortunately, we live in a relatively free market system where scarcity and relative skill are the main determinants of pay. If studying organic chemistry and political science were relatively easier than obtaining a manual labor job, you'd see a glut of political scientists and organic chemists, and the monetary value of their labor would be diminished. There isn't much incentive to work for menial pay in a manual labor job if you can just as easily (or more easily, in fact) obtain a career in political science or organic chemistry and make more money. If your experience were the case universally, a lot of landscapers, truck drivers, framers, mechanics, and construction workers would obtain degrees in political science and organic chemistry for the more competitive pay, flood the job markets in those career fields with workers, and drive the price of labor in those fields down. Or, put a lot more simply, if anybody could do it, then everybody would be doing it. There's nothing inherently shameful about having an education and making money, nor anything inherently noble about having less education and making little money. That's what individual liberty and individual responsibility are all about. One person's actions should not have consequences for the whole of society - or rather, for the "rich", or "privileged" or "white", or whatever other group it is deemed should shoulder the collective responsibility for society.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | May 8, 2008
Yonkel writes: “It is easy to dismiss concern for the poor as the manipulation of totalitarian leftism”
No it’s not! It takes an open mind, knowledge of history, and a command of the language.
And: “but some of us might be inspired by higher callings, such as: Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless”
If fatherlessness were your cause then you would condemn the left for creating a society in which men are vilified and driven from there homes.
Then: “Scandanavia is often held up as this terrible example of socialism, yet these countries have lower crime, better health, and the people are just as happy, if not happier than Americans.”
Did it ever occur to you that these countries rely on the USA to defend them against the bad guys? Who do you imagine is defending them? France?
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | May 8, 2008
[…] Conservative has published our own Jack Kemp`s brilliant analysis of the liberal mind entitled High Priced Gas-The Fuel of Guilt Trips. Jack does a terrific job of illustrating the connections between the current sky-high prices we […]
Pingback by Timothy Birdnow » Jack Kemp`s `Fueling Guilt` at Intellectual Conservative | May 8, 2008
Patrick:
Yes, you are correct in that Jesus did not attempt to enlist the state in helping the poor, which was probably a non-issue at the time. I can see your point.
As a representative democracy in which the government must be funded for things that both those more liberal (social welfare) and those more conservative (military) want the people can allot these taxes as they see fit. Or would you prefer that the war in Iraq, the space program, the interstate highways etc. be funded on a voluntary basis
I do not see that there is some natural law that insists that poor people pay the same taxes as the rich, and indeed it would be physically impossible to do such, and some level of progressive taxation is favored by even the most conservative legislator. Would you have the guy flipping burgers pay the exact same tax as Bill Gates.
Most Americans agree that some level of progressive taxation is necessary and the argument in the body politic is typically about the degree to which this occurs.
Now, I said I was willing to pay 1/3 of my salary not 3/4, but regardless, to me it is a small price to pay for the advantages afforded. The social democracies in Europe and the US developed their institutions at a time when the competing philosophy was socialism and communism, which thrived in the fertile soil where huge masses of the people are impoverished and small numbers have great wealth.
There also is a correlation between vast inequalities of wealth and crime. Countries like Brazil and South Africa, and to some degree the US, where there are great disparities in wealth tend to have higher crime. The more egalitarian countries of northern Europe have low crime and lower rates of social dysfunction. So, it is not that "I am assuaging my guilt" which I do not have, and was the implication of the original post, but I am acting in my own self interest by having the government promote the general welfare and afford more people the opportunity for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
As to the work thing, my point was in jest. I understand the free market determines wages and would not have it otherwise. I worked hard to become a physician, but I do often tell my patients, that it was because I find auto mechanics too difficult. I was agreeing with Mr. Kemp's point about the importance of hard work and do not suggest some program of forced manual labor. I see some of my colleagues who never left the expected path of college and profession toss a bale of hay, as having missed out on things. I also am a big fan of Eric Hoffer.
Tha "Happy People Index", of course, is subjective, how else could you do it. Polls rely on subjective data, if you ask somebody who they are going to vote for, that is a subjective comment. Conservatives have not abandoned polling, some of them do it very well. Data always has its limitations.
My point is that if you think that the democracies using progressive taxation to create equality of wealth or universal health care are doing something so terrible, why do they choose to do it, and why do they seem to be happier than us, have less crime, longer life expectancy, etc.
I am likely in agreement with you on several points. I do not support the vast array of overlapping, conceptual social engineering programs, like public housing etc. that keep a vast army of social workers busy. I was a strong supporter of the recent welfare reform, a bipartisan achievement. I see people routinely abusing the disability system in my practice. I do favor limited government in many aspects, yet also would support some programs like universal health care. I look at these things pragmatically.
Comment by yonkel | May 8, 2008
Ivan:
Yes, Europe did rely on the US for its defense, and that was one of the factors that earned our country a vast respect in Europe.
I don't know that this is relevant to my argument.
My argument was that if progressive taxation and certain social welfare programs were so terrible, why do these countries, seem to do well with them.
As to why I don't "condemn the left for vilifying fatherhood", I really don't know what you are talking about. There certainly are things that some on the left support that I disagree with, that might impact negatively on fatherhood, but hardly think that some political sector has "driven men from their homes".
I am not a representative or spokesman of the left, nor do I believe there is some universal left or right opinion on any given issue. I see aspects of some conservative and liberal viewpoints that I like, and others that I don't. I am a free thinker and not tied to anybody's ideology or concept of such.
Comment by yonkel | May 8, 2008
Yonkel,
The comments you post on this website make me want to thank you and all who think like you for "special interest groups".
Comment by KevinB | May 8, 2008
Yonkel
It is relevant in not only the past, but also today. The USA has been and remains the strongest nation in the world. I grant that the EU is trying to be a factor, but other than the UK, there is no country that carries the burden of policing the world the way we do. This gives those little countries in Scandinavia the freedom to spend their time and energy on other matters. It’s not only the military budget, but the freedom to play around with things like socialism without the fear of failure. If some policy should fail in Sweden, for example, the world does not turn on that failure. It’s a simple matter to hide the inefficiencies, or reverse them on a whim. It’s kind of like being Howie Long’s little brother and calling the school bully a jerk. Nobody is going to challenge you, so you can do as you please.
On fatherhood, let me explain. I grew up in a world with a 10% divorce rate. My Ma and Dad were still married when he pasted away after their 60th. The rate is somewhere near 50% now, so it’s a flip of the coin if that will happen to children born today. What has changed? Feminists in government, that’s what. Men are basically the same, so it’s women and government that make the difference. Moreover, who is it that panders to the feminists? I’ll let you answer that. Just listen to your patients. The divorced men and women, plus the children without fathers, they will tell you.
I don’t fault you for wanting government paid health care. I had a plumber friend that thought plumbers should be given a subsidy. It’s just natural to look out for yourself (I think Adam Smith had something to say about that). But millions of babies die before they get a chance to take a breath and millions of elderly people hang on, with medications and nursing care. A little less Namenda and RU-486 would be a good thing in my book.
Open mindedness is OK, but you have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything. (That would make a good country song)
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | May 8, 2008
Ivan:
My desire for universal health has little to do with wanting something for myself, I can well afford health insurance. I do, however, in my medical practice, often see poor working people who suffer physical harm because they can't afford insurance or medicine.
I don't see the government's function as giving everything for everybody. For example, I don't know that it is the governments function to spend money for college tuition or head start or subsidies to rice farmers. Health care I equate with fire service or police protection or maintaining the military, one of those basic life support things. A wealthy society like ours should make sure that all its citizens have access to healthcare.
How that is done, I am not a stickler. Romneys plan is fine. Some of the states have come up with good solutions.
You have a point about Namenda, but you will definitely buck up against the Schiavo supporters on the blog.
For myself, having intimately cared for 100s of nursing home residents, I do not want myself to be in a position of occupying a bed for fortunes of money with no prospect of recovering. Give me a good party and send me off on the ice flow. Now others feel differently and I have to respect that, but I do worry that as medical science advances we are creating the ability to keep people alive indefinitely in minimally functional states at enormous costs. This is all paid for by taxes, and yet a young working family with a sick child gets nothing.
Comment by yonkel | May 8, 2008
"As a representative democracy in which the government must be funded for things that both those more liberal (social welfare) and those more conservative (military) want the people can allot these taxes as they see fit. Or would you prefer that the war in Iraq, the space program, the interstate highways etc. be funded on a voluntary basis"
Private military and civil institutions wouldn't be the worst idea I can think of. They've been pitched before many a time by libertarian think tanks. In any case, your feelings on poverty and your desire to relinquish your salary to the government to "buy off" poverty (as if such a thing were possible) should be exercised individually. I would like to see the government control as little of my (and your) assets as is humanly possible to remain functional. The government should not be responsible for distributing income - private institutions by way of employers and charity organizations do a much more efficient job of allocating resources. Similarly with health care. I don't feel that I should be forced to purchase health care for myself if I don't want it, and I certainly shouldn't be forced to purchase health care for anyone else. I also feel that I should be allowed to decide whether or not to wear a seat belt when I'm driving my car. Those decisions impact my life, and my life alone (or at least they would if the government did not insist on subsidizing my bad decisions and penalizing my good ones). Individual liberty, individual responsibility. If you feel morally, ethically, or otherwise compelled to reallocate your income to other people's bank accounts, you should be free to do so. But I should be free not to do so. The charter that distributes power to our various branches of government does not give Congress the authority to collect the wealth of the citizenry for the purpose of equalizing income. The *pursuit* of happiness does not mean the guarantee of happiness. The "general welfare" does not mean "collective equality". The freedom to make bad decisions and fail is necessary if there is to be freedom to make good decisions and succeed. The government's job is to make sure that the components necessary for you to take a shot at the brass ring exist - not to buy the brass ring and present it in a mahogany gift box.
The reason I brought up the subjectivity of the "Happiness Index" is because you are trying to equate the subjective happiness index with objective government policies. That one group of people identifies itself as "happy" (an abstract human emotion) may be impacted by hundreds or thousands of factors, both subjective and objective AND depends entirely on the subjective response of the interviewee to objective external factors. I, for example, may respond unfavorably and be unhappy in reaction to circumstances that would make a person with different social, philosophical, and cultural conditioning very very happy. To isolate a single government practice as causing a particular response (happiness or unhappiness) universally is overly simplistic. I'm not especially happy with our government, for example, but I would be significantly less happy with it if it adopted more socialistic European practices. In addition, the degree to which my happiness depends on my economic circumstances may be (and is probably) extremely different than someone from a different country and accompanying culture. Or to be more brief: wealth redistribution is probably not the sole determining factor of world happiness.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | May 9, 2008
Nice response PM, but you are dealing with a person who will not admit his own self-interest. That spells Troll, which rhymes with Poll, which starts with P, which sounds like D, which stands for Democrat. He has the full power to help that sick child from a working family, but he wants you to pay. He will say anything just to promote his Orwellian ideas.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | May 9, 2008
Patrick:
Good thoughts. I am off for the weekend and will address them on return as there is quite a bit there.
Ivan, you are neither being humorous, sensible, or mannerly. I answered you in a respectful tone and you insult in the third person.
Patrick does make good points, I agree, but you are displaying a schoolyard sensibility.
I do have a different viewpoint than most of the bloggers, though not the carricature that you perceive, and if that is unwelcome by the majority, I can go. I myself enjoy talking to people with different viewpoints from my own.
Comment by yonkel | May 9, 2008