Jerri-Lynn here: This magisterial essay describes how and why American politics has stopped reflecting the will and concerns of the people. It examines the rise of inequality and reflects the wisdom of someone who has been thinking carefully about this subject for more than six decades. The statistics Moyers cites will be familiar to many but are shocking nonetheless.
Moyers recognizes that this plutocratic trend is not something that just happened, without benefit of any human agency. He doesn’t forget to discuss cui bono: he explains how moneyed interests have organised politically to enact deeply inegalitarian policies. The essay is long, but comprehensive and beautifully written, and ends on a touch of optimism, describing what must happen next for we, the people to take back control over our politics.
By Bill Moyers, who has been an organizer of the Peace Corps, a top White House aide, a publisher, and a prolific broadcast journalist whose work earned 37 Emmy Awards and nine Peabody Awards. He is president of the Schumann Media Center, which supports independent journalism. This essay is adapted from remarks he prepared for delivery this past summer at the Chautauqua Institution’s week-long focus on money and power. He is grateful to his colleagues Karen Kimball and Gail Ablow for their research and fact checking. Originally published at Tom Dispatch.
Sixty-six years ago this summer, on my 16th birthday, I went to work for the daily newspaper in the small East Texas town of Marshall where I grew up. It was a good place to be a cub reporter — small enough to navigate but big enough to keep me busy and learning something every day. I soon had a stroke of luck. Some of the paper’s old hands were on vacation or out sick and I was assigned to help cover what came to be known across the country as “the housewives’ rebellion.”
Fifteen women in my hometown decided not to pay the social security withholding tax for their domestic workers. Those housewives were white, their housekeepers black. Almost half of all employed black women in the country then were in domestic service. Because they tended to earn lower wages, accumulate less savings, and be stuck in those jobs all their lives, social security was their only insurance against poverty in old age. Yet their plight did not move their employers.
The housewives argued that social security was unconstitutional and imposing it was taxation without representation. They even equated it with slavery. They also claimed that “requiring us to collect [the tax] is no different from requiring us to collect the garbage.” So they hired a high-powered lawyer — a notorious former congressman from Texas who had once chaired the House Un-American Activities Committee — and took their case to court. They lost, and eventually wound up holding their noses and paying the tax, but not before their rebellion had become national news.
The stories I helped report for the local paper were picked up and carried across the country by the Associated Press. One day, the managing editor called me over and pointed to the AP Teletype machine beside his desk. Moving across the wire was a notice citing our paper and its reporters for our coverage of the housewives’ rebellion.
I was hooked, and in one way or another I’ve continued to engage the issues of money and power, equality and democracy over a lifetime spent at the intersection between politics and journalism. It took me awhile to put the housewives’ rebellion into perspective. Race played a role, of course. Marshall was a segregated, antebellum town of 20,000, half of whom were white, the other half black. White ruled, but more than race was at work. Those 15 housewives were respectable townsfolk, good neighbors, regulars at church (some of them at my church). Their children were my friends; many of them were active in community affairs; and their husbands were pillars of the town’s business and professional class.
So what brought on that spasm of rebellion? They simply couldn’t see beyond their own prerogatives. Fiercely loyal to their families, their clubs, their charities, and their congregations — fiercely loyal, that is, to their own kind — they narrowly defined membership in democracy to include only people like themselves. They expected to be comfortable and secure in their old age, but the women who washed and ironed their laundry, wiped their children’s bottoms, made their husbands’ beds, and cooked their family’s meals would also grow old and frail, sick and decrepit, lose their husbands and face the ravages of time alone, with nothing to show from their years of labor but the crease in their brow and the knots on their knuckles.
In one way or another, this is the oldest story in our country’s history: the struggle to determine whether “we, the people” is a metaphysical reality — one nation, indivisible — or merely a charade masquerading as piety and manipulated by the powerful and privileged to sustain their own way of life at the expense of others.
“I Contain Multitudes”
There is a vast difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud, a democracy in name only. I have no doubt about what the United States of America was meant to be. It’s spelled out right there in the 52 most revolutionary words in our founding documents, the preamble to our Constitution, proclaiming the sovereignty of the people as the moral base of government:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
What do those words mean, if not that we are all in the business of nation-building together?
Now, I recognize that we’ve never been a country of angels guided by a presidium of saints. Early America was a moral morass. One in five people in the new nation was enslaved. Justice for the poor meant stocks and stockades. Women suffered virtual peonage. Heretics were driven into exile, or worse. Native people — the Indians — would be forcibly removed from their land, their fate a “trail of tears” and broken treaties.
No, I’m not a romantic about our history and I harbor no idealized notions of politics and democracy. Remember, I worked for President Lyndon Johnson. I heard him often repeat the story of the Texas poker shark who leaned across the table and said to his mark: “Play the cards fair, Reuben. I know what I dealt you.” LBJ knew politics.
Nor do I romanticize “the people.” When I began reporting on the state legislature while a student at the University of Texas, a wily old state senator offered to acquaint me with how the place worked. We stood at the back of the Senate floor as he pointed to his colleagues spread out around the chamber — playing cards, napping, nipping, winking at pretty young visitors in the gallery — and he said to me, “If you think these guys are bad, you should see the people who sent them there.”
And yet, despite the flaws and contradictions of human nature — or perhaps because of them — something took hold here. The American people forged a civilization: that thin veneer of civility stretched across the passions of the human heart. Because it can snap at any moment, or slowly weaken from abuse and neglect until it fades away, civilization requires a commitment to the notion (contrary to what those Marshall housewives believed) that we are all in this together.
American democracy grew a soul, as it were — given voice by one of our greatest poets, Walt Whitman, with his all-inclusive embrace in Song of Myself:
Whoever degrades another degrades me,
and whatever is done or said returns at last to me…
I speak the pass-word primeval — I give the sign of democracy;
By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms…
(I am large — I contain multitudes.)
Author Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has vividly described Whitman seeing himself in whomever he met in America. As he wrote in I Sing the Body Electric:
— the horseman in his saddle,
Girls, mothers, house-keepers, in all their performances,
The group of laborers seated at noon-time with their open dinner-kettles and their wives waiting,
The female soothing a child — the farmer’s daughter in the garden or cow-yard,
The young fellow hoeing corn —
Whitman’s words celebrate what Americans shared at a time when they were less dependent on each other than we are today. As Townsend put it, “Many more people lived on farms in the nineteenth century, and so they could be a lot more self-reliant; growing their own food, sewing their clothes, building their homes. But rather than applauding what each American could do in isolation, Whitman celebrated the vast chorus: ‘I hear America singing.’” The chorus he heard was of multitudinous voices, a mighty choir of humanity.
Whitman saw something else in the soul of the country: Americans at work, the laboring people whose toil and sweat built this nation. Townsend contrasts his attitude with the way politicians and the media today — in their endless debates about wealth creation, capital gains reduction, and high corporate taxes — seem to have forgotten working people. “But Whitman wouldn’t have forgotten them.” She writes, “He celebrates a nation where everyone is worthy, not where a few do well.”
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood the soul of democracy, too. He expressed it politically, although his words often ring like poetry. Paradoxically, to this scion of the American aristocracy, the soul of democracy meant political equality. “Inside the polling booth,” he said, “every American man and woman stands as the equal of every other American man and woman. There they have no superiors. There they have no masters save their own minds and consciences.”
God knows it took us a long time to get there. Every claim of political equality in our history has been met by fierce resistance from those who relished for themselves what they would deny others. After President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation it took a century before Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — a hundred years of Jim Crow law and Jim Crow lynchings, of forced labor and coerced segregation, of beatings and bombings, of public humiliation and degradation, of courageous but costly protests and demonstrations. Think of it: another hundred years before the freedom won on the bloody battlefields of the Civil War was finally secured in the law of the land.
And here’s something else to think about: Only one of the women present at the first women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls in 1848 — only one, Charlotte Woodward — lived long enough to see women actually get to vote.
“We Pick That Rabbit Out of the Hat”
So it was, in the face of constant resistance, that many heroes — sung and unsung — sacrificed, suffered, and died so that all Americans could gain an equal footing inside that voting booth on a level playing field on the ground floor of democracy. And yet today money has become the great unequalizer, the usurper of our democratic soul.
No one saw this more clearly than that conservative icon Barry Goldwater, longtime Republican senator from Arizona and one-time Republican nominee for the presidency. Here are his words from almost 30 years ago:
The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of the utmost importance to the patriots who founded our nation and wrote the Constitution. They knew that corruption destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional liberty: an independent legislature free from any influence other than that of the people. Applying these principles to modern times, we can make the following conclusions: To be successful, representative government assumes that elections will be controlled by the citizenry at large, not by those who give the most money. Electors must believe that their vote counts. Elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people, not to their own wealth or to the wealth of interest groups that speak only for the selfish fringes of the whole community.
About the time Senator Goldwater was writing those words, Oliver Stone released his movie Wall Street. Remember it? Michael Douglas played the high roller Gordon Gekko, who used inside information obtained by his ambitious young protégé, Bud Fox, to manipulate the stock of a company that he intended to sell off for a huge personal windfall, while throwing its workers, including Bud’s own blue-collar father, overboard. The younger man is aghast and repentant at having participated in such duplicity and chicanery, and he storms into Gekko’s office to protest, asking, “How much is enough, Gordon?”
Gekko answers:
The richest one percent of this country owns half our country’s wealth, five trillion dollars… You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now, you’re not naïve enough to think we’re living in a democracy, are you, Buddy? It’s the free market. And you’re part of it.
That was in the high-flying 1980s, the dawn of today’s new gilded age. The Greek historian Plutarch is said to have warned that “an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of a Republic.” Yet as the Washington Post pointed out recently, income inequality may be higher at this moment than at any time in the American past.
When I was a young man in Washington in the 1960s, most of the country’s growth accrued to the bottom 90% of households. From the end of World War II until the early 1970s, in fact, income grew at a slightly faster rate at the bottom and middle of American society than at the top. In 2009, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez explored decades of tax data and found that from 1950 through 1980 the average income of the bottom 90% of Americans had grown, from $ 17,719 to $ 30,941. That represented a 75% increase in 2008 dollars.
Since 1980, the economy has continued to grow impressively, but most of the benefits have migrated to the top. In these years, workers were more productive but received less of the wealth they were helping to create. In the late 1970s, the richest 1% received 9% of total income and held 19% of the nation’s wealth. The share of total income going to that 1% would then rise to more than 23% by 2007, while their share of total wealth would grow to 35%. And that was all before the economic meltdown of 2007-2008.
Even though everyone took a hit during the recession that followed, the top 10% now hold more than three-quarters of the country’s total family wealth.
I know, I know: statistics have a way of causing eyes to glaze over, but these statistics highlight an ugly truth about America: inequality matters. It slows economic growth, undermines health, erodes social cohesion and solidarity, and starves education. In their study The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett found that the most consistent predictor of mental illness, infant mortality, low educational achievement, teenage births, homicides, and incarceration was economic inequality.
So bear with me as I keep the statistics flowing. The Pew Research Center recently released a new study indicating that, between 2000 and 2014, the middle class shrank in virtually all parts of the country. Nine out of ten metropolitan areas showed a decline in middle-class neighborhoods. And remember, we aren’t even talking about over 45 million people who are living in poverty. Meanwhile, between 2009 and 2013, that top 1% captured 85 percent of all income growth. Even after the economy improved in 2015, they still took in more than half of the income growth and by 2013 held nearly half of all the stock and mutual fund assets Americans owned.
Now, concentrations of wealth would be far less of an issue if the rest of society were benefitting proportionally. But that isn’t the case.
Once upon a time, according to Isabel Sawhill and Sara McClanahan in their 2006 report Opportunity in America, the American ideal was one in which all children had “a roughly equal chance of success regardless of the economic status of the family into which they were born.”
Almost 10 years ago, economist Jeffrey Madrick wrote that, as recently as the 1980s, economists thought that “in the land of Horatio Alger only 20 percent of one’s future income was determined by one’s father’s income.” He then cited research showing that, by 2007, “60 percent of a son’s income [was] determined by the level of income of the father. For women, it [was] roughly the same.” It may be even higher today, but clearly a child’s chance of success in life is greatly improved if he’s born on third base and his father has been tipping the umpire.
This raises an old question, one highlighted by the British critic and public intellectual Terry Eagleton in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education:
Why is it that the capitalist West has accumulated more resources than human history has ever witnessed, yet appears powerless to overcome poverty, starvation, exploitation, and inequality?… Why does private wealth seem to go hand in hand with public squalor? Is it… plausible to maintain that there is something in the nature of capitalism itself which generates deprivation and inequality?
The answer, to me, is self-evident. Capitalism produces winners and losers big time. The winners use their wealth to gain political power, often through campaign contributions and lobbying. In this way, they only increase their influence over the choices made by the politicians indebted to them. While there are certainly differences between Democrats and Republicans on economic and social issues, both parties cater to wealthy individuals and interests seeking to enrich their bottom lines with the help of the policies of the state (loopholes, subsidies, tax breaks, deregulation). No matter which party is in power, the interests of big business are largely heeded.
More on that later, but first, a confession. The legendary broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow told his generation of journalists that bias is okay as long as you don’t try to hide it. Here’s mine: plutocracy and democracy don’t mix. As the late (and great) Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Of course the rich can buy more homes, cars, vacations, gadgets, and gizmos than anyone else, but they should not be able to buy more democracy. That they can and do is a despicable blot on American politics that is now spreading like a giant oil spill.
In May, President Obama and I both spoke at the Rutgers University commencement ceremony. He was at his inspirational best as 50,000 people leaned into every word. He lifted the hearts of those young men and women heading out into our troubled world, but I cringed when he said, “Contrary to what we hear sometimes from both the left as well as the right, the system isn’t as rigged as you think…”
Wrong, Mr. President, just plain wrong. The people are way ahead of you on this. In a recent poll, 71% of Americans across lines of ethnicity, class, age, and gender said they believe the U.S. economy is rigged. People reported that they are working harder for financial security. One quarter of the respondents had not taken a vacation in more than five years. Seventy-one percent said that they are afraid of unexpected medical bills; 53% feared not being able to make a mortgage payment; and, among renters, 60% worried that they might not make the monthly rent.
Millions of Americans, in other words, are living on the edge. Yet the country has not confronted the question of how we will continue to prosper without a workforce that can pay for its goods and services.
Who Dunnit?
You didn’t have to read Das Kapital to see this coming or to realize that the United States was being transformed into one of the harshest, most unforgiving societies among the industrial democracies. You could instead have read the Economist, arguably the most influential business-friendly magazine in the English-speaking world. I keep in my files a warning published in that magazine a dozen years ago, on the eve of George W. Bush’s second term. The editors concluded back then that, with income inequality in the U.S. reaching levels not seen since the first Gilded Age and social mobility diminishing, “the United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.”
And mind you, that was before the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, before the bailout of Wall Street, before the recession that only widened the gap between the super-rich and everyone else. Ever since then, the great sucking sound we’ve been hearing is wealth heading upwards. The United States now has a level of income inequality unprecedented in our history and so dramatic it’s almost impossible to wrap one’s mind around.
Contrary to what the president said at Rutgers, this is not the way the world works; it’s the way the world is made to work by those with the money and power. The movers and shakers — the big winners — keep repeating the mantra that this inequality was inevitable, the result of the globalization of finance and advances in technology in an increasingly complex world. Those are part of the story, but only part. As G.K. Chesterton wrote a century ago, “In every serious doctrine of the destiny of men, there is some trace of the doctrine of the equality of men. But the capitalist really depends on some religion of inequality.”
Exactly. In our case, a religion of invention, not revelation, politically engineered over the last 40 years. Yes, politically engineered. On this development, you can’t do better than read Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, the Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson of political science.
They were mystified by what had happened to the post-World War II notion of “shared prosperity”; puzzled by the ways in which ever more wealth has gone to the rich and super rich; vexed that hedge-fund managers pull in billions of dollars, yet pay taxes at lower rates than their secretaries; curious about why politicians kept slashing taxes on the very rich and handing huge tax breaks and subsidies to corporations that are downsizing their work forces; troubled that the heart of the American Dream — upward mobility — seemed to have stopped beating; and dumbfounded that all of this could happen in a democracy whose politicians were supposed to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. So Hacker and Pierson set out to find out “how our economy stopped working to provide prosperity and security for the broad middle class.”
In other words, they wanted to know: “Who dunnit?” They found the culprit. With convincing documentation they concluded, “Step by step and debate by debate, America’s public officials have rewritten the rules of American politics and the American economy in ways that have benefitted the few at the expense of the many.”
There you have it: the winners bought off the gatekeepers, then gamed the system. And when the fix was in they turned our economy into a feast for the predators, “saddling Americans with greater debt, tearing new holes in the safety net, and imposing broad financial risks on Americans as workers, investors, and taxpayers.” The end result, Hacker and Pierson conclude, is that the United States is looking more and more like the capitalist oligarchies of Brazil, Mexico, and Russia, where most of the wealth is concentrated at the top while the bottom grows larger and larger with everyone in between just barely getting by.
Bruce Springsteen sings of “the country we carry in our hearts.” This isn’t it.
“God’s Work”
Looking back, you have to wonder how we could have ignored the warning signs. In the 1970s, Big Business began to refine its ability to act as a class and gang up on Congress. Even before the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, political action committees deluged politics with dollars. Foundations, corporations, and rich individuals funded think tanks that churned out study after study with results skewed to their ideology and interests. Political strategists made alliances with the religious right, with Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, to zealously wage a cultural holy war that would camouflage the economic assault on working people and the middle class.
To help cover-up this heist of the economy, an appealing intellectual gloss was needed. So public intellectuals were recruited and subsidized to turn “globalization,” “neo-liberalism,” and “the Washington Consensus” into a theological belief system. The “dismal science of economics” became a miracle of faith. Wall Street glistened as the new Promised Land, while few noticed that those angels dancing on the head of a pin were really witchdoctors with MBAs brewing voodoo magic. The greed of the Gordon Gekkos — once considered a vice — was transformed into a virtue. One of the high priests of this faith, Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, looking in wonder on all that his company had wrought, pronounced it “God’s work.”
A prominent neoconservative religious philosopher even articulated a “theology of the corporation.” I kid you not. And its devotees lifted their voices in hymns of praise to wealth creation as participation in the Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth. Self-interest became the Gospel of the Gilded Age.
No one today articulates this winner-take-all philosophy more candidly than Ray Dalio. Think of him as the King Midas of hedge funds, with a personal worth estimated at almost $16 billion and a company, Bridgewater Associates, reportedly worth as much as $154 billion.
Dalio fancies himself a philosopher and has written a book of maxims explaining his philosophy. It boils down to: “Be a hyena. Attack the Wildebeest.” (Wildebeests, antelopes native to southern Africa — as I learned when we once filmed a documentary there — are no match for the flesh-eating dog-like spotted hyenas that gorge on them.) Here’s what Dalio wrote about being a Wall Street hyena:
…when a pack of hyenas takes down a young wildebeest, is this good or bad? At face value, this seems terrible; the poor wildebeest suffers and dies. Some people might even say that the hyenas are evil. Yet this type of apparently evil behavior exists throughout nature through all species… like death itself, this behavior is integral to the enormously complex and efficient system that has worked for as long as there has been life… [It] is good for both the hyenas, who are operating in their self-interest, and the interests of the greater system, which includes the wildebeest, because killing and eating the wildebeest fosters evolution, i.e., the natural process of improvement… Like the hyenas attacking the wildebeest, successful people might not even know if or how their pursuit of self-interest helps evolution, but it typically does.
He concludes: “How much money people have earned is a rough measure of how much they gave society what it wanted…”
Not this time, Ray. This time, the free market for hyenas became a slaughterhouse for the wildebeest. Collapsing shares and house prices destroyed more than a quarter of the wealth of the average household. Many people have yet to recover from the crash and recession that followed. They are still saddled with burdensome debt; their retirement accounts are still anemic. All of this was, by the hyena’s accounting, a social good, “an improvement in the natural process,” as Dalio puts it. Nonsense. Bull. Human beings have struggled long and hard to build civilization; his doctrine of “progress” is taking us back to the jungle.
And by the way, there’s a footnote to the Dalio story. Early this year, the founder of the world’s largest hedge fund, and by many accounts the richest man in Connecticut where it is headquartered, threatened to take his firm elsewhere if he didn’t get concessions from the state. You might have thought that the governor, a Democrat, would have thrown him out of his office for the implicit threat involved. But no, he buckled and Dalio got the $22 million in aid — a $5 million grant and a $17 million loan — that he was demanding to expand his operations. It’s a loan that may be forgiven if he keeps jobs in Connecticut and creates new ones. No doubt he left the governor’s office grinning like a hyena, his shoes tracking wildebeest blood across the carpet.
Our founders warned against the power of privileged factions to capture the machinery of democracies. James Madison, who studied history through a tragic lens, saw that the life cycle of previous republics had degenerated into anarchy, monarchy, or oligarchy. Like many of his colleagues, he was well aware that the republic they were creating could go the same way. Distrusting, even detesting concentrated private power, the founders attempted to erect safeguards to prevent private interests from subverting the moral and political compact that begins, “We, the people.” For a while, they succeeded.
When the brilliant young French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in the 1830s, he was excited by the democratic fervor he witnessed. Perhaps that excitement caused him to exaggerate the equality he celebrated. Close readers of de Tocqueville will notice, however, that he did warn of the staying power of the aristocracy, even in this new country. He feared what he called, in the second volume of his masterwork, Democracy in America, an “aristocracy created by business.” He described it as already among “the harshest that ever existed in the world” and suggested that, “if ever a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy again penetrate the world, it may be predicted that this is the gate by which they will enter.”
And so it did. Half a century later, the Gilded Age arrived with a new aristocratic hierarchy of industrialists, robber barons, and Wall Street tycoons in the vanguard. They had their own apologist in the person of William Graham Sumner, an Episcopal minister turned professor of political economy at Yale University. He famously explained that “competition… is a law of nature” and that nature “grants her rewards to the fittest, therefore, without regard to other considerations of any kind.”
From Sumner’s essays to the ravenous excesses of Wall Street in the 1920s to the ravings of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Fox News, to the business press’s wide-eyed awe of hyena-like CEOs; from the Republican war on government to the Democratic Party’s shameless obeisance to big corporations and contributors, this “law of nature” has served to legitimate the yawning inequality of income and wealth, even as it has protected networks of privilege and monopolies in major industries like the media, the tech sector, and the airlines.
A plethora of studies conclude that America’s political system has already been transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy (the rule of a wealthy elite). Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, for instance, studied data from 1,800 different policy initiatives launched between 1981 and 2002. They found that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” Whether Republican or Democratic, they concluded, the government more often follows the preferences of major lobbying or business groups than it does those of ordinary citizens.
We can only be amazed that a privileged faction in a fervent culture of politically protected greed brought us to the brink of a second Great Depression, then blamed government and a “dependent” 47% of the population for our problems, and ended up richer and more powerful than ever.
The Truth of Your Life
Which brings us back to those Marshall housewives — to all those who simply can’t see beyond their own prerogatives and so narrowly define membership in democracy to include only people like themselves.
How would I help them recoup their sanity, come home to democracy, and help build the sort of moral compact embodied in the preamble to the Constitution, that declaration of America’s intent and identity?
First, I’d do my best to remind them that societies can die of too much inequality.
Second, I’d give them copies of anthropologist Jared Diamond’s book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed to remind them that we are not immune. Diamond won the Pulitzer Prize for describing how the damage humans have inflicted on their environment has historically led to the decline of civilizations. In the process, he vividly depicts how elites repeatedly isolate and delude themselves until it’s too late. How, extracting wealth from commoners, they remain well fed while everyone else is slowly starving until, in the end, even they (or their offspring) become casualties of their own privilege. Any society, it turns out, contains a built-in blueprint for failure if elites insulate themselves endlessly from the consequences of their decisions.
Third, I’d discuss the real meaning of “sacrifice and bliss” with them. That was the title of the fourth episode of my PBS series Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth. In that episode, Campbell and I discussed the influence on him of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who believed that the will to live is the fundamental reality of human nature. So he puzzled about why some people override it and give up their lives for others.
“Can this happen?” Campbell asked. “That what we normally think of as the first law of nature, namely self-preservation, is suddenly dissolved. What creates that breakthrough when we put another’s well-being ahead of our own?” He then told me of an incident that took place near his home in Hawaii, up in the heights where the trade winds from the north come rushing through a great ridge of mountains. People go there to experience the force of nature, to let their hair be blown in the winds — and sometimes to commit suicide.
One day, two policemen were driving up that road when, just beyond the railing, they saw a young man about to jump. One of the policemen bolted from the car and grabbed the fellow just as he was stepping off the ledge. His momentum threatened to carry both of them over the cliff, but the policeman refused to let go. Somehow he held on long enough for his partner to arrive and pull the two of them to safety. When a newspaper reporter asked, “Why didn’t you let go? You would have been killed,” he answered: “I couldn’t… I couldn’t let go. If I had, I couldn’t have lived another day of my life.”
Campbell then added: “Do you realize what had suddenly happened to that policeman? He had given himself over to death to save a stranger. Everything else in his life dropped off. His duty to his family, his duty to his job, his duty to his own career, all of his wishes and hopes for life, just disappeared.” What mattered was saving that young man, even at the cost of his own life.
How can this be, Campbell asked? Schopenhauer’s answer, he said, was that a psychological crisis represents the breakthrough of a metaphysical reality, which is that you and the other are two aspects of one life, and your apparent separateness is but an effect of the way we experience forms under the conditions of space and time. Our true reality is our identity and unity with all life.
Sometimes, however instinctively or consciously, our actions affirm that reality through some unselfish gesture or personal sacrifice. It happens in marriage, in parenting, in our relations with the people immediately around us, and in our participation in building a society based on reciprocity.
The truth of our country isn’t actually so complicated. It’s in the moral compact implicit in the preamble to our Constitution: we’re all in this together. We are all one another’s first responders. As the writer Alberto Rios once put it, “I am in your family tree and you are in mine.”
I realize that the command to love our neighbor is one of the hardest of all religious concepts, but I also recognize that our connection to others goes to the core of life’s mystery and to the survival of democracy. When we claim this as the truth of our lives — when we live as if it’s so — we are threading ourselves into the long train of history and the fabric of civilization; we are becoming “we, the people.”
The religion of inequality — of money and power — has failed us; its gods are false gods. There is something more essential — more profound — in the American experience than the hyena’s appetite. Once we recognize and nurture this, once we honor it, we can reboot democracy and get on with the work of liberating the country we carry in our hearts.
42 comments
Comments are closed.
Some antidote to Moyer’s optimism:
Thanks for that, a good read, as was Moyers’ essay. Here is concluding remarks from MB, who now lives in Mexico:
As I live in Cairns, I would be interested if others had noticed an uptick in Americans looking for a new country??
Nice, what’s that piece from? And yes, I’ve noticed quite a few people who are thinking about moving out of country.
I’m 29. I left the U.S. as soon as I could. I spent some time doing odd jobs in Central Europe. Now I live in Russia.
Russia obviously has its own problems. But if we’re talking about the most important thing in life — making meaningful connections with your fellow humans — life here is vastly superior to anything I could ever hope for in America.
Keep the sanctions coming. It makes for good banya talk.
Some wondered why I left in the mid 90s to start a family in Oz from Boulder CO.
this is so spot on and applies to canada as well
If only the primary evidence that far more Mexicans have come to the US weren’t so clear I might understand this a bit better. Trump would be doing many Mexicans in the US a big favor by deporting them?
Here’s what the US lacks, which I believe Mexico has: community, friendship, appreciation of beauty, craftsmanship as opposed to obsessive technology…I never found much heart. American cities and suburbs have to be the most soulless places in the world.
Generalization to the point of irrelevance.
There are many very nice places to live, including Mexico. That said, compared to the US it is a monoculture in a warm to hot climate with a failed economy. Nice place it visit, I wouldn’t want to live there.
Stated another way, you can find a nice place to live anywhere if you have sufficient funds. or the inverse, I would much rather be poor in the US than poor in Mexico. How about you?
BTW I like where live. I guess I’m fortunate in that regard.
thanks for replies.
Australia seems so far away from everything that is happening in the US. And yet, we have our own form of neo liberalism from our own Malcolm Turnbull and his cadre of like-minded followers. Will seriously see me looking for somewhere kinder to people, if it keeps up.
I grew up in Oz and have lived in the US for a couple of decades and people occasionally ask me about the prospect of moving there.
I tell them move if you’re looking for a place that is not too difficult to adapt to, good quality of life, to broaden your perspective on the world and see interesting places to visit as a tourist. If you’re moving to get away from some aspect of American culture you’ll probably be disappointed, because all the same negatives are to be found there in greater or lesser quantities.
You’d have better luck improving your lifestyle by moving to a small town with a good quality of life than moving to a similar-sized city in another western country.
Wasn’t Benjamin Franklin the first to note that Colonials often left “civilization” to live with the Native Americans, but Native Americans never reciprocated the gesture.
Nice, sounds a little like Hunter’s claim that (on the eve of electing Nixon) it was a nation of used car salesmen that was doing so.
Great article, though, it feels fresh even after so much talk about inequality. So it goes, but what are the next steps? And for those who think the economy is rigged, how many of them actually think Trump will fight for them, and how many think Bernie will (or HIllary for that matter)? And, more important, how many will keep fighting long after the Presidential election because one voting day isn’t going to make the difference? And for the ones with the money and the power (and those living off them) , how easily will they give up any power/$? Not without a fight, I take it. Or not without paying half of us to fight the other half… And if we combine that with the natural inclinations of many people (to be tribal) and point out that climate change will only exacerbate droughts refugees etc etc, where then does that leave us?
A dark place[1]. Some of us keep working to bring all this to light, but it sometimes seems hopeless (and with CC, can one wait a lifetime?). Nevertheless, people before have faced harder odds, so fight on we must.
[1] It’s very interesting that us humans tend to take our lessons from nature. Sometimes an animal is chosen and it would appear that people try to emulate them (lions and what have you), though I think it’s just an excuse… nevertheless, the hyena one is just sad. One does wonder how intransitivity and other matters work into their selfish worldview—then again, I don’t have 16 billion, so what do I know.
Today’s neo-liberal ideas lead to their inevitable conclusion.
Neo-liberal ideas have never really worked in a democracy because they make the majority poorer.
Before rolling these ideas out globally these ideas have been tested in various nations to make sure they work.
By only looking at the parts that did work and ignoring the parts that didn’t, it was deemed a huge success.
The impoverishment of the majority was hidden as these nations could export to other countries that hadn’t adopted neo-liberal ideas.
Once you roll it out globally, you impoverish the global consumer base and start seeing problems with global aggregate demand.
Neo-Liberal ideas were based on the intellectual rigour of neoclassical economics and ideas developed at the University of Chicago.
The economists at the University of Chicago were probably unaware the base they were building on had already been corrupted to hide the findings of Classical Economics and the difference between “earned” and “unearned” income.
Nothing ever comes of building on bad foundations.
The bad foundations and hiding the difference between “earned” and “unearned” income lead to inevitable consequences.
Most of the UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the “unearned” income from a BTL portfolio, extracting the “earned” income of generation rent.
The UK dream is to be like the idle rich, rentier, living off “unearned” income and doing nothing productive.
The very nature of money itself has long been hidden and neoclassical economics just built on the common view of money which is wrong (the true nature of money was revealed by the BoE in 2014).
The common view of money allows you to think that debt leads to no problems no matter how it is used.
We now have debt inflated asset bubbles around the world in the form of over-inflated real estate markets in almost every nation on Earth (not Germany).
Debt was used to inflate the US stock market leading to the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and debt was used to inflate the US housing market leading to the Wall Street Crash of 2008.
Neoclassical economists said “How did that happen?”
Steve Keen used realistic assumption about money and debt in his models and saw the private debt bubble inflating in 2005.
Neo-classical economists ignored historical evidence since the Tulip Mania of 1600s Holland to conclude that markets naturally reach stable equilibriums.
Alan Greenspan did mention “irrational exuberance” once in 1996 but then stayed silent as the dot.com boom really took off. His fellow neoclassical economists must have reminded him there is no such thing as irrational investors; our rigorous, scientific economics tells us so.
The neoclassical economist is now rendered blind to bubbles due to their rigorous, scientific economics that tells them bubbles and irrational investors don’t exist. The FED saw no bubbles leading up to the 1999 dot.com crash and 2008.
Neoclassical economics decided that the economy trickled down to lower taxes on the wealthy ignoring the fact that the idle rich have always existed at the top of society and capitalism supports our Aristocracy in luxury and leisure today.
Personal wealth rapidly began to polarise, impoverishing the global consumer. The mistaken ideas about debt allowed neoclassical economists to think consumption could be permanently maintained with credit not thinking how repayments would gradually take away the power of consumers to take on more debt.
Run the world on bad economics and things go wrong, badly wrong.
Pretending it is rigorous and scientific won’t actually get you anywhere apart from into repeated economic crises.
In our wonderful new, supply side, trickle down world we have taken our eye off the global consumer.
How is the global consumer these days?
1) The once wealthy Western consumer has had nearly all their high paying jobs off-shored. As a stop gap solution they were allowed to carry on consuming through debt. They are now maxed out on debt.
2) Japanese consumers have been living in a stagnant economy for decades.
3) Chinese and Eastern consumers were always poorly paid and with nonexistent welfare states are always saving for a rainy day. Western demand slumped in 2008 and the debt fuelled stop gap has now come to an end.
4) The Middle Eastern consumers are now too busy fighting each other to think about consuming anything and are just concerned with saying alive.
5) South American and African consumers are busy struggling with economies that are disintegrating fast.
Well, here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into neo-liberals.
Read Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”.
The inequality of neo-liberalism is not an accident, it was known and understood in early tests in South America and Indonesia.
It is designed that way.
The idea is just to improve overall GDP and lead to lower inflation.
The economy “improves” in ways that are worse for the majority and when you roll it out globally you gradually reduce global aggregate demand until the whole thing falls over and dies.
Please take the time to glance at the writings of Philip Mirowski.
He persuasively argues that you should not conflate neoclassical economic thought with neoliberalism.
To do so distorts the role of a powerful state in creating our contemporary neo-liberal market society.
Natural competition? Foster evolution? This is going to happen and it won’t be pretty if it follows course.
I know we don’t need to tax the rich to spend it but I’m starting to think we need to for stability. Back when we had a functioning economy the top tax rate was 70%–93%. That incentivised the ultra rich to keep corporate profits inside the company rather than pay their employee’s too much because it would just end up going to the government. The current setup incentivizes companies to offer big pay to attract top talent and you get a bidding war with some people at the top getting paid much more then they need. So to make up that cost firms cut pay for people at the bottom and cut back on reinvesting. Kalecki was big on the idea that the profitability of a firm is directly related to the amount of investment it made earlier. So that decrease in investment reduces profitability down the line. While the pay cuts at the bottom hurt the economy as a whole because poor people have no money and can’t afford to buy anything.
I’ve been kicking around in my head some way of tying income of the top 10% to the well being of the poor. I am thinking of something like tying the income threshold of the top tax bracket to the poverty level. So that a reduction in poverty means more take home money for the upper class.
@PhilU — I respectfully suggest that a one-dimensional society based upon materialism to the exclusion of all else, will not find materialistic solutions sufficient to turn it into a multi-dimensional society worth living in. Wonder if you read the interview with Morris Berman linked above, and if so, what you thought of it.
I did, and like every other thing that I’ve read lately it brings me that much closer to jumping off a bridge. If the problem is that we are a nation full of hustlers then the only solution however impossible it would be to enact, is to change the goal post. If you want to be greedy, go for it, but you have to find a way to bring the poor along with you or the government gives you a huge haircut.
Bill Moyers has been a voice attempting to raise the consciousness of the American people for decades. But here lies the contradiction. The elite that call the shots in our society have always been Hyenas preying upon the weak and timid. They have used the language of democracy and equality as cover for their predations and like the Hyenas they so admire, sneer in the face of their victims at having fallen once again for their chicanery. Expressions of love will not safeguard you agains a wild pack of Hyenas, and while Moyers is exactly right, he offers no clear path forward.
As noted in the essay, and the link above about Morris Berman’s observations, the time is well past timid half measures. Most fed up with the current system simply just can’t up and leave to a better place. Thats part of the reason why the problems persist- it is easier to flee than to fight. The Hyenas count on that reaction.
More direct action is needed and leadership willing to show the way.
Today I am expecting to see this misdirection of love and compassion being directed toward Hillary Clinton and her medical problems. She is a wounded Hyena that should be left out on the savanna to her fate, if her creed is followed to the letter. But many well intentioned people will waste their energies expressing compassion for her while at the same time her followers are diligently plotting our further demise and subjugation. It is mind boggling to see this in action.
I fear you are right about coming past the time for timid half measures. But I don’t see a shape for the forces of the coming change. It looms a ghastly specter which will lash out at some random time in the future with furious and unpredictable impact. I want to be far far away from the center of the storm. I flee.
I’ve read a few of Morris Berman’s books. Commenting on his website feels much less comfortable than commenting here. I have trouble separating his affection and affinity for the people in foreign places such as Mexico and Japan from the special status he enjoyed in these places as a professor and author. I have traveled but not relocated as he has. I felt the warmth between Koreans (me — I was always a special case good and bad) in Seoul deteriorate between my first visit in the 80’s and a later visit a several years ago. It saddened me to perceive Seoul taking on many of the unhappy features of Tokyo. I think some of the special warmth in the feelings between peoples that Berman notes missing in the US culture are characteristic of the transition from rural life to city life more than peculiarly characteristic of the US.
As for Hillary I will waste no love or compassion on her — have no fears of that.
I felt great melancholy reading this essay by Bill Moyers. He has literally spent his entire life fighting against forces driving our country toward the catharsis of our elite and the chaos which will follow. We will ride the whirlwind.
I am alway brought back to the theme of Good vs Evil in the world. The endless human struggle to survive in the world and forces that are unleashed in the process. The propaganda machine in America knows this also so is working overdrive to harness unavoidable human emotions.
My experience shows me that far more people are predisposed to help their fellows in need. They would not hesitate to help when someone is in despair. It is this tendency that is brutally suppressed in the capitalist system because it cannot be tolerated. That is our dilemma. How to foster compassion and cooperation. On a finite world, competition ends badly. We need to live for today, in the spirit of cooperation- that is the only force capable of resisting oppression. The rest is smoke, mirrors, and diversion.
Good article. And interesting comments as well. Sometimes I learn more from the comments on NC than I do the articles!
I think Moyers is too optimistic. The only way I think “America” can be turned around is by revolution; violent if necessary. And I don’t think that is going to happen. One, I believe the powers that be will recognize the need to maintain at least some nominal level of a safety net or they know things will boil over. Two, Americans are just too stupid as a people. In the immortal words of George Carlin, “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” That quote came to mind earlier this morning when I read in the WAPO that students, seniors no less, in a high school journalist class did not realize Osama Bin Laden had been killed. Journalist class! Yes, Americans are for the most part stupid. They don’t know history, or current events, well beyond who did what in the latest football game anyway. And if there is any doubt, just look at who we have running from both parties for the highest elected office? I mean can you believe it? Trump? And Clinton? I can believe it. Here we are in a country that accepts the fact that Kennedy was killed most probably by agents of the government, and we just shrug. Or 9/11, which was “celebrated” yesterday. Study after study (one from a prestigious European group just came out) has shown the towers were likely brought down by controlled demolition. Think about that. If even the slightest possibility existed that that was true, don’t you think anyone of intelligence would want to know? I liked the bit in the Berman article where he talked about the college dean trying to talk to his faculty about morals and America and their “eyes just glaze over”. That Americans cannot hear anything that is critical of America. In my mind that has always been our problem. We cannot accept the fact as a country or people that we are not really that great. We happened to luck into a land of bountiful natural resources, and natural defenses to protect us while we raped it. The American Revolution, if you really study history, had very little to do with high minded thoughts of liberty. I don’t care what the “founders” said in the Declaration. That’s just talk. It was about money and power and wresting it for themselves. If you look at every major war that the US participated in the “noble cause” was mostly a lie. As a people we were lied into the Revolution, lied into the Mexican war, lied into the “Civil War”, most definitely lied into WWI and probably lied into WWII.
With narcissism on full display, what with, Facebook, selfies, popular ‘gangsta’ culture, a feckless & compliant Press, etc. is it any wonder that a vast no. of the public are morons!
Ignorant, not stupid. Talk to any one of those high schoolers about something they are well-informed about and I guarantee you will not find them (well, most of them) stupid. But shockingly ignorant. As are most adults.
But it is hard to get people to realize the need for critical self-education when they are constantly bombarded with the message that we are the greatest country/people of all time.m
You are right, ignorant not stupid.
I live near a cosmopolitan city in Far East with a large community of resident westerners. When new Americans (and a good many British too) arrive they have predictable opinions but are unable to defend them. There are English-language newspapers from every country in the region all saying the same thing. Within a few months these new arrivals are better informed and recognize that something has to be done. They take this back home on conclusion of their contracts. I don’t know if they spread the news or keep quiet but at least their eyes and minds have been opened.
A long time ago I heard a saying attributed to Martin Luther, though I subsequently heard it was apocryphal. Whoever it may really have been said, “If I knew I were going to die tomorrow, I would plant a tree.” You won’t see the benefit if you do, but someone may. You’re not going to solve all the problems, or see them solved in your lifetime, but like the Hawaii policeman you do what you can where you are because that it how you live with yourself.
On December 23, 1913, the Congress and President of the United States willingly surrendered control of our money supply to a cartel of New York bankers. They have consolidated their power ever since.
Prior to 1913, J.P. Morgan did most of the governments banking. And everyone else’s too.
A great piece! IMO, the elites are sowing the seeds for a ‘let them eat cake’ moment (I am surprised they do not see it). It is bound to happen. May be the money and delusion of grandeur is not allowing them to see the gathering storm.
Just heard (on NPR, so it must be true!) that the newest Trump Hotel will open in Washington D.C. in time for the inauguration. Celebrity suite(s) — not sure if it’s one or more — will be $100,000 per night for that occasion, with a 5-night minimum.
After reading the comments (up to this point), I feel it necessary to point out one obvious (to me) fact. The oligarchy can fairly easily defeat any uprising by buying off the leader of any such project.
Not “Can,” Have, Clinton and Obama for two.
Were they bought — or were they sold?
Were either Clinton or Obama ever leaders of a project to defeat oligarchy? Were they ever truly idealistic? If so, it could only be evident in some dim and distant time in their very early youth. I think they tendered their services to act the Judas goat.
Well OWS did try the leaderless movement … (I don’t know if this was any more or less successful than the alternative, just saying it is an alternative)
Ray Dalio’s hyena/wildebeest allegory perfectly expresses what used to called Social Darwinism (although that particular term seems to have fallen into disfavor).
Today’s neoliberalism is essentially the same concept.
yes, bread and circuses. football and TV. designed to splinter, aka, divide and conquer. fifty some odd years of implementation.
we have let the Rich buy Congress and now we have been sold down the river.
with the election of St. Reagan, this “control” has been consolidated. George Carlin was so ahead of his time.
as was Goebbels.
Reading this website has shown me how ignorant i was and how easy it is to lose any hope.
i too have wished i could have moved when i had a future. living in America, only the Rich and connected have any possibilities of a future. Our children and grandchildren are what matters.
as Chris Hedges has shown time and again, the Rich will do whatever it takes, like Malcolm X said, to get what they want. Watching the Elites subvert America has not been easy to live with. the only culture America has ever had was the Almighty Dollar. and now the Dollar is finishing us off, and the world with us.
only with peaceful revolution by the masses will there be any hope of change. en mass there is hope.
otherwise, the “troublemakers” will be killed and silenced as an example of what awaits those who dare to express their “opinion.” Remember how they diverted the Iraq war protests in NY onto side streets. how the Media does what the Owners say!
how well the Elites have succeeded in “controlling the masses.” another plantation like from the South, different Overseers, Obama, Hillary, Bill, and the 535 members of Congress, bought and paid by the Elites.
what happened to S. America, Chile, Brazil, Argentina yesterday and again today is what we are in for.
at least in Mexico you know the Gov is and has always been corrupt. America pretends otherwise.
our Exceptionalism at its’ finest.
Bill Moyer has to lead a Revolution in person, not talk about it on TV.
Bill Moyers is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Bilderberger Group.
So, I assume that you meant this comment to show us his bona fides and that “he knows whereof he speaks”?
I have never met Bill Moyers, but he appears to be the quintessential good person. Motivated by the power of love and reason to effect change in the world. He is admired and respected by all sides of issues due to his integrity. Here lies the rub, the elite can always bring out the trump card of violence to achieve their ends. Violence in all its forms. Sure, a truth lies in refraining form violence and is used to great effect to disempower the masses, but how does one deal with classes of people that have no compunction about dispensing violence to achieve their ends?
It seems to me, until you are willing to pick up a sword to achieve your ends, you are left with isolating yourself in some defensive position, doing the best you can to fend off the aggressive predators. We are entering another heightened phase in human evolution in which the theme of Good vs Evil is taking center stage. Not the diverted propaganda themes that make a mockery of the deeper meaning of life all around us, but a deeper, visceral experience that something is defiantly wrong in the world and needs addressing.
The elite cannot justify the levels of inequality and misery they are creating. They have turned their backs on the citizenry and the environment in order to pursue their own narrow interests. Change will come as more citizens find the courage to turn away form the elites in the search for answers to pressing problems. Moyes speaks to the path we can travel on to find our answers. We need to form lasting alliances with individuals who innately are driven to help another off the ledge of despair, not ones that will cynically speculate on when he will jump. The moral depravity of such standpoints is all the obvious. The entire rewards system of our current society is upside down.
Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong,
Between whose endless jar justice resides,
Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Then every thing includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself.
Wm Shakespeare