[ The following article from Project Syndicate is entitled Anger in
America, but it would be better titled "Anger in the Developed World" -
and by "developed" I mean countries such as Argentina and Mexico, not to
mention the entire former East. All the societies currently at prey to
neopopulism have been plundered by a complex class formation which
includes the owners and political elites, for sure, but also many kinds
of professionals and technical specialists (and probably you too, dear
reader). Such "professional managerial classes" are *middle* classes in
the sense that they stand between the elites and the increasingly
dominated majorities. The time has come for their/our self-critique and
transformation.
My view goes beyond the article below, because I think what's at stake
is not reducible to economics, but engages the meaning and purpose of
life. I totally agree with Felix: a politically guided transformation of
the energy system is a concrete way to begin. Power is power in society.
It is a technical function with cultural and existential consequences.
Its mediation - which is an administrative problem as well as an
engineering one - governs the way that people can shape their individual
lives and generational destinies. And energy is just one particularly
vivid example of the fields that can be transformed to provide, not only
more economically equitable outcomes, but also more ecologically viable
pathways for future development. There is just one prerequisite for
doing this, dear reader - overcome your own suspicion, cynicism and
self-interest. ]
Anger in America
by Andrew Sheng & Xiao Geng
https://tinyurl.com/anger-in-the-developed-world
US President Donald Trump has exploited popular anger to advance his own
interests, but he did not create that anger. America’s elites have spent
decades doing that, creating the conditions for a figure like Trump to
emerge.
HONG KONG--Many blame today’s populist rebellion in the West on the far
right, which has won votes by claiming to be responding to working-class
grievances, while stoking fear and promoting polarization. But, in
blaming leaders who have seized on popular anger, many overlook the
power of that anger itself, which is aimed at elites whose wealth has
skyrocketed in the last 30 years, while that of the middle and working
classes has remained stagnant.
Two recent analyses get to the heart of the issues at play, particularly
in the United States, but also in the rest of the world. In his new book
Tailspin, the journalist Steven Brill argues that US institutions are no
longer fit for purpose, because they protect only the few and leave the
rest vulnerable to predatory behavior in the name of the free market.
According to Brill, this is an upshot of America’s meritocracy: the best
and brightest had the chance to climb to the top, but then essentially
pulled the ladder up behind them, as they captured democratic
institutions and used them to entrench special privileges for themselves.
The author Matthew Stewart agrees, arguing that, "the meritocratic class
has mastered the old trick of consolidating wealth and passing privilege
along at the expense of other people’s children." Stewart shows that in
the mid-1980s, the share of US wealth held by the bottom 90% of the
population peaked at 35%; three decades later, they owned just 20%, with
almost all of what they lost going to the top 0.1%. The 9.9% between
these two groups--what Stewart calls the "new American
aristocracy"--comprises what used to be called the middle class. In
1963, the 90% would have had to increase their wealth sixfold to reach
the level of the 9.9%; by the 2010s, they would need 25 times their
wealth to reach that level.
Much of the US population is working harder than ever, yet has suffered
a decline in living standards, compounded by high levels of household
debt and, in many cases, lack of health insurance. The top 10% have easy
access to higher education that will enable their children to have the
same privileges as them; the bottom 90% must work much harder to cover
sky-high tuition fees, and typically graduate with a heavy debt burden.
The top 10% receive first-rate medical care; the bottom 90% often do
not, or must pay an exceptionally high price for it.
Taxation is supposed to level the playing field. But US Republicans have
long pushed to lower taxes on the rich, arguing that lowering marginal
tax rates will promote investment, employment, and economic growth,
which will cause the wealth to "trickle down" to the rest of society. In
fact, tax cuts for the rich merely further entrench their advantages,
exacerbating inequality.
Making matters worse, the poor pay more indirect taxes (on land, real
estate, and consumer goods), and the bottom 20% of the US population
pays more than twice what the top 1% pays in state taxes. Add to that
the challenges posed by automation and robotization, not to mention
increasingly frequent and intense natural disasters, and it is not hard
to see why so many people are so furious.
According to Stewart, the 9.9% is "the staff that runs the machine that
funnels resources from the 90% to the 0.1%," happily taking its "cut of
the spoils." But the inequality that this machine generates can have
serious consequences, as it spurs social discontent and, as we are
seeing in the US today, erratic policymaking. As the Austrian historian
Walter Scheidel argues, inequality has historically been countered
through war, revolution, state collapse, or natural disaster.
Avoiding such a dramatic event would require the 10% to do a much better
job of advancing the interests of the 90%, in terms of income, wealth,
welfare, and opportunities. Yet a combination of economic myopia and
political polarization has led many instead to try to divert popular
anger toward immigrants, China, and trade (including with close allies).
As a result, the entire world is now caught in an escalating
protectionist war that nobody will win.
It is true that, historically, internal contradictions and imbalances
have often led to interstate conflict. But that is not inevitable.
Rather, the outcome depends on the quality of leadership. In the US, for
example, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt
succeeded in strengthening their country because they recognized the
need to address internal divisions in the light of America’s core
values, global position, and long-term goals.
US President Donald Trump has exploited popular anger to advance his own
interests. But he did not create that anger; America’s elites have spent
decades doing that, creating the conditions for a figure like Trump to
emerge. Now that Trump is in charge, the conditions of the 90% are set
to deteriorate further. His approach to trade, in particular, will not
only fail to help the people he purports to represent; it will also
destroy the sense of fairness and stewardship that has historically
bound the masses to their leaders.
Blaming outsiders is politically expedient. But the only way to "make
America great again" is by addressing its internal injustices. No import
tariff or border wall can do that.
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
