1/13/12 Mitt Romney has made some pretty interesting claims recently. President Obama, who extended Bush's tax cuts and yielded to GOP demands for draconian cuts to government programs that help the least among us - in the midst of a severe economic downturn no less - is engaging in a fundamental "transformation" of American society. He is "divisive" never mind that he won a Nobel Peace Prize in large part because he was seen as a unifying figure in a country and world torn by 8 years of hyper-partisanship. He has weakened our military, never mind that he increased Pentagon spending every year, concentrated forces in Afghanistan in the fight against al Qaeda, and killed Osama bin Laden, something Bush claimed not to be all that interested in doing after his initial attempts failed.
But perhaps the most insidious accusation Romney made was his charge that those arguing for a more progressive income tax and curbs on corporate greed are engaging in "politics of envy."
This is one of those sly little begged questions, an mini-argument wrapped in an easily digestible, mild-appearing package. Like the "death tax", "tax burden", or "class warfare" the phrase "politics of envy" makes a subtle but important charge without overtly making it. This phrase, no doubt created in the same spirit as that of the speech writers who brought us "Axis of Evil" and "welfare queens", is the latest in a series of shameless Republican attempts to redefine a sin as a virtue and a virtue as a sin.
Throughout the Bible, but particularly in the teachings of Jesus, greed, materialism, and contempt for the poor are universally condemned. Romney, who considers himself a follower of these teachings (plus some additional teachings added by Joseph Smith (such as the idea that Jesus visited North America or that the Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel (they just don't know it so require Mormons to reeducate them)) surely understands this, and much that Romney 1.0 (the version running for governor of Massachusetts) said reflects this understanding that Romney 2.0 (beta) seems to have forgotten.
It may be that some who criticize those for the sin of greed are themselves acting at least in part out of "envy." I would be surprised if this was not the case, but frankly I don't care and neither should Romney. Ignoring the fact that reading minds to discern sinister motives is impossible to verify (however fun it may be to speculate upon) it is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Indeed, the entire economic system which Romney seems to be defending takes it as a given that selfishness and greed at the individual level can translate counter-intuitively into tremendous good at the societal level. As Adam Smith put it so eloquently in Wealth of Nations:
And at any rate, the envy of some in the bottom 99% does not not absolve the most egregiously greedy in the top .1% of their sins. Rupert Murdoch or David Koch, who serve as Exhibits A and B as to why greed gone wild can be so destructive, are no less harmful to our Republic or its values simply because some who want to hold them accountable also envy their ill-gotten gains. There is nothing envious about questioning why a man should be rewarded billions for running a sensationalistic chain of news outlets that among other things hacked the voicemail of a 13 year-old murder victim (possibly interfering with the desperate attempt to prevent her murder and giving the parents cruel hope that she was alive (deleted messages indicated she might have her phone and be checking it)) .
I want a progressive income tax, but am not envious. A progressive income tax would hurt my personal economic interests and it's hard to understand what it is I envy - I am more than comfortable materialistically. My motivation in criticizing the greedy and arguing for policies that attempt to curb it or to correct the damage it causes is not one of envy.
The most compelling arguments for financial reform and a return to historically normal tax rates are based on fairness, not envy. Few object to someone accumulating astonishing levels of wealth who has earned it - Bill Gates and Warren Buffet come to mind - but it is much more difficult to defend wealth for wealth's sake, regardless of source. Indeed, recent polls suggest that about 43% of Americans believe most wealth is earned and therefore deserved. But there is something disturbing about the idea that the chief executive of UnitedHealth Group, for example, Stephen J. Hemsley in 2009 being awarded almost $100 million, especially if one realizes that every penny of that bonus must have been offset by denied mammograms, pap smears, and chemotherapy, since ultimately the business of collecting premiums and disbursing payments is a zero-sum game; executives can only pay themselves what they withhold from providers and patients. Similarly offensive is the idea of a former government employee, such as Rick Santorum, cashing in on his access to privileged information and being paid hundreds of thousands by lobbyists wanting the inside scoop on how best to manipulate Congress. Or a CEO taking hundreds of millions from workers, shareholders, and taxpayers simply because he had a sleazy lawyer write a "gotcha" contract that mandated he receive this money in the event he was fired (I wish I were making this up; Home Depot CEO Richard Nardelli took home over $210 million after being fired 1 year into his job in 2007).
In boom times, such misappropriation of wealth is at least unethical even if not always technically illegal (as the rules are currently written, rules Romney does not want to change). In hard times with so many millions of Americans without incomes, losing their homes and their access to healthcare, such behavior is egregious, even treasonous. Resources that could be used to strengthen the backbone of American society - the middle class - are shunted instead into the coffers of a handful of individuals who in turn wield extraordinary power to fight reform, reframing it as greed-driven or even class warfare.
To use another analogy, I have no problem with someone who paid twice as much for a cruise getting a cabin twice as big, but if the ship goes down and there are people drowning in the water, the idea that those who paid more for their ticket should get more room in the lifeboat (regardless of whether there is enough room for everyone) becomes morally indefensible. Those drowning for want of lifeboat space the Murdochs and Kochs of the world don't want to bother granting are not envious. They simply want to live.
Similarly, the person who advocates for universal healthcare so someone else's child can receive cancer chemotherapy, let's say, is not acting out of greed, but compassion. Most of the reforms I support do not directly affect me, but they would help our poorest and most vulnerable citizens, people I have never met. I don't know why it bothers me so much that there are such unfortunates, but I don't want to spend my life protecting my loot if it means ignoring their plight. As Martin Luther King once put it, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
There is no envy motivating those who want to shut down payday lenders or force credit card companies to stop preying on those most vulnerable, such as indebted college students or the poor. Forcing coal mining companies to change their carbon monoxide detectors' batteries is not a question of greed but of fairness and respect for the sanctity of human life. (Or is the life of a coal miner worth less than that of a fetus or stem cell?)
In the same book so many conservatives cite with almost biblical authority (although I wager few have read it), Adam Smith advocated a strong government role to reign in corporations and protect the least among us:
But perhaps the most insidious accusation Romney made was his charge that those arguing for a more progressive income tax and curbs on corporate greed are engaging in "politics of envy."
This is one of those sly little begged questions, an mini-argument wrapped in an easily digestible, mild-appearing package. Like the "death tax", "tax burden", or "class warfare" the phrase "politics of envy" makes a subtle but important charge without overtly making it. This phrase, no doubt created in the same spirit as that of the speech writers who brought us "Axis of Evil" and "welfare queens", is the latest in a series of shameless Republican attempts to redefine a sin as a virtue and a virtue as a sin.
Throughout the Bible, but particularly in the teachings of Jesus, greed, materialism, and contempt for the poor are universally condemned. Romney, who considers himself a follower of these teachings (plus some additional teachings added by Joseph Smith (such as the idea that Jesus visited North America or that the Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel (they just don't know it so require Mormons to reeducate them)) surely understands this, and much that Romney 1.0 (the version running for governor of Massachusetts) said reflects this understanding that Romney 2.0 (beta) seems to have forgotten.
It may be that some who criticize those for the sin of greed are themselves acting at least in part out of "envy." I would be surprised if this was not the case, but frankly I don't care and neither should Romney. Ignoring the fact that reading minds to discern sinister motives is impossible to verify (however fun it may be to speculate upon) it is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Indeed, the entire economic system which Romney seems to be defending takes it as a given that selfishness and greed at the individual level can translate counter-intuitively into tremendous good at the societal level. As Adam Smith put it so eloquently in Wealth of Nations:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own neccessities but of their advantages.So the question should not be whether the motivations of some in the bottom 99% are less than pure, but whether what they are advocating is true, and more importantly whether the sorts of reforms Romney opposes would provide the greatest benefit to society regardless of why some might advocate them.
And at any rate, the envy of some in the bottom 99% does not not absolve the most egregiously greedy in the top .1% of their sins. Rupert Murdoch or David Koch, who serve as Exhibits A and B as to why greed gone wild can be so destructive, are no less harmful to our Republic or its values simply because some who want to hold them accountable also envy their ill-gotten gains. There is nothing envious about questioning why a man should be rewarded billions for running a sensationalistic chain of news outlets that among other things hacked the voicemail of a 13 year-old murder victim (possibly interfering with the desperate attempt to prevent her murder and giving the parents cruel hope that she was alive (deleted messages indicated she might have her phone and be checking it)) .
I want a progressive income tax, but am not envious. A progressive income tax would hurt my personal economic interests and it's hard to understand what it is I envy - I am more than comfortable materialistically. My motivation in criticizing the greedy and arguing for policies that attempt to curb it or to correct the damage it causes is not one of envy.
The most compelling arguments for financial reform and a return to historically normal tax rates are based on fairness, not envy. Few object to someone accumulating astonishing levels of wealth who has earned it - Bill Gates and Warren Buffet come to mind - but it is much more difficult to defend wealth for wealth's sake, regardless of source. Indeed, recent polls suggest that about 43% of Americans believe most wealth is earned and therefore deserved. But there is something disturbing about the idea that the chief executive of UnitedHealth Group, for example, Stephen J. Hemsley in 2009 being awarded almost $100 million, especially if one realizes that every penny of that bonus must have been offset by denied mammograms, pap smears, and chemotherapy, since ultimately the business of collecting premiums and disbursing payments is a zero-sum game; executives can only pay themselves what they withhold from providers and patients. Similarly offensive is the idea of a former government employee, such as Rick Santorum, cashing in on his access to privileged information and being paid hundreds of thousands by lobbyists wanting the inside scoop on how best to manipulate Congress. Or a CEO taking hundreds of millions from workers, shareholders, and taxpayers simply because he had a sleazy lawyer write a "gotcha" contract that mandated he receive this money in the event he was fired (I wish I were making this up; Home Depot CEO Richard Nardelli took home over $210 million after being fired 1 year into his job in 2007).
In boom times, such misappropriation of wealth is at least unethical even if not always technically illegal (as the rules are currently written, rules Romney does not want to change). In hard times with so many millions of Americans without incomes, losing their homes and their access to healthcare, such behavior is egregious, even treasonous. Resources that could be used to strengthen the backbone of American society - the middle class - are shunted instead into the coffers of a handful of individuals who in turn wield extraordinary power to fight reform, reframing it as greed-driven or even class warfare.
To use another analogy, I have no problem with someone who paid twice as much for a cruise getting a cabin twice as big, but if the ship goes down and there are people drowning in the water, the idea that those who paid more for their ticket should get more room in the lifeboat (regardless of whether there is enough room for everyone) becomes morally indefensible. Those drowning for want of lifeboat space the Murdochs and Kochs of the world don't want to bother granting are not envious. They simply want to live.
Similarly, the person who advocates for universal healthcare so someone else's child can receive cancer chemotherapy, let's say, is not acting out of greed, but compassion. Most of the reforms I support do not directly affect me, but they would help our poorest and most vulnerable citizens, people I have never met. I don't know why it bothers me so much that there are such unfortunates, but I don't want to spend my life protecting my loot if it means ignoring their plight. As Martin Luther King once put it, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
There is no envy motivating those who want to shut down payday lenders or force credit card companies to stop preying on those most vulnerable, such as indebted college students or the poor. Forcing coal mining companies to change their carbon monoxide detectors' batteries is not a question of greed but of fairness and respect for the sanctity of human life. (Or is the life of a coal miner worth less than that of a fetus or stem cell?)
In the same book so many conservatives cite with almost biblical authority (although I wager few have read it), Adam Smith advocated a strong government role to reign in corporations and protect the least among us:
But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state [of neglected moral and physical development] into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it. [emphasis added]There is a difference between nudging up a top marginal income tax rate 3-5% and confiscating all private property. Romney either does not understand this or wants American voters not to understand it. If Romney is to be taken seriously, then Reagan was engaging in the politics of envy when he raised taxes in 6 out of his 8 years in office. Was Bush I when he had to raise taxes to pay for the deficits his predecessor created? If fighting for social justice and opposing greed are the "politics of envy" then Jesus must have been one of the most envious historical figures. There is nothing wrong, of course, with running on a platform of materialism. Nor is there anything wrong per se with reminding voters at every opportunity that you consider yourself Christian. But doing both simultaneously is intellectually and morally dishonest.
No comments:
Post a Comment