Redistributionist — as epithets go, the moniker is so mild, so...2008. Today, we're hammered by screeds against Democrats' alleged socialism and President Obama's supposed Marxism. The class war is clearly on — the paranoids and royalists of the world have united, seizing the means of propaganda production in these waning days of this year's election campaign.
The onslaught, of course, is predictable. After all, this is an election season — which inevitably evokes redbaiting crusades by the plutocrats. Less predictable is this crusade's traction. As Wall Street executives make bank off bailouts, as millions of Americans see paychecks slashed and as our economic Darwinism sends more wealth up the income ladder — it's surprising that appeals to capitalist piggery carry more electoral agency than ever.
What could cause this intensifying politics of free-market fundamentalism at the very historical moment that proves the failure of such an ideology? Two new academic studies suggest all roads lead to ignorance.
The first, by Harvard's Michael Norton and Duke's Dan Ariely, finds that Americans grossly underestimate how much inequality our economy produces. Among the survey respondents, the vast majority said they believe the richest 20 percent own 59 percent of the wealth, when, in fact, that quintile owns 84 percent of the wealth. In other words, in spite of the data, many believe our system produces the moderate equality we desire, which means many see efforts to better spread wealth as a confiscatory overreach.
That, however, is not the full story of 2010. Because this now-ascendant economic view relies on misperceptions about inequality, we are still left to wonder: What accounts for those misperceptions?
Some of it undoubtedly stems from debt's illusions. In a country of overused MasterCards, we are surrounded by luxury cars, McMansions and flat-screen TVs purchased on credit. Such ubiquitous bling feigns a widespread prosperity that doesn't really exist.
Some of it is also televisual iconography. In the media's fun-house mirror we see a news world populated exclusively by six- and seven-figure salaried journalists — as if that wealth is a societal norm. Meanwhile, on the entertainment side, our beloved sitcom families trick us into thinking our nation is less stratified than it is: We were led to believe the super-rich Huxtables epitomized the middle-class just like we are now asked to regard Modern Family's affluence in the same way.
But, as insidious as artificial aesthetics are, the most powerful factor in our economic illiteracy is found in the other new academic report — the one examining our innate denial reflex.
As Northwestern University's David Gal and Derek Rucker recently documented in a paper titled "When in Doubt, Shout!", many Americans respond to convention-challenging facts not by reevaluating their worldview. Shaken by an assault on their assumptions, many become more adamant in defense of wrongheaded ideas.
So, for instance, we may be aware that our broken economy is creating destructive inequality; we may know the neighbor's opulence is underwritten by loans; we may understand that Brian Williams' multi-million-dollar NBC salary is uncommon; and we may appreciate that seemingly average 30 Rock characters make above-average salaries. We may get all this, and we may even see the connection between our personal financial struggles and Census figures showing inequality at a record high. But many of us nonetheless react by more passionately insisting our economic system sows equality — and worse, by embracing a free-market-worshiping politics aimed at halting systemic change.
This means the current crisis is deeper than we imagine. In a past recession, we could all at least concede that the challenge was "the economy, stupid." Now, though, we can't even agree on that truism. Our problem is the stupidity, stupid — and solving that will take far more than an election.
David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

|
 |
Comments
|
4 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
You are so right. When I was young (and stupid) I believed I was underpaid and resented it greatly. Everyone I knew who had a position comparable to mine was living far better than I. They owned homes, took expensive vacations and cruises, wore better clothes, etc. etc. I now realize they were in hock up to their necks, and I, debt-averse, was living on what I earned.
I don't own a TV and rarely see any shows, but from the little I've seen, I think this mirage of wealth is subtly perpetrated by TV as well. People whose jobs would enable them to live in an apartment are shown living in McMansions. And then come the ads--you, too, can live like this. You deserve to. All you have to do is sign on the line at the bottom of the credit card slip.
Yikes. Fortunately, as I didn't have TV, I wasn't subjected to a barrage of this propaganda day after day, so I managed to escape the debt trap.
Comment: #1
Posted by:
Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:41 AM
|
|
|
|
No, capitalism does not result in equality. Is that a problem? NO. It shouldn't!! If everyone gets equal slices of the pie, what is the incentive to work hard??
What IS a problem is when our government takes my money by force and gives it to other people to try to create more eqaulity. What rubbish. My cousins pop out babies like there's no tomorrow, and I (and the other taxpayers) foot the bill for their kids' food, daycare, medical care, car seats, and more. Then at the end of the day, my husband & I have no money left to have any kids of our own. So ... we work, they don't, and they get to have kids on our dime.
Explain to me the fairness in this redistribution, democrats/liberals. Because I'm not seeing it.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Kim
Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Kim can't understand the "fairness in this redistribution"... So let's explain.
First of all, the survival of a culture is often directly linked to how egalitarian is that society. See Jared Diamond's "Collapse" for accounts of several societies which perished because the rulers were insulated from changing ecology by their wealth.
Then there's the "equal slices of the pie" argument that financial incentives must accompany any effort. Believe it or not, Kim, most mentally healthy people are not motivated solely by money. Yes, a few psychopaths are, but do we really want them running the asylum?
Kim's comment is reminiscent of Reagan's remarks about the "Cadillac Welfare Queens"... but we know those were lies, don't we? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen). In any case, the Federal welfare budget is less than a rounding error in the budget's entirety, and certainly much less than we spend on such "essentials" as the non-working "Star Wars" anti-missile system.
The technical term for what you're doing, Kim, is "Straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel."
That's not to say human institutions, public or private, welfare included, have no malfeasance. Luckily, the folks at Goldman Sachs, Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, Silverado Savings and Loan, etc. have demonstrated malfeasance isn't confined to the public sector.
Another unspoken assumption here is that taxes are high relative to the level of services received. So Kim, do you pave your own roads, treat your own water and sewage, vet your own medication and food? Do you do your own mosquito abatement?
And isn't welfare really (as Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say) a cheap way to buy social peace? Wait until the mental patients we evict from their institutions start living on the street, intrusively begging for money, and burning down the mall...oh wait, that's already going on now.
As for assumption that the people who "pop out babies" are somehow living the life of Riley... I suggest you take another look at the income distribution in the U.S. (see here http://baselinescenario.com/2010/09/28/americans-want-to-live-in-sweden/). The top 1% receive 25% of the country's income.
This has grown significantly worse since the Reagan years, too. The bottom 90% of real incomes have been stagnant as public policy increasingly favored the very wealthy, and the top 0.01% have received a five-fold (that's 500%) increase in their real income. (See http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html)
Personally, I'd say ascribing these growing inequalities to some magical just compensation for celebrity-quality work is just delusional.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Adam Eran
Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:38 PM
|
|
|
|
One point missing in the article is that many people want to believe they are in or are aspiring to be in that upper 20%, that they do not want to vote for anything that will affect that upper 20% because it soon will be them in that upper 20%. Not realizing that the upper 20% is probably shrinking in size as they gain more and more of our nation's assets and the redistribution of wealth continues to make the rich richer.
RS
Lake Tahoe CA
Comment: #4
Posted by: ralph
Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|