Just when you thought Andy Sullivan was waking up to reality, he writes something like this:
The new cultural divide will not be on guns, gays and God. It will be between the makers and the takers, the producers of wealth and the recipients of redistribution. And it will be about tempering the over-reach that the Democrats will be unable to resist. But that means the critique should not be undermined by mindless partisanship now, and it should be based upon clear and constructive policy proposals to advance individual liberty and restrain the cold, clammy hand of the state. That’s the medium term challenge for the sane, imaginative, serious right. It requires discipline and thought. And it also requires time.
I infer that
- Producers of wealth = investment capitalists and the financial sector
- Recipients of redistribution = the unwashed masses who expect to receive “paychecks” for their “labor”
Can we call this attitude “elitist”? To me, that’s what genuine elitism looks like, but I’m just a poor working schlep, so what do I know?
I got this from DougJ at Balloon Juice, who brings up a response from a commenter:
Well, the producers of wealth are the people who make things: the workers. And the wealthy are the recipients of redistribution.
How the opposite became such a common assumption that we automatically know Sully is saying the opposite, that the Democrats are the “moochers and losers†is really, when you think about, quite strange. And, yes, I know it’s the result of nearly a century of GOP and upper class propaganda, but doesn’t make it any less strange.
There are some objections posted on Andy’s site here.
When right-wingers and libertarians talk about the “cold, clammy hand of the state,” what they really mean is they’re terrified of slave uprisings ordinary citizens using government to address their interests and concerns. Can’t have that, you know. Cuts into profits.
I say that if there’s ever going to be something that might pass for a “sane, imaginative, serious right,” it’s got to get over the “us versus them” mentality that colors all of their thinking now. But maybe “us versus them” is too much about what defines conservatism, and if they progressed to “we’re all in this together” mode they’d be liberals.
To me, “wealth” is something created through a collaboration of investment capital and labor. I’m fine with some people making more money than others. It’s only right that someone who takes the initiative and does the hard work of starting and growing a successful business should make a nice profit. I don’t even begrudge Bill Gates all of his money, although I may be in a tiny minority there.
But if the masses of people who work for paychecks for a living are perpetually squeezed, exploited, treated like “cost” and denied any ownership of the wealth they are helping to create, sooner or later it hurts everyone.
A rising tide may not lift all boats — throughout history, the wealthy have found countless ways to game the system so that only their boats get raised — but a waning tide sure as hell will drop all of the boats eventually.
You knew Sully was going to get into trouble with his first three words of his post — Ruffini is right. Ruffini may be Right, but right? Please. Ruffini hasn’t a clue what’s going on. Get this (emphasis added):
It’s true that Obama’s ideas were not new either — but he was able to sell them as “change” because they had been not tried in toto since the Johnson Administration, and people had forgotten how badly they had crashed on the rocks their last time out. Obama’s central thesis — that government ownership and central planning can outpace returns in the private market — is actually very, very old.
Excuse me while I go pound my head against a wall and howl for a while.
I certainly don’t think that “government ownership and central planning can outpace returns in the private market,” and I doubt Barack Obama does, either. I say Ruffini has his head shoved so far up his ass he has forgotten what daylight looks like. And Sully, too, if he thinks Ruffini is right.
I know most of you don’t need this explained, but I suppose I should go on record in case some wingnuts drop by:
See, guys, our economy is crashing. Auto industry going bankrupt, and all that. There are a great many complicated factors that are causing the economy to crash. But the first domino to fall was pushed by executives in charge of the financial sector, who did a lot of really stupid things and lost lots and lots of money. And because the finance well is dry other parts of the economy, like manufacturing, are suffering also.
Now, the critical part you seem to be missing is that the private sector lacks the means to pull itself out of the hole it’s in. The credit crunch and some other factors have sent the economy into a downward spiral — no jobs, no consumers; no consumers, no sales; no sales, no business; no business, no jobs; etc, down, down, down. If there were sufficient private sector credit available the private sector might be able to rescue itself, but there isn’t, so it can’t. So government has to rescue the private sector. This isn’t something anyone wanted to do. It just has to be done. The alternative is Worse Than the Great Depression.
Maybe “sane conservatism” is an oxymoron, but I’m an open-minded sort and willing to work with conservatives as soon as they show signs of recognizing reality.
Phrase used by someone unfamiliar with reality: the sane, imaginative, serious right.
Phrase used by someone living in reality: the producers of wealth are the people who make things: the workers.
Both certainly are entitled to their opinions, but it’s the little dead-giveaway phrase that lets you know whose opinion deserves respect.
…Sullivan is fundamentally wrong in any case. His perceived “new cultural divide” between “makers and takers” is as old as dirt. He’s just repackaging the shopworn fiscal conservative’s argument of cutting taxes and eliminating government social services that was the cutting edge of the cultural divide long before Republicans cooked up their simple campaign themes representing “guns, gays, and God”. All he and Ruffini are doing with talk of ‘redistribution’ and ‘central planning’ are throwing out buzz words to support that “socialism” meme Republicans are pushing these days.
To be honest, I never thought Sullivan was coming around to any understanding of reality; I tended to suspect it was more of an “even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while” situation…
Maha says
It’s not just the initiative and hard work. It’s capital investment, hopefully from their own hard-earned money. It’s the risk of losing that money (and being personally responsible for any loans) in addition to work ethic and vision that earns a person the right to make more money than an average worker. The fact that banker executives make more than the average person without ever having any skin in the game is what ticks me off.
maha,
If they don’t show signs of recognizing reality now, when ever will they?
The economy is in meltdown, and again, today, they came out with a plan to cut taxes.
I’ve had soooo much wealth trickle down on me, I don’t know where to spend it all. Oh, wait, that’s not wealth that’s been trickling down down on me. What else is it besides wealth that trickles downhill? Oh yeah, $#!t!!! All I’ve go after 30 years of the Reagan Revolution is a hat full of $#!t!!!
Maha, if WGOITWOYA is not an official internet abbreviation, it sure ought to be. It so accurately and succinctly directs certain persons to both the activity and location appropriate to their needs that I am surprised it is not already in common use. Well put!
Yes, sorely disappointing. I agree with Joanr16.
It may be that it will come down to the exploiters and the exploited. The sheer difference in numbers of warm bodies should tell us who will win in that confrontation – even with police state tactics, and even if Martial Law is declared. Too big a difference in numbers for the exploiters to win in the long run.
F*ck Andrew Sullivan. What is the freaking matter with him??? If it comes to that, we’re goin’ Tribal. Does he fancy himself one of his “makers”?? Dream on, Andrew.
One of the things the Repugs don’t get – and haven’t gotten for a very long time – is that 97% of them are the exploited, yet they act as if they are (and support) the exploiters.
Jack K – I believe in the last election cycle it was “even a blind pig finds ACORN once in a while.”
Shorter Ruffini: “Obama is a socialist”. It’s pretty amazing to me how successful the right has been able to instill this “scary” meme into their followers’ minds. I like what Bernie Sanders said the other day, in response to Judd Gregg’s slam on Europe…
Context: Gregg (R-NH) introduced an amendment (defeated) that would have required 60 Senate votes for budget resolutions that don’t meet the European Union standard of limiting debt to 30 percent of GDP.
As for Ruffini sophomorically trying to lecture us about how Obama’s ideas (such as Ruffini understands them) are “actually very, very old” – even older is the conservative notion of an elite aristocracy that arranges society to benefit only itself – which was the hallmark of the Reagan/Bush years, and which is at the root of the global economic crash we’re now enjoying. Ruffini and the other rightards living in their own fantasy world should be glad that Obama’s so-called “socialism” is around to reboot capitalism, which is lying on its back somewhere in the ditch of failed conservative policies. Same thing happened in 30s – but that is probably too old for Ruffini’s limited understanding of history.
Moonbat said “..even older is the conservative notion of an elite aristocracy that arranges society to benefit only itself – which was the hallmark of the Reagan/Bush years, and which is at the root of the global economic crash we’re now enjoying.”
Precisely.
Just when you thought Andy Sullivan was waking up to reality…
Let’s be fair – I never thought that.
Uh, the way I see it, the whole notion of what one owes the commons was flipped arse-over-tit in the 80s. Tax bands were reduced to three, and iirc, this was framed as “simplification,” a term of art that meant that those whose incomes transported them over some mysterious demarcation between the upper middle class and the truly wealthy were rewarded with a flat tax going forward. The narrative, the cover story that emerged from Reagan’s wholesale contempt for people who work in government is still operative in the minds of the “base.” There’s a whole lot of edjamacating needs done. What’s a fair share to pay in taxes, anyway?
Yes, Jeany, the Repugs are showing this wholesale contempt with abundant clarity in their recent budget proposal. Has anyone told them lately that the government IS the people? Oh wait, they must know that, ’cause they hate the people, too.