Class In America

Posted on by

Nancy Isenberg, a history professor at Louisiana State, identifies five myths about class in America. Instead of listing the myths, I’ll turn them around and present the corresponding truths: 

  1. The working class isn’t mostly white and male
  2. Most Americans notice class differences
  3. America has less class mobility than other developed countries
  4. Talent and hard work make it easy to rise above your class
  5. Racial oppression is more serious than class oppression

My favorite paragraph:

Class power takes many forms. Its enduring force, its ability to project hatred toward the lower classes, was best summed up by two presidents 175 years apart. In 1790, then-Vice President John Adams argued that Americans not only scrambled to get ahead; they needed someone to disparage. “There must be one, indeed, who is the last and lowest of the human species,” he wrote. Lyndon Johnson came to the same conclusion in explaining the racism of poor whites: “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Getting Rich with Government Assistance

Posted on by

[From “The Amazing Career of a Pioneer Capitalist” by Martha Howell, a review of The Richest Man Who Ever Lived by Greg Steinmetz:]

If [16th century Dutch merchant Jacob Fugger] was not the “first capitalist,” the story of his life perfectly exemplifies sixteenth-century capitalism and suggests a fundamental truth about many more forms of capitalism, one that was so monstrously embodied by the Dutch East India Company: wealth is won and preserved with the support of a state that is, in turn, dependent on the riches accumulated by the few who excel in commerce.

In some periods, at some moments of technological history, the riches are typically extracted from ever more efficient production, invariably aided by ruthless exploitation of human labor and natural resources. In others the wealth comes principally from control of supplies, manipulation of demand, and management of distribution networks. But always the merchants grow rich because state power protects them or looks away when the time is right—and does so because in a world where commerce reigns, neither the state nor a powerful merchant class can exist without the other. We have Steinmetz’s book to thank not just for telling Fugger’s story so well but also for showing us how the partnership between state and commerce worked in the earliest days of European capitalism.

[And until this day. The rest is at New York Review of Books.]

How Lobbyists Win in Washington

Posted on by

[From “How the Lobbyists Win in Washington” by Jeff Madrick, a review of Lee Drutman’s The Business of America Is Lobbying:]

…there are two crucial points that are disturbing. The first is that business spends $34 on lobbying for every dollar spent by likely opponents such as labor unions and other interest groups.

The second point is, I think, Drutman’s most important. It may once have been adequate for lobbyists to provide business clients access to the right people. Today, however, they also must develop expertise on major political issues, so that they can provide policymakers with research, draft legislation, and pass on up-to-the-minute information. Lobbyists, not [government] staffers … are now the major source of information for Congress and the executive branch on major legislative issues. In one survey, two thirds of congressional staffers said they depend on lobbyists for the information they need to make legislative decisions and pass bills. Thus lobbying grows because Congress, and often the executive branch, needs lobbyists.

[Of course, we know that information is power. The rest is behind a paywall at New York Review of Books.]

Dog Days, Blog Days

Posted on by

“Dog days”: the hottest period of the year (reckoned in antiquity from the heliacal rising of Sirius, the Dog Star). Also, a period of inactivity or sluggishness.

It’s hot and sultry here, but summer is only a week old. The weather doesn’t explain why this blog has entered a period of inactivity or sluggishness. Yet it has.

Yet I don’t want to let it die.

Therefore, I’m going to try something different: fewer words from me and more words from others whose thoughts deserve to be shared.

Coming soon: “Whereof One Can Speak (or Quote)”.

PS: The heliacal rising of a constellation [or star] is when it comes from under the rays of the sun, and begins to appear before daylight.

The Brexit Referendum May Have Simply Been Political Theater

Posted on by

Andrew Moravcsik, a political science professor at Princeton, predicted back in April that the United Kingdom wouldn’t leave the European Union even if the “Leave” referendum were to pass. Now that it has passed, it’s important to remember that it wasn’t legally binding. The parliaments in Scotland and Northern Ireland may be able to veto it. In addition, neither Prime Minister David Cameron nor the Brexit-supporting MP, Boris Johnson, who wants Cameron’s job are in any rush to begin the formal process of leaving:

The Brexit debate has become a global spectator sport, which suggests that something very important must be at stake. Yet, unlike issues such as migration, the euro crisis and Ukraine, it lacks real significance: under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe, regardless of the result of the referendum on June 23. It is instead a long kabuki drama in which politicians, not least Eurosceptics, advocate policies they would never actually implement…

Instead, the government would probably do just what EU members — Denmark, France, Ireland and the Netherlands — have always done after such votes. It would negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it. The public, essentially ignorant about Europe, always goes along.

Now that Brexit appears within [the Euroskeptics’] grasp, they are backing away from it. What they really seek is domestic political power. If Britain votes to leave, the government will fall or, at the very least, the cabinet will be reshuffled. For Eurosceptic backbenchers, this is a once­-in­-a-­lifetime opportunity. Yet they lack parliamentary and popular majorities to govern alone. They would have to strike a deal, which means moderating anti-European demands — all amid post­-referendum economic chaos. Renegotiation inside the EU would be almost inevitable.

Excessively cynical? Hardly. Few Eurosceptics are more prominent (or ambitious) than Boris Johnson, and he has signalled his willingness to compromise. The mayor [now former mayor] of London’s soundbites remain flamboyant: “The door of the jail [is] open, and people can see the sunlit land beyond.” But read the fine print.

When the referendum was announced, Mr. Johnson said that voting to leave need not necessarily mean leaving. Britain might renegotiate a better deal inside the EU, followed by a second referendum. So voters need not worry: “If you vote to leave, all your options are good.”