The Real Class War (Review of Winner-Take-All Politics)

Reviewed: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Simon & Schuster, 340 pp., $17.46

Published May 25, 2011 in Toward Freedom: http://towardfreedom.com/americas/2405-the-real-class-war

When then-Senator Barack Obama called for reforms to "spread the wealth around," opponents labeled him a class warrior intent on stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. What they didn't mention, and what too few Americans realize, is that precisely the opposite pattern has unfolded over the past forty years. Winner-Take-All Politics details this dramatic redistribution of wealth and shows how it is no natural outcome of economic forces. It is the result of political decisions. Increasingly dependent upon campaign funds from well-organized special interests, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have legislated in favor of the extremely rich at the expense of everyone else.

Hacker and Pierson back up their assertions with striking data. For example, the share of the nation's income raked in by the top 1 percent shot up from 9 percent in 1974 to 23.5 percent in 2007. The figures are even more remarkable at the very upper echelons: the top 0.1 percent has seen a fourfold increase in their share of the pie, from 2.7 percent to 12.3. Meanwhile, wages for the poor and middle class have stagnated and failed to keep up with the rising cost of living.

Experts often pin the growth of economic inequality on the shift to a knowledge-based economy, which has produced a large gap between the educated and uneducated. But Hacker and Pierson point out that extreme income disparity exists even among the highly educated. Further, the same level of disparity is not found in other developed nations. Clearly, an additional force is at work.

That force, according to Hacker and Pierson, is American government and politics. Since the 1970s, the tax code has become progressively less progressive. Not only have the super-wealthy enjoyed large tax cuts, but they have benefited from loopholes such as the capital gains tax. Since capital gains like investment income are only taxed 15 percent, private equity and hedge fund managers end up paying "a dramatically lower rate than their secretaries." Often, policy decisions go quietly unnoticed in the form of "drift": the government simply fails to respond to changing economic realities. The minimum wage is never updated to keep up with inflation. Legislation fails to address skyrocketing executive pay, which now approaches 300 times the earnings of average workers.

So why, if our democracy is based on the principle of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," have our policies so consistently favored the few? The answer lies in organization. In the past, unions provided a voice for the interests of working Americans. Yet while union representation has sharply declined (from 30% in 1960 to 13% in 2000), lobbyists representing corporate and financial interests have proliferated in the corridors of Washington. Unlike the fragmented and politically uninformed electorate, these special interest groups have banded together and pooled their vast resources to exert powerful political pressure. Hacker and Pierson describe the revolving door between Congress and K Street. Take Max Baucus, the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, who packed his office with pharmaceutical lobbyists. Or take John Breaux, former Democratic senator from Louisiana. After repeatedly undercutting progressive initiatives, Breaux made the smooth transition from elected official to lavishly paid consultant at a lobbying firm.

Despite the media spectacle that surrounds presidential elections, the growth of inequality has little to do with which party occupies the White House. In fact, it was under Carter that the dynamics of "winner-take-all" began to rapidly accelerate. Hacker and Pierson turn our attention from the presidential "horse race" toward the far more significant "politics of organized combat" that has consumed both parties. They describe a GOP that became incrementally more radicalized over the past four decades, most dramatically under the leadership of House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. While the GOP shifted further to the right--a shift that would recur with the emergence of the Tea Party--the Democratic Party was forced by the fundraising arms race to become more business-friendly. In turn, business interests were keen to court Democratic leaders who could stall or water down reforms.

Meaningful reform is made even harder by the structural flaws of a system predisposed toward gridlock. Since states have equal representation in the Senate, conservative small states hold disproportionate sway over less numerous but far more populous states. The increasingly ubiquitous use of the filibuster poses another roadblock, making it easy for the minority party to--with the help of a few bought-off colleagues across the aisle--stymie legislation. Such obstructionist tactics always benefit the minority party that employs them, convincing the public that the majority party is inept and that Washington is broken. During Obama's presidency, this has given congressional Republicans an incentive to block any reform-minded legislation rather than engage in bipartisan compromise.

If the problem is organization, Hacker and Pierson conclude, then organization is the solution. And it will have to be sustained. "Political reformers will need to mobilize for the long haul," the authors write, "appreciating that it is not electoral competitions alone that are decisive, but also the creation of organized capacity to…turn electoral victories into substantive and sustainable triumphs."

"Fahrenheit 9/11" Shows How Polarized This nation Is

Published July 12, 2004 in The Baltimore Chronicle

http://baltimorechronicle.com/071204ValerieSaturen.html

This battle of hysterias has contributed immensely to an even deeper, far more devastating loss: the ability to think critically and see the larger picture.

Driving through streets lined with new flags and billboards proclaiming "United We Stand" on the way to Michael Moore's blockbuster "Fahrenheit 9/11," one is powerfully reminded of the polarized atmosphere surrounding this election. In such a climate, dogma becomes rigid, loyalties are sharply drawn, and nuanced or moderate voices are often pushed to the side.

The irony is that, for all the finger-pointing, both sides rely upon the same emotional ploys, the same scapegoating, and the same "with us or against us" mentality in order to herd the American public in favor of their respective agendas.

As Moore successfully points out in his new film, the Bush administration was adept at using the vulnerable post-9/11 climate of grief, outrage, and fear to elevate his own political position. Many of us can vividly recall the images that filled our screens following the attacks: first the heart-wrenching scenes of carnage (accompanied by sweeping, mournful music), then infuriating images of the Enemy celebrating our pain. Finally, onto the screen would flash a resolute George W. Bush, against a backdrop of waving flags and moving renditions of "God Bless America." Whatever his faults in the arenas of policy making and word pronunciation, Bush demonstrated his expertise as a propagandist, effectively appealing to our emotions under the guise of apparent logic.

Unfortunately, in his urgency to expose the President, Moore resorts to many of the same emotional ploys he condemns in his subject. Among the opening scenes in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are sequences mirroring Bush's own visual rhetoric: the same devastating images of Ground Zero (insert sweeping, tragic soundtrack), followed by an enraging eyeful of another Enemy (Bush), reaping the rewards of our suffering against sinister music. The simplicity and black-and-white absolutism in the film stand in stark contrast with Moore's previous work, such as the ground-breaking and far more nuanced "Roger and Me."

It is important for people on both sides to foster an appreciation for the complexity of political situations, as well as the diversity of motives among those in either camp.

How are we to account for this change? Clearly, this aspect of "F-9/11" is largely a product of the growing polarization of American society and the extremely charged nature of the upcoming election. It is, perhaps, an element of human nature that prompts us to find unprecedented unity in the face of a common enemy. It is a trait that leads us-unfortunately-to act only when things have spiraled into crisis, and to raise our voices only when subtlety has already been made obsolete. Why did it take a tragedy of the proportions of 9/11 to bring out our unity as a nation? Why did it take a hasty, unnecessary war to send thousands into the streets in the affirmation of life against corporate greed?

In this election, few voters will be voting with their consciences. Rather, they will vote with their fear and outrage, not for an appealing candidate, but against an opponent. Liberals and Democrats, regardless of their support for John Kerry's platform, are mobilized to exfoliate Bush from the Oval Office; Conservatives and Republicans prepare to stand down the subversive, presumably un-American elements in their midst. Both sides are primarily moved not by their own intrinsic convictions, but by apocalyptic visions of the end of civilization as we know it.

This is understandable, in light both of America's vulnerability to further terrorist attacks and the steady diminishing of the very civil liberties that make us the great nation we are. However, this battle of hysterias has contributed immensely to an even deeper, far more devastating loss: the ability to think critically and see the larger picture.

We stand at a critical moment in American history, and our decisions now are sure to have dramatic repercussions for future generations. The level of crisis we face in such difficult times does not have to preclude the ability to think for ourselves, rationally, or to encourage this ability in others.

It is important for people on both sides to foster an appreciation for the complexity of political situations, as well as the diversity of motives among those in either camp. Americans who oppose the war in Iraq, for example, should be able to distinguish between the agendas of policy makers intent on reaping financial benefits from the conflict and the intentions of ordinary people who genuinely sought to bring democracy to Iraq. Conversely, those who support the war must recognize that many dissenters do indeed support our troops, precisely by trying to ensure that they are not sent to fight and die unnecessarily.

Among the strengths of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is its success in bringing to light many facts about the war that were previously unknown to many viewers. The disclosure of facts and information is the pillar of a truly enlightened, democratic society. Let's leave the conclusions to the people.