Facebook
Twitter
Ten Miles Square
Blog
“This isn’t about class warfare,” President Barack Obama said this week, in his speech at a high school in Osawatomie, Kansas.
But in fact, the president dived into many of the themes that have been urged on him by left-wing class warriors: the disappearing middle class, “the breathtaking greed of a few,” “insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity,” “mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford,” and so on. We can’t “go back to business as usual”: a universally endorsed principle at all times.
As Thomas Frank pointed out in his 2004 book, “What’s the Matter With Kansas,” conservatives thrived for many years by stoking the fires of popular resentment against (usually unnamed) elitists who sneer at religion, pursue bizarre sexual practices, join the ACLU but diss the Boy Scouts, burn the flag in their spare time, and so on. Then conservatives cried “class war” when liberals tried, with little success, to redirect the populist rhetoric against its more traditional targets of bankers, Wall Street and big business CEOs.
For ordinary voters, it was a great bait-and-switch. Recruited for the cultural class war, they found themselves fighting the economic one — but on the wrong side, the side of the bankers and businessmen.
But just lately, because of the financial crisis of 2008, the scandals that went with it and growing income inequality, financial class-war arguments are gaining more traction and the cultural class war has almost disappeared. When you’ve been laid off and your kids have moved back into your house after college because they can’t find a job either, you start to lose interest in whether the National Endowment for the Arts is financing smutty pictures.
Muddled CategoriesMy problem with Obama’s speech is that the president muddles together a variety of very different categories. There are out-and-out crooks and shysters. There are clever financiers who manipulated the rules and took advantage of loopholes — and ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves — but did nothing illegal. There are the very, very rich — the notorious 1 percent, or 1 percent of 1 percent — who have benefited from changes in the economy that they may or may not have had any control over. Then there are the affluent — annual income of $250,000 or more a year is as good a benchmark as any — who, before the recession, were doing better and better for reasons no one was entirely sure of.
Below these people in the Obama taxonomy is the great middle class, whose members just want to work hard and be rewarded with sufficient means to raise their families, own a house and send their kids to college. Below them, although not dwelt upon, are the genuinely poor: the homeless, single mothers on welfare, old folks with chronic diseases, and — an oft- forgotten group — people who went as far as their energy and talents could take them in the approved American manner, only that turned out to be not very far. (Off to the side and surprisingly unmentioned by the president are the holy men and women of American capitalism, small-business owners. They, of course, are deserving of every tax break and, by definition, can do no wrong.)
For every group Obama takes to task, he also has a “to be sure” passage in which he tries to make clear that he’s not talking about you. But if you listen to the music, not the words, you might well think otherwise. A wish to raise taxes on top-bracket taxpayers doesn’t prove that you “hate the rich” or that you’re trying to stoke the fires of class warfare. It doesn’t mean you define an income of $250,000 as “rich.” It simply means that you believe that the people who’ve been most fortunate in this country are in the best position to contribute more to solving its financial problems. But this distinction is hard to maintain if you’re simultaneously suggesting that there is something ill-gotten about most rich people’s gains.
People really resent this. I have a friend, a banker, who voted for Obama in 2008 but senses that he is being picked on unfairly. Which he is. And he is not pacified by reminders that Obama’s grandmother was a banker, as charming and surprising to some as that may be.
Crooks and AffluentFairness to bankers may not seem like the most pressing issue on the justice agenda. But in addition to being unfair, conflating actual crooks and the innocent affluent makes it hard to claim that raising their taxes isn’t punishment for some form of misbehavior. Taxes are not a punishment; they are a source of necessary revenue. But if you tie them to the financial scandal, they sound pretty punitive.
A second big problem with Obama’s philosophy, as revealed in this speech, is really the biggest economic problem facing the U.S. in general. That is, the middle-class sense of entitlement. This is an odd moment in the history of the American economy. We need more government spending (or tax cuts) to spur us out of the doldrums, but we also need less government spending (or tax increases) to prevent national bankruptcy or at best a long period of stagnation.
The official, or semiofficial, game plan is to spend our way out of the danger of recession, and then slam on the brakes and reverse course. The first part is easy, even pleasant; the second part is hard to imagine.
In Obama’s speech, he went into great detail about the first part — the spending part, the part about how unfair life has been to the middle class — and somehow forgot to mention the second part — the savings part, the part about how the middle class is going to have to fork over like everyone else to get us out of this jam (because the middle class is almost everybody). Eating dessert first is great fun, but green beans lie ahead, as a really great speech would have reminded us.
Brian T. Raven on December 09, 2011 6:58 PM:
Now I remember why I quit reading Michael Kinsley, King of the breezy snark. Time to go back to Salon, or Slate, or..... Bloomberg?? It's Bloomberg now?? Egads, whatever came over the good mayor?
Bernard HP Gilroy on December 10, 2011 9:01 AM:
"Why won't Obama talk about the issues we about? Wait, he is? Why won't he frame it the way I frame it? Wait, he is? Well, why won't he use exactly the same words I would use...?"
The sense of entitlement that really comes through in this is Michael Kinsley's.
Wyatt on December 10, 2011 12:37 PM:
Michael Kinsley: proud member of the Pout-y 1%. Sorry people with less money than you aren't paying as much in taxes. Sorry you think they're so dumb that unless the President specifically reminds them, they'll forget about paying down a $15T debt. But most of all I'm sorry I took the time to read all this.
Tweez on December 10, 2011 1:03 PM:
What a warmed-over, faux-centrist, pile of steaming horse sh!t. Green beans, indeed. I'd like to see Kinsley and his little banker friend eat a nice plate of hemlock. Tool.
Andrew on December 10, 2011 1:05 PM:
The very notion that some how the richest 1% just happened to benefit from the economy is just laughable. They have changed the rules to benefit themselves. Bush tax cuts being exhibit A. So is their determination to block the functioning of the new consumer protection agency. I could list a bunch more.
As far as your banker friends feelings being hurt. Boo hoo. What is he or she doing to help people who were ripped off by crooked mortgage lenders? What are they doing to promote consumer protection? Are for or against Frank Dodd? If they are against it, they are part of the problem.
The idea of middle class entitlement is also absurd. The middle class is struggling to hang on as they see most of the gains in productivity for the last 30 years go to these same 1%. Is it entitlement to want a job, basic healthcare and a good education?
As far as mentioning the scandals. Obama is placing our current problems into context.
Last, Obama has talked a lot about the need to bring deficits down. He has even offered a number of plans to get there. Plans that were more aggressive than anything the Republicans have come up with. And yet the Republicans rejected them all. Your lack of even mentioning this makes you look like an ignorant fool.
Mr. Kinsley. Your analysis is quite frankly, sloppy, lazy and lacks even the most basic understanding of recent history. I think the Washington Monthly can do better.
zandru on December 10, 2011 1:49 PM:
I'm amazed. This is the first truly stupid Michael Kinsey column that I've come across.
Jess on December 10, 2011 1:53 PM:
Tweez,
Thanks for the much-needed laugh, as well as the cogent review.
Wyatt on December 10, 2011 2:07 PM:
Also, I'm struck by the phrase "the innocent affluent." I can only imagine the subconscious self-loathing with which it's loaded.
Jimo on December 10, 2011 3:00 PM:
"The very notion that some how the richest 1% just happened to benefit from the economy is just laughable. They have changed the rules to benefit themselves."
Yes, to some extent. But no.
You disregard entirely significant ways in which both globalization and technology allow for more opportunity to make money. Perhaps that is because the greatest and easiest place to see and take advantage of either (or both) lies from a perch at the top of the economic ladder. (And you're not at the top and can't quite see what they see.) This is why 50 years ago a great making opportunity would have been e.g. the 3rd biggest bank in Peoria taking over the 4th biggest bank while today it's the 3rd largest bank in the world taking over the 4th biggest. Both circumstances allow for a tidy profit for the well-placed but the scale has changed geometrically (but not the tax take on the profit!).
To be sure, this type of wealth accumulation (a form of rent seeking) is just as unearned as wealth that comes from bribing a congressman to include a provision in the statutory code that gives your enterprise some unique tax or regulatory break. But let's remember that the real world (as opposed to the cartoon world) is very complex and entails more than one catalyst for how things come to be.
garymar on December 10, 2011 10:26 PM:
Lickspittles of the 1%.
Andrew on December 10, 2011 11:58 PM:
Jimo
The examples you give are exactly my point. These global opportunities didn't just happen. The rules governing capital flows and trade have changed. These changes " just happen" to be benefiting the top 1%. We could have very different rules (e.g. tariffs) if we wanted to.
Rules governing corporate governance and ownership have also changed. Look at media ownership rules or take a look at CEO pay. Twenty years ago the average CEO made 110% more than the average worker. Today, it's more like 300%. Are today 's CEO's 3x more productive than twenty years ago? It doesn't seem reflective in business valuations (the Dow would have to be trading around 18,000 - 22,000) Again,we could have very different rules. You mentioned the 3rd largest bank in the world taking over 4th largest bank in the world and how that didn't happen 50 years ago. It didn't happen because the rules were different.
Technology is a minor contributor to what is happening now and it doesn't explain why productivity growth would only benefit the top 1% and not everyone else. This last recession has been hard for educated, technology savvy workers. I don't live in a "cartoon world", I realize that a lot of problems have complex origins, but sometimes claiming complexity can be way to avoid the truth and accountability.
Jenny on December 11, 2011 12:26 AM:
Why would you guys publish anything the creepy Kinsley writes?
What's next, Halperin?
KC on December 11, 2011 12:30 AM:
So Mr. Kinsley wants those of the middle class to pay more taxes. I'm middle class but I don't earn enough to afford buying a house, but can afford a two bedroom apartment. That's pretty typical of the middle class because many can't afford a home anymore. Still, I don't have a problem with raising taxes because that will need to be done in time. but how about raising wages so that the workers can take part in the profits of companies rather than having all the profits go to the top or to the shareholders.
Many of us lucky enough to have jobs haven't had a raise for years, not since this mess began. But the cost of food and basic necessities, and obtaining such things as a college education for our kids, health care coverage, those items have not frozen just because our wages have.
Joey on December 11, 2011 2:54 PM:
PLEASE,do not publish anything else by Kinsley, ever.
FRP on December 11, 2011 7:47 PM:
I am guessing the forensic team here is going to pass on exhibit A , M Kinsley's defense of Microsoft business practice , from his time as mugwump at the Microsoft news and opinion publishing venture . The nice , ever prospering business investment in fear , uncertainty , and doubt for a colleague of Pat Buchanan , William F. Buckley, Jr. as a wry contrarian , perfect . Michael became very skilled with the lipstick on that old McDonald ee yi yo .
A business which still clings in blessing the world with the hope of extending a twenty year innovative cycle sty of stifle . Being largely based on intimidation , the blessing of to big to change sclerosis has met and shrunk before emerging talent that include producing material tangible to needs outside of those brilliant Redmond Washington engineers .
So M K's nimble balance of missing the point has been trained by the admiring disciples of Bell Telephone , conspiracy theories , White Supremacy , aristocracy , extortion , and chicanery right up to felony . I celebrate M K's strength and struggle with atrocious physical problems almost as much as his brass in picking the most indefensible argument to puckishly defend in the style of the current masters of political hypocrisy and deceit .
ezra abrams on December 11, 2011 11:55 PM:
Dear Mr Kinsley:
If I may, people are psychological and emotional things. One thing they require is a sense of fairness; it is manifestly unfair that the gov't, at the point of a gun, took money from my pocket and gave it to wall street, a group with large crimminal (crimminal) liability for the current crisis, and gave them bonuses.
This is not *fair*
and for most people,fair is very important.
as for your argumentthat middle class entitlements are the issue , i suspect that if you did the numbers, you would find 1%tax breaks, hidden in various ways, are rather large
Andy Olsen on December 12, 2011 1:03 PM:
Wow. I have actually liked MrKinsley and some of his writings over the years so I am very dismayed to see this nonsense from him. He goes out of his way to manufacture the slight to bankers that so offends him.
Well, Mr Kinsley, you are really badly informed on these issues and should not be speaking out so stridently:
"we also need less government spending (or tax increases) to prevent national bankruptcy"
Nonsense. The deficit was mostly caused by tax cuts for the rich, two unfunded wars and a prescription drug benefit that was unfunded. Add to that the depression, primarily caused by the banking industry.
There is so much more wrong with this piece, I wonder how it got published here to begin with.
Spring Texan on December 12, 2011 1:54 PM:
Great work imitating David Brooks!
Hope you can't sleep at night; you (and he) shouldn't. But Bobo's been great at amassing dough; and money is a fabulous sedative.
For Obama too.
Meantime the rest of us are anxious and wakeful.
Dave on January 25, 2012 10:11 PM:
I agree with this writer: although I won't be ANY richer, as a lower middle class making $50,000. a year, our country WILL be. And I want a richer country, but can't give ANY more! When the hell is the RICH going to start contributing? Warren Buffet wants to know, an so do I.
Any one who can't wrap their brains around this is insane or just plain greedy.