Saturday, March 7, 2009

Propaganda: Class Warfare

Barack Obama has been criticised for being like Robin Hood, who famously "stole from the rich to give to the poor". In the original story, Robin Hood was a hero, a decent person who was trying to put right the wrongs of his country. But apparently today, most conservatives seem to identify more with Prince John or the Sheriff of Nottingham. Now Robin Hood is seen as being a socialist cur.

I think there really is an emerging issue of class warfare in the USA, and to some extent Canada. I'm not saying it's started yet, there is no doubt the rich are getting richer. Do they deserve it? Are they really the best and the brightest? These are the questions I am not going to bother answering. But if it is really going to class warfare, it will be the most important issue of our time.

There are also some other non related issues such as the issue of abortion. For some people it is the only issue that matters. But abortion is not a primal instinct. Animals will fight over food, but they will not fight other animals just because of the way they treating their own young. If the only thing a foreign country was doing to annoy us was allowing their women to get abortions, we would never bother going to war with them. Hey just wait and the problem solves itself!

In America, the middle class is disappearing. Illegal aliens are increasing. The new word for people so poor they have no legal protection at all is illegal alien. The conservatives are aligned with the rich, the liberals with the poor, and both are attempting to appeal to the rapidly shrinking middle class.

These are what I think are the real issues. Taxation, health care, immigration, minimum wage, maximum wage, food prices, free education, affordable housing. Taxation especially because for years in most liberal democracies, taxation was a way to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Which used to be thought of as a good thing by the middle class and the poor.

There are two side of the story. The rich believe they have worked hard to earn their money, and do not want it taken away or stolen by the government, especially if that government gives it to the undeserving poor. On the other side, the poor feel that they have not had a fair shot at wealth, and they only want enough to live a decent life.

The truly rich or the desperately poor each have an easy choice to make, but which way to go when you are in the middle? There is a temptation for the middle class to side with the rich. For one thing, people hope one day to be rich. For another, many people like to think they are richer than they are. Or to pretend they are. Very few people want to think that they might be poor themselves one day, living on the street. But not everyone on the planet can squander resources the way the rich do, or our planet would be dead in a week. So the reality is: not everybody can be rich.

In a liberal democracy, the rich need to control the government by appealing to the middle class for votes. They can't do it simply by giving the middle class enough wages and jobs to make them rich. The cheaper way of doing it is by PR, spin, propaganda, marketing - whatever you want to call it. It is an appeal based on emotion, instead of real benefit. The poor do not have access to such a weapon of control, although they can do some things like spreading stories and passing out flyers.

I believe the trend in history is that the rich get richer until the poor cannot tolerate it any more and revolt. That may also be Karl Marx's theory. It happened during the French Revolution, for example. And I guess the Russian revolution. Call me a liberal if you must, but the best antidote to this cycle is a strong middle class, which I for one hope we never lose.

2 comments:

  1. It's the Golden Rule in operation again ... those with the gold make the rules. And rule changes over the last 30 years have exacerbated income inequality.

    The key indicator to watch is the 'Gini' coefficient, a measure of income inequality (0 = perfect equality, 1 = perfect inequality).

    Over the last 30 years, Canada's coefficient has slipped from .28 (par with Scandinavia) to .33. Disturbing is the trend towards inequality levels in the U.S. - at .41.

    What beggars my imagination is how effective the plutocrats' propaganda efforts have been in terms of the disadvantaged voting against their own interests.

    Although, of course, growing inequity is a complex economic phenomenon, the key metric is that, over the past 30 years the percentage of Canadian families within 25% of the median income has decreased significantly.

    (Details available at StatsCan)

    That trend can be attributed to both labour market value decreases ('service' jobs) and reductions in the progressiveness of tax regimes. Both of which operate to the advantage of the advantaged.

    Unless more progressiveness is restored to the tax system, minimum wages adjusted, and tax breaks for the wealthy curtailed, we can only expect this inequality to grow.

    And, naturally, we can rely on the good intentions of the plutocrats to make that happen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joe the Plumber is a great example. Votes republican on the issue of tax cuts for the rich, even though his own taxes would go up if they won.

    ReplyDelete