I have been trying to understand the conservative party for some time now -- the central tenants of their belief system. The alliance between fiscal conservatism and religion seems to me particularly perverse, but at their core there is a distrust of the existing government. On the one side, while the policies are never cast in this light, there is the aversion of the very rich to any government interference with their ability to accumulate capital and power. Hence their particular aversion to regulatory or taxation policy, except the end game of no-regulaton or no taxation except that imposed by the invisible hand of the free market. On the other side, while again policies are never cast in this light, there is the aversion of the very religious to any government interference with their ability to accumulate what might be called moral authority of "biblical values" and the power to impose that moral authority on each and all. I use the term "moral authority" loosely, in part, because it is not a reasonable or rational moral authority, or one that can be justified from a central tenant like the golden rule. We are all subject to blind prejudice, but no one would treat women or homosexuals the way they have been treated historically if that same treatment were to be imposed on them for some equally arbitrary accident of birth.
I want to say that the freer the free market -- that is to say, the less it is subject to regulatory restrictions and redistributive taxation -- the more it tends toward monopoly and oligarchy. This is ultimately just another version of aristocracy, if not a landed patrician aristocracy of the Downton Abbey sort, which seems benign enough in the soft focus light of nostalgia, then a new aristocracy, one predicated on other forms of inherited capital. We want to think of it as a meritocracy, and we continue to espouse the myth that this is the land of opportunity. Perhaps we could think of it as a meritocracy throughout the brief period following each of the world wars, and in the so-called tech-era where a few techies rose to riches with an idea, but now that we are moving into the third millennium, we have long since past the time when it could be assumed that every rich man was a self-made man. Nevertheless, each rich man wants you to believe that he was a self-made man, that god endowed him, as the donald put it, with a "special brain" that allowed him to rise to a position of "success." I have not seen anything very impressive about the donald's brain, except a talent for narcissistic self-aggrandizement. If god endowed him with anything, it was an inherited fortune. His egomaniacal selfies aside, it is infinitely easier to get even richer if one begins with riches in the first place.
Here's a way to think of meritocracy. Imagine a foot race -- a hundred yard dash. Everyone has a stash of cash, and everyone must contribute 20% to the pot for the race. Of course, each individual's stash of cash is different, some have a considerable amount, some a negligible amount, but everyone must contribute 20% to the pot of whatever they have for the prize. In a true meritocracy, of course, everyone would start from the same starting line, race one-hundred yards to the same finish line, and the winner would come away with a considerable prize regardless of their initial contribution. That, of course, is not fair. In such a scenario, the winner may not have contributed much of anything to the pot. Indeed, if they were indigent, but fleet of foot, they may have contributed nothing at all to the pot and yet still come away with a considerable prize. It seems fairer, does it not, to have different starting lines based on one's contribution to the pot. Those that contributed nothing to the pot, would start at the one hundred yard mark, while those that contributed more would start closer to the finish line and those that contributed considerably more would start even closer to the finish line.
Metaphorically speaking, the economic race currently resembles the second scenario more than the first. It's not exactly winner takes all. The prize money is distributed on a diminishing scale, with the winners taking a greater percentage of the pot, the losers taking a much smaller percentage of the pot, so there may be some jockeying for position along the starting spectrum, but it is very unlikely that someone racing 100 yards toward the grand prize is likely to beat someone racing, say, 1 yard toward the grand prize, no matter how meritorious, no matter how fleet of foot he or she happens to be. There will be some falling away. One of the largest contributors to the pot, living in the lap of luxury, may have grown lethargic and weak. Despite starting close to the finish line, he may fall back in the pack as others, more energetic and stronger, pass him by and win a greater share of the pot, thereby contributing more the next time, starting even closer, and winning an even greater share of the pot. If he can maintain his energy and strength in successive races, he may find himself on top.
One can think of various elaborations of the metaphor, and there are some elements of merit, even in the second scenario. Generally speaking, however, given a normal distribution of running ability, in the second scenario, those that contributed the most to the pot at the beginning are still going to come away with most of the pot at the end. Still, we want to believe in a meritocracy, we want very badly to believe in a meritocracy, the American dream. I won't elaborate on Weber's thesis. He did it better than I could, but the close connection between the "merit" of having money and "moral authority" plays out again and again in American society with variations on the theme. In my small shop, how many times have I heard that the donald can be "trusted" because he is not obligated to anyone. He has "more money than God" and so can be "trusted" to speak "without political correctness" because he is not in the pocket of various lobbyists or contributors. One may not like what he says, but at least it can be assumed that "he's speaking his mind."
The "moral authority" is heightened when one professes, however weakly, to be christian. It's not exactly as though the donald is running as an evangelical, but he is pandering to a base form of xenophobia -- he is not one of "them" -- not muslim, not an immigrant, decidedly not a homosexual with his endowment, not a woman or black, et cetera. Ted Cruz, however, is running as an evangelical. He doesn't have the donald's merit of having money, however. Hence YouTube videos, based on CNN reporting, like "Meet the FOUR People Funding the Ted Cruz Campaign." Whether or not the facts are correct, it alleges that 36 of the 38 million raised by the Cruz campaign came from four, very wealthy contributors. The commentator goes on to say, "you think Ted Cruz is going to represent the people? No! He's going to represent those four guys." The remainder of the video makes explicit the connection between the donations and religion, and the desire, on the part of a religious minority, of fundamentalist beliefs, to impose their values on the whole of the American people.
The video also makes clear enough the potential hypocrisy. Ted Cruz, in representing the contributors, who also favor a fiscal conservative agenda, one that would decrease regulation and taxation, a fiscal agenda that clearly favors, well, people like then, the rich. Ted Cruz is the proxy, in other words, for a religiously inspired oligarch not unlike the imams. His religious beliefs may or may not be sincere, but if CNN's reporting is correct, it's not a stretch to suppose he is going to represent "those four guys" not only in their religious, but in their fiscal agenda as well. According to Forbes, the largest contributor to the Cruz campaign, Farris Wilks, at 15 million dollars, is "buying ranches in Idaho and Montana." I suspect the purpose in doing so is not benign, but unlike Trump, they are in fact self made men, more or less. They established FracTec, a tracking concern, that they sold a 70% interest for over 3 billion dollars to a Singapore concern, so one can imagine, apart from an end days religious agenda, why they might support loose regulation on environmental concerns. The hypocrisy goes even deeper. He is also a pastor of the "Assembly of Yaweh church," a fundamentalist christian organization that affirms old testament law, or at least that which suits the moment. On homosexuality, we can, of course, quote Leviticus 18:22 or "do not have sexual relations with a man as one has with a woman," and one can imagine why sincere believers among the conservatives would oppose gay marriage. On immigration reform, however, we have Leviticus 19:34-35 which tells us "when a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt." If not foreigners from Egypt, for most Amerians, including Ted Cruz, one needn't go back too far to find they were foreigners in Mexico, Guatamala, Poland, and well yes even Egypt. Seems to me, if one accepts biblical values in one regard, one must accept them in the other, particularly if the bible itself is infallible truth. Yet, I have not heard a conservative candidate support the latter set of verses.
No comments:
Post a Comment