Because the world he inherited from 30-plus years of failed Republican economics is still the world in which we live. This is true despite the stimulus. Despite the ACA. Despite Dodd-Frank. And despite the partial end of the Senate filibuster as a partisan weapon. I can think of no better illustration of this truth than this surprising and somewhat inspirational opinion piece from The New York Times.
What interested me the most about Sam Polk's confessional is that he admits to the concept of wealth addiction--and to the related principal that wealth addiction is not about material needs, but about a need for power. Unfortunately, in a post-Citizens United world, the floodgates have been opened for cash from the 1% to buy the rest of us. Or, if not the rest of us, the government that is supposed to protect and support all of us. How successfully this has been done can be seen in the House of Representatives, with its gerrymandered majority standing in the way of proposals that people overwhelmingly support, such as immigration reform and action against global warming.
Reaganomics was supposed to put the majority of our money in the hands of those who already had the lion's share of it, the latter fact supposedly serving as Puritan-style proof that they were the only ones virtuous enough to handle it "wisely." Of course, it was always marketed under the mantra of taking money away from bureaucrats and giving it back to "the people." But that never included all of the people, nor was it ever meant to do so. Survey after survey shows that the past three decades have been a period in which money was systematically transferred from the majority of Americans to the minority at the top.
But what also interested me about Mr. Polk's piece is that he was honest about how wealth failed to fulfill him mentally and emotionally. He began to see that life wasn't simply about having the most toys, or the biggest bonus or bank account. He began to want a connection to the larger society around him, and to be involved in some meaningful way in making it better, even if doing so didn't make him richer. One wonders how many of his former colleagues share those feelings, but not the courage to give voice to them.
Self-interest. Those are funny words, in a way. As Bill Clinton might put it, it all depends on what your definition of "self" is. Can we really pretend to be masters of all of our circumstances? As Elizabeth Warren pointed out., someone else built the roads we use, educate the people we hire, protect all of us from day-to-day dangers we don't often see. Like it or not--and I admit to liking it--all of us depend on the rest of us at some point. Every business needs customers and service providers--who, in turn, need businesses to employ them. And the wealth that results from all of this is a joint enterprise no matter how you define "self." Adam Smith, after all, wrote about the wealth of nations, not about the wealth of selves. Even he understood that government had an active role in making wealth happen. Doubt me? Then stop talking about Adam Smith and start reading him.
I wish Mr. Polk well in his new life, especially with his new non-profit. I hope and pray that he is joined soon by many of his former fellow-travellers. It is the only way we can begin to make our system of government work for all of us again, long after Obama has left office.
No comments:
Post a Comment