Is there a "liberal" version of the proverbial American Dream?

[lastliberalintexas]

I don't want this to be taken as merely another post saying that John Edwards' new house is too big, so please let's focus on more than just Edwards.

What I've found disheartening about the arguments surrounding the Edwards story is how many liberal, progressive or simply left of center people have defended his right to the American Dream, and several posters have said they'd love to one day be rich enough to have such a house. Is that really all that we are still after? Have we truly not evolved any further than that?

I'm not asking this from my high horse- I admit that I have a comfortable life. I have a nice house, a car which is paid for, plenty of food to eat, and I don't have to worry about paying bills each month since I have the money to do so. Barring a medical disaster, the only real financial concern I'm likely to have is in trying to pay for college for my child. Doesn't mean I am wealthy by any means, but I have all that I truly need.

Which I guess is where I'm headed. Are we seeing the effects of the Reagan years, perhaps? The 80s were my formative years, and I wonder if the materialism of that decade even shaped the more liberal and progressive minded among us. Did we not learn anything from that decade? Is greed really still good? How can we be responsible stewards of the Earth if we're still focused so much on material possessions?

I'm sorry for rambling, I'm just a little saddened to see some of the posts here defending obscene wealth (because s/he "earned" it), privilege and spending of anyone (not merely Edwards). It simply makes me realize just how much further we have to go in order to combat the consumer culture of the US, and just how ingrained materialism really is in our culture. Very sad indeed.

*steps off soapbox*

[lostnotforgotten]

1. Yes - Flattening The L-Curve Would Be A Start - www.lcurve.org

www.lcurve.org

[TahitiNut]

3. Just bring the Gini Ratio down to around 0.32 only a bit better than it was in the 70s.

... and where other industrialized nations have it, like Canada, France, Norway, Germany, and Denmark. Or ... could we possibly do as well as the Japanese? :eyes:

Instead, we're nothing but another "banana republic" ... under 'plantation economics.'

[lostnotforgotten]

5. Thanks - Great Reply

eom

[melm00se]

15. maybe I am a moron

but what does these graphs represent?...in plain simple english (small words are always a good thing)

[TahitiNut]

25. They show the degree to which income is equitably distributed.

Looking at the bottom graph, if everyone got the same wages, then the line would be a straight 45-degree angle. If, on the other hand, nobody got any wages except one person, then the graph would slither along the bottom and then go vertical.

In other words, the 'belly' or 'sag' in the line in the bottom graph shows how a LOT of people get very LOW wages and a FEW people get very HIGH wages. The deepen the 'sag' or 'belly' in the line, the bigger the difference between what the few 'rich' get and the many 'poor' get.

Now, there's a way of showing, with a number (or 'ratio') how deep that line sags - how big a 'belly' there is in that curve. That number is called the "Gini Ratio" (named after a guy named Gini). That's the number shown, over time, in the top graph.

So, the top graph shows how income was distributed more equitably in the 70's and has gotten worse and worse since then. It also shows how equitably wages are distributed (in specific years) in other countries.

It should be noted that the two graphs show different populations. The top one shows all households in the US. The bottom one shows all people who had reportable (W-2) wages in 2005 ... i.e. individual workers.

While it's very arguable what distribution is optimal in terms of fairness and justice (nobody would advocate strict equality any more than one person getting everything), it's not arguable that economic justice is critical to our individual liberties and freedoms. Slavery, for example, would increase the Gini Ratio.

That's it in a (tahiti)nutshell.


(All this stuff is amply described on the Internet, in a lot of different places. Look up "Gini Ratio" or "Gini Coefficient" and "Lorenz Curve.")

[lastliberalintexas]

7. Yes and no

Yes, I am a Socialist, and the income inequality is incredibly troubling. And I really don't see it getting any better in the next few years, I see it heading to 1920s kind of levels, personally.

But I'm more focused on what we do with that money once we have it. Our only goal seems to be the acquisition of things. Material possessions as the ticket to salvation, if you will.

I'm probably being too judgmental and expecting too many people to live simply (oe at least *want* to live simply). But I'd love to see Your Money or Your Life made mandatory reading for Americans, even the wealthy.

[lostnotforgotten]

9. Why Should Some People Have All The Fun By Having All The Money?

eom

[phylny]

34. Why do you need money to have fun? n/t

[TahitiNut]

28. Actually, we're buying less 'things' and buying more health.

As you can see, the share we're spending on durable goods is somewhat even, while what we spend on medical care and recreation (including exercise) are increasing. Food is going down, even as we buy 'convenience' foods and import cheap labor to work the fields. Clothing has gone down as we pay the people who clothe us less and less. (They're in foreign countries, so they don't count, right?)




It's interesting to see, however, that employees (LABOR) have not been paid less in comparison to the corporations' profits (i.e. the "ownership class") since before the Great Depression. That's "trickle-on" in action, folks. (Remember, "Employee Compensation" includes CEOs - who're getting paid at all-time and all-world record highs.)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

2. Isn't liberalism itself the American Dream (tm)

It's easy to say that Edwards should not have purchased the house, but there are probably few people here that if they won the lottery, they wouldn't purchase a larger, grander house. It's in our genes to provide the best shelter/food/etc. for our families.

Fuck the house - if Edwards' receives the Dem. nomination, he'll have my vote.

[lastliberalintexas]

4. But Edwards isn't my point

This is- "but there are probably few people here that if they won the lottery, they wouldn't purchase a larger, grander house."

Certainly if one didn't already have a residence. Otherwise, why? The genetic argument may be valid, I don't know. I belive it has more to do with societal expectations and the fact that American society is so damn focused on The Mighty Dollar. Is that truly all that we are working towards, material possessions? Bigger, better and grander than the neighbors? Valuing things over people and experiences?

Maybe so. Maybe that helps me understand the soulessness of American society. :shrug:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

12. Materialism is definitely out of control in the good ol' U S of A.

But we all have the desire for the things that make us happy. That's true in every human society, but it's become obscene in the U.S. Still, it's all a matter of perspective. In some 3rd world countries, simply having three meals a day is a luxury. In a country where we "have it all", people and experiences are very important. I don't know anyone who doesn't value those connections (except maybe chimpy). In the U.S., however, success is usually measured in two ways: 1) financial wealth and 2) education.

The US does a lot of good with it's wealth, but we could all do MUCH more. Unfortunately, it will take a lot more enlightenment before we decide to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and shelter the sick. For a nation that claims to be christian, we do very little to follow the teachings of the original christian.

[katsy]

20. Soulessness.

First, the powerful corporations and government elite herd the population by longer working hours.

That means people participate less with their community and family.

The media blitzes advertisements about the "stuff" you need to be more clean, more cool, more successful, more potent, more comfortable, more sane.

That makes working people work more and buy more stuff they have no time to use or enjoy.

Effectively, the herd has become cut off from their community, they are isolated and turn to their teevees for a life line to what could be... if only they work a little harder, buy one more thing that is sure to turn their lives around.

Children are cut off from family dinners, discussions, adult mentors, planting a garden, quality time. Instead of dinnertime chatter, they grow up at the mall. They turn into perfect consumers.

I remember reading somewhere that in order for democracy to endure and be successful, the money must be concentrated at the bottom and the power to effect change at the top.

They have demolished our communities, families and enslaved the population. They have set the world on fire be it global warming and the wars. All because they have both the money and the power.

[NotGivingUp]

36. great post! and oh so true.

[Quixote1818]

6. I agree, what happened to talking about living modestly

conserving energy, living green, caring about the land and what kind of a world we are leaving out children????? Where did that DU go???

Everyone on DU loves to worship Al Gore yet his message seems to really carry very little true meaning here it now seems.

I thought we were all supposed to live in small houses that don't use a lot of natural resources and drive cars that don't use a lot of gas?

We can't have it both ways. I like John Edwards but I just don't agree with what he did and I think it was a major political mistake that will haunt him from here on out.

[Marr]

8. Yeah- your neighbor gets a white picket fence, too.

[mmonk]

10. Yeah, it was the commonwealth that was going to result

from the revolution with it's constitution.

[hfojvt]

11. you might ask if there is a liberal definition

of the word 'success'. Many of us seem to adopt the American definition which equates it to "made lots of money". To have helped alot of people or to have been the best person you could be is just too hard to measure.

[wellst0nev0ter]

31. I Think The American Dream CanBe Broken Down Into Two Parts

The first part is that the idea that if you are smarter and can outmaneuver the next guy you get to be at the top is entirely true for the most part.

But the other part, the idea that if you work hard, come to work on time, stay out of trouble and hold your end of the social contract that you will be justly rewarded, has been proven a lie so many times that it's hard to count anymore.

[hfojvt]

32. Bush was not any smarter

If you have powerful friends, they can place you, if not at the top, at least into a fairly high spot.

[wellst0nev0ter]

33. But He Outmaneuvered Those That Were Supposedly Smarter

Whether you like it or not, Bush knows how to play the political power-broking game, even if he is not interested in governing.

[hfojvt]

35. no "he" didn't

His cabal did, including a bunch of the very well heeled in the M$M and the rest of the corporate world.

[omega minimo]

13. answers at http://www.thomhartmann.com

[Selatius]

14. The American Dream was not originally about amassing material goods.

The original dream was simply about achieving happiness. I only need to reference the Declaration of Independence to justify my view on it. The pursuit of happiness is what the dream was supposed to be about, but that dream has been twisted into the pursuit of private wealth.

The two are not necessarily the same. For some, that may be what makes them happy, but for others, it is something else. Just because a person doesn't make 20,000,000/year does not mean he is any less happy than the people who do. All it means is that he chose a different path, and everybody should be free to march to the beat of their own drums without being denigrated as anything less than the man who felt accumulating massive wealth.

If John Edwards wants to help the poor so much, then he alone should be the judge of what to do with his fortune. If he has a personal conflict within his soul over living the good life simply because it feels too good to give up and adopting a spartan life not so full of material comforts for the sake of others, then that's between him and God.

[lastliberalintexas]

18. Maybe we're not so changed as a country then

Jefferson actually originally wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of property," it was only later changed to happiness.


Again, I'm not necessarily judging Edwards. I'm more surprised at the people on a liberal message board who are defending a wealthy person's right to spend her/his money in any manner and the unfortunate truth that materialism seems to infect us all.

It's simply depressing to me to see the people who know better, who know how many people could be housed and fed by that money and who know the environmental toll of such a house, defend something of that nature. If the informed, aware people on our side of the aisle are still willing to defend that kind of an act and even pine for such a house themselves, then it becomes even clearer why we have no political will to change environmental and social policies in this country.

[treestar]

16. That spread in Crawford must be pretty good, too

I don't see rich liberals as having to give it all up in a society that is not liberal. It wouldn't be fair to expect rich liberals to give up the perks of wealth while the rich conservatives got to have them. We have to decide if we are socialist or capitalist. For now, we are capitalist, so I don't expect those who earned the $$ not to spend it.

If he spends it, someone's getting a job out of it, too. That house could employ a lot of construction workers for a long time. Some prefer that to straight charity.

I don't get why it's a problem for him - the Kennedys should get just as much flack if he's getting it, and I've never seen them get any.

[lastliberalintexas]

22. Limousine Liberals

You must be even younger than I am (mid 30s) if you've never heard that term applied to the Kennedys. And I am not trying to attack them any more than I am attacking Edwards.


I suppose it's just depressing to see the regression of the left from the simple life mantra that has been so important in the last 15 years. Especially NOW, when we unfortunately have the visual evidence of global warming that we didn't have in years past.

[treestar]

27. I've heard that term and heard the right wing denigrate

the rich liberals over it, but they've been doing it for decades. This country's values have been very materialistic since the 80s, and that is still with us. But to change that requires more than just the rich liberals giving up the perks of being rich. That wouldn't have any real effect. So I'd rather have rich guys like Edwards than rich guys like Bush. I don't think it ever really hurt their getting elected, either. The freepers can go on about limo liberals but they can't get away from the fact that their own philosophy does not allow them to call anyone else out for being rich.

[catnhatnh]

17. Theres a lot of talk about his "footprint"...

...which will remain unaddressed as he does not answer to me...however, in New England, which is the home of the "Little house,big house,back house,barn" style of construction, the norm is that when winter sets in, most of the construction goes unheated-You heat where you live,and temporarily where you are working...Up here we have many large homes (10K sq ft plus) but only a moron heats or lights them year round...Just sayin'...

[SmokingJacket]

19. Good post.

I like. :thumbsup:

Other posters above have said what I would say, but better...

[nam78_two]

21. I agree with you and also its not the Edwards supporters who I have problem with

I actually don't care specifically about Edwards' house. What draws me into this are not even the people who say "Edwards is a good man-leave him alone". Its the people who say "Everyone has the right to do what the fuck ever they want...this America, this is the American dream."

I can understand the attitude that Edwards is a good dem/he is my dem and I am going to support him. He is working against poverty and he is better than many other candidates etc. So I will overlook his house. We all have stuff we try to overlook with our candidates.

What I cannot understand is the libertarian attitude of "Everyone has the right to whatever they want with their money-screw you if you care about the planet hippie. This is America-if I feel like doing something about this I will, if not its none of your business".

Our lives are inter-connected on this planet. Individual freedom is one of the best things in the world but it should go hand in hand with individual responsibility.
What makes it all the more obscene is how people just walk past the point of how the planet's resources are finite (I honestly think there are a few here who think all this global warming hubbaloo is just some scientific mumbo-jumbo/those far left Greens in the Dem party whining about the trees they wanna hug).

And it just becomes about personal choice, "I have the right...blah blah",...
What amazes me even more is the assumption that everyone just wants more stuff and that thats the only thing anyone could/should want.

This is purely anecdotal but one my best friends left his dad's decent sized business and joined Greenpeace and is now living in Brazil working for a pittance and he loves it...He makes me ashamed every day of my life. I often feel like thats what I should be doing, given how I feel about environmental issues, so I don't feel holier than anyone....
I did turn down a job from Dow Chemicals that would have paid about 2.5 times what I get paid now as a post-doc. All we can do is at least try or consider these factors..


I am dismayed by the fact that this country has shifted so far right that even in the nominal left, glorification of materialism and consumption are not just tolerated (which would be one thing), but aggressively pushed as the right thing and any discussion on this is considered "self righteous nose holding"...:shrug: Are we this shallow that everything reduces to "sour grapes/jealousy", "nose holding" etc?

Can we not see beyond our own lives to the actual consequences to other living things of our actions?

[lastliberalintexas]

23. Thank you!

You said it much more righteously and emphatically than I! I've been searching for the words to express how uneasy these issues have made me.


No one is perfect, and if it comes down to it I'll support Edwards. I don't have a candidate and probably will stay out of the primary wars this time around, so I personally don't give two cents that this issue centers around him *this time*. I've seen these very same defenses thrown around when other wealthy people have been discussed as well. They "earned" their money and can do whatever they want with it, no matter how socially repugnant their actions may be. How dare you judge them!

Thanks again.

[nam78_two]

24. Thank you :).nt

[Quixote1818]

30. Nicely said. Thank you. nt

[conscious evolution]

26. Yes there is.It starts like this

We the people of the United States,in order to form a more perfect Union,establish justice,insure domestic tranquility,provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare,and secure the blessings of liberty,to ourselves and our posterity,do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. A place to stay, enough to eat

Somewhere old heroes shuffle safely down the street
Where you can speak out loud about your doubts and fears
And what's more no-one ever disappears
You never hear their standard issue kicking in your door
You can relax on both sides of the tracks
And maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control
And everyone has recourse to the law
And no-one kills the children any more.

OK, it's the Gunner's Dream, by Roger Waters, but it will suffice.

[Zhade]

37. I love that album.

NT!