Onward, Semper Assholia Maxima!

by von

WOW:  SNIDELY REFERENCE Kevin Drum's snidery toward the rich -- i.e., "it's nice to know that there are a few rich people who aren't complete assholes, but it seems safe to say that the majority fall pretty safely into this category" -- and catch it, well, in the ass.  (Read the comments.)  But does one snide turn deserve another?  Or do I have a point?  Or am I horribly below standards, vitriolic, hysterical, and quite likely very stupid -- as many commentators claim? 

Yes, Yes, and No, of course, as you would expect me to answer.  Drum's offhand snidery is a nod to the Democratic party's unfortunate predilection to slam the rich when all else fails.  Indeed, a general comment that "the majority of the rich are complete assholes," as if this distinguishes them from the poor or middle class, followed by general assent among the commetariat here and there that, yes, the rich are all assholes seems to be a pretty good example of class warfare -- even when presented in jest.  And, if not meant to be ironic -- which neither Drum nor our commentators are attempting -- class warfare is a sloppy way of thinking.

Yes, sloppy.  Drum (and others on this blog) want to make the point that there is something wrong with a society where a relatively large portion of the pie belongs between a relatively small number of folks.  Maybe there is.  Or, maybe not:  the gilded assholes of the story that is the source of Drum's lament did not, by and large, inherit their vast fortunes.  They earned them, dollar by dollar, by creating things that others -- lots of others -- found to be useful and interesting.  And now they are enjoining the dividends of their labors.  Maybe that's a good thing. 

So, now, on to our commentators, whom, nearly to a man, think I'm out of line for the following reasons (among many others):

Let's not consider it. It's just a throwaway line.  Von, you're being hysterical.   Everyone knows what Drum means.  He's just engaging in some rhetoric.  The rich are a bunch of assholes, anyway.  Rhetorically at least.  Probably really too.  So let's move on.  What, you're still here?   Why are you dwelling on this, anyway?  Everyone who's a Democrat doesn't see any problem with this.  Everyone who thinks like me agrees that the rich are assholes.  Every blog I hang out at thinks Drum's right on.  And that you're taking it the complete wrong way.  You can write better posts than this.  C'mon, criticize InstaPundit or something.  Get into it with Charles Bird.  Reinforce my preexisting views on Iraq.  Quit ruining the blog.  Asshole. 

Yes, I am (an asshole).  You shouldn't listen to my views on the subject of the super-rich. Just like you shouldn't listen to the French regarding Iraq because, you see, the French are complete assholes. Just like you shouldn't listen to Al Gore on the environment because, well, he's a complete asshole.  So: you also shouldn't consider whether allowing folks to become very, very wealthy actually produces net benefits to society because, after all, does anyone doubt that the majority of the uber-rich are complete assholes?  Move on, already.

That's class warfare -- a dumbed down ad hominem, really.  It deserves to be mocked.  Yes, on this blog, too. 

So, here's an open thread.  Feel free to debate (1) the above; (2) whether the phrase "catch it in the ass" is homophobic; (3) whether it's permissible for me to be snide from the right, or whether only lefty snidery is acceptable at ObWi; and (4) whether the word "asshole" should be banned from ObWi's front page as work-unsafe.  (My views on the last two subjects should be reasonably clear already.)

UPDATE:  A commentator asked what I thought of the NY Times article Drum was discussing.  For what it's worth, I thought the article was ridiculously stupid and filled with editorilizing (the rich regard themselves as "heroic"?  Really?  I must have missed that quote).  As a portion of GDP, the uber-rich have a much smaller share during this alleged "gilded age" than during the last. By order of magnitudes smaller. It's disingenous to talk about a modern gilded age when it's not even close.  And most of these folks created real, massive value -- the same way that such value has always been created: by selling things that people want.  (More on this here.)

Comments

[Gary Farber]

"Which misunderstanding was, apparently, due to your failing to understand that it was in fact a discussion between myself and LJ."

Yes, I apparently missed that I was reading private e-mail that somehow was posted as blog comments; I hadn't understood that this was the problem until you just explained; apologies for the intrusion into your private discussion.

"But, easier to dodge than to just answer the question."

Alas, I believe the relevant words you found apt were "I don't care." (I may misremember.)

But do rest assured that if you return to caring about answering my polite questions or requests, I'll return to caring about yours. Otherwise, however, I'm as uninterested as you are. Up to you. (A simple declaration of interest will do.) Because unlike your statement of yesterday, I do care whether you care.

[Phil]

So, the only way to talk about things is to link to them on the Internet? Um, OK. Start here and have fun, Slarti. Like Gary, I'm going to suggest that sometimes the conventional wisdom about things -- like the idea that conservatives are fond of the Horatio Alger myth -- is actually true, and that you take the opportunity to educate yourself about it rather than expecting others to fill in the gaps for you.

That you appear not to know things about conservatives and Republicans that a majority of non-conservatives somehow do know is somewhat confounding, but is not an excuse for contrarian gainsaying.

[rilkefan]

FWIW, Slart, Phil's 6:52 is pretty much entirely conventional wisdom among liberals I read (applied to current influential conservative activists, anyway). I don't think you need a wikipedia link to Norquist's Weltanschauung, but perhaps someone can dig up a post from Kevin Drum from before the Abramoff scandal cut his visibility down.

[rilkefan]

Of course no doubt I believe a variety of things much to my lack of awareness but which are readily apparent to conservative blog readers, and if informed of that I'd probably want to see a few links.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"No offense, Slart, but there are limits to how much time some of us want to spend educating you about elementary Republican history and facts."

Or more likely a left-wing view on Republican themes. The problem with that being that from the OUTSIDE it can be difficult to tell how they are effecting things on the INSIDE.

So when people here say things like "Is it suddenly controversial that conservatives generally hold that the only real impediment to "making it" in this country is not working hard enough?", from the INSIDE of conservative circles I can safely say that your modifiers have made the statement false.

I think that this represents a fair exemplar of conservative thought on the subject:

For a very large majority of people, the largest impediments to having a relatively comfortable middle class life are some combination of a lack of hard work, inappropriate spending, and other bad but avoidable choices (like letting drugs take over your life or having lots of children when you can't afford it).

I don't entirely agree with the statement, but it would be a fair understanding of general conservative thought on the subject.

Hopefully you can discern the difference between the blockquoted statement and the caricature statement.

Part of the problem is "making it". Strange but true, most people who vote conservative don't really care about the rich. "Making it" is about the middle class. I suspect you are using "making it" to talk about the fabulously rich, but honestly that isn't what most conservative voters care about.

But if we were talking about say the upper 10%, a fair version of conservative thought would be:

For the most part, getting to the top 10% requires quite a bit of luck, but it can be hampered by a lack of hard work or other bad choices. It can also be facilitated by a lot of hard work that most of us wouldn't be willing to do for a sustained amount of time, and might involve trade-offs (family especially) that we aren't willing to make. Also some people are just lucky but we don't begrudge them that very much.

[liberal japonicus]

Just to check, these blockquotes aren't actually quotes from someone else, they are what you are writing, right Sebastian?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Yes. Sorry I was just trying to set them apart from the text. They don't represent exactly what I think, but rather how I've experienced general conservative thought on the topic.

[rilkefan]

SH - I think Phil's "hard work" is metonymy for "virtue", and if so his statement is sufficiently equivalent to your elegant restatement for a casual blog conversation.

[john miller]

Oh so late to the party.

von, I truly can appreciate where you come from, but one comment that really got to me is "the Democratic party's unfortunate predilection to slam the rich when all else fails." Please give me an example.

Like most here, I have no real problem with people earning a substantial income. Being rich does not preclude one from being an a--hole, nor does it require that characteristic. Same for all levels.

I do have a problem with the hypocrisy of some on the Right that it's okay to make a lot of money as long as you don't do it by being a trial lawyer suing companies for their wrongdoings.

Seb, I really don't care what is the reality in those other systems and countries. I don't live in any of them so they are irrelevant to this discussion.

I do believe the rich should be taxed at a higher level simply because since they have gained the most by this country they owe the most back, and not just in raw dollars.

As far as class warfare, I am currently agnostic, simply because I don't see two sides going after each other in a significant manner, only one.

[Gary Farber]

"Start here and have fun, Slarti"

A good link, but this gets it a little better.

A review of William E. Simon and Irving Kristol (I have no idea if Slart has ever heard of either; anyone know if these obscure guys have anything to do with conservatism?):

While most people would not be caught dead reading the novels of Horatio Alger, two current writers are quite proud that they are fans. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary William Simon and Political Commentator Irving Kristol believe the trouble with conservatives is that they do not read Alger and subscribe to his values of uplift through hard work, diligence, self-reliance and probity. This disinterment of an author whom liberals thought they had buried is another illustration of a certain sprightliness in conservative thought these days. If conservatives are not advancing bold new ideas, they are recycling old ones with considerable inventiveness.

In his foreword to Simon's book, Economist Friedrich A. Hayek says he cannot understand how a man of such outspoken views could have held a high Government post. Simon indeed prides himself on speaking out with all the exuberance of an Alger hero [....]

Capitalism must recover its moral content, argues Kristol, if it is going to survive. This is what Horatio Alger provided in such abundance for generations gone by. A businessman did not become a success just by making money. Heaven forbid! He was successful because capitalism encouraged certain character traits that used to be admired and are now disdained as "bourgeois virtues." For decades, writes Kristol, "liberal capitalism has been living off the inherited cultural capital of the bourgeois era and has benefited from a moral sanction it no longer even claims. That legacy is now depleted, and the cultural environment has turned radically hostile."

The Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans. Are they conservative? Here is their funding. Who are the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation? See here:

A report by the Center for Public Integrity said the couple, of Ada, contributed more than $2.3 million in 2003 and 2004, including more than $1.8 million to party committees registered in Michigan.

[From Axis of Ideology, NCRP, 2004]

The Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, incorporated in 1970, ranked ninth in total assets ($97,049,407) among the top 20 conservative foundations studied and third in total grants ($26,574,754) in 2001. The foundation's grantmaking has grown dramatically in the past decade, from only $4 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 2001. The foundation is the oldest and wealthiest of the DeVos family foundations, which also include the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation (1990), the Daniel and Pamela DeVos Foundation (1992), and the Douglas and Maria DeVos Foundation (1992).

Richard DeVos is co-founder of Amway Corporation and owner of the Orlando Magic (2004), and served as the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. He ranks in the Forbes 400 and is, according to Forbes, amoung the world's richest people, with an estimated worth of $1.7 billion in 2003122.

DeVos attended the Christian Calvin College, and he has been associated with numerous other Christian and conservative organizatons, such as the Council for National Policy, the Chairman's Council of the Conservative Caucus, the Free Congress Foundation, and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy. His foundation's grantmaking reflects these conservative Christian te3ndencies and affiliations. In fact, Helen DeVos told the Grand Rapids Press that "our biggest priority is to give back to Christian causes.123" The foundation ranks eighth in the top 50 U.S. foundations awarding grants for religion, circa 2000, as published by the Foundation Center.

I don't want to go out on a limb, but I suspect they might be conservatives.

Concerned Women of America: perhaps Slart has never heard of them, and needs proof that they're conservative.

Miguel Estrada: Modern-Day Horatio Alger Jr. Story

Amusingly, here are the notes of an Objectivist Randite on how to make Alger better:

7. Modify all dialog that implies determinism or makes political concessions to the Left. For example, in Luke's first conversation with Mr. Armstrong, modify Armstrong's view that poverty causes one to be virtuous (This is a typical conservative view, even today, and it is really just the flip side of the Left's determinist view that poverty drives one to crime). Make it an issue of choice. Also, modify Armstrong's attack on Wall Street speculation to make it an issue of doing it thoughtlessly and without ample funds, rather than a blanket attack on speculation and Wall Street.

That was from the July 1997 issue of the Houston Objectivism Society Newsletter. This is from the Horatio Alger FAQ. But perhaps Objectivists are actually liberals.

The Conservative Book Club (possible conservatives, I speculate) reviewing Richard Brookhiser, longtime National Review editor and onetime leader of Yale's Party Of The Right (where I met him in passing in late 1978, which he'd never remember):

Rediscovered: America's first Horatio Alger

One of the most controversial of the Founders, Alexander Hamilton came to America as an impoverished immigrant at the age of 15. Yet by age 32 had been [....]

(That may be a quote from PW, but the Conservative Book Club made the Alger line a headline.)

Oh, look, here's Rich deVos again, lecturing conservatives:

Rich DeVos - co-founder and former president, Amway Corporation; renowned speaker; author, Rich DeVos - co-founder and former president, Amway Corporation; renowned speaker; author, BELIEVE! and Compassionate Capitalism; owner, Orlando "Magic," NBA basketball franchise; past president, Council for National Policy; recipient, Horatio Alger Award, Horatio Alger Association.

Here is a fellow named "Clarence Thomas." I may be all wrong, but I have reason to think he might be a conservative. And what's weird, since there's no conservative affection for or mythology about Horatio Alger, is this:

A strong supporter of the Horatio Alger Association, Clarence Thomas has in recent years hosted a reception at the Supreme Court to honor the Horatio Alger Award winners. "The Horatio Alger Association is committed to giving at-risk students a college education—the first step toward a bright future," he says. "I am proud and honored to be a part of that."

Here are more liberals, like Sam M. Walton, John Warner, Jack Kemp, Norman Vincent Peale, Ronald Reagan, Lou Dobbs -- oh, whoops, Richard M. DeVos turning up again, Robert J. Dole, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Milton S. Eisenhower, Gerald R. Ford, John R. Silber, Phil Gramm, Chuck Hagel, Paul Harvey, Billy Graham, and many more lefties. Clarence Thomas has presented that award, which is weird, given how Horatio Alger has nothing to do with conservatism.

Alger is actually hated by conservatives. For example:

At Gonzales' Senate confirmation hearing last Thursday, Sen. Arlen Specter even called the judge's life a "Horatio Alger story."

From page 27 of the book The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America which "profiles the most significant conservative journals of the past century," a discussion of a symposia on Alger. This was probably accidental, and they probably intended to examine a more conservative author.

Another National Review article:

"It's just enchanting," says Steve Moore, president of Club for Growth, a pro-market PAC in Washington. "Herman has all the credentials. He fought for the sales tax. He's an entrepreneur. He was an adviser to the 2000 Steve Forbes campaign. His is an Horatio Alger story. The Democrats don't have any blacks in the Senate. We, as Republicans, could. A black, free-market senator from the South would be rich with irony."

But this shouldn't be taken as expressing any conservative admiration for Alger because... of a reason I'll think of later.

Here is some guy named "William F. Buckley" -- I dunno if he's a conservative -- using Alger as praise:

The other principal contender is Stephen Smith. His career might have been written as a Horatio Alger tale. He grew up [....]

Say, here's a 45 minute video by some dude named "Ronald Reagan," made:

An American Story, a 45-minute video, is narrated by President Ronald Reagan and profiles the life of an Association Member and a Horatio Alger National Scholar.

But Reagan was, after all, a liberal in the 1930s, so it's probably dubious to consider him an authentic conservative.

Here are some liberal wingdings named "The Heritage Foundation" with a paper on "The Intellectual Origins of Ronald Reagan's Faith" and discussing this Reagan guy's favorite childhood book, whose protagonist was:

A man named George Udell hires him as a printer, beginning for Dick somewhat of a Horatio Alger path to personal and spiritual improvement and fulfillment.

[...] The novel's clear lines of right and wrong left a mark on Dutch Reagan.

Whatever.

Etc., etc., etc. I'm clearly engaged in fantasy when I say Republicans have had an affinity for Alger. Air.

[upper middle]

I am fine with rich assholes, but this--

"They earned them, dollar by dollar, by creating things that others -- lots of others -- found to be useful and interesting"

--is a peculiar way to describe convertible bond trading. Or for that matter being overcompensated by a friendly, lazy board.

[Nell]

I'm impressed by Gary's comment at 9:42.

Bizarre as it seemed to question the connection between the Horatio Alger story/myth and American conservatism, I still would not have expected the number and variety of ways in which HA is explicitly evoked on the right today. I thought they'd gotten subtler than that.

[Slartibartfast]

like the idea that conservatives are fond of the Horatio Alger myth

Fond of Horatio Alger myth? What myth are you talking about? Are you saying, somehow, that working hard and applying yourself has no moral value? That it's not, in general, more likely to advance you than sloth?

But that's of little consequence. Gary's statement was "But the idea that most or all wealth is produced by merit, and merit alone, is absolute horsepucky. Complete garbage. Nonsense. Right-wing myth, which has nothing to do with the real world, save to be an argument against taxation or government spending on helping people in need." I'm not seeing much in your Google search to substantiate that.

And, still, Phil, your righteous indignation is somehow failing to make your point for you. There may in fact be a point there to be made, but pissiness doesn't seem to be of much use in making it.

Gary's series of links are more indicative that conservatives hold hard work to be virtuous, not that hard work alone can earn you billions. And, in any case, they're more indicative of a recent trend in conservatism than they are of any deep-seated embedding of Horatio Alger, or (because Alger didn't really, in general, write stories that showed people achieving HUGE success from hard work) anything at all resembling the notion that one can only achieve monetary success through hard work, in the roots of conservative mythology.

But thanks for those links, Gary, even though they, as Sebastian mentioned, are marbled through with left-wing mythology about the supposed right-wing mythology.

[Jon]

Gary, if it's any consolation, I'm slack-jawed in amazement at Slartibartfast's response.

[Common Sense]

I hate to introduce data, but according to this poll taken in 2000, 56% of conservatives versus 37% of liberals believe that the poor are poor primarily because of their own failures.

That is not precisely the issue that Gary raised, but I do think it is related.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, sure. Relatedly, I'd guess that any number of conservatives would confess to holding hard, honest work as a virtue. Some of them might even (shudder) indulge in such frippery, even if it doesn't gross them $20 million a year.

So, naturally: what a bunch of putzes.

Worse news: I actually know some liberals who hold the same values. Probably not REAL liberals, though.

[Gary Farber]

Slartibartfast:

But that's of little consequence. Gary's statement was "But the idea that most or all wealth is produced by merit, and merit alone, is absolute horsepucky. Complete garbage. Nonsense. Right-wing myth, which has nothing to do with the real world, save to be an argument against taxation or government spending on helping people in need." I'm not seeing much in your Google search to substantiate that.

Oh for god's sakes.

You wrote:

Apparently my VRWC ass-kicking boots (TM) didn't give me deeded access to right-wing mythology, so: please show me where it's a right-wing myth?

I responded:

I could point to Horatio Alger to start, but I'm content to point to this [....]

You responded:

Still kind of wierded out by the suggestion that right-wing mythology was authored by Horatio Alger.

I subsequently responded to you saying:

"I know of no such conservative orthodoxy, though, and if I'm having a Grover Norquist moment, there ought to be a Wikipedia entry handy to throw at me."

No offense, Slart, but there are limits to how much time some of us want to spend educating you about elementary Republican history and facts.

(I wrote a long comment on pretty much the same point about your general obliviousness to Republican history, including Grover, but deleted it as having an insufficient ratio of useful content to what might give offense I wouldn't intend to give.)

You replied:

So, we're not substantiating. Ok, then.

Air it is.

Let's recap. You challenge my associating Horatio Alger with conservatism and saying "I could point to Horatio Alger to start."

You ask me these words in response:

please show me where it's a right-wing myth?

You then mock me for not caring enough to substantiate what I've said with links.

You declare that "we're not substantiating."

"Air it is," you say.

I then give you more than a few pieces of substantiation.

And your response is but that's of little consequence?

I have no polite words for this. Others spring to mind, in the second person imperative, so I will disengage now.

[hilzoy]

Has anyone considered the possibility that something has gotten into the water?

Just asking.

[Gary Farber]

One of my favorite lines, from one of my favorite favorite movies: "It must be the heat."

Not really explicable out of context, unfortunately.

Better lines out of context (Raisuli is Sean Connery; Eden is Candice Bergen):

Raisuli: This is the Rif. I am Mulay Ahmed Muhamed Raisuli the Magnificent, sherif of the Riffian Berbers. I am the true defender of the faithful and the blood of the prophet runs in me and I am but a servant of his will. You have nothing to say?

Eden: It is not my intention to encourage braggers.

Raisuli: Your shell is strong like a turtle's, but brittle.

Eden: Your tongue is clever and fast. Be careful not to trip over it.

Raisuli: You are a great deal of trouble.

Well, that really needs context, too. Everyone go rent the DVD now.

I'm also fond of:

Raisuli: Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Gary you seem to be having a serious forest for the trees moment here. No one has claimed that conservatives don't believe that hard work is useful for many of the forms of success.

Your cites to conservatives talking about don't suggest that conservatives believe the ONLY way to wealth is through hard work. We've heard of lotto millionaires and are aware of 4th generation trust babies. We've seen fathers struck down in the prime of life leaving children to be cared for by their mothers.

You cite conservatives talking about Alger, but you certainly don't prove what you think you are proving.

Your statement was a little bit more harsh and absolutist than "conservatives talk about Alger and think that hard work often pays off". You've proven something no one disagreed with at any time. You have not proven, but rather have merely asserted, that conservatives believe: "the idea that most or all wealth is produced by merit, and merit alone, is absolute horsepucky. Complete garbage. Nonsense. Right-wing myth, which has nothing to do with the real world, save to be an argument against taxation or government spending on helping people in need."

I stand by my statements about what conservatives believe, and I'm frankly in a much better position to know.

(Comment revised because it was too harsh. I hope no one saw that.)

[bob mcmanus]

Bah an entire thread about class and class warfare and no decent marxism.

There is only one "class" labour, and it is only a class as it becomes conscious of itself in alienation from capital. The Bourgeois are not a "class" but a tool and creation of Capital, a means for Capital to continually expand itself.

"Class warfare" can indeed only be fought by labour, and the "war" is against Capital, not against capitalists or the rich. Redistributive liberal social welfare policies are Capital seeking greater efficiency and expansion. But of course they will fail.

One could study the arguments of Ricardo and Malthus on the General Glut, and as of the moment, I think that unproductive consumption is required to maintain equilibrium. Keynes statist solution appears inflationary, so the best capitalist solution is likely the one proposed by Malthus, of a wasteful and unproductive idle rentier sector.

So be nice to Paris Hilton, until she becomes impossible.

[bob mcmanus]

The rich don't and can't (Lukacs) see themselves as in warfare against the poor, but as agents of efficient capitalism. As you have seen in the arguments above. So the rich are not ever engaged in class warfare.

They are correct. Exploitation (not normative) of labour is not feudal, but capitalism itself. Capital and capitalism must concentrate and expand until it becomes socialism.

[radish]

At risk of further inflaming an already overheated thread, let me just agree with Gary that everyone ought to procure a copy of, and watch, The Wind and the Lion. It really is an excellent flick.

[Gary Farber]

Sebastian:

Gary you seem to be having a serious forest for the trees moment here. No one has claimed that conservatives don't believe that hard work is useful for many of the forms of success.

Your cites to conservatives talking about don't suggest that conservatives believe the ONLY way to wealth is through hard work.

I don't know what this has to do with what I was asked about and responded about, which was my statement that "I could point to Horatio Alger to start," and Slarti's asserting that he was "Still kind of wierded out by the suggestion that right-wing mythology was authored by Horatio Alger" and that "I know of no such conservative orthodoxy, though, and if I'm having a Grover Norquist moment, there ought to be a Wikipedia entry handy to throw at me."

He was having a "Grover Nordquist moment" about the conservative fondness for Horatio Alger, so I threw the equivalent of several Wikipedia entries at him.

For thanks I'm told that responding to his mockery and demands that I "substantiate" is but that's of little consequence.

Clearly it was worth all that time I spent.

"You cite conservatives talking about Alger, but you certainly don't prove what you think you are proving."

No, I certainly did prove what I thought I was proving. It doesn't appear to be what you thought I was proving, though, I'm afraid, judging from your non-sequitur response.

"You've proven something no one disagreed with at any time."

Remind me never to bother to respond to such demands for substantiation again.

No, come to think of it, that won't be necessary. I won't be forgetting.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"It doesn't appear to be what you thought I was proving, though, I'm afraid, judging from your non-sequitur response."

Well, ok, I guess I can't read your mind if you aren't clear. Slarti wasn't talking about any old right-wing mythology. He wasn't suggesting that conservatives have never mentioned Alger. He wasn't suggesting that conservatives don't think that hard work is an important component of lots of types of success. He was talking about the allegation that conservatives in general believe: "the idea that most or all wealth is produced by merit, and merit alone, is absolute horsepucky. Complete garbage. Nonsense. Right-wing myth, which has nothing to do with the real world, save to be an argument against taxation or government spending on helping people in need."

You seem to be setting up that as the common right wing understanding of wealth. I've provided what my experience of that understanding is, but you seem to think cites to cites of Alger are more dispositive. But your cites eon't defend your initial statement.

[Gary Farber]

Sebastian, if you and/or Slarti agree with me that "the idea that most or all wealth is produced by merit, and merit alone, is absolute horsepucky" and "complete garbage," and "nonsense," then I'm certainly not going to attempt to argue you out of your claims that I was right.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Well we're clearly having a failure to communicate. I tried. I clearly stated what I think most conservatives ACTUALLY think, but you seem stuck on what you want to believe they think. So I guess there we are.

[Gary Farber]

"I clearly stated what I think most conservatives ACTUALLY think, but you seem stuck on what you want to believe they think."

?

I just noted your agreement with me. Did you read me as writing the above in invisible ink between the lines? Where did you get your mysterious information on "what [I] want to believe [conservatives think]"? Because I obviously didn't say anything of the kind in the comment you're responding to.

You seem to be awfully unwilling to note agreement. Would you rather I actually disagreed with you about something? Uh, your favorite color is aquamarine. Will that do?

Meanwhile, I'm watching Apocalypse Now Redux for the first time (and wishing I had a big screen tv, or at least one which didn't have one out of two speakers broken), and it occurs to me that there's really no good reason Martin Sheen wasn't parachuted into Marlon Brando's headquarters.

Of course, that would have made it a half hour long movie, and completely defeated any point to the film, but, you know, looking at the internal logic of the plot.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I think we disagree about the importance of your myth but maybe I'm wrong. So are you saying that conservatives don't in general believe that myth? Well great! Though now I wonder why you brought it up in the first place.

[rilkefan]

Isn't the question of interest not why some of the rich are rich, but why the poor stay poor? I thought the important difference was (broad-brushly) lack of virtue vs systemic hindrances and (perhaps on another axis) what the govt should do about the above. If we're stuck with the rich, then the question would be what the ratio of virtue to luck is, and to what degree of class/misuse of the commons/etc is important and if/how that should be reflected in the tax system.

I see Jes has covered the point about relative social mobility in the US and Europe.

[Common Sense]

Re: your update and "orders of magnitude". Ahemmmm, you may want to revisit your basic math class if you think today's rich have less money by "orders of magnitude" than during the original gilded age. Two orders of magnitude makes 1% equal to 100%. You can't have meant that.

All Hail Innumeracy!

[liberal japonicus]

it occurs to me that there's really no good reason Martin Sheen wasn't parachuted into Marlon Brando's headquarters.

Cause running into a tree during even a controlled descent is not the best thing to happen? Look what happened to Trini Lopez in Dirty Dozen.

[G'Kar]

Re: parachuting Martin Sheen into Brando's HQ: parachuting a single guy deep in the jungle in the hopes he'll land near enough to the objective to accomplish his mission is nothing more than rolling the dice. Military commanders, as a rule, prefer to execute operations with much greater chances of success.

Re: TRA 1 vs. TRA 2 units. This is a complicated issue. The Iraqi Army now has a sizeable fraction of its battalions at TRA 2; I was told it is around 75% as of this morning, although I cannot speak to the accuracy of that claim. Moving from TRA 2 to TRA 1 is the most difficult thing any Iraqi unit can do, as TRA 1 means a unit that can be effective on the battlefield completely on its own, while TRA 2 is a unit that can be effective but requires some assistance from the Coalition. Given the slow progress in standing up the Iraqi Air Force and numerous difficulties with Iraqi logistics, getting over that hump is extremely difficult because it requires fixing a number of systemic issues that run pretty deep in Iraqi culture. This is an important hurdle to clear, but I believe that an assessment of IA security forces that fails to take into account those forces at TRA 2 misses the bigger picture.

The Iraqi government is currently working with a net. This creates moral hazard: they know they can do certain things that they wouldn't otherwise dare on the assumption the U.S. will fix their problems. For example, IA units that have difficulty getting ammo or fuel currently have U.S. troops working with them who can often fix those problems. As long as that safety net exists, a number of TRA 2 units may simply not move into TRA 1 because they don't have to. As Coalition forces draw down and that net is removed, it is plausible (depending on many other variables, it should be noted) that some of those difficulties will be addressed properly because the GoI has no choice but to fix the problems at that point.

This is not intended to advocate the withdrawal of Coalition forces from Iraq (or to argue against it, for that matter), only to note that it is important to understand that simply judging the IA by the number of TRA 1 units is missing the bigger picture.

There are many other variables to be considered, and it should be noted that, to the best of my knowledge, TRA does not assess a unit's degree of 'Iraqi-ness' as opposed to their sectarian bent, so this remains a complex problem to assess accurately.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: So are you saying that conservatives don't in general believe that myth?

You yourself cited the myth of American social mobility as if it were fact here.

[rayc]

The rich aren't assholes. They don't need to be assholes. They can hire people to be assholes on their behalf.

"And now they are enjoining the dividends of their labors."

I don't know if Drum was being sloppy in his writing, but I'm pretty sure von was. And now I think I'll go enjoin a cup of tea.

[Jesurgislac]

As this is an open thread, shall we consider the awful badness of "Buy Blog Comments"?

"You won't even be able to tell our blog comments apart from the rest. So the blogger is safe, it will look completely like a legit comments that someone reading the blog post wrote. In fact, most blogger will like the free comments to help with their with there community..."

*boggles*

[J Thomas]

"(I wrote a long comment on pretty much the same point about your general obliviousness to Republican history, including Grover, but deleted it as having an insufficient ratio of useful content to what might give offense I wouldn't intend to give.)":

So, we're not substantiating. Ok, then.

Air it is.

I've never seen a better argument for archiving the comments you don't post.

[von]

Hilzoy and Gary -

Re: definition of "class warfare."

I won't offer a complete definition of class warfare, but I will offer the one I thought I had expressed in this series of posts (and again above, in response to Gary). Class warfare, as used in reference to Kevin's original post, is basing policy or argument on an assumption regarding the character of members of a class. As in: The rich are assholes. Accordingly, please support policy X.

As I note, that's an ad hominem, and a logical fallacy. It's not simply a matter of calling someone a name (although, in this example, calling someone a name is necessary -- but not sufficient).

[Dantheman]

"Class warfare, as used in reference to Kevin's original post, is basing policy or argument on an assumption regarding the character of members of a class. As in: The rich are assholes. Accordingly, please support policy X."

Not even close.

[phil]

So, what policy did Kevin encourage people to support, because of rich people being a-holes, that leads you to accuse him of class warfare? I've read his post a dozen times and see no policy prescriptions.

[Dantheman]

Phil,

Please don't encourage discussion of such an off-base definition of class warfare. The wikipedia definition Gary cited at 6:50 last night is workable, and requires nothing related to ad hominum argument in support of policy, just policies to maintain (on the part of the capital class) or break down (on the part of the labor class) the differences between the classes.

Similarly, Francis's list at 5:53 last night is largely correct (I'd quibble with a few of them, and add some more) and ad hominums play no role in any of those policies.

[phil]

oh, I know, Dan - I'm trying to get von to see both that his own usage isn't even consistent and that he's so far off base with his definition he's in the dugout.

[russell]

I'm even later to the party. Anyone still here?

In terms of thinking about public policy, it's really not relevant whether rich people are jerks or not. What's relevant is whether the increased concentration of wealth is, net/net, constructive or not for the society as a whole.

And, whether it is a good thing or not, what to do about it, if anything, is another thing altogether.

IMVHO, the increased concentration of wealth, as we see it here in the US over the last couple of decades, is a bad thing for two reasons. They're pretty obvious ones, not hard to understand.

1. A lot of wealthy folks are rich far, far beyond the value they have created, and are wealthy at the expense of others. I'm thinking in particular of American corporate executive management. They are not inventors, they are not putting their own capital at risk, they are not the primary creators of value. They are managers. They should be seen, and rewarded, as stewards of other folks ideas, capital, and labor, nothing more or less.

If you drive a company into the ground, you should not be rewarded with millions of dollars. Enough said.

2. Wealth brings influence and power, and the interests of wealthy people are quite often given consideration above those of others, not just in the market, but in law and public policy.

Both of these issues have to do with fairness.

Very few people are all that resentful of someone getting rich. Most folks hope that their turn is next.

Resentment comes when some folks are rewarded out of all proportion to the value they create, and/or when wealthy folks use their position to gain unfair advantage over others.

And yes, those things happen quite a lot, and more so when the concentration of wealth is increased.

When there is a sense of proportion between value created and reward, and a sense that value created is shared fairly between all of those that participate in its creation, there isn't a problem.

Thanks -

[Jon H]

When a rich man complains about "class warfare", he's really complaining about insubordination.

[Jon H]

I'd like to see some examples of courage which the CEO of a luxury-goods handbag company has exhibited.

[Jon H]

"The rich aren't assholes. They don't need to be assholes. They can hire people to be assholes on their behalf."

Nevertheless, they often are assholes. This suggests they do it for the sheer enjoyment.

[Garth]

i think the emotions behind class resentment are real.

the disconnect between real populist reform and washington legislation is rarely mentioned, but the resentments run deep.

the bankruptcy bill. no money for education. crumbling infrastructure. not enough money to guard our ports. tax cuts for the rich. no healthcare. crushing student loan debts. more insecurity in the job market than ever before.

personally, i think the emotions building up are not helpful to rational debate on a better, more equitable, more reasonable economic policy, but the resentment is building like a pressure cooker and the greivances are real.

people have a vague sense that iraq is expensive, they are still paying taxes, but what do they get?

the rich are getting richer. that's obvious.

but the Bush WH exhibits no sense that they are pissing our money away in Iraq while teachers beg for money.

if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

[Garth]

to be rich in this country is to possess a greater share of responsibility for our government's failings.

of, for and by the rich.

[Garth]

Behind all great fortunes lies great crimes. - Balzac

[J Thomas]

If you drive a company into the ground, you should not be rewarded with millions of dollars. Enough said.

How would that work?

Would we change the tax laws? If a company goes bankrupt, have the income tax take 99% of the president's salary and bonuses above $90,000 total? $70,000?

[russell]

How would that work?

Simple.

The board of directors says, "We're cutting your salary and you get no bonus until performance improves".

If performance doesn't improve, the board says "You're fired".

It's not freaking hard.

Thanks -