With the struggling economy still the central issue in American society, especially in this election year, it is an apt time to discuss some of the central (and detrimental) myths of our capitalist system. To be clear, I believe that these myths have been borne out and visible through history. However, the current reality allows for a more productive discussion, since so many previously devout Americans are for themselves now seeing the limitations of the free-market, especially as those limitations contradict the collective mythology of the United States.
With that in mind, I was considering the notion of "survival of the fittest" as an inescapable economic and social reality. Ignoring (for the moment) the question of whether a "social Darwinist" system is just, I instead want to question whether it is even practically possible for such a system to exist, especially in any lasting capacity. Specifically, the wealthy class that emerges from a free-market socio-economic model will ultimately seek to maintain that wealth by any means necessary, and be endowed with the economic, political, and social resources to do so. This devolves into a system in which nepotism, cronyism, and political collusion ensure that power and wealth are passed down between the generations and to limited social circles.
We can see this borne out intentionally when someone like James Murdoch is groomed to run his father's company, or an average-to-sub par student is admitted into Yale due to the prominence of his father. It is also evident, of course, in the social reality that economic opportunity is opened up largely through family and other social connections, whether as intentional policy or merely a natural outcome of competition. This presents the fundamental challenge to the myth of the meritocracy: as favor is given to the less-able but well-connected, those same opportunities are necessarily denied to more-able people. Some would argue that this is both an inescapable reality and inconsequential in terms of breadth of opportunity, at least in the United States. However, this tendency expands beyond immediate connections to shape large-scale social realities such as the strength of entire school districts, tax policy, regulations on certain industries, and a slew of other social and economic legislation, such that, with each passing generation, the wealthy class becomes even more solidified in its standing and wealth, to the detriment of the rest of society. For these reasons, we now face a situation where the greatest percentage of Americans is in poverty since the 1950's, while a massive amount of wealth lies firmly in the hands of a tiny percentage of Americans.
This not only debunks the myth of a lasting meritocracy, but also poses serious economic and societal challenges. Because those in power and those with wealth are largely one and the same, and those with wealth increasingly attain that wealth not through merit but through social inheritance, we find ourselves in a situation in which the leaders of our nation are increasingly not the "best and brightest," but merely the most fortunate. Considering this, as well as the earlier-mentioned tendency to protect wealth at all costs, it is perhaps not surprising that many of these same people lacked the economic foresight to avoid short-term, profitable transactions designed in such a way as to inevitably collapse. And because the fortunes of the many are so intimately tied to the decisions - and fate - of this wealthy/powerful class, its failure necessarily imperils the rest of us.
Again, although I am deeply concerned with the moral ramifications of this system, I am here only pointing out the economic consequences. Because of these inherent dangers, we need to then consider the role of government in protecting against economic collapse. It is telling that society in the United States formed to produce a democracy, and not some sort of feudal system of concentrated wealth and power. In rebelling against the crown, the colonists proclaimed a desire for economic liberty (indeed, much of the rift was due to a perceived injustice in taxation). Still, out of this came a system of government modeled on representation of the people with both local and federal authority. It is fundamental to our understanding of human life that some sort of system of governance must be formed to ensure the protection of the short- and long-term viability of the society, that this requires oversight of and, at times, direct influence upon commerce, and that the interests of all citizens should be considered, regardless of class. A democracy, especially, is designed to protect against a system in which a powerful few hold undue influence. While we have struggled to attain that ideal throughout our history, it remains the ideal, nonetheless.
This is why distracting debates over supposed "socialism" and "distribution of wealth" are so counterproductive and insidious. They allow those with wealth to present themselves as protectors of the meritocracy, as opposed to obstacles to it. Instead, we should discuss whether it is necessary to the health of our society to ensure the distribution of opportunity. This poses a number of challenges due to the ramifications: equal opportunity would require a decent education for all and an educational system that does not favor social standing, a decent living wage for all working Americans, a health care system that allows the ill and their families to avoid insurmountable debt due to medical bills and loss of work, etc.
Of course, our original national ideals already speak to the role of government in ensuring this reality, since it is fundamental to our government's mandate that it protect the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of all Americans. Our current political-economic model threatens and denies those rights, imperiling the long-term survival of our society and, increasingly, the short-term survival of its citizens. Instead, the government must, at times, enact proactive and corrective measures on commerce to ensure that it does not imperil these rights for the general public. Because these measures were not in place, the government was recently left with the choice of bailing out those whom, under a true meritocracy, ought to fail due to poor decisions, or deny their fundamental mandate even further by allowing an economic collapse that would devestate its citizenry to massive effect.
The irony, of course, is that in order to protect a capitalist system, limits and modifications must by placed on it. If we allow our democratic principles to take a back seat to our meritocratic principles, we inevitably sacrifice both.
No comments:
Post a Comment