Webb on Class Struggle
This is an unusually long excerpt (for me) from a piece in the Wall Street Journal by Jim Webb, "the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia." It's an op-ed called "Class Struggle" (15 November 2006).
This ever-widening divide [between the wealthiest in America and the less wealthy] is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.
Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.
Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.
America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."
More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.
One Response
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Thursday, 16 November 2006 at 03.02
Permalink
Excellent piece — hurray for Webb. I already liked him a lot. Now, I really like him. I will add a couple of thoughts of my own to his excellent and splendidly made points.
For several decades, those old notions of corporate paternalism were valid and well justified. We think what happened in '94 and again last week were big-wave stuff. What happened when three execrable conservative Republican administrations were replaced by Roosevelt and the Democratic takeover of Congress in the early months of the Great Depression was the ultimate political tsunami.
Many people of wealth and corporate power perceived the real possibility of a slide into dictatorship and/or all-out socialism, maybe even communism, and it scared the crap out of them. Many others were merely chastened. All of them saw federal power shaped, adapted and exercised as never before. They also saw it working, helping, and that people were glad and grateful.
I'm pretty sure that in the New Deal environment it occurred to many corporate decision makers it would be better to offer some benefits than to have Uncle Sam mandate them or offer them as government programs. And so they did.
Fast forward to the 1970s and 1980s, and you find a generation of workers spoiled by New Deal protections and benefits. Not only spoiled by those, but to a deplorable degree ignorant about them, and about what went into securing them in the first place. You find growing anti-union sentiment among people who could've and should've embraced a union. And of course, you find right-wing and corporate interests only too happy to reinforce and expand on the aforementioned attitudes, ignorance and notions.
Not just by coincidence, it was at about this time most Americans who had been adults during the big economic collapse and early New Deal years had reached advanced age, to where they weren't so involved in politics and, increasingly, even in voting.
Perfect environment for the rise of a Ronald Reagan, sure enough. Perfect environment, too, for starting to dismantle New Deal safeguards and advantages for working people — starting with repeal of usury laws, then moving quickly in a variety of ways to weaken unions and shift power to business owners and managers. The early biggie was making it OK for business whose workers were out on strike to hire scabs. That's probably the biggest single measure to undermine the union movement in this country, and its effect has been devastating.
Just as the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, the price of not being exploited that workers must pay is eternal solidarity and savvy. In the 1970s and 1980s, too many American workers shirked on both counts. They and their offspring are paying the price today.
It should go without saying that these considerations apply today to white-collar workers, and a good many executives and professionals, as well.