A once civil and orderly England was torn apart by rioting and looting last week — at first by mostly minority youths, but eventually by young Brits in general. This summer, a number of American cities have witnessed so-called “flash mobs” — mostly African-American youths who swarm at prearranged times to loot stores or randomly attack those of other races and classes. The mayhem has reignited an old debate in the West: Are such criminally minded young Americans and Britons turning to violence in protest over inequality, poverty, and bleak opportunities?
Advertisement
The Left often blames cutbacks in the tottering welfare state and high unemployment. In this view, the havoc and mayhem visited upon us are a wake-up call in an age of insolvency: Do not cut entitlements or we will reap the whirlwind. Instead, tax the affluent and redistribute more of their earnings to those who have been unfairly deprived.
The Right counters that the problem is not too few state subsidies, but far too many. The growing — and now unsustainable — dole of the last half-century has eroded self-reliance and personal initiative. The logical result is a dependent underclass that spans generations and becomes ever unhappier and more unsatisfied the more it is given from others. The rioters were not fighting for survival. Today’s looters have plenty to eat. That is why they target sneaker and electronics stores — to enjoy the perks of life they either cannot or will not work for.
We might at least agree on a few facts behind the violence. First, much of the furor is because poverty is now seen as a relative, not an absolute, condition. Per capita GDP is $47,000 in the U.S. and $35,000 in Britain. In contrast, those rioting in impoverished Syria (where per capita GDP is about $5,000) or Egypt (about $6,000) worry about going to bed hungry or being shot for expressing their views — not about wanting a new BlackBerry or a pair of Nikes. Inequality, not Tiny Tim–like poverty, is the new Western looter’s complaint.
So when President Obama lectures us about fat cats with corporate jets, he doesn’t mean that wealthy people’s greed prevents the lower classes from flying on affordable commercial jets — only that a chosen few in luxury aircraft, like himself, reach their destinations a little more quickly and easily. The lament today is not having what someone richer has — instead of lacking elemental shelter, food, or electricity. The problem is not that the bath water in Philadelphia is not as hot as in Martha’s Vineyard, but that the conditions under which it is delivered are, in comparison, far more basic and ordinary.
Second, the wealthy have not set an example of hard work and self-discipline leading to well-deserved success and the good life. Recently, a drunken, affluent young prospect for the U.S. ski team urinated on a sleeping eleven-year-old during a transcontinental flight. And the more the psychodramas of drones like Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, or some members of the British royal family, become headline news, the more we see boredom and corruption among the pampered elite. The behavior of John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, or Arnold Schwarzenegger does not teach us that good habits on the part of elite public figures follow from well-deserved riches and acclaim — but rather that with today’s wealth and power often comes license and decadence.
Third, Communism may be dead, but Marxist-inspired materialism still measures the good life only by equal access to “things.” We can argue whether those who loot a computer store are spoiled or oppressed. But even a person in faded jeans and a worn T-shirt can find all sorts of spiritual enrichment at no cost in either a museum or a good book. Have we forgotten that in our affluent postmodern society, being poor is often an impoverishment of the mind, and not necessarily the result of a cruel physical world?
Finally, there is far too much emphasis on government as the doting, problem-solving parent. What made Western civilization rich and liberal was not just free-market capitalism and well-founded constitutional government, but the role of family, community, and church in reminding the emancipated individual in an affluent society that he should not always do what he is legally permitted to. Destroy these bridles, ridicule the old shame culture of the past, and we end up with unchecked appetites — as we are now witnessing from smoldering London to the flash mobs of Wisconsin.
Our high-tech angry youths are deprived not just because their elders put at risk their future subsidies, but also because they were not taught what real wealth is — and where and how it is obtained and should be used.
We all know deep down in our guts what this is a symptom of. Our growing dependency on government and the degeneration of values that once held us together. We have sacrificed our children and families for a ride on the government gravy train. Now the bill is coming due and we don't like the price.
My access to this article has been restored. I have been ridiculed for asking the reason why--oh a "glitch, not a badge of honour'. I am not a 'high-tech angry youth' but for me, emotional as it is, being denied access to information is a common occurrence and not to be taken lightly. I hope that you who live in the land of the free will appreciate my sentiments, no matter its insignificance.
@MikeB - Your comment states "Hanson is correct: relatively speaking, poverty is relative." I know you're probably just trying to demonstrate how clever you are (or think you are) but, instead, try reading the column. What VDH says is that poverty is no longer absolute, it's considered relative. This means that, at one time, poverty was absolute in that the person in poverty did not have the basics of life - e.g., food, shelter, clothing, educational opportunity, etc. Now, however, the "impoverished" themselves, with the active encouragement of our elites who want to nurture a sense of entitlement and grievance for their own purposes, consider that if person A has a Mercedes Benz and person B has food, clothing, shelter, etc. but only has a 10 year old Hyundai (no offense Hyundai, I really like your recent releases), person B is improverished because, relative to person A, person B has less. Yet no reasonable person would say that, objectively, person B is impoverished. Get it? I don't want to engage in ad hominum argument but I see your posts all over and usually they betray a wilfull disregard or perversion of what the columnist has actually said. Why don't you try reading the columns more carefully and write fewer but, possibly more cogent, comments?
I see you on here daily and your view seems to be one that I would summarize as a liberal looney a tad left of Nancy Pelosi which is saying something.
So I wanted to ask you something:
Do you now or have you ever contributed to society through your own efforts and particularly in the private sector? Do you work for the Soros Foundation or any of its thousands of media affiliates?
If so tell us about your career please.
BTW. Barack Obama redefined poverty in relative terms (you can only climb out of poverty if you acquire wealth at a faster rate than those above the poverty line) for measurement and redistribution in law in his first 100 days in office.
I know you answered the Tea Party question with some trepidation. Your response was very similar to Charles Krauthammer's, but I hope you are not in his camp saying that the Tea Party lacks respect for the Constitution.
Krauthammer ignores the fact that "1/2 of 1/3 of our government" (the House) controls the federal purse strings intentionally by design of our forefathers.
Nail on the head VDH... This is exactly like when my parents would rather work than raise me. The more video games, BMWs, smartphones or whatever else the angrier I got. A family hobby would have saved them tons of money and stress, but they were rich so it seemed easier to throw money at the problem. But unfortunately you reap what you sow and they got a spoiled brat who still struggles to be a decent individual and can't bring himself to respect them. (They explain this by my anger.. If I just were't angry at them it wouldn't matter how they raised me..and they spoil me with monetary goods so shut up!)
Yes, the sad thing is we only have to look to ourselves to see the monsters we have created: spoiled, destructive narcissists who make no real contributions to the society in which we live other than to drain its resources. It is the inevitable end result of liberalism.
Before we huff and puff too much about what the Welfare State "did" to these miscreants, why don't we get down to basics: these rioters are just stupid people. They would be the same stupid people under any economic or political system, and with or without a Welfare State.
It isn't Society's fault. This same welfare state gave them universal public education for K-12, and access to state-subsidized universities. I venture to guess that most of them have never read a book outside school, and probably didn't read their assignments while in school.
Anyway, the fact that poverty is relative -- why is that a bad thing? There has been no shortage on NRO of references to that latest study indicating that poor people have lots of electronic doo-dads like cellphones and XBoxes. The short step is not to "What does this mean?" but instead to "How dare they?"
@MikeB - It's a bad thing because, if poverty is relative, there is little incentive to try to improve one's position leading to an undynamic and unproductive society. For example, if I don't bother having a job but am going to get an IPod "from the government" as a result of other people having had the self-discipline to get up at 6:00 a.m. and go to work for 8, 10 or 12 hours so they could buy an IPod, what incentive do I have to be productive? Person A went out and worked, paid taxes and bought an IPod but I can stay in bed all day and get an IPod anyway. If "the government" (i.e., my fellow citizens who pay taxes) doesn't get me one, me and my mouthpieces will just screem that we're (relatively) impoverished and society has to redress this imbalance by buying me one. Under the concept of absolute or objective poverty you'd have to say, "I've got food on the table and shelter over my head, so my basic needs are being met. But if I want an IPod, I'll have to go out and get a job to get money to buy one," which is a healthier and more productive outlook. From another perspective, under the concept of relative poverty, if I do work and pay taxes, I see that I worked and was able to buy an IPod while all the layabouts I see seem to have IPods that the government purchased for them with my tax dollars, pounds or whatever and, as a result, are disincentivized from being productive. This is your "How dare they" mode. The "how dare they", however, is a perfectly legitimate thought. The complete sentence is "How dare they take my money to buy these lazy so-and-so's the same things that I have to work for?" So relative poverty breeds a lack of productivity all around whereas the idea of absolute or objective poverty breeds productivity. If you are familiar with the Plymouth Colony ("Plymouth Plantation") you'll know that having everybody obtain equally the fruits of the labor of only those who work, hasn't worked out so well on this continent. The Plymouth Colony tried "communalism" for a couple of years but found that this created much, in the words of William Bradford, "confusion and discontent and retard[ed] employment." So the colony reverted to a system of private ownership which was considerably more successful. I know, MikeB, as is your want, you'll now respond with an e-mail saying something you think cute like, "Well, 400 years ago they burned witches, too," but you might consider that a more worth while endevor would be to read some history and, hopefully, learn from it.
It used to be said that "Idle Time is the Devil's Playground". I bet that most of the rioters here and in England are young men whose lives consist of idleness and play without any of the self decipline and respect that comes from hard work and achievement. We are now enterring the end game of liberalism characterized by both financial bankrupcy and moral bankrupcy.
