Thousands of pages have already been written in explication of the British rioting and (quite lesser incidence of) American flash mobbing. If one combines these analyses with direct news accounts, op-eds, Youtube confessionals, and official government pronouncements describing constantly changing strategies, I think one can draw three disinterested conclusions.
1. Material well-being is now defined in relative rather than absolute terms. That is, poverty means lacking the opportunities afforded the 21st-century upper middle classes, not in being deprived, in a Dickensian sense, of food (obesity, not hunger, is a Western epidemic), shelter, hot water, or access to transportation.
2. There is a natural assumption that inequality is attributable to oppression of some sort, rather than luck, fate, circumstances of birth, hard work, education, and all the multitude of complex factors that determine that a few work for $200 an hour and far more earn $20 or less. That someone appears more fortunate ipso facto seems somewhat unfair, without much reflection about the unique circumstances that bestow such advantages (or the unfairness of nature herself in blessing only some with talent or good health), as if the emergency-room surgeon or nuclear-plant engineer was allotted such privileged employment rather than sacrificed to earn it.
3. There is a general expectation that the better-off, or even the middle class, as well as government and society at large, are either unable or unwilling to defend their values and accomplishments — or even to demonstrate much belief in their own innate good. This seems to be well known to the miscreant offenders who have little fear and less respect for “authority.” Perhaps it is because we in the West have ruined our education system and most of our youth are thus amnesiac, with no knowledge of past conditions or of the work and bequests of prior, far more deprived generations. Perhaps it is because our ethos frowns on rewarding good behavior and punishing bad — not that we can define either very easily these days. So when rioters hit the British streets, the ruling classes and technocratic elite debate over whether non-lethal force such as plastic bullets and water cannon could be seen as excessive, and an aristocracy wonders out loud whether society itself is to blame for the torching of a food market. (One’s physical proximity to the mayhem often calibrates such abstract speculations).
Very few Westerners proudly say that their social, political, and economic system has given untold numbers untold material wealth unimagined not just a century but even two decades ago, as well as a level of freedom of expression, security of the person, and consumer indulgence that would seem staggering to most non-Westerners today. Instead, the more fortunate classes adopt a therapeutic sense of publicly expressed guilt that seems rightly phony to the dispossessed, and is seen by themselves as a sort of medieval penance, an abstract caring that justifies their own concrete and rather segregated enjoyment of the good life. As for the law, it is too often a construct predicated on fluid social, race, and class considerations, and thus — whether in enforcing immigration statutes or arresting and trying hordes of attackers — not so easily applied. In general the misdemeanor of the law-abiding citizen is more of a target than the felony of the miscreant — the latter always being a money-losing and sometimes far more dangerous enterprise.
To start to address these pathologies would in the short term make things worse, since the transformation from state dependence to self-reliance and a change from a [blank]-studies curriculum to a classically defined menu of basic math, science, language, literature, history, etc. would provoke a level of social disruption and anger that few politicians would be willing to endure. (The problem is not really going from a separatist salad bowl to a unifying melting pot, but rather that so few people these days know much about a common culture and have the expertise and confidence to teach anyone its history and protocols.)
A final note: Furor often arises not over draconian cuts to entitlements per se, but over suggested cuts to the expansion of subsidies, and the most aggrieved at such cutbacks are not always just the recipients but also the worried state stewards who administer and are invested in the system of state support.
At NRO there are Steyn, Goldberg and Lowry who are great writers but Mr. Hanson is my favorite. I am a smarter, wiser person becuase of him. He forces you to critically think about the issues of the day in ways unique to all of today's best politcal pundits.
Everyone at NRO should go Amazon right now and order any one of [or all of] his excellent books.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgree regarding Hanson. He brings a historian's long-view perspective to today's issues, and his presentation of facts and argument make his conclusions not only persuasive, but crushingly irrefutable.
That having been said, there is nobody I enjoy listening to more than Steyn. Whenever I want to send a liberal home weeping, I channel a little of Steyn's verbal hydrochloric acid - even diluted, it's far more corrosive than your typical left-winger can stand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I like about VDH is the combination of being a farmer and a historian. Without being a farmer he would likely succumb to leftist academics long time ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell let's not go overboard. He's far too comfortable with run-on sentences, for example.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot so. His sentences can be long and complex, but length and complexity do not equate to run-on-ism (I don't think that's a word, but you get my meaning). His syntax and punctuation are spot-on, even when the sentences are complex; your fifth-grade English teacher could diagram them properly.
There's a difference between long/complex and run-on. Even a short sentence can be a run-on one this is an example.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomehow I think that VDH would be a fan of Fenimore Cooper, a great writer of complex but non-run-on sentences. Such language keeps a reader on his toes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In general the misdemeanor of the law-abiding citizen is more of a target than the felony of the miscreant — the latter always being a money-losing and sometimes far more dangerous enterprise."
Derb made this same point almost ten years ago, in his classic essay, "The Hidden Hand of EFTA." External Link
Quoth NRO's resident pessimist:
"'EFTA' stands for 'the Easier-for-Them Association.' The aim of this secret brotherhood is to infiltrate all organizations whose chartered purpose is to serve the public in some way. Once they have taken up key positions in such an organization, the EFTA moles then set about subverting all its processes and procedures — enlisting the aid of corrupt or unsuspecting legislators when necessary — so that the work of the organization, instead of being oriented towards true public service, is redirected towards the ease and comfort of the organization's employees...
"Which would you rather spend your working day doing: chasing dangerous criminals down alleys, or sitting in a pleasant air-conditioned office trawling through a database for 30-year-old misdemeanors? Easier for Them, you see."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said as always. Now what do we do to fix this mess?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs usual, VDH looks at the gathered evidence, marshalls his resources, looks you directly in the eyes, and tells you the uncomfortable truth. Brilliant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is what happens when the public is disarmed by their Government. This is why we have a 2nd Amendment in the United States.
Would the bad guys have guns too in the U.S.? Yes. Would they think twice about this kind of violence if a swift and certain death awaited them at the hands of neighbors organzed to shoot them dead on the spot? You bet they would.
The real issue here is the complete inability of individual citizens and property owners to defend themselves. They are sheep to be slaughtered by the wolves, waiting in vain for the shepherd to drive the wolves back, only to await the return of the wolves tomorrow.
The people in England are no different than the people on the airplanes on 9/11. They've been conditioned to be passive and wait for help when, like United 93, they should fight back tooth and nail with a much righteous anger as they can muster. Having not learned this lesson, they sit back in horror watching events unfold on TV wondering why nobody does anything about this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBrilliant. 'nuff said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA final note: Furor often arises not over draconian cuts to entitlements per se, but over suggested cuts to the expansion of subsidies, and the most aggrieved at such cutbacks are not always just the recipients but also the worried state stewards who administer and are invested in the system of state support.
This.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"1. Material well-being is now defined in relative rather than absolute terms."
This is very similar to the equally cheap rhetorical trick of saying "now is the time to ...". e.g., Obama saying "Now is the time for businesses to invest in America." Last year wasn't? Two years ago wasn't? 40 years ago wasn't? Business should always be "investing in America," whatever the heck that means.
So VDH tells us that well-being is NOW measured in relative rather than absolute terms. Oh? Perhaps VDH, or anyone, could identify a point in history where people did not measure their well-being in this way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is the way I read this. I may measure my well being any way I chose. I may measure it in comparison to others or in comparison to my expectations of myself or even in absolute terms (do I have enough to eat? If it snows will I survive? Can I cover myself with appropriate attire?)
But how the society measures the well being of others is the real problem. Instead of focusing on meeting the baseline absolute needs we're focusing on "poverty" as "having less than someone else". Given the fact that obesity is now the single biggest health problem facing the "poor" it seems that we've strayed a long way from the basics.
so even though my basic needs are met, if there is someone out there who lives better than I, some in America would say that I'm poor.
That is the point VDH seeks to make. That's how I read it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would refer you to any number of successful people who, when asked about their humble origins say, "We didn't know we were poor." That is, they had enough food, shelter, water and heat and anything more was gravy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sorry, but I'm faintly perplexed, here. Are you suggesting that people have traditionally measured well-being not in terms of having the necessities to survive and freedoms to prosper as best they can through their own labor, but as a measure of relative wealth? Seriously? News flash - poverty and material well-being have historically been defined as having or not having the common necessaries. Poverty and material well-being defined as whether one possesses sufficient luxury items relative to one's neighbors is a new - and distinctly liberal - point of view.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo anyone who has less then Bill Gates is by definition poor, and entitled to have govt take Bill Gates stuff, and give it to him?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs normal, Mr. Hanson hits the nail squarely on the head.
To paraphrase:
1) We're spoiled rotten
2) We're full of envy and greed
3) We feel guilty and have no memory beyond yesterday
As I've said for 30+ years now, it's NOT the military/industrial complex I was ever afraid of, it's always been the media as a whole. (Hollywood, TV....)
To realize the effect TV has on us, all you need to see is the amount of money some are more than prepared to spend in order to buy airtime during a popular sporting or TV 'event'.
They do this because they KNOW national TV can and does sway opinion and even more to the point, has a MAJOR hand in defining our societal mores and 'norms'.
When the history of the fall of America is written, I am a firm believer that the media along with the educational 'complex' will share a large amount of the responsibility for the loss of what we used to know as 'societal norms' or to put it another way, that common set of values that we ALL used to agree with, we understood and taught our children and we as individuals, strove for.
Truth, Liberty and the American way... :) -tm
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpot on, Professor Hanson. Thank you for consistently offering the wisest and well-considered social commentary in the nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would really like to be optimistic. The biggest hurdle to that is that the solution---entitlement reform---will be impossible because the American people don't want it. We have become a nation that is addicted to big government providing a 'cradle to grave' safety net. Too many people are 'hooked'. Do you cure Heroin addicts by giving them more Heroin? How do you wean addicted people off of their addiction when they don't recognize the addiction and don't want to get off of it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse