Last updated on 2014.07.12
In his usual (and in my book, admirable) sprawling fashion, the good Dr. Newquist reads in the two recent suicides by cop here in the Black Hills a snapshot of America's perilous moral state as the plutocracy rises, the serf class expands, and American government loses the luster of authority that promises "opportunity, equality, liberty, and justice." Newquist recognizes the lethal threat that Daniel Tiger and Cody Engen posed and the need to kill them before they harmed others. But he also recognizes the despair that must motivate such suicidal behavior. Then he puts on his Steinbeck hat:
The poverty level in the US. has grown to 15 percent of the population; one person in every six is in that category. There is no hope and expectation for this class. And what do they have to lose if they revolt? Whether they submit meekly to the destiny of their designated class or engage in flaming revolt, their prospect is ignominious death. What do people of this class have to lose?
...There are problems to be defined and faced. But those who conduct the campaign of misanthropy and oppression under the banner of conservatism deny the problems and refuse to engage in defining discussion and the formulation of real solutions. Their solution is to further the advantages and privileges of the rich, who have sucked up the nation's wealth, and to cling to the belief that the notional beneficence of the wealthy is the salvation of the poor and middle classes [David Newquist, "Bad Tuesdays in the Black Hills," Northern Valley Beacon, 2011.09.16].
That took some thinking.
Steinbeck composed a story of one family's marginalization, despair, and dissolution and weaved it into a political novel forecasting (and hoping for?) that the economic decline and concentration of land and wealth of the 1930s would fuel revolution of the American working class. But Steinbeck's vision didn't come true. Something intervened—World War II? strong unions bolstering a middle class? television?—and kept the Union from boiling into an economic civil war.
The current economic stagnation is not as bad as the Great Depression. I suspect the average unemployed American today lives in better material conditions than the average unemployed American in the 1930s, thanks in large part to the social safety net we quite justly expanded in response to the Depression. However, I make this observation from the safe perspective of steady employment (for at least another eight months). Those who are out of work, those who can't find enough work, and those who are working two jobs but still can't afford decent health insurance may feel the same despair as the Joads as they hear at least some of their fellow Americans writing them off as moochers and wishing they would just die.
The despair that does us in may be less material than moral. Our immediate evasion of the Steinbeckian revolution came in a war that (correct me if my cozy sociohistorical perspective is too nostalgically rosy) reunified the American spirit even while making some consumer goods even harder to get. Material prosperity came later, and it came in part from a sense of community and shared responsibility.
Our post-9/11 unity didn't last long. Our ongoing and unfunded wars haven't forged much sense of common national purpose or shared sacrifice. If we don't find some way to re-connect with each other, with our sense of a common American identity and purpose and responsibility for each other, we may not recover from the 2008 Recession the way we recovered from the 1930s Depression.
I do not despair (that's the only unforgivable sin, right, Mr. Fleming?). But we must work together (unemployment insurance, education, collective bargaining, Social Security, Medicare for everyone) to remedy the conditions that may drive our fellow Americans to despair.
So any time you rich folks want to stop waging class warfare, that's fine with me.
Related: We watched The Company Men last night. Be sure to watch the deleted scene in which Phil, a victim of corporate downsizing, tries to get a job delivering pizza. "You don't want this job," the pizza shop owner tells him. Phil, who worked his way up in 30 years from shipyard welder to sales executive, is clearly willing to do any job. Look around among your friends for real-world analogies, and ask yourself the Steinbeckian question, "What are people for?"
I sprawl some more. Yesterday NYC Mayor Bloomberg expressed concern about potential riots among the young such as happened in Europe over the summer if there is not some positive movement on jobs. This morning I read news stories that the violent crime rate in the U.S. plummeted by 15 percent. This is in contrast to the increase (by no means definitive, but certainly suggestive) in violent confrontations with law enforcement.
David, I welcome your sprawling intellect. And those contrasting stats are fascinating: less violent crime in 2010, but more law enforcement fatalities this year. I wonder: is crime in general going up in 2011, or is something strange happening?
Cory, within the past few days I have had dealings with three different people in various socioeconomic "situations."
The first person, a man about my age (mid- to late-50s) said that he didn't care much about medical insurance because, given the direction in which he sees this country going, he does not want to live long enough to grow old anyway (no, he's not suicidal).
The second person, another man in his 50s, believes that we could well be on the road to a revolution, and that he might as well be right in the thick of it when it happens, because what else could he better spend his time doing?
The third person, a woman in her 40s, believes (as I do) that the formula for Western civilization contains an essential flaw, has contained that flaw since the very seeds of "democracy" were sown by the ancient Greeks (does that constitute irony, or what?), and that some people alive today will live to see the whole structure utterly collapse all over the whole world.
The trouble with revolutions, as they've taken place in the past, is the fact that they never really provide any real benefit to people, especially poor people. As often as not, the result is a totalitarian or at best grossly oppressive regime, as bad or worse than the one that ruled before.
We need evolution, not revolution. Alas, I see us on the eve of the latter, not the former. If an when the social hurricane actually hits, I hope to dwell somewhere off in the wilderness, taking no part in it, divorced as much as possible from a society programmed for self-destruction.
Hey Larry, are you reading this? Any advice for me?
If the center does not hold, I hope I can find a place out at the edge with characters like Stan and Larry.
On the practical impacts of revolutions: were we Americans materially better off after winning independence from Britain? Our Canadian neighbors stayed loyal to the throne for another 80 years, then asked politely for independence, and they don't seem to be any worse off materially than we Americans.
Stan, I would also prefer evolution over revolution. Much less mess. Cheering revolution means despairing of other solutions. I want to believe there are always alternatives, and that we as a community can figure them out and implement them. I want to believe the Greeks did not curse us but blessed us with democracy.
Yet my faith in the Second Law of Thermodynamics keeps me ever aware of the fact that every system will eventually wear out. I'm hoping we still have plenty of energy to introduce into our democratic system.
Cory, you can forget that Second Law for the time being, brother. In fact you probably should. Your life, after all, depends on it. (... and yes, evolution runs counter to the second law).
Yet another reason to believe that Newton was fundamentally wrong and Einstein/Hawking are right. There is enough energy in gravity to keep things going - and changing - for a long, long time.