Specious arguments against a growing generational shift away from capitalism and towards socialism are increasingly voiced in Maine’s print media. Seems our recent state initiatives have some alarmed that a sustained grassroots revolution might become truly worrisome in challenging the traditional dominance of the haves over the have-nots.
I was particularly struck by two recent columns that similarly compared apples to oranges in purposely misrepresenting social democratic values as outright socialism. One commentary used an analogy of class-indicative Christmas tree purchases to explore core concepts of communal justice. The other wandered the weeds of “transactional economics” in reminiscing about trying to buy a childhood bicycle. Both used such readily relatable experiences as demonstrable examples of the folly of income inequality politics.
The Christmas tree argument held that how expensive one tree was compared to another had nothing to do with how much seasonal joy it brings. That disarming point was then used to broadly assert that real happiness isn’t tied to income, and how conservatives well understand that “happiness quotient” while liberals fantasize that if everyone’s income was made the same everyone would become equally happy. A nice keep-Christmas-capitalist construct.
The other all-fruit’s-the-same elitist parable of capitalism’s purported egalitarian underpinnings exhibited even more desperation in trying to justify America’s widening gap between those of almost inconceivable economic privilege and those whose “entitlement” programs are under siege as never before.
The point both conveniently missed by a moral mile is that demonized entitlement programs aren’t about government provided ownership of perfect Christmas trees or desirous bicycles, but about bare-bones needs that all should have a right to in a civilized society. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren’t proposing that everyone be paid equally but rather equitably. Big difference. Huge. They’re not about depriving anybody of status symbols. They’re about ensuring that everyone has adequate heath care, housing, food and access to educational bootstraps rather than being chained to crushing educational debt. The basic concept is that when everyone has a fair place at the table then anyone who can is free to gorge themselves to their heartless content. Those used to dining extravagantly while others go hungry don’t like to hear it but that accepted reality doesn’t have to be. No one needs to go hungry. No one’s greed is deserved, or blameless.
It’s remarkable how capitalism’s defense so quickly finds itself resorting to imaginatively illogical parlor tricks in rationalizing its fundamental unfairness. If capitalism need have no shame then why so much deception, so much avoidance of acknowledging its complacent I’ve-got-mine cultural disregard for those less fortunate.
Capitalism’s once steadfast allegiance might catch on again if and when it actually demonstrates that if you indeed work hard and apply yourself you’ll be justly compensated and your investment in the future will be safeguarded. Those of a certain age can remember when that was largely true. Younger generations have no such experience of capitalism’s post-war heyday. They can’t recall a time of pensions, gold watches and a secure retirement. Not for everyone, but enough to sustain the myth of America’s inherent prosperity.
Maine’s high school graduation rate was 91% as of 2016, and unemployment fell to 2.9% this past June, yet near 25% of jobs remain low-wage. One in ten Mainers live in poverty, 7% in “deep poverty.” 2,280 are estimated as homeless. Food insecurity’s rampant. Soon, one quarter of Maine’s population will be receiving Medicaid.
No statistics on how many impoverished Mainers nevertheless manage to have Christmas trees, or how many of their children have bicycles. Likely, all of them. Likely, they even have cellphones and Internet access.
Our departing governor demanded that “able-bodied” Medicaid recipients be required to “work, train for a new career or volunteer.” Why not also stipulate no household expenditures beyond a subsistence existence and require liquidation of all material assets? Oh yea, I believe that was actually run up the LePage flagpole. What about able-bodied young adults dependent on parental insurance policies for coverage? Those having pretty good jobs but still unable to afford their own healthcare, take on a mortgage or repay their college loans.
Some continue to maintain that American capitalism remains the envy of the world, that socialism in any form will never “come close to emulating the opportunity we have for self-improvement and reaching the quality of life to which American citizens strive.” Trouble is, Maine’s young people are having a hard time seeing that as a viable reality if they remain here. Maine’s never been major-league in playing capitalism’s game, and it’s hard to imagine its stats improving all that greatly anytime soon. Elsewhere, young people are being lured by a serious elevation in the minimum wage and the progressive notions of single-payer healthcare and free college tuition.
Maine needs to get real about real change in how economics can best serve all Mainers. Having achieved a substantial surplus in tax revenues should well justify a tax reduction for the rich if it wasn’t for the reality that the needs of the most needy remain unmet so that those already having plenty can have even more.
Gary Anderson lives in Bath.