The War Against Traditional Values

excerpted from the book

Class War in America

by Charles M. Kelly

Fithian Press, 2000, paperback

 

p185

How to Destroy Traditional American Values

Conservatives have had a real challenge: How could they convince the public to vote for politicians who favor big corporations and the wealthy-and, no less, at the expense of middle- and working-class Americans? They have met the challenge with amazing ease.

All they had to do was gradually change our traditional American values of fairness and justice for workers to the conservative values of greed and materialism for the established and emerging wealthy. The only way they could succeed at this was to pervert our traditional values by changing their meanings.

It's gotten to the point in the U.S. that wealth is now automatically a sign of virtue and hard work, and-not incidentally good genes. Poverty, even middle-class affluence, are, in themselves, signs of the indolence and depravity of people with questionable heritage.

By twisting words and concepts around, conservatives have made union members, truck drivers, and secretaries look like greedy, money-driven reprobates who create inflation-and investment bankers, chief executive officers, and professional athletes look like social workers who provide jobs for others.

Where Is the Outrage?

In the final weeks of the 1996 presidential campaign, Robert Dole and the Republicans won the values debate by default. They repeated over and over, "Where is the outrage?" They were referring to Clinton's personal sex life and his private business dealings of 20 years previously.

Their unanswered attacks were so effective that most Americans gave the Republicans credit for maintaining the moral high ground for family values. Congressional Republicans were seen as a political balance to Clinton-not only as guardians of America's sexual standards-but also as defenders of workers against welfare cheats, taxpayers against "big government," small businesses against excessive regulation, and, in general, the moderate citizen against liberals.

If Democrats had understood the importance of the battle of values, they would have stressed the opposite side of the argument: Where was the moral outrage about what the Republican Congress did, tried to do, or proposed to do, to middle- and low-income families?

After all, Dole had to know that his tax proposals would greatly benefit the wealthy, that middle-income families would benefit very little, and that those at the bottom of the wage scale would actually lose benefits. Yet he constantly told the public that the purpose of his tax plan was to benefit typical working-class families. Where was the outrage about that kind of moral bankruptcy?

Republicans used every opportunity to weaken labor unions, explaining that they were defending workers against labor bosses. Yet history tells us, and current conservative financial publications confirm it, unions have always been a major force for increasing wages and improving working conditions for working-class Americans. Where is the outrage, in terms of traditional American moral standards, about deliberately reducing the power of the only organizations whose primary goal is to defend working American families?

On issue after issue, Republicans have become masters of the art of capitalizing on one set of values-power, greed, and materialism-while, at the same time, convincing the public that they hold a quite different set of values: the traditional values of work, compassion, and fair play.

p216
Time Is Getting Short

2000 Plus: 1929 and Deja Vu All Over Again?

... The problems that have plagued societies since the beginning of time are the same that today's conservative financial press describe in their news stories. Wealthy conservatives never seem to recognize when their accumulation of power and money becomes excessive to the point where it is self-destructive.

As today's conservative financial press clearly recognizes, the wealth and income disparity is continuing to get worse. It isn't debatable any more. Conservative pundits have had to change their position from the 1980s-that the income disparity didn't exist-to today's position: it exists, but it's fair because the rich work harder and are more successful than anyone else.

They continue to deny that income disparity is the result of their power and their control of politicians, and they've been able to convince the majority of voters that their political policies will eventually benefit everyone.

It's only when the economy comes crashing down that those same voters will discover the long-term disaster that they have brought upon themselves. Just what will happen when:

* The bottom half of the world's consumers no longer have enough money to purchase the products they need, as happened in the late 1920s, and more recently in Asia, South America, Russia, and most of the Third World?

* Wealthy investors, to preserve their assets, withdraw their funds

from the stock market, as they did in 1929-32?

* Recently affluent executives and investors suddenly find their in come streams cut off and can no longer make payments on $500,000 ranchettes and $1,000,000 homes?

* Social conditions for the poor become intolerably worse, with the corresponding increase in crime, drugs, divorce, child and spouse abuse, violent revolutionary groups, etc.?

If you think that wealthy conservatives will invest their money in order to provide jobs and to help our country solve its problems, forget it. That isn't ever why they invest.

They also don't invest to get tax breaks, or to stimulate the economy, or to help out their community. They invest only to get rich off the labor of others. And if they are already rich-and see that the stock market is crashing-they simply withdraw their funds and use them to buy up severely depreciated homes, farms, raw land, and whatever else desperate people are dumping onto the market.

But, that's all somewhere in the distant future, right? The constant drumbeat we hear today is that this is the best economy we ever had, and we'll never again be as bad off as we were in the depression. There is simply too much wealth and prosperity to spread around for us to worry about who is getting how much, to what effect, and for what effort.

Sounds good, but if you read between the lines, you find that even conservatives are beginning to worry. A schizophrenic optimism/ pessimism duality is beginning to surface in the financial press. Sure, conservatives tell us that times have never been so good. But, almost as an afterthought, they admit their nagging suspicion that all is not well in this economy that shamelessly favors the rich-at the direct expense of the poor and middle class.

For a classic example of this kind of duality, look at Fortune's description of this best of all economic worlds in its article, "These Are the Good Old Days." After repeating the usual mantra of low inflation, booming business, and low unemployment-better even than the "swinging sixties," "earnest fifties," or "roaring twenties"- it acknowledged:

Not that it's a perfect economy. Eleven percent of America's families live in poverty. Many others have suffered a decline in real income since 1989....

Wages have stagnated-the often-quoted Department of Labor figures show that the average hourly wage today is worth only $7.50 in 1982 dollars, down from a peak of $8.63 in 1973.... Average family income has grown robustly, due in part to millions of wives who've taken jobs....

But perhaps the single biggest long-term danger for the U.S. economy isn't one that will much affect the normal economic measures or pose any immediate threat to the current expansion: the growing gap between rich and poor, and between those who have the education and skills to benefit from the emerging high-tech economy, and those who don't. While millions of Americans have marched into comfortable prosperity, at least as many-perhaps even more-have fallen back.

So, this is how conservatives describe an economy that "is stronger than it's ever been before":

* Jobs are plentiful (enough for workers to work two jobs),

* Business sales and profits are growing,

* Inflation (increase in wages) has almost disappeared,

* The financial markets are booming, and

* We're leading the technological revolutions of our age (so the wealthy and educated will continue to benefit).

That's right, the best economy so far. After all, conservatives never evaluate an economy on the basis of:

* The number of American families who live in poverty,

* The number of persons who suffered a decline in real income,

* Stagnating wages, or the fact that now,

* Wives have to work so a family can have a decent income.

* The income gap between rich and poor is exploding, or the fact that

* At least as many (as got rich)-perhaps even more-"have fallen back" in terms of their inflation-adjusted income.

This is a better economy than the one we had in the "swinging sixties" or "earnest fifties," when the income gap was narrowing? When wives didn't have to work, and husbands had time to spend with their families? When working Americans had reasonable levels of income and job security? When those who benefited most from our nation's economic policies paid far more taxes (70-90% of income between 1942 and 1982) than did those who were making all the sacrifices?

So, after the wealthy, educated, and powerful benefit from the sacrifices that they forced on workers, what will they do when the economy tanks? Bet the farm on it: When the going gets tough, the wealthy and powerful will get going-as in "gone." In a Forbes op-ed piece, "Time to Switch," Steve Hanke described the standard time-honored strategy for sophisticated investors when it looks like workers are about to make more money, thus cutting into corporate profits:

All seems right with the world. The Dow is up 85% over its reading of a little more than two years ago....

[But] How will higher wage costs play out? With little pricing power in the markets for goods, business will just have to eat the higher wage costs. As wage pressures slowly build, sky-high profits won't be sustained. A prop gets knocked out from under the stock market....

Given this state of affairs, what should investors looking for value do? As he was rushing to catch a flight to London from his home in Nassau, Bahamas, the ever-wise Sir John Templeton remarked to me last month that it is now time to switch from stocks to bonds. I agree.

Although this investment advice was at least three years premature, it shows that wealthy conservatives always remain alert to danger signs that indicate when it is time to withdraw from the American economy: Low unemployment rates, average hourly earnings begin to creep up, and sky-high profits aren't as easy to come by.

So what are investors to do when it looks like the economy is going to tank? Switch from stocks to bonds, of course. That is, quit investing in the kinds of securities that produce products and services, or create jobs. After all, when the majority of the public has no money to buy products and services, why invest in a business to produce them? In other words, if times get tough-because of what wealthy conservatives have done to the purchasing power of workers-bailout of the economy. The party is over! Take the money and run! Switch from stocks to bonds. Make sure you and your descendants stay rich.

Signs are proliferating that time is getting short for the burst of our economic boom. Almost daily throughout 1998 and 1999, there were reports about the danger that workers may begin to share the prosperity of the previous two-and-a-half decades. In one of its periodic "The Snake in Wall Street's Eden" articles, Business Week noted that "1998 is looking more and more like the year reality creeps into paradise:

1998 looks more and more like the year when economic reality overtakes nirvana. That is, exceptionally strong economic growth and red-hot labor markets will eventually have unfavorable consequences for profits and Fed policy....

Aside from some weakness in exports and manufacturing, there is nothing in the latest data to show that Asia by itself is slowing the economy sufficiently to blunt rising labor costs or ease the Fed's growing concern that overly rapid growth in 1998 could fuel inflation in 1999.

An entire book could be filled with articles just like this that were published by the conservative financial press throughout 1998 and 1999. Conservatives prove beyond doubt that when they brag about this economy being the best ever, they don't include working-class Americans in their rosy scenario.

They openly admit the zero-sum nature of corporate profits-the more money workers get, the less the investors and executives will get. If the economy ever gets to the point where workers' wages start to go up, it's time to pull the plug on economic growth and raise interest rates.

But that could cause the economy to come crashing down. Increased profits would be harder to come by. Not only that, the bottom half of consumers all across the globe are running out of money. Even The Wall Street Journal, in its more honest moments, saw the problem and described it like it was. Under the head "U.S Firms May Lose Labor-Cost Advantage," the Journal publicly acknowledged that "During most of the 1990s, U.S. manufacturers have cashed in on a great bargain: the American worker":

U.S. factory wages and benefits have remained low, compared with those in many other industrialized countries. And companies have turned that edge into growing global market share and solid profits. Recently, however, several factors have combined to reduce that labor-cost advantage....

Foreign companies are starting to adopt some of the cost-cutting tactics that U.S. companies introduced earlier in the decade.... Many of America's competitors, however, are just starting to downsize, outsource or otherwise trim labor costs....

"I think we've reached the limit to squeezing labor," Mr. Roach [chief economist for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter] says. "I think that process is just beginning in Europe, Japan and probably developing Asia.''

Incredible. As if workers in the U.S. haven't already been squeezed enough by having to compete with victimized workers in other countries-now their competitor-workers are themselves going to be squeezed even more.

A trio of articles from the same issue of Business Week gives a hint of where our country is in its economic cycle. The first, "Up in Arms But Down in Clout," describes how even the most profitable corporations are cutting union jobs:

Companies in industries from apparel to electronics have shifted production to nonunion shops and to Mexico.

Even the most profitable companies are still cutting union jobs. In June, General Electric Co. announced that it would lay off 1,500 members of the International Union of Electric Workers...where pay averages $17.50 an hour. Some jobs will go to nonunion workers earning $9 an hour at a plant GE bought in LaFayette, Ga. Others will be moved to a joint venture GE has in Mexico with a Mexican company called Mabe.

These are not just American low-tech jobs, and it's not just American union members who are hurting in the exodus of industry from our country. In the second article, "Why Mexico Scares the UAW," Business Week revealed that

No longer do Mexican workers merely produce low-tech parts such as wire harnesses and seat covers. Now, dozens of new plants churn out higher-tech components such as airbags, brake systems, and instrument panels for automakers in the U.S., Europe, and Japan. And Mexican engineers, skilled but paid a fraction of what U.S. counterparts earn, design and test transmissions, brakes, and engines at state-of-the-art facilities, such as GM's Delphi Division technical center in Juarez.

No doubt die-hard conservatives will see no relationship between the previous two articles and the following article from the same issue of Business Week. For those with some sense of history, however, the third article, "The Summer of Wretched Excess," is prophetic:

Religion in the Hamptons means repeating "thank you God for Alan Greenspan" at every party, every polo game, and every benefit. It's the mantra of money in this summer of glut....

Yet, all is not perfect in this monied paradise. Beneath the gloss there is an edginess. "When will it all end?" is heard as much as "Is that Martha Stewart?"... No one actually says it out loud, but the question is always there: If the market goes, how in the world will I pay for that enormous house? The cars? The lessons? The clubs?" How will I remain a dues-paying member of the leisure class?...

So, people bravely party on. The extravagant benefits with chandeliers adorning giant tents, the networking, the dancing, the celebrity shoulder-rubbing. It's splendid. It's exciting. It's like that other Long Island party that Gatsby threw in the '20s, waiting to end badly.

Conservatives have done such a thorough and complete job of destroying the incomes of working-class Americans that it's impossible to tell how long the party for our new aristocracy will last. Another year? Two years? Five years? Who knows?

But what we know for sure is: the longer the party lasts, the more disastrous it will be when it ends. Of course, for those who have built up substantial financial resources-those who are already paying cash for their homes and businesses-it will be an economic boon. They will be able to increase their ownership of our country even more, as real wealth-land, buildings, businesses, etc.-go on the auction block at fire-sale prices.

Those who can least afford the end of the party-those who have no financial resources to fall back on-will present our society with problems that have no acceptable solutions. Certainly, the conservatives of our society, and especially our politicians, will not want address them, or to admit their own roles in creating them.

So. What do we do about all this?

p224
Workers of America, Unite!

Because Conservatives Already Have, and They Own Congress and the Presidency

In his classic book, Whatever Became of Sin?, Karl Menninger equated mental health with moral health. After referring to Arnold Toynbee's observation that "all the great historic philosophies and religions have been concerned, first and foremost, with the overcoming of egocentricity," he went on to conclude:

Egocentricity is one name for it. Selfishness, narcissism, pride, and other terms have been used. But neither the clergy nor the behavioral scientists, including psychiatrists, have made ~t an issue. The popular leaning is away from notions of guilt and morality.... Disease and treatment have been the watchwords of the day and little is said about selfishness or guilt or the "morality gap." And certainly no one talks about sin! I

If the clergy and behavioral scientists are leaning away from notions of morality, what can one expect of those whose professions are primarily concerned with personal power and wealth? ...

The rationale seems to be that "greed is what made our country successful," "greed is responsible for the greatest economy mankind has ever developed," and "greed is the essence of capitalism."

None of which is true. As Toynbee and the world's mainstream religions have concluded, in one form or another, greed is one of the seven deadly sins-and for good reason. It eventually destroys human organizations and societies. If unchecked, it will destroy our capitalistic system.

Apologists for America's wealthy and powerful deliberately confuse greed with a normal, healthy, self-interest. Self-interest is the necessary motivation that enables a person to provide for the welfare of himself and his family-adequate housing, food, education, health care, a good sense of values, and so on.

But self-interest becomes greed, as any dictionary defines the term, when it becomes excessive when it leads to behaviors that are dishonest, fraudulent, devious, deceptive, or manipulative.

p226
| Since the mid-1970s,,(wealthy conservatives have pursued policies that have changed all that-at least for our most basic industries and businesses, for some of our most important professions, and, especially, for our political environment. Now greed and materialism have replaced the virtues of fairness and justice. Profit, the bottom line, and personal wealth, in themselves, justify any kind of behavior as being morally acceptable:

* Most of our basic manufacturing industries have either left the country or they have adopted employment and pay practices that place our country back in the pre-1930 era.

* Big business has taken over the medical profession. They promote and give bonuses to the doctors and nurses who will give the stingiest care possible at the highest price. Naturally, they ignore patients who can't pay. Medical professionals who uphold their traditional values may be fired or blackballed.

* More people become journalists because they want to advance the interests of their conservative sponsors-the ones who financed their education, and can give them promotions, salary increases, power and prestige.

* More people go into business only to make incredible amounts of money in the shortest possible time, and nothing is unethical if it improves the bottom line-or if a person can't be convicted in a court of law.

* More people go into politics in order to advance the interests of those who give them the most money, which automatically means that wealthy investors gain control of the markets, keep workers' incomes as low as possible, and remove protections of the environment-and to hell with the rights of consumers, communities and the general public.

* As a result of the above, laborers have to work in two or more jobs in order to provide a marginal living for their families. Too many of them have precious little time to do a responsible job of raising families.

The transfer of wealth and power from those who work to those who manage money, information, ideas, and people is just about complete. Investors, corporate executives, accountants, consultants, investment bankers, and related professionals now have the power to <] command almost unlimited incomes for themselves.

They do it by inserting themselves between those who produce products and services-workers, engineers, scientists, doctors, true "family farmers," nurses, truck drivers, and so on-and the consumers of those products and services. At every step, from financing a new business venture to advising corporations about how to prevent unions, they take huge amounts of money for themselves and leave relatively little for those who are the true producers of wealth in our country.

It took conservatives at least 20 years to create this kind of political and economic system, although they've been working at it and making slow progress for the entire century. It also will take at least 20 years to reverse. It will be a long and difficult task, but it can be done.

p227
... those who don't like what is happening in this country must work for peaceful, political change. With all its faults, democratic capitalism is the best system mankind has come up with. Our country just has to regain the values and policies that made it great.

The #I Priority

There are all kinds of valid ways to improve a society. Some emphasize personal action: organizing workers, teaching values to children, volunteer work, conserving energy, donating to charity, writing letters to the editor and so on. These are important, but they pale in comparison to getting the right persons into political office, especially at the federal level-because the federal level affects what happens at the state and local levels.

If national labor laws are biased against unions, it's almost impossible to organize workers, as the "right-to-work" states have amply demonstrated. When an individual buys and drives a compact car, he pollutes the air less, but his impact is overwhelmed by the fleets of SWs that our national and state laws allow and even encourage. Private donations to charity certainly help the poor and are necessary, but as the great depression proved, in a real economic crunch private charity will last for a few months at best.

The basis for meaningful change-the change that allows further positive changes to occur-is an informed, politically active public that votes the right people into office in the first place. So,

1. As a general rule, and barring unusual circumstances, never, never, vote for a Republican, anywhere, for anything even for the proverbial dog catcher. The Republicans voted against the 1993 Deficit Reduction legislation. Misguided voters who thought they were voting for moderate Republicans in 1994 and '96 actually, in effect, gave more power to their anti-worker right-wing Congressional leaders.

Qualification: I know an exceptional Republican-who once was an Illinois politician-who I would vote for every time. But, again, barring similar unusual considerations, the general rule applies. )

2. Vote for a conservative Democrat only if there are no other realistic choices, and if a non-vote would result in a win for a Republican.

3. In the primaries, pick a traditional, liberal Roosevelt/Truman-style Democrat who has a realistic chance of winning over a conservative Democrat.

4. Always vote for a progressive populist if one is available. A few Democrats fit the-bill, but not many. Maybe the next economic downturn and its accompanying problems will encourage more Democrats to remember what their party used to stand for, and why.

Progressive Populists

It's easy to identify the progressive populists who believe in the kind of liberal Roosevelt/Truman-style democratic capitalism that we had from the 1930s to the '80s. Progressive populists:

* Support a progressive income tax (higher taxes for those who have benefited most from the sacrifices forced upon working Americans)-versus those who want to reduce inheritance, capital gains, and real estate taxes for the wealthy.

* Support a reduction in regressive taxes, such as sales and social security taxes-versus those who support fiat taxes and increases in sales taxes, which hit low- and middle-income citizens the hardest.

* Support laws that protect the rights of workers to collectively negotiate for wages and humane working conditions through their organized unions-versus those who use their power to destroy unions and decent working conditions.

* Believe that world trade can be truly free only when it is managed. That is, businesses with high moral standards-those who respect workers, the environment and the public-must be protected from unprincipled competitors, and be able to compete on a level playing field.

* Work to improve relations between cultural subgroups - versus those who use code words and divisive rhetoric to drive wedges between them. Progressive populists are interested in justice and in improving conditions for all Americans. This is what separates them from some of the so-called populists who want to demagogue their way into political power.

* Work to improve the environment-rather than corporate bottom-lines-so our descendants will be able to survive beyond the next 20 years.

* Recognize that it is always cheaper and more efficient to prevent our nation's problems from growing than to ignore them until it is too late to take effective action. Progressive populists believe that proactive problem solving is preferable, and ultimately more cost effective for the taxpayer, than cutting taxes for the wealthy.

In other words, progressive populists actually believe in government. They recognize that no private organization has as its charter the obligation to solve social problems-only our democratically elected government does.


Class War in America

Index of Website

Home Page