I have made the case in this blog
that the prominent view of politics among our citizens is the natural
rights perspective. To summarize this view, it is a highly
individualistic perspective in which we believe governmental action
should be kept to a minimum. The emphasis is on the right to choose
and do those actions we, individually, see as best for us as long as
we do not interfere with anyone else enjoying the same latitude in
his/her choices. Under such a view, we promote competitive relations
usually under the auspices of a free market. The view is highly
associated with capitalism. We have adopted this view to such a
degree that we have begun to call it the “American way,” as if
this bias has always been the way we see politics and, in general,
social arrangements. While American culture has been from its very
beginning a relatively individualistic one, to the degree this view
has “taken over” is a product of the last fifty to sixty years –
since the end of World War II. In terms of more specific policies,
this view has encouraged reduced governmental regulations – which
have increased, but mostly as a result of the globalization of the
economy and the resulting worldwide markets. It has also encouraged
a weakening of labor unions and of the role of government in
determining labor relations between workers and employers. Overall,
the strength of labor laws has been weakened. Oversight of markets
became much looser. All of this gained impetus in the years leading
up to 2008.
Then came the financial crisis
that led to the worst economic recession since the Great Depression
of the 1930s. This development brought into question, among informed
circles, the prudence of a view that promotes such a hands-off
approach by government in relation to economic activity. As a
result, the Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act to reimpose
regulations on the buying and selling of securities. But what of the
general public and its views regarding how free economic actors
should be? Have the American people, in general, been able to turn
on a dime and seek another view to replace the extremely laissez-fare
attitude that had become so prevalent?
According to Leslie McCall,1
the public had reached the highest point of support for laissez-fare
in 2008 – at least as measured by available survey data on our
tolerance of inequities, a by-product of a laissez-fare economy. But
this high point was not reached in a straight line over the years and
analysis of this progression provides evidence that suggests a period
of time in which the whole view came into question not during a time
of economic distress, but in a time when economic conditions were
good and improving. She points out that during the nineties, when
the nation was enjoying a healthy economic uptick, that there was an
increase in questioning the results of this uninhibited economic
policy. That is, people began to question the level of inequality
that was increasing since the seventies. Robert Y. Shapiro,
reporting on McCall's research, writes
… there is an unfairness
suggested in the more-pronounced beliefs in the 1990s, in which
rising income inequality is seen as benefitting mainly the rich and
not producing prosperity for all. … [This time of improved
economic conditions] signifies opportunity, so that what has changed
in the public's mind … is that rising income inequality can affect
individuals' perceptions of opportunity.2
Shapiro points out that this
finding goes contrary to what was previously understood to be the
relation between economic conditions and the public's view of
opportunity. That is, it was believed that good economic conditions
would correlate with a higher sense of opportunity and therefore a
higher level of tolerance toward or, at least, ambivalence over
degrees of inequality in regard to opportunity – that such views
would hold off calls from the public for a redistributive policy
response to meet existing inequality. Instead, and one needs to
remember that inequality grew in the 1990s, McCall finds that the
improving economic conditions coexisted with a more prevalent belief
that there was no longer a rich segment of the population that
deserved its riches. What seems to have come under question was
whether the contemporary rich should be “celebrated” for ushering
in equitable growth – a tide lifting all boats. The general public
seems to have begun establishing a general view of the rich as
undeserving “who are implicated in producing a form of inequality
that is perceived to either symbolize or directly contribute to
limited opportunities”.3
What I see is a tension among the
populous or among different segments of the population. That tension
is between what has become more and more obvious, the extreme
inequality of income between the very rich and the rest of us, and
the prevailing political view of the natural rights perspective.
When the financial crisis hit, I would argue that the popular view
was still under the influence of the heightened support for the more
individualistic perspective. What complicated the distinction
between views of individualism and a more collective, government
friendly view were a few economic and social conditions. One, the
crisis and the resulting recession did not reach Great Depression
levels of misery. Yes, the recession was severe, but we did not have
the bread lines and other extreme deprivations that the American
society suffered during the Depression years. Two, despite its
salutary effect, the bailing out of the Wall Street banks and the
auto industry united the dismay of both extreme right-wingers and
many on the left, an anti-corporatist faction of the political
spectrum. Both of these factors muddied the waters concerning the
justification for strong governmental response in regard to the
economic dangers facing the nation. There resulted no clear lesson
as to the need for a strong government presence in the operations of
the economy. Therefore, in 2008, the public which became enamored by
the more laissez-fare policies of the George Bush Administration did
not find it easy to give up on those biases through the time when the
dam burst and the economy fell into the Great Recession.
Since then, we have had the Occupy
Wall Street movement which has brought to the fore the inequality
issue in a much clearer perspective. It has become common knowledge
of how unequal income has become. We are even becoming aware of how
unequal wealth is. While the defenders of the inequity have tried to
steer the language of the discussion in terms of “either/or” –
either we have an economy that rewards those who run businesses and
create jobs or we don't – many more Americans are becoming aware
that the question has more to do with the extremity of the disparity
than whether we should reward the successful. What I find worth
taking away from McCall's research is how expectations, especially
during better economic times, are affected. Increased economic
activity does not help in hindering our perception of how
opportunities are affected by a mal-distribution of income and
wealth. Perhaps, as the economy improves, we will not forget about
this issue of inequality and begin to demand, from the rich,
behaviors and policies that will lead us to the judgment that they
are, in effect, deserving.
1McCall,
L. (2013). The undeserving rich: American beliefs about
inequality, opportunity, and redistribution.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. The presentation of the
study in this posting is based on a book review by Robert Y. Shapiro
which appears in Political Science Quarterly,
Winter 2013-14, 128 (4), pp. 750-753.
2Ibid,
Shapiro, p. 752.
3Ibid.
