The nation’s history can be told from various perspectives or
from various views of progression. There
is the progression of the nation’s industry, progression in moral thinking, or
progression in political arrangements as well as other ones. But one progression one might think would be
central to the nation’s self-definition would be its mostly emotional
commitment or non-commitment to equality.
As Robert D. Putnam[1]
describes it, that progression has not moved much except, perhaps, for the last
few decades.
First, a bit
of defining. This blog has reported over
several postings this writer’s sense of how Americans have viewed this social/political
quality. He identifies five different
views – genetic elitism, earned elitism, equal condition, regulated equality,
and equal result – but in terms of what has been generally accepted by the American
public, one can detect a position somewhere between equal condition and
regulated equality. A review of what
those are might serve as a reminder of what is being described below.
First is the
view most associated with market values or the natural right construct. That would be equal condition. In the posting entitled, “Agreement?”, [2] the following is offered:
Equal Condition, Equal Opportunity, Unlimited
Rewards – A general belief orientation which views persons who
enjoy superior human assets (e. g., intelligence, physical dexterity, humor,
etc.) due to their personal efforts are entitled to above normal considerations
in society in the form of status, wealth, material possessions, etc.
There
are no limits to that compensation other than as a result of the vagaries of
the economic or political system. In
capitalist societies, that would be the market.
Other than status, all entitlements are to be purchased and monetary
advantages do not entitle a person to unequal advantages under the law.
This
orientation extends to prohibit any restrictions on monetary or other types of
rewards if the rewards reflect labor compensations, dividends, rents, or
profits. Advantages are purchased and
are not the product of membership in a family or class. The labor value of any person is based on its
market value. As such, there are no a
priori limits on what a person can earn or acquire.
While this orientation might seem just about right, its
acceptability could be the product of its current popularity. But
American views concerning equality have varied since the nation began; in fact,
at any given time, various views have competed to gain adherents among
Americans.
Instead,
Putnam, in describing this progression, indicates how this variance has materialized. The more popular among segments of the
population, and this writer even argues was the dominant view in the US up until
World War II, was regulated equality. Here
is how the same cited posting by Gutierrez describes that view:
Regulated equality, Equal Opportunity, Limited
Rewards – A general belief orientation which views persons who
enjoy superior human assets (e. g., intelligence, physical dexterity, humor,
etc.) due to their personal efforts are entitled to above normal considerations
in society in the form of status, wealth, material possessions, etc.
These
advantages, though, are limited only to areas associated with their earned
accomplishments or contributions to society.
Any entitlements acquired as a result of employing these assets are time
limited as a recipient must continue to demonstrate his or her worthiness. Said rewards, other than status, must be
purchased and are not distributed to beneficiaries due to membership in any
class or family.
Monetary
rewards are payoffs for an individual’s contributions and, along with his/her status,
must be within limits. That is, they
should not unreasonably exceed the person's contribution to the welfare of the
society or provide such a level of financial standing to secure for him or her (or
his/her posterity) an ongoing, established source of benefits.
Plus,
for those who do not meet minimum, reasonable income, the economy needs to be regulated
so that a minimum income or essential services (education, medical, housing)
are provided to the degree that an effective equality can become possible for
those deprived parties or entities. As a
result, these parties would be able to effectively compete with those who are not
so deprived.
With this view, Americans, according Putnam, have not been resentful
of those who have met success, but have reacted effectively, to secure that
real opportunity was made available to all Americans (except perhaps to those
who were not defined as part of the grand partnership[3]).
Here is a
listing of conditions or events that have characterized the American
progression in terms of equality. One of
the first treatments of this issue can be found in Ben Franklin’s Autobiography
in which Franklin outlines his “rags-to-riches” story as a type of model to which
Americans could aspire. In line with
this, as early as the 1830s, one can pick up the notion that the availability
of a vast continent – “out West” – provided the safety-valve and opportunity
source for most of the 19th century.
The historian, Fredrick Jackson, glorified that notion.
A background,
recurring religious theme Americans ascribed to was the sense that God created each
man (and woman) equally. This message
found impetus in such movements as the Great Awakenings. It also provided, in part, a rationale for
the political movements, the Progressive Era and the New Deal.
Yet, by the
1950s a subtle change comes about. For
example, Putnam points out, the writer David Potter through his best-seller, People
of Plenty, took on a more natural rights bent. The argument went, since the US has an
extremely successful economy (this being during the post-World War II boom), therefore,
opportunity existed aplenty and failure could only be attributed to a person’s own
fault.
In truth, this
train of thought was not new. One can
find earlier signs as far back as 1843 between the covers of the prominent grade
school reader, the McGuffey’s Reader.
Here’s a quote: “The road to
wealth, to honor, to usefulness, and happiness, is open to all, and all who
will, may enter upon it with the almost certain prospect of success.”[4] But one should not forget the social context
under which such a sentiment was issued.
Two facts: one, that quote was issued at a time when
there was unbounded opportunity – before the age of corporate America and a vast
open western land of opportunities – and, two, a time before the advent of
governmental, welfare capability or cultural support for such programs. Indigency was a local problem that local
charitable efforts met. This latter
context held a determining view of the poor while America was still a
predominately agricultural nation.
Heading into and as a result of the
Great Depression, failure took on a different tone. Americans readily agreed with initiatives
such as the New Deal programs such as Social Security and the Great Society
anti-poverty programs. And yet, by the
1980s, the natural rights bias took hold.
That led to the market orientation that the Ronald Reagan administration
ushered in. And today, with the
predictable result – the accumulation of wealth in few hands – produced, Americans
are beginning to question this purely, equal rights, unlimited rewards view.
Putnam writes:
Throughout the half century after
World War II, roughly two thirds of Americans from all walks of life told pollsters
that as a matter of fact, anyone who worked hard could get ahead. In the twenty-first century, however, surveys
have revealed a creeping pessimism about the chances for upward mobility for
the next generation, and about whether hard work would really be rewarded. Nevertheless, on balance most Americans have
believed (at least until recently) that equality of opportunity characterizes
our society – that the American Dream, in other words endures.[5]
To back up this notion, some current
stats: 95% of Americans endorse the
notion that everyone should have equal opportunity; 9 in 10 state they agree with
doing whatever is necessary to provide that opportunity; but only 48% among the
top quintile (top 20%) agree. Roughly
90% of all Americans agree society should provide basic related services such
as education and roughly two-thirds agree that opportunity, instead of
“reducing inequality,” should be the nation’s priority.
And yet, Putnam’s overall message is
that basic changes have taken place in how the nation is treating opportunity
factors and they are not changes that promote equality or equal opportunity. The poor are becoming more isolated and among
those with heightened political power – the top quintile – aren’t as committed
to guaranteeing those services that truly provide equal opportunity.
Civics classes should have students
tackle the questions: what is true equal
opportunity? And, what is the nation’s,
through its government, responsibility to advance a true form of equal
opportunity?
[1] Robert D. Putnam, Our
Kids: The American Dream in Crisis
(New York, NY: Simon and Schuster,
2015).
[2] See Robert
Gutierrez, “Agreement?,” February 3, 2015, accessed August 8, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2015/02/agreement.html
. The writer, in this rendition, has edited the
original version. In terms of its
content, these orientations should be viewed as ideal beliefs and, in real
life, are subject to compromising behavior.
In a recent book, Capital in the
Twenty-First Century, French economist, Thomas Piketty, argues that due to
the accumulation of capital there has developed an entrenched class who is
benefitting from the income based on that capital. This mirrors the conditions of the Gilded Era
and other times of skewed wealth and income to the top of the economic pyramid.
[3] The history
of the nation concerning the “other” need not be reviewed here, but to mention
but a few victims: African slaves and
their prodigy and the recent immigrant group (Irish, Italians, Asians, and
today, Latins from Mexico and Central America).
[5] Ibid.,
34.
No comments:
Post a Comment