Elizabeth Warren blames billionaires. “We cannot afford a billionaire class, whose greed and corruption has been at war with the working families of this country for 45 years,” she said at the October debate. But a more serious problem is the greed of ordinary Americans — greed fomented by the System that encourages everyone to climb social ladders and look down on and dominate those below. To counter greed, we need to transform the System, which is self-perpetuating.
A better alternative to Warren’s economic populism is a “democratic equality” that “guarantees all law-abiding citizens effective access to the social conditions of their freedom at all times,” as articulated by Elizabeth Anderson in her landmark essay, “What is the Point of Equality?” (see “The Democrats: What Happened to Equality?).
With her focus on “rebuilding the middle class,” Warren embraces greed, praises consumerism, and legitimizes upward mobility. When other candidates at the debate accused her of being “punitive” toward billionaires, she said, “ I don't have a beef with billionaires.... What we're all looking for is how we strengthen America's middle class.”
At her September New York City rally, Warren said. “Look, I get it. I know that some people will always have more money, so they can own more shoes or more clothes than other people.” She acknowledged, “Any great fortune in America was built, at least in part, using workers all of us helped pay to educate…. We’re happy to do it. This is America. We’re happy to invest in opportunities. But we’re saying that if you make it big, really big, really, really big, then pitch in two cents....”
Warren advocates equal opportunity. She wants to “transform our economy so that every person, no matter where they live, no matter who their parents are, no matter how much money they have, every person has real opportunity…, [to] truly level the playing field [and create] real opportunity, not just opportunity for people born into privilege, opportunity for everyone.”
None of the fifty-six plans on Warren’s website target poverty, homelessness, or economic inequality. The site highlights five goals. The second is “rebuild the middle class.” That plank merely proposes “putting power back in the hands of workers and unions,” says “we can make investments that create economic opportunity, address rural neglect, and a legacy of racial discrimination (sic),” and envisions “an economy that works for everyone.”
“Upward mobility” is a myth that reinforces inequality. In White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, Nancy Isenberg writes, “We cling to the comfort of a middle class, forgetting that there can't be a middle class without a lower.” And despite some dramatic individual stories, most Americans have never been able to rise far above their standing at birth.
Anderson challenges the focus on “equal opportunity.” She argues:
Recent egalitarian writing has come to be dominated by the view that the fundamental aim of equality is to compensate people for undeserved bad luck.... This “equality of fortune” perspective is essentially a "starting-gate theory": as long as people enjoy fair shares at the start of life, it does not much concern itself with the suffering and subjection generated by people's voluntary agreements in free markets….
In sync with this ideology, Warren proposes paternalistic measures to alleviate suffering when people fall behind during the race — rather than prevent suffering in the first place. Anderson points out that this liberal paternalism “seems strangely detached from existing egalitarian political movements…[that have fought for] the freedom to appear in public as who they are, without shame, [and] campaigned against demeaning stereotypes.”
Anderson’s alternative is to end oppression by creating communities “in which people stand in relations of equality” to one another. This “democratic equality” differs fundamentally from mitigation for the losers under starting-gate equal opportunity. “In seeking the construction of a community of equals,” she “integrates principles of distribution with the expressive demands of equal respect.”
Warren’s focus on economics is typical of those who identify as “leftist.” But their definition of “the system” is too narrow, materialistic, and reliant on economic determinism — and neglects the need for personal, social, and cultural transformation. So long as the self-perpetuating System persists and most Americans envy and identify with the wealthy and would like to be rich themselves while others are poor, a popular movement for real justice is unlikely to succeed.
In the September 30 New Yorker’s article, “Merit Badges,” Louis Menand says the “conception of meritocray as a machine that runs itself is a powerful one.” He wrtites, “Even if we randomized college admissions,... the level of income inequality will remain more or less the same…. The problem...is that the economy is structured to allow [some] to soak up most of the national wealth.” With their embrace of upward mobility as a solution, Warren, Bernie Sanders, and most leftists do not propose a fundamental restructuring of the meritocracy.
Economic populism misses that our social system consists of more than the economy and the government. The System also includes other major institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals, who reinforce the System with our daily actions. We must hold people accountable for crimes and other ethical violations, but we cannot place all or most blame on the billionaire class. The primary problem is the System and to transform it we must transform each and every element.
Anderson’s democratic equality is not new. It’s affirmed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But during the six hours of their September and October debates, the Democratic candidates for President never once talked about equality, much less equal respect, equal worth, co-equal partnerships, community empowerment, and individual empowerment. Instead, they merely want to help disadvantaged people to eventually “get ahead (of others).”
We, the people, are angry enough already. We don’t need economic populists to inflame anger, which breeds more anger. We need to channel our anger into effective, democratic, popular movements that push for a positive vision.
We don’t need leaders who believe a good leader is one who’s able to mobilize followers to do what the leader wants — especially if those leaders are politicians who primarily want their followers to vote for themselves and their allies and get others to do the same.
This elitism is often reflected in casual expressions of disrespect, as with Obama’s comment about guns and religion and Clinton’s reference to a basket of deplorables. Warren expressed similar disrespect when she was asked, “Let’s say you’re on the campaign trail and a supporter approaches you and says ‘Senator, I’m old fashioned and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman. What is your response?” Warren answered, “Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that. And I’m going to say…then just marry one woman. I’m cool with that!” She then added: “Assuming you can find one.” The audience roared with laughter and applause.
Warren’s disrespectful crack betrays a fundamental arrogance that’s often reflected in her tone of voice and her claim to have the plan for everything. Unfortunately, she’s not alone. I suspect most Democratic Party activists are afflicted with similar arrogance. They probably laughed at her joke and most probably do not see a problem with her college-professor arrogance. But until Democrats really affirm equal respect and practice what they preach, they’ll continue to undermine their effectiveness.
In “A Stump Speech,” inspired by Anderson (and Harry Boyte’s argument for democratic populism), I try to absorb the principles of democratic equality and point the way toward a more effective strategy.
With progressive taxation, the federal government could establish an Economic Security Trust Fund analogous to the Social Security Trust Fund and distribute money to local governments for public-service jobs to meet pressing human and environmental needs. And individuals, especially wealthy philanthropists, could donate to that fund, as they can to the Social Security Trust Fund. Regardless, one way or the other, with private and public money, we can assure everyone a living-wage job opportunity. A “federal jobs guarantee” need not involve more federal employees. Then all Americans could focus on the quality of life rather than the size of their bank account and take care of themselves, their family, their community, all humanity, and the environment.
Individuals can improve their economic condition without doing so at the expense of others. Win-win solutions and “the 99% for the 100%” are possible. A “us vs. them” battle of good vs. evil is not essential. Rather than inflaming anger as Warren does, we can inspire with a positive vision. We can affirm everyone’s equal value, establish relationships of equality throughout society, nurture mutual respect, and protect everyone’s right to a secure, comfortable, and meaningful life. Rather than reinforce the casino, paper economy and glorify the rich and famous, we can focus on human needs, save the environment, and build a humane economy.
--Wade Lee Hudson