Political effervescence and division within many nations is approaching levels not experienced around the globe since the 1920s. Structural failures in economic management bring on such crises when they fail to maintain expectations for improvement in the standard of living among the middle class, the mainstay of democracies and principal source of political stability in the modern world. Such conditions open the way for revolutionary rethinking in politics, when the old moral order teeters and competing ideologies vie to replace it, as with the rise of Fascism and Communism in the 1930s.
In 1928, on the eve of global economic collapse, the wealthiest .001 percent of the U.S. population owned 892 times more than 90 percent of the nation's citizens. Today, the nation's increasingly wealthy top .001 percent owns 976 times more than the bottom 90 percent, a situation that instigates both the growing Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements, however differently they apportion blame and seek solutions.
In Europe, a resurgent far right rooted in a stagnant middle class has helped to oust government after government. This is true even in France, where a socialist victory in this week's presidential election bucked the rightist trend with the support of the far left, but with the collusion of a far right that refused to support the center-right incumbent.
In Greece's elections this week, the once predominant center-left and center-right parties lost more than half of their popular support since 2009, while the far left and far right surged.
In North Africa and the Middle East, a better-educated but increasingly impoverished and morally outraged middle class ignited the Arab Spring and continues to fire its aftermath. But decades of brutally sundering secular political alternatives by previous authoritarian regimes now gives surviving forms of militant Islam an opportunity to rapidly establish moral hegemony over society -- especially if allowed (democratically or not) to take control of the coercive power of the state, as happened with the Iranian revolution.
One thing is clear: People are yearning for a moral sense and direction to redefine their nations' political life, and with it a meaning to individual existence that transcends self-interest (after all, the very existence of any religion or nation is predicated on willingness to sacrifice for some larger group of genetically unrelated strangers, which is unique to our species). For this, many of society's most active members are willing to further delay material gratification: "Dignity before Bread," was the heartfelt motto of many young people in the countries of the Arab Spring; disregard of one's own immediate economic interests for the party of "more God and less government" is evident in America's Red States.
To win even more than just an election -- to help us all win the future -- President Obama needs a transcendent moral message that goes beyond economic arguments and taps into the sacred: the kind of sentiment for which the founding fathers were willing to pledge "our lives, our fortunes," more the freedom to hope and dream than just to make a living. Making the debate primarily about "economic fairness" versus "economic liberty" misses the moral mark, not only for own people but also for those in political turmoil throughout the world upon whom our future increasingly depends. Neo-Fascists, Neo-Communists, and religious fundamentalists are rushing to fill the gap.
Robert Teitelman: OWS and the Class Struggle Revised
The problem is demographics more than economics. According to Bill Bishop, "The Big Sort", we have been ideologically self-segregating into like minded communities, districts, states and regions for the last 30 years. It has now gotten to the point we have more safe congressional districts than competitive ones.
Depending on which source you choose we only have seven to eleven swing states which will decide who becomes President. What this says is that about 86% of the US is completely polarized to the point of never requiring legislators to compromise. For all intents and purposes California and Texas could be on different planets rather than different coasts.
This might work if one political ideology had a significant majority of followers. The vast majority could force the minority to swallow whatever laws it chose to pass. However the US has roughly the same numbers of Conservatives and Liberals distributed in highly polarized regions of the country. This became immediately apparent when 27 states sued to overturn the Health Care Act.
Any "revolution" will be between a highly politically divided middle class not the middle class and everyone else.
Weinreich, P., Bacova, V. & Rougier, N. (2003) Basic primordialism in ethnic and national identity. In P. Weinreich & W. Saunderson (Eds.) Analysing Identity: Clinical, Societal and Cross-Cultural Applications. London & New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge/Psychology Press. (Pp 115-169)
Weinreich, P. (2009). ‘Enculturation’, not ‘acculturation’: Conceptualising and assessing identity processes in migrant communities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 33, 124–139
In the places where the far right is succeeding, it is rooted in the lower, poorer-educated classes responding to anti-immigrant table thumping, not in the middle classes responding to any sensible policies.
90% of the worlds people simply want security and economic stability,a safe environment to raise their families,the freedom to pursue their goals....but the 10% has another agenda..like building more casinos for the "citizens" to lose their hard earned money within an "illusion" of enjoyment..
The sound moral and economic underpinnings of a once great country are becoming increasingly subordinated to corporate balance sheets.
Voters minds are bombarded with so much well spun rhetoric that everyday reality is a distorted illusion of the latest flavor.,.........while the people starve for substance in leadership.
Proof of jealousy perhaps, but certainly not proof of a poor standard of living.
The current middle class standard of living in the US is higher than mankind has experienced... ever. Ever! Obesity is a huge problem. Obesity! Most have more entertainment options than other generations could even imagine. Education is free. In many places transportation is either free or a nominal cost. Peace reigns, security is high, a social safety net exists for all.
And the only thing folks can talk about is that others got more stuff. And that the situation is so terrible revolt is necessary.
It is really something to behold.
Yours is a position spoken from relative comfort and a complete lack of empathy or awareness of just how bad some people in this country actually have it.
Regarding Bernanke's attempts to prop up the stock market with quantitative easing, the expression I read on HuffPo that best describes that is: "If your relatives are giving you candy and cake on a daily basis... you're dying." That describes to me our economy, and the disease is systemic and global.
In all of this the super rich have been getting richer by taking more of the pie not by making the pie any bigger.
We should also remember terrible world economic conditions in part led to WWII. Desperate people are easy to fool as was the case with Germany and Japan. A global conflict could happen again.
Case in point: Obama's "Hope and Change" rhetoric. While it played well to the more left-wing sentiments of the day, it also created moral outrages on the right which spurred rampant partisanship, and virtually no political action. In turn, Obama is now "not progressive enough" and the right wing leadership in Congress is ineffective.
Until electorates in their respective countries wake up and realize endless empotional reactions don't make for good political reform, the world will be stuck in a cycle of political inaction that leaves the field wide open to opportunism and corruption.
So our current crop of billionairs is not only more greedy than 20's robber barons, they are more successful in their greed.
How our TeaParty rubes find themselves lining-up to listen to the GOP's snake oil carnival barkers is beyond my comprehension. What fools. It's some sort of political Stockholm Syndrome I suppose.
He doesn't because he is the wealthy's handmaiden just like all of the Repubs.
============
Maybe there is a transcendent moral crisis in America, but I doubt it.
The freedom to hope and dream consistently resolves to the age old fight between those who believe that government should provide equality of opportunity and those who believe that government should provide more equality of result, regardless of effort and ability.
I suspect that Mr. Atran believes that confiscating more earned wealth, rather than encouraging the creation of more wealth, is a large element in the freedom to hope and dream.
Of course the wealthiest 1% should pay a greater share--more like 50+ than 35--and certainly more than the 14% that Romney paid.
=========
I take this as an open invitation to take from the .001 and give to the 90.
Is there some other interpretation?
Quantify your argument.
=====
No, thanks.
I'm arguing about political principle, and intend to continue.
This is pure envy, hate and jealousy.
If someone wants something, work for it; do not take it from others against their will, that is evil.
Change with the times. People are not evolving as the economic and social structure of the world are changing.
Bottom: People are getting what they deserve.
Censorship is evil.