The idea that the country is made up of "makers" and "takers" stems (from what I know) from Ayn Rand's wonderful (sarcasm) treatise on the virtues of capitalism Atlas Shrugged. I don't love Rand. I think her ideas are horrible in the extreme, which may be the point - she's sensationalist, and her ideas were outlandish and unreasonable. She gets a lot of people's heads nodding, though, because people want to blame something.
What's interesting to me, though, is that the proponents of such a binary system of "makers" and "takers" fail to understand (or express) the complexity of reality.
This morning I saw this article:
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/03/23/470908502/on-who-gets-to-be-a-real-american-and-who-deserves-a-helping-hand
wherein the concept of "makers" vs. "takers" is put into the context of the current political cycle. Mr. Trump appeals to people who feel like they are the "makers", pitting them against those perceived as "takers". This article, which is cited in the NPR article referenced above:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/paul-ryan-60-percent-of-a_n_1943073.html
points out this phenomenon. It dates to 2012 and is thus a little dated, but the philosophy of "us" vs. "them" continues to be pervasive and significant. Because on one hand, everyone wants to feel like a "maker". No one wants to feel like they're a burden on anyone else, that they can and do contribute to the world.
Except, what's interesting is that if these very people who are supporting Mr. Trump were to gain their desires and be wildly economically successful, they wouldn't be "makers" any more. In the grandest, most extreme sense of the word, they would be the ultimate "takers". Let me explain.
In ancient Asian cultures, the most revered occupation was farmer. These folks are the ones who produce the most basic and essential stuff of live, without which the entire society would collapse. Next are the artisans, the builders, and the craftspeople whose talents and abilities make life livable, enjoyable, and provide delight and convenience. Then you have soldiers, then bureaucrats, and finally the aristocracy. Last of all, and viewed as an only barely necessary evil - viewed largely as a parasite on the economy - are the traders or merchants, those who do not produce anything or even invest anything, but only skim the cream off the top of other people's investments or labor.
These were the least desirable elements. But they're the very elements that these folks would like to become. They're the leaders of the Republican Party, and they're the ones saying things like:
[It is a lie] that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn't. The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral, they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about "globalists" and — odious, stupid term — "the Establishment," but nobody did this to them. They failed themselves. ...If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy—which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. ... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. (Kevin Williamson, The National Review, from the NPR article cited above)
and this gem, which will hopefully never die:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Romney said at a fundraiser in May [2012]. “All right — there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.” (from the Huffington Post article above)
The reason why this is so interesting is because it illustrates the growing schism between the Republican "establishment" and the "base," the "makers" and the "takers" within the Party itself. But I'm suggesting that each side views itself as the "makers" and the others as the "takers"... And you know what, they're both right.
Because we are each of us beneficiaries of living in a society that does things collaboratively and collectively. This was Elizabeth Warren's point when she said that factory owners are beneficiaries of roads they did not build and workers they did not educate. Of course businesses pay their share, but the collective effort of these projects is greater than the sum of its various and multiple parts. We are all better because we work together. And as I've said before, our economy is based not on the accumulation of capital (the ultimate "take") but on the flow of capital - having as broad an economic base as possible, with a robust and well-paid middle class, ensures that the economy will continue to be healthy and viable. The growing economic disparity is the harbinger of potential collapse. And in the meantime, it's the cause of why Mr. Trump is so popular.
The end result of this kind of disparity has historically always been some kind of political and economic revolution. The history of the world is replete with examples of regimes and peoples who have reached a certain level of wealth disparity, and then the system shifts as it seeks a more equitable solution.
I'm not a proponent of bloody revolt. I wish there were a more peaceful solution. In fact, I believe there is - that instead of viewing the world as a binary system of "makers" and "takers", we view everyone as a sister or brother, a fellow traveler on this mortal coil, and treat them accordingly. Rather than a system of haves or have-nots, we share what we have, so that others can be wealthy and prosperous, too.
I also don't love the idea of taxing the rich to subsidize the poor, or whatever, at Rand's proverbial and threatened literal point of a gun. I believe that the government which governs best also governs least, and that (as Joseph Smith is said to have said) we should teach/learn correct principles and govern ourselves. But I also believe in a government that oversees projects that benefit society, and I believe in the collective benefits of such projects. It's not income redistribution by the government - I wish we could handle that on our own, although history shows that to be a rather naive desire - rather the collective will being brought to bear in areas that would otherwise be neglected.
In the meantime, it makes for interesting thought and observation... How will the Republican Party adjust itself to the new reality that is becoming more and more apparent? How will they reconcile their differences with "these dysfunctional, downscale communities" of Mr. Trump, and the "Establishment" (an apt term, even if odious and stupid as a moniker). And will the Republican Party survive this schism? If so, what will that say about the Party? If not, what does that say about the Party in general?
Very interesting...
What's interesting to me, though, is that the proponents of such a binary system of "makers" and "takers" fail to understand (or express) the complexity of reality.
This morning I saw this article:
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/03/23/470908502/on-who-gets-to-be-a-real-american-and-who-deserves-a-helping-hand
wherein the concept of "makers" vs. "takers" is put into the context of the current political cycle. Mr. Trump appeals to people who feel like they are the "makers", pitting them against those perceived as "takers". This article, which is cited in the NPR article referenced above:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/paul-ryan-60-percent-of-a_n_1943073.html
points out this phenomenon. It dates to 2012 and is thus a little dated, but the philosophy of "us" vs. "them" continues to be pervasive and significant. Because on one hand, everyone wants to feel like a "maker". No one wants to feel like they're a burden on anyone else, that they can and do contribute to the world.
Except, what's interesting is that if these very people who are supporting Mr. Trump were to gain their desires and be wildly economically successful, they wouldn't be "makers" any more. In the grandest, most extreme sense of the word, they would be the ultimate "takers". Let me explain.
In ancient Asian cultures, the most revered occupation was farmer. These folks are the ones who produce the most basic and essential stuff of live, without which the entire society would collapse. Next are the artisans, the builders, and the craftspeople whose talents and abilities make life livable, enjoyable, and provide delight and convenience. Then you have soldiers, then bureaucrats, and finally the aristocracy. Last of all, and viewed as an only barely necessary evil - viewed largely as a parasite on the economy - are the traders or merchants, those who do not produce anything or even invest anything, but only skim the cream off the top of other people's investments or labor.
These were the least desirable elements. But they're the very elements that these folks would like to become. They're the leaders of the Republican Party, and they're the ones saying things like:
[It is a lie] that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn't. The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral, they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about "globalists" and — odious, stupid term — "the Establishment," but nobody did this to them. They failed themselves. ...If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy—which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. ... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. (Kevin Williamson, The National Review, from the NPR article cited above)
and this gem, which will hopefully never die:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Romney said at a fundraiser in May [2012]. “All right — there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.” (from the Huffington Post article above)
The reason why this is so interesting is because it illustrates the growing schism between the Republican "establishment" and the "base," the "makers" and the "takers" within the Party itself. But I'm suggesting that each side views itself as the "makers" and the others as the "takers"... And you know what, they're both right.
Because we are each of us beneficiaries of living in a society that does things collaboratively and collectively. This was Elizabeth Warren's point when she said that factory owners are beneficiaries of roads they did not build and workers they did not educate. Of course businesses pay their share, but the collective effort of these projects is greater than the sum of its various and multiple parts. We are all better because we work together. And as I've said before, our economy is based not on the accumulation of capital (the ultimate "take") but on the flow of capital - having as broad an economic base as possible, with a robust and well-paid middle class, ensures that the economy will continue to be healthy and viable. The growing economic disparity is the harbinger of potential collapse. And in the meantime, it's the cause of why Mr. Trump is so popular.
The end result of this kind of disparity has historically always been some kind of political and economic revolution. The history of the world is replete with examples of regimes and peoples who have reached a certain level of wealth disparity, and then the system shifts as it seeks a more equitable solution.
I'm not a proponent of bloody revolt. I wish there were a more peaceful solution. In fact, I believe there is - that instead of viewing the world as a binary system of "makers" and "takers", we view everyone as a sister or brother, a fellow traveler on this mortal coil, and treat them accordingly. Rather than a system of haves or have-nots, we share what we have, so that others can be wealthy and prosperous, too.
I also don't love the idea of taxing the rich to subsidize the poor, or whatever, at Rand's proverbial and threatened literal point of a gun. I believe that the government which governs best also governs least, and that (as Joseph Smith is said to have said) we should teach/learn correct principles and govern ourselves. But I also believe in a government that oversees projects that benefit society, and I believe in the collective benefits of such projects. It's not income redistribution by the government - I wish we could handle that on our own, although history shows that to be a rather naive desire - rather the collective will being brought to bear in areas that would otherwise be neglected.
In the meantime, it makes for interesting thought and observation... How will the Republican Party adjust itself to the new reality that is becoming more and more apparent? How will they reconcile their differences with "these dysfunctional, downscale communities" of Mr. Trump, and the "Establishment" (an apt term, even if odious and stupid as a moniker). And will the Republican Party survive this schism? If so, what will that say about the Party? If not, what does that say about the Party in general?
Very interesting...
Comments