… The ruling class denies that they really are a self-perpetuating elite that has not only inherited certain advantages but also seeks to pass them on. To mask this fact, they describe themselves as the vanguard of equality, in effect denying the very fact of their elevated status and the deleterious consequences of their perpetuation of a class divide that has left their less fortunate countrymen in a dire and perilous condition. Indeed, one is tempted to conclude that their insistent defense of equality is a way of freeing themselves from any real duties to the lower classes that are increasingly out of geographical sight and mind. Because they repudiate inequality, they need not consciously consider themselves to be a ruling class. Denying that they are deeply self-interested in maintaining their elite position, they easily assume that they believe in common kinship—so long as their position is unthreatened. The part of the “noble lie” that once would have horrified the elites—the claim of common kinship—is irrelevant; instead, they resist the inegalitarian part of the myth that would then, as now, have seemed self-evident to the elites as well as the underclass. Today’s underclass is as likely to recognize its unequal position as Plato’s. It is elites that seem most prone to the condition of “false
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Phonies …
… The Ignoble Lie by Patrick J. Deneen | Articles | First Things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nonsense. When referring to the United States, the phrase “ruling class” is a meaningless ideological construct. Indeed, this country has never had classes in the original sense of the word, referring to the complex networks of formal and informal barriers to social and economic mobility. Americans have always fallen into two broad categories: the ambitious and the complacent. These categories cross all boundaries of income level, educational attainment, and ethnicity.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, the complacent group includes many members of the Ivy elite, but it also includes thousands of whiny factory workers who believe that society owes them a well-paying job in their hometowns. The United States was built on the backs of those willing to move in order to improve their circumstances, but numerous surveys show that willingness is rapidly declining. My uncle worked as a deep-shaft silver miner in the small town of Eureka, Utah until the vein was depleted shortly after WWII. So, he and his family packed up and moved to Southern California where he finished his career working in the aircraft industry. It ain’t that complicated, and it’s the American way.
Note how Deneen excoriates a colleague at UNC for holding people responsible for their own failures. Deneen would prefer to blame a mythical elite “ruling class”. Again, utter nonsense.
There is much in what you say, Jeff. I was raised by factory-workers, but neither my brother not I worked in factories. But surely, what Yeats said in "The Scholars" so many decades ago ("All think what other people think/All know the man the neighbor knows") is true of far wider swath of society now. And the political class does bear a certain responsibility for economic policies that adversely affect constituents. I hardly think that what the UNC professor had to say was the last word on the subject. To me, he sounds like a condescending twit. But then, I still mix with so-called working-class people. Probably he doesn't.
ReplyDeleteWell, Frank, I continue to believe that the wholesale abdication of personal responsibility for one’s circumstances, in all corners of our society, is the biggest crisis facing our country. We seem to have developed a limitless capacity to blame others for our woes — real or imagined. One group (leftist snowflakes) blame the “Patriarchy”, while another (rightist misogynists) blame the “Matriarchy”. Some blame religious zealots, and others the godless. Or maybe it’s the coastal elites, or immigrants, or too much government...or too little government. When was the last time you heard anyone take responsibility for their own circumstances?
ReplyDeletePolitical decisions have little to do with the very real travails facing our blue collar industries, and politicians can and should do very little to address them (aside from having the balls to tell workers that most of those jobs are gone forever). These industries are victims of the normal processes of a healthy, dynamic economy, where some sectors will always be in decline and others ascendant — a process the Austrian free-market economist Joseph Schumpeter called ‘creative destruction’. It’s been the strength of the American economy since the beginning. Think of all the occupations destroyed by the railroads: wagon-making, teamsters, horse and oxen suppliers. And the railroads fell, in their turn, to air transportation. Or consider the following: in 1900, 44% of working Americans were employed in agriculture; by 2000, that number had dropped to 6%, the largest demographic and economic change in this country’s history. Even more remarkably, while millions of workers were leaving agriculture, crop productivity increased exponentially due to mechanization and crop genetics, and the United States became the breadbasket of the world.
Right now, steel seems to be the hot topic, and the president has got everyone believing it’s a trade issue. It’s not. The real problem is simply over-capacity: mankind can produce far more steel than can be used. And, because of automation and other productivity improvements, steel can be produced with many fewer workers. This is not news. U.S. steel production peaked in 1973 — 45 years ago! — and has been declining since then. China was not the problem, as its economy was in the Stone Age in 1973 and didn’t export anything for the next 20 years. The problem was, and is, slackening demand: the end of the post-war building boom, the decline of railroads and shipbuilding in the U.S. (other countries build ships far more cheaply), and the tendency of American drivers to keep automobiles longer than they did in the 50’s and 60’s. You can add to that the technology of steel re-cycling, which is much cheaper than production from iron ore. So, it’s got nothing to do with trade or other political issues. We still produce 67% of the steel we use, and Canada (exempt from Trump’s tariffs) provides another 17%. China accounts for only 3% of the steel used here, hardly enough to account for the decline in our steel industry. These are the facts, and people have simply got to come to grips with them and move on.
I totally agree, Jeff, with what you say in your first paragraph. But why, if there is a need for steel, must we abandon making it ourselves. Many years ago, I applied for a job at Lukens Steel in Coatesville, Pa. The job had to do with writing, and I didn’t get it. But I have very interesting conversation with thegentleman who interviewed me. He probably would not support the imposition of tariffs on foreign steel. What he woukd favor is making sure that imported steel had to meet the same specifications as domestic steel. It didn’t at the time — which is really why it cost less — and probably stil doesn’t. One of my nephews works for a company that makes electrical wire. They”re doing OK these days, I gather, because customershave discovered that the cheaper wire made in China doesn’t work as well or last as long. I am all in favor of free trade. But I also favor fair trade. And I trust the people who actually do the manufacturing more than I do academic economists. And I do not look down on factory workers.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned, China only supplies 3% of our steel, so should not even be an issue in any discussion of our steel industry. Another 30% comes from countries that can produce high quality steel at a lower price than the U.S. Our labor costs are just too high.
ReplyDeleteI hope that you didn’t get the impression that I look down on factory workers, because I don’t. Several of my friends lost factory jobs when the Chrysler and GM plants in Wilmington, DE closed permanently during the last recession. They’ve all landed on their feet and are doing fine because they were willing to adjust to economic realities, and because none of them were straightjacketed by some romantic notion of the noble factory worker. A job’s a job.
More broadly, I don’t know anyone who hasn’t been affected by layoffs. My wife lost two jobs in five years during the wave of consolidation that hit the pharmaceutical industry during the 90’s — R&D is always the target of job cuts after a merger. But she moved on and now is happily doing biofuel research.
My beef is with those who believe that society owes them a special accommodation because they have a family legacy in an industry, or some other such hogwash.
Also, Frank, you’ve created a false opposition between “academic economists” and “the people who actually do the manufacturing”. The only relevant decision-maker is the customer, who wants high quality steel at the lowest possible price. Tariffs will raise the price of all steel, whether domestic or imported.
ReplyDeleteThe company from which I retired, now DowDuPont, last year completed $7 billion of new plant construction in the U.S. Those plants will create around 2000 factory jobs for American citizens. $1.2 billion of the cost of those plants went to steel. Last week, the company COO stated that, if steel tariffs had been in place when the plants were first planned, they would have been built in Canada or Argentina. Bye-bye 2000 American jobs.
I spent my entire career working in industry in a half dozen different roles, so my knowledge can hardly be called academic. One message that came through, loud and clear, in every role that I occupied: the customer is the decision-maker. And over 30% of steel customers in this country have decided that they won’t buy American-made steel because it’s too expensive.
Well, Jeff, I think we are in agreement regarding those who think society owes them some special accomodation. And I would add that it is precisely the experience you have had that makes your economic judgment more sound than that of most academic economists.
ReplyDelete