A seismic political shift may be underway

With the 2016 election cycle, we may be seeing a seismic change in American politics as we know it.  America saw it happen on the brink of the Civil War, when the Whig party collapsed, and the Republicans took their place.  In 1912, something similar almost happened, where the Reform (better known as "Bull Moose" party) under Teddy Roosevelt had a shot at disrupting the two party system.  And now, we had two major disruptors in the name of Trump and Sanders who almost emasculated the power of the political elites to control elections.

- - - - - -

Over the past 50 years or so, we've seen great cultural change.  Bill Maher commented "If you liked the 50's, you're a Republican. If you liked the 60's, you're a Democrat." In so many ways it is true - the cultural divide we have now comes from the conflict from that era. If you were a white male, the 1950's were the apex of White privilege in America. If you were a white male, you had virtually everything handed to you - as there were no challengers from other backgrounds, nor did any females pose a threat.  People of color (Blacks, Latinos, Asians) had yet to demand political inclusion, and women were expected to be at home. This started to change with the protest movements of the 1960's, and the extension of civil rights to most people upset those who formerly held all the power in our society.

During LBJ's presidency (1963-1969), the Democratic party sowed the seeds that would cause it to lose the American South as a voting bloc.  LBJ was forced to carry out JFK's promises (always meant to be hollow ones) to deliver civil rights to people of color and to women.  This did not go well in the South.  As a result, in the late 1960's / early 1970's, Richard Nixon developed a strategy to wrest the American South from the Democratic party. The "Party of Lincoln" sold its soul to gain these votes by putting every roadblock it could in the way of helping the groups LBJ helped, so urban dwellers who once voted for the GOP started to vote Democratic for the first time.  This tendency continued through the presidency of Ronald Reagan, where the South and rural areas of the country became solidly Republican, while the North and urban areas of the country became solidly Democrat.

- - - - - -

America became a culturally divided country from its beginning.  Rural areas of any country tend to be the most conservative in nature. In the United States, this meant that few people took chances to unionize their work forces in these areas, unless the work had become extremely dangerous (such as mine work).  For the most part, jobs were few, and people took work at whatever terms were offered by their employers.  It was only one step above slavery, save that the mill owner did not have to care for his employees once fired.  Contrast this with what happened in urban areas.  Jobs were plenty, and employees had greater bargaining power.  Unions formed both to provide better working conditions and to provide better pay. Corporate socialism evolved here, and prospered when America was the unchallenged economic power in the world.

With technological change, the globalization of world markets, and a greater concern for the environment, the old orders became threatened by pressures they could not control.  As technology eliminated many jobs, nothing was done for the displaced workers. As competitors from abroad forced American manufacturing to cut costs, many American workers lost good jobs and had nothing to fall back on. And as we slowly learned to stop polluting our local environment, we put local workers out of work as we shipped dirty businesses to places where they didn't care about their people and their land.  In short, the promises made by both business and government to the public at large were broken.  The elites didn't care what happened to the common person, as long as they stayed in power.

- - - - - -

The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is an indication that the public is tired of an elite that makes promises every election cycle, and that never delivers on its promises. Trump lies in every speech that he is making, and his supporters don't give a damn.  He appeals to these voters on a more primitive level of thought.  The same might be said about Bernie Sanders, except that he is not peppering his speeches with falsehoods.  Instead, Bernie told the truth as he saw it - America hasn't been run for the benefit of "the people" for years, and made both an intellectual and emotional appeal to his base.  Bernie's supporters are young, and see that there is no way the elites can or will do anything for them.  So they gave the system a vote of no confidence by supporting Bernie.  In short, the insurgents from both extremes realized the same truth - it's time to replace the ruling elites.

Trump's nomination and Bernie's failure to be nominated pose a question that America has to answer.  Do we want to overthrow the elites and deal with the risks of the amateurs being in charge?  Or, do we want to allow them to stay in power (with a big warning) as long as they change their tune and start looking out for the people as a whole? This question gets complicated when rumors fly about Jeb Bush looking to support the Libertarian Party's candidate for the presidency.  Could the GOP establishment be looking to flee their old party, clean up its mess, and find a path to becoming a center-right party again?  If so, I see the old GOP becoming a populist party for a generation or two.  And I would also see the Libertarians becoming like the GOP of the 1950's. Could this be a harbinger of a potential three-party system?  Who knows?  But I'm looking forward to the ascendancy of the Libertarians the the collapse of the GOP.

- - - - - -

If the Libertarians become a political force to be reckoned with, the democrats will face attacks on two fronts - one social, and the other, economic.  In a way, this will be good for the Democratic party.  It has been around almost since the founding of the republic, and it has been good at adapting to change.  Will it adapt again?  Who knows? But all I can say is that I think we're seeing a political shift like we haven't seen in 150 years....

Thoughts on the Clown and Kiddy Clown debates

I don't think that most people realized what happened when Fox limited the "adult clown debate" to the top 10 contenders for the GOP nomination. By creating two levels of debates, they marked several serious contenders for the nomination as irrelevant before the bulk of campaigning had even started.  Worse yet, the GOP delegated the task of culling out weak candidates to an interested, non neutral organization whose business should be reporting the news (with appropriate spin) and not being involved in the process of making the news itself.

- - - - - -

Currently, the joker in the deck is Donald Trump.  He has the ability to foul up the GOP's chances for victory, as he can set the tone for the party well after the campaigns would normally be tacking back to middle ground to attract the interest of independent voters. Trump's success is easy to explain - he has gathered the interest of voters who believe that the 2 mainstream political parties no longer listen to the true wishes of the people. And in many ways he is right.

The way I view Trump's election bid is simple - it started out as a great publicity gimmick to promote Trump's other ventures.  One problem - he didn't expect to succeed as well as he has done so far, and he's now caught in his own trap - he must make a serious run for an office that I don't think he wants to hold. He is now caught by his own words - he has to break the logjam that the two party system has made in Washington for his reputation to be preserved. So he has to learn how to tone down the BS and Bluster, and start saying things with real meaning.  This is going to be hard for the greatest snake oil salesman alive in this country today.

- - - - - -

If Trump ends up making a 3rd party run for the presidency, I expect that he will not get on the ballot in all 50 states.  This might not be as big a problem as it sounds.  As long as we use the electoral college to perform the real election of the president, it is possible for a person to win the office of POTUS with the votes from a handful of states.

This brings us to examining previous 3rd party runs for POTUS.  The most recent run that had any chance of success was H. Ross Perot's run - and he failed miserably.  However, is we look back to the election of 1912, all hell broke loose when Teddy Roosevelt ran against Taft and Wilson.  (And there were 2 other viable candidates, one of them being the Socialist, Eugene V. Debs.)  Although Taft and Roosevelt had more votes than Wilson, the disunity in the "Republican Tribe" gave the election to the Democrats.  And this is what the kingmakers in the GOP fear most.

- - - - - -

As for me, I like what I've seen so far.  Trump is exposing the hatreds at the core of the GOP base, and the elders running the party machine don't like it.  Trump's candidacy is going to bring a breath of needed fresh air to the GOP - and may finally force its leaders to rectify the mistake made when it chose the "Southern Strategy" of appealing to religious fundamentalists and racists during Nixon's reign.  

I hope this happens.  It would be nice to see a conservative party that only focuses on economic conservatism for a change....

It starts and ends with a Pariah

About a year ago, I was talking with one of my friends, and she told me of an experience her sister had with a famous TV personality. At that time, I said that I would be waiting for more evidence to come out - and it did.

- - - - - -

This week, if Bill Cosby's reputation isn't shot, it soon will be, given everything being published in the media.  Oh, how the mighty hath fallen!  When the talk about Cosby mentions him giving pills to women, and the President (in no uncertain terms) defines what rape is, I do not expect that this man will be able to rescue his reputation.  But stranger things have happened before.

Years ago, 3 term Mayor Marion Barry of Washington, DC was convicted on drug charges, and after serving his time, was elected to a 4th term as mayor. It is amazing how many people with criminal records have been elected to public office - in the United States, and elsewhere. It's as if we expect our politicians to be criminals, and don't demand much more from them.

In many ways, we get what we deserve - we often vote out of tribal loyalty, and then complain when things don't change.  I will never vote a straight party line ticket. But I will vote against a party line.  Let's say that I am pro choice.  In this case, I would not automatically rule out a GOP candidate who has shown himself to be pro-choice.  And if I were pro-life, I'd consider a Democrat who is pro-life.  In short, I don't let the two-party system define me, and I hope that it defines the choices of fewer people in the long run.

- - - - - -

Why is it that the two party has worked so well for so long, and then failed so miserably in recent times?  In the past, both major parties had an equal balance between conservatives and liberals - in regard to social agenda.  There was only a mild bias towards or against business in each party, and one that wouldn't stop people like Theodore Roosevelt from acting against the worst of business excesses.   Today, as a result of Nixon's GOP "Southern Strategy", there are fewer social liberals in the GOP , as well as fewer social conservatives in the Democratic party. This has forced the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of major social decisions - much more so today, than in the past.

In a way, the Supreme Court's role as an arbiter is a good thing.  The two political parties reflect two extremes in our society which can never be reconciled. One side believes that the social order must be maintained, no matter how unjust it is to any one individual or group.  And the other side believes that the rights of the individual (when in doubt) trumps that of the larger community.  This divide can be defined in other ways, such a slow/fast lever defining the rate of societal change. And it has been defined as a rural vs. urban divide. But with each of these definitions, very few things bind the two sides of society together.

- - - - - -

If we look at the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations, a casual observer can see the hypocrisy in both tribes.   And it's hard to get anything useful done when the leadership of the country is delegitimized by calling the person a criminal (as int he case of Bush) or an illegal alien (as in the case of Obama). Both tribes are equally responsible for this problem, as they have made anyone who makes an overture to people in the opposing party into pariahs. 

Yet, when we look back at Bush's presidency (I think he was a poor president), one finds someone more than willing to appease his party's base. Did he get much done?  Not as much as it may seem, as we (luckily) had a Democratic congress to check and balance his political instincts. (And now, the GOP can check and balance Obama's excesses.) His legacy, as I see it, will be the unrestrained and unnuanced response to terrorism, and not bothering to finance his wars properly - as we did in all of our country's other wars. (Does anyone remember WW2 war bonds?) To me, it was the Bush administration who was responsible for the unchecked loss of domestic privacy (with unwarranted searches and seizures), the unchecked use of torture (waterboarding, etc.), and the 2008 financial system "almost" collapse.  The public (and much of the GOP) is right to consider him a pariah....

- - - - - -

My question is: Who should be a pariah?  Is it just any person who commits a heinous act for which he/she should be ostracized from polite society?  Or, does tribal loyalty have a part in answering that question.  I feel that Bush was a decent man who was playing in the wrong league - and allowed a lot of bad things to happen.  Should he be a pariah?  One thing I know, I will not be watching any reruns of Bill Cosby's shows anytime soon....

And the race is on....

Recently, "The New Yorker" published this little satire about Ted Cruz:

A disturbed Canadian man wants to try to get into the White House, according to reports.

The man, who was born in Calgary before drifting to Texas, has been spotted in Washington, D.C. in recent years exhibiting erratic behavior, sources said.

In 2013, he gained entry to the United States Senate and was heard quoting incoherently from a children’s book before he was finally subdued.

More recently, he was heard ranting about a plan to dismantle large components of the federal government, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the nation’s health-care program.

Despite a record of such bizarre episodes and unhinged utterances, observers expressed little concern about his plans to get into the White House, calling them “delusional.”

Although I find this article amusing, it says one important thing - the race to the White House is now on.

Lately, I find myself politically leaning towards the left, only because the right has gone off the rails. In the past, being conservative only meant that one prefers a slower rate of social change, where being liberal meant that one prefers a faster rate of social change. Now, conservatives want to roll back change - in part because many people who label themselves as conservative have been sold on the idea that if we restore the values of the 1950's, everything else will fall into place, and a prosperous America will be restored.

In the case of Ted Cruz, he denies reality to stir up his base. How many of us really think it possible to dismantle the IRS? And if we did so (with the dismantling of the government that would ensue), we'd be left with a government in worse shape than the United States was under the Articles of Confederation.  Yet, the base cheers him on. But I wonder - Can any sane person take this person seriously? He is a serious risk to this country, but he's more of a bad joke being played at the expense of his base.

- - - - - -

Cruz is only one of a large field of GOP contenders for the office of POTUS. And each one of them is singing the song so popular among the GOP's base: "Repeal Obamacare." But what do any of them have to replace Obamacare? 

Obamacare is not the only issue. We also have "Pro-Choice" vs. "Pro-Life". It's hard to believe that at one time, Abortion was not an issue in our society. When "Roe vs. Wade" was being decided, it was the pro-choice side that offered a compromise that the pro-life side didn't accept. And SCOTUS gave the Pro-Choice side more than it ever dreamed of. And now, "Choice" is under siege in many states. Terrorism has been used to intimidate anyone connected with or doing business with an abortion clinic. The authors of Freakonomics have shown with statistics that there is a correlation that links legal abortion to a reduction in teenager crime in urban settings. Are we ready for the potential increase in the crime rate if abortion again is illegal?

Regardless of where one stands on these issues (and I can make good arguments against the positions I support), one should be looking at the degree of honesty between a politician's words and actions, as well as that politician's position before supporting him/her.

- - - - - -

You'll note that I painted the Abortion issue from a mildly leftist viewpoint. In order to understand the Right Wing of American politics, one has to come to it from the Left. And we're seeing a GOP (largely old and white) out of sync with America's long term demographics (largely young and people of color).

The GOP's base has some legitimate complaints. We did not bother enforcing our laws regarding illegal immigration. There are over 12 million (estimated) illegal aliens resident in the USA, almost 30 years after the blanket amnesty given during the Reagan administration. And the base is rightfully upset about successive GOP and Democratic administrations not doing anything these immigrants who (wrongfully) are seen as taking the jobs once held by white males. The reality is different and more damning - neither political party has a F'ing clue about what to do about structural unemployment. 

Fear motivates much of the base. There is a very high correlation between being religious and being an active member of the GOP - this being a result of Nixon's successful "Southern Strategy" which flipped the South from Democratic Blue to GOP Red. Many Christian fundamentalists are very fearful of the wrath of God - and internalize that fear. Tradition is extremely important to the base - breaking tradition is as much a cultural crime as it can be a legal crime, when it comes to maintaining  the social order. This is why the battle for civil rights is triggering religious lunatics to commit terrorist acts. 

When the base chooses news sources, it chooses sources that speak in the words of fear - whether or not this fear is valid. And the base is manipulated by fear. One does not have to go far to see (what should be) a small issue blown way out of proportion by lies that triggers fear in people without cause. For example, take the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM). There is no proof that stable marriages between people of the same sex harms any traditional marriage. Yet, traditionalists are being manipulated: "SSM will lead to marriages between men and livestock", "SSM will cause a complete moral breakdown in America", "God will destroy the world, if we allow SSM."  The conservative media chosen by the base repeats the same messages, reinforcing fears, and stirs up hatred. And in fear and the hatred of social dysfunction, the base finds false comfort.

- - - - - -

So, what happens if we elect someone to the office of POTUS who panders to this kind of fearful person?  In the past, the political machine would listen to this person (and others like him) and give him lip service. But this person (and others like him) will not be satisfied with the usual broken promises. And here is the point where the left should be concerned. 

In the past, there was a ruling clique from both parties which knew how to get things done. People like Goldwater and Kennedy knew how to reach across the aisle and find votes to achieve things that benefited people on both left and right. When Johnson (a former US Senator from Texas) fought "the war on poverty", he changed the focus of bills meant to help poor black people, to laws which helped poor people regardless of color. Johnson knew that the South would never help black people, even though the whites there were directly responsible for the poverty of Blacks. But by refocusing the Southern electorate on poverty (instead of its hatred of Blacks), Johnson was able to make the electorate see that these laws benefited them as well. 

Today, things are very different. It is virtually a crime for someone to work across the aisle. The GOP's base will not broach compromise with the left - it is tired of compromises they see as not benefiting them. They want ideological purity at all costs. Only through purity can the results they want be achieved. Sadly, reality differs from that faith....

We are now seeing a lot of "potential" candidates looking to establish funding for the race to the White House. The lunatics are out, because they are stirring up the party base for funds and early primary votes. Thankfully, most are unelectable. But what would happen if one of these candidates actually wins? I doubt the base will get what it wants. Instead, I see something like the Iranian Revolution of 1979 happening here - the powers that be will enforce laws to maintain (or roll back to) a conservative cultural conformity we haven't seen since the 1930's, and will not show any restraint in harming Gays, Transgenders, Political Apostates, and People of Color. "Ozzie and Harriet" would be considered leftist by the new standards of the day.

- - - - - -

I am afraid that the Democrats have (mostly) selected Hillary Clinton as their nominee designate. She will not have to fight for her nomination, and as such, she will not be at the top of her game if an energized GOP candidate opposes her. Like many centrists, I will hold my nose if I have to vote for her, as she is someone I can't trust. There is too much history behind this person for me to feel comfortable with her (or anyone named Clinton). A Machiavel like her would make a good president - but only if the people who "own" her have a desire to benefit this country at their own expense. Otherwise, a person like Hillary will use the office of POTUS for her own gain at our expense.

Let's say that something happens to Hillary. Election day 2016 is still a long time away, and anything (such as a health issue) can take her out of the running. Who do the Democrats have on their back bench that can replace her and win the votes needed to keep 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Blue? I do not have a clue. Jerry Brown of California? Possibly - but he isn't running. But who can speak the "fearful" language of the South and gain its trust? Bill Clinton is no longer available, save as someone who can help Hillary. And Obama deserves the much needed rest that he will be required to have....

- - - - - -

It is a good thing that the office of POTUS has term limits. But I wish we had a better filter to prevent unqualified people from holding the office in the first place....

State of the Disunion

Has anyone noticed that the cultural divide in America in the 21st century isn't that much different from a map of the United States drawn at the time of the Civil War?  Most of the states drawn in blue are "liberal" states, while most of the states drawn in gray and territories drawn in brown are "conservative" states. In a previous entry, I noted that the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum. What I didn't note was how geography plays a big part in a region's cultural values.

Areas of high population density are often hotbeds of cultural diversity. One can not but have his or her values tested by being in contact with people who think differently. A typical New Yorker will have coffee at a pushcart staffed by an Iranian, eat lunch at a Kosher deli staffed with Mexican labor, and have dinner at an Italian restaurant staffed by Albanians. On another day, that same person may eat breakfast at a Greek diner staffed by Columbians, have lunch in a cafeteria staffed by native born Americans, then have dinner at a Soul Food joint before rushing off to an Irish bar....

Contrast the above to life in smaller towns in the old Confederacy. In many of these small hamlets, one might not even find one decent restaurant - and have to grab a burger at the local pub. (Charlie Daniels' "Uneasy Rider" comes to mind here.) Due to the remoteness of many of these places (think of small towns in the Rockies and in Appalachia), many people socialize with people who often are related to each other by inter-generational intermarriage. Their views often aren't challenged, as they only meet people like themselves on a regular basis. When one lives in these smaller communities, the locus of social activity is often the local church. This doesn't sound like much, but think of it as the one institution in the South that wasn't crushed after the civil war, and you'll see how dysfunctional values of 150 years ago could be preserved to the present day.

Religion, as an institution, changes much slower than society in general. This is good, when people need a connection to the eternal. It is bad when dysfunctional values are passed on from one generation to another.  Years ago, my mother made a big deal about our church changing the hymnal being used every Sunday. Imagine what it was like dealing with the issue of slavery - something which the bible permits and has rules for. If a person comes from a society that accepted slavery, and was forced to end it - it is likely that the religious institutions would be slow to follow the political mandate. It is also likely that these same institutions would help people find ways around the  political mandates (legal and illegal) - which we saw in the era from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights battles of the mid 1900's.

People in conservative areas are slow to change with the times, and there are still traces of institutional racism found across the USA - including the "Northern" states. In Nixon's "Southern Strategy", he knew what language the GOP could use to flip it from Democratic Blue to Republican Blue. And he was successful. Unfortunately, he also eliminated the mixing of conservative and liberal values in BOTH parties which helped stabilize American government. Now, we have a very conservative GOP which uses both a religious and plutocratic litmus test for its candidates - and its influence is growing in the short term, while demographics condemn it to likely failure in the long term. 

Would we have been better off if the South had left the Union? I'm not sure - it'd have been one hell of a hard border for both sides to police. Socially, I think the North would have been better off, and would have looked more like today's Canada with its higher priority on social welfare and fairness. The South, however, would have had a history similar to today's South Africa - with a period of Apartheid and ostracism from world politics, followed by a more democratic, but polarized country.  

Instead of what could have been, we have what we have now - a country fragmented along a rural/urban divide, where the more conservative elements are holding off on the needed investments in our common future. Sadly, I don't see anything changing soon....

The failures of American Society

The American Empire is in decline, and the elite does not see this for what it is - a breakdown of the ties that bind us together as Americans.

America, like much of the Western world is suffering from structural unemployment. In short, we have too many people and too few jobs to go around. Neither political party has a clue about what has to be done, and even if one did, its actions would be negated by the other party. Winning the game of politics has become much more important than serving the people.

If the problem were structural unemployment alone, we might look back to the Great Depression and develop "make work" programs such as the WPA, using the labor to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Sadly, this is not the case. Many of America's social problems go back to the post WW2 era, and the slow desegregation of American society. Whites did not want to have their children educated in the same schools as "colored" children, and busing began to be used to desegregate the schools. The Southern churches became a hot bed of activity on both sides of the battle.

Richard Nixon sensed that the South could be flipped from Blue to Red, and implemented the GOP's "Southern Strategy" - opposing busing at all turns, and aligning the party with fundamentalist ministries who, in the past, had no political allegiance. Within a generation, the South had flipped from Blue to Red, and the traditional mix of power in both political parties had changed for the worse. The Democrats became a party of urban liberals, while the GOP became a party of rural conservatives. No longer was there a tie in either party that held rural and urban states together.

Culturally, we have become very divided.  Jonathan Haidt identified 5 basic moral triggers that people use to judge right from wrong, and they include:

• Harm/care: People are sensitive to suffering and have negative feelings toward those who are harmful and cruel. They value kindness and compassion.
• Fairness/reciprocity: A history of cooperation means humans have evolved a sense of fairness and reciprocity, leading to altruistic actions.  
• Ingroup/loyalty: People place moral value on those who do what's good for the group; are loyal to the group; and dislike disloyal members. 
  
• Authority/respect: Humans tend to respect authority and tradition.
• Purity/sanctity: The idea that we view our bodies as sacred. This idea ties into religious views about the body and human actions.

Liberals tend to care only about harm and fairness when considering whether something is moral or not, while conservatives have a more traditional moral structure, and tend to care about all five morality factors. Couple the conservative viewpoint with a belief that economic failure is a result of moral failure, and one will have problems when addressing major economic issues such as structural unemployment.

In the past, we once had common broadcast news outlets, where reporting bias had to be skewed toward the middle in order to keep a nationwide audience. Was there really much difference between CBS, NBC and ABC, save for their anchors (Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, and Smith)? I don't think so. Without the ability to choose narrowcasted news, the American public got a balanced idea of what was happening in the world. This is not the case today. Cable allows us to select the narrowcasted news outlets of our choice, and we are fed the pablum that our biases want to hear - be it Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN. It's much harder to see things clearly when our news outlets have been chosen because they reinforce our political biases.

Why is narrowcasted news a problem? In the past, objective news coverage from Vietnam helped cause the removal of American troops from that country and end an unneeded war. Today, with narrowcasted news, there is little pressure to check and balance what the politicians are doing - and this has allowed the Military/Business elite (that Eisenhower warned us about) to put us in a position of fighting a "forever war".

"Forever Wars" take resources away from the needed rebuilding of our country's physical infrastructure. As a result, we've seen bridges fail, water mains fail, the electric supply grid fail, among other infrastructure problems. And little is done. When Hurricane Sandy hit New York a while back, we were woefully unprepared. The rebuilding of infrastructure is costing much more than it should, as we no longer know how to build and/or repair things at a reasonable cost. 

We've evolved to having an "us/them" society. If I talk about poverty, the first thought that comes to many minds is of a poor black "welfare mother" who leeches off our system. What most people don't see is that there is just as much rural poverty as there is urban poverty. Do those poor white mothers leech any less off our system?  I doubt it.  Both urban and rural poor are doing all they can do to get by on a daily basis - but the system is stacked against them.  Strangely enough two of the best posts I've read about poverty in this country came from cracked.com, the humor site....

• 5 Things That Nobody Tells You About Being Poor
• 5 Stupidest Habits One Learns Growing up Poor

And the sentiment is now being echoed in mainstream websites, such as in this article appearing in slate.com.

• Why Poor People Stay Poor

What people aren't noticing is that poverty has now come to the supposedly "safe" suburbs. Structural unemployment has left many families in need. And now, suburban food pantries are just as busy as urban food pantries.

The business elite no longer feels that it has to be in the same boat as the workers in the firms they manage. In the past, a CEO would rarely earn more than 30x-50x the salary of the firm's average worker. Now, CEO's tend to get 300x-400x the salary of the firm's average worker. Are the CEOs any better than they used to be?  I doubt it. A while back, the firm I worked for decided to merge with one of its competitors in the worst of economies. Cost savings, in part, would be achieved by letting people go - when the odds were very much against these former workers finding work at a livable wage. Who gained? The workers? No. The Stockholders? Not in a reasonable time frame. Upper Management? Of Course! But my old firm is only one of many. A major technical firm has outsourced many of its employees, so that it achieves the flexibility of having a labor force without rights. Who gains?  Certainly not labor.  Nor do the states where this firm has located its business units.

So, is there any hope? If we go back to Jonathan Haidt's moral value structures, we also find that liberals and conservatives have a lot in common - when they can stop talking past each other. They both want to resolve the problems of society, but they are caught in webs (as I see it) of tribal loyalties. If we can begin to recognize that all the stake holders in our society have legitimate grievances, only then can we start to repair the damage caused by our dysfunctional, disconnected elites....