On average, Americans who work in the private sector are struggling financially. Millions are unemployed and the rest may be looking at an additional decade of toil before they can retire (since their houses and 401ks are worth so much less). Should we feel sorry for these folks in the same way that we might feel sympathy for Zimbabweans or other victims of an incompetent government?
Arguing in favor of sympathy is the basic fact that these folks are suffering, albeit not as badly as a lot of Africans.
Arguing against sympathy is that we Americans voted for politicians who promised to (1) continue fighting two very expensive wars, (2) ladle out fantastic raises and pensions to public employees, and (3) spend most of society’s wealth on the world’s most expensive health care system. The politicians delivered exactly what they promised. If the economy isn’t growing and public employees must be continually enriched, that necessarily means that folks in the private sector must be gradually impoverished. We got what we voted for, so how can any of us aged 30 or older be deserving of sympathy? [younger folks didn’t have a chance to vote for the current batch of politicians so they arguably deserve sympathy for having to share a country with so many shortsighted old folks]
But what about those who voted against those same politicians, but still face hardship? I don’t think it’s fair to generalize in this case.
On a group scale, I think Americans get what they deserve for having created a political system that values sound bites over true intelligence or conviction, that encourages “no mater what, vote!” rather than “become informed!, then vote”, and that places way too little emphasis on personal responsibility. (Of course, I think I’m above average in this regard, as 90% of us think 🙂
If someone works hard and lives within their means, I’ll feel sympathy when misfortune comes their way, even if it’s something that they could have / should have watched out for, but I feel no sympathy for those who forever have their hand out, or for those who live beyond their long-term means when times are good, only to face trouble during a short-term dip. (Those defaulting on their McMansions tend to be among the latter.)
> Arguing against sympathy is that we Americans voted for politicians who promised to…
Incidentally, I once read a collection of Osama bin Laden’s public statements. This was one of his most common arguments for why massacring American civilians in 9/11 was not immoral; because American civilians collectively authorized, through the electoral system, the Iraqi embargo and subsequent predictable deaths and damaged lives of hundreds of thousands or millions of children (and hence, innocent).*
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Infant_and_child_death_rates
Fabian: What about those who voted against the politicians who got us here? That’s a vanishingly small percentage of American voters. Both Democrat and Republican politicians have voted for the big three items cited in the original post. Candidates from other parties hardly ever get more than 1 percent of the vote in any U.S. election.
Arnold Schwarzenegger hit the nail on the head in regard to public employees – slash their pay to minimum wage, which should be their maximum wage.
Referenced Article:
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/gov-arnold-schwarzeneggers-plan-to-slash-pay-to-minimum-wage-sparks-outrage-in-california/19541167
We have the government we deserve, but lots of people are don’t vote, and are too dumb to understand the implications of the system they’re allowing. I have sympathy for them because the poorer you are the more you’ll get screwed, and the less you’ll understand why or how. In thirty years, without a solution to health care and social security, there’s going to be millions of homeless old folks. Not like now, under every bridge and overpass in every middle sized city—but in the streets, in every town, building cardboard shacks and burning their garbage as America becomes officially the first country to grow into the third world.
Phil, the problem with the other parties getting such a small percentage of the vote is due to the all-or-nothing system we use in this country. Look at other democracies, where proportional representation is used, and you see multiparty systems. That doesn’t translate to better government, just more ways to screw things up.
We Americans act like we invented democracy, but fail to learn from previous examples. What’s going on now is sort of like the last days of the Roman republic. Dictators often put in by the people because they don’t want responsibly for their own actions anymore. Whether a country pulls out of the trouble depends, mostly on luck, on their choice of dictator. So far, we’re not doing well.
Do I feel sorry for the people? Sure, same as I feel for an alcoholic that can’t get his life together. That doesn’t mean I keep buying him another beer, like the federal government has been doing for decades.
The problem we have is that we’re letting people vote who have no business doing so. The Constitution doesn’t preserve a right to voting.
I know it’s not a politically-popular thing to say today, but I think there was a good reason to limit voters to property holders, back in the old days. They have some skin in the game. People who live on government assistance shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Such assistance should be limited, so this creates a conflict of interest. Of course a person is going to vote to increase and extend any help they are getting. That’s a bought-and-paid for vote. We all know it, but it won’t change, and it’s a formula that creates a bedrock guarantee that we will see an ever-increasing welfare state.
At the very least, there ought to be some sort of license to vote. We have to have a license for everything else, why not voting? You have to prove minimal competence to drive a car on public roads; you should have to prove minimal competence about our political structure and process before being allowed to steer the country.
http://bakersfield.craigslist.org/bfs/1790377755.html
Civil Engineer will pick up your trash for you.
@David Krider
“The Constitution doesn’t preserve a right to voting. I know it’s not a politically-popular thing to say today, but I think there was a good reason to limit voters to property holders, back in the old days. They have some skin in the game. People who live on government assistance shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”
–
It’s not “politically popular” because there’s an extremely large segment of the population out there who work, but don’t own property. For instance, students paying their way through college, or the working classes in urban cores who have no ownership of property or cars, but who earn. Why should they be denied the right to determine the fate of their states and nation?
But hey! We can just bring back “Voter Literacy Tests” for those guys, eh?
Philip, a while ago, you reviewed and recommended a book or books by Mancur Olson. I read his Decline and Wealth of Nations, and Power and Prosperity, and was quite impressed. In the latter book, however, he argues that a rational voter will not typically take the time to educate himself about the politicians’ platforms, since his share of the public goods from their policies is tiny.
I think the facts you gave in this posting mostly contradict with Olson’s “rational voter ignorance” theory – the cost of voter ignorance can be quite high to an individual voter.
@Andy: Then forget about property. Instead, restrict the franchise to people whose income net of payments from the government is positive. This has the added benefit of removing government employees from the voting rolls.
Public employees are an even more pernicious constituency than welfare recipients, since they can (and regularly do) vote for politicians who promise (and deliver) budget-busting raises and benefits.