Olde Hat

I know I'm preaching to the choir on this, but my mom asked be to respond to the right-wing parable below. Since I had to write is out anyway, I figured I might as well post it. I would like it if anyone can come up with any additional barbs to make the retort more effective:

"Subject: READ AND TELL ME HOW TO DEBATE THIS CRAP

I've seen this before, but I still think it's worth sending. A young woman was about to finish he first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, How is your friend Audrey doing?

She replied, Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.

Her wise father asked his daughter, Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea. How would that be fair? I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican Party'"

This disingenuous parable is based on the familiar conservative maxim that hard work, diligence, and "merit," distinguish the rich from the poor. This is total nonsense. The extremely wealthy, the demographic whose interests the Republican Party serves, often earn their income in "lazy" ways (for example, from selling financial assets, trust income and jobs their rich parents got them). Even the upper middle class, whose success may well be attributable to hard work and diligence, face higher taxes than the very rich (who get taxed at 15% on dividends and capital gains, which are not subject to payroll taxes) and could suffer total financial ruin if they face an unexpected medical catastrophe (due to our lack of universal health insurance). And like all of us who "work," they are subject to the whims of their employers, and could be fired at any time for any reason. Anyone who has had a boss knows that not all bosses mean well or know what they're doing.

A closely related idea is that success is open to anyone who "applies themselves." This is bullshit. Many poor people work their asses off at crummy retail jobs with no prospect of advancement, no educational opportunities, no union representation, no (or inadequate) health coverage or retirement provisions, and no means by which to pay for their children's education. Many rich people, like G.W. Bush, have the benefit of many, many, many second chances, can live off the income from their parents' outsized incomes, and gain accolades by going to elite universities that their parents got them into or corporate director jobs their parents "handed out" to them.

In short, there is no meaningful, consistent connection between "merit" and economic success. Moreover, studies consistently show that the U.S. ranks last in the developed world in terms of social mobility (i.e., how often to people born poor end up rich? Answer in the U.S. - "not often"). In other words, success is not just waiting out there for anyone who applies themselves. It is no coincidence that we have a bad social mobility record and we traditionally harbor the most contempt for government programs and redistribution of wealth.

The sort of "government programs" I, and to a lesser extent mainstream Democrats, advocate make success radically more accessible across the board by protecting people from financial ruin from medical and retirement expenses. This will make people more likely to take entrepreneurial risks and start businesses, because the risks of failure are less disastrous. They would also allow people to more affordably gain the benefit of education to make them more successful. And in some cases, government programs in some countries (like free child day care or good public transportation) actually enable them to join the workforce where they would otherwise be unable to do so.

It is also the case that even the upper middle class benefit greatly from government programs and subsidies, like Medicare, Social Security, the home mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion of $500,000 of capital gains from income tax on the sale of a primary residence, the benefit of still somewhat publicly funded higher education, the federally funded national transportation system that lets them travel to work their good jobs, the protection of property by law enforcement and a system of law, and the general government support and protection of the capitalist system that served them so well. The kind of radical free market state that Republicans advocate benefits only the very, very rich who have no need to, and may very well not, work at all.

Moreover, there is much more at stake in having enough to get by on, and access to basic economic rights (like health care and education) than in your college GPA. People deserve whatever symbolic prizes and token awards they get. For instance, I would not ask the local league bowling champion to "redistribute" his fairly won title. But then, no one remains mired in poverty forever and unable to gain needed health treatments because they only got a 2.0 in college or because they were not bowling champs. This may well be the case, however, when it comes to the redistribution of wealth and broad-based access to basic economic rights and government services.

Finally, it bears mentioning that income and wealth inequality have absolutely exploded in recent years. They top 1% now own somewhere around 40% of all the wealth in our country, and the average CEO of a publicly traded corporation makes over 300 times what the average employee at their company makes. Do you really think that these people have "earned" such a towering advantage over the rest of us, such that it is so unfair to ask them to kick in proportionately more to the public treasuries so that others can have a chance in life? I sure don't.

...

Since I posted this it occurred to me that the bit about how she "didn't even have time for a boyfriend" was interesting. Apparently Republicans think it's a good thing to work so hard that you don't even have time to have a basic social life. That is warped.