Making Success Possible Again

A Crisis of Meaning and Identity

Our country faces a crisis of confidence and an unspooling of meaning and identity, according to Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. A recent article in the New York Times quotes the Senator saying,

The challenges America faces aren’t really logistical…. “They are metaphysical. And the sooner we understand the unspooling of identity and meaning that is happening in America today, the sooner we can come up with practical policies to address this crisis.

Calling the problem “metaphysical” places it outside of the realm of politics, but maybe the "metaphysical" label hides a more practical reality. Maybe, we can deal with this crisis through political action if we understand its real nature clearly. So, let us dig a little deeper.

The Wreckage of American Neoliberalism

According to Sen. Murphy, the crisis comes from what he calls "the wreckage of American neoliberalism,” but what does that mean? Sen. Murphy identifies neoliberalism as "the idea that barrier-free international markets, rapidly advancing communications technology and automation, decreased regulation, and empowered citizen-consumers are the keys to prosperity, happiness, and strong democracy." In other words, what is good for markets is good for society. 

Murphy says that neoliberalism is no longer tenable. It has become obvious that what is good for markets is not always good for our society. The increasing concentration of wealth and income together with the “unspooling of meaning and identity” show unmistakably that we must find another path, but what exactly is the link between the increasing concentration of wealth on the one hand and the unspooling of meaning and identity on the other?

Our People Are Caught in a Contradiction

The link lies in a contradiction between our ideals and the real structure of our economy. Our ideals emphasize opportunity and achievement as measures of social justice and of human value. We strive to be a society of equality of opportunity, and we encourage our children to base their sense of their worth as human beings on their achievements. Although we never say directly that people who achieve great things are especially admirable human beings, the value our culture places on achievement is clear. We teach our children to admire people who have achieved a great deal.

In addition, we see certain kinds of achievements as basic. A person must stand on his/her own two feet and not depend on others. Parents must be good providers for their children. In old age, parents should not depend on their children. These are ideals that represent the minimum elements of success in our society. Our people measure themselves against these ideals, and inevitably, many see that they fall short.

Moreover, the share of our people who fall short has increased steadily in recent decades because our economy has changed in ways that have made it much harder for people to succeed in terms of these ideals. Wealth and income have become concentrated in a small upper class. Jobs have been shipped to other countries. Housing has become prohibitively expensive for many. And more recently, inflation has eaten away at people’s savings and incomes.

Thus, people are caught in a contradiction between the ideals that they believe in and the reality of their lives. They see that they cannot meet the minimum requirements for success as our society defines it because the structure of our economy makes success impossible for them. In their own eyes, they are condemned to failure by a system that does not allow them to do what they believe that every person ought to do. That contradiction between our ideals and our social reality is the core of the “unspooling of meaning and identity” that Sen. Murphy refers to.

We Can Make Success Possible Again

The good news is that this is an issue we can do something about through political action. We can make success possible again by changing the conditions under which our people live and work. We can provide affordable childcare to make it possible for families to increase their incomes. We can provide a decent healthcare system in which unexpected illness is no longer the number one cause of personal bankruptcy. We can fund post-secondary education in a way that does not require people to take on crippling levels of debt in order to acquire marketable skills. We can support labor unions that work to raise people’s wages. We can in short create a society in which our ideals can be realized.

Vote For Democrats to Make Our Tax System Fairer

Wisconsin's Homeowners Bear a Heavy Property Tax Load

Understanding how the election could affect your property taxes should help you to decide whom to vote for.  Wisconsin’s local governments depend more heavily than those other states on the residential property tax. The reasons for that dependence are complex, but two of them stand out, and they are both things that we can change if we want to. This post is a little wonky, but bear with me. 

Business Property is Undertaxed in Wisconsin

First, residential property bears a disproportionate share of the cost of our local governments because business property does not pay its fair share. Our state’s constitution requires all properties to be taxed at the same rate For example, business properties are taxed at the same rate as residential properties even though business properties produce profits for their owners even when they do not sell the properties. This means that in reality, the value of a business property is not determined solely by its potential sale price, while the value of a residential property is determined by its potential sale price alone. As a result, business properties are undertaxed while residential properties are overtaxed.

Many states deal with this difference by creating different classes of properties for tax purposes, and the rates may differ among classes. Properties may be classified as residential, commercial, agricultural or manufacturing properties. Properties within a class are all taxed at the same rate, but rates may differ between classes. This allows business properties to bear a fair share of the cost of local government. Wisconsin's constitution as interpreted by the state's courts does not allow us to tax different classes of properties at different rates, but we could change that by amending our constitution.

Walker's Tax Cuts Reduced State Aid for Local Governments

The local property tax rate is also affected by the levels of other taxes. In Wisconsin, localities receive funds from Madison, which collects income taxes. The expenses of local government are covered in part by the funds received from Madison, and the rest must be paid by local taxes. Local governing bodies (city councils, school boards etc.) determine the amount of money that needs to be raised through the property tax, and the tax rate is set at the level that allows the needed money to be raised.

The amount that the state can send to local governments depends on the amount that it can collect in income taxes. In effect, the more the state collects through the income tax, the less the localities need to raise through the property tax. Under Gov. Walker, the income taxes paid by our richest residents were reduced, and the reductions in the income tax led to a reduction I the amount that Madison could send to local governments and therefore increased the latter’s dependence on the property tax. Thus, the tax burden was shifted from the very rich (earners of very high incomes) to ordinary homeowners. We could change this situation by repealing Walker's income tax cuts.

We Can Make Our Tax System Fairer

So, if you think that your property tax is too high, you should consider voting for candidates who might change the things that are causing it to be so high. If we elected Democrats, we could amend our state’s constitution to allow the creation of different classes of properties, and we could repeal Walker’s income tax cuts. So, if you think you are paying too much in property tax, you should consider electing Democrats who would consider enacting changes to lighten your property tax burden.

Vote For Democrats to Make Childcare Affordable

 Republicans Contradict Themselves

A recent article in the Post-Crescent showed the cost of childcare in various parts of Wisconsin and made it clear that it is too expensive for many Wisconsinites. An earlier article in the same newspaper informed us that Republicans in Madison had voted down a Democratic proposal to extend Child Care Counts, a program to use state funds to subsidize childcare in our state. This Republican decision contradicts the “pronatalist” position of many Republicans. They proclaim loudly that Americans are having too few children and that they need to have more.

How can anyone support the idea that Americans should have more children and at the same time oppose programs to make it more affordable for families to have children? How can a party that claims to represent the interests of ordinary Americans want to make life more expensive and difficult for them?

Republicans Represent Business

The answer is that the Republican claim to represent ordinary Americans is a fraud. In reality, the Republican Party represents the interests of business as it always has. Businesses benefit when Americans have lots of children because they grow up to become workers. A large supply of workers helps to keep wages from rising, and that is good for businesses. At the same time, businesses benefit from keeping public expenditures low because public expenditures must be paid for with tax revenue, and business people generally oppose high taxes.

So, in the short run, business people oppose programs like Child Care Counts, and the Republican Party – which represents business – opposes those programs, too. In the long run, of course, the opposition to subsidizing childcare will conflict with the desire for Americans to have more babies, but that is a problem for the distant future. So, Republicans are caught in a contradiction. They like the idea that Americans should have more children, but they oppose any program that might make childcare more affordable.

Democrats Support Making Childcare Affordable

Democrats, on the other hand, are clear. We think that childcare should be affordable for families that want to have children, and we think that parents should decide for themselves how many children they want to have. If you agree with this clear and sensible approach, you should vote in November for Democrats to represent you in Madison and in Washington. If you live in Northeast Wisconsin, you can learn about our outstanding, Democratic candidates by going to Fall Election Candidates — Democratic Party of Outagamie County (outagamiedems.org).

Psychologism: the Intellectual Dishonesty of Progressives

What is Psychologism? 

We progressives use “psychologism” as a way to avoid confronting political views that we don’t agree with. It is our preferred form of intellectual dishonesty.  It treats the views of political opponents as symptoms of underlying psychological needs rather than as political views that we ought to take seriously. An example of may be found in a recent article called 'Psychological need for security': Why Trump supporters long for strongman leader (msn.com). The article says,

"Why would people want to live under an authoritarian's thumb?" … It's rooted, experts say, in a psychological need for security — real or perceived — and a desire for conformity, a goal that becomes even more acute as the country undergoes dramatic demographic and social changes. People also like to obey a strong leader who will protect the group — especially if it is the 'right' group whose interests will be protected."

This article locates the base of support for Trump in the psychological needs of his followers. They support Trump because they feel insecure, and he seems to be a strong leader who will protect them.

An explanation of this kind is convenient for progressives because it relieves us of the need to think about any underlying political issues. We don’t have to ask ourselves whether Trump’s followers have legitimate, political grievances. We don’t have to ask ourselves if the members of an entire class of society may legitimately feel that their needs are ignored by both major parties.  We don’t have to confront the possibility that we may have helped to create the situation in which we find ourselves.

The Grievances of the American Working Class

We live in a time of rapidly increasing concentration of wealth and income in a small ruling class and - to a lesser degree - in a patrimonial middle class. A large share of our working class has been shut out of the increasing prosperity of our country. Entire working-class communities in places like Milwaukee or Youngstown have been devastated. Millions of our citizens have legitimate reasons for feeling that our system is rigged against them.

We could listen to the grievances of the American working class. We could say publicly that we too see a rigged system. We could respond with policies in areas like education, housing and healthcare that would alleviate the distress of our working class, and in fact, such proposals have been talked about, but we don’t see the link between those policy proposals and the current, presidential campaign. Instead of hearing what working-class people have to say and focusing our campaign on things that would really help them, we talk about “saving democracy.” It is true that our democracy is in danger, and we really do need to protect it. However, we should not be surprised that such an appeal does not resonate with people who believe that our democracy is already stacked against them. 

The Appeal of Donald Trump

People like Donald Trump and his new running mate J. D. Vance present themselves as the champions of “ordinary” Americans. Their concern for ordinary Americans has, at least until now, been entirely fraudulent, but it has nevertheless drawn a very large following because many people feel that no one else in the political system is interested in them at all. Trump is able to say he is going to clean out our government so that it may again represent the interests of “real Americans.” Progressives see his proposals as attacks on democracy, but his followers see the proposals as necessary steps in the restoration of a democracy that works for them.

What We Must Do

If we want to appeal to white working-class Americans, we must couple the idea of saving democracy with an appeal to the class interests of workers. We must make it clear that we understand that the system as it works today is really rigged against workers of all races. We must show that we offer a path to changing our democratic system to make it fairer, and we must show why Republican populism is fraudulent.  

Bernie Sanders understands what needs to be done. (He is not the only one.) If we want to counter Trump’s appeal effectively, we must offer policies that address their concerns, but that is not all that we should do. We should also stop treating Trump's followers as if they were in some sense psychologically deficient. We should treat what they say not as psychological symptoms but as evidence that points to serious, political problems.  Treating people's concerns as psychological symptoms only confirms their feeling that we look down on them and do not take their concerns seriously.

We must find a way to talk with Trump's followers as equals and to behave as if we were taking them seriously. When we suggest that people’s support for Trump is due merely to their insecurity and not to any legitimate, political concerns, we merely reinforce Trump’s message that we are unconcerned about the problems of “ordinary” Americans. It tells them that he is right when he says that we don’t take their concerns seriously. That is the fatal flaw of psychologism. It alienates people and drives them away from us and away from everything that we say. When we refuse to take seriously the concerns of working-class people, we validate the idea that we don’t care about them and that we look down on them.  We have to stop doing that, and instead, we must take working-class people and their views seriously.