In this post Ronald Reagan society, a chasm came to exist between the have and have nots, and the middle class fell in. Rarely heard from again, they were sometimes represented in the third person by leaders who spoke of them with feigned familiarity, as you would a distant uncle that you cared about but would not take into your home necessarily.
The constructs that allowed this chasm to be effected in the first place were the brilliance of the marriage of politics and business. If you were invited to the wedding in the 1980's, it's likely you're remembering the decade with tremendous fondness. Alternately, if you were cleaning the grounds after the reception ended like the rest of us, it was a rough ten to fifteen years. Long decade indeed of watching the chasm grow. And then the sky widen.
There was wedded bliss in this most unholy marriage of politics and business. Deregulations occured in industry; tax code changed in favor of the wealthy and for big business; environmental regulations were altered to favor exploration and pollution; restrictions were lifted for tax shelters; capital gains taxes were newly minimized; ...all of this while the interest rates on a home was 13%, there was no raise in the minimum wage, Pell Grants were under attack, and ketchup was declared a vegetable on school lunches to meet national standards.
In brief summary, if you had money already, it became far easier to make more. If you did not, it became more difficult to get a higher education, buy a home, or make a living....or get a balanced school lunch if you were, say, a third grader. (Buying a home with essentially just your signature would come years later, when it was as easy as getting coffee at a drive through. And we see how that worked out. A lot like coffee with an ill fitting lid and a manual 5 speed. )
Then there came a time when there wasn't wedded bliss anymore, two decades later. It had been a good ride for many, no doubt. But you may have heard it was all too big to fail, and those who had been at the wedding in the first place gasped and took charge again. Or perhaps it was their offspring, who had likely never known that ketchup was a vegetable.
Nevertheless, they found ways with other people's money to make the failure look more like just another typical day of losing other people's money, instead of a world crisis of banking collapse. When they make mistakes, they may be big ones, but they do have resources to tap, and they are sized to scale.
But this is not a post to grossly oversimplify the banking crisis. It is a means to suggest that the absent middle class has had an unintended consequence of creating a disaffected citizen, and this disaffected citizen has co-opted the word patriot.
This is troublesome. Patriot means someone who believes in one's country, loves the country, stands up for it, all of it, right, wrong, and all of its people. There is meaningful, thoughtful dissent as needed. Patriots do that too.
However, it seems the new example of patriot is closer to someone who is xenophobic, territorial, and ready for a fight. Even if they don't have the facts straight.
While you have to love their pure emotion, still, facts are a key part of arguments, especially public ones, and when you're representing yourself as a patriot, it makes the whole country look foolish if you argue with one part facts and two parts emotion. And seemingly half a brain.
They have minimized the meaning of a powerful concept, put on a tri corner hat, and used the word to further interests that are unique to a minority.
It makes perfect sense in a land of free speech to call yourself anything you want. That should be applauded. But patriot, in this context, is a stretch. The agenda of some of these would be patriots includes freedom of speech, for instance, for some. Them, to be exact.
Being patriotic doesn't mean saving your country just for your own kind. It means saving it for all kinds. The new use of the word, again, is exclusive to saving themselves from another people here in the US. This isn't patriotic. It's decidedly not in keeping with any American doctrine.
We can be certain that no one was patriotic, one way or the other, when business and politics headed for their lengthy honeymoon 25 or so years ago. (Did they go to the Caymens, a well known getaway for tax shelter purposes?) This had nothing to do with the good of the country, and everything to do with the well being of personal wealth. Nothing patriotic there.
And Mr. Reagan, wherever you are, it did not trickle down.
The constructs that allowed this chasm to be effected in the first place were the brilliance of the marriage of politics and business. If you were invited to the wedding in the 1980's, it's likely you're remembering the decade with tremendous fondness. Alternately, if you were cleaning the grounds after the reception ended like the rest of us, it was a rough ten to fifteen years. Long decade indeed of watching the chasm grow. And then the sky widen.
There was wedded bliss in this most unholy marriage of politics and business. Deregulations occured in industry; tax code changed in favor of the wealthy and for big business; environmental regulations were altered to favor exploration and pollution; restrictions were lifted for tax shelters; capital gains taxes were newly minimized; ...all of this while the interest rates on a home was 13%, there was no raise in the minimum wage, Pell Grants were under attack, and ketchup was declared a vegetable on school lunches to meet national standards.
In brief summary, if you had money already, it became far easier to make more. If you did not, it became more difficult to get a higher education, buy a home, or make a living....or get a balanced school lunch if you were, say, a third grader. (Buying a home with essentially just your signature would come years later, when it was as easy as getting coffee at a drive through. And we see how that worked out. A lot like coffee with an ill fitting lid and a manual 5 speed. )
Then there came a time when there wasn't wedded bliss anymore, two decades later. It had been a good ride for many, no doubt. But you may have heard it was all too big to fail, and those who had been at the wedding in the first place gasped and took charge again. Or perhaps it was their offspring, who had likely never known that ketchup was a vegetable.
Nevertheless, they found ways with other people's money to make the failure look more like just another typical day of losing other people's money, instead of a world crisis of banking collapse. When they make mistakes, they may be big ones, but they do have resources to tap, and they are sized to scale.
But this is not a post to grossly oversimplify the banking crisis. It is a means to suggest that the absent middle class has had an unintended consequence of creating a disaffected citizen, and this disaffected citizen has co-opted the word patriot.
This is troublesome. Patriot means someone who believes in one's country, loves the country, stands up for it, all of it, right, wrong, and all of its people. There is meaningful, thoughtful dissent as needed. Patriots do that too.
However, it seems the new example of patriot is closer to someone who is xenophobic, territorial, and ready for a fight. Even if they don't have the facts straight.
While you have to love their pure emotion, still, facts are a key part of arguments, especially public ones, and when you're representing yourself as a patriot, it makes the whole country look foolish if you argue with one part facts and two parts emotion. And seemingly half a brain.
They have minimized the meaning of a powerful concept, put on a tri corner hat, and used the word to further interests that are unique to a minority.
It makes perfect sense in a land of free speech to call yourself anything you want. That should be applauded. But patriot, in this context, is a stretch. The agenda of some of these would be patriots includes freedom of speech, for instance, for some. Them, to be exact.
Being patriotic doesn't mean saving your country just for your own kind. It means saving it for all kinds. The new use of the word, again, is exclusive to saving themselves from another people here in the US. This isn't patriotic. It's decidedly not in keeping with any American doctrine.
We can be certain that no one was patriotic, one way or the other, when business and politics headed for their lengthy honeymoon 25 or so years ago. (Did they go to the Caymens, a well known getaway for tax shelter purposes?) This had nothing to do with the good of the country, and everything to do with the well being of personal wealth. Nothing patriotic there.
And Mr. Reagan, wherever you are, it did not trickle down.