January 29, 2004
THE NATURE OF THE PLACE:
Charity begins at home (Justin Webb, 17 January, 2004, BBC Correspondent, Washington)
Even the fire and ambulance service in the Washington suburb where we live is provided on a voluntary basis by local people.The Bethesda and Chevy Chase Rescue Squad has an annual fund-raising drive and in return for your donation, you get a sticker with their number. If fire breaks out, or if you need an ambulance, you have bought yourself cover. And if you haven't paid your dues and ring them, well they'll probably come anyway, out of charity.
Charity is the obverse of the self-reliance coin. I am not talking of the odd cake donated to a Women's Institute fete or a tenner to Children In Need.
Charity here is woven into the fabric of American life. In 2002, individual Americans gave $180bn away.
At my children's school, the three-year-olds were introduced to the American way just before Christmas. They spent a rather enjoyable day painting shoeboxes.
The parents then went to a bargain warehouse and bought a hundred pairs of children's socks and assorted cheap glittery items to put in the boxes. This was for the Washington poor.
At the same time the school had its own wish list to which parents were invited to contribute. The total was many thousands of dollars.
As a family we were somewhat discomforted by this contrast, between what we gave to ourselves and what we gave to those who were genuinely needy.
But Americans are not worried in the slightest. They are not into changing society, only keeping it going; giving what is surplus and keeping what is necessary for wealth to be maintained. [...]
In the progressive state of Washington, a car tax was introduced whereby you paid more if your car was more expensive.
This socialistic experiment was highly controversial and was put to a state-wide vote. It was struck down.
Apparently a victory for the rich. But when the exit poll data was examined, it was discovered that this was in fact a victory for the poor.
Wealthier people had voted in large numbers to keep the tax. Unusually for Americans, they thought it was fair that they should pay more. But poorer people had voted to get rid of it.
Why? Because in the heart of every American beats the belief that wealth lies around the corner, with a new job or a change of luck.
They too would be able to own a more expensive car and they didn't want to pay the extra taxes when they got it.
Americans do not approve of safety nets. They fly high and fall hard. That is the nature of the place.
The played this on the BBC last night and it was the most pro-American thing not read by Alistair Cooke they've had on in months. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 29, 2004 8:12 AM
That's why the Kerry-Kennedy class hatred approach won't work in a general election. The poor and middle-class in America do not hate the rich and do not believe that the rich have attained their wealth primarily through exploitation.
The greatest amount of antipathy for the rich comes from the part of the middle and upper middle class that have, through career choice denied themselves any chance of serious wealth generation (teachers, professors and bureaucrats mainly).
An interesting story. A few years after graduation one of my classmates, a philosophy major who was then working with some agency or another in Washington D.C. announced that he was going to begin working on an MBA at GWU. His fellow philosophy major/bureaucrats were horrified and tried to talk him out of it. At one point in the discussion one of his friends screamed, "You can't, you're selling out." My classmate calmly replied, "You're wrong, I'm buying in". That's where most Americans stand, we're buying in or we want to.
Posted by: Jeff at January 29, 2004 9:14 AMI think for the most part, Americans don't hate the rich. In fact, most Americans aspire to be rich.
Posted by: pchuck at January 29, 2004 9:59 AMJeff said -- "The greatest amount of antipathy for the rich comes from the part of the middle and upper middle class that have, through career choice denied themselves any chance of serious wealth generation (teachers, professors and bureaucrats mainly)."
True. But sandwiched on the top by a layer of the truly wealthy who finance the class warfare out of narcissism, guilt about something, or plain indifference for those who unlike them have yet to make it. And on the bottom, by a layer of "victims-for-life" who have began to regard assistance as entitlement.
It has always been the job of the Democratic Party to grow the bottom layer. The coup de grace is how they have succeeded in financing this strategy by recruiting amomg the truly rich.
Posted by: MG at January 29, 2004 10:00 AMMG,
What's galling is that those super-rich who
have those guilty feelings or whatever are always
free to give it all away. I don't mean a donation
here or a donation there, I mean just get rid
of it (build schools, libraries, eco-summer camp
whatever)
That never happens.
They just push for tax policies that eat away
at the productive middle classes.
I think OJ should send Mr. Webb a spare copy of Democracy in America with the passages about voluntary association marked.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 29, 2004 5:14 PM