ext_306469 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2013-11-22 10:32 am
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2013-11-22 10:32 am
Entry tags:
Hating on the Poor
The author responds to a comment on her blogpost Why I Make Terrible Decisions:
I would like to understand what you are really angry about. Is it that I am poor and insufficiently servile about it? Is it that you legitimately think that you are somehow morally superior? Is it that I dared to write my thoughts down and someone forced you to read them? Is it that you never spend fifty dollars a month on something that could be used elsewhere, and you are extra judgey about it because it is the thing you have to be judgey about? Is it that you are an antismoking warrior and doing the world A Service by wishing ill on random Internet bloggers? Is it that you are uncomfortable with the idea that even if I have no money I am allowed to sometimes complain about life? How rich do I have to be before I am allowed to have objections to the current class system? What amount of money do you think gives me the right to be human?
More and more, offline and on, I’ve been seeing the “a feature, not a bug” argument about the increasing income disparity between the very rich and the rest of us. It’s an argument best summarized as, “Forget the poor. They’re losers.” Salon has an acid piece up about Tyler Cowen and the upcoming “hyper-meritocracy,” which includes some of the euphemisms people like Cowen love to use about the fate of the non-wealthy in the brave new world he’s so excited about. “Tough trade-offs,” and “common sense” for the rationale (which I’ve encountered here) that since we can’t help every single poor person, we shouldn’t help any of them.
Along with this blithe rejection of an increasingly large portion of the human race is a tendency to vilify the poor. After all, if one is going to relegate all these people to a life of hunger, illness, and exhaustion, it’s important to convince oneself that they deserve it.
A piece by a blogger called killermartinis is a welcome antidote to the Friedmans and the Cowens of this world. Yes, the author says, poor people often make bad decisions. Here’s why. Here’s what it’s like to be poor.
I know how to cook. I had to take Home Ec to graduate high school. Most people on my level didn't. Broccoli is intimidating. You have to have a working stove, and pots, and spices, and you'll have to do the dishes no matter how tired you are or they'll attract bugs. It is a huge new skill for a lot of people. That's not great, but it's true. And if you fuck it up, you could make your family sick. We have learned not to try too hard to be middle-class. It never works out well and always makes you feel worse for having tried and failed yet again. Better not to try. It makes more sense to get food that you know will be palatable and cheap and that keeps well. Junk food is a pleasure that we are allowed to have; why would we give that up? We have very few of them.
And her reaction, posted at the beginning of this OP, to the inevitable hostile commenter reacting to the fact that she (horrors!) smokes cigarettes, is as worthwhile a read as the article.
What she (and, inadvertently, the commenter) highlights is the assumption that a poor person who complains about being poor is speaking out of turn. A poor person should be ashamed of being poor, to the point of giving up even those small pleasures they can afford, and should not talk back to his or her literal wealthy “superiors” – who, if the poor person is really, really good, might toss a few nice leftovers into a donation box. The word “uppity” is rarely used, but it’s pretty similar to the affluent white attitude towards blacks that I remember from the American south of my childhood, which often involved a definition of “good” that required a staggering level of self-abnegation. A passage from Sinclair Lewis’ satiric novel about a fascist takeover in the US, It Can’t Happen Here, sums it up:
“In order…to give the most sympathetic aid possible to all Negroes who comprehend their proper and valuable place in society, all such colored persons, male or female, as can prove that they have devoted not less than forty-five years to such suitable tasks as domestic service, agricultural labor, and common labor in industries, shall at the age of sixty-five be permitted to appear before a special Board, composed entirely of white persons, and upon proof that while employed they have never been idle except through sickness, they shall be recommended for pensions…”
The awful part is that this seems generous compared to the current right wing libertarian attitude towards the poor.
*
I would like to understand what you are really angry about. Is it that I am poor and insufficiently servile about it? Is it that you legitimately think that you are somehow morally superior? Is it that I dared to write my thoughts down and someone forced you to read them? Is it that you never spend fifty dollars a month on something that could be used elsewhere, and you are extra judgey about it because it is the thing you have to be judgey about? Is it that you are an antismoking warrior and doing the world A Service by wishing ill on random Internet bloggers? Is it that you are uncomfortable with the idea that even if I have no money I am allowed to sometimes complain about life? How rich do I have to be before I am allowed to have objections to the current class system? What amount of money do you think gives me the right to be human?
More and more, offline and on, I’ve been seeing the “a feature, not a bug” argument about the increasing income disparity between the very rich and the rest of us. It’s an argument best summarized as, “Forget the poor. They’re losers.” Salon has an acid piece up about Tyler Cowen and the upcoming “hyper-meritocracy,” which includes some of the euphemisms people like Cowen love to use about the fate of the non-wealthy in the brave new world he’s so excited about. “Tough trade-offs,” and “common sense” for the rationale (which I’ve encountered here) that since we can’t help every single poor person, we shouldn’t help any of them.
Along with this blithe rejection of an increasingly large portion of the human race is a tendency to vilify the poor. After all, if one is going to relegate all these people to a life of hunger, illness, and exhaustion, it’s important to convince oneself that they deserve it.
A piece by a blogger called killermartinis is a welcome antidote to the Friedmans and the Cowens of this world. Yes, the author says, poor people often make bad decisions. Here’s why. Here’s what it’s like to be poor.
I know how to cook. I had to take Home Ec to graduate high school. Most people on my level didn't. Broccoli is intimidating. You have to have a working stove, and pots, and spices, and you'll have to do the dishes no matter how tired you are or they'll attract bugs. It is a huge new skill for a lot of people. That's not great, but it's true. And if you fuck it up, you could make your family sick. We have learned not to try too hard to be middle-class. It never works out well and always makes you feel worse for having tried and failed yet again. Better not to try. It makes more sense to get food that you know will be palatable and cheap and that keeps well. Junk food is a pleasure that we are allowed to have; why would we give that up? We have very few of them.
And her reaction, posted at the beginning of this OP, to the inevitable hostile commenter reacting to the fact that she (horrors!) smokes cigarettes, is as worthwhile a read as the article.
What she (and, inadvertently, the commenter) highlights is the assumption that a poor person who complains about being poor is speaking out of turn. A poor person should be ashamed of being poor, to the point of giving up even those small pleasures they can afford, and should not talk back to his or her literal wealthy “superiors” – who, if the poor person is really, really good, might toss a few nice leftovers into a donation box. The word “uppity” is rarely used, but it’s pretty similar to the affluent white attitude towards blacks that I remember from the American south of my childhood, which often involved a definition of “good” that required a staggering level of self-abnegation. A passage from Sinclair Lewis’ satiric novel about a fascist takeover in the US, It Can’t Happen Here, sums it up:
“In order…to give the most sympathetic aid possible to all Negroes who comprehend their proper and valuable place in society, all such colored persons, male or female, as can prove that they have devoted not less than forty-five years to such suitable tasks as domestic service, agricultural labor, and common labor in industries, shall at the age of sixty-five be permitted to appear before a special Board, composed entirely of white persons, and upon proof that while employed they have never been idle except through sickness, they shall be recommended for pensions…”
The awful part is that this seems generous compared to the current right wing libertarian attitude towards the poor.
*
no subject
I am truly at a loss how this is much different than this: "Understand the single most defining characteristic of a liberal or a leftist is that they are lazy. They do not want to work. They do not want to strive. They want an easy and paid-for life as much as possible."....which was from a link, to which you responded by taking it personal, giving personal family info ending with: "Do explain what you know about them that warrants this insult."
Rather than list all my righteous attributes and those of my family who are pretty much mostly right wing libertarians (or worse yet, some are right wing Christian Fundamentalists) I'll just ask, do you think there is a difference?
no subject
g: I am truly at a loss how this is much different than this: "Understand the single most defining characteristic of a liberal or a leftist is that they are lazy. They do not want to work. They do not want to strive. They want an easy and paid-for life as much as possible."
One ascribes a personal attribute to all liberals, the other describes an opinion about the poor held by right wing libertarians and their demi-goddess, Ayn Rand.
Would you like some quotes from right wing libertarians to back up what I've said?
no subject
(would given quotes from lazy liberals make my point?)
no subject
What quotes from prominent liberals do you have in mind?
And you do understand the difference between an ideological belief and a personal attribute, right?
no subject
Altho, come to think of it, I'm not sure what attitudes you are attributing .current right wing libertarians as having to the poor.
Actually that was quite clever, letting us fill in the blanks. It gives you a degree of separation. Bravo!
no subject
The attitude towards the poor that I have most consistently encountered among right wing libertarians is, as I say in my piece, similar to the attitude towards blacks I encountered among many affluent white southerners back in the '60s. The poor are poor, it's believed, because they are in some fundamental sense, inferior. Not smart enough, not industrious enough, etc. Therefore, it is right and proper that the poor show awareness of this inherent inferiority, and not talk back to their wealthier betters, not question the free market system, not complain when they and their children go without food, without shelter, without needed medicine, etc, not have possessions or clothing unworthy of their status, etc. If poor people keep their heads down and maintain a sufficiently servile attitude, maybe, just MAYBE, if a rich man feels like it, he'll toss a couple of scraps in their direction.
The poor need to understand that if their kid dies from an easily treatable illness, or becomes stupid and sickly because of malnutrition, well, that's a sacrifice necessary for the sake of the free market. It's very sad. The rich sometimes even show their humanity by shaking their heads, pursing their lips, and shedding a couple of tears when they hear about it.
To justify this attitude, it's natural for many right wing libertarians to maintain that the poor deserve to be hungry, overworked, sick, etc. Hence the hatred, or, to be more precise, the contempt expressed by many libertarians. Hence the reaction the writer of the OP got from at least one commenter. Hence the contempt I see so frequently aimed at people who use foodstamps, and insulting Ayn-Rand approved terms for the uppity poor, like "moochers" and "takers."
no subject
no subject
The original statement I replied to was subsequently dismissed as an opinion (which was backtracking, but oh well). My point (I'm not sure any more since this getting pretty convoluted) was to the effect that the since the statement "all liberals are lazy" is demonstrably false, it is obviously hyperbole, and taking it personal AND personalizing it is done so as an excuse to attack...with more hyperbole. Heck even you qualified your agreement with "pretty much all" (
which may or may not be true depending if we are talking about a subset of Libertarians or libertarian leaning right wingers)
*since my (appropriated) motto has always been clarity is preferable to agreement, let it be stated that was my goal in this rather wordy comment.
no subject
no subject