Skip to main content

Is the economic story really that liberal elites have left their working class countrymen behind?

Simple prosperity, in the eyes of people who feel they'll be abandoned for it

If one is attending to Michael Moore or Chris Hedges or Robert Reich or ... pretty much every liberal right now, one is hearing that liberals have to acknowledge that the reason they were caught off guard by Trump is that they hadn't previously wanted to look at the extent of the economic hurt that was out there: they were in a bubble. They detached themselves from other people's suffering, and engaged with them only to hate them for their bigotry... for being the basket of deplorables they ostensibly only are. If one is listening to Thomas Frank and Chris Hedges and Andrew Sullivan, specifically, we are being made to understand that this was quite deliberate: that liberals have come to hate the people who've been battered most by the global economy that emerged since Clinton. 

I think that liberals have wanted to detach themselves from an America they saw correctly as not being able to keep up with a more challenging, novel, and progressive world they wanted to formulate. But it wasn't just liberals' (or if you prefer, the liberal professional class's) own stranglehold connection to power that made everything that kept an empowered working class country in place, evaporate, but more the working class's desire to find themselves stripped of previously achieved security and status. 

Here is Lloyd's fascinating counter to the argument that recessions and depressions -- the production of economic wastelands -- owes mostly to cruel negligence by those spoiling themselves at the top:

(3) Internal Sacrifice Solution--If the leader cannot find an external enemy with whom to engage in a sacrificial war, he often turns to an internal sacrifice, either a violent revolution or an economic downturn. At the end of the 1920s, for instance, as economic and social progress seemed to have gotten "out of control," world bankers—chief sacrificial priests of modern nations--pursued deflationary economic policies, trade barriers were erected and many other "mistakes" were made that were motivated to produce the Great Depression that sacrificed so much of the wealth of
the world. As Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon said in 1929 as the Federal Reserve pushed the world into the Great Depression, "It will purge the rottenness out of the system." Business cycles, as William K. Joseph has shown, are driven by the manic and depressive cycles of group-fantasy, as manic defenses against growth panic are followed by depressive collapses into emotional despair and inaction. Indeed, most death rates car crashes, homicides, cancer, pneumonia, heart and liver diseases rise during prosperous, manic times and are lower during depressions and recessions. Only suicide internal sacrifice rises during economic declines, reacting to the prevailing group-fantasy need for internal sacrifice.

Depressions and recessions are thus not due to "the Invisible Hand" of economics but are motivated sacrifices that often kill more people than wars do, halting dangerous prosperity and social progress that seem to be getting "out of control." That growing wealth often produces anxieties rather than happiness can be shown empirically. From 1957 to 1995, Americans doubled their income in real dollars, but the proportion of those telling pollsters that they are "very happy" declined from 35 to 29 percent. Periodic economic downturns are the antidotes administered by sacrificial priests for the disease of "greed." Cartoons prior to economic downturns often portray greedy people being sacrificed on altars or children being pushed off cliffs, scapegoats for "greedy" childhood selves felt to be responsible for the trauma once experienced. Like Aztec human sacrifices, recessions and depressions are accompanied by national sermons, "cautionary tales," about how sacrifices are necessary to purge the world of human sinfulness.

The choice between these different solutions to growth panic follows cyclical patterns, wars and depressions alternating in group-fantasy cycles of varying lengths. The empirical historical investigation of these "long cycles" of group-fantasy will be examined in detail in the next chapter, "War and Cycles of Violence."

I think in a sense what has happened is that the time for suffering, for repenting previously accrued growth, has ended, and now the working class is using the economic destitution that they actually wanted staged and wanted, as it decreased the sense of psychic disintegration that was ensuing from being linked to an America that was progressing both materialistically and culturally, as reason to start a war on the educated -- on cosmopolitans, specifically. They told their elites to abandon them. They did so. And now they're telling elites that they are to be punished for having done so. 

With Lloyd's way of thinking, if there had been no economic hardship during the last 40 yrs, if somehow everyone had during this time been guaranteed a living wage that wasn't sure to get tripped up when "the loans got called in," we'd still be in the age of Trump. Indeed, his numbers might be fewer: the psychic distress caused by profiting economically during a time when prosperity owed to liberal economic innovations, not conservative populism, would have rendered many of them total psychic discombobulates. Hitler gave his folk Volkswagens and employment, and they were enjoyed rapaciously. But they felt they were entitled to it, it caused no guilt, because nothing about their economy bespoke children distancing themselves from old folk ways. 


Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   

2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…