Many have commented on this article by Paul Krugman, in which he examines the divide that cuts through modern America as a morals rift, not a money rift per se.
That is, the battle between the two groups — "liberals" however defined; "conservatives" of both parties — is a fight about the morality of money. One group says it's immoral not to use money to benefit the down-trodden. The other group says it's criminal to take from winners to benefit losers. (And note the difference in the language I assigned to the recipients. For liberals, it's the down-trodden; for conservatives, it's losers. Implicit in these terms is the differing notion of "deserving".)
One aspect of this morality play is described by Krugman in an associated blog post. There he says:
You see, if you’re the kind of person who views being taxed to pay for social insurance programs as tyranny, you’re also going to be the kind of person who sees the printing of fiat money by a government-sponsored central bank as confiscation. You may try to produce evidence about the terrible things that happen under fiat currencies; you may insist that hyperinflation is just around the corner; but ultimately the facts don’t matter, it’s the immorality of activist monetary policy that you hate.He's right as far as he goes, and the whole "morals rift" concept is getting a lot of deserved comment these days.
But let's take this further, by applying our notion of Conservative leaders and Conservative followers. In this post, I said:
The interests of the leaders is different than the interests of the followers, and each should be treated differently.If I'm right, the key question then breaks into several questions. Do the leaders believe "printing money" and welfare programs are confiscation? And do the followers also believe that? Or is there daylight between them?
Followers first. The followers are easy. Like almost all of us, most Conservative followers are motivated by naked self-interest, and not by principle. If they actually thought welfare was confiscation, they'd refuse to receive it. Au contraire, Conservative followers are first in line with their hand out, and first to deny it to others, especially the Dark Undeserving Other.
So if the question is, Do Conservative followers believe welfare is confiscation? — the answer is No. And if you ask Conservative followers if "printing money" is immoral, half would say Huh? and half would say, What does that mean for me? If it means "I get less," it's bad. If it means "I get more," give me two of them.
For followers, it's only a matter of morality in the sense that they need to wrap some morality around themselves as permanent recipients. Easy to do if you demonize the people you're trying to pick clean. (Notice I said "trying". They fail miserably; see below.)
This is why, by the way, when talking with followers, you should always talk about what they're losing economically, and never get caught up in talking about who's deserving. If everyone's deserving by virtue of being human (as we believe), then Conservative followers are also deserving, and you can comfortably switch the discussion to more fertile ground — what actually works to grow their ever-smaller paychecks.
The choice for followers is always — You can be poor and punishing; or well off by doing what works. And it should always be presented that way.
Now leaders. Conservative leaders are actually of two types. On the one side are the billionaires who absolutely believe that anything that takes a dime from their pocket is theft, unless they pull out the dime themselves. That's what the drive to be rich is all about. (The softer souls are among the rich who inherit, like FDR.)
In this sense, leaders are just like followers, but with real money to protect. For leaders who are still acquiring, confiscation is only theft if they're not the confiscator — a contradiction, as we've seen. But for leaders who are mainly protecting their wealth, they really do believe in Krugman's morality play, and without that pesky internal inconsistency.
For the record, I'd put hedge fund managers in the first group of leaders, the acquiring ones. These are the bailout kings and bankers. I'd put the always-been-there billionaires in the second group, the Scaifes and Ahmundsons. For me, these are the only true believers.
At the second layer down from the top leaders, however, are the executors and enablers — the run-of-the-mill senators, congressmen, Executive branch officials (elected and appointed) and pundits of various stripes and media (TV, radio, print, and Conservative newsletter writers, of whom there are many). I've sometimes called them "retainers".
Their job is to make sure Conservative followers are fed the lie that confiscation is only wrong when followers are victims of it. And thus the irony of the world folds back on itself — by convincing Conservative followers that they are victims, Conservative leaders make that true, by picking them clean themselves. (This is why I treat Conservative followers as an education project, not a punishment one. We really are in the boat together, as victims.)
At that layer of the Conservative movement, the second one down, I'm convinced this morality explanation falls apart. This second layer isn't rich by billionaire standards, but its members are certainly well off. Peter Orszag, for example, went to Exeter (and yes, I include him in this layer, among the enablers). They're still acquiring, but they're also doing more; they're using their good educations to fool the followers. After all, that's their job, and they spend each day doing it.
Many really do have good minds. I'd therefore be stunned if more than half of them didn't see through their own BS — while thanking God every night that they get to ladle it out, and not someone else. Courtiers and career-builders are as low as you can get in the Shakespeare universe, and for a reason. They're all minor Judases, though prettied up, and most don't get the full 30.
To put it more bluntly, I'd be shocked if Rush Limbaugh drank his own swill on the weekend. (I hear he has a cave to die for.)
So there you go. Krugman is probably right, and his article is a good read. But apply it with care. The internal dynamic within the Conservative movement is rich and complex. It mirrors, in fact, the three main divisions in a classic agrarian economy — rulers (recipients of the theft); retainers (agents of the theft); peasants & slaves (those whose work is converted to stealable wealth).
In modern Conservative culture, the interests of these groups are different, and only those at the top have the luxury of anything that looks like integrity.
Mes weekend centimes,
GP
