Friday, February 01, 2008
Entrepreneurial America
It is the Clarion's belief that the populist elements of the Democratic party consistently underestimate the power of the role of the entrepreneurial spirit in American body politic. The Democrats who lead the carousing against tax cuts for the rich, these folks can never understand why more of the electorate isn't outraged about the way the system is screwing them. Their thought is something along the lines of, if not for the government and its restraining hand, why the rich people and the big companies would be putting their thumb down on the little person even harder. They are shocked that a substantial majority of Americans don't see it the same way.
This kind of thinking is a large portion of the populist line Al Gore ran on in 2000. Class warfare. It is the theme John Edwards attempted to run on in both 2004 and 2008, two Americas, one for the wealth fat cats and one for the rest. (Note: that both, Gore, through dint of inheritance, and Edwards, through being a lawyer, had come to be one of the fat cats, and that this might have worked against them.) This week Edwards announced he is withdrawing from the presidential race. Does this signal the death knell of economic populism in the Democratic party? And if so, why? And what about the entrepreneurial spirit?
Yes, the unions are all but dead, but unemployment is at historic lows. High school graduation rates as a percentage of the total populace have never been higher, but the costs of a college education has never been higher either. What about the cost of health care and health insurance? Where does the answer lie to the Democrats inability to reach more voters with these critiques? Who is this slice of America that the populist left can't get and therefore can't reach? Bill Clinton, from the more moderate center left, was able to capture enough electoral votes to win despite supporting anti-left economic policy measures like NAFTA(which the majority of Democrats in both houses of congress voted against) and changing welfare. Was it because some substantial portion of the electorate voted for Ross Perot? He was anti-NAFTA, anti-free trade and globalization, why were Gore and Edwards unable to capture Perot's block of voters?
It is most evident that the Clarion has more questions than answers at this point. First let us return to our original proposal, the populist Democrats underestimation of the entrepreneurial spirits' grip on the American imagination. When Gore or Edwards fulminate against the system they mistakenly presume that most Americans envision their path of advance to wealth via working for other people. The rhetoric here is from Edwards' stump speech, "Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America - middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants." This rhetoric presumes an America that cannot advance on its own. It presumes an America where Americans must apply for jobs with and work for somebody else. It assumes a Manichaean world with only two scenarios. One is either a faceless worker, a cog, be it in retail, service or manufacturing or one is a holder of an average undergraduate degree, doomed to disappearing in stacks of resumes, hoping for, at best, incremental advancement in pay and title working for the corporate monolith. Gore and to a greater extent Edwards look at that system and accurately assess how few big winners there really are. Query how many Americans make $200,000 or more working for someone else's business; the answer very, very few, less than 2% of the population. This begs the question that Gore, Edwards, et al. don't see the answer to in our view, which is why don't more Americans see it their way.
The reason the Clarion thinks more Americans don't see it their way is the entrepreneurial element of the American dream. Many, many American's who don't necessarily have college degrees, but might, don't envision making their fortune working for someone else. Yes the odds are very long against making it as an entrepreneur, but it isn't about the reality of this vision for the members of the electorate who hold it. The dreams of millions of working Americans, subs, tradesmen, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, painters, landscapers, roofers, the list goes on ad infinitum, aren't of making their bankroll through the slog the corporate world, nor do they dream of being the worker in somebody else's company, be it a factory, a mall or a Wal-Mart. The same is true for the restauranteur or the computer start-up. Their dream is to make it on their own terms. This may mean make a substantial amount of money or it may simply mean the freedom to take they day off when they feel like it without having to call into "the boss."
This portion of the American body politic is suspicious of, if not out right hostile to the economic populism of Gore and Edwards. (Clinton assiduously courted the business vote, though not this specific subset.) The entrepreneur is not pining for more regulation, nor more taxation. Her or his dealings with government have quite likely left them feeling it is an impediment and an imposer additional hurdles, costs and burdens. Gore's and Edwards' populist themes represent big government in this way generally, but especially in terms of being portrayed as pro regulation of business, and pro regressive taxation (on everything from changes in the estate law to income tax rates.) The accuracy of this portrayal matters only modestly, the perception in the minds of the voting public constructs the reality of the outcome. So if Gore, Edwards or any other Democrat tack in this direction they will be portrayed as pro bigger government, more regulation and more taxation. Hillary Clinton's ill-fated attempt at health care reform was shot down by the perception of these twin demons lurking. Again recall most of Bill Clinton's domestic achievements are clustered around what might be termed centrist positions. The Clarion thinks that the campaigns of both Gore and Edwards foundered on their failure to understand these entrepreneurs and their perspective.
It is impossible to ignore the question of race completely on these questions, specifically the entrepreneurial spirit and the levelness of the playing field. America is not yet a color blind country. We at the Clarion believe and hope we get a little bit closer every day. We are not yet sufficiently well versed to address the racial issues on these questions, other than to say there is a long history of higher barriers to entry for non-white males to almost all endeavours in America for much of its history.
This kind of thinking is a large portion of the populist line Al Gore ran on in 2000. Class warfare. It is the theme John Edwards attempted to run on in both 2004 and 2008, two Americas, one for the wealth fat cats and one for the rest. (Note: that both, Gore, through dint of inheritance, and Edwards, through being a lawyer, had come to be one of the fat cats, and that this might have worked against them.) This week Edwards announced he is withdrawing from the presidential race. Does this signal the death knell of economic populism in the Democratic party? And if so, why? And what about the entrepreneurial spirit?
Yes, the unions are all but dead, but unemployment is at historic lows. High school graduation rates as a percentage of the total populace have never been higher, but the costs of a college education has never been higher either. What about the cost of health care and health insurance? Where does the answer lie to the Democrats inability to reach more voters with these critiques? Who is this slice of America that the populist left can't get and therefore can't reach? Bill Clinton, from the more moderate center left, was able to capture enough electoral votes to win despite supporting anti-left economic policy measures like NAFTA(which the majority of Democrats in both houses of congress voted against) and changing welfare. Was it because some substantial portion of the electorate voted for Ross Perot? He was anti-NAFTA, anti-free trade and globalization, why were Gore and Edwards unable to capture Perot's block of voters?
It is most evident that the Clarion has more questions than answers at this point. First let us return to our original proposal, the populist Democrats underestimation of the entrepreneurial spirits' grip on the American imagination. When Gore or Edwards fulminate against the system they mistakenly presume that most Americans envision their path of advance to wealth via working for other people. The rhetoric here is from Edwards' stump speech, "Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America - middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants." This rhetoric presumes an America that cannot advance on its own. It presumes an America where Americans must apply for jobs with and work for somebody else. It assumes a Manichaean world with only two scenarios. One is either a faceless worker, a cog, be it in retail, service or manufacturing or one is a holder of an average undergraduate degree, doomed to disappearing in stacks of resumes, hoping for, at best, incremental advancement in pay and title working for the corporate monolith. Gore and to a greater extent Edwards look at that system and accurately assess how few big winners there really are. Query how many Americans make $200,000 or more working for someone else's business; the answer very, very few, less than 2% of the population. This begs the question that Gore, Edwards, et al. don't see the answer to in our view, which is why don't more Americans see it their way.
The reason the Clarion thinks more Americans don't see it their way is the entrepreneurial element of the American dream. Many, many American's who don't necessarily have college degrees, but might, don't envision making their fortune working for someone else. Yes the odds are very long against making it as an entrepreneur, but it isn't about the reality of this vision for the members of the electorate who hold it. The dreams of millions of working Americans, subs, tradesmen, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, painters, landscapers, roofers, the list goes on ad infinitum, aren't of making their bankroll through the slog the corporate world, nor do they dream of being the worker in somebody else's company, be it a factory, a mall or a Wal-Mart. The same is true for the restauranteur or the computer start-up. Their dream is to make it on their own terms. This may mean make a substantial amount of money or it may simply mean the freedom to take they day off when they feel like it without having to call into "the boss."
This portion of the American body politic is suspicious of, if not out right hostile to the economic populism of Gore and Edwards. (Clinton assiduously courted the business vote, though not this specific subset.) The entrepreneur is not pining for more regulation, nor more taxation. Her or his dealings with government have quite likely left them feeling it is an impediment and an imposer additional hurdles, costs and burdens. Gore's and Edwards' populist themes represent big government in this way generally, but especially in terms of being portrayed as pro regulation of business, and pro regressive taxation (on everything from changes in the estate law to income tax rates.) The accuracy of this portrayal matters only modestly, the perception in the minds of the voting public constructs the reality of the outcome. So if Gore, Edwards or any other Democrat tack in this direction they will be portrayed as pro bigger government, more regulation and more taxation. Hillary Clinton's ill-fated attempt at health care reform was shot down by the perception of these twin demons lurking. Again recall most of Bill Clinton's domestic achievements are clustered around what might be termed centrist positions. The Clarion thinks that the campaigns of both Gore and Edwards foundered on their failure to understand these entrepreneurs and their perspective.
It is impossible to ignore the question of race completely on these questions, specifically the entrepreneurial spirit and the levelness of the playing field. America is not yet a color blind country. We at the Clarion believe and hope we get a little bit closer every day. We are not yet sufficiently well versed to address the racial issues on these questions, other than to say there is a long history of higher barriers to entry for non-white males to almost all endeavours in America for much of its history.
Labels: 2008's President, Economy, Politics, thought
Comments:
Don't doubt just how widely this entrepreneurial spirit is embedded in the American consciousness.
Here is an except from Jay-Z's 2006 album, , wherein he details why he is more sophisticated as thirty-something than he was as a twenty-something, more sophisticated than twenty-somethings are today. This superiority, his advantage, is rooted in being an owner, rather than a worker.
The song is called 30 Something, "I don't buy out the bar, I bought the nightspot. I got the right stock..."
In this portion he talks about the fiscal, but if you read the rest of the lyrics, he talks about how the same mindset applies across all of his world.
Note how over time, his conception of how to rake in wealth has changed. Here is a link to the lyrics from his 2001 album, Blueprint. He knows he wants to get rich, he is amazed he has his own clothing line, he is evolving into the owner, rather than the salesman.
Post a Comment
Here is an except from Jay-Z's 2006 album, , wherein he details why he is more sophisticated as thirty-something than he was as a twenty-something, more sophisticated than twenty-somethings are today. This superiority, his advantage, is rooted in being an owner, rather than a worker.
The song is called 30 Something, "I don't buy out the bar, I bought the nightspot. I got the right stock..."
In this portion he talks about the fiscal, but if you read the rest of the lyrics, he talks about how the same mindset applies across all of his world.
Note how over time, his conception of how to rake in wealth has changed. Here is a link to the lyrics from his 2001 album, Blueprint. He knows he wants to get rich, he is amazed he has his own clothing line, he is evolving into the owner, rather than the salesman.
