There's been an interesting three-way on wealth in politics, and concern for the vulnerable poor, among Peter Pappas, Jim Maule, and yours truly. Pappas' latest foray is here. He makes a number of unwarranted assumptions, perhaps the most egregious being that "high moral character generally ...is a predictor of material success." Obviously, since character is a matter of judgment, this is an opinion and not something easily disprovable. However, I can only suspect that Pappas has not had the opportunity that some of us have had to get to know many poor or low income people and understand how they have managed to hold onto principles and yes, "high moral character" through extraordinarily trying times. I suspect also that most of Pappas' clients are of the "material success" variety, and he would find himself (as a commenter on my blog suggested earlier) naturally leaping to their defense, even if he were not utterly convinced of their "high moral character". Pappas also engages in the old habit of answering a concern that those with wealth tend to engage in morally/socially questionable behavior that exploits others by asserting that his targeted group (the poor and middle class) are also likely to behave badly, missing the point that the translation of wealth into power means that the bad behavior by the wealthy (especially those who use their wealth to influence politicians in their favor) is likely to have a much broader and deeper impact on society through exploitation of otherwise vulnerable and relatively powerless people (workers, customers, underlings).
Maule answers Pappas well in Is it any wonder the tax law is a mess? (Jan 25, 2010).
The critical issue is understanding the harmful results to society when a privileged and wealthy elite can use their inordinate control of resources to influence the norms, laws, and remedies of society to their benefit, while a large number of economically deprived citizens remain vulnerable to exploitation through those very norms and laws that should protect them, and even powerless to redress actual harms committed against them. This is why the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United is so disastrous for democracy--it gives those with the power over huge corporate resources the ability to buy laws to suit themselves, under cover of a flimsy argument about free speech that misunderstands that the essence of what free speech must mean in human society is freedom from control by corporate wealth.
Recent Comments