Entitlement

1ADoes your success owe nothing to luck, or circumstance? Then you probably think the poor actually deserve to be poor. Peter Barnes examines the conservative mentality that underlies the coming budget.

One of the great things about Australia is that any child can grow up to be Prime Minister.

Travel to any Western democracy and you’ll hear the same thing, with slight variations; the great thing about the USA is that any child can grow up to be President, and so on.

Any child. Even a girl – in Australia, but so far not the USA. Even a person of colour – in the USA, but so far not Australia.

Which really makes you stop for a moment, because, hang on, isn’t half the population female? Isn’t that a bit weird, over a hundred years of Prime Ministers – twenty eight Prime Ministers – and so far only one girl has made it? Two hundred and twenty odd years of Presidents in the US – forty four Presidents – and so far only one person of colour has made it, and no girls at all?

Yet half of children are girls.

Perhaps there’s more to it than being a child and growing up.

While our constitution, our voting systems and our laws don’t prohibit any child from becoming Prime Minister, it’s painfully obvious that those aren’t the only things stopping at least half our children from achieving that goal. As Anatole France said a long time ago “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal bread”.

Perhaps it helps to be a particular kind of child?

While we all may be born equal under the law, we are certainly not born with equal opportunity. Nobody can deny that a male caucasian child born to a rich family living in a capital city has some advantages; you only have to look at the faces in Parliament to see the truth in that. That’s not to say that any other child still cannot become Prime Minister; it’s just an unarguable fact that, so far, only one has succeeded.

That’s not the entitlement this article is about, however.

So, what other entitlement is there? Few would argue that, in general, your race, colour, gender, wealth, location and many other factors make it easier, or harder, for you to succeed.

It seems obvious, then, that circumstance and luck will play a part in any success – or so you’d think. But here’s the strange thing. Successful people don’t believe that. They might agree about it in general, but never in their own particular case.

The entitlement I’m talking about is the entitlement assumed by the “successful”, and its consequences for their behaviour.

How does it work?

Many of those who succeed truly believe that their success is not because they had greater advantages, or luck. They believe it’s because they are truly better. More, they believe that they deserve everything they have, because they’ve earned it by being better – no matter how much they’ve got.

There’s more. Having succeeded, they truly believe that anybody else could also succeed, if only they wanted to or tried hard enough.

In fact, they actually believe that those less fortunate deserve their misfortune! Why? Because they didn’t try hard enough.

The following poll comes from the USA, however the basic distinction between conservatives (Republicans) and liberals (Democrats) is also true in Australia. The poll asks the simple question: are poor people poor because of circumstances, or because of lack of effort?

Roughly half of Americans believe that poor people are poor because of their circumstances. However there’s a massive difference when you break that down by party affiliation. Less than 30% of Republicans think it’s because of circumstances, while over 60% of Democrats do.

Put another way, 57% of Republicans believe that poor people are poor simply because they don’t try hard enough.

Opinion gaps in opinions about why people are poor

Think about that. Nearly two thirds of conservatives think that poor people’s poverty is their own fault.

Which, when you think about it, could be translated into saying that the reason why we’ve had twenty eight Prime Ministers and only one female Prime Minister is that basically women just aren’t trying hard enough…

Another way to look at it is to observe that in the USA the top 0.01% of households earned an average of US$10.25 million per year. The overall average for the US was US$51,000. As Matthew Hutson points out in his excellent article, “Social Darwinism Isn’t Dead“, that logically means that the top households are 200 times smarter and work 200 times harder than the average household . . .

You hear stories about poor people who are successful “against the odds”, but strangely those odds don’t get mentioned when the more privileged are successful. It’s the same for arguments about intelligence, hard work, or any other quality. They don’t guarantee success, and successful people don’t necessarily have them.

Let’s face it, if you work hard and are successful you’d much rather believe that your success was due entirely to your own efforts and intelligence, and not just luck or good birth. It’s only human nature. It’s what follows that belief that’s dangerous.

There’s a lot of other research into this,  here, here, here, here, here and here.

So what’s the problem?

The problem comes when people with those beliefs – particularly when rich, successful conservative politicians – decide policies about social welfare, health and education.

Research here, and this article here, document how poorer people give more than twice as much to charity, proportional to income, as rich people. Simply put, the poor are generous because they know what hardship and privation are. The rich are not, either because they have no experience, or because they actually don’t think the poor deserve it.

Recent figures indicate that the world’s richest 1% own 46% of the world’s assets. And this research shows that, largely, they think they got that wealth because they’re better, and they deserve it. And the poor are poor because they don’t work hard enough.

If you’re conservative, or rich, or both, you’ll probably hold those beliefs. It’s not very hard then to see why you might not believe in age pensions, subsidised health care, unemployment benefits and many other publicly funded services. It’s not very hard to see why you would have no qualms at all in cutting back those schemes simply based on your personal beliefs and ideology, regardless of the economic circumstances.

The very way Joe Hockey uses the term “entitlement” clearly indicates that he thinks it’s optional, and its time is over. Of course an entitlement is a right, and most Australians believe our society has agreed that things like pensions and medical care are rights.

The following graph, again from the USA but likely to be repeated here, particularly on predictions of the coming budget, shows the change in cost of various goods and services over the last ten years. Chillingly, while “things” are getting cheaper, critical services like health and education are increasing in cost. Poor, unhealthy, uneducated people are not going to escape from this trap.

poorcosts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However the entitled don’t believe in a poverty trap.

In the article “Noblesse Oblige? Social Status and Economic Inequality Maintenance among Politicians“, Michael Kraus and Bennett Callaghan examine the policy and voting patterns in US government.

Their study shows that Republicans tend to support legislation increasing economic inequality regardless of their social status. For Democrats, their social status – measured in terms of average wealth, race, or gender – was a significant predictor of support for economic inequality. That is, even amongst Democrats, if you’re rich and successful, you’ll vote for legislation that continues or increases economic inequality.

A scan of the benches in Parliament reveals many rich white males making our current policy decisions. Although parliamentarians represent us, they are not representative of us. For example, in the Australian population, about half a percent are lawyers by occupation. In the current Parliament, 60 parliamentarians, or 25%, are lawyers.

This is not a call to class warfare. Neither is it an assault on wealth. What I’m trying to point out is that there are well documented, honestly held beliefs held by conservatives and the successful that simply do not match up with reality. Those real beliefs, in turn, lead to policies that are generally harmful to people who are already vulnerable. If there’s class warfare, that’s its source. If there’s an unreasonable distribution of wealth, that’s where it starts.

So the Age of Entitlement is not over. It is over for the sick, the poor, and defenceless. It’s alive and well and built into the belief systems and psyche of a large majority of conservative politicians, and the conservative voters who support them.

We can trace the upcoming budget and all social legislation far more easily to the government’s personal and ideological beliefs than to any reality in the economy or the needs of the poor, the sick, the aged or the young. If those groups have problems, it’s their own fault!

In Australia a girl of colour from a poor background may one day be Prime Minister, but not while the current, entitled, incumbents govern, and the current incumbents truly believe that they’re entitled.

This article was first published on Peter’s blog infinite8horizon and has been republished with permission.

 



Categories: Social Justice

Tags: , , , , ,

15 replies

  1. One wonders why politics is enticing so many lawyers these days
    But they don’t make for very good politicians,
    They have no heart or soul..

  2. Conservatism by its very nature avoids the necessity to change with the times and follow the train of logical inferences and empirical proof that countermands their attachment to antiquated beliefs based in prejudice and not fact. Once you are pegged to medieval ways of thinking then the whole logic thing is no more than a scientific and mathematical unpleasantness sent to annoy the purveyors of truth and wisdom.

    Hide bound ideological attachment to dogma negates any necessity to follow the evidence and change beliefs that are demonstrably false. Conservatism is primitivism and backward referral writ large in the annuls of religious dogma and irrational magical and mythical thinking. In short conservatism is a cultural virus founded in subjective retributive justice not a set of precise and reasoned logical and causal arguments of empirical facts.

    The strange thing is, of course, that many wealthy conservatives are ridding on the back of scientific methodology and innovation so when their is a profit science and rational thinking are OK but when it comes to prejudice and gross inequality that rational thing is simply a leftist socialist inconvenience.

    And to maintain the status quo magic and mythology are given the same status as hard headed scientific facts in many academic settings. Now if one wishes to keep ones belief system, whether magical and mythical or not, it seems entirely reasonable to follow the facts and adjust ideology to evidentiary proofs. Sadly this does not happen. If one is afraid of change and modernism due to dogma then fears that are dysfunctional and self-defeating will predominate.

    It seems so simple to love and care for your fellow creatures as you would yourself and to strive to alleviate suffering. But no it is much more profitable to blame the victim and entrench unjust suffering and inequality. Yet, to most conservatives, what is discussed here is no more than nonsense since they are emotionally crippled by retributive justice and victim blame and to justify themselves they must attack anything that threatens their dysfunctional paradigm.

    Love beauty, art, music literature provide a window of opportunity onto a creative future where we can all live adequate and sustainable lives with far less inequality.What is wrong with that?

    The tedious arguments and blogs that drive headlong into conflict and dogmatic assertability without any inkling of true kindness, compassion and love.

    To love is to love and to care for our fellow human beings in a way in which we find solutions and share the bounty of our world. Not doing so leads to the appalling lack of support for those who suffer through no fault of their own.

    Why is it so complicated to love and care for our fellow human beings?

  3. Ideology over reality any day. We may have had our first woman Prime Minister, but the shameful way we treated her may ensure we will not have another for a long time. By the bye, half of my children is a woman.

  4. Pick the real Gina Rinehart:

  5. be interesting to know how this ‘entitled class’ defines ‘hard work’?

  6. Reblogged this on :: 1043mabovethesea :: and commented:
    “Although parliamentarians represent us, they are not representative of us. “

  7. Become a Young Liberal, do Law, if you don’t score a corporate gig, go to the IPA or the Sydney Institute or the Liberal Party executive, be a staffer for a politician, get handed the preselection, Bob’s your uncle.

  8. Interesting and so true article…

    We truly count on others for success.We do NOT do it all alone.From luck,working hard,who you know,etc,etc… So many factors(A combo of some,or sometimes just one),the world is NOT just “black & white”.

    If you really believe you are successful or unsuccessful (Judging what these are is another whole story) ONLY because of you,think again it’s your “ego” &/or “lack of confidence” talking.You are delusional if you think it is just you.

  9. The profession of Law was created with the express purpose of keeping power in the hands of those that have it. Justice therefore is mealy a by product of that process. Now that it is why individuals with law degrees are attracted to politics!

  10. Simply put, the poor are generous because they know what hardship and privation are. The rich are not, either because they have no experience, or because they actually don’t think the poor deserve it.

    A great statement and the perfect example of why those running our current government are so hell bent on smashing the poor. Not one of them has ever had to endure any form of privation or hardship, being mostly born into a good, white, upper middle-class neighbourhood, private school educated, enjoyed a free university education – possibly even a nice scholarship, join the legal or business profession, use your various connections to get preselected for office and enjoy the ride to a life of wealth, power and influence. Firmly believe you got there through hard work alone and tell all those less fortunate they are nothing but a bunch of lazy bludgers.

  11. Simple as it seems the rich govern us, the rich are getting richer, Parliament, Senate and the rest of these institutes design schemes to make the poor poorer, a lot of people got into trouble with the Commonwealth Bank, with schemes designed to rip off clients of funds and money making ideas that this bank new was fraudulent, this scam was not just for the poor but those who were also reasonable well off, at least many had a million dollars to invest that soon evaporated, what has been missing from these blogs is the lack of corruption that people do not want to comment on as it is seen as reflection of themselves, my self on a daily basis I see corruption, it exists big time until the critical point is attained, whereby a society can no longer function as all is polluted by endemic and systematic fraud and bad faith.
    The Western Alliance can only function when their is a reasonable amount of people that are honest we are approaching a point where these people that attain to be honest are no longer able to as a result of the way the system is set up.

  12. Reblogged this on The Kettle Press and commented:
    A prime example, not given but recognised by all of us, is Gina Reinhart’s railing against the poor, who deserve less than they have, and apparently waste it anyway on drinking, smoking and gambling.

    The ‘successful’ prefer the divide to be large and getting larger because it convinces them they are even more ‘successful’ than ever. It’s a form of delusion, and it’s the everyday person who pays for it.

  13. Great comment Kaye Lee at 10:46am, but you inadvertently missed the first sentence

    Be born male. Become a Young Liberal, do Law, if you don’t score a corporate gig, go to the IPA or the Sydney Institute or the Liberal Party executive, be a staffer for a politician, get handed the preselection, Bob’s your uncle.

    cheers 😉

  14. Look, I’ve enjoyed reading this website for a different perspective…..I just dont think you can claim to be ‘independent’ when you too often only argue one side and slip in too many generalizations. Some of the data analysis is perplexing and lazy. Firstly:

    ” Recent figures indicate that the world’s richest 1% own 46% of the world’s assets. And this research shows that, largely, they think they got that wealth because they’re better, and they deserve it. And the poor are poor because they don’t work hard enough.”

    How on earth does that research show that? Did you even open that link? It only shows that the rich own most of the money – it is only your single opinion that ” they think they got that wealth because they’re better, and they deserve it. And the poor are poor because they don’t work hard enough.”. Or are the abstracts (I trust you read the full copies, would only be prudent) you’ve linked to about how wealth *can* cause narcissism, in a different sectiom, evidence enough to make those conclusions? I’m gonna say no.

    And since this is written in a political context to imply the liberals (and supporters) think exactly like your unfounded conclusions, explain this one:

    ” If you’re conservative, or rich, or both, you’ll probably hold those beliefs.”

    Call me an engineer, but for a website that largely argues politics using maths, ‘probably’ is a word that needs to be backed up with numbers. The only numbers I can see that relate beliefs of the poor’s plight to political persuasion, or even wealth (I haven’t opened every single link mind you) is your table. Sure, 57% of Republicans believe its their own fault, which is hardly an overwhelming majority (aint that close to two thirds either sorry, its closer to one half), but looking at the same table, the rich (> $75k) are equally split in opinion, slightly in favor of “the correct answer”. How can you relate rich to conservatism to beliefs on the poor, if you can’t conclude anything from your own evidence? In fact the evidence slightly contradicts your conclusions?

    What I believe you haven’t covered well, is the psych of the poor. Except to provide a link to an article that shows people become dumb when they worry about money (juggling money stress and life is of course a poor only problem). And this is the whole point of the ‘age of entitlement’. Hockey believes that some people receive welfare who dont need it. He doesnt refer to the ‘sick and defenseless’. So prove that there isn’t? Once again looking at your table, 31% of the poor (<$30k) think they are poor because of lack of effort, with another 7% thinking its a combination of effort and circumstance. So nearly two fifths of the poor believe they are poor at least partly because they are slack!!! You may wish to send this table to Hockey to put on his website, because these numbers are compelling!!!

    Another mistake is that you infer that liberal leaders and their supporters target the sick, the poor and the defenseless. It makes a nice Labor Facebook poster, but its rubbish. Unlike the left that target the very top, they never target the very bottom. For every 1000 gina videos on a socialist site, there's zero videos making fun of sick people on a conservative sit is there? Old people maybe. Just because your math tells you the 20 cents benefit Barry flicked to the homeless man is a greater % of his income than Wealthy Wally who dropped him a 10er, doesn't mean Wally was doing it for a tax deduction. All you have are perceptions, which some also have towards some welfare recipients.

    " In Australia a girl of colour from a poor background may one day be Prime Minister, but not while the current, entitled, incumbents govern, and the current incumbents truly believe that they’re entitled."

    But what if she's a lawyer?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: