A Passion for Liberty
Tibor R. Machan @ Rational Review
Posts tagged envy
Column on Nasty Effects of Egalitarianism
Jun 9th
Nasty Effects of Egalitarianism
Tibor R. Machan
Ideas do have consequences. You come to believe that you are invincible, you will take risks more readily. You believe government will bail you out, cover your debts up to a certain amount, you will borrow more (indeed, your financial advisor will tell you you should). You believe you can’t lose at the roulette tables, you will wager more.
After all, ideas guide our actions. Even the tiniest bit of behavior has some ideas setting up its parameters and limits. Sure, some things we do is nearly instinctual but that’s only because we have done them a lot and no longer need to reflect on or deliberate about doing them, like when we drive around in our manual shift automobiles and after a while shift gears without having to work it out consciously. The subconscious has been well trained and needs but a bit of monitoring to carry on. A very efficient system, this is!
But when you learn stupid stuff, that too has consequences. You are persuaded that nothing you do is up to you, that you are responsible for nothing since everyone is driven to act as he or she does by impersonal forces around the environment in which one lives, why bother paying attention? Why heed one’s steps? Que sera, sera–what will be will be, so not to worry. Parents who believe their babies are all hard wired to act as they will can easily refrain from teaching their little ones. After all, they already know it all.
Now if you have been persuaded that you are equal to everyone–that your worth as a human being is no different from that of, say, Sergeant York or some other hero, or that your achievements organizing your socks in your drawers match those of Einstein or Leonardo da Vinci or Bill Gates–you could very likely be resentful about how these others are admired while you are not. Envy is one sentiment that those harbor who believe in universal equality, that no one can help what he or she is, what he or she accomplishes, that it is all a matter of sheer luck, accident and it’s all the same without significant differences among us. And that is much of the substance of the egalitarian political creed that is having such a fine run of it in the academy and in the White House and the halls of Congress these days, not to mention abroad.
Teachers who are convinced of this kind of robust egalitarianism will very likely grade their students’ papers and tests accordingly. I recall back at UC Santa Barbara, where I did my graduate work for my Ph. D., one committed egalitarian professor gave all students in his classes As. And he wasn’t brought up on malpractice charges! Not long ago the prominent Harvard Political Theorist Michael Sandel reportedly refused to let his own child play sports because that would teach them the idea that some people are better athletes than others and that this matters somewhat in one’s life. (Sandel is an avid advocate of egalitarianism and an vociferous opponent of libertarianism, although he routinely mischaracterizes this political position as implying that there are no ethics by which people ought to live! Well, there are but a persons needs to make the choice to follow the ethics in order to gain credit for good conduct!)
One result of taking egalitarian ideas seriously is to give up on ambition and on striving for excellence. And in a world where more and more people are beginning to live in regimes that make competition possible, more and more people are taking advantage of this opportunity, so if one is convinced that differentiations based on good performance, good conduct, are wrongheaded, this will have its negative externalities–side effects that are going to be wrongheaded and even harmful.
The only part of egalitarianism that is sound is that when it comes to our worth as infants, no one is morally better than another. There are no natural aristocrats, innately morally superior individuals. But thereafter, once one begins to make decision and choices in life, this egalitarianism vanishes and ranking kicks in big time (unless one has certain impediments that make this moot).
Column on The Face of Envy
Feb 1st
The Face of Envy
Tibor R. Machan
In THE WEEK, January 16, 2010, the item “The last word” is given to someone whose attitudes and ideas have always put me off. I am speaking of Barbara Ehrenreich, a prolific author whose major theme tends to be that the world needs to make equality its primary public purpose and until that comes about, let everyone be miserable.
Her latest book appears to reinforce this impression. Her Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World (Granta, 2010) is a relentless, over the top rant against a group of authors and advocates who have produced much print aiming to ease the agony of those who are suffering from cancer. Ehrenreich herself had recently survived a bout with breast cancer and as most good writer-entrepreneurs are wont to do, made this experience the basis of a book which expresses her exquisitely sour outlook on life by dissing all those who would wish to inject some measure of relief into the lives of those who have been hit with the often fatal malady. No doubt there is much hokum in these books, which essentially follow the doctrine promoted most prominently by Norman Vincent Peale’s 1952 The Power of Positive Thinking. Many of them have a desperate tone, especially the one by Anne McNervey titled The Gift of Cancer: A Call to Awakening.
Yet who could begrudge the effort, albeit at times inept and desperate, of authors and readers alike to find some solace in the midst of fear and pain? Who would make a fuss, spend precious time writing an entire book debunking those who try to manage and even flourish in the midst of their calamity?
It would be Barbara Ehrenreich, of course, the quintessential sourpuss of American popular culture. In THE WEEK article, which is excerpted from her book, she is actually depicted in a photograph from the UK newspaper, The Guardian, frowning out at the reader holding, you may not believe this, a happy face balloon! Talk about making a concerted effort to rain on other people’s parade!
Yet this is no surprise, not at least to those who have followed Ehrenreich’s paper trail, the numerous books she has penned which attack bourgeois society for even caring about the enjoyment of life! And no one can accuse Ehrenreich with false advertising–one of her books of essays is called The Snarling Citizen, a very apt description of her indeed. Yet despite this admittedly accurate self-assessment, Ehrenreich lacks a crucial quality of a sound cultural commentator, especially one whose focus is America. This is the realization that one size does not fit all. Perhaps for some folks the dour attitude of a Barbara Ehrenreich makes sense but it certainly does not make sense for everyone struck by misfortune. And since many, many folks will shake off a negative disposition even while undergoing hardship and distress, Ehrenreich appears to want to make them all feel bad, just as she prefers to feel. It seems to her to be even a sign of astuteness and erudition to reject a pleasant state of mind, or so at least would her writings suggest. But why?
I am not personally privy to the details of Ehrenreich’s personality and so I do not want to guess at what in her life may have supported her morose outlook. But I do suggest that whatever reason she has for apparently feeling so down all of the time, as a matter of intellectual discipline she ought to resist trying to recruit everyone to share the feeling. Because recruiting is just what she is after, especially with this latest book of hers. And that suggests a profound sense of envy toward all those who, unlike her, manage to have a fairly bright outlook on their lives even while in trouble. I suggest the more power to them and the less to Ehrenreich.
Fortunately my reaction to Ehrenreich’s efforts to spread her attitude of doom and gloom is shared by some who have access to prominent publications. Thus Amy Bloom provides a nice antithesis to Ehrenreich’s preaching, in her essay “The Rap on Happiness” (The New York Times Book Review, January 31, 2010). Bloom is not endorsing the peddling of false hope, not by any means. But she recognizes that Ehrenreich’s pitch is shrill and not needed at all. As she concludes, “I don’t see how even the most high-minded, cynical or curmudgeonly person could argue with” the reasonable understanding of human happiness Bloom presents in her short missive, one that identifies five components of such a state, namely, having basic necessities, getting enough sleep, having relationships that matter (i.e., not spreading oneself thin), extending generosity to others just as prudence to oneself, and going to work on stuff one is interested in. Not a bad list, me thinks–reminiscent, in fact, of Aristotle.
Positive Externalities of Riches
Dec 2nd
Positive Externalities of Riches
Tibor R. Machan (from my archives)
Although I came to America as a poor immigrant and after leaving home at 18 became dirt poor, with no family support, I have also been fortunate as well as industrious enough to do reasonably well in my life. From the start it seemed to me that a chance such as I faced (namely, to make my way in the country of nearly every poor foreigner’s dreams) demanded the best effort on my part, lest I blow it. Not that everything went smoothly but all in all I got nearly all I set out to obtain, including a superb education, a career that could be many people’s envy, wonderful children, a great deal of travel, some of the best friends one could ask for, and at least a tolerable economic life that sustains me well enough albeit by no means in luxury.
What all this leads me to suggest is that clearly there are many who are far more prosperous than I, even if I doubt that too many have enjoyed the degree of happiness I have been fortunate to experience thus far. Still, I could easily benefit from having a good deal more money, pretty much like everyone else. Yet, I have never felt envy in my life. Somehow the sight of greater wealth on the part of others has never lead me to desire to exchange their lives for mine. Nor, especially, have I ever felt ill will toward those who are rich. On the contrary, I have been thoroughly pleased that the very rich are with us. And there are some good reasons for my pleasure with them, even if I can barely think of myself in their shoes.
For one, the rich remind me that if I wanted to aspire to be one of them, I would have a decent chance at it. I know some rich people and some of these started nearly as low if not lower on the economic ladder as I did. But they wanted to be well off and found a way to do this while also gaining satisfaction from their work. I know some people who are millionaires, a few who probably have a billion or so, and in each case I know that the way movies or sitcoms or pulp novels depict them is grossly inaccurate. None of these folks is mean or greedy or amoral, quite the opposite. I know that if I had wanted to concentrate my energies on securing wealth and great prosperity–e.g., by means of expertise in finance or corporate management–I could have given that a decent shot, with not too bad a chance at success.
Another reason I welcome the existence of the rich in our society–near enough to the lives of my family and friends to witness what their lives are like – is that without them we and millions of others would scarcely have a chance to occasional luxury, a taste of the finer aspects of nourishment, entertainment, decoration, art and culture in general.
Who but the rich sustain good restaurants? Who but the rich make fine porcelain or jazz clubs or beautiful rugs or fancy furniture, not to mention stunning architecture and enthralling theater possible? I cannot afford to support artists, musicians, actors, great chefs, and the other people who create and produce some of the marvelous features of our culture, nor can my equally middle level and poor income earning friends. But once in a blue moon we all manage to go to a great French restaurant, an art gallery, a neighborhood where fashionable estates are located, or a shopping center that features exquisite merchandise.
It is wonderful to go to an elegant mall such as those strewn about in the New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, Boston, and other areas of the country where these businesses can count on enough wealthy folks to sustain them. I, and others like me would not be able to support elegant ocean cruisers, superb automobiles, and great sports events such as Wimbledon or the America Cup. But there are those who can and I, for one, am extremely glad for that.
This is one of the reasons–although not the main one–for my distress about the kind of rich bashing that is so common in our culture. I find it disgusting how the envious among us would rather destroy the rich than witness the gap between their own modest economic status and that of the very wealthy. It is especially loathsome how so many American politicians, who ought to know better, gladly capitalize on this envy and persist on using the rich as a scapegoat of their own unwillingness to do the right thing, namely, concentrate on defending us from foreign and domestic aggressors and leave us be to fend for ourselves in peace, however much economic disparity this may generate–far less, incidentally, than is generated in societies where politicians try to even things out and run the country to the ground.
Of course, the first thing to be said about the rich is that they have every right to seek their kind of life, so long as they do this in peace. But there is also this point, namely, that their existence is of enormous benefit to the rest of us, not just in jobs and national wealth (especially in times when, unlike now, politicians haven’t mucked things up) but in keeping culture at a level that is there for all of us to enjoy, to save up for a bit of luxury once in a while, even if we do not wish to live as some of them are, namely, in persistent pursuit of abundance.
