Extended Phenotype

(crossposted from Progressive Commons)

Listening to Martin Luther King’s "I Have a Dream" speech this morning, I was struck by how much has changed in public discourse. In recent years, no political figure has commanded the language as masterfully as King, and the net result is that we fail to persuade, we fail to inspire. We fail to move our own hearts, and rely instead on logic and argument, by which we convince only those with whom we already agree. Today, on Martin Luther King Day, it’s worth listening to the words that have inspired us in the past, and think about how we might recover our ability to inspire, as an essential precondition to recovering our ability to lead.

King’s "I Have a Dream" has more famous passages, of course, by my favorite is:

In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

Written, of course, in the context of our nation’s great struggle over civil rights and racial equality, King’s words are increasingly applicable to all Americans. As the effects of post-WWII prosperity wane, as the income disparities between Americans grow, as millions lack or lose basic health insurance, we need to reflect upon what "cashing the check" written by the Founders will mean in our generation. Such a vision, and the ability to articulate that vision in words that stir the heart, is essential to opposing a new and rising orthodoxy which depicts intolerance and inequality as essentially American.

Progressives refuse to believe that intolerance and savage inequality are inherently American. We refuse to believe, along with Dr. King, that the bank of justice is bankrupt.

(MLK: I Have A Dream mp3)

…and it’s not the “trust fund,” the various depletion scenarios, or the options for ensuring long-term solvency. Sure, each of these is fairly complex, but they’re amenable to rational thought, data, and a bit of research. And the parts which seemed confusing are well explained by Paul Krugman (especially in his latest paper in The Economist’s Voice).

What I don’t understand about Social Security is how its opponents actually manage to convince themselves that the program isn’t hugely beneficial, and should be variously privatized, crippled, or even dismantled.

Sure, I understand the argument concerning savings disincentives; that the promise of a retirement annuity roughly indexed to inflation may contribute to low retirement investment and savings throughout one’s adult years. There’s definitely merit in the theoretical model, but I remain unconvinced that such a disincentive exists in real life. Why?

First, because at my current rate of contribution, my benefits at the full retirement age of 67 will be $2055 per month. Not bad, I suppose, but let’s just say that it’s enough to pay my mortgage and buy lunch for two. Not lunches, mind you, just a lunch. Clearly, the promise of Social Security benefits (assuming that the system is capable of paying me the current level of benefits when I retire) is enough to ensure that I won’t be homeless but not enough to ensure a stable food supply. Or, instead of retiring to enjoy the home I’ve worked hard to afford, I can sell it and move into a small apartment in order to retain the ability to live indoors and eat.

Hmm….choices….

So clearly, those who believe that Social Security is funding a lavish retirement without the need to continue personal investment (through massively popular 401K plans or private investment channels) either isn’t really going to need their benefit checks, or hasn’t done the math.

So let’s move on to the misguided notion that OASDI taxes (FICA for those reading the back of their pay stub) are really disincentives to work. Again, I understand the theoretical argument for how higher taxes disincent work and entrepreneurship, but I remain unconvinced that this effect is measurable among working class Americans. Why?

Because I’ve never met anyone who was going to need their Social Security check who could choose to work less, simply based on wanting to avoid paying a larger amount of tax. Increasingly, lower and middle-income Americans need to work as much as possible, regardless of the bite taxes take from their paycheck. Sure, we may bitch about the taxes that come out, but that’s not the same as truly being disincented to work. A theoretical disincentive simply can’t manifest itself for people to whom basic needs and health care form the scope of their economic lives.

But both of these “drawbacks” to Social Security annuities do apply to those who don’t really need the help with retirement — folks in the upper brackets of the income and wealth distribution. Tax levels become disincentives when your choices are relatively free and unconstrained, not when you’re living by paycheck and need the work. And not when rising health care costs, declining employment-linked benefits, rising housing costs, and rising educational costs — to cite a few examples — steadily erode one’s ability to save from one’s net income.

And this points out the essential hypocrisy of the current battle over “reforming” Social Security. The people who need the program most are those to whom its theoretical drawbacks are largely moot, and the benefits hugely outweigh any residual disincentives. The people who disapprove of the program because of its theoretical drawbacks typically are less in need of its benefits, or are economic ideologues.

Fortunately, however, the folks who are actively trying to undermine Social Security are screwing with a sleeping dragon. Social Security is, hands-down, one of the most popular social programs ever. And although the economic Right is trying some tricky rhetoric and judo moves to kill Social Security by reforming it to death, I’m willing to bet that ordinary Americans aren’t going to go gently into a poverty-stricken retirement, especially after contributing their taxes for forty hard-working years.

The nation’s press seem to have noticed that we in Washington still don’t have a governor. Moreover, they seem to have picked up on the fact that most of us seem disconnected, ambivalent, and disgusted by the whole thing. Even politically motivated people such as myself appear to have lost steam through the process of count, recount, recount again, lawsuit, counter suit.

I’ve been trying to work out why this is. If there was a good reason to prefer Gregoire (for example) over Dino Rossi on November 2nd, then why isn’t there a good reason to continue preferring Gregoire on December 26th?

Well, at some level I continue to prefer Gregoire for governor, but my lack of fervor in that opinion seems to originate in a profound lack of interest in state politics. Throughout my lifetime, Washington governors have been fairly lackluster, and governance has increasingly shifted from elected officials to the poisonous over-reliance on initative and referendum which seem to plague California as well as my own state. Increasingly, revenue issues are impossible for elected officials to decide in their capacity as the people’s representatives, and are either passed back to referendum or initiated by citizen groups themselves.

Anti-tax rebellion continues full force, despite the fact that Washington sits in median ranks of states in terms of total tax burden. And despite daily evidence that funding our children’s education through a combination of liquor taxes, Lotto, property taxes, and unsustainable timber sales on impoverished fourth-growth forest plantations is not working. Relatively “rich” districts have some of the best teachers and schools around, while districts in areas with little wealth and sluggish local economies suffer through large class sizes and a general lack of quality. And even in the best districts, teacher salaries are ridiculous compared to what individuals with Master’s degree-level education make in the private sector. And the dominance of Democrats in the legislature and in the governor’s office hasn’t changed any of this a damned bit. Nor do the Republicans offer a real alternative — the need to pander to anti-tax fanatics virtually guarantees that.

And so, as the governor’s race in Washington winds down to a virtual draw and we prepare for the Inauguration Day of whichever candidate wins the last round of legal challenges, I find that I identify completely with the fatigue and ennui chronicled in the Times. Which is sad, because breaking the deadlock in state politics will be impossible without the committed effort and checkbooks of those, like me, who found themselves energized and passionate about electoral politics at the national level as recently as last month.