Are the rich ruder?
"Greed is good," said Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street. It's one of the most famous movie quotes in decades -- not only because it's got that alliteration thing going for it, but because Gecko laid out a very believable, solid argument for naked avarice. Greed and wealth know no party boundaries, but advocates of greed or something akin to economical Darwinism is espoused by the Republicans -- shamelessly espoused. They claim it to be the cornerstone of Capitalism, as a matter of fact. Not only do they champion "winner-take-all" mentality, but they tend to say that everyone is subject to this. Everyone wants more. Everyone will step over each other to make that extra dollar.
OK, maybe I'm generalizing a bit, but the Republicans tend to be a more lockstep-message party than the Democrats (by a small, but measurable degree). But the championing of greed wouldn't be so amusing if not for championing the 2,000-year-old philosophy of Christianity at the same time. Somehow, in modern times, Jesus ended up not only being an American, but a bloodthirsty Capitalist to boot. Can Jesus be a proponent of economic Darwinism? Apparently, according the Glenn Beck and his ilk, Jesus probably wouldn't have had such a problem with the merchants in the Temple, if he were around today.
The reason I mention all this is an interesting study has just appeared on the attitudes of the "haves" vs. the attitudes of the "have-nots." I heard about this on a talk-radio station this morning, one featuring a liberal host and a conservative host -- so there was some two-sided banter (which I find much more interesting than the Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity echo chamber). Not surprisingly, the liberal agreed with the study and the conservative did not. The conservative cited that "everyone is greedy," so therefore the study is flawed.
Well, sure, everyone has a degree of greed. It's ingrained in us by evolution to gather enough stuff to survive comfortably; our ancestors would not have survived without a degree of selfishness. So, is it such a surprise that the wealthier among us tend to be more selfish? The majority of those with wealth believe they deserve it. Think about that for a minute before nodding your head in agreement. The majority of the wealthy are first-generation who acquired it through the free market, which might give credence to this statement. But there are also those who inherited it (Paris Hilton and the like) who also harbor the belief that their wealth is somehow deserved through birthright or blessing (God loves the rich, doesn't he?).
But here's the problem: How do we gauge "deserved"? Is money the final scorecard for what is deserved and what is not? I'm all for people getting wealthy in the free market, but I think they should stop short of saying they "deserved" it, because it fosters a conscious or subconscious image of superiority (just listen to Limbaugh for a full dose of this attitude). So, it begs the question, are the rich better? Do they rise above the rest of us? Should we, as the "have-nots," expect to be cut off in traffic or treated with bare rudeness because we don't deserve a better life? Some would say yes and then follow it up with "In America, you can rise above your station. You can do better. You can be like us." That's the Republican mantra this election season, as it foists one of the wealthiest candidates, ever.
But at what cost? Greed snowballs: The more you get, the more you want. Romney is an amazing example of this. The Republicans are all about reducing taxes on the rich for the "trickle-down" effect on the economy. Funny, how it never really trickles down this far. More altruistic wealthy like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Stephen King have suggested raising taxes on the wealthy. Stephen King even wrote a piece about this, which shows a side of being wealthy I could never fully understand or write about.
The rich tend to love money... really love it. More than you or I do. But is arrogance tolerable from those who have more money than they can ever reasonably spend? (Even a billionaire can go broke, if he really tries.) Look at that study linked above and ask yourself if you don't agree with it, on some level. Sure, this effect has always existed; the rich have always been arrogant about their wealth. And we at the bottom have always, on some level, agreed with them. They are better, somehow. Maybe God loves them more -- because you can't believe that God oversees your life without believing that the rich are not somehow better blessed than the poor, right? But that's not what Christianity is about, right? Didn't Jesus take a more Buddhist view of wealth and possessions? He sure did. It was so Buddhist, in fact, that many Biblical scholars entertain the thought that Jesus' "lost years" might have been spent studying Eastern religion.
So how does "Greed is good" fit into American society? If greed has the effect suggested by the study (something many of us have suspected without the scientific validation), then how can America be a "Christian country based on Christian values" as the Tea Partiers and the like on the right have claimed? Don't be played for a fool. If they believe this statement, they're either too foolish to give it much thought or they just want your vote... because they're greedy.
OK, maybe I'm generalizing a bit, but the Republicans tend to be a more lockstep-message party than the Democrats (by a small, but measurable degree). But the championing of greed wouldn't be so amusing if not for championing the 2,000-year-old philosophy of Christianity at the same time. Somehow, in modern times, Jesus ended up not only being an American, but a bloodthirsty Capitalist to boot. Can Jesus be a proponent of economic Darwinism? Apparently, according the Glenn Beck and his ilk, Jesus probably wouldn't have had such a problem with the merchants in the Temple, if he were around today.
The reason I mention all this is an interesting study has just appeared on the attitudes of the "haves" vs. the attitudes of the "have-nots." I heard about this on a talk-radio station this morning, one featuring a liberal host and a conservative host -- so there was some two-sided banter (which I find much more interesting than the Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity echo chamber). Not surprisingly, the liberal agreed with the study and the conservative did not. The conservative cited that "everyone is greedy," so therefore the study is flawed.
Well, sure, everyone has a degree of greed. It's ingrained in us by evolution to gather enough stuff to survive comfortably; our ancestors would not have survived without a degree of selfishness. So, is it such a surprise that the wealthier among us tend to be more selfish? The majority of those with wealth believe they deserve it. Think about that for a minute before nodding your head in agreement. The majority of the wealthy are first-generation who acquired it through the free market, which might give credence to this statement. But there are also those who inherited it (Paris Hilton and the like) who also harbor the belief that their wealth is somehow deserved through birthright or blessing (God loves the rich, doesn't he?).
But here's the problem: How do we gauge "deserved"? Is money the final scorecard for what is deserved and what is not? I'm all for people getting wealthy in the free market, but I think they should stop short of saying they "deserved" it, because it fosters a conscious or subconscious image of superiority (just listen to Limbaugh for a full dose of this attitude). So, it begs the question, are the rich better? Do they rise above the rest of us? Should we, as the "have-nots," expect to be cut off in traffic or treated with bare rudeness because we don't deserve a better life? Some would say yes and then follow it up with "In America, you can rise above your station. You can do better. You can be like us." That's the Republican mantra this election season, as it foists one of the wealthiest candidates, ever.
But at what cost? Greed snowballs: The more you get, the more you want. Romney is an amazing example of this. The Republicans are all about reducing taxes on the rich for the "trickle-down" effect on the economy. Funny, how it never really trickles down this far. More altruistic wealthy like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Stephen King have suggested raising taxes on the wealthy. Stephen King even wrote a piece about this, which shows a side of being wealthy I could never fully understand or write about.
The rich tend to love money... really love it. More than you or I do. But is arrogance tolerable from those who have more money than they can ever reasonably spend? (Even a billionaire can go broke, if he really tries.) Look at that study linked above and ask yourself if you don't agree with it, on some level. Sure, this effect has always existed; the rich have always been arrogant about their wealth. And we at the bottom have always, on some level, agreed with them. They are better, somehow. Maybe God loves them more -- because you can't believe that God oversees your life without believing that the rich are not somehow better blessed than the poor, right? But that's not what Christianity is about, right? Didn't Jesus take a more Buddhist view of wealth and possessions? He sure did. It was so Buddhist, in fact, that many Biblical scholars entertain the thought that Jesus' "lost years" might have been spent studying Eastern religion.
So how does "Greed is good" fit into American society? If greed has the effect suggested by the study (something many of us have suspected without the scientific validation), then how can America be a "Christian country based on Christian values" as the Tea Partiers and the like on the right have claimed? Don't be played for a fool. If they believe this statement, they're either too foolish to give it much thought or they just want your vote... because they're greedy.
Comments
Post a Comment