At 10:46 AM -0700 10/8/09, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>[WS:] Point of correction: I am not repulsed by populist culture but
>by populist politics - a big difference. The former is just a
>roadside curiosity that can be amusing,
But is it? According to you:
>And while we are at this, it is quite wrong to attribute the
>"criminalization of poverty" that Ehrenreich describes to the action
>of the mythical overlords or the capitalist class. I do not think
>the monied classes give a flying fuck about the poor because they
>are sufficiently insulated from them by multiple social and economic
>barriers.
>
>This criminalization is largely by popular (or perhaps populist)
>demand from lower middle and working classes, who interact with the
>poor in everyday life. Trust me on that. You are far more likely
>to encounter vitriolic diatribes against the poor while talking to
>urban working or lower middle class than to the wealthy (who can
>even mutter "helping the less fortunate" as they throw a few pennies
>to a charity.
If the criminalisation of poverty is due more to public demand than ruling class self-interest, then popular opinion is hardly just an amusing curiosity. It determines public policy.
Unless you have some special definition of populist culture that I don't comprehend? I suppose you must. But I am having a hard time working out exactly where you're coming from.
Actually, I think you make a good point about populist politics being influential in this area of public policy. Of course the point has to be made that popular opinion does not arise in a vacuum, it is shaped by propaganda, as much as direct experience. And the media propaganda against the poor is fierce and unrelenting, while the public relations defense of the poor is for all intents and purposes the exclusive preserve of professional "poverty pimps" (A term possibly coined by Ehrenreich?)
In effect, both sides of that propaganda war are controlled by the ruling class, who own the media and politicians which lead the fierce attacks on the poor, but also fund and thus effectively control the welfare organisations who are tasked with representing the interests of the poor. A rather incestuous arrangement with predictable outcomes. I recall you making the odd contemptuous reference to these self-appointed representatives of the poor yourself, so I know you will agree that this is the situation.
So don't you think that this has at least as much to do with the popular antagonism towards the poor that you refer to?
Case closed really. And obviously public opinion does matter, though perhaps we disagree slightly on why it matters. You seem to be saying that public opinion initiates the anti-poor public policy we are talking about. Generally speaking, I prefer to think that public opinion is decisive only to the extent that the public has to consent to public policy to a certain degree. The public can't initiate public policy, but the public can certainly frustrate official public policy if public opinion is hostile enough to government policy.
Well, that is certainly true here in Australia and also in Europe. But the US has a different culture. Public opinion expects to be followed by public policy to some extent. If public opinion is strongly hostile to any particular group, it expects and demands that public policy take steps to follow. Whereas in Europe and Australia for example, politicians and the ruling class routinely ignore public opinion on any number of issues. More importantly, politicians quite openly flout public opinion, they tell the public that they are wrong and that the elite knows best and will do what is best and that is the end of the matter.
The Iraq war was a classic example. The public usually just accepts this situation and go on to whine about something else. Like sheep.
Now the US public seem less inclined to take that kind of rebuff lying down. In fact politicians would hardly dare tell public opinion to go jump in the lake, like they do elsewhere. At least not blatantly.
This is the US populist culture that I'm talking about. The popular belief that democracy means government doing what people want, rather than the conventional understanding that democracy means electing politicians who then go on to do whatever they please and whatever the ruling class expect of them. The quaint belief that public opinion knows best and should be followed.
Anyhow, I acknowledge your point, that a hostile public perception of the poor, a hostile perception you seem to share, is perhaps more decisive in the US because of that populist culture that exists.
Though I would say that it is not exactly irrelevant elsewhere either. Even though the public in Europe and Australia doesn't really expect official policy to slavish mirror public opinion, as is the case in the US, it is nevertheless quite capable of rendering unpopular policy completely unworkable. And in history, especially the history of public policy towards the poor, it has quite often done just that.
So given that and given also that public opinion is manufactured by the ruling class through incessant propaganda anyhow, then your point is interesting and even correct. But somewhat beside the point. It is still the ruling class which is the driver, not the public.
The only difference is that, in the US, the public likes to believe that it is in the drivers seat. Insists on it actually. It doesn't mean the public isn't suggestible about the destination.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas