Tim Wise has many things to say on the topic of racism in America. His analysis is deft and competent, I reprint the introduction to his essay “Getting What We Deserve? Wealth, Race and Entitlement in America” for the benefit of the education of my readership. Educational purposes aside, many of the complaints/justifications that seem to come up in the comments section of DWR are mentioned in this essay, and are given a thorough rebuttal and explanation. I may dedicate a page to the entire essay for sake of easy reference.
Everywhere you turn, conservatives are bemoaning the so-called “mentality of entitlement.”
“To hear such folks tell it, the problem with America is that people think they’re owed something. Of course, income support programs, nutritional assistance, or housing subsidies have long been pilloried by the right for this reason — because they ostensibly encourage people to expect someone else (in this case, the government, via the American taxpayer) to support them. But now, the criticisms that were once reserved for programs aimed at helping the poor are being applied even to programs upon which much of the middle class has come to rely, like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance.
Increasingly one hears conservative politicians and commentators arguing for cuts in these efforts as well, and critiquing those who rely on them for health care, retirement, or income in-between jobs. To the right, the elderly and unemployed apparently refuse to do for self. They aren’t far-sighted enough, one supposes, to invest their money in a high-growth (and high-risk) private retirement plan; they aren’t responsible enough to purchase good health care, and they’d prefer to sit at home collecting a couple hundred dollars a week in unemployment insurance than find a job that might support them and their families. In other words, there’s something wrong with these people: they’re lazy, have the wrong mindset, and need to get out there and show initiative, presumably the way rich people do.
Though this critique is not solely aimed at persons of color, there is little doubt but that the history of growing opposition to social safety net efforts — which were wildly popular among most whites from the 1930s through most of the 1960s — mirrors, almost perfectly, the time period during which black and brown folks began to gain access, for the first time, to such programs. While blacks, for instance, were largely excluded from Social Security for the first twenty years of its existence, and while very few people of color could access cash benefits until the 1960s, by the 1970s, the rolls of such programs had been opened up, and the public perception was increasingly that those people were the ones using (and abusing) the programs. So in large part, the critique of “entitlement” has been bound up with a racialized narrative of the deserving and undeserving, which can be seen, in many ways, as a racist meme.
But if we look and listen closely, what we discover is that the mentality of entitlement and expectation is far more embedded among the affluent and among whites than among the poor or people of color.”




7 comments
November 17, 2011 at 9:53 am
Vern R. Kaine
It’s an interesting article, especially around the comment that the same entitlement criticisms that are leveled at the poor easily apply (or perhaps even apply more) to the super-wealthy.
The super-wealthy are abusing government. They get handouts, special privilege, their own form of welfare, and unlike the poor they get an almost instant ability to become rich through the insider trading they’re allowed to participate in, made legal by them. (See Peter Schweizer’s “Throw Them All Out” – it’s outrageous and disgusting).
Anyone who criticizes those at the “bottom” of the income or social scale is being completely f.o.s. in my opinion if they don’t dish out the same criticism to the top. The same laziness, greed, and sense of entitlement exists at both ends.
To me, the problem is less one of a racism issue (I’d say that’s minimal) and more one of a lack of resources to address the situations one on one effective way. Rules meant to go after corporate welfare and super-wealthy entitlements are made too broad, and tend to punish middle-income earners as “rich”. Likewise, rules meant to help those closer to the bottom have some upward mobility tend to be broad as well (for obvious reasons – they want to help as many as possible), and create an environment that’s ripe for abuse by “Welfare Queens” and the like.
Again, i offer here that the argument (or potential solution) gets lost in this “less government vs. more government” rhetoric. Most regular people on right in my circles are not as against the safety nets as you might want to believe, they just prefer the cities and states to have more power in administering them. I personally believe local governments have a far better understanding of their citizens, their communities, and their needs than a group in Washington ever could. The duplication and waste at the federal level is egregious and in my opinion, completely unnecessary, yet remains a topic largely ignored by liberals. I’ve worked with these programs and there’s a ton that could be improved there.
If the conservative right can be expected to give more based solely on the fact that they earn more, then surely the liberal left can be expected to cut some waste somewhere because they waste more.
LikeLike
November 17, 2011 at 10:06 am
Vern R. Kaine
“what we discover is that the mentality of entitlement and expectation is far more embedded among the affluent and among whites than among the poor or people of color.”
He’s mentioned programs from the 60’s and 70’s to back up this point. It’s now 40 and 50 years later. Where his proof of that sense of entitlement is “far more” embedded now with the white upper class?
Also, to lump “entitlement” all into one category misses a key distinction. There’s a large number of people in the 1% who rightly feel entitled to their wealth because they’ve worked for it – they’ve thought faster, smarter, and further ahead, making decisions, making sacrifices, and taking actions to maximize their potential. There are those both at the top and the bottom, however, who feel entitled to wealth because of the fact that they don’t work, or they simply work “hard” as though that should be enough. I think there’s different forms of entitlement and if the issue’s going to be resolved, that distinction has to be made if we’re going to take a serious look at what we reward in this society and and why, and try to change it.
LikeLike
November 19, 2011 at 1:58 pm
The Arbourist
There’s a large number of people in the 1% who rightly feel entitled to their wealth because they’ve worked for it
By worked for it you mean achieved what they have given all the benefits and bonuses that come with being privileged? I’m just checking because otherwise we will need to back this argument a step or five.
There are those both at the top and the bottom, however, who feel entitled to wealth because of the fact that they don’t work, or they simply work “hard” as though that should be enough.
The idea that people feel entitled to wealth because they do not work is counter-intuitive. The reasoning may come from the prejudiced view of the poor as in the Cadillac Welfare Queens and other viscous propaganda. The higher one goes on the social ladder, the greater the capacity for avarice and gaming the system that, in the end, costs us all money.
The last part of your sentence also seems to echo the idea that if you work hard or smart enough you can achieve. This is a most damaging mythology and if it was what intended I recommend watching the Tim Wise video again on class and privilege in America again, because last part of your sentence is clearly not the reality of the situation.
LikeLike
November 19, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“By worked for it you mean achieved what they have given all the benefits and bonuses that come with being privileged?”
Are you so jaded and blinded that you can’t realize that some people actually earn their 1% through work, Arb, and not just through privilege? Do you even know one person who’s successful, or is this more reading from the sidelines again? I read “Outliers”, too, but if you actually had some of the 1%ers in your physical world you’d know there’s far more to it than just privilege.
Either way, the “1%” are those who earn over $343,000 a year. (http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm) That’s not a lot of money, and even still, financial professionals make up only 14% of that. Even if you take them out, I can guarantee you that the other 86% of those people I know that are 1%ers (even .05%ers) definitely “work for it”. How many 1%ers in your circles don’t? (I’d love an answer here and not just a dodge-intending question in response, please!) ;) And not only do they work, they work 10x smarter which is why most of them get paid 10x what you or I do. I would think someone in your profession would prefer a person earning an income because of their smarts would be a favorable thing! :)
“The idea that people feel entitled to wealth because they do not work is counter-intuitive. The last part of your sentence… that if you work hard or smart enough you can achieve… is clearly not the reality of the situation.
Clear to who – you? Clear to someone who’s actually worked at changing those situations? Then let’s see the proof, and by proof I mean not some study that has a checkbox saying, “If you intend to milk the system, check ‘here'”, but rather someone who’s pulled themselves out of poor circumstances and the reason that they did was their laziness. So how does it go then – tax the rich, apologize for being white (again), and then once that happens, all the poor will become better off? Liberals probably think that’s a start – it’s not. It’s an excuse, and the poor who are no longer poor will tell you that very same thing.
It starts with attitude, and you can’t gauge peoples’ unless you work side-by-side with them, same way you can tell which students really give a crap and which don’t. I’m sure you can tell fairly accurately which ones will succeed by the end of the semester? Likewise, I can predict very accurately who has money and who doesn’t simply by their attitude and their answers to three simple questions about 1) what they read, 2) who they associate with, and 3) their attitude towards people with money. Take anyone “poor” (not just financially), and their answers to those three questions are all to the negative. Take anyone “rich” (again, not just financially), and their answers are always to the positive. That’s been my experience with people who get in there and do vs. those who just observe from a distance filling out a clipboard.
LikeLike
November 19, 2011 at 9:26 pm
The Arbourist
Are you so jaded and blinded that you can’t realize that some people actually earn their 1% through work, Arb, and not just through privilege?
Do you think that I’m ticked off because people are being rewarded for being good at what they do? Look at the chart. This is not the reward for ‘a good job’ that is going on. This is the systemic bending of the shared economy for the benefit of the few. This is what aristocracy looks like, this is what plutocracy looks like. This is the deformation of a countries productivity to benefit one and only one small segment of society while sacrificing the rest on the alter of austerity.
Now are you telling me that you don’t get this? I would like to know because this is where my argument starts because depicted above is not fair, not equitable and more importantly a recipe for the destruction of civilizations. Shipwrecks of other civilizations lay scattered in our history and I assure you, they did not fail because they were too egalitarian.
LikeLike
November 19, 2011 at 10:22 pm
The Arbourist
I read “Outliers”, too, but if you actually had some of the 1%ers in your physical world you’d know there’s far more to it than just privilege.
Why no Vern, I have not had the opportunity to hobnob frequently with the rich and famous, socio-economically speaking, the middle class usually does not get the opportunity. I agree with you Vern, there is more too it than *just* privilege, but in the race, when you have a jetpack and everyone else gets a Chevette; means you should be doing better; the table is tilted in your favour, the dice loaded your way, the rocky-road paved all nice and easy for you.
So how does it go then – tax the rich, apologize for being white (again), and then once that happens, all the poor will become better off?
If taxing the rich makes the society more egalitarian then that is a good thing because inequality hinders not only the outcomes for the poor, but for the rich in society as well. Disparity hurts everyone in society conversely, the more egalitarian a society is, the more prosperous and healthy it becomes. This is factual information backed by real world data, but of course you know that because I have linked (and probably will continue to link) to the equalitytrust.org to illustrate where I am coming from.
apologize for being white (again)
You mean having all of the society working toward and catering to your needs? Noting having to think about what others think of you and judging your behaviour constantly? Not having to constantly be aware of someone else’s narrative because your knowledge of someone else’s narrative keeps you alive? Oh no, you don’t apologize for being white…that time is long over. You work now to bring everyone else up to your level of privilege, that is your responsibility, that is your duty as someone who has gotten ahead in part, just because of the injustice meted out on others that has benefited you in the past, currently is benefiting you and will continue to do so in the future, unless we work to change it. I too am part of the privileged class and I realize the unspoken, unrecognized bounty that I possess and the obligations I would require of you I already take upon myself.
But somehow I think that you may just take this privilege thing as a ‘liberal hobby-horse’ that us educated elite types like bandying about when were feeling guilty or feel the need to take the wealthy down a peg or two. I’m not going to argue about whether white privilege exists, or for that matter patriarchy either, life is easier when they remain unexamined, but hopefully there will come a time when these things become more salient and relevant for you.
1) what they read, 2) who they associate with, and 3) their attitude towards people with money.
Gee Vern, I kinda wonder where I fit into your hierarchy of grading people. ;>
That’s been my experience with people who get in there and do vs. those who just observe from a distance filling out a clipboard.
I’m curious as to why you mention this Vern. I’d hate to think that you’re actively typecasting your benevolent host here at DWR. :)
LikeLike
November 20, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Vern R. Kaine
” I agree with you Vern
Just wanted to separate that out on it’s own, Arb. ;) Thinking of having it bronzed, actually!
“there is more too it than *just* privilege, but in the race, when you have a jetpack and everyone else gets a Chevette; means you should be doing better; the table is tilted in your favour, the dice loaded your way, the rocky-road paved all nice and easy for you.”
Don’t knock the Chevette!!! That was my first car and, figuratively speaking, I actually turned it into a “jetpack”. ;) I fully acknowledge that the poor may have a harder climb compared to people who are born into money and privilege, but when you get to spend time with people who are constantly overcoming those disadvantages, what I’ve seen is that there is really very little difference between those of other races, backgrounds, finances, etc. other than what starts with their attitude. Furthermore, even in a “tilted” system as we have, because of the attitudes I see those who make it have, I believe it is still very possible within our two countries to move up to a better quality of life no matter where they start at.
This is factual information backed by real world data, but of course you know that because I have linked (and probably will continue to link) to the equalitytrust.org to illustrate where I am coming from.
Haha – yes I do. :) Let’s be clear – I am not in favor of the amount of gap between the “upper” and “lower” class nor am I disputing the evidence of it. I also wouldn’t disagree that a rising tide lifts all boats. What I am arguing is the extent of why people are down and stay down, and also how much of that is deliberate and malicious from the 1%.
“You mean having all of the society working toward and catering to your needs?”
Society doesn’t work towards my needs because I am white. It works towards my needs because I offer in return both intrinsic and extrinsic value, and that value doesn’t discriminate. Conversely, the people working with me or for me are yes, working towards my larger benefit compared to theirs because they’ve made the decision that it’s easier to get ahead to get what they want through me as an employee rather than against me as a competitor. They trade their time and effort for shelter from risk, and that exchange is agreed to in advance and in a way that is equitable to the both of us.
“You work now to bring everyone else up to your level of privilege, that is your responsibility”
Not exactly. I work to give everyone else the opportunity, not the guarantee of a result. And who says my level of “privilege” is what they want, anyways? The people I work with may achieve far more privilege than I ever have, and some are already there.
This is one thing that I think is a big difference between the typical liberal and conservative view – it’s like liberals want a guaranteed outcome where as we’re more focused on a guaranteed opportunity. Sure, I agree that under the current system “opportunity” isn’t as guaranteed as it could be, but I hardly think people have a 99% chance of failure if they truly engage. Hard work, btw, isn’t what I mean by “engaging”.
“and the obligations I would require of you I already take upon myself.”
Not sure what you mean by this What obligations would/do you require of me?
“But somehow I think that you may just take this privilege thing as a ‘liberal hobby-horse’ that us educated elite types like bandying about when were feeling guilty or feel the need to take the wealthy down a peg or two.
Pretty much! :) haha! I see it moreso, however, as something that people would spend a million years debating and arguing over to achieve perhaps a 1% difference in things. I believe there are things that we simply don’t need a detailed understanding of on a “why” level that we can do far more with, and create far more change with, on a “what” level. Imagine if Gandhi had chosen instead to talk and talk and talk for years from a distance about the possibility of passive resistance versus actually going ahead and doing it.
Michael Moore showcased a company in his “Capitalism” movie that showed a more egalitarian company, for instance. Great! Instead of talking about the potential and possibility of a company being more egalitarian, they instead went ahead and did it.
I’d very much like to see “educated elite types” (!) try and partner with companies to see whether this can work on a larger scale. If it becomes a new best practice, I’d happily adopt it and recommend it. Wherever I’ve had more educated elite types get involved in business, however, the results usually haven’t been good which is why we are usually working in tandem with them. if you look at the business literature over the past 20 years, you see more and more of a blend between practical and theory than you used to.
Gee Vern, I kinda wonder where I fit into your hierarchy of grading people. ;>
Very high actually, believe it or not. I sound really harsh here at times, I know, but it’s momentary and I can tell you that my harshest criticisms are reserved and levied upon myself because of that very responsibility you mentioned earlier. There’s certain subjects that I’m more the wind than the sun on (if we’re considering the Aesop fable) but when it comes to business it’s been proven that high task behavior (“what”) vs. relationship (“why”) behavior is more effective at the start so that’s where my style tends to go on topics such as this.
Re: the clipboard on the sidelines, my belief is that the best players aren’t always the best coaches (in fact, they rarely are), so there is certainly a place for analysis, discussion, and study. However, at the same time even the best of coaches can’t explain what a player’s intent was on a play, nor can they define or ever replace the instinct that a quarterback or another player uses in a split second to make a key play on the field that ends up being the game-winner.
If we were discussing education, I think you’d find me asking more questions than I’d be making statements. I’d be that guy with a clipboard on the sidelines for instance while you’re teaching a class. What I find with many liberal-leaning sites, though, is that they’re on the sidelines making statements about businesspeople instead of asking questions as though they already know how a business works, what that person thinks, how they work themselves, and what their morals and intentions are. They seem to skip the whole “asking questions” thing which to me equates to ignorance which I don’t care for all too much.
I share much of my work day with people in academia. We tease and taunt each other in the field to look at things a different way and take a more involved perspective. They tell me to read things, i tell them to get in there and actually experience things for themselves.
Although my tact surely leaves much to be desired, I can assure you that my words although highly critical fall well short of contempt as far as my feelings and opinions are concerned.
Case in point – I’m out for dinner tonight with some friends, including a strict vegan liberal gay male NDP-loving corporation-hating native social-worker friend of ours. You should hear the criticisms we fire at each other! We disagree on almost everything and constantly call each other idiots at best and a whole bunch of nasty things at worst, yet we remain very good friends to this day. Trust me, my bark is far worse than my bite. :)
If this were a comedy site and not so much a political one, I suspect we’d share more laughs than barbs. Nonetheless as my gracious and most tolerating host, I’m glad you continue to have me around. ;)
LikeLike