I try my best to make sure I have diverse feeds, and something recently made me realize I was seeing/accepting certain viewpoints that I shouldn't.
Namely - far too many people deride Trump supporters as 'uneducated and/or racist hicks who can't be reasoned with' (or some variant thereof), which honestly just feeds into the narrative on the right of 'coastal elites who look down on hard working Americans', and I found myself thinking about why those 'hard working Americans' don't seem to support the policy suggestions that are most likely to help them.
This isn't to say the most common explanations are entirely wrong, necessarily. We've seen such blatantly racist actions in the last few years that I've had to accept there's far more support for that than I'd previously believed. And it's true that a college degree is a significant factor in political views...
But I'm reminded of something I came across when I was reading up on modern slavery. Reminded that in these places, where the person in charge pays so little (and then loans out money for emergencies, like for health issues, or weddings, and the like), that many of the people who grow deeper and deeper in debt accept the burden of that debt.
They don't want to skip out on it, even if it's unfair and burdensome... because an obligation is an obligation, and they want to pay their debts.
THAT is the attitude that makes people look down on forgiving student loans. I get why and how student loan forgiveness can be a great thing, and not just because I might be able to benefit by it... over and over again we hear about how 'millennials are killing x', and things that essentially boil down to 'we aren't consuming enough'... but how can we consume more when so many of us are burdened by crushing debt? How can millennials buy homes when they're paying the equivalent of a mortgage every month in student loan debt? I mean... I'm luckier than most. Or made better decisions than most, depending on how you want to look at it. Doing ROTC, getting an Army scholarship, and various other things have put me in a much better position than most of the other people I know...
On the other hand - how does someone wind up with over $200K in student loans, anyway? I've never even come close to that level of student loan debt. Maybe if I'd gone to an Ivy League school? Or gone straight to grad school after an undergrad? And why is someone agreeing to take on that level of debt, in the first place? Didn't they look at the average income in their field and figure out how much of a burden it would be?
So the thing about jobs, and creating a booming economy, and discussions on student loan forgiveness and whatnot, is that to some Americans none of that matters. The macroeconomics behind it, the systemic issues (like the rising costs of college, and the way wages haven't kept up with inflation) - none of that matters.
Because people chose to take on certain debts, and are now trying to get out of it.
They don't want freebies, they want 'good' jobs (i.e. jobs that pay well enough that they can afford the things they want.)
Now, there's a whole bunch of other stuff going on. I know, for example, that there was one study showing that support for welfare is associated with white perceptions of minorities.
And the desire for 'good' jobs means you'd think there'd be more support for increasing the minimum wage, especially when the economic boom in cities that have done so shows that at this particular point in time there's an economic case to be made for doing so (in different circumstances, you probably would see the negative consequences so me people predict for raising wages. I don't agree with a blanket statement saying it's always a good policy to do so, but if/when people working 40+ hours a week still need food stamps and/or welfare to make ends meet then a case can be made that people aren't being paid their full economic value. And, again, it's not exactly shocking that people aren't consuming as much and the economy isn't doing as well as it could. Not that those whose income is tied to the stock market necessarily believe that.)
It seems such a shame, to me at least, that so many people who just want to make a good living seem to fall for the con-game Trump is playing. Like that BS about saving jobs at the Carrier plant in Indianapolis, or coal mining, or any number of things where he has talked the talk and utterly failed to walk the walk.
It reminds me of that line in The American President -
Trump, to me, is that mirage... and our current political elite has failed so drastically that people are crawling through the desert towards that mirage, and trying to drink sand.
I think the cynicism in Shepherd's response is the heart of the problem, here. Do we - average voters, the bulk of the American electorate - know the difference between a mirage and true leadership? If we do, then if you believe strongly in a cause and it fails to gain traction, is that because you're missing something and/or not messaging right? Or is this true:
In which case, you - the one who knows better than all those idiot people out there - are justified in doing whatever it takes to make the 'right' policy happen, because people don't know what's good for them. (This, btw, is the 'elitist' attitude people on all sides of an issue can fall prey to.)
Namely - far too many people deride Trump supporters as 'uneducated and/or racist hicks who can't be reasoned with' (or some variant thereof), which honestly just feeds into the narrative on the right of 'coastal elites who look down on hard working Americans', and I found myself thinking about why those 'hard working Americans' don't seem to support the policy suggestions that are most likely to help them.
This isn't to say the most common explanations are entirely wrong, necessarily. We've seen such blatantly racist actions in the last few years that I've had to accept there's far more support for that than I'd previously believed. And it's true that a college degree is a significant factor in political views...
But I'm reminded of something I came across when I was reading up on modern slavery. Reminded that in these places, where the person in charge pays so little (and then loans out money for emergencies, like for health issues, or weddings, and the like), that many of the people who grow deeper and deeper in debt accept the burden of that debt.
They don't want to skip out on it, even if it's unfair and burdensome... because an obligation is an obligation, and they want to pay their debts.
THAT is the attitude that makes people look down on forgiving student loans. I get why and how student loan forgiveness can be a great thing, and not just because I might be able to benefit by it... over and over again we hear about how 'millennials are killing x', and things that essentially boil down to 'we aren't consuming enough'... but how can we consume more when so many of us are burdened by crushing debt? How can millennials buy homes when they're paying the equivalent of a mortgage every month in student loan debt? I mean... I'm luckier than most. Or made better decisions than most, depending on how you want to look at it. Doing ROTC, getting an Army scholarship, and various other things have put me in a much better position than most of the other people I know...
On the other hand - how does someone wind up with over $200K in student loans, anyway? I've never even come close to that level of student loan debt. Maybe if I'd gone to an Ivy League school? Or gone straight to grad school after an undergrad? And why is someone agreeing to take on that level of debt, in the first place? Didn't they look at the average income in their field and figure out how much of a burden it would be?
So the thing about jobs, and creating a booming economy, and discussions on student loan forgiveness and whatnot, is that to some Americans none of that matters. The macroeconomics behind it, the systemic issues (like the rising costs of college, and the way wages haven't kept up with inflation) - none of that matters.
Because people chose to take on certain debts, and are now trying to get out of it.
They don't want freebies, they want 'good' jobs (i.e. jobs that pay well enough that they can afford the things they want.)
Now, there's a whole bunch of other stuff going on. I know, for example, that there was one study showing that support for welfare is associated with white perceptions of minorities.
And the desire for 'good' jobs means you'd think there'd be more support for increasing the minimum wage, especially when the economic boom in cities that have done so shows that at this particular point in time there's an economic case to be made for doing so (in different circumstances, you probably would see the negative consequences so me people predict for raising wages. I don't agree with a blanket statement saying it's always a good policy to do so, but if/when people working 40+ hours a week still need food stamps and/or welfare to make ends meet then a case can be made that people aren't being paid their full economic value. And, again, it's not exactly shocking that people aren't consuming as much and the economy isn't doing as well as it could. Not that those whose income is tied to the stock market necessarily believe that.)
It seems such a shame, to me at least, that so many people who just want to make a good living seem to fall for the con-game Trump is playing. Like that BS about saving jobs at the Carrier plant in Indianapolis, or coal mining, or any number of things where he has talked the talk and utterly failed to walk the walk.
It reminds me of that line in The American President -
People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
Trump, to me, is that mirage... and our current political elite has failed so drastically that people are crawling through the desert towards that mirage, and trying to drink sand.
I think the cynicism in Shepherd's response is the heart of the problem, here. Do we - average voters, the bulk of the American electorate - know the difference between a mirage and true leadership? If we do, then if you believe strongly in a cause and it fails to gain traction, is that because you're missing something and/or not messaging right? Or is this true:
People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
In which case, you - the one who knows better than all those idiot people out there - are justified in doing whatever it takes to make the 'right' policy happen, because people don't know what's good for them. (This, btw, is the 'elitist' attitude people on all sides of an issue can fall prey to.)
No comments:
Post a Comment