The Fading American Dream

I believe that the biggest challenge of our society is to assist those less fortunate than us. When I mention that the world’s problems might be helped immensely by redistributing wealth – many people react negatively. There is a distinctly American attitude that wealth is attainable for anyone – and that one’s class, social position, or race has little to do with it in most cases. The American Dream, where a poor, recent arrival to America works day in and day out to build a business that eventually makes the entire family wealthy may have been a possibility for some in the past – but the current gap between rich and poor only seems to widen – and critical opportunities for people from one class to transcend into a higher, more autonomous class, are evaporating before our eyes. Two ready examples include the skyrocketing cost of higher education, and the ever-rising price of home-ownership. Just getting into the “club” of homeowners or into a good college can cost the entire life-savings of a middle-class individual. While many options exist for borrowing your way to an education – such acts only entrench the poor in debt, making it more difficult to compete with those who are able to obtain their education with funds from parents or pre-existing savings accounts (both vestiges of an elite status). The rapid expansion of corporate entities in the past century has diverted traditional stores of wealth from individuals to entities: while corporate entities succeeded in redistributing old familial wealth – corporations have failed to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor in this country. The buying power of those who earn wages on a salary or an hourly basis has steadily declined. I dare say that the American Dream is for most of us just that – a dream.

The different political parties have very different views on how to address this problem. At the risk of overgeneralization, I will briefly describe what I see in each party. The Republican Party focuses on individual responsibility. The Bush Administration’s plan to convert Social Security and health insurance to “private” accounts stems from beliefs that 1) people are more responsible with their own money, so turning it over to them will be more efficient; and 2) the government does not have a responsibility to ensure the retirement stability or health of individuals when they are capable of providing such security for themselves. Critical to the Republican view is the assumption that the only thing holding poor people back is government – otherwise they would have succeeded in resolving the problems already. People feel “entitled” because of over-reliance on social programs, therefore, excessive government spending has created a dependent poor class – and only a healthy dose of opportunity with an expectation of performance will resolve the problem.

The Democratic Party favors social programs to address these challenges. The Democrats’ justification for heightened social spending stems from beliefs that 1) poverty is created by class, race, and circumstance; 2) that a person’s state of need is often caused by factors beyond his or her control; and 3) government has a duty to provide an escape from poverty that it helped create or entrench. Critical to the Democrat view is the assumption that social programs, if done right, will address the causal factors of poverty.

The more I study various conflicts, wars, uprisings, and inequalities, the more I am convinced that class disparity causes almost all conflict. Tom Friedman used to talk about the McDonald’s theory of conflict (that no two countries with McDonald’s ever fought). I have a Class theory of conflict: no two conflicts exist where the country has effectively addressed class disparity. The Marxist dream of balancing classes turned out to be a terrible failure under communism – but I wonder if some of the truths espoused by Marx are not absolutely true. In my religion, there is a story of a people here in America who successfully maintained a peaceful (in the positive sense) society. The “Nephites” who remained in the land just after Christ visited the Americas (if you don’t know about this, email me and I will explain) – a great civilization of people rose in peace. Two interesting aspects of this society: 1) they “had all things in common” (economically); and 2) they there were no “-ites” in the society (i.e. Isrealites, Nephites, Lamanites, Zoramites, etc.). In short – they had addressed the class fissures in their society, enabling a positive peace to emerge. Now, many might argue that I left out the critical element – that they were all bound to the Gospel of Christ – which helped combat any violent urges to fight. This may be true, but I wonder whether a society that truly resolves class disparity would be able to embrace peace while maintaining its pluralistic nature? Several members of the Church have answered that peace is unattainable without widespread acceptance of the gospel. They argue that we cannot expect much progress until Christ returns to the earth to organize the “1000 years of peace.” True? So, then, what is the point of worrying about peace, or studying conflict resolution? Even if it were true, would it justify our purposeful participation in a system that exacerbates poverty, and entrenches class structures? Some might say that since we cannot change the problems inherent in the system; that we ought to do as best we can for ourselves, our families, our communities, and our nation – even if that means harmful competition with “others” (broadly defined). I find this attitude a challenge to the way I view the world, both politically, and religiously. What do you think?