One view of the merit argument in American politics

Finishing out 2010 with a slate of bills held up in Congress because of a recalcitrant Republican block vowing to not pass anything until they get what they want in the Senate, it can be hard for most to understand what all the fighting is over, but I argue that the issue is about views of merit by the American population.

To keep things simple for myself I'll talk what I call the "Progressive" position versus the "Republican" position, though some might argue over whether or not I accurately define the Progressive position and some who identify as Republican may argue over what I claim is their position on merit, and I'll come back to that simplification later.

Oh, I have a very conservative background because my parents literally beat it into me, but I was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, so there's a natural outsider aspect to that crazy conservative indoctrination. I've rejected most of that background though struggle with some things, and don't self identify as a liberal though I have very liberal views on most things, and love being in San Francisco for that reason among others.

But am I really a Progressive?

I look for reform. I think the government has a responsibility to its citizens and an increasingly important role in an ever more complex world. But I won't knee-jerk agree with a crowd on how best to get things done, and feel quite comfortable having my own opinion at odds with the group, whatever that may be. I think intelligent governance is what's needed, and don't accept someone else telling me what that is, as I think reality tells us: in an intelligently governed world people's lives tend to get better, not worse.

To keep things simple I'll call Republican the position being shown by the Republican block of the Senate, which is fighting to renew Bush tax cuts at all levels, as I hope to explain why, by talking about how different sides see merit.

The primary merit position of the American people is that you mostly earn what you have though it is accepted that some people just get things handed to them, but within certain rules, like winning the lottery, or your parents earned a block of it and handed it to you--though even then past American societies tended to take a lot of that away from you with what Republicans call the "death tax".

Why? Well a fundamental American ideal is that you earn what you have. So the merit hope is that people do well based on their own efforts, not because of birth, luck, or worst, cheating or stealing from others.

America, I suggest, wants to believe it is based on hard-work as an ethic and that people do better in life by working hard for their own good and the good of society, and the debate in Congress is about two differing views on this issue where it is my opinion:

1. Republicans believe that wealth in general shows worth, and that people who have worked smarter and harder tend to become the wealthy and should be rewarded--not punished--for that hard work which benefits society. In their view others who do less well did so because they were not good enough. So that homeless person is not smart enough, to keep himself off the streets in that view, as his circumstance reveals his ability.

2. Progressives believe that advantage can play a role in wealth and it's not a simple way to figure out who worked the best and hardest, so yes, Bill Gates did very well in our country, but how well would he have done if he had been born in China? Would China in the 1980's have given him the freedom? Also Progressives believe that some people can be disadvantaged by circumstance so that homeless vet on the street may be there because his PTSD was not properly treated among other things, and it is not an indication of his merit as an American worker.

I'm simplifying for a reason and using a homeless veteran because so many of them do walk our streets, and from a Progressive position, they can still be a major benefit to this country if we can help them, while from a Republican position, they are where they belong based on their own efforts.

So the howls from liberals over the shift in the Obama position is a fear that the president is shifting to a view that people who are disadvantaged are there because they lack the merit to do better. So rather than have the government, for instance, do a jobs program, it is mercifully extending unemployment benefits, as a recognition that the Progressives won't just accept the tax cuts which are meant as an incentive to the people who can do better on whom the country presumably relies to grow more rapidly.

President Obama has notably avoided turning to a direct jobs program by the federal government skipping entirely a path taken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he was working to end the Great Depression.

But from a Republican view, it is worthless to hand jobs to people who are not good enough on merit to do better. Charity is all that is left.

For Republicans my examples and claims of their position may be ludicrous and execrable, as fear-mongering or "class warfare", with vast over-simplifications.

That may be true. But to the extent that ideas from either position resonate, I think it helps for people to seriously question themselves what do they personally believe about merit.

Is it a "death tax" to tell a young socialite that the bulk of the money earned by her father will be returned to society? Or is it social fairness that pushes her to learn to make her own money?

Or is it more motivating to allow the rich to become as rich as they can without taking their money away from them to fuel an ever growing federal bureaucracy that threatens to eat up the country entirely? We can't all be federal workers, right?

In challenging others to think in different ways with admitted oversimplification my point is that these positions can be understood and what I'm saying here is not meant to give an answer to the merit question--merely to help define it.


James Harris