AM (an
American combat aviator with an inquiring mind): Gentlemen, in our last conversation we talked
about America’s war-weary. While this
mood is understandable, what I cannot understand is how Americans submit to being
indentured.
Old
Gadfly: What do you mean by indentured?
AM: The expression, indentured class, evokes images of India or the institution of
slavery. Indentured in this sense means a contract in which a person is
bound for service.[1] An indentured
class is a group of people bound for a particular service. Slaves in colonial America were treated as
property and bound for service to the owner.
In India, the Hindu caste system consists of “social divisions into
which Hindu society is traditionally divided, each caste having its own
privileges and limitations, transferred by inheritance from one generation to
the next.”[2] Does America have indentured classes in the
twenty-first century? Yes. Examples of indentured classes consist of
illegal immigrants, minorities, the middle class, Obama-era unemployment, the
wealthy, unions, and occasionally American troops, among others.
Old
Gadfly: I think you have identified an
important dynamic in America. Can you
explain the nature of these classes in more detail?
AM: Let’s start with American troops. Since
the late 1970s, America put conscription in the closet in favor of an
all-volunteer force. Every single
soldier, sailor, airman, or guardsman, whether in the active or reserve
components, freely chooses to serve our nation in the armed forces. Yet, as part of a campaign to discredit
President Bush and the Iraq War, progressives, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
would publicly and emphatically criticize President Bush for being on the wrong
track in Iraq, but always qualify the criticism with “but we support the
troops.” The implication of this
narrative frame was to suggest the troops were an indentured class bound for
service to a master in which they had no choice. The military branches had no issue with
retention during this time. Many of
these “troops” did not hesitate to reenlist and to serve multiple tours in
Iraq. The vast majority of troops understood
the rationale for being in Iraq and felt a moral duty to the cause. For progressives to frame the situation is
such a way is a strong example of concepts John Stuart Mill explained in his
1862 essay, “The Contest in America,” repeated again here:
When a people
are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in
the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a
people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war
to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own
war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice—is often the means
of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for,
nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a
miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by
the exertions of better men than himself.
American troops were protecting
“other human beings against a tyrannical injustice.” They were committed to a war to give victory
to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on
for an honest purpose by their free choice.”
These troops represented less than 1% of the American population. They obviously did not represent that “man who has nothing which he is willing to
fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal
safety.” These troops are not “miserable
creature[s], who [have] no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the
exertions of better men.” When
progressives, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, criticized the effort to protect other
human beings against tyrannical injustice, yet claimed to “support the troops,”
they also revealed their political motivations by using “the troops” as “mere
human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets” at President Bush
and his administration.
Had progressives subordinated their
political ambition in order to support an effort “to protect other human beings
against tyrannical injustice,” President Bush would have had only a one-front
war, where the adversaries were the insurgents resisting the effort in
Iraq. Unfortunately, President Bush had
a second front, that is, political opposition in America, which further
emboldened the insurgents, and likely resulted in greater cost in treasure and
lives (American, Iraqi, and other nations also involved). And now we see thousands of “wounded soldiers”
attempting to reintegrate into a society that is changing in ways that are
contrary to the ideals for which they willingly sacrificed their limbs and
lives.
IM
(an American citizen with an inquiring mind):
You’ve nailed some very damaging trends in America. Let me add to the analysis. Minorities represent a variety of
indentured classes, such as women, African Americans, Hispanics, Latinos,
groups that are not heterosexual in orientation, and so forth. To further fortify the symbiotic relationship
between these groups and progressives, hate laws have been enacted to further
protect these indentured classes. Look
at the racial fiasco in Ferguson, Missouri as an example. The Department of Justice has injected itself
because of potential federal-level civil rights violations. What the hell does this mean? From what I can see there is only one
condition that justifies such interest:
a white on black act of violence.
As Bill
Whittle explains, black on white violence far exceeds white on black. Yet, whites apparently do not deserve “civil
rights” protections. Only blacks are
indentured. If true, then by whom? If we look at the major metropolitan areas
that experience crime and poverty, they tend to be democrat districts. Detroit is a classic example. Who runs Chicago?
By proclaiming to be the champion
for these oppressed groups, progressives further justify their causes for
egalitarian policies and programs that involve promoting equality of outcomes
over other freedoms. These programs have
done nothing to lift blacks out of crime and poverty since Lyndon Johnson
declared his war on poverty as part of the progressive Great Society. Johnson’s approach is exactly what Orwell
describes in Animal Farm. The Marxist pig-leader, Napoleon, had his own
set of indentured classes on the farm.
And as Orwell’s farm animals discovered over time, egalitarianism has a
way of devolving, such that the Guardians (see the discussion on the Dostoevsky’s
Grand Inquisitor as a Guardian in our previous discussion, “Dry,
Parched Lips”) must finally proclaim:
all are equal; but some are more equal than others.
Old Gadfly: Excellent analysis. How about illegal immigrants?
IM:
Absolutely. Progressives pride
themselves on being the protector of the oppressed. Illegal immigrants fit this narrative
frame. Progressives find themselves
morally obligated to provide programs and services such as public housing,
income subsidies, and access to publicly funded education and health care. The fact that this indentured class came to
America illegally is not relevant for the narrative frame. Another fact is not relevant for the
narrative frame as well: that most of these illegal immigrants left real
oppression for a chance at a better life.
This is why some cities, managed by progressive governments and
policies, have been labeled sanctuary cities, operating in ways that ignore
existing laws. This week Governor Jerry
Brown has declared California
a sanctuary state and further justified the $25
billion in federal subsidies (i.e., federal tax revenues) that it generates.
In return for the indentured service
of illegal immigrants, progressives are lauded for their magnanimity in public
by these groups or perhaps even rewarded with votes in those polling locations
that require no proof of citizenship.
Like the American troops, illegal immigrants, as an indentured class,
are “mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets” at
conservatives and the Republican Party.
Finding a way to solve the illegal immigrant dilemma is less important
to progressives than conservatives and Republicans. Progressives would lose political power if
illegal immigration were no longer an issue, because citizenship brings
equality and freedom. By keeping them
indentured, illegal immigrants are deprived of the equality and liberty of citizenship
and must depend upon the some form of largesse that progressives are more than
willing to provide, at a price of course.
It is a costly symbiotic relationship of which other law-abiding
citizens must bear the burden.
Now, we hear indications that
President Obama may characteristically circumvent Congress with executive
action to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. The expectation is that if progressives grant
amnesty to millions with the promise of a “free lunch,” then these new citizens
are expected to return the favor with a vote for the “free lunch” providers. This sets up an indefinite cycle of
indefinite free lunches for indefinite votes for the indefinite “free lunch”
providers. Unfortunately, this naïve relationship
is not sustainable because the wealth creators will stop creating wealth. No wealth, then no government largesse. No government largesse means the freeloading
human instruments will get screwed.
AM: Here’s another indentured class: the middle class. What
is the middle class? Intuitively, the
middle class fits between the upper and lower classes. It would seem that one-third would be upper,
one-third would be middle, and one-third would be lower. In reality, however, progressives would tell
us (a) the upper-class represents the top 1 or 2%; and (b) the middle class is
the remaining 98 to 99%.[4] There is some talk about families below the
poverty line, which is very arbitrary and represents about 15% to 17%, a figure
that has not changed since President Johnson’s Great Society initiatives and his
war on poverty (and most likely, since the founding of America as a nation). Progressives do not spend a lot of time
talking about poverty in America, probably because (a) this is not a static
group—many people move in and out of this category; and (b) the majority of
people in this category live more comfortably than members of the middle class
in other parts of the world.[5]
Old
Gadfly: How about the unemployed?
IM: The Obama-era unemployed definitely represent
another indentured class. Unemployment benefits were created
by the Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271). This Act created the Unemployment
Compensation (UC) Program that is administered by each State and overseen by
the Department of Labor. Normally,
benefits run out after 26 weeks because unemployment is typically temporary;
although benefits may be extended up to 39 weeks, typically during recessions.[6] These provisions have been modified by a
Democrat-led Congress to 99 weeks (and more with recently passed legislation) due
to the extended high recession-related unemployment rates between 2008 and
2010. Unemployment compensation is paid
for by tax revenue or borrowed money, which is eventually repaid through tax
revenue.
As unemployment rates are a measure
of how poorly the economy is doing, President Obama and other progressives want
to raise taxes on the wealthy, or the top 1% of income earners to offset some
of the economic burdens. The rationale
for this move is to increase revenue needed for entitlement programs, such as
unemployment. President Obama tells the
American public that “the wealthy should pay their fair share,” as if they do
not already. By framing these
circumstances in such a manner, President Obama exploited the economic free
rider phenomenon, where people receive benefits without having to pay for them
because others carry the burden. This is
how the progressives created another indentured class: the middle class, i.e., everyone below the unprotected
1%, or wealthy, class. About 50% of
Americans pay no federal income tax. “Fighting
for the bottom 99%” is a clever way to shape public sentiment and future
voters, even though the logic for improving current conditions for the middle
class is seriously flawed.
About half of American households pay no federal income tax; and the majority of
these households actually receive money from the federal government. The other half actually pays income tax. In 1987, the lower 99% paid 75% of the tax
burden, and the top 1% paid 25%. In
2009, the lower 99% paid 63% of the tax burden, and the top 1% paid 37%.
The private sector bears the burden of
generating a rising economic tide and the upper class, in particular, clearly
bears the burden of providing tax revenue for government programs and services. Meanwhile, a large central government has far
greater influence on inducing and aggravating income inequality than private
sector practices. For example, regarding
unemployment, for every tax dollar collected for unemployment benefits, the
actual benefit received is less than a dollar.
Part of that dollar is spent in government administrative costs. Yet, if that dollar remained in the private
sector, unencumbered by ineffective regulatory policies, it has the potential
of generating a multiplier effect when spent as investment or consumption. Data reveal a strong correlation between
investment and unemployment rates. When
businesses invest in inventory, unemployment rates go down.
Many U.S. businesses have cash to
invest. Yet, there is no confidence to
do so because of current political agendas.
For example, a political shift occurred in 2006 when Democrats took
control of both Houses of Congress.
There was a significant downturn in tax revenue generated, $2.57
trillion in 2007 versus $2.52 trillion in 2008 and $2.10 trillion in 2009. Unemployment rates increased from 4.6% in 2007
to 5.8% in 2008, and 9.3% in 2009. When
President Obama took office in 2009, with a seasoned Democratic-controlled
Congress already in place, he immediately set out to execute an aggressive progressive
agenda—such as the Affordable Care Act, passed without a single Republican vote. The anticipated and realized effect of this particular
legislation on the economy led to a major power shift in both houses of
Congress in 2010. In the Senate, the
Democratic Party managed to hold on to a slim majority but no longer capable of
preventing Republican filibusters (until Senate Majority Leader Reid changed
the rules). An even greater shift took
place in the House of Representatives, with Republicans assuming a strong
majority.
These facts are significant. Yet, they do not make it into the public
narrative because progressives control it.
To the contrary, progressives are going to great lengths to blame
Republicans for causing the financial crisis, a government shut-down, and the
current lack of economic progress. So,
the Obama-era unemployed remain an important indentured class (and powerful “human
instruments” according to J.S. Mill) because they help to justify the
progressive movement.
Old
Gadfly: So, how about the wealthy
Americans representing the top 1%?
AM: If they remain an American citizen (unlike Eduardo
Saverin who chose not to [see also here
and here),
they too represent an indentured class. Not
only are the wealthy demonized by progressives, they are forced through
egalitarian tax policy to pay far more for government spending than they
receive in the form of benefits. Yet,
the wealthy are entitled to the same voting privileges as those who pay nothing
for the cost of government. If the
wealthy remain in America, then they accommodate indentured status over other
conditions they would likely endure in other countries.
Old
Gadfly: How about unions?
IM: Unions are an obvious indentured class. The
progressive movement’s most favorite indentured class is the union. Given its socialistic influence, labor
represents the proletariat against an imagined tyrannical bourgeoisie—business
owners and those who invest in business enterprises. Unions have far exceeded their original noble
cause (e.g., safety and a fair wage) and now represent power factions aligned
with the progressive movement. Not all
members of unions enthusiastically join them, but they do eventually choose
membership in a faction. An
example of public sector forced
membership was recently found to be unconstitutional. Another personal example involves a family
member of mine who discovered that, even in Colorado, if he wanted to work for
a grocery chain, he had to join a union.
Even though he was paid a minimum wage, his union dues were deducted
from that wage, thus earning less than the federally-mandated minimum wage for
an entire year before he was eligible for any benefits. Ironically, Galatians 5:20 identified “faction” as one of the
impediments to the “freedom” for which we are called in Galatians 5:13.
The strength of unions has
significantly declined in the private sector because a market determines a fair
wage and highly motivated people can seek the skills that benefit far more from
a competitive market than one constrained by monopolized labor. In other words, the more one develops his or
her talent to add value in a free market, the more one can gain in compensation
and benefits while contributing to overall wealth creation.
Union membership declined significantly
in the private sector, but its presence in the public sector has steadily grown. Table 1 compares union membership rates
between 1983 and 2013, with a further comparison of public and private sector
composition.
Old Gadfly: IM, I want to emphasize something you just
said:
The strength of
unions has significantly declined in the private sector because a market
determines a fair wage and highly motivated people can seek the skills that benefit
far more from a competitive market than one constrained by monopolized
labor. In other words, the more one
develops his or her talent to add value in a free market, the more one can gain
in compensation and benefits.
In a different way, what you are
saying is that competition in a free market promotes innovation, which results
in actual progress and wealth. Note the significant
monopoly of unionized labor in government.
AM:
Is it any wonder that there is so much incompetence and inefficiency and
so little progress in terms of ideas and solutions that matter? And, technically, those who work for the
government are subsidized by us, the tax-payers. Yet, they arrogantly “rule” us when they
should “serve” us.
Old Gadfly: How about women?
IM:
Those who align with progressives and the fictitious “war on women” are
truly an indentured class. What is so
sad is that the “war on women” meme has resonated too long despite obvious
distortions of the truth. For example, the
Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling has been deliberately misrepresented in
perpetuating the “war on women” meme. One
of Colorado’s U.S. Senators, Mark Udall, has made this ruling the justification
for a crusade. I called Senator Udall’s office to suggest that
his crusade may actually backfire because of its distortions.
Old Gadfly: There is compelling literature that explains
how women have been coopted into this indentured class based on eugenics. In 1934, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned
Parenthood, published a “Code to Stop Overproduction of Children” that clearly
stated: “no woman shall have a legal
right to bear a child without a permit . . . no permit shall be valid for more
than one child.” Jonah Goldberg accurately assessed the
essence and impact of Sanger’s philosophy and activism:
Sanger couched
this fascistic agenda in the argument that “liberated” women wouldn’t mind such
measures because they don’t really want large families in the first place. In a trope that would be echoed by later
feminists such as Betty Friedan, she argued that motherhood itself was a
socially imposed constraint on the liberty of women. It was a form of what Marxists called false
consciousness to want a large family.
IM:
Wasn’t Sanger a racist?
Old Gadfly: She wanted to rid the world of “lesser
creatures,” whether black, imbecile, or otherwise handicapped in some way. Here is Sanger in her own words:
We should hire
three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds,
and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to
the Negro is through a religious appeal.
We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,
and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs
to any of their more rebellious members.
AM:
Sad . . . so very sad.
Old Gadfly: If the various “human instrument”
distinctions--and the indentured class status they represent--become less
important, then there would be little need for progressives in their Guardian
role. What do progressives have to gain
from such a development? Nothing. So, we’re in for a long fight against the domestic
“war on America” and the unalienable God-given rights of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness that represent what America is all about.
Margaret
Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams
Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith
College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon, Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social
History of Birth Control in America, (New York, NY: Grossman Publishers,
1976).
