Positives from the Past Decade?

Steve Chapman, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, cited my book in a 12/27 column entitled "Remember the good things that happened in America in the past decade."  He used a quotation from The End of the American Century, published in 2009, to compare the end of the present decade to the end of the previous one.

He recognizes the many problems we still face, not least of them due to the "poisonous presidency" of Donald Trump, but points to the many good things that have happened in the ten years since my book was published.  Among these are the continued growth of the U.S. economy; the scaling back of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; the expansion of LGBTQ rights; and the Obama accomplishments on childhood immigrants; health care; and torture.

What most resonates in Chapman's argument, though, is this:

Trump has done immeasurable harm on all sorts of matters. But he has also created a powerful backlash that has manifested itself in annual women’s marches, renewed awareness of the persistence of racism, and public support for modest gun regulations, climate change legislation, immigration reform, the Affordable Care Act — and his impeachment.

Ironically, then, the main contribution of the Trump presidency to this past decade is to generate resistance to the very awfulness of it. This upsurge in political involvement is indeed a positive development, especially if it can persist through the removal of this insidious president.

But this positive growth of political participation is offset by Trump's persistent efforts to undermine democratic institutions and procedures.  He has pushed to restrict the franchise in many states; manipulated and threatened our independent judiciary and legal processes; badgered and threatened his political opponents; eviscerated the governmental institutions that might provide a check on his abuse of power;  and has solicited foreign interference in the U.S. electoral process.  He expresses admiration for foreign dictators as brutal and ruthless as those we have fought against in the past.

 In chapter 5 of my book ("Ailing of American Democracy"), I document the increasing apathy, indifference and political ignorance of the American electorate, and the growing influence of money in politics.  I raise the possibility of the U.S. "becoming like our enemies."  Trump is leading us in that direction.

While I appreciate Chapman's efforts to see the bright side of the last ten years, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate just how much Trump has revived the downward spiral of the U.S. that I documented in The End of the American Century.  Middle class wages have barely budged since the 1970s.  Inequality, already high ten years ago, has rocketed upward since then.  We have not yet solved the problems of expensive health care and violent crime--both unique to the U.S. among developed countries.  Our educational system is among the worst among rich countries.  No president, even George W. Bush, has undermined science as much as the current one, even as the existential threat of climate change becomes more obvious by the day. Global opinion of the U.S. is even lower than it was under Bush, which then was at a postwar nadir.  And no president in history has so deliberately attempted to hollow out our governmental institutions and undermine our democratic principles and processes.

Hidden Figures, Blind Bias

After seeing the film “Hidden Figures,” my 9-year-old granddaughter Katie sent me an enthusiastic voice message, and then asked me a question that took me aback: “Did you ever see a Colored water fountain?”

 I grew up in Virginia in the 1950s, so intellectually I know there were segregated water fountains in those days.  But I could not actually remember seeing one.  How could this be?  I think the answer is that such things were such a normal part of the environment in the segregated south that they weren’t considered anything special.  Segregation, racism, bigotry and bias were the norm, and one doesn’t take much notice of things that are normal and routine.

            About 10 years ago, another film sparked a similar epiphany in me. “Remember the Titans” (2000) recounts the true story of an African-American football coach trying to integrate the team at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria Virginia in 1971.  Watching this film, I was stunned and incredulous.  I graduated from McLean High School, just a few miles from Alexandria, in 1965.  Wasn’t McLean High School integrated by then, I asked myself? 

 After all, I started high school seven years after the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision (Brown vs. Board of Education) that required the desegregation of public schools in the United States.  I knew all this intellectually.  As a professor of political science, I knew my constitutional history.

            While watching “Remember the Titans,” I racked my brain trying to think of African-Americans who must have been my high school classmates.  I couldn’t think of one.  I called my sister, who graduated from the same high school four years later.  She thought there might have been one or two African-Americans when she was there.  We finally resorted to our accumulated high school yearbooks, scanning for darker faces.  I didn’t find a single one in any of my four yearbooks.  My sister finally found one, a girl, in hers. 

            It finally occurred to me, 35 years after the fact, that I had attended an all-white, segregated high school.  But I had not realized it at the time.  White was normal, so what was there to notice?  Segregation and racism was the norm, and therefore unexceptional and unmemorable.

            In the aftermath of this stunning revelation, I began to read about the history of school desegregation, and learned about the campaign of “massive resistance” to the Brown vs. Board decision that was led by U.S. Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia.  The state, and most of the schools in the state, simply refused to implement federal law, and this went on in some school districts for more than a decade after the Brown decision.  This controversy had apparently been swirling around me when I was in high school, but I was oblivious to it.  Too many other things going on in the world and my life:  the Vietnam war, pimples, the Kennedy assassination, all-state marching band, the Cuban Missile Crisis, junior prom.

            The philosopher Hannah Arendt coined the phrase “the banality of evil” in a 1963 book about Adolph Eichmann, a top administrator of the Nazi death camps.  The phrase captures how easy it is for evil to become routine, even banal.  The Holocaust may have been one of the most extreme and horrific examples of this, but we have seen it in this country too with the massacres of Native Americans; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II; the Jim Crow laws and segregation in the south; and with continuing manifestations of bigotry, racism, and intolerance, even coming from our top political leaders.

 Perhaps the teenage me could be forgiven for not noticing the evil of segregation, and the underlying racism and prejudice, in my own environment.  As adults, we have no such excuse.

Good Riddance to the American Century

My book “The End of the American Century” appeared in 2009.  There I argued that the combination of domestic decline and global change had put an end to the era of U.S. global dominance, and that American citizens would have to come to terms with a flattening standard of living and reduced global influence.  This was not necessarily a bad thing, either for the United States or for the rest of the world.
     I finished writing the book during 2008, just as Barack Obama was mounting his stunning rise to the presidency.  For the paperbound edition of the book, which appeared just after the election, I added an epilogue called “Reality and Hope in the Obama Era,” where I offered some hope that the new president could temper some of the problems I had raised.  But I also cautioned that America’s problems (for example with education, violence, debt, inequality) were so deep-seated, and the global changes so persistent (e.g. globalization of production, rise of new powers, climate change) that his options would be limited. 

     President Obama, I believe, recognized all of these problems, and tried his best to redress or adapt to them. He rescued an economy in freefall; got us moving on climate change; passed milestone legislation on health care; and restored America’s battered international reputation, winning the Nobel Peace Prize in the process.  He was on track in adapting to the end of the American Century. 

Now we have a President who is intent on returning to that era of American superiority and dominance.  Indeed, Trump rode to power by demagoguing many of the issues of U.S. decline that I had documented in my book: the stagnating incomes of the middle class; the decline of manufacturing; the continuing prevalence of violence; declining trust and confidence in government; the high cost of medical care; and infrastructure decay.   

     Trump knew which buttons to push, but he had no idea how to deal with any of these problems.  He promised to “make America great again” without having any notion of what that might entail.  His vision was to go backwards, not forward.  In a world so rapidly changing, this is no solution at all.  America needs to adapt to change—embrace it, even—and not reject it, as Trump seems to want to do.  His presidency is a dead end. 

     Any progress this country made during the Obama years is quickly being rolled back and reversed in the first months of the Trump presidency.  The most pressing and damaging problems I discussed—debt, inequality, and climate change—are all likely to worsen under a Trump administration. 

     We can not go back to the American Century (which really lasted only about half a century anyway), nor should we.  That era was bred of specific historical, economic and international circumstances.  We are in a different era now, both domestically and internationally.  The U.S. can not and should not dominate the world as we once did.  To think and act otherwise is to court disaster in a globalized and interdependent world.  We should bid adieu to the American Century, and move forward. 

The Age of Uncertainty

These are unsettling times.  Lately we have been witness to a continuing carnival of a presidential election, a series of horrific terrorist attacks and massacres both here and abroad, plus the British Brexit vote.  People here, and in other countries, are unsettled and uncertain.  Indeed, the world is unsettled and uncertain.  In this country, the appeal of Donald Trump is baffling in many ways, but it is also understandable, given the wrenching changes underway in people's lives, and in the world, and the fear and uncertainty that this occasions. This kind of disruption, fear and uncertainty often leads people to seek simple solutions, scapegoats and demagogues.

The reasons behind all this uncertainty are the large-scale shifts in the world, and in the U.S. role in the world.  I call these "systemic changes" and I want to focus on the two most important ones:  first, the decline of the United States as the single dominant and determining global power; and second, the rise of transnational forces and threats that diminish the autonomy and power of ALL nation states, including the U.S.  We are no longer in control of events, either in our own back yard, or on the global stage, and this is discomfiting. 

First let me address the issue of the change of the U.S. role in the world.  Eight years ago, I wrote a book called "The End of the American Century" which addressed this phenomenon.  "The American Century," basically the second half of the 20th century was one of unprecedented global dominance by a single country, the United States.  This was evident in almost every sphere: politics, economics, the military, ideology, and culture.   The Soviet Union, our only real rival during that time, was strong militarily but not in any other respect.  Its standard of living by most measures was about a tenth of that in the U.S., something I can attest to from living in that country briefly in the 1970s

Even in the long course of history, it is rare to find countries or empires that so dominated the world: one thinks only of the Roman Empire or, maybe, the British Empire.  But all empires fade eventually.  Italy and Britain may be very pleasant places to live (and visit!) right now, but they are not the dominant powers they once were.  Something similar is happening to the United States.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it contributes to uncertainty.

For the U.S., it is not so much that we have suffered absolute decline, but rather have declined relative to other forces and countries.  The U.S still has the strongest military, the biggest economy, and the most durable and resilient political system.  But we no longer dominate the world as we did during the American Century.  China, for example, has experienced fabulous economic growth in recent decades, and is increasingly asserting itself on the global stage.  Europe, by combining, sort of, into the European Union has created an economic powerhouse, larger than the American one.  Neither China nor the EU is much of a military power just yet, but increasingly it seems that military power is not as useful and determinate as it once was.  Plus, as I will discuss below,  there are transnational forces that also cut into America's ability to shape the world.  So for Americans used to being #1, this relative decline can be unsettling, and speaks to the appeal of Trump's "America First" slogan.

So the relative decline of the U.S. in the global arena is the first major dimension of systemic change.  The other is the rise of transnationalism.  By transnational, I mean problems, forces, movements or institutions that transcend national boundaries, making them difficult for national governments to deal with.   These are proliferating in the modern world, but I will highlight those that have contributed especially to this age of uncertainty:  globalization of the economy; terrorism; and climate change.

Perhaps none of these merit my attention, since they've been so much in the news, and in the current electoral campaign.  Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders complained about the maverick status of multinational corporations.  As transnational institutions, these can easily shift operations from one country to another in search of cheaper labor or supplies, while remaining relatively immune from the regulations or taxation of government in any particular country.  Of course, a globalized economy does have its benefits, in terms of more efficient production and cheaper and more abundant consumer goods.  But it also hurts those workers who get left behind.  This is particularly true in manufacturing, which has faced a double whammy of automation and globalization, causing jobs in manufacturing to plunge from 28% of all jobs in 1970 to less than 10% today.  The problem is not going to go away.  The shrinking of manufacturing employment is global--not just in the U.S.

Globalization, automation and the decline of manufacturing have contributed to a stagnation of real earnings in the U.S.  For the average American family, household income is $4,000 less than it was 15 years ago.  Meanwhile economic inequality has grown much worse, with the top 1 percent of American households taking in more than half of the recent gains in income growth. Income and wealth inequality in the United States is now the highest it has been since before the Great Depression of the 1930s, as Bernie Sanders kept reminding us during his own run for the presidency. 

This issue is particularly egregious at the very top of the income scale.  In the 1950s, big-company CEOs earned about fifty times the pay of an average worker.  Even then, that ratio was very high compared to other countries.  But since then, CEO pay in the U.S. has skyrocketed compared to average salaries.  By 1990, average CEO pay was 100 times the average worker's salary.  By 2000, it was more than 500 times.  In Germany, that ratio was only 11 to 1; and in the United Kingdom, 25 to 1.

So it is not surprising that so many people are fearful and angry.  Even though the economy is growing, they are being left behind.  The dislocations caused by globalization though, can only be addressed by collective action, and that requires action by government, and cooperation among national governments.  A weak and ineffective government is no match for the power of large multinational corporations.

Terrorism is another transnational force that has frightened and destabilized us.  It often seems that governments are helpless in the face of this enemy, which is not located in any one region, supported by any particular country, or subject to any conventional norms of morality.   Social media, another transnational force, facilitates the organization, recruitment and concealment of terrorist groups.  Against transnational terrorists, particularly the fundamentalist brand, deterrence and threats are useless, and even conventional military force is only haphazardly effective.  America's vaunted military, the most awesome in the history of the world, is not by itself able to eliminate transnational terrorism.  This too causes fear and uncertainty, and a sense of powerlessness.  But, like the forces of globalization, the solution requires global action and cooperation.

Climate change, another transnational phenomenon, is even more threatening and dangerous than globalization and terrorism, though more baffling because of its inherent invisibility.  Even though the evidence for climate change is overwhelming and irrefutable, most people don't actually see it or experience it.  So they are open to the blandishments of politicians and the fossil fuel industry who prey on their ignorance and fears in claiming it does not exist.  And this contributes to our national sense of unease and uncertainty, since we are not sure what to believe and whom to trust.  Climate change, however, is literally a life-and-death issue that requires strong government action, national sacrifice and global cooperation.  All of these are difficult to imagine in the current political climate in the United States.

These transnational phenomena--globalization, terrorism and climate change-- all threaten the American way of life, and they are devilishly resistant to resolution in the way we have solved problems in the past.  Throwing money at them won't work.  Military power is either irrelevant or ineffectual.  Things have changed since The American Century when our country was, it seemed, both dominant and in control of our fate.  In both the domestic sphere and the international one, things are not like they used to be.  Thus appear opportunistic politicians who promise to roll back the clock, or to "make America great again."

However, America's greatness was never achieved by going back to the past, but rather by finding solutions to new problems, while holding fast to the values that unite us.  These include industry, innovation and individualism, but also compassion, tolerance, and civility.  The U.S. has survived through civil war, world wars, depressions, civil unrest and terrorism.  And we remain the world's oldest and most successful democracy; even if we do not brandish the power and influence we had during the Cold War years.

But we have created a kind of paradox of political life: at a time when we are in desperate need of effective government to address important domestic and international issues, government is increasingly unable to act. Democratic government is not often consensual, but it does, by its very nature, require compromise.  But in American politics, we have one candidate calling for a "political revolution" and another, a billionaire cloaked as a populist, calling for a return to the past and playing on people's fears, angers, and prejudice.  The polarization of American politics has made compromise almost unattainable, and in the process has practically paralyzed the operations of government.

Of course, this simply adds to people's frustration with politics and government, which accounts for polls showing record low levels of trust in the federal government.  This is not a happy situation for a system of government that is supposed to be based on popular will.  And it contributes to the turmoil, alienation, and uncertainty.

Keeping this democracy alive is, in my mind, the single biggest challenge we face at the moment and the key to addressing the systemic transformations we are facing.   In the current political environment, the bedrock principles of democracy--compromise, tolerance, participation, inclusion--are under threat.  There is a disturbing growth of authoritarianism in American political culture, with 44% of non-college grads (in 2011) approving of "having a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with Congress or elections."

The growing authoritarianism in the U.S. may be disturbing, but it is not terribly surprising.  Times of systemic change, fear and uncertainty, especially combined with economic downturn, often foster the emergence of demagogic politicians, and even dictators.  It is also understandable why so many Americans are lashing out at the whole system, given the vast gulf between rich and poor, the continuing pernicious impact of money in politics, and the seeming paralysis of government.

The solution is not to reject the system, but to improve it.  As Winston Churchill famously quipped: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."  And democracy is uniquely suited to dealing with problems that are so complex and disruptive, because it demands participation, inclusion, compromise, respect for minorities, and due process.  The problems we are facing are unprecedented, in my view, and signal a systemic shift in U.S. politics and international relations.  The U.S. will not be "great" in the way we were before, but it remains the most important and admired country in the world, and it's involvement in global politics is indispensible.

(Based on a talk I gave at a Kiwanis Club 8/30/16)

Economic Inequality Put an End to the American Century

The biggest impediment to U.S recovery is economic inequality. This is the central argument in my article "The U.S. No Longer Makes the Grade: Economic Inequality Put an End to the 'American Century"" in the Phi Kappa Phi Forum, vol. 92, No. 3.  This article is available at Butler's "Digital Commons" site by clicking here.  The footnotes for the article are temporarily available at the Forum's website at this link.

Correction:  There is an important typo on page 7, column 1, 2nd paragraph.  The sentence there should read as follows:

"A recent global study by the International Monetary Fund, for example, found that countries with strong economic growth tended to have greater income equality than those with weak growth...."

 Comments and (civil!) discourse on this piece are welcome.

The Startling Growth of Inequality

In The End of the American Century, first published in 2008, I called attention to the disturbing growth of economic inequality in the U.S., to levels (even then) unprecedented since the Great Depression of the 1920s. But since 2008, in the midst of the "Great Recession," the situation has gotten even worse. A recent (3/25) New York Times op-ed by Steven Rattner, "The Rich Get Even Richer," notes that in 2010 (during the supposed economic recovery), "the top 1 percent took in 93 percent of the additional income" generated that year. A graphic linked to that article on line shows the pattern.

In a forthcoming article I have written which reflects on the themes of The End of the American Century, four years on, I contend that the unprecedented growth of economic inequality in the U.S. is the single biggest issue preventing the recovery of the United States--and in many ways the root cause of the many problems facing the U.S. in these difficult times.

"Occupy Wall Street" Interpreted for China

Today's issue of Wen Hui Daily in Shanghai includes a long interview with me on the Occupy Wall Street movement. The editors approached me on this topic because of the Chinese publication of my book The End of the American Century. The interview is interesting as much for the nature of their questions as for my own responses (though the latter did tie in very closely to important themes in my book).

Almost all of my responses seem to have been translated verbatim. However, the editors did exclude two items:

1) My reference (in answer "A3") to the 1980 Solidarity movement and the overthrow of the communist government in Poland.

2) The last question (16) and answer, which addressed Obama's commitment to social justice and a reference to Martin Luther King's statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

A link to the original Chinese publication is here.

My original English language responses to their questions appears below.

--------------------------------

Q1:The Occupy Wall Street movement is an event of global political life and social life. How to define this campaign? Is it a carnival, as Zizek worried about? or a media show? or a social movement to fight against financial oligopolies and to protest injustice?

A1. Occupy Wall Street is difficult to define because at this stage it is so amorphous, decentralized, and unfocussed. I would say it is an incipient social movement that captures a widespread sentiment in the United States against inequality and corporate greed, excess and corruption. Like many social movements, it has started out small, but has grown quickly, in terms of number, diversity of participants, and geographic scope. What started in New York has now spread to many US cities, and even to other countries.

But it would be a mistake to view these protests as a major political force, at least at this point. The protestors in New York number only about 1000 on any given day. On most days the Wall Street protests do not even make the front page of the daily newspaper in my city of Indianapolis.

You asked about Slavoj Zizek—the Slovenian Marxist philosopher who joined the protesters this week. But he is almost completely unknown in the United States, except perhaps by a relatively few intellectuals. His appearance at the Wall Street protests was not mentioned in most American news reports.

Nevertheless, I do believe that Occupy Wall Street is potentially very important in the U.S. It is focusing attention on inequality—a problem that has gotten very little attention in this country, but is, in my mind, at the heart of the serious economic, social and political problems the U.S. is now encountering. Wealth and income inequality in the U.S. are at the highest levels in 70 years—since the Great Depression—and are higher than in any other industrialized democratic state.

Q2. Some people think that liberalism in the pursuit of efficiency and profit has dominated the world for more than half a century, and the hands of the history should go to the side of fairness and justice. Do you agree with this? Will this movement really bring new social imagination to the world?

A2. I agree that neo-liberalism has dominated the world for more than half a century, but this is because the United States has been the dominant global power in that period, and the U.S. has demonstrated, exhibited and promoted this model of economic and political development. And it cannot be denied that the American model of capitalism and democracy has been both broadly appealing around the world, and highly successful in many parts of it. The fifty years following World War II were ones of unprecedented growth in global wealth and welfare—much of that fueled by the astounding growth of the economy, consumption, and prosperity in the United States.

But there was a dark underside to that economic growth, which became increasingly evident and problematic in the 1970s, and has accelerated since then. Increasing prosperity in the United States camouflaged a widening rich-poor gap in this country, and globally. Excessive consumption led to a proliferation of debt, both by governments and households. In the pursuit of profits and consumer goods, we increasingly neglected social goods: education, health care, infrastructure, and the environment. All of these are in serious difficulties now.

So in a sense, it is now time to right the balance, and to put more emphasis on fairness, justice and equality. These have always been central to the American ideal, and the American Dream, but have taken a back seat in recent years. I believe this is one of the principal concerns animating the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

Q3. We noticed that many people compare this movement to the events of 1968. But obviously, the Occupy Wall Street movement lacks clear leadership, lacks clear political pursuit, and also lacks a schedule, and a particular solution. Will all of these weaken its real strength?

A3. There are some similarities of the current movement with those of 1968 which, like the Wall Street protest, began mostly with young people. Comparisons could also be made to the recent Tahrir Square protests in Egypt; civil rights protests in the American South in the 1950s and 1960s; and the “velvet revolutions” in Eastern Europe in 1989. I think there are also intriguing similarities to the 1980 strikes in Poland, which quickly mushroomed into the “Solidarity” movement which came to topple the communist government in that country in 1989. (One of my own research specialties is Poland, where I spent much time in the 1980s).

It is true that the lack of leadership, focus and specific demands of the Wall Street movement diminishes its potential impact and power. Maybe these will cause it to collapse. But many of these other social movements mentioned above were also essentially leaderless, at least at first. The demands of some of them—including the student movements of the 1960s, and the Tahrir Square demonstrations—were quite diffuse and general. But all of those earlier movements, like this one, touched a nerve in the broader society, and in the end made significant, even revolutionary, changes in society.

Q4. The two political parties hold different attitudes towards the movement. On the Democratic side many people have shown understanding and sympathy towards the movement. The Republicans are opposite, saying the demonstration was "a battle with the wrong goal". So will these different attitudes lead the protests to be used by different political forces in different ways?

A4. It is true that the Wall Street Movement has been embraced by most Democratic politicians and pundits, and rejected or ridiculed by most Republican ones. However, I do believe the Occupy Wall Street movement has the potential to attract supporters across the political spectrum, from left to right. Let me offer two explanations for this reasoning.

First, public opinion surveys show a substantial majority of Americans have a favorable view of the Wall Street protests. A Time Magazine poll this week shows 54% viewing the protests favorably, and only 23% unfavorably. In contrast, only 27% still have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement. Another poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal found that 37% of the respondents “tend to support” the Wall Street movement, while only 18% “tend to oppose” it. As I mentioned earlier, I think the Wall Street movement has touched a nerve in American society, and therefore has the potential to become much bigger.

Second, I would argue that there is actually a good deal of common ground and overlap between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. While they are rooted in different segments of the population, and have different agendas, both movements are populist and anti-establishment, and both are reacting against the concentration and abuse of power, and the perceived neglect of average Americans. While I am sure many Tea Partiers are skeptical, and even hostile, toward the “hippies” protesting on Wall Street, I suspect that many of them would agree with the Wall Street Occupation complaints about government policies that favor the rich, the government’s bank bailouts, and the influence of money in the political system.

Q5. Protesting the greedy of Wall Street appears to be the most direct appeal of this campaign. But wasn't it Wall Street financial innovations that brought the United States to gain the leading position in nearly 20 years of global technological and financial competition?

A5. In my view, “financial innovation” contributed almost nothing to the growth of the U.S. economy in recent years. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The awe-inspiring postwar growth of the American economy, and of U.S. global power and influence, was rooted in a combination of explosive manufacturing growth, technological innovation, rapid growth in the standard of living and consumption, rapid increases in productivity, and the expansion of global trade. Banks and financial institutions were important tools in all of this, but it was their security and stability that was most important for these developments, rather than any financial innovations.

Indeed, the rapid growth of the financial services sector of the American economy in the last twenty years is a principal cause of our current economic crisis, and of America’s domestic and international decline. Over the last two decades, manufacturing has steadily declined as a share of the American economy, while financial services have steadily increased. But financial services, per se, contribute almost nothing to the economy. They just move money around. They are based on, and primarily depend on, the accumulation of debt. Banks and mortgage companies encouraged American consumers to take out loans, even when it was unwise for them to do so, because those institutions made money on such transactions.

In 2008, it suddenly became clear that this large sector of our economy was essentially a hollow shell. But because it was so large, the biggest financial institutions—like AIG, Citigroup, and Bank of America—could not be allowed to fail, for fear that the whole economy would collapse. Thus the government bailouts.

Yet now, just a few years later, many of these institutions are thriving again, and their CEOs are receiving compensation packages worth tens of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, unemployment remains mired at 9%, and the average worker in the U.S. is earning no more, in real [i.e. adjusted for inflation] terms, than he or she was twenty years ago.

This is one of the main grievances of the Wall Street Occupiers. Indeed, it angers most Americans.

Q6. After the outbreak of financial crisis, the appeal to reform the financial industry is very high, Obama also argued for increased financial control to win the election, but after he came into power why is it so hard for him to put into practice the regulation of the financial industry?

A6. President Obama did manage to steer through Congress a major reform of the financial regulatory system, the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” in the summer of 2010. This act included the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which eliminates many of the worst practices of banks and credit card companies, which had helped drive so many consumers into debt. The Dodd-Frank bill was passed when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Since the 2010 Congressional elections, which gave the Republicans control of the House of Representatives, any new initiatives in this direction have been defeated by Republicans, who oppose almost any efforts to strengthen the role of government.

Q7. The financial system has become the solid structure of modern society. Many economists think the campaign should not alter this basic framework. Is it because of this that global politicians and thinkers have not been able to put forward an effective alternative when confronting the real world?

A7. As I mentioned before, I disagree with this characterization of the financial system being the core of the modern economy. Banks and financial institutions are an essential tool for the development of modern economies. But their primary role is to provide stability and security so economic transactions and trade can operate smoothly.

The problem is that the financial services sector became a major independent actor in generating wealth based on moving money around, often through complex and obtuse financial instruments like hedge funds and credit default swaps. Many financial institutions became so wrapped up in this money-making sideshow that they undermined their primary purpose of providing stability and security to consumers, investors, producers, and governments.

Q8. People may feel that the government has been hijacked by entrenched politicians and financial oligarchs and increasingly polarized by the two parties. Even President Obama has said that he would rather the country lose than his rivals win [sic?]. For this, will the "occupation Wall Street" movement become helpless in facing this "institutional predicament"?

A8. It is true that money plays a huge and detrimental role in the American political system. Lobbies and moneyed interests play a disproportionate role in elections and policy-making, to the detriment of ordinary citizens. This is one of the complaints of Occupy Wall Street—though it is also of concern to populists on the right, like the Tea Party.

The polarization of politics, and the unwillingness of politicians to compromise, is also hurting the country, and inhibiting efforts to deal with the huge problems we are confronting. I think, though, that the poisoned political atmosphere, as well as the emergence of radical populist movements on both the right and the left, are a predictable response to the protracted economic crisis that we find ourselves in. People’s jobs, homes, standard of living, and economic security are all in jeopardy, and this causes fear and anxiety. Normal politics, and political compromise, are hard to come by in such an atmosphere.

Q9. In the end of the American century, you said, "American exceptionalism" makes Americans believe that poverty and wealth are due to the individual’s faults or achievements, and has nothing to do with the system. Will the campaign lead people’s thinking to the level of the system?

A9. In a big international public opinion survey that I directed some years ago, we found that Americans, more than any other country that we sampled, were more likely to believe that an individual’s wealth or poverty was due largely to his/her own talents or work, rather than to the economic or social system. Americans tend to believe that if a person works hard, he or she will succeed, and that anyone can become rich and successful, even those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But in fact, there is less social and economic mobility in the U.S. than there was a generation ago. Increases in poverty and inequality over the last several decades are both a cause and a result of this. Children in poor neighborhoods (especially in cities) often go to poor schools, and are more likely to be exposed to drugs and violence. This poses enormous obstacles to achieving a good education, which is essential for success in the work force.

As I mentioned before, I think the major accomplishment of the Occupy Wall Street movement, so far, has been to focus attention on and raise awareness of the issues of economic and social inequality in the United States. As people confront this issue, they will begin to learn more about the systemic aspects of inequality. Mainstream news sources like Time Magazine and The New York Times are increasingly addressing issues of poverty, wealth and inequality. At least in part this is a response to the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Q10. Many young people participate in the "occupation" movement, and US young people have always been defined by their "generation:" the youth after the first world war was called the "lost generation;" and after the second world war was called the collapse generation. Will this one be called the awakening generation because of the "occupation" movement ?

A10. While the Wall Street movement began mostly with young people, it has now spread and grown and become more diverse. The issues that they raise affect almost everyone: witness the growing popularity of the slogan “We are the 99%.” So I do not think that this is primarily a generational revolution, like the ones of 1968. In the U.S. the richest 1% receive about 20% of the country’s income, and control about a third of its wealth--more than the amount possessed by the "bottom" 90% of the population.

Q11. The new media, which takes Wall Street financial innovation as its driving force to develop, such as FACEBOOK, TWITTER, has played an important role in the campaign,. Is this a great irony?

A11. I do not see it so much as an irony, as a function of modern society. Social movements and revolutions have speeded up, like everything else in modern life. Social media and electronic communications facilitated this in Tunisia and Cairo, and are doing so now in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Q12. the participants of this movement also wrote many slogan in Chinese. Is this behavior art of consumerism, or does it show that China provides some dimensions of their thinking?

A12. There are many signs, posters and slogans carried by the protesters, and a very few of these are in Chinese, which has received much coverage in the Chinese media. But I do not think that there is much, if any, Chinese connection

Q13. Winter is coming, so what do you see as the outcome of this movement? What’s the best situation or the worst case outcome？

A13. Bad weather is likely to put a damper on the movement, or at least the most visible manifestation of it—the actual “occupation” of Liberty Square in New York City. But we have already seen the expansion of the movement to many other cities and countries, so it seems to me that the movement has gained some traction, and I doubt that it will disappear anytime soon. If it is to develop as a true social movement, it will need some organizational structure to carry it over. This will be one of the early tests of its staying power. There were some indications of this potential this weekend, when it was reported that Occupy Wall Street has collected some $300,000 through fundraising.

Q14. In "The End of the American Century, you expressed some pessimism about the future of the US. But we also see that American technology, military and finance are still in leading positions globally. For example, the annual global university rankings show that American universities still leads the way in the world. This is one important symbol showing continuing US competitive advantage in comprehensive national strength. So is the view, perhaps, not so pessimistic?

A14. In my book, I argued that the United States has lost its leading or dominant position in almost every area: social, economic, political and international. I present data showing this decline, both compared to our own past, and compared to other countries. I argued that the exploding growth of debt was particularly problematic for the United States, and that the country was destined for a sustained and deep economic downturn. It will no longer be the dominant economic, military and global power that it was in the fifty years following World War II.

At the same time, this does not mean that the U.S. is disappearing as a rich and powerful country. Even if we returned to the standard of living we had in the 1970s, we would still be one of the most prosperous nations on earth. The U.S. model of democracy, and its ideals of liberty, equality and justice, have sustained the country through many crises, and remain a source of inspiration for people all over the globe.

What this means for the U.S., in my view, is that the country will have to adjust to a different global environment—one requiring cooperation rather than dominance—and to an era of reduced growth, reduced spending, and reduced expectations. This is a psychological adjustment, more than anything else, but for that reason all the more difficult to achieve! So far, we have not met that challenge very well.

Q15. You would be on the left flank of United States intellectuals. Be are intellectuals like you the majority or minority in mainstream American society?

A15. The sorts of things I write and say—in particular the notion that the U.S. is no longer #1 in many areas, is threatening to many people. Americans are generally optimistic, proud, and upbeat, and they do not like to hear, and often refuse to hear, messages that are less positive. But I think more and more “intellectuals” are beginning to recognize that the U.S. is in serious trouble, and this is trickling out to the general public. Occupy Wall Street is one manifestation of this.

Q16. Could you introduce an international justice plan under your leadership?

A16. It would be nice, but I am not in a position to do so! I believe that the election of Barack Obama was the best we could do in striving to achieve more justice, both domestic and international. Unfortunately, he was elected in the midst of an economic crisis that will not soon disappear. But I often take heart from the frequently repeated words of Martin Luther King: “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

Der Spiegel on "A Superpower in Decline"

Sometimes the most clear-eyed analysis of the United States comes from outside the country, and this may be especially true in these times when so many Americans are frightened and angry about the way things are going. Germany's weekly newsmagazine Der Spiegel has published a long and thoughtful piece about the United States, entitled "A Superpower in Decline: Is the American Dream Over?" which reflects and updates many of the themes I raised in The End of the American Century.

For those who would dismiss Spiegel's analysis as biased, left-wing, or "socialist," I should point out that the magazine is generally considered to have a conservative (and capitalist!) slant. It is enlightening, and a little sobering, to read an intelligent analysis of our problems from outside the cauldron of contemporary U.S. politics.

Below are a few excerpts from the Spiegel article, though I would encourage everyone to read the whole thing.

• America has long been a country of limitless possibility. But the dream has now become a nightmare for many. The US is now realizing just how fragile its success has become -- and how bitter its reality. Should the superpower not find a way out of crisis, it could spell trouble ahead for the global economy.

• Americans have lived beyond their means for decades. It was a culture long defined by a mantra of entitlement, one that promised opportunities for all while ignoring the risks.

• The country is reacting strangely irrationally to the loss of its importance -- it is a reaction characterized primarily by rage. Significant portions of America simply want to return to a supposedly idyllic past.

• The rich keep getting richer, with the top 0.1 percent of income earners making more money than the 120 million people at the bottom of the income scale.

• Since the beginning of the millennium, no new jobs are being created on balance, because the US economy has undergone structural change. Companies are dominated by investors interested only in the kinds of quick and large profits that can be achieved by reducing the workforce.

• In 1978, the average income for men in the United States was $45,879. In 2007, it was $45,113, adjusted for inflation.

• How strong is the cement holding together a society that manically declares any social thinking to be socialist?

• The United States of 2010 is a country that has become paralyzed and inhibited by allowing itself to be distracted by things that are, in reality, not a threat: homosexuality, Mexicans, Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, health care reform and Obama.

Can US Education Be Fixed?

The following is an email I received from Lloyd Eskildson, about the failures of US education, especially in comparison with other wealthy countries.
..........
Your book is 'spot on' as the British would say, except for one aspect - needing more money for education. What is needed instead is much greater respect for education and increased parental/pupil motivation. Unfortunately, the resulting potential job attractiveness (also a motivator) would largely be negated by the much lower wage rates in Asia; at least this would cure the functional illiteracy issue. Though I have never taken an 'education course' nor do I have an education degree, I have had a strong interest in education for 30+ years, and have served as consultant to and Chief Deputy at the Maricopa County School Supt. Office. Following are some comments I made regarding a January, 2010 "U.S. News/World Report" that was trying to be optimistic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The bulk of this issue focuses on efforts to improve U.S. education. Contents include part of President Obama's plan (encouraging a longer school day and school year), D.C. schools' efforts to abandon teacher tenure and implement merit pay, New Orleans becoming the only major city with a majority of pupils in charter schools, and a major 'No Child Left Behind' (NCLB) mistake (allowing states to choose their own standards, invariably low). The issue also highlights the provocative question, "Will School Reform Fail?" on its front cover.

The answer, unfortunately, is "Yes - just like all the prior school reform efforts." But first, some background, starting with good news. 1)The "U.S. News and World Report" does not mention increased funding as a need. This follows decades of an emphasis on steadily increased inflation-adjusted funding/pupil (up about 250% in 30 years), with very little if anything to show in the way of improved pupil outcomes - especially at the high-school graduate level. Unfortunately, we have wasted trillions of dollars getting to this point, and continue doing so. 2)President Obama's efforts to extend the school day and year are on the right track. The late Professor Harold Stevenson (Univ. of Michigan) spent years researching differences between U.S. schools and those in China, Japan, and Taiwan. Each of the three nations spends a much smaller proportion of GDP on education, while their upper-level pupils consistently outscore ours. Stevenson found that Asian pupils spent almost 50% more time/week in class and had a school year about one-third longer. (Many Asian pupils also enroll in additional week-end and evening private schooling.) Similarly, years ago I found that the highest-scoring Arizona 3rd-grade readers were consistently located in the same small, farming community - the 'secret' was their teacher spent much more time on reading than others; unfortunately, this effort was not sustained in higher grades and the higher achievement faded as the pupils aged. Regardless, when Professor Stevenson presented his findings at a symposium that I helped organize, educators in attendance downplayed, belittled, and ignored his findings. 3)Studies have repeatedly found that high goals lead to higher achievement - in all areas of life. Hopefully, the NCLB mistake of allowing educators to assign themselves self-defeating low-goals (avoid accountability), will be quickly corrected now that it has been recognized.

Now, the relatively bad news. 1)U.S. educators are not likely to extend the school day and school year to come close to matching the efforts of pupils in the Far East - despite President Obama's imprimatur. 2)Education vouchers, school choice, and charter schools are major components of current reform efforts. All are based on the belief that schools competing for pupils will outperform those that do not. Makes sense, and there is some encouraging evidence. However, Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) reported (6/15/09) that, 'in the aggregate, students in charter schools (are) not faring as well as students in traditional public schools.' Readers might be tempted to dismiss this finding as economic heresy; however, it is actually an invaluable piece of evidence. 2)The late Professor James Coleman (Univ. of Chicago) conducted one of the largest education studies in history, involving over 150,000 pupils, and intended to demonstrate that minority pupils were short-changed. Instead, Coleman found there was more variation in pupil achievement within schools than between schools - ergo, differences between U.S. schools were not the main key to success! Coleman's findings were derived from sophisticated statistical analysis. However, this major finding has been obvious for decades -sizable and sustained differences in pupil achievement exist between various ethnic and socio-economic groups. Instead of recognizing, celebrating (where appropriate), and acting upon those differences, we pretend they don't exist. When I went to school it was no secret that pupils of Asian and Jewish heritage performed, on average, much better than the rest of us. The rest of us survived a lack of special attention and got over it. Similarly, it's obvious today that minorities, in general, do much worse than most - in both dropout rates and academic achievement. How is this caused by, or to be cured by, the schools?

Coleman's finding is consistent with CREDOs. What's more, both findings are consistent with another of Stevenson's - that Asian parents (and pupils) were much more concerned about and involved with their children's' schooling than their American counterparts. Seemingly, American educators have been inadvertently functioning as education's worst enemies - constantly emphasizing the need for more money and new programs has implicitly downplayed the key role of parental and pupil motivation. Asian societies maximize those motivations through high-stakes college entrance examinations; conversely, the U.S. further reduces these motivations by trying to make it easier for graduates to attend college (already 67%, though about one-half drop out - up from one-fifth in the 1960s) through greater funding for aid and scholarships.

Finally, the really bad news. Education reform has been tried and failed for more decades than even I can recall. We've lurched back and forth from group instruction to individualized instruction, team-teaching to individual teacher teaching, bilingual instruction to English immersion, large schools to small schools, special education to mainstreaming, norm-referenced to criterion-referenced testing, New Math to higher-order thinking to rote drills, ability grouping to not, raising standards to building self-esteem through lower standards, more homework to less, reading instruction via phonics vs. whole language, cultural literacy to multiculturalism to values-free education, peer tutoring to teaching assistants, teacher-directed vs. child-centered, site-based management vs. leadership accountability, public school assignments by residence to open enrollment, vouchers, and charter schools, basic schools vs. 'regular' schools, etc. En route, we've also added kindergarten and pre-school (some areas), teacher professionalization, computers and the Internet, rebuilt and upgraded facilities, reduced class size, added specialists and supervisors, driven out competitive games in P.E., increased time-on-task (until we forgot about it), added compensatory education (Title I), Head Start, and gifted education, increased teacher pay to where it exceeds that of most private school teachers, raised additional monies through special tax programs, bake sales, book sales, and carnivals, and even mentioned parental involvement from time to time.

For what? Dropout rates, and achievement levels for those graduating are about where they were years ago. Its been like Lucie, Charlie Brown, and the football - over and over. The really good news is that Stevenson also found that U.S. children began school with higher achievement levels than their Far East competitors. We've had great educators - Jaime Escalante (Los Angeles), Marva Collins (Chicago), Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin (KIPP), Seymour Fliegel (Harlem), almost all those who taught at my high school (Wheaton High - '59), as well as innumerable successors today. But they can't do it on their own. We just need to forget about education fads, face reality, and demand more - starting with ourselves.

---------------------------
My (DSM) response to this was as follows:

Thanks so much for this thoughtful essay. I agree with most of what you say, and especially your focus on the problem of parental involvement (or lack thereof) and student motivation. In my mind, though, the main reason for this in the US, compared to the other countries you mention, is simply the much higher incidence of poverty in this country. Poverty creates so many obstacles to effective education that no "fix" of the educational system is likely to work--as you point out.

American Values Contextualize Decline

Caleb Hamman
chamman@butler.edu

Amidst national debate on healthcare, foreign policy, and economics, with news outlets devoting coverage to pundits, officials, and political processes, it is easy to overlook the role of the American citizen in shaping public policy—the popular culpability in US decline.

To the extent American democracy functions democratically (see my earlier post and EAC chapter five), public opinion is an important variable in the furthering or the mitigating of growing challenges. Troubling trends in the American psyche are among the results of the newest study released by the World Values Survey.

The research, spanning more than fifty countries during the past four years, shows considerable divergence between American and world opinion on issues of importance.

Reaffirming The End of the American Century correlation between religious fundamentalism and rejection of science, the survey found that Americans were nearly twice as likely as non-Americans to be active in churches or religious organizations; simultaneously, Americans were 11 percent less likely to consider global warming “very serious” and three times more likely to consider it “not serious at all.”

Gaps also existed in attitude toward security and conflict resolution, reflecting a continued embrace of “hard power” in American political thought, with Americans placing more confidence in the military than non-Americans and placing less confidence in international organizations like the United Nations.

By far, the biggest gulfs between US and global attitude were in the area of economic policy. Here, Americans were much more likely than others to be tolerant of inequality, to disfavor government intervention in the economy, and to believe in the wealth-accumulating potential of hard work and individualism.

The contrast of attitude was particularly striking between the United States and the fifteen European countries surveyed. Europeans were almost twice as likely as Americans to strongly agree that incomes should be made more equal. They were also more likely to view circumstantial factors like luck and wealth as important to getting ahead, and they were much more likely to consider economic redistribution an “essential characteristic of democracy.”

Perhaps the most poignant aspect of the survey results is that they highlight an American disregard for problems the United States is uniquely victim to. Among advanced, industrialized countries, US levels of economic inequality and economic immobility are among those of the worst (see post referenced above, this post, and EAC chapter two). Despite the myriad social and political consequences of US economic problems, Americans appear remarkably misinformed and unconcerned. Meanwhile, the egalitarian measures used elsewhere to alleviate economic ills are revealed by the survey to be anathema in American thought, underscoring the difficulties faced by the current administration in its efforts to restructure the economics of health, taxation, and market regulation.

In discussion of issues like these, and in wider discussions about the rise and fall of international powers, the role of the public consciousness should not be overlooked, for particularly in democracies, popular attitude not only shapes the spectrum of debate, but is itself shaped by the institutions of policy and reform.

Bartels Finds Declining Equality and Influence

Caleb Hamman

chamman@butler.edu

Economic and political inequality are among the most significant aspects of U.S. decline. Both topics are the focus of the most recent work of Princeton Political Scientist Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. In his book, Bartels sets out to analyze the political causes and consequences of economic inequality, arguing that these are both substantial and urgently relevant to alleviating injustice.

Naturally, Bartels begins by assessing the extent to which economic inequality exists in the United States. After detailed review of current literature and government data, Bartels offers findings very much in line with those of The End of the American Century, essentially that “current levels of inequality rival those of the Roaring Twenties,” making it fitting to speak of a “New Gilded Age” or a “retrogression of historic scope.” As Mason points out, this sort of inequality can lead to monstrous disparities, such as CEOs making more than 500 times their average employee, and has effectively caused the United States to become more unequal than “any advanced industrialized country.”

Like The End of the American Century, Bartels finds that current inequality is not a recent phenomenon, but has been growing sharply since the 1970s. Although this observation is generally accepted, Bartels then goes on to make a less mainstream claim—that increasing economic inequality is a largely a result of public policy. While Bartels readily concedes that economic factors like globalization and technology have contributed to inequality, he staunchly refuses to attribute the entire dynamic to arcane “market forces” or inculpable “economic realities.” Rather, a significant role is played by political intervention, an idea Mason also highlights by discussing issues like the “elimination of the federal welfare system” and the “stagnation of the minimum wage.”

Bartels goes one step further. He argues that U.S. economic inequality is “profoundly shaped by partisan politics”—specifically that “middleclass and poor families” have “fared much worse under Republican presidents than they have under Democratic presidents.” This is not necessarily a novel notion, but rarely has it been supported by such detailed analysis. Using exclusively Census Bureau data and controlling for non-partisan variables such as international crisis, Bartels conclusively demonstrates that the incomes of most have grown at substantially higher rates under Democratic presidents than under their Republican counterparts.

After illustrating his findings with three chapter-length case studies, Bartels turns to his second major point—the political consequences of inequality. Here, his research is particularly disturbing. In calculating the recent responsiveness of U.S. Senators to their constituents, Bartels finds that:

Senators’ roll call votes were quite responsive to the ideological views of their middle- and  high-income constituents. In contrast, the views of low-income constituents had no discernible impact on the voting behavior of the senators…the statistical results are quite consistent in suggesting that the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution were utterly irrelevant.

Examining the potential causes of this mass political exclusion, Bartels finds that “biases” in “senators’ responsiveness to rich and poor constituents are not primarily due to differences between rich and poor constituents in turnout, political knowledge, or contacting.” Rather, “the data are consistent with the hypothesis that senators represented their campaign contributors to the exclusion of other constituents.” As Mason puts it, “When people do not…contribute to political campaigns, they are less likely to be listened to by legislators or policymakers, and their interests are less likely to be taken into account in the political process.”

In analyzing the totality of his findings, Bartels delivers a particularly sobering assessment:

In Aristotle’s terms, our political system seems to be functioning not as a 'democracy,' but as an 'oligarchy.' If we insist on flattering ourselves by referring to is as a democracy, we should be clear that is a starkly unequal democracy.

Despite such foreboding, Bartels attempts to end with a more hopeful thought: Since inequality has been largely been brought about by conscious political action, there seems to be potential for prescriptive change. As Bartels puts it, “We can make these choices.” But as Mason points out, we are quickly running out of time.

The Measure of America

The Social Science Research Council and Columbia University Press have published a remarkable and eye-opening book, called The Measure of America: American Human Development Report 2008-2009, which could function as a companion and statistical supplement to The End of the American Century. In analyzing the domestic situation of the U.S., The Measure of America has many of the same themes, and similar (and supporting) evidence as my book. Like my book, it shows that on most measures of societal development, the U.S. has declined over recent decades, and lost ground compared to other countries.

The Measure of America is modeled on the annual Human Development Report published since 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme. That series attempted to get away from the raw economic indicator of Gross Domestic Product, and to determine the level of human development in each country. The “human development index” used by UNDP, an alternative to GDP, was “a composite index measuring average achievement in the three basic dimensions of human development—a long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living.” (From the Human Development Report 2006).

The Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen was instrumental in developing the Human Development Report, and wrote the Foreword to The Measure of America. There, he writes that

“we have to judge the success of a society, including its economy, not just in terms of national wealth or the ubiquitous GNP, but in terms of the freedoms and capabilities that people enjoy to live as they would value living” (p. xi).

Sen observes that this approach has been “remarkably neglected in the United States in particular” and notes in this country “a major discrepancy between opulence and achievement.” The U.S. may be on some measures the world’s wealthiest nation, but “its accomplishments in longevity, secure health, fine education and other such basic features of good living are considerably below those of many other—often much poorer—countries.” He also notes, as I do in my book, that the position of the U.S. relative to other countries has been “steadily falling” over the years (p. xii).

The book itself assembles data in clearly presented tables on the three main “building blocks” of the human development index: a long and healthy life; access to knowledge; and a decent standard of living. In all three areas, the U.S. fares poorly in comparison to other countries. Compared to other wealthy countries, for example, the U.S. ranks #24 in life expectancy; #18 in high school graduation rates; and #2 in poverty rates (you don’t want to rank high on that one!).

The data shows the downward trend for the U.S. over time in most of these measures as well. And for the overall index, the U.S. world rank dropped from #2 in 1980 (behind only Switzerland) to #12 in 2005. Countries ahead of us include much of western Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan.

(The American Human Development Project also maintains a useful website at this link.)

These are all trends and themes presented in The End of the American Century, where I also use authoritative data (including many of the same measures used in The Measure of America). They point out how far the U.S. has fallen, and how much work we have to do. The problems of the U.S., both economic and social, predate the disastrous Bush presidency, which simply exacerbated them all. It took more than eight years to dig us into this hole, and will take at least that long to recover. But we have to recognize these problems and understand them before we can begin to solve them.

The Measure of America: American Human Development Report, 2008-2009 (A Columbia / SSRC Book)

Interview and Review of "The End of the American Century"

David Hoppe interviewed me and wrote a story on my book in the 1/28 issue of Nuvo magazine. I believe he nicely captures the essence of the book, and my thinking about the current situation and place of the U.S. The story can be found at this link.

Merrill Lynch's John Thain: Poster Boy for Greed and Incompetence

Last week, John Thain, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch was sacked by the CEO of Bank of America, which recently absorbed the bankrupt brokerage firm. Thain is a prime example of the mind-boggling greed, incompetence and cluelessness of the captains of the U.S. financial services sector. I called attention to Thain in my September blog on CEO pay, where I noted that Thain was the highest paid CEO in 2007, with compensation exceeding $83 million. This was a year in which Merrill Lynch lost $7.8 billion, mind you. Granted, Thain didn’t take over Merrill until November of 2007. But 2008 was even worse. Merrill’s losses of $27 billion last year was what led to its absorption by Bank of America.

But Thain’s greed and arrogance gets even worse. He apparently demanded a bonus of $30-40 million for 2008, the year he presided over the company’s bankruptcy and collapse. This was after Merrill had already received some $10 billion from U.S. taxpayers as part of the federal government’s financial bailout. Furthermore, according to a story in the Financial Times, Merrill granted some $4 billion in bonuses to other executives in the company, just before the Bank of America takeover was finalized. As the Financial Times observers, “this was money that appeared to come directly from US government funds.”

A New York Times story says that Thain spent $1.2 million to redecorate his Merrill Lynch office last year, including an $87,000 rug and a $68,000 credenza.

John Thain stands out as the worst abuser of corporate and government funds. But the problem is much wider than John Thain or Merrill Lynch, and extends across the entire corporate landscape. In my earlier post on CEO pay (and in my book), I point out that these huge CEO compensations in the U.S. are horribly inflated, both by historical standards and in comparison to other capitalist countries. In the 1980s, average CEO pay in the U.S. was about 50 times that of average worker pay. In Germany, Canada, and Japan, the ratio is less than 25 to 1. In the United States in recent years, on the other hand, that ratio has approached 500 to 1.

Thain is out, thank goodness. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating the bonus payments in Merrill Lynch. There is some accountability there, at least. U.S. representatives and taxpayers should make sure, though, that U.S. citizens do not subsidize the lavish lifestyles and obscene salaries of executives in companies that are receiving taxpayer money. Most of them are multimillionaires already. If they truly want to help the economy and the country (as most of them say they do), let them live on an average worker’s salary for a few years.

Are CEOs Paid Too Much?

Jessica Williams-Gibson interviewed me on the issue of CEO pay for The Indianapolis Recorder, a newspaper founded in 1895 with a mission "to support and empower African-Americans." Her story is at this link.

For my earlier post on this subject, see "CEO Pay and the Bailout."