I didn't know anything about the French Revolution until I read A Tale of Two Cities; couldn't have told you what century it was. Afterward I paid attention to mentions of that horrible era when I came across them because I had a context for the reference. Reading The Scarlet Pimpernel last month felt like being back on familiar ground.
I've done some reading about Costa Rica - its history, culture, population - in preparation for my time there next month. One of the very positive characteristics of their culture is a fairly narrow spread and even distribution between the socio-economic strata. By contrast, it was the extreme gap between the aristocracy and the proletariat that led to the brutality of the French Revolution, with a similar dynamic at work in the Russian Revolution. It's not about the range from high to low as much as the gap, the relative absence of a broad middle class.
I took a class in college - Sociology I think - that graphed a culture's socio-economic spread as a two dimensional figure. Something that looked like vertical parallel lines showed an even distribution from top to bottom. This ( ) illustrates small upper and lower classes with a larger middle class, whereas )( shows what existed in the century prior to the French Revolution. (If I could figure out a way to do it the shape would be narrower at the top, almost nothing in the middle, with a very wide bottom.)
If we could accurately graph the U.S. what would it look like? And has the shape changed significantly over the last 10 or 25 years? Democrats say we're looking increasingly like )( and what I read in the press seems to support that, though they're not the most reliable source of information. There are some incredibly wealthy people in our country and that stratum sure seems to be moving further out, while the lower class doesn't seem to be moving up in a similar way.
The Democrat's solution to the growing gap (assuming there is one) is what we can call the Robin Hood tactic: raise taxes on the wealthy and give it to the poor, the Democrats' constituency, through a variety of social programs. The Republicans have a dual approach: deny the growing gap and propose breaks to ease business regulations to boost the economy and, by extension, employment rates. Yeah, that favors their constituency.
News Flash: neither of those will work. Not because both are structurally flawed (though they are), but because government can only play a secondary role, supporting what happens from the bottom up. That, and the fact that the two parties keep each other in a legislative headlock.
In his book Megatrends (Naisbitt, 1988) he says fads start and the top with the celebs, work down, and don't last long. (Think yoga pants, the one bright aspect of that fashion horror.) Trends, which last, start at the bottom among the common folk and work their way up, as is happening with a move toward healthier food choices.
How do we reverse the increasing gap between the growing group of very rich and the bottom of the range? It has to be a trend that starts with people and is supported by government policies, which might amount to nothing more than govt. staying out of the way. What is that needed bottom-up trend?
We return to the French for the term noblesse oblige, the obligation of the noble, the elite, those with an abundance, to share their blessings with those who have less. That's not welfare (a seriously flawed govt. program) or trickle-down economics, it's action prompted by compassion and a sense of humility. "There, but for the grace of God...."
Notable examples of noblesse oblige include Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet, but our history includes many who used a portion of their fortunes for the benefit of others, including the typically maligned Rockefellers.
It's worth pointing out that noblesse oblige isn't only the obligation of the uber rich. Anyone who realizes they are blessed with more than they need and sees others struggling can and should respond. That is, quite simply, the biblical mandate.
"If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?" - 1 John 3:17.
Noblesse oblige is the special duty of the believer because he/she recognizes that everything they have comes as a gracious gift from God. But anyone, regardless of their spiritual convictions or socio-economic strata carries this responsibility. It's part of being a community, of caring about your fellow man.
Therein lies another interesting dynamic. There are exceptions, but in my experience the helping hand comes in direct proportion to the size of the community. Whether it's through a Rotary Club building a park, a church feeding the homeless, or the quick action of strangers to a family that suddenly lost their home, the stronger and quicker response will more likely come in Clarion, Iowa (pop. 2,850), than Phoenix, AZ (pop. 1.44 million). A sense of community identity enhances nobless oblige and the anonymity of population density is a detriment.
If our country does indeed have a growing gap between the haves and the have-nots is it also true that we have a declining sense of community? (At least at places not like Clarion, Iowa.) And is there a cause/effect relationship between them? I think so. I think the mobility that has people moving away from their extended families into a neighborhood of strangers, subdivisions where people eat breakfast, come home for dinner and sleeping, and commute into work in between, and a media-fueled suspicion that every other guy out their is either a terrorist or a pervert have us moving toward isolation even as we're packing ourselves together un ever-growing cities.
Christ said, "The poor will always be with you" (Matt. 26:11). There will always be socio-economic strata. But as the French and Russians discovered, a large and persistent gap between the top and bottom is destructive to civil order. In a best case scenario govt. policies can have some small influence on narrowing that gap, but the noblesse oblige that comes from a strong sense of community and interconnectedness is required. That's the trend that will make the difference.
How do we get from here to there?
I dunno. Except for the part where I can live out noblesse oblige.
No comments:
Post a Comment