“The beleaguered majority accepts the injustices heaped upon them while coddled and ultra-wealthy Americans erupt in fury.”
~ Richard Eskow
This sounds like “battered wife syndrome” when a beleaguered wife turns her anger inward, leading to crippling reactions like shame, guilt and despair. She accepts the injustices heaped upon her. Repeated individual failures lead to a sense of learned helplessness. A controlling and dominating husband erupts in fury because his wife doesn’t do things his way.
One wonders why a battered woman stays?
“ ‘internalizing the oppressor consciousness’: internalizing the values of those who colonize, rule, and exploit you, accepting their distorted, Matrix-like view of the world as an objective reality.”
~ Paolo Freire, The leftist Brazilian educator
Wealth inequity and other economic injustices, the product of deliberate policy choices, i.e. taxation policies that tax wealth at a lower rate than earned income, corporations being considered as individuals, attempts to end Social Security designed to protect wage-workers, limited access of wage-workers to health care, education, impacts caused by financial regulation, and a number of other policy areas, result in a growing income gap between rich and poor.
One also wonders why USA’s beleaguered majority doesn’t rebel in outrage?
"From the first breath of life to the last, our lives are being stolen out from under us. From infant care and early education to Social Security and Medicare, the dominant economic ideology is demanding more lifelong sacrifices from the vulnerable to appease the gods of wealth."
~ Richard Eskow
The beleaguered majority accepts the injustices heaped upon them, and continue pledging allegiance to the flag of the nation whose leaders in both political parties heap those injustices.
The beleaguered majority won't want to believe America's founders intended these injustices. Here are some of their words, from James Madison's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787.
ELBRIDGE GERRY. The people are the dupes of pretended patriots, led daily into the most baneful opinions by false reports of designing men, which no one on the spot can refute. (May 31)
ROGER SHERMAN. The people should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They lack information and are constantly liable to be misled. (May 31)
ALEXANDER HAMILTON. The people seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the rich and well-born a distinct and permanent share in the government. (June 18)
JAMES MADISON. In framing a system we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes the ages will bring. An increase of population will increase the proportion who labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country, but symptoms of a leveling spirit have sufficiently appeared in certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and check the other. It ought to be formed as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. (June 26)
ROGER SHERMAN. Government is instituted for those who live under it and ought not to endanger their liberties. (June 26)
GOVERNEUR MORRIS. The second branch ought to be composed of men of great and established property--an aristocracy. (July 2) Men don't unite for liberty or life; they unite to protect their property. (July 5)
JAMES WILSON. The majority wherever found should govern the minority. (July 13)
JOHN MERCER. It is a first principle in political science that where the rights of property are secured, aristocracy will grow. Elective governments also become aristocratic because the rulers will draw advantage for themselves from the many. (August 14)
EDMUND RANDOLPH. We have in some revolutions of this plan made a bold stroke for monarchy. We are now doing the same for an aristocracy. (September 5)
JAMES WILSON. I fear aristocracy. (September 6)
GEORGE MASON. This constitution will begin a moderate aristocracy. It will probably vibrate between a monarchy or a corrupt and oppressive aristocracy then end in one or the other. (September 15)
Evidence for the above?
Search the web for <Max Farrand>, click on the Online Library of Liberty and see three volumes of James Madison's notes. In Volumes One or Two, click on the above dates and search for the delegates named above.
Read, and know you were lied to.
Clearly, the words reveal the role of property in building an oppressive aristocracy. The idea of a well educated voting public who vote in their self interests will produce equal opportunity to produce and benefit by the production of goods and services. This idea failed to materialize. Property, not work, is protected by our government.
When working families started moving west, using their entrepreneurial spirit to create lives for themselves, working hard to create small businesses, many got caught in manufactured depressions, losing their businesses to banks, becoming indentured servants to exploiters. Small businesses grew into mega-businesses, creating wage-jobs of workers working for very small wages. The great killer of initiative.
"JOHN MERCER. It is a first principle in political science that where the rights of property are secured, aristocracy will grow. Elective governments also become aristocratic because the rulers will draw advantage for themselves from the many. (August 14, 1787)"
The purpose of government should be to protect the rights of individual effort, to empower the individual to flourish, work and benefit by the production of goods and services of his/her labor.
Well, let's be real, Joan: wealth = influence = control. The super-rich have a pretty fair amount of all three while the average Joe has next to none of any of them. Write Congress about this inequity and what happens? Your congressperson is more than likely pretty well off and, especially if he or she is a Republican, isn't going to vote against his or her own interest. And even if your representative IS willing, we have a House of Representatives with a GOP-majority, led by a man who, for all I can see, has very little interest in cooperating with the will of the people or their duly-elected president, and a Senate which is so bollixed by cloture and its own archaic rules, never mind more overly rich and privileged people that even considering the kind of redistribution of wealth which would benefit the middle class and perhaps the US economy as a whole would be totally anathema to them.
Consider the sequester. Did it hammer Congress at all, or just us? And when is the last time that Congress voted AGAINST a pay hike for themselves? Nope, they've got it good, they KNOW they've got it good, and their attitude bears a striking resemblance to Marie Antoinette's ... except that these days, the tag line might be: "Let them eat Twinkies!"
And speaking of Ms. Antoinette, it might very well take the kind of kerfuffle she and her pal Louis faced 220 years ago to change this currently pretty well-entrenched status quo. That's my suspicion, anyway.