Love for labour lost as respect for workers can’t even be faked

It wasn’t always about the hot dogs. Originally, believe it or not, Labor Day actually had something to do with showing respect for labour.

Mon, Sep 2, 2013, 17:55

Here’s how it happened: In 1894, Pullman workers, facing wage cuts in the wake of a financial crisis, went on strike – and Grover Cleveland deployed 12,000 soldiers to break the union.

He succeeded, but using armed force to protect the interests of property was so blatant that even the Gilded Age was shocked. So Congress, in a lame attempt at appeasement, unanimously passed legislation symbolically honouring the nation’s workers.

It’s all hard to imagine now. Not the bit about financial crisis and wage cuts – that’s going on all around us. Not the bit about the state serving the interests of the wealthy – look at who got bailed out, and who didn’t, after our latter- day version of the Panic of 1893.

No, what is unimaginable now is that Congress would unanimously offer even an empty gesture of support for workers’ dignity. For the fact is that many of today’s politicians can’t even bring themselves to fake respect for ordinary working Americans.

Consider, for example, how Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, marked Labor Day last year: with a Twitter post declaring: “Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.”

Yep, he saw Labor Day as an occasion to honour business owners.

More broadly, consider the ever-widening definition of those whom conservatives consider parasites.

Time was when their ire was directed at bums on welfare, but even at the programme’s peak, the number of Americans on “welfare” – Aid to Families With Dependent Children – never exceeded about 5 per cent of the population.

That programme’s far less generous successor, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, reaches fewer than 2 per cent of Americans.

Yet even as the number of Americans on what we used to consider welfare has declined, the number of citizens the right considers “takers” rather than “makers” – people of whom Mitt Romney complained: “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives” – has exploded, to encompass almost half the population.

And the great majority of this newly defined army of moochers consists of working families that don’t pay income taxes but do pay payroll taxes (most of the rest are elderly).

How can someone who works for a living be considered the moral equivalent of a bum on welfare? Well, part of the answer is that many people on the right engage in word games: they talk about how someone doesn’t pay income taxes and hope that their listeners fail to notice the word “income” and forget about all the other taxes lower-income working Americans pay.

But it is also true that modern America, while it has pretty much eliminated traditional welfare, does have other programmes designed to help the less well-off – notably the earned-income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid.

The majority of these programmes’ beneficiaries are either children, the elderly or working adults – this is true by definition for the tax credit, which only supplements earned income and turns out in practice to be true of the other programmes.

So, if you consider someone who works hard trying to make ends meet, but also gets some help from the government a “taker,” you’re going to have contempt for a very large number of American workers and their families.

Oh, and just wait until Obamacare kicks in and millions more working Americans start receiving subsidies to help them purchase health insurance.

You might ask why should we provide any aid to working Americans – after all, they aren’t completely destitute, but the fact is that economic inequality has soared over the past few decades.

While a handful of people have stratospheric incomes, a far larger number of Americans find that no matter how hard they work, they can’t afford the basics of a middle-class existence – health insurance in particular. Even putting food on the table can be a problem.

Saying that they can use some help shouldn’t make us think any less of them and it certainly shouldn’t reduce the respect we grant to anyone who works hard and plays by the rules.

But obviously that’s not the way everyone sees it. In particular, there are evidently a lot of wealthy people in America who consider anyone who isn’t wealthy a loser – an attitude that has clearly gotten stronger as the gap between the 1 per cent and everyone else has widened – and such people have a lot of friends in Washington.

So, this time around, will we be hearing anything from Mr Cantor and his colleagues that may suggest they actually do respect people who work for a living? Maybe – but the one thing we’ll know for sure is that they don’t mean it. – (New York Times service)

Sign In

Forgot Password?

Sign Up

The name that will appear beside your comments.

Have an account? Sign In

Forgot Password?

Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In or Sign Up

Thank you

You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.

Hello, .

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

Thank you for registering. Please check your email to verify your account.

We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.