Page 37 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 37
m. a. peters ■ conflicting narratives of the american dream
racial wealth gap is growing, with generational inequality becoming even
more deeply entrenched. Americans cannot continue to hold deep-rooted
beliefs in the principles of individualism, equal opportunity and meritoc-
racy in the face of such growing inequalities.
As states cut back on education as a way of balancing their accounts,
education as the so-called “great equalizer” is less able to provide an equal
playing field, ensuring that every child – regardless of family of origin –
gets an equal chance at success (Johnson, 2006).
“In Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich
Richer – and Turned its Back on the Middle Class,” two political scien-
tists, Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, document the fact that during
the last few years, the wealthiest Americans have gotten a lot richer while
the middle class has suffered: real incomes have fallen, foreclosures have
forced millions of Americans from their homes and unemployment is the
highest in 30 years. They document the fact that, in 2009, the average in-
come of the top 5 percent of earners went up, while the income of the rest
of the population went down. The top 1 percent possessed roughly 8 per-
cent of the total income in the 1960s; today, the top 1 percent “earns” more
than 20 percent of the total income. The interesting point they make is
that this startling income inequality – the largest of any advanced indus-
trial democracy – is part of a larger, 40-year trend due to deliberate poli-
cies that have consistently cut taxes for the rich, made it harder for unions
to organize, enabled corporations to pay top executives large bonuses de-
spite company performance and deregulated financial markets that favor
banks at the expense of customers. They also point to intentional “poli-
cy drift” to refer to a situation where policymakers resist alternatives that
might have reduced inequalities. The dramatic growth of inequality is the
result of deliberate political choice and business backlash against the form
American liberalism took as it emerged after World War II. A conserv-
ative counterrevolution and the political awakening of business ensued.
Where the policy regime of private provision for a globally dominant in-
dustrial economy had previously worked, during the 1970s this regime be-
gan to break down as globalization and deindustrialization took hold.
The business lobby no longer accepted the contours of the New Deal and
the Great Society. Beginning with the Carter administration, the busi-
ness lobby began to exercise its muscle, defeating reform proposals and in-
stituting a round of tax cuts.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the parties increasingly differed on ra-
cial politics. The Republicans became the party of the wealthy and white,
while the Democrats became the inheritors of the civil rights movement.
If anything, this deep racial divide has grown larger during Obama’s era
35
racial wealth gap is growing, with generational inequality becoming even
more deeply entrenched. Americans cannot continue to hold deep-rooted
beliefs in the principles of individualism, equal opportunity and meritoc-
racy in the face of such growing inequalities.
As states cut back on education as a way of balancing their accounts,
education as the so-called “great equalizer” is less able to provide an equal
playing field, ensuring that every child – regardless of family of origin –
gets an equal chance at success (Johnson, 2006).
“In Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich
Richer – and Turned its Back on the Middle Class,” two political scien-
tists, Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, document the fact that during
the last few years, the wealthiest Americans have gotten a lot richer while
the middle class has suffered: real incomes have fallen, foreclosures have
forced millions of Americans from their homes and unemployment is the
highest in 30 years. They document the fact that, in 2009, the average in-
come of the top 5 percent of earners went up, while the income of the rest
of the population went down. The top 1 percent possessed roughly 8 per-
cent of the total income in the 1960s; today, the top 1 percent “earns” more
than 20 percent of the total income. The interesting point they make is
that this startling income inequality – the largest of any advanced indus-
trial democracy – is part of a larger, 40-year trend due to deliberate poli-
cies that have consistently cut taxes for the rich, made it harder for unions
to organize, enabled corporations to pay top executives large bonuses de-
spite company performance and deregulated financial markets that favor
banks at the expense of customers. They also point to intentional “poli-
cy drift” to refer to a situation where policymakers resist alternatives that
might have reduced inequalities. The dramatic growth of inequality is the
result of deliberate political choice and business backlash against the form
American liberalism took as it emerged after World War II. A conserv-
ative counterrevolution and the political awakening of business ensued.
Where the policy regime of private provision for a globally dominant in-
dustrial economy had previously worked, during the 1970s this regime be-
gan to break down as globalization and deindustrialization took hold.
The business lobby no longer accepted the contours of the New Deal and
the Great Society. Beginning with the Carter administration, the busi-
ness lobby began to exercise its muscle, defeating reform proposals and in-
stituting a round of tax cuts.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the parties increasingly differed on ra-
cial politics. The Republicans became the party of the wealthy and white,
while the Democrats became the inheritors of the civil rights movement.
If anything, this deep racial divide has grown larger during Obama’s era
35
