Wealth and Democracy. By Kevin Phillips. (New York: Broadway Books, c. 2002. Pp. vii, 422. ISBN 0-7679-0533-4.) Wealth and Democracy clearly illustrates and emphasizes the importance of Democracy being endangered. The author Kevin Phillips, America’s leading political analyst since 1968 and a graduate of Harvard Law School appears very informed and credible. Wealth and Democracy outlines and explains the politics of the second half of the 20th century. In this book Phillips primarily explores how the rich and politically powerful often work together to create and continue to take advantages at the expense of the national interest, the middle class, and the lower class. The book contains several interesting chapters on history and an analysis of present-day America that reveals the dangerous politics that go with the concentration of wealth. Finally, Phillips gives warnings of new radicalism and argues that the corruptions of wealth and power are destructing the United States. Wealth and Democracy examines the history of Britain and other leading world economic powers to point out the symptoms that signaled their declines such as speculative finance, increasing international debt, record wealth, income and unsatisfying politics. Many of the signs that led to the decline of Britain were noticeable signs in America as it entered the twenty-first century. One might be surprised at the way Phillips emphasizes the despiteful practices of the rich considering his republican background. However, due to Phillips increased knowledge of the GOP (Grand Old Party; the first Republicans) He has concluded Republicans economic polices and biases of the 1990s and early 2000s betray the legacy of who He considers the two greatest Republican presidents, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Wealth and Democracy performs a splendid job of convincing one that democracy is endangered and that the practices of the rich and those in power can be deceitful. For the most part the book is easy to follow, fairly organized and has an exceptionally good index. However Phillips could have done better when making references to his previous works because they are confusing and unclear.
Accurately established by many historians, the capitalists who shaped post-Civil War industrial America were regarded as corrupt “robber barons”. In a society in which there was a severe imbalance in the dynamics of the economy, these selfish individuals viewed this as an opportunity to advance in their financial status. Thus, they acquired fortunes for themselves while purposely overseeing the struggles of the people around them. Presented in Document A, “as liveried carriage appear; so do barefooted children”, proved to be a true description of life during the 19th century. In hopes of rebuilding America, the capitalists’ hunger for wealth only widened the gap between the rich and poor.
The film “Inequality for all” directed by Jacob Kornbluth, begins with Robert Reich asking students three questions to consider in a lecture when talking about the uneven distribution of wealth. First, what is happening regarding the distribution of wealth? He then inquires to why this is happening. Last of all, he asks the students if the distribution of wealth is a problem in America. He addresses these questions as well as many others in his lecture on the growing divide between America’s rich and poor. Robert Reich is an economist, author, and educator as well as public policy professor who served in the Ford, Carter and Clinton administration. He has dealt with this particular topic for over three decades and continues to spread his political views as a professor at the University of Berkley. Furthermore, he talks about the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor/middle class. He goes beyond the obvious facts to show us why this is happening and uses statistical data to display this growing problem. He gives concerning evidence that wages are declining, and that America’s weakening economy is based on consumerism.
Smith, Noah. “How to Fix America's Wealth Inequality: Teach Americans to Be Cheap.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Pub., 12 March 2013. Web. 06 April 2014. .
Purdy again cites Franklin Roosevelt as an example of socialist ideas that have infiltrated United States policy. There has been a decrease in the distrust in markets, and there has been an increase in the belief that markets are safeguarded. Purdy goes on to call markets “enemies to democracy and personal freedom.” Although democracy and markets seem to coincide with each other, markets singularly can cause incredible concentrations of wealth and he states that, “wealth is power.” He goes on to say that this contributes to the inequality aforementioned and it is hurtful to democracy. He argues that this concentration of wealth will “undermine” the idea that everyone vote and voice are equally important; only the voice of the wealthy is taken into consideration. Continuing his argument that income inequality and markets are interconnected, Purdy further demonizes markets by asserting that the inequality is a cause of the loss of personal freedom. This unfairness narrows the economic options of the general
Sklar, Holly. “The Growing Gulf Between the Rich and the Rest of Us”. They Say I Say. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.
Roland Marchand has discussed “The Parable of the Democracy of Goods” in his article, “The Great Parables”. , The inequality between the wealth and the poor did bring the problem of egalitarianism. As before, the wealth all-time favorites are to spend their fortunate and enjoy the personal luxury pleasure with someone serving in a huge house. To mirror the inequalities between middle and upper class could be done by equal the consumption level. Moreover, the democracy of goods is promise the consumer equality with royalty through consumption, and through celebrity endorsement to tell people this is the luxury you can afford and enjoy. However, democracy means you have the right to chose and elect, and make you own decisions. These goods are
In American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism, 1865 - 1900, H.W. Brands worked to write a book that illustrates the decades after the Civil War, focusing on Morgan and his fellow capitalists who effected a stunning transformation of American life. Brands focuses on the threat of capitalism in American democracy. The broader implications of focusing on capitalism in American democracy is the book becomes a frame work based on a contest between democracy and capitalism. He explains democracy depends on equality, whereas, capitalism depends on inequality (5). The constant changing of the classes as new technologies and ways of life arise affect the contest between democracy and capitalism. By providing a base argument and the implications of the argument, Brands expresses what the book attempts to portray. Through key pieces of evidence Brands was able to provide pieces of synthesis, logical conclusion, and countless
In contemporary times, the rise of capitalism as a dominant economic trend and its ravenous demand to accumulate sources from new markets, has led to the idea of merging political and economic power into one, which is democratic capitalism or otherwise illustrated as “a system where markets allocate income according to efficiency while governments redistribute income according to political demand."(Iversen, 2006). The advancements mentioned earlier, have given ground for questions concerning the possible compatibility of the political ideology which is democracy and the economic ideology capitalism and how would they affect one another. This mergence could be examined in recent times, whereas in the past around the start of the nineteenth century it was considered as inappropriate and unlikely to happen. This paper aims to demonstrate to what degree are democracy and capitalism compatible, by examining the various areas of conflict of the two ideologies, how has capitalism affected the democratic system in the United States and does actually global capitalism have an impact on the developing countries democracies.
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
...ss Revisited â Growing National Income Does Go with Greater Happiness - Springer. N.p., 01 Oct. 2003. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. .
Landes, D., 1999. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 38-59
For a few people to amass great wealth in a society is the highest expression of civilization. This is the base argument of Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” (1889) however he also explains the importance of philanthropy from those in the upper class, arguing that the wealthy entrepreneurs of society have a responsibility to distribute their excess wealth in a manner that proves to benefit society as a whole while avoiding wasting it on frivolous expenditures. Although claiming that the income gap between social classes has played an important role in society, Carnegie believes that the incredibly uneven distribution of wealth can be mitigated by the upper and lower classes working together to gain a mutually beneficial outcome. With an extending argument, Carl Becker seeks to explain in his article “Ideal Democracy” (1941), what his idea of the ideal democracy is, which he defines as “of the people, by the people, for the people” (148). However arguing that in today’s society, it is defined more so as “of the people, by the politicians, for whatever pressure groups can get their interests taken care of.” (148).This paper will serve to analyze the relative strengths and weaknesses of each text’s argument and supporting material. In doing so we will touch on the rhetorical strategies and structure that each text employs, while connecting them together through comparison. Becker argues that democracy has changed over time, while Carnegie extends this argument by stating the change will be beneficial to the human race.
Businesses generated mass campaigns and increased their political giving, and since campaign costs went up, politicians were more attentive to the rich. This answers the question as to why politicians supported the rich. To support their argument of the important role of organizations in politics, the authors use a quote from FDR when he says “get some organized pressure behind you, so that I will be rewarded for doing the right thing..” (108). In truth, Washington made the rich richer and abandoned the middle class because of “the relentless effectiveness of modern, efficient organizations” (115), and due to the increased polarization of the two main political parties. The main thing to learn is that mobilization of corporations pushed politicians to tilt the economy towards the wealthy.
The richest people who seem to keep getting richer have been walking into their wealth since the day they have been born. It has been proven by how the companies have been popping up around the world, how the companies are being bribed by governors trying to make their state seem more economically powerful. “Philips, Sony, and Toyota factories are popping up all over—to the self congratulatory applause of the nation’s governors and mayors, who have lured them with promises of tax abatements and new sewers, among other amenities.” (Paragraph 17) People are born into their jobs, and are doomed for their economic boats. IN other countries such as China, it has been proven that the families with the moneys are the ones with the money, are the ones with the economic power. “Many wealthy Chinese and western residents moved their money abroad and some actually left the colony. By 1971, the Cultural Revolution in China had ended in failure and conditions in Hong Kong calmed,” (Lannom) such as Gloria Lannom states, yet it took a while for Hong Kong to rebuild its economic standings because of this
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...