CNN.com Op-Ed: Princeton Professor Warns of 'Royal Weddings' In U.S. If Economic Inequality Continues
The "erosion" of progressive policies in the U.S. has led to a "dramatic" rise of economic inequality in the past few decades, writes Princeton historian Julian Zelizer in a CNN.com op-ed. The incline has been so steep that Zelizer's headline asks "Are we heading for royal weddings in the U.S.?"
According to Zelizer, the upcoming British royal wedding "reminds some Americans of what America has never been," because America has never cherished an aristocratic tradition. But that could change due to a "dangerous accretion of power by wealthy interests and a dramatic rise of inequality...that weakens the health of our democracy."
The cause of all this is the recent departure from liberal policies like Congress regularly updating the minimum wage, implementation of the estate tax, and higher income taxes for the wealthy. With this "erosion" of progressive policy has come an "erosion in the economic security of the middle class," Zelizer laments.
Zelizer references two statistics to support his argument, that the top one percent of wealthiest Americans own 34 percent of the country's wealth and that they enjoyed 80 percent of the total increase in wealth in America between 1980 and 2005. What are the two sources he draws from? The liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and liberal magazine Slate.
"Ultimately, we need to make sure we don't allow economic inequality – as opposed to our democratic institutions – to define our nation. If we do, we'll all be watching royal weddings right in our own backyard," Zelizer concludes.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
serfs up!
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 2:18pm.
Odd ....since it is the Liberals who always refer to the Kennedys as 'America's Royalty'.
The question: "Are we heading
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 2:28pm.
The question: "Are we heading for royal weddings in the U.S.?"
The answer: Already there in effect. Although not technically royalty, overly lavish weddings have been performed in the United States for many, many years.
Of course, the question is absurd in of itself and the association Zelizer attempts to make is a non sequitur.
So it's a moot point, really.
This is pure socialist propaganda
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 2:49pm.
First of all we do not live in a "democracy" we are supposed to live in a Representational Republic. There is a HUGE difference between the two and you would think that a journalist who supposedly graduated from some college would know that.. Second, there is and always has been, and always will be, economic inequality. What a representational republic does for the people is insure that all have the same chance to be on the good side of that inequality based solely on their intelligence and hard work. What a democracy could do for the people is alliow 51% to decide that they are going to take some of the property of the other 49% and redistributre it to themselves by implementing socialist policies and calling them something else, like maybe "progressive" policies.
Based on the libertarian principles and free market system that this Republic was founded upon, this country went from a dirt poor third world country to the most powerful and richest economy in the history of the world in just a little over 100 years. Based upon the socialist principles and class warefare rhetoric that has been applied off and on for the last 100 years and almost continuously for the last 60 years, this country has stagnated and is in real danger of being overtaken by China as the strongest and most powerful economy in the world not to mention going bankrupt from the unchecked and out of control borowing.
It is precisely the government nanny welfare system that has trained almost 50% of the citizenry that their government owes them a "living" and that they should have other people's hard earned money given to them just because they are alive. Two statistics will reveal how unsustainable this situation is:
1 - 45% of all households in the US do not pay any income tax and in fact see a net gain from filing their tax returns in that they get more money back from the IRS than they had witheld in the first place.
2 - For the first time ever in it''s history, the US has paid out more money to entitlement programs and charity/welfare programs than it has recieved in revenue through taxes in 2010. $2.3 trillion in payouts vs $2.2 trillion in tax revenue.
I do not know when the economic security of the middle class ( or any "class" for that matter) became the job of the Federal Government, i suspect it was with the passage of SS and medicare/medicade, but that is the point at which we lost the battle and became a socialist country and started the long slow decline that is the inevitable result of socialism.
The sad part for me is that the political discussions and argument are about how much socilaism we should engage in. Not the discusion on how to completely eradicate the invasive pest that we should be having. Even Paul Ryan's budget proposal is based on taking us back to the smaller and gentler socialism of the late 1990's rather than eradicating it. So far the only leaders that I've heard that seem to have a clue are the father and son team of Representative Ron Paul and his son Senator Rand Paul. Like taking arsnic with your meals, it really doesn't matter if you reduce the dosage...in the end it is still going to kill you. The only hope is to completely eliminate it from your diet and then to get treatment and try and repair the damage that was already done.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
c5then: An Enjoyable Essay for Me to Read,
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 5:51pm.
But I doubt if Zelizer is capable of understanding what you are talking about.
Another point:
As with all leftys/progressives he doesn't understand that minimum wage laws generate unemployment and inequality; they don't reduce it. If there were such a simple answer to inequality a minimum wage law of, say, $60/hour would raise everybody to middle class. The obvious answer is that there would also be far fewer jobs and far more unemployment. And yes, far more inequality.
The effect of lower minimum wage laws (say $9/hour) is to block potential employees from stepping onto the employment ladder. They lose the chance to gain training in a job while earning a modest salary for it. This is a better option for many than paying a College or university a high tuition for a useless education in nonsense (e.g. multicultural) studies that don't prepare students for any job at all.
Ya mean like Chelsea Clinton's wedding??
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 3:25pm.
Okay, Prof... just checking.
Grumpy
Submitted by ant on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 3:35pm.
That's what I was wondering. Is he talking about the Clintons, the Obamas ( lobster-eating, perennial vacationers that took advantage of the "Bush tax-cuts", BTW) or hide-foreign-built-yachts-from-my-own-tax-laws Kerry? Couldn't be Pelosi, Lord knows we all eat chocolate-covered strawberries while flying in our own personal jets.
Bingo!
Submitted by kareling on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 4:00pm.
I distinctly remember the MSM calling Chelsea Clinton's nuptials "America's Royal Wedding." And how often do we hear the Kennedys referred to as royalty?
Unprofessorial
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 3:13pm.
Progressive policy is responsible for whatever perceived economic inequities exist. Just like the Nobel Peace Prize and the Pulitzer Prize, just about anyone can get a professorship. But it has nothing to do with being peaceful, or journalistic, or professorial.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
What a dope...
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 3:24pm.
...this guy is. Instead of decrying lavish weddings as a result of economic inequality, he should be advocating them! Think about all the people and businesses who get paid when there are weddings, regardless of size: dress boutiques, tux rental joints, flower shops, caterers, limo drivers, hotels and DJs, to name just a few. To me, weddings are one of the best examples of how the economy works.
Do not all these Entitlement
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 3:39pm.
Do not all these Entitlement Programs in the end create "economic inequality"? I think these entitlement programs create to some degree a permanent underclass that the Democrats want to control so that they can stay in power. Am I wrong? More than willing to change my mind when presented with a valid argument.
A question for Mr. Zelier
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 3:43pm.
Why does England have royalty then, considering they have embraced many of the liberal policies you say we have rejected?
"Ultimately, we need to make sure we don't allow economic inequality – as opposed to our democratic institutions – to define our nation."
Then stop trying to define our nation in that way. Problem solved.
Where was is moron during
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 3:51pm.
Where was is moron during Chelsea Clinton's wedding? This moron is angry because he didn't he an invite. Typical liberal supports and hates class warfare in the same breath.
#6 and # 11 are correct
Submitted by Northlander on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 4:58pm.
Both of you are absolutely correct. Any time a Kennedy farts expects the LSM to run a story linking the Kennedy's and Camelot which has been the biggest con job for 50 year. Factor in the recent Clinton wedding and the fawning media coverage of a grifter and her woman abusing husband and I would argue we're already there.
Let me get this strait
Submitted by Funbowhunter on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 5:59pm.
The bottom 45% pay absolutely nothing in taxes, some even getting more back than they paid in, and the rich are the royalty who do pay?
Warns?
Submitted by GregE on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 7:35pm.
Warns? I think lots of people want a monarchy here..........either Obama, or whoever the next Marxist president might be, to be made king.