I think it is important for conservative people to stop
allowing the Left to define language.
The critical definition I’d like to discuss is this artificial idea of “class” in America.
We hear the Left talk of four distinct “classes” in their regular
discourse.
First, and most pitiable is the “poor.” We define the poor class as those living below some percentage of some income level. We
don’t examine lifestyle or make observations about any other demographic. However, when a conservative person mentions
the “poor” in any other context than compassion and sympathy liberals immediately cry “racist.”
Second is the “working class.” I’m never sure who this group is. It seems that reporters, politicians and
activists are not part of the “working” class because they speak always of them
as others. I’m not sure if I am “working” class,
although I certainly put in my 50+ hours each week. I think
that when the Left talks of a “working class” they are referring to the blue
collar, manufacturing or construction, mainly white, mainly male, mainly union laborer.
Third is the “middle class.”
This is probably the most amorphous group. A middle class person may earn $30,000 and
have a family of 4; and they may be single and make $150,000 a year. A middle class person may be of any ethnic
background and live in the city, the suburbs or even the country. And if you ask anyone in America, they are
likely to tell you that they are part
of the “middle class.” This nearly
universal identification with a group makes this group a convenient target for
politicians on both the right and the Left.
Our fourth American class is the “rich.” “Rich” is as ambiguous as “middle
class.” Generally speaking, though, in
order to be rich one simply must make more money than others – even a small
group of others – thinks that you need.
And since this is relative, people earning $18,000 per year might look
at a person earning $50,000 as “rich,” while someone earning $120,000 might
think that “rich” starts at $250,000. On
the Left, these people are despised for having what others do not, and are suspected
of having taken it from the “working class.”
Leftists who are wealthy take extreme care not to be identified as
“rich.” On the right, the rich are
quietly admired, but even conservative politicians hesitate to hold the “rich”
up as an example of the “American Dream.”
I propose that we simplify things. Let’s have two American Classes: Makers, and Takers. And let's be sure that we all understand that Americans can move from class to class as freely as we can move from town to town.
Makers are all of us who go to work in the “private sector”
to produce or do things that others cannot or prefer not to produce or do for
themselves. If we’re making cars, playing
football, growing food, painting homes or cleaning offices – it doesn’t
matter. If we’re doing someone’s taxes, starring
in a movie, managing a crew of janitors, designing a skyscraper or planning
production for an oil refinery – it doesn’t matter. If we’re the president of a hospital, the CFO
of a steel company, or the owner of a trucking line – it doesn’t matter. WE ARE MAKERS.
Takers are those who live off of what we have earned. This should NOT be confused with those who
live off what we make or do. On a daily
basis we trade our labor for a wage or other compensation. When that trade is complete, we are made
whole. Our employer doesn’t owe us more
than we’ve agreed upon. Our customers
don’t owe us more than the prices we’ve asked. These are not takers.
The denomination "Taker" should not be seen as a pejorative. Not all takers are bad. Not all takers are unnecessary or extraneous. Not all takers are responsible for their situations. Some takers are driven by a sense of calling. Some takers are driven by a sense of duty. Some takers are driven because they have nowhere else to turn. And some takers are driven by a perverse sense of entitlement.
Policemen, firefighters, DMV clerks, Social Security
administrators, public school teachers, mayors, military personnel,
congressional staffers, welfare queens, wards of the state. These
are the takers. They are government
workers and bureaucrats. They are career
politicians. They are those who live on
welfare, food stamps and unemployment payments.
They are those whose lifestyles are supported in large part or entirely
by taxes laid on the backs of makers.
One of the beauties of America, the American Dream allows, encourages, and
even obligates Americans to move up in life – to improve their station and
situation. That means that those of us who
find we are “Takers” are free and welcome to become “Makers.” Sometimes life deals hard blows and we find
we need help. In those cases there is no
shame in taking it. And there should
never be enmity between makers and those who need to take for a time.
But there must be a natural resistance to and control of the
growth of that permanent set of Takers who euphemistically call themselves
“public servants” and those who are long-term or inter-generational welfare
users. They may perform work in the
interest of government and good order; they may lack skills or abilities needed
to be productive. This set of Takers
must be as small as possible because, while they perform necessary functions in
some cases, and are truly pitiable in others, they are a drag on the prosperity
of every individual an on the welfare of the nation as a whole.
In business, we refer to fixed costs. Building a bureaucratic infrastructure and a network of social or entitlement programs creates "fixed costs." The danger of fixed costs is that when money gets tight or times get tough fixed costs cannot be reduced without serious and sometimes catastrophic consequences to the enterprise. And the other side of that coin is that unless fixed costs are reduced there will be serious and sometimes catastrophic consequences, too.
There is real and existential danger to America in losing control of its fixed costs. And that
danger grows with the growth of the Takers.
When the majority of Americans are being supported forcibly via taxation by other Americans we
will have passed a tipping point.
This isn't an argument against a strong military, good social programs, or poor people. It's not a rant against DMV workers or SSA bureaucrats. It's not even an anti-taxation discourse. I just would like some semantic clarity and to retake the linguistic initiative.
And so, when we speak let us speak of “makers” and “takers”
in a simple and factual way, and not some ambiguous groups of “middle,”
“working,” "poor" or “rich.”
Posts
