But I Was Told There Would Be Blood Running In The Streets

"Why don't the poor rise up" the NYT's op-ed writer wrote wistfully, adding, in an aside to his assistant "and murder all those rich bastards":

Here

I like this from the comments:

Richard Luettgen

New Jersey 1 day ago

The answer to Tom's question could be that traditional American values of self-reliance and personal responsibility are as strong among the working poor as they are among most of us.

It might also be that a lot of the working poor don't expect to be so for a lifetime, but find themselves defined so temporarily, as a result of setbacks or because they're young and lack skills for the present to vie for higher-paying jobs. The notion that there's an immense class out there of people permanently locked in poverty as a consequence of immutable economic factors is a liberal one that is finding less and less representation in our elective institutions.

Tom's, and Genov's and Beck's, concept of "individualization" is a force that has been present in the American psyche since there WAS an America, and hardly some new trope to use as excuse to rationalize why their theories of class struggle don't manifest here as they do in Italy or Greece.

But Tom's sense of dismay is valid. The whole BASIS of American progressivism is that "collective action on behalf of the poor requires a shared belief in the obligation of the state to secure the well-being of the citizenry". When you find yourself part of a culture that places that obligation not on the state but the INDIVIDUAL, it's understandable that you wonder at what you've believed for a lifetime.

But, of course, Tom's answer is that they're ignored. And so he goes on ... believing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well said, aye?