
Shell Game – Flickr Creative Commons
I did not say the American Dream for the con was what this country has been about from the get go. As author Morris Berman points out in this interview with Nomi Prins. As Nomi begins this is a story about hustling.
Financial bigwigs lead their affluent lives, unaffected, unremorseful, and unindicted for wreaking havoc on the nation. Why? Because they won. They hustled better. They are living the American Dream.
This is not the American Dream that says if you work hard you can be more comfortable than your parents; but rather, if you connive well, game the rules, and rule the game, your take from others is unlimited. In this paradigm, human empathy, caring, compassion, and connection have been devalued from the get-go. This is the flaw in the entire premise of the American Dream: if we can have it all, it must by definition be at someone else’s expense. [emphases mine]
This is after all the basic tenant of American business big or small. Always pass the all expenses on to the next sucker customer. The author goes on to tell how he came about to write is current book, Why America Failed, a postmortem if you will on this country.
By the time I sat down to write the third volume, Why America Failed, I was past the point of issuing warnings. The book is basically a postmortem for a dying nation. The argument is that we failed for reasons that go back more than 400 years. As a result, the historical momentum to not undertake a reassessment, and just continue on with business as usual, is very powerful. At this point we can no more reverse our downward trajectory than we can turn around an aircraft carrier in a bathtub.
And that even a few of the founding fathers were less than admirable in the way they did business. His description of the American culture of vulture capitalism is epitomized in this account he relates.
There is a story, probably apocryphal, of a Native American scouting expedition that came across the starving members of the Donner Party in 1847, who were snowbound in the Sierra Nevadas and resorted to cannibalism in order to survive. The expedition, which had never seen white people before, observed the Donner Party from a distance, then returned to base camp to report what they had seen. The report consisted of four words: “They eat each other.” Frankly, if I could summarize the argument of Why America Failed in a single phrase, this would be it. Unless Occupy Wall Street (or some other sociopolitical movement) manages to turn things around in a fundamental way, “They ate each other” will be our epitaph.
I should add that Why America Failed is actually part of a lineage, following the path initially staked out by Richard Hofstadter, C. Vann Woodward and Louis Hartz. Between 1948 and 1955 they all argued something similar; I just updated the argument.
Now he gets into the what my premise has been for some time. That both the left and the right suffer from variations on the same delusional thinking. That some how we can restore this fantasy known as The American Dream.
The Wall Street protests are, as during the Depression, a demand for restoring the American Dream; for letting more people into it. The Tea Party seeks a solution in returning to original American principles of hustling, i.e. of a laissez-faire economy and society, in which the government plays an extremely small role. Thus they see Obama as a socialist, which is absurd; even FDR doesn’t fit that description. There are great differences between the two movements, of course, but both are grounded in a deep malaise, a fear that someone or something has absconded with America.
. . . . .
The dominant thinking on the left, I suppose, is some variety of a “false consciousness” argument, that the elite have pulled the wool over the eyes of the vast majority of the population, and once the latter realizes that they’ve been had, they’ll rebel, they’ll move the country in a populist or democratic socialist direction. The problem I have with this is the evident fact that most Americans want the American Dream, not a different way of life—a Mercedes-Benz, as Janis Joplin once put it. Endless material wealth based on individual striving is the American ideal, and the desire to change that paradigm is practically nonexistent. Even the poor buy into this, which is why John Steinbeck once remarked that they regard themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” Hence I would argue that nations get the governments they deserve; that the wool is the eyes.
And yet we hear the same arguments over and over about ideology. IDEOLOGY ? Most of these people wouldn’t know ideology if it came up an bit them in the ass ! What they want to do is party, party, party and some one else’s expense and they get pissed when the left calls them on it. Like the next store neighbors who hate being woken up at 3AM. The right sees the left as party poopers and left sees the right as obnoxious loud mouthed frat brats. Both with this enormous ego and arrogance.
One of the things the reviewer said was that America might be able to save itself if it decided to pay attention to its more serious critics. What would it take for most Americans to regard someone like myself as a patriot, and someone like Dick Cheney as a traitor? Or Ronald Reagan as a simpleton who did the country enormous damage, and Jimmy Carter as a visionary who was trying to rescue it? As I said, this is not a matter of intelligence as IQ, because in America even the bright are brainwashed—just check out the New York Times. It’s more of an “ontological” problem, if you will.
Let me give you a concrete example. A friend of mine who is a dean at one of the nation’s major medical schools was very taken by my discussion of Joyce Appleby’s work, in my book Dark Ages America. He went out and bought her essay, “Capitalism and a New Social Order,” in which she describes how the definition of “virtue” underwent a complete reversal in the 1790s—from putting your private interests aside for the sake of the greater good, to achieving individual material success in an opportunistic environment.
As a dean, my friend interacts with faculty a lot, at department meetings, cocktail parties, or whatever. He took these opportunities to raise the topic of the rapid redefinition of virtue in colonial America, only to discover that within 30 seconds, the eyes of whomever he was talking to glazed over and they would change the subject. Tocqueville said it in 1831, and it is even more true today: Americans simply cannot tolerate, cannot even hear, fundamental critiques of America. IQ has very little to do with it. In an ontological sense, they simply cannot bear it. And if this is true for the “best and the brightest,” then what does this say for the rest of us?
But look who some of our biggest heroes have been. Such notable statesman as Al Capone, Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, Bonnie and Clyde, Baby Faced Nelson and the Biggest Con artist of all Ronald Reagan. We even made musicals about them. That even our most notable inventors were not all that notable. That it took Lee DeForest – a physicist mind you – an unbelievable number of attempts to get the Audion from Flemming’s valve. And he still did not understand how the damn thing worked. That Edison did not, in fact invent the light bulb but his staff did and it took years to get the damn thing to work right.
And here is the main point to all this right here
Our political and cultural system never let fresh air in; it squelched the alternatives as quaint or feeble-minded. Appearances to the contrary, this is what “democracy” always meant in America—the freedom to become rich.
The left wants it on a level playing field and the right says FU. And any and all alternatives to this are summarily dismissed by both sides.
At this point, absolutely nothing can reverse the situation. If every American carries these values, then change would require a different people, a different country. In dialectical fashion, it is precisely those factors that made this nation materially great that are now working against us, and that thus need to be jettisoned. What we need now is a large-scale rejection of the American Dream, and an embracing of the alternative tradition..
This is what is necessary to change things. To change our attitudes toward wealth and possessions. To each other and society. But this is highly unlikely to occur any time soon, OWS not withstanding.
You know, the air is really “thin” in the United States, because the value-system is one-dimensional. It’s basically about economic and technological expansion, not much else; the “else” exists at the margins, if it exists at all. I first discovered this when I traveled around Europe in my mid-20s. I saw that the citizens of those countries talked about lots of things, not just about material success. Money is of course important to the citizens of other countries, Mexico included, but it’s not necessarily the center of their lives. Here’s what the US lacks, which I believe Mexico has: community, friendship, appreciation of beauty, craftsmanship as opposed to obsessive technology, and—despite what you read in the American newspapers—huge graciousness; a large, beating heart. I never found very much of those things in the US; certainly, I never found much heart. American cities and suburbs have to be the most soulless places in the world. In a word, America has its priorities upside down, and after decades of living there, I was simply tired of being a stranger in a strange land.
This is why in Greece and Spain and France and other countries you see thousands of people take to the streets when the feel they are being screwed and why here it’s simply…whatever. And now this con is coming apart at the seams and there is not one that can save it.



12 Comments

A culture and society tailor made for the psychopath where the only accountability is if you get caught.
America is sick with it, right now, you know? Our sociopathic behavior is not lost on the rest of the world either.
What is wrong? Well, as you point out, and I believe this is huge, is that the notion that we held for so long is no more, and that is that if we work hard and if we value education, we can and will ‘do better’ than our parents did, because America is designed to reward people who work hard. Let’s see, here’s that:
“”This is not the American Dream that says if you work hard you can be more comfortable than your parents; but rather, if you connive well, game the rules, and rule the game, your take from others is unlimited.”"
Why would anyone even want to connive well and take from others and game the rules? See, that’s what I don’t get. I’d rather lose and die poor than lie, ‘win,’ and die rich.
BTW, there’s a pole pig right outside our window, on a pole, and the only reason I know what it is, is because of you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_transformer
Thank you for this article and for directing attention to this interview. It is sad that the author basically wrote a post mortem for a dying nation. A resurrection would be nice.
Thanks CS. I think some people get the impression that I’m bitter or disillusioned. I’m not really. To be disillusioned one has to believe in the illusion to begin with, which I do not think I ever did.
I began working part time in a TV Radio Stereo shop when I was a teen and I immediately noticed something. That the new stuff was exactly the same as the old stuff I was working on. Oh it might me arranged a bit differently inside and have a nice new case around it, but it was the same. I noticed this with cars and bicycles and most every thing else. That new and improved really wasn’t.
Not until the Japanese products started to show up was there anything really new and then the American producers instead of making any attempt to catch up, simply threw in the towel.
I am reminded of the beginning of the Music Man.
“Last I heard, you were into steam automobiles.’ ‘I was.’ ‘Well, what happened?’ ‘Someone actually invented one.”
Reminds me of the “Tech Bubble”, and its collapse.
There was nothing wrong with the promises made during the bubble, they were all completely realistic. It’s just that the people selling them didn’t know how to deliver them.
What’s worse, they didn’t care about delivery of the product, they only cared about cashing the checks they collected from making the promises.
All the promises of the tech economy were eminently doable, but nobody cared to spend any money on execution.
Time and again I heard the same story, that telephone companies, busy merging, and gobbling each other up, were laying off engineers while hiring sales account reps. They were selling contracts for services that they could not deliver because they didn’t have enough engineers.
Their customers waited months for services that were never installed and then the phones rang off the hook with frustrated customers calling to cancel services the company had no business selling because they couldn’t deliver.
There’s a strong vein of grifter in the American psyche, we’re all hustlers and none of us notice the problem with that sort of behavior until hard times arrive and the marks get harder to find.
Yes, from land of opportunity to A Nation of Salesmen; I suppose if one(s) started out with a nasty opinion of humanity it was quite unrewarding to swim against the tide.
It’s for this reason I have doubts about the cynical current in M. Berman. “They eat each other”? Nice metaphor but what about the misinterpretation, comrade Berman? As I write I watch “UN Humanitarian Chief” Valerie Amos in a DemoNow sound-bite speak of devastation in Homs. DN is not covering the imperialist mercenaries in play there. Is that DN catering to their ausience’s willful negligence, or something else?
You could argue that Amerikaners let themselves be mislead but you would be complicit in the denial of the misleading. The misleading is intensifying while them ignorant Murkin Muffley’s are waking up. Sure, the tide of cultural evolution is overwhelming but we have had some good swimmers.
So while Murkins are wooly, even Berman’s got to admit that they were not always so – and recently they’ve been herded towards the cliff.
BTW, it’s not democracy but liberty that means the freedom to be rich. Democracy we don’t take so seriously, comrade.
Oh you betcha. Of course how this is accomplished is of little importance, eh ?
On the contrary, the way things are said controls nations, comrade.
Ah but how one becomes rich is unimportant as long as one does not get caught.
I’ve dedicated my life to being of service to others and money never has mattered much to me, whether I had a lot of it or not. I adjusted when I didn’t and spent it when I did.
For awhile, I thought it would be nice to be rich, but I wasn’t about to cheat anyone to make a buck and I’ve never respected anyone who did.
Today I am more interested in enlightenment and revolution than anything else.
Everything else seems boring, trivial, and absurd.
Good article. Good analysis. Recommended.
Thanks Masoninblue. I have never chased money either. It has always been about the craft, the skill and the end product.
And like that Jimmy Buffet song says, “Made enough money to buy Miami but pissed it away so fast.”
Only in America! A nation of speculators and the speculated, exploiters and the exploited. To be perfectly honest, it is a miracle that we’ve even made it this far. Hope remains, faint as it may be.
Much truth but I am not as down on America – a lot of folks are not legacy, not as into continuing Dad’s/a mentor’s relationships is all, but those that are are the ones running things. The 99% really can change the system – and the faults of the founders all noted, the founders did leave a system that can be fair.
Indeed Al Capone was not all bad – my Grandfather was a good continuing friend/advisor to Al via being his neighbor at one time – and they came up with (I am told Grandpa had something to do with the decision but who knows) the soup kitchens in Chicago when the State and the City refused to do anything for the newly starving.
Got to be positive –