Antidisestablishmentarianism

By: Jacqueline Verrilli, Evanston, Illinois, USA

Oh, yes, she did…! Yes, folks, I just used one of the longest words in the English language as the title of this blog post. I used it because it’s length is analogous to the seemingly interminable Presidential campaign season, upon which this blog is based. And I also used it because it is an appropriate description of two people who were running: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. “Old news” you say? “Bernie’s not in the race anymore” you point out? Hogwash! The forces that brought these two candidates to the forefront of politics are still hard at work and wholly relevant. They have simply gotten lost in the weirdly non-issues-based ether that is our media-driven political system - especially post-convention. So I’d like to address what it is that made Donald and Bernie so popular and break it down a bit. At the heart of it is a large swath of the populace feeling disenfranchised. The question is, WHY? Well, here’s my two cents.

Anti: A prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “contrary to,” “in opposition of or to,” “not,”

Prior to the most recent crash, it was mostly rich people who were hurt when our economy tanked. People who held stocks, people who had invested in large commercial real estate projects, people who bought large amounts of derivative investment vehicles, you know, the solidly middle class and above. These are people who knew the risks and could afford to lose the money in hopes of the return commensurate with the risk. Sure, when the economy tanks, many people of all classes lose their jobs, and often people lose as much as a year’s worth of earnings (less any unemployment insurance they collect) while finding another one. And, yes, I understand that oftentimes when people lose their jobs they are unable to find a job that was paying as much as they were making prior to the loss, and this can impact the entirety of their future earnings. We dispassionate economists would argue, however, that, on average, those that lost their jobs were making excess wages prior to the crash. Don’t send me the hate mail, send it to Adam Smith or Merton Miller. Or better yet, write a love letter to Joseph Stiglitz. He’s still alive, and he’ll empathize with you.

This last crash was different in many ways, though, because it affected, not just rich people and business profits, not just the wildly effective money-making machine that is the US economy, but, everyone, everywhere, and all economies around the globe. And not just temporarily for a few people who worked in particular industries, but broadly, on a very long-term basis, for people of even very meager means. Only the Great Depression was worse and that was only because governments refused to intervene for so long thinking that it would all work itself out. In this last crash, hundreds of millions of people around the world lost a portion of their retirement fund. And there are still millions of homes in the US alone where the mortgage is technically “upside down”, meaning that the mortgage principal (the loan amount on the home) is more than the home is worth. But many people are still paying those mortgages because they need somewhere to live. I’d be pissed, too. But being pissed off about your own poor decisions to buy stocks and first or second homes (again, economists place all of the blame directly on you, dear reader, responding to incentives) is still no reason to endorse particular candidates, is it? This is technically, irrational behavior. Blaming the government for your own poor judgment has now become an international pastime. I personally blame Facebook and network television for fueling the ability to sit around and be entertained by finger-pointing and so allowing it to become a part of the social zeitgeist.

Those of us who do actually think for ourselves and question the information we receive from all sources recognize that we have a big choice to make in this next election. Pick a “blame the government” candidate or one that can work within it. I hate to break it you anti-establishment voters but the crux of your argument boils down to a set of irrational beliefs. You really think a President can magically: get all of the money out of politics, lower taxes to near zero, make higher education free, rid the US of all crime of any kind, level the playing field for all the world’s peoples, make the rest of the countries on the planet play nice with each other, modernize the infrastructure, make carbon emissions disappear worldwide, and have our military become so powerful that the entire rest of the world cowers at the mere mention of our country’s name. In four to eight years. Those of us with reality as a basis say, “good luck with that.”

Dis: A Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” or having a negative or reversing force

It seems to me that many voters right now are trying to run away from reality. They want people not like them to cease to exist, and they want money to cease to exist. In the case of extreme “conservatives”, they want to enjoy a privileged lifestyle without all those “others” not like them mucking things up. If they currently do not have what they consider to be a privileged lifestyle, they will latch on to somebody who they think will bestow it upon them when their leader successfully rids the country of those others. In the case of extreme “liberals”, they want equality, transparency, and a “flat playing-field” for all. Either way, voters appear to want the fundamental forces of competition to disappear and they want their leader to make money obsolete as a means of distributing resources. They want to blow-up our system and rebuild it according to the vision that they believe their leader has. In other words, ostensibly "anti-establishment" voters, paradoxically, appear to want a dictator right now. Forget all that messy “free and democratic” stuff, let’s create utopia right now.  “My utopia.”

Establishment: The existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority

As you can see, a utopia depends on whose perspective you’re viewing it from. Interestingly, the framers of the United States Constitution recognized that about 219 years ago. And so they attempted to create an establishment that would be flexible enough to accommodate all comers. And don’t it beat all that this crazy, novel system works! A system that allows the pedestrian populace, not only the elite intellectuals or the wealthy, not just a king or a Khan, but everyone who can legally establish a right to vote, to have a say in the policy, works!! And this preposterous system has created unprecedented progress on all fronts. Health and longevity, scientific discovery, inclusion, care for the infirm, widespread wealth and well-being... It is certainly still a work in progress, and that is by design. Our establishment allows for people to believe whatever they wish and express it so long as, in doing so, they do not harm others. Oh sure, progress has a way of hurting people’s feelings. In order for progress to happen, some people have to change their minds, admit that they were wrong, even! A psychological pain so great, that most people will choose to go to their graves before saying “I’m sorry.” But our establishment allows for that, too. I like our establishment. I don’t agree with the opinions or beliefs of many of the individuals who make it up, but I respect that they have the right to believe what they like and espouse their opinions. And I’m voting “establishment” because of it.

Tarianism: A set of word endings that, without a root word, are nonsensical

As of the past several months, I feel like I have been dropped into an alternative universe. It seemed impossible that two people so utterly at odds with one another in almost every way could possibly have put at risk the most well-established and formerly stable political system in the world. I find myself actively avoiding the news. In this piece, I have posited that the last economic crash awakened a basic fear in our populace. A fear that, without someone to make everything “right” again, we will all fall prey to forces beyond our control and die miserable deaths at the hands of those “others”.  Maybe I’m biased, but I believe that this whole ridiculous political mess belies a need for better economic education. The concept of a “law” of supply and demand is being thrown around a lot lately, and it behooves us to understand that certain equilibria don’t always work for everyone. And I firmly believe that our current political system does a pretty good job of balancing competing interests. It is perfect? No. Is there money buying policy? Yes. Do transfer payments encourage free-ridership? Sometimes. Should we allow businesses to make mistakes? Sometimes. But hopefully, one thing is amply clear now. “It’s the economy, stupid!” isn’t just an admonishment to political hopefuls, it’s a battle cry that everyone can get behind. And I just happen to think that the establishment candidate understands that the best.