The Accountability of Success

We are all dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants.

Ingrained in American culture is a concept that anyone can achieve success. Indeed, it's the core principal of the American Dream. I think this cultural keystone combined with our strong individualism (and no small amount of politicking) has misled us into believing that a person is solely responsible for their achieving success and, therefore, the burden for failing to achieve success is exclusive to that person as well.

This underlying ideology can have a polarizing effect in American politics and legislation surrounding the socialism of services such as healthcare. The effect can be seen through American politics and media headlines beginning in earnest with Red October^[1] and the Russian Revolution of the early 20^th century. McCarthyism^[2] entrenched us in the Cold War^[3] and continues to undermine sound logic today, preventing Americans from having intelligent discussions concerning social ownership of critical systems.

No Man is an Island

Unfortunately, the American Frontier is gone as the sea of humanity has washed over the entirety of the United States for all practical purposes. No longer can someone pick up and move beyond the grasp of civilization to start anew. Manifest Destiny^[4] and the Anglo^[5] domination and subjugation of the western half of the United States perhaps solidified, if not gave birth to, the American concept individualism and success.

The displaced natives and the immigrant pioneers who braved the frontier were probably the last Americans that could even argue that they were alone responsible for their success. There was no infrastructure, but there was plenty of opportunity in the unclaimed (by whites) lands west of the Mississippi.

Modern America is a much different beast, yet one that still retains its genetic memory of liberty and rugged individualism. If we measure success by financial prosperity, as most Americans do, it becomes incredibly difficult to argue that one's success was independent of the benefits provided by the State, and therefore one's fellow taxpayers.

I'm going to pick one example that I think most Americans will recognize, the founder of Walmart. Sam Walton^[6] did not carve out the location of his first, or any, Walmart location from [tentatively] unclaimed wilds of a frontier. Nor did he build the roads that supplied his retail locations. Nor did he invent the airplanes and tractor trailers that ship merchandise on those roads. Nor did he single-handedly teach all his employees, or himself, the ability to read and write or simple mathematics. He didn't privately fund the fire houses and police precincts that kept his stores safe.

When you think about all the things that were in place, that he wasn't responsible for creating, that allowed Sam Walton to become a success, how can one still hold to the idea that old Sam Walton was completely, or even mostly, responsible for it? This is before we even begin delving into inherited fortunes, like those of Sam's legacy.

The Individual Still Matters

However, I am not trying to dismiss Sam's hard work ethic or other individual qualities as not playing an important role. His Wikipedia entry suggests he worked hard in youth and in college and he even joined the military service during WWII (though is military duties precluded any real action or hardships).

Hard work, determination, and other positive qualities of individuals are multipliers of success. It makes the advantages of infrastructure and social status more beneficial. I believe it is logical to assume that two able individuals of equal socio-economic standing and access to the same infrastructure have the same base chance for success. It will be their individual characteristics, their merits, which will separate them... all other things being equal.

All Things are Not Equal

Sam Walton definitely had ambition and the necessary discipline (and education) to propel him into the ranks of the wealthy elite. However, one should note several intrinsic advantages Sam also possessed which allowed him to do so, beyond the infrastructure provided by the State. Sam was also born into the middle class, was white, and was male. Could he have accomplished the same thing if he was born to dirt poor laborers? Probably. What if he was black? Doubtful. What if he was a woman, or a black woman? Slim chance in hell, and hell no.

As Americans, we need to understand the socio-economic inequities that are omnipresent hurdles to success and figure out ways to destroy or mitigate those obstacles. Take a look at American's 30 richest people^[7] and see how many of them started out poor. Hell, how many of them are not white (or couldn't pass as white)? How many are female? How many are female that didn't inherit their wealth?

It's far easier to become successful when the road has been paved for you and the exits are well marked with appropriate signage. Is there a logical reason we should not try to level the playing field?

No Free Rides

At least half the resistance I see to socializing key services is the dreaded lazy lifetime welfare recipient. I admit, the thought of people abusing the system to keep from pulling their own weight burns me up too. And I have no shortage of trusted accounts of people doing this (or at least repeatedly making the same damned mistakes) with my wife having been a case worker for various income-based social programs.

However, I've heard far more stories of people in need of aid, that socialized services could give, through no fault of their own. They have merely been overwhelmed by a series of unfortunate events that they had no way of predicting. What about young people just starting out? How can they be prepared?

In this case, I think any decision regarding the socialization of important services should ignore the irrational fear of a welfare state and instead focus on what would provide the greatest good for the largest number of people. We can create incentive (or decentive) programs to motivate the lazy as part of the socialization.

Taxes & Penalizing Success

Of course, the topic of taxes follows any discussion of socialism, because you have to pay for it somehow. This is the other primary source of resistance to socialism. There are several facets to the tax discussion, including who/what is taxed, how much they're taxed, and how those taxes are spent.

I find it illogical and hypocritical to say you're willing to pay taxes for roads, schools, fire departments, police, and military yet refuse to consider adding healthcare to the list. What sort of people are we if we value roads over life? What is the statement of value behind the fact that Indianapolis (and surrounding counties) is willing to raise sales tax on food and beverages by 14% (that's increasing it from 7% to 8%) to pay $500 million towards the construction of a football stadium^[8] but we cry foul about socialized medicine? Which one saves lives?

I think there is definitely room to restructure how we spend taxes, without increasing them to accommodate social programs. Currently, the United States government spends 60% (that's $754 Billion) of its money on national security^[9]. I think the two wars we've been engaged in are a waste of money, let alone life. I also believe they were unnecessary, but I'll leave the merits of small commando operation for another post.

Most of the wealthy, those that profit from capital gains, also pay a disproportionate amount of taxes^[10]. Big money has done well in its lobby to keep taxes low in areas outside income tax, which of course has nothing to do with the fact that many legislators have a vest interest in those areas (that's sarcasm, by the way).

It seems to me that, overall, Americans resist the idea of increasing taxes on the wealthiest people. Why? I think this goes all the way back to the core idea that anyone can become [ultra] successful. We don't want to tax the rich more because when we become rich we will have paid our dues, so to speak, and want to enjoy our success.

There are two fundamental topics at play here, but they are both fallacious. First, the super-wealthy are a very small segment of the population for a reason, not many people attain that level of wealth. So chances are most of us won't get to experience that level of success. Second, the ultra-wealthy did not achieve their success all by themselves. This goes back to the fact that everyone relies on the infrastructure provided by the State to achieve their success.

Implementing a progressive tax (one that expects more from the wealthy) that pays for social programs is not so much about penalizing success as it repaying the society that allowed them to attain that success and helping pave the way for others to achieve as well.

References

[1] Red October refers to the second Russian Revolution to occur during 1917.
[2] McCarthyism, also known as the Red Scare, was a fear campaign that used Communism as its scapegoat.
[3] The Cold War was a long period of political tension and surrogate military conflict between the US led NATO and the Soviet Bloc.
[4] Manifest Destiny is a 19^th century American belief in the divine providence for expansion.
[5] Anglo is a term that refers to the descendants of British people in America and other British colonies.
[6] Sam Walton is the founder of the highly profitable Walmart and Sam's Club retail stores, his family rank high in the top 30 wealthiest Americans.
[7] Forbes' list of the richest people in America.
[8] Lucas Oil Stadium cost $720M, the Colts raised $100M and they sold it naming rights for $121M.
[9] Check out Death & Taxes phenomenal infographic concerning tax spending.
[10] Please see presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney's, tax returns.