Stanford University Press Blog

A Wealth Gap Video Goes Viral, and Why It Matters

A guest post by Angelique Haugerud, Associate Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University, and Editor of American Ethnologist.

It took just a few days in March 2013 for the great American wealth gap video to attract 4.4 million YouTube viewers.  The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein termed the video, just over six minutes long, a “mind-blowing” visualization of a 2011 academic study by behavioral economist Dan Ariely and psychologist Michael I. Norton.

What caught many Americans by surprise is the chasm between the actual versus imagined wealth distribution in the United States. If we assume that most citizens realize how unequally wealth is spread, we would be wrong.  It is news to many that the top one percent hold nearly 40 percent of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 90 percent have less than one-quarter. In the video’s wealth inequality chart, the riches of the top one percent so far exceed the assets of the rest that their column zooms upward beyond view, like an impossibly tall skyscraper.  

Not only did Ariely and Norton’s nationally representative respondents underestimate current inequality (by a lot), but in addition they defined an ideal pattern of wealth distribution that is even more equal than that of their assumed status quo. Although the top 20 percent of the U.S. population hold more than 80 percent of the wealth, Ariely and Norton’s respondents estimated that the top quintile held less than 60 percent of the wealth, and stated that ideally they would hold about one-third. According to these and other measures, the gap between the wealth distribution that respondents prefer and what we have is stunning.

The video’s wake-up call is echoed—in a different linguistic register—by satirists and activists known as  the Billionaires, who are the focus of my new book,  No Billionaire Left Behind: Satirical Activism in America. The Billionaires are a media-friendly national network of activists who don ball gowns, tiaras, top hats, and tuxedoes, and adopt fictional names such as Phil T. Rich, Tex Shelter, Ivan Aston Martin, Alan Greenspend, and Iona Bigga Yacht. Their signs declare “Corporations Are People Too!”  “Leave No Billionaire Behind!” and “Taxes Are Not For Everyone!” In the spirit of satirical news programs such as The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, these faux billionaires express a sophisticated knowledge of economics and public affairs through ironic humor, parody, and satire.  The Billionaires evoke the elegance of The Great Gatsby’s Roaring Twenties or an even earlier era of robber barons and heiresses. It is up to spectators to historicize the present, to perceive the implied link between the early twenty-first century and those earlier wealth bubbles--such as the late-nineteenth-century era Mark Twain popularized as a Gilded Age of surface glitter and vast underlying corruption, when the very rich sparkled while many went hungry.

No Billionaire Left Behind explores the inner workings of the satirical Billionaires as they tackle two of the most contentious topics in American political culture: the great wealth divide and the role of big money in electoral politics.  In a time of precariousness and fear, the book recaptures political domains of conviviality and play. Why might the satirical Billionaires be considered a cultural touchstone, a sensitive gauge of the condition of American democracy? Through participant-observation, interviews, and archival research, I analyze cultural politics during a time of profound ambivalence toward politics itself, and show why irony opens spaces of hope. Humor’s gift, like that of the viral video, is to remind us that today’s world can be made differently.

 

---

 

 

And we thought that constitutionality would be the end of the debate…

The Supreme Court may have decided to uphold the constitutionality of the controversial Obamacare program on June 28, but the health care debate rages on: now the question is, how many states—and which—will choose to participate in the Medicaid expansion?

And on top of that, when will they decide? A handful of states—including Virgina, Nebraska, and Wisconsin—have made clear that they are biding their time to make a decision until after the Presidential Election results are announced later this year (East Village Tribune article), in case Romney wins and throws the entire thing out.

There are a lot of opinions out there, but today we’d like to shine a spotlight on Stephen M. Davidson, not just because he’s a nice guy and we have a habit of shameless self-promotion, but more importantly because he has spent over 30 years researching health care policy, and because the U.S. happens to be moving towards the kinds of changes he proposed in his 2010 book Still Broken. The book—which is a good starting point for anyone seeking a thorough explanation of the U.S. health care system—takes a close look at the current situaion, systematically charts the merits of universal coverage, and, crucially, shows how we can jump through political and social hoops to get that to work.

Here’s what Davidson has written recently concerning states still debating on how to proceed with Obamacare:

-       How opting out of the expansion could ultimately hurt the state’s citizens (NYT Letter to the Editor)

-       How opting out hurts hospitals and the poor (Politico debate)

And for a review of the case and all its nuances, check out this article Davidson wrote for The Huffington Post 10 days before the court ruling.

Check out Davidson’s book here.

 

From Drugs to Civil War: the New Gateway Effect

We all know that drug trafficking can be a deadly business. But can drug trafficking set the precedent for even larger conflict—that is, civil war?

That’s the question that former journalist Jonathan Marshall set out to answer in his newly released book The Lebanese Connection. Looking specifically at Lebanon in the lead up to its 15-year civil war, Marshall traces out how the country’s fledgling drug trade in the 1970s turned the country into a narco-state and financed the war. In other words: there was a sure connection between drugs and civil war in Lebanon—and Marshall warns that that connection can apply to any state.

And that makes modern-day drug trafficking in Afghanistan and Mexico all the more urgent. Afghanistan leads the world in opium production, as it has for the past two decades. Mexico’s drug war has regularly peppered American news sources with brutal images and chilling stories, and has become a party platform priority as the July 1 presidential election draws near. This isn’t just about the drugs anymore—there’s a lot at stake.       

 

Some food for thought:

• “Breaking the narco-state in Afghanistan is essential, or all else will fail.” The New York Times recently ran an article that explains why fighting the opium industry in Afghanistan is of upmost importance.
• The top three contenders for the Mexican presidency have all declared domestic-centered approaches to the drug war to be a priority over curbing drug trafficking into the U.S. See the NYT article here.
• And check out Marshall’s book The Lebanese Connection here. 

 

Prize-Winning Beach Reading for the Intellectually Curious

Looking for something to fill that beloved L. L. Bean tote bag you haul to the beach every summer?  Look no further!  SUP's summer reading list has something for every taste:

 

 Sure it might take up most of the space in your beach bag, but according to the WaPo Book World's "10 Books We've Loved This Year," James Hershberg's Marigold: The Lost Chance for Peace in Vietnam is worth it!

  We also recommend:

 Ottomans, Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine, by Michelle U. Campos, winner of the 2011 National Jewish Book Award in Sephardic Culture, sponsored by the Jewish Book Council.

 Shiping Hua's Chinese Utopianism: A Comparative Study of Reformist Thought with Japan and Russia, 1898-1997, winner of the 2011 Distinguished Research and Publication Award, sponsored by the Association of Chinese Professors in Social Sciences (USA).    

 
Shahla Talebi's Ghosts of Revolution: Rekindled Memories of Imprisonment in Iran, co-winner (Gold Medal) of the the 2012 Independent Publisher Book Awards (Autobiography/Memoir Category), sponsored by the Independent Publisher Book Awards, and Honorable Mention, for Biography & Autobiography, in the 2011 PROSE Awards (PSP Awards for Excellence), sponsored by the Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division, Association of American Publishers.           

 Marisa Abrajano's Campaigning to the New American Electorate:  Advertising to Latino Voters, winner of the 2011 Best Book on Latino Politics Award, sponsored by the APSA Latino Caucus.           

  Larry Wolff, The Idea of Galicia: History and Fantasy in Hapsburg Political Culture, winner of the 2012 Karl von Vogelsang Staatspreis, sponsored by the Bundesministerium fuer Wissenschaft und Forschung. 

The Battle for China:  Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, edited by Mark Peattie, Edward Drea, and Hans van de Ven, winner of the 2012 Society for Military History Distinguished Book Award (non-US category), sponsored by The Society for Military History.

 John Richardson and Justin Powell's Comparing Special Education: Origins to Contemporary Paradoxes, winner of the 2012 Outstanding Book Award Contemporary Issues in Curriculum category), sponsored by the AERA Division B.

 Richard Graham's Patronage and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Brazil, winner of the 2012 Lifetime Achievement Award, sponsored by the Brazilian Studies Association.            

 Erik Kuhonta's book The Institutional Imperative: The Politics of Equitable Development in Southeast Asia, shortlisted for the 2012 Comparative Politics Prize, sponsored by the Canadian Political Science Association.           

 Robert Rhoads and Katalin Szelényi's Global Citizenship and the University: Advancing Social Life and Relations in an Interdependent World, winner of the 2012 Outstanding Publication Award, sponsored by the AERA Division J.          

Illicit Flirtations: Labor, Migration, and Sex Trafficking in Tokyo by Rhacel Salazar Parreñas, winner of the 2012 Distinguished Scholarly Publication Award, sponsored by the ASA Labor and Labor Movements Section.

The low down on Egypt's presidential elections

This Saturday, Egypt will hold the final round of its first presidential elections since ex-President Mubarak stepped down in 2011—and the media is rife with speculation on how it will go.

In this podcast by news blog The Arabist, four Egypt scholars—including our recent author Joshua Stacher—sit down to tell us what we need to know about the unfolding events in Egypt and what the U.S. has to do with it.

The conclusion is a bit of a downer: no matter what happens this weekend, there’s not going to be a dramatic change from authoritarianism to democracy in Egypt. In other words, don’t hold your breath for a radical shift to democracy.

Joshua Stacher, who teaches and researches Middle Eastern politics at Kent State University, chalks this up to Egypt’s centralized political power structure—aka its executive autonomy, which has given the political elite the flexibility to navigate the revolution surprisingly well. In his latest book Adaptable Autocrats: Regime Power in Egypt and Syria, Stacher shows that Egypt is actually experiencing a relatively swift and smooth transfer of power—especially in comparison to nearby Syria, a decentralized system of power, which is struggling through a full-scale civil war as its president hangs on.

For those confused by what we should think of the unfolding events in the Arab world, Stacher puts it this way: the past defines the present. Why did Egypt experience an uprising remarkably less bloody than the one in Syria? The answer may be in the countries’ political structures: Egypt’s political structure is significantly more centralized than Syria's, and that makes a world of difference when it comes to how a regime change will play out. 

In that case…if the past defines the present, and today is tomorrow’s past... then we’ll be anxiously watching out for how the Egyptian elections turn out this weekend.

 

In the meantime, read an excerpt from Stacher’s book.

Check out more information about Stacher’s book Adaptable Autocrats. 

Listen to some nuggets from the podcast:

• What the possible legal dissolution of the parliament means for the elections (around 13:00)
• Speculation on the election’s outcomes (around 16:00)
• What potential the revolution still has to achieve its demands (from 21:50)
• Josh Stacher speaks on the role of the U.S. in Egypt—and how U.S. policy supports the counterrevolutionaries (from 34:30). For more on this topic, see this interview hosted by Stacher.
• About that anti-spy video aired on Egyptian televisions… (from 52:28)

 

Big Media has weighed in...what do you think?

For the past 10 days, the media has been all over Dick Cheney's new memoir, In My Time.  TV and radio talking heads, political and opinion columnists, bloggers and book reviewers: all express points of view ranging somewhere along a wide spectrum between the two extremes perhaps best exemplified by the Washington Post Book World's thrashing and the Wall Street Journal's rave.    

No matter where on the spectrum those points of view fall, each pays substantial attention to Cheney's depiction of his relationship with President G.W. Bush during their eight years in the White House.  Now that both key players in the Bush administration have published their memoirs, the time is right for a more, erm, objective consideration of that partnership. 

We suggest Shirley Anne Warshaw's highly acclaimed The Co-Presidency of Bush and Cheney.  Pronounced "masterful" by Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball" and NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show," and "provocative and valuable" by Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief, USA Today, The Co-Presidency of Bush and Cheney is a critical tool to anyone wishing to form a complete historical picture of what happened during that  critical administration, and what it means of us and the world moving forward. 

 

 

Back to School Reading List, Part IV

This week, as the Supreme Court reconvenes after summer break, Keith Bybee’s All Judges Are Political—Except When They Are Not: Acceptable Hypocrisies and the Rule of Law  is on our back-to-school reading list.  Bybee considers the curious state of the American judicial system and public opinion in which,  as he wrote in a recent post for the Washington Post’s ‘Political Bookworm’ blog, “we routinely pair lofty assertions of principle and impartiality with the aggressive pursuit of partial interests, calling for neutral application of the law at the same time that we demand our side win.”  (In some circles, that’s called wanting to have our cake and eat it too.)  While this apparent contradiction or hypocrisy might make one think that our judicial system is on the verge of collapse, it is in fact this very contradiction that creates a dynamic that actually underwrites enables it.
 Listen to Bybee discuss the book on WNYC's "The Brian Lehrer Show".

Is Health Care Reform Possible?

Stephen Davidson, author of the upcoming Still Broken, Understanding the U.S. Health Care System lays out the problems of our health care system and asks what changes we need to solve those problems. He goes on to explain, in a political context, what strategy for reform might get us close to a solution. His approach to health care, “intended to be both comprehensive and analytic, attempts to build on the lessons gained from past reform efforts with the goal of helping to make reform a reality of this time.” (p14)

With the health care Summit still fresh on the nation’s political mind, we might ask where health care reform will go from here and if reform really is a reality of our time. The bi-partisan summit yesterday brought many points to light from both the Republican and Democratic Parties, although some say it may have been just more political theater. President Obama began the summit yesterday by saying:

“I'd like to make sure that this discussion is actually a discussion, and not just us trading talking points. I hope that this isn't political theater, where we're just playing to the cameras and criticizing each other, but instead are actually trying to solve the problem.”

Davidson thinks that the solution lies in generating the political momentum to pass one comprehensive bill that encompasses all pertinent areas of reform: increasing access, improving quality, and containing health care expenditure so that all individuals can afford and have access to good health care. While the Obama administration’s current plan, along with the two bills already passed, may not be a silver bullet in Davidson’s mind, he does see them as a historic achievement nonetheless. 

“But will they cross the finish line?” Only one other administration has been able to bring health reform to the floor, and that was Lyndon Johnson 36 years ago. Davidson points out that thus far the Obama administration has succeeded, in some ways, that he hadn’t predicted. However, one area they have lacked in is taking advantage of the bully pulpit. The president has yet to really rally the public and the Democratic Party into reform. At this point, it seems like a do or die situation. If Congress cannot reconcile their views and pass one comprehensive reform, not only will it be a political downfall for the democratic administration but it’s possible that we’ll go another thirty some years without a chance of any reform at all.

     The White House reported that President Obama will make and announcement next week about what the best way forward will be from this point. Will health care reform become a reality?  Will President Obama rally support from the nation and his party? As Steve Benen points out in the Washington Monthly, “The train is leaving the station. If 217 House Dems and 51 Senate Dems are on board, the nation will finally have the health care reform we've been waiting for since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. If not, reform will die, the crisis will worsen, and Democrats will have committed electoral suicide on a grand scale.”

New Missile Defense: What future will Obama's decision hold?

President Obama’s recent decision to eliminate a missile defense system plan has stirred up quite a controversy in domestic and international politics.  Instead of setting up a limited missile defense system in Poland to intercept potential long-range nuclear missiles from Iran – which, at present, haven’t been developed there – Obama has decided that the US should arrange a shorter range missile interceptor near Iran for the medium range missile threat. Some say that this decision is a concession to Russian complaints that the longer range set-up would provide the U.S. with an opportunity for a first-strike.

In a recent op-ed in the Short Stack column for the Washington Post, Thomas Graham co-author of Preventing Catastrophe: The Use and Misuse of Intelligence in Efforts to Halt the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction,  gives his opinion on Obama’s decision to change the strategy from the Bush administration’s more aggressive stance on missile defense.  He explains that after a long history of unsuccessful nuclear defense plans, a more realistic plan has now been introduced. Some fear that a new wave of nuclear proliferation could soon develop, leading to more dangerous and paranoid international relations. Graham points out that by changing our missile defense plan, the Obama administration is hoping to “reset” relations with Russia while also defending from the very realistic possibility of Iranian medium-range missiles.  It will be interesting to see how this decision plays out: Will it buy us more cooperation with Russia for future nonproliferation and help us to defend from the very real threat posed by Iran? Or, in terms of defending its NATO allies in Eastern Europe, is it dangerous and unwise move for U.S. foreign policy?

Confronting the Bomb: Can individuals make a difference?

Can ordinary citizens really bring change to international politics? We may think this question applies only to current times when we talk of Gov 2.0 and governments outsourcing ideas from citizens on Twitter. As the nuclear disarmament campaign shows, grassroots movements have had an impact in previous decades as well.

Larry Wittner, author of Confronting the Bomb, A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, provides a brief look at the history of the anti-nuclear movement and how it affected world leaders. In an interview with Marshall Poe of New Books in History, Wittner draws on his book to explain how nuclear disarmament has developed and how it has been affected by public movements. 

Wittner's book includes many interesting quotations from world leaders that evidence just how excited international leaders initially were about the advent of the Bomb. Winston Churchill loved the bomb and saw it as a way to win wars and maintain international influence. Eisenhower viewed the bomb as a positive addition to the U.S. arsenal, saying "My administration looks on nuclear weapons as no different than a bullet." The general consensus among leaders was that bigger and better weapons lead to better defense and therefore a safer environment.                                                         

As Wittner goes on to explain, the public saw nuclear weapons in a different light. From the early 1970's to its height in the early 1980s, an anti-nuclear movement had people all over the world protesting the Bomb. As Marshall Poe himself reminisces, he never thought that his small protests really had a big impact.  However, Wittner explains that the  growing anti-nuclear campaign had a huge influence on world leaders' decisions, from small protests to gatherings of almost 1 million people. At the beginning of Ronald Reagan's term as president, he made clear that  nuclear weapons  were a positive addition to U.S. defense.  But as time went on and as the disarmament campaign grew, the nation watched Reagan make a complete turn around. He began to consider the call for disarmament. Even leaders of other countries began to change the way they viewed nuclear weapons. After 1985, Nikolai Gorbachev said "new thinking" was needed. Gorbachev and Reagan met many times and were able to come to agreements for lessening the nuclear arsenals in their countries.

As leaders began to heed the requests of the public, people of the anti-nuclear movement became comfortable and complacent. The movement has since died down. Toward the late 1990's, the anti-nuclear movement became less prolific.  As a result, nuclear weapons began to increase again. In 1996, a Republican Senate rejected a nuclear test ban treaty, and later, during George W. Bush administration, the President began to pursue the creation of new nuclear weapons. Free from the pressure of the nuclear disarmament campaign, the government is at liberty to pursue nuclear weapons -- but, as Wittner explains, the movement is reviving.

Wittner's book goes into a brief history of the advent of bomb and a more detailed  history of the movement against it. Though the movement has had its ups and downs, Wittner is confident that it is resurging and as history shows, ordinary people can make a big difference.