Great Expectations and The American Dream
One of the charges often made these days is that the American dream is lost — that unlike generations that have come before us, we and/or our children will not see an increase in the standard of living or quality of life.
Every time I come across one of these assertions (and they come from all over the political spectrum, depending upon context or specific policy issue), I wonder the same thing: what is it that people expect?
Now, I’m not talking about the federal debt, and whether our children are being left with a bill they won’t be able to pay. That debate is very recent. I’m talking about this assumption right here (from Reuters last year):
U.S. politicians constantly refer to the “American Dream,” best defined as the idea that each generation will live a better life than the one before. By now, the mantra has taken on the quality almost of a basic American right that young people can count on automatically.
Is it true that this has taken on the quality of (almost) a basic American right? Judging from some of the policy debates we have these days, I’d have to say yes.
How did a dream become a right? And just how far can one realistically expect to extend the “better life than the one before”?
This WSJ article (also from last year) demonstrates just how far out of whack the expectations have become:
My two siblings and I grew up very well off, in a sprawling house in an expensive New Jersey suburb with very good schools. My parents didn’t drive flashy cars or buy fancy clothes, but they did spend lavishly on travel, allowing us to build incredible memories of annual trips to Europe, Asia and across the U.S. [...]
Money is tighter for my husband and me. My field, journalism, doesn’t have much financial upside; my husband’s career prospects in software development are brighter, but he’s in an industry that is vulnerable to the economic downturn. While we are by no means poor—and we are lucky to have very generous families and stable incomes during these down times–we likely won’t be able to offer our son all the same privileges we had.
So if one cannot offer the same privileges, the Dream is gone? That’s ludicrous. Following that line of thinking, disappointment is absolutely guaranteed eventually, regardless of where one starts in the spectrum.
Somewhere along the line, this train has gone off the rails… but where?
Perhaps some glimmer of understanding might be found in where this idea of “an American Dream” came from in the first place. According to Wikipedia, the term was first coined by one James Truslow Adams.
The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States of America in which democratic ideals are perceived as a promise of prosperity for its people. In the American Dream, first expressed by James Truslow Adams in 1931, citizens of every rank feel that they can achieve a “better, richer, and happier life.”
A promise of prosperity? Really? That sounds like a place where the “streets are paved with gold” to me. And better, richer, and happier than what?
Mr. Adams’ page sheds some light on what the original thinking was… and also on the glaring change this dream has undergone:
It is believed that Adams coined the term “American Dream” in his 1931 book The Epic of America. But Truslow’s coinage of the phrase had an entirely different (and much broader) meaning than what it has come to mean today.
The American Dream is “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”
Maybe I’m missing something, but I really see very little resemblance to that original “dream” in the expectations of today.
Working on problems that have the potential to overwhelm the American Dream altogether makes sense, but only if one is trying to preserve the promise of opportunity, rather than the illusion of guaranteed prosperity… because there was never a promise of prosperity.
What America promised was opportunity regardless of one’s social class or historical antecedents. There was never a guarantee of success, nor was there a guarantee that children will — or even should – expect a higher standard of living than that of the prior generation. Yet we’re measuring the success of our society these days on this flawed assumption.
Yes, I will agree that the American Dream is lost. It’s just gone missing in a way that many folks don’t seem to realize, or want to face.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
29 Responses to “Great Expectations and The American Dream”
Polimom,
“What America promised was opportunity regardless of one’s social class or historical antecedents. There was never a guarantee of success, nor was there a guarantee that children will — or even should – expect a higher standard of living than that of the prior generation. Yet we’re measuring the success of our society these days on this flawed assumption.”
This is an excellent observation about which few of us, myself included, have given much thought. Viewed through the lens of the original Dream, it may still be alive. We do have a penchant for altering the meaning of words and phrases over the years to suit our social and political purposes.
Can't speak for others, but I am very much enjoying the unique perspectives you are offering in pieces like this and your “ex-con piece” the other day.
[...] Cross-posted from The Moderate Voice. [...]
Polimom, very good post.
To add to your commentary, here's an excellent (but long) read from The Atlantic, that addresses many of the same issues:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/201…
As someone who has moved to the United States from elsewhere, I'm not sure about my qualifications in commenting about what the American dream is. Nevertheless, I always thought “The American Dream” referred to the opportunity given to all to make a good life – basically what tidbits quoted above. Polimom, I'm glad you asked the question, “what is it that people expect?” because I always wonder, too. It seems like, at least in the middle class neighborhoods of America, most people are pretty content with having about the same standard of living they grew up with. I make this judgment not based on people's wishes for greater wealth, but on how hard they try to improve their circumstances. Certainly in poorer communities this is less true, and there are often other factors at play besides lack of ambition that keep people in poverty. Am I crazy in thinking that most of us aren't actually expecting to be rich?
Another excellent thread (Uncle Sam, plus Kathy K's money thread). Beats gossip any day.
I have mixed feelings. I discount much complaining as unrealistic expectations, exemplified by the immature reactions to raising the retirement age to something long overdue, and with what we have seen in Europe with demonstrations and protests of raising even lower retirement ages there, for example. (Those who believe we should continue a trend toward ever-earlier retirement are simply not living in the real world.)
On the other hand, there is indeed a sense if you live through it that often you are participating in a game that's rigged against you.
As to the contemporary economy, and diverging prospects for skilled or educated versus those who aren't, I have to be cynical too and add that the skilled-educated jobs will be moved overseas somewhere, while immigrants are brought in to displace “natives” at the other jobs that cannot be moved elsewhere, in the darker view of the world to come. (along with aging and asset bear market and government insolvency).
Some related insight:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/se…
photo.kathimerini.gr/xtra/files/Meletes/pdf/Mel011106.pdf
I'm sure we all have our own notion of what “the american dream” means. My version is probably more modest than most, but the word “modest” is probably as open to interpretation as is the word “prosperity”. The usage I grew up with had to do with the belief that a person who was sufficiently motivated could find a way to work their way up in the world, even if it meant starting as a dishwasher or a laborer. My own Dad put himself through a state university by working nights as a janitor and graduated with a BS in chemistry. After that there wasn't much that could hold him back. Today, even a menial job such as janitor is one there is much competition for, and try paying for tuition, room and board at a decent college with that income. I think the American dream now has to include being able to work, make enough income to keep a decent roof over ones head, have access to some kind of dependable transportation, and be able to pay bills. Anything beyond that – including having a family, good health insurance, and continuing education may be a luxury. I would never use the word “promise” or “right” in this context, but there was a time when American was at least synonymous with opportunity, a word that is probably considered too high a standard by many folks these days.
“Anything beyond that – including having a family, good health insurance, and continuing education may be luxuries.”
That includes retirement, sadly. I'm among the few saying that dependence on Social Security and seeking even in much more strained times for governments and taxpayers to increase benefits in the future is possible. (So is reduction of benefits from the current regressive distribution to a flat minimum for all.)
You're freaking me out, because that's exactly how my dad made it through college, with a wife and kids, no less (although he has said that he'll never eat another can of “American Beauty” vegetables again in his life, nothing wrong them, mind you, he just got sick of them). The job has previously been done by a full-time janitor, and he worked out a way of doing it part-time, with the right equipment.
The dream to me is having the opportunity to make something to advance, based on your ability to innovate and/or hard work. To a large extent, it's the ability to fail as much as it is the chance to succeed. In investing, it's well know that risk and return are inversely related, and you have to choose which one you want. The rest of life needs to work like that also. Of course, that means that congress needs to lose their pensions (and those non-compete contracts), so that they understand the precariousness that the rest of have to deal with.
“The American Dream is “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.”
Now that hits the nail on the head.
However, the first part loses relevance to generations that were already born here…..they have no basis to appreciate the difference between what their (typically) grandparents emigrated from to what they immigrated to.
However, the last phrase should be repeated at the top of every post here that Don Quixote, Greendreams, Jim Satterfield post their “down with capitalism” rants (see your other thread).
The real problem is “opportunity” is now miscontrued to be “entitlement”. And that fallonious sense of entitlement leads to wanting more from the government and more form the people who capitalized on their opportunity quotient. And when they can't get enough from transfer payments, they seek to “keep up with the Jones'” by over-leveraged consumption.
Mikkel thinks he's got the answers to the dilemma in your prior thread…….however, until there is a real come to Jesus in everybody's thinking that ability and achievement just ain't going to be the same for everybody, no amount of reapplication of economic theory is going to work.
Prof, re: the american beauty vegetable diet, I recall my dad saying he ate a lot of oatmeal during that time. Whatever it takes. Tough guys!
My viewpoint is there was and still is an “American Dream”. It is just harder to to acheive than before. Many doors were closed to dreamers in the past that are now open (look at Obama). Many doors that existed in the past don't exist (sent overseas) and many new doors need to be created (jobs, new industries, new innovations) and less cradle-to-grave dependency (sorry, had to throw one jibe in).
Good to see someone finally admit we are overpopulated, which is a problem no one seems to want to talk about – even though so many of our (and the rest of the world's) issues are related to that fact.
“we are overpopulated”
to make sense as a mammoth unitary state controlled by Washington, that is.
There is no “overpopulation” of the Sixties-onward hype, misdirected toward us in the West.
(No global warming apocalyptic Amageddon, either, all you Herd faithful…)
“We are overpopulated to be an economically viable nanny-state”
Greece or California, which will illustrate it better, or first? Hmmm
DLS, it's a pity that you saying those problems don't exist doesn't make it so. More pixie dust?
We're not nearly as overpopulated as we're going to be…
I like disparaging bullshit, because it deserves to be disparaged as bullshit.
The record of fertility rates and projections of growth and decline in various nations has long been known, or should have been known — they've not been hidden. Decline in Europe makes replacement migration to alleviate labor shortages even more serious than the prospect here (where growth should continue).
Resource demands and scarcity now and in the future are not the “crises” we “must” respond to by rushing to stupidly cripple our progress, or actually work against it (including in economically harmful ways).
There is no apocalypse with “climate change” that requires puritanical fundamentalist PC approved eco-socialism as salvation.
There will be different amounts of growth and decline everywhere, global aging all over the place, various conflicts over increasingly scarce resources, here in the USA for example as well as in failed Third World states like Somalia or Haiti. (I probably pay more attention to water in the West and our future in the next decades, as of coming back West for only the past few months, than most environmentalists do.) There is no general evil of [Western] Progress and Humanity, nihilistic leftists' demon. Not a single soul now views developing “megacities” in the Third World (distinct from examples like New York and Tokyo) the same way they would view it during the hype in the Sixties. At least, not intelligent adults nowadays.
Nice sermon, I have no doubt you've improved yourself with it. Meanwhile, outside the rectory…
“not nearly as overpopulated as we're going to be”
The world or the USA?
Here's the world. [From a favorite site of mine and a very liberal friend's of mine in DC]
7B => 9B 28% increase, not 28,000%
http://www.prb.org/Educators/TeachersGuides/Hum…
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2009…
There's plenty of development we can continue to make in the USA, beginning with California. A first-rate future version of that state would ideally feature extensive and intensive development of the entire Monterey Bay Area to the point it easily surpassed the San Diego metro area (all outlying regions included for the two) in size. Monterey should be another critical-mass-and-beyond major metro area, a gap ready for filling.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a…
And there's plenty of room in the older, ailing eastern USA where it's conducive to holding more people…still less dense than Europe (there is no panic merited [rolling eyes]) but maybe able to support a high-speed rail network throughout the east if enough people came to live there:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images…
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagere…
Go, go, go — grow, grow, grow. (Actually, kidding a bit, but some deserve the kidding.)
There's room for 440 million in this country and much more. Anyone (else) who drives the roads of America knows that, too.
So… you looked at all these maps (yes, I looked too), and to your mind, the best development areas are Monterey Bay and the Northeast????
Bwahahahaha!!!
Guess that depends on what your definition of “room” is. I think we've already made our presence sufficiently “known” on the planet. A little more harmony with nature and a little less blind “progress” would show that our sensibilities weren't totally out of whack.
Thanks for the post Polimom, I was considering one but you did a fine job.
Certainly we are in a weak economy now and things are tough, to deny that would be idiotic.
However I do agree with your general premise. I am tired of some (whether on the left, right or center) adopting the view that nobody can possibly succeed today or that if they do it is somehow only possible if they are crooked or evil or something.
Perhaps because of my profession I do tend to see people when they are down on their economic luck but I can't count how many times we've finished the process and they've told me how much they were looking forward to getting going again. In a number of cases they've been back for other work months or years later and they ARE back on their feet.
It is quite possible to succeed today. Does that mean everyone will ? Of course not, no system is perfect. But does it mean we should stop… also a firm no.
I'm also somewhat bothered by another group of clients, who seem to adopt the view that somehow the world owes them a living. That they shouldn't have to work for anything. Obviously these are a minority of my clients but they do exist and that is troubling.
But an excellent post.
Everyone worrying about the American Dream should apply the logic from the “Two Income Trap.” People do not get great vacations or an improving quality of life because of the money spent on mortgages, insurance, and taxes. The middle class has to spend so much time, money, and effort in trying to avoid the underclasses, they their quality of living in going down. The government subsidizes the underclass but taxes the crap out of the middle class that it is no wonder that most people feel they are losing. Trying to afford to live in a suburb that whites are still willing to live in while paying your taxes, paying for education, and saving for retirement leaves little time to enjoy being middle class.
If the government would put a stop to unlimited immigraiton and adopt policies that lower the birthrates in the underclass, then the middle class could begin to feel better. But it seems that both Democrats and Republicans are determined to turn the U.S. into a third word country similar to most of South America instead of trying to help the middle class.
“to your mind, the best development areas are Monterey Bay and the Northeast????”
The Northeast Corridor, in particular?
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw-v2/present…
No, obviously. What you're saying (not to mention your laughing) in no way follows logically from what I said, so I have to wonder about your creative (or struggling?) thought processes about that.
I mentioned Monterey because it's an area with rich history that has been neglected as a development site. (I'm not concerned here and now with why it may have been neglected, or suppressed due to land speculation, etc.) The point is, there's additional room in California for its projected growth, and even a major metro area it doesn't possess that it would benefit from developing into a national-class additional major metro comparable to (and ideally bigger than) San Diego. All it takes for those who don't know is a glance at a map.
________________________________
“Bwahahahaha!!!”
This, even more than the other illogical response, from you was quite a disappointment.
* * *
“A little more harmony with nature and a little less blind 'progress'”
There's much more of both than alarmists mistakenly believe (and claim).
“on what your definition of 'room' is”
There's more than enough land to accomodate additional growth and migration — the population continues to move south and west, and that's before the Baby Boomer retirements, both to satisfy their own plans and in coming years, before and despite that, to take care of aging parents. What lifestyle people will choose eventually is an open question and will vary widely in any rate; many will want small homes, not all suburban homes or exurban or rural homes; some will go to central cities; I still view positively the large opportunity that some will have for inner-ring suburbs with smaller homes on smaller parcels of land (to be shared with the future's growing families, immigrants, etc., no doubt). It's irrelevent (and, at least, won't overreact or react wrongly otherwise) that many will favor a lifestyle that doesn't impress me or others, like spilling (overflowing) into the desert outside the LA Basin, which already is happening (Victorville to Barstow has been transformed in past years, for example — I drove through it each way on 800-mile legs in and out of the Basin recently), or are living often also in the best places for agriculture in that state.
There will be resource constraints in the next decades, but that's true in large part irrespective of population distribution. (We need to increase electrical generation, build new generation over the next several years. Conservation will never solve the problem alone, never could, and we obviously shouldn't cripple our development — that is perverse.) Water and power (electricity generation, as well as continued imports of petroleum to meet larger import and transport-fuel demands) are the two challenges the Southeast may need to meet in addition to the Southwest. The Southwest will need augmented water supplies (probably true of the Southeast as well); conservation alone never can promise a magic solution. To what extent things are made more difficult but more realistic by proper pricing of water (and perhaps of electricity with peak pricing) to allocate new-supply costs properly as well as spur conservation in a fair way is open to question but it's ridiculous to be too pessimistic about this.
There's plenty of room to accomodate more people, as anyone who knows this country already knows. Those who scoff at it or who don't understand the obvious description of the situation need more windshield and walking time in this country, as well as perhaps a refresher on reading and comportment.
then the middle class could begin to feel better.”
Just curious, does your definition of middle class include non-whites?
“money spent on mortgages, insurance, and taxes”
The taxes, in particular, complicate the moral position. Taxes are so high they preclude saving (this is without anticipating any large new taxes and increased progressivity of them if liberal tax policy measures are put into effect in the years to come) and that is going to add to the situation we will face by the 2020s of more people, more reliant on Social Security than they otherwise had believed.
Yet Social Security has a regressive (and redistributionist) benefit schedule, adding insult to injury. (The more taxes paid, the more benefits should be deserved. But that's not the way Social Security is designed.) Yet these same people are going to be subjected to some kind of means testing or the desire for this, or a substitute (lowering benefit payments toward a common minimum is the logical as well as utilitarian solution that preserves universality). The only “consolation” is intellectual, in that liberal tax policy advocates and Europhiles are going to have their wish — people dependent more than ever on the federal government for retirement income, closer to the European (worse = more dependent still) state of affairs than the devotees may have ignorantly reckoned.
This, while we're going to get a dependency-ratio squeeze on affordability of retirement programs (another reason besides the biogical reality to raise the retirement age above age seventy). (And who knows how we're supposed to find the money to do, say, anything substantial for children while trying to pay for massive elderly care commitments.) These problems, and the general asset sell-off and struggle with other government growth problems (and government employee retirements, which will face harsh reforms someday) and their aling of our future economy, outdo finding room for everyone to live where and how they would like. (Including immigrants to alleviate labor shortages and reduce growth of dependency ratios, in declining, not “exploding” [rolling eyes] Europe, for example.)
This has been known and made known for years.
again:
http://csis.org/publication/2003-aging-vulnerab…
http://www.twq.com/02spring/hewitt.pdf
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/R…
aging.senate.gov/crs/ss4.pdf
[Solutions on autopilot?]
assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/2009_01_socsec.pdf
[...] Polimom noticed this failed thought process: What America promised was opportunity regardless of one’s social class or historical antecedents. There was never a guarantee of success, nor was there a guarantee that children will — or even should – expect a higher standard of living than that of the prior generation. Yet we’re measuring the success of our society these days on this flawed assumption. [...]