David Seaton's picture

    The "Sputnik Moment": One nation with paranoia for all

    By David Seaton on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 1:56am |
     

    I remember once reading an Indian guru, who said that if the water buffalo had a god, it would probably look like a very large water buffalo. He believed that there is only one god, formless and all pervading, but that he/she/it responds to intense worship by taking on the form that most pleases his/her/its devotees depending on their temperament and station in life.

    I am beginning to think that the goddess of paranoia pursues a similar strategy: she appears to the crunchy granola/ruccola crowd as global warming and to the deep fried Mars Bar set as black helicopters.

    To each of her myriad of devotees she appears in the form most guaranteed to seduce and charm them, but at bottom, there is no paranoia but paranoia and the media is her witness.

    I was reminded of an incident from the darkest days of the Second World War, a time with millions of human beings freshly dead, or about to die, with European civilization ground to dust or burned to ashes, when there, deep in his bomb poof bunker, Winston Churchill sent a pudding back to the kitchen, complaining that it had "no theme".


    That, I think is problem with America's free floating paranoia: like Winnie's dessert, the paranoia pudding that Americans are collectively pulling, has no "theme".

    Sensing this themelessness and needing a theme himself, President Barack Obama turned this up in his State of the Union speech:
    Grasping to sum up the country’s perilous position, the US president said the country was facing its “Sputnik moment”, a reference to the alarm felt in 1957 when the former Soviet Union launched the first orbiting satellite. “We need to out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world,” he said. - Financial Times
    The president is too young to have lived the first "Sputnik moment", but it was one of the turning points of my life and on hearing the word "Sputnik", the goddess of paranoia walked over my grave.

    For any American child alive then who was principally interested in the humanities: art, literature, history, as I was, it was a terrible moment. The Soviet Union, may she rest in peace, put up the first hunk of the endless rubbish that now tirelessly circles our planet, something about the size of a grapefruit that sailed the heavens in earth orbit going "beep, beep, beep", soon to be followed by an unfortunate dog named Laika, the first warmblooded creature to die out there. From one day to the next, there was a political-ideological science hysteria that prioritized everything that I am not interested in: math, chemistry etc, to the detriment of everything I love. I think it was then that I vowed to myself that I would someday live in Europe, as far away as I could get from such barren, Sputnik induced, philistinism. Without the first "Sputnik moment" I might never have left.

    But my private paranoia is just another face of the hydra-headed goddess of American paranoia. And the president would be kidding himself if he thought that America's decline is the mother of all our paranoia. He did touch briefly on what I do believe is the goddess's true form.
    We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled. That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation. - President Barack Obama
    I disagree, I think the opposite is precisely the truth and that is what "sets us apart as a nation".... And I can prove it with a few simple graphs:

     

    Actually this is exactly what  doesn't set us apart, here is the entire world's estimated distribution of wealth:

     

    So as you can see, if anything sets us apart it is that the distribution of wealth in the USA is much more unequal than the world average.

    The previous illustrations are examples of what is called the "Champagne Glass Graph", let's look at this simple pie-chart to get a clearer idea of what is going on.

     

     

    So if there is one thing the American people are not is a  "family" with "common goals". One percent of the population controls thirty five percent of the net worth. Twenty percent of the population controls eighty five percent of that wealth. That leaves no less than eighty percent of the population to divide up the remaining fifteen percent of the wealth left over.

    This is a reality that Americans don't face easily. Here is the reality contrasted with what people think that realty is and with what they think that reality should be:

     

     

    How does that sort of wealth distribution play out in real life? Here is a reading of America's mood from Pew Research:

     

    Hat to über-wonk Donal
    The survey finds that a majority of the public (57%) says it is very difficult or difficult to afford things they really want. About the same percentage said this two years ago (55%). And for many Americans, affording basic necessities remains a struggle – 51% say it is difficult to afford health care, 48% say the same about their home heating and electric bills, and 29% say it is difficult to afford food. - Pew Research Center
    In the richest country in world nearly thirty percent of the population have trouble earning enough money to eat. Fifty one percent say it is difficult to afford health care and another forty eight percent can't afford to heat their homes.

    You kind of wonder here in the flash-frozen northeast if, a few days from now, scores of dead bodies will be found in unheated trailers across the county. The Weather Channel said 20-below-zero this morning in upstate New York. I know there are people so desperately poor out there because a couple of weeks ago I overheard a supermarket worker say she couldn't afford to buy propane. And she had a job!
    Now having read that you wonder how Obama could say the following with a straight face:
    We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people
    So here is how the paranoia thing works:

    The one percent  of the population that controls forty three percent of the financial wealth and the next four percent that controls twenty nine percent, plus those who control the next twenty one percent are justifiably paranoiac thinking what would happen if the eighty percent of the population left with only seven percent of the financial wealth ever woke up and decided to change the percentages around, if only by democratically using income taxes to redistribute that wealth.

    So the major cultural, legal and ideological industry of the USA is to keep that eighty percent, the peasantry,  from actually discovering who is making them so miserable and how they do it and then getting together and changing the situation... as has so often happened throughout history. With ninety three percent of America's money at their disposal there is no lack of funds for the one percenters to do the job.

     
    And that boys and girls explains why so many Americans are worried about Islam and abortion and black helicopters and climate change and transgenic food and whether Barack Obama was born in the USA and polar bears. Anything but the 800 pound gorilla in the room... identifying the fucker and the fuckee.

    Paranoia is what "binds us together as one people"... the paranoia of the haves, fearing that the have nots will someday dispossess them and the have nots with whatever paranoia du jour  that the media, owned by that one percent, chooses to feed them and that "suits their temperament and station in life".

    Cross posted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

    Comments

    I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the US is worse than the world average with income distribution, but your graphs do not show that. The graph you display for the US is "net worth", while the graph you display for the world is "income". What tipped me off was the negative values showing up under the graph for net worth.

    Also, equating global warming with black helicopters makes me wonder what your opinions are on the former. Are you suggesting its as imaginary as the latter, or just that some people over-hype it and/or misunderstand it? (That some people blame every hot day on global warming makes it clear how poorly its understood, but I personally think that it's a more important concern in my lifetime, if not yours, than terrorism, with the possibility that it could be a contributing factor to terrorism at some point in the future.)


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 8:15am

    "I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the US is worse than the world average with income distribution, but your graphs do not show that. The graph you display for the US is "net worth", while the graph you display for the world is "income"."

    - Noticed that too. The conventional Saez and Piketty numbers for 2005 give

    17% of income for the top percentile

    15% of income for percentiles 95-99

    12% of income for percentiles 90-95

    http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2005prel.xls

    I don't know how to do champagne glass charts but it probably won't look too different from David's. Saez and Piketty's numbers are 'excluding capital gains', which when included presumably skew incomes even more towards the top percentiles.

    


    by Obey on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 10:57am

    Unfortunately, that study only compares the top 10% to the bottom 90%, but from that data, the top 10% "earns" 44.28% of the income. One can logically conclude that the percentile from 80-90 earns less than 23.59% (or twice the income for the 90-95 percentile), so that would mean that in the US, the top 20% "earns" less than 67.87% of the national income. Thus, from this gross measure, the US is actually "better" than the world average, which is no doubt due to the huge disparity between the average income in the US and the average income of 3rd world countries.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 11:40am

    Just found this -

    http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/distribution_of_family_income_gi...

    US 44th (out of 102) on the list of countries with greatest inequality. Just slightly less inequality than Jamaica and Uruguay. Western Europe of course comes bottom. 

    What I find more interesting though is the evolution of the inequality trend. How the spread between the haves and the have-nots has been spreading rapidly in the US over the past 30 years, whereas it hasn't done so (or at least, so much) in other developed countries.


    by Obey on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 12:08pm

    An interesting chart indeed (minor correction for those looking for us on that chart - we're actually 41st, Nigeria is 44th, meaning that we have a greater inequality than they do). It's worth pointing out that looking at individual countries' income inequalities masks the global income inequality (that David references), since there are huge inequalities not only within countries but obviously across countries. It's possible for the global income inequality to be greater than any one country's national income inequality.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 12:21pm

    I thought I made it clear that in my opinion the underlying cause of all America woes is the inequality of income distribution and such a large percentage of the population hungry and without adequate medical care etc. This is the sort of numbers and percentages (I almost forgot the percentage of incarcerated) that occur in third world countries, where people are not being told from morning to night that they live "in the greatest country in the world" day in and day out. The cognitive dissonance between reality as it is lived and the national narrative, induces a paranoia which is expressed differently by different sectors of the society. At this level the "black helicopter" and the polar bears are simply ways of "personalizing" a common malaise. I happen to belong to the climate warming tribe of paranoiacs, while others belong to the Tea Party tribe... different strokes for different folks.... but we are all of us (including POTUS) just whistling past the graveyard.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 10:49am

    Fair enough.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 11:41am

    But, but... we can all be in the top 1% one day, right, David?  Then how will we feel, to be in the top 1% and suddenly have to share everything because of the mistakes we all make when we were all in the bottom 80%.

    Some day, every one of us will be in the top 1%.

    Right?

    Wait a minute...


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 8:29am

    I remember Sputnik. Every kid (and a lot of adults) who had access to a radio or receiver that would pick up Short Wave was listening on 20 Megacycles (I positively refuse to use the term Hertz) to hear it's beep...beep...beep.

    But what happens when the bottom 90 or so percent figure out the the enemy of my enemy is my friend ?

     


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 10:41am

    Then the powerful will call it "aiding and abetting"

    "You're either with us or against us"  


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 2:12pm

    President Hoover, uh, I mean Obama... works for himself and for his class: not for the people.

    He is joyfully beholden to the interests of predatory wealth and tells the fairy tale of our "one big American family" because it serves the interests of the predators.  And it is true that bellowing this myth publicly has worked time and again and seems to be working this time too as even the voices of many progressives go silent in the wake of a popular speech.

    Sadly, many well educated and otherwise reasonable Americans foolishly identify more with the predators than their fellow peasants because of their not so secretely held belief that they have more in common with the predators than with their fellow peasants, that they are are superior to their fellow peasants and they dream of joining the predator class.  Therefore, instead of protesting or doing anything at all to object to the predations and disasters imposed upon the peasants by the predators these potential leaders remain docile, passive spectators.  As such, they become accomplices by virtue of their silence and lack of action even though they object to the direction their country is going, even though they know that a future comandeered by the predator class will destroy everything we once prided ourselves in.  Silence is consent.  These passive collaborators can be found everywhere including the blogosphere.  It is a very sad state of affairs.


    by oleeb on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 1:47pm

    This comment has been removed due to violation of the Terms of Service


    by brewmn on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 2:26pm

    Again, pardon me for quoting myself:

    (...) the major cultural, legal and ideological industry of the USA is to keep that eighty percent, the peasantry,  from actually discovering who is making them so miserable and how they do it and then getting together and changing the situation… as has so often happened throughout history. With ninety three percent of America’s money at their disposal there is no lack of funds for the one percenters to do the job. And that boys and girls explains why so many Americans are worried about Islam and abortion and black helicopters and climate change and transgenic food and whether Barack Obama was born in the USA and polar bears. Anything but the 800 pound gorilla in the room… identifying the fucker and the fuckee.

    You can't blame the "peasants", the bullshoit industry is so powerful and so constant 24/7 that they don't know whether they are going or coming.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 2:49pm

    I'm reminded of the Pete Townshend lines, "If You Let Them do It to You/You Have Yourself  To Blame."

    People want to believe the nonsense that is peddled by the propagandists for laissez faire and ofr empire.  The information to reach a different conclusion is readily available to anyone who does a little bit of digging.  


    by brewmn on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 3:00pm

    Ah but that would only upset their comfortable, superficial little lives. And we can't have that now...can we ?

    But lest we forget these self same people are mainly interested in their own little lives and community and how whatever happens effects this. Take a look at the maps and see where the right wing is the most prevalent. The smaller burgs and suburbs and country side. Not in the big cities.

    What we have is a large number of people who have little or no experience and/or knowledge out side of their own home towns and could give a wet slap about it as well.

    As Jimmy Cagey said in Yankee Doodle Dandy "...never been past the corner cigar store". I do not feel the term conservative really applies. More like narrow and small.


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 3:34pm

    All sides tend to be all for the voice of the people when the people are on their side, but then claim that they are manipulated by the "media" when the people see things differently.  What makes it difficult for someone with a liberal point of view and, by virtue of that, believes in the principles of democracy, is having to deal with a nation that is not entirely on board with the changes that would be necessary to run this country along liberal principles.  One does have to ask oneself if one believes that the people are so easily manipulated whether democracy is the way to go if one wants to achieve something that is for the greater good? 


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 3:52pm

    Ah but they are manipulated. Maybe not intentionally but manipulated just the same. Because most people outside the big cities, and more than a few inside, are totally ignorant of what is going on outside their own little circle. Their community, family and work. And do not choose to be otherwise. It's very different situation than when I was young when even in the small town where I grew up most people were aware of what was going on in the world outside of the town and did care.

    But nearly all of these people had been in WWII. Either in Europe or the Pacific and some both. And their older kids would be drafted and (before Vietnam) sent either to Gernamy or Japan or some other place and got at least some exposure to the wold outside Podunk Ark.  And this is not a left/right/center issue either for I have found some self proclaimed progressives who  unaware of what is going on outside the US. That were totally unaware the Tunisia just kicked out their leaders and Egypt may wind up doing the same. Nice autocratic leadership that was friendly to the US and maybe replaced by one that is less so.

    Kind of important would not you say ?

    But what is carried on the media these days ? Glen Beck and piss fights in Congress and the next American Idol and Sara Palin.


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 5:31pm

    True.  But I the word "manipulation" is one of those words that can mean a whole lot of things.  In this information age especially, we are all constantly being bombarded by people trying to persuade us to see things their way, whether it is a family member or someone from "Madison Ave" or someone on the blogosphere.  One could argue that each persuader attempts to manipulate the persuadee in some fashion in order to be successful in that persuasion.  Some are more sophisticated then others.  Some are more deceitful about what their true intent is.  The variations are endless.  And we are all to some degree impacted by these attempts.  One critical distinction one can make between people is those who allow all of it to just wash over them, to not receive it with a critical (and skeptical) eye and those who take the time to try to discern what is really being communicated, what are the motivations of the persuader, what possibly are his or her (conscious and subconscious) biases, etc.

    Of course the more narrow one's world is, the more one tunes out information about the larger world, the more likely the person is to be someone who doesn't want to think critically and creatively about what is being presented to them.  You are definitely correct that this is neither a right or left thing.  Back in October, Charles Blow at NYTimes wrote a column What's Dumb, Really? which cited a Pew Research Poll that found that among other things only 62% of Democrats knew Joe Biden was the VP and only 71% knew the Dems controlled the House of Representative.  This compared with 65% and 82% respectively for Repulicans, and 54% and 68% for Indepdents. 

    The low-information citizen/voter truly puts this country at risk.  Who to blame for this sad state of affairs or who should be finger-wagged for manipulating them may be less important questions to answer than how to fix the problem. 


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 6:42pm

    Once again it is time for you to consult a physician and revist whether or not you can go day to day without medication.


    by oleeb on Fri, 01/28/2011 - 10:28am

    As far as "sputnik moments" are concerned, I found thought provoking this history nitpick about the SOTU that I ran across, from the Washington Post's  The Fact Checker: Obama's 2011 State of the Union address:

    "Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the moon."

    Obama wasn't born yet when Sputnik was launched in 1957, so maybe the details are hazy for him. But the race to the moon was not really on the priority list at the time for the United States - and certainly not for the Eisenhower administration.

    A moon landing became a U.S. priority only in 1961, when President John F. Kennedy - under the prodding of his vice president, Lyndon Johnson - announced the goal of "before this decade is out, . . . landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The announcement followed a different Soviet accomplishment: launching a man into Earth orbit.

    - Glenn Kessler

    Especially in that if some remember the pressure of a science race with  the USSR following Sputnik, they weren't feeling it because of a propaganda push from the White House, that wasn't until 1961. It's not always the case that cultural manias are not forced from the top; as a matter of fact,it's my opinion that instances of success at forcing cultural movements or changes or manias via government are quite rare. Via pop media or similar--yes (and even then, only if it became/becomes "popular"--which we now call "going viral",) via government officials pushing it--no.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 8:04pm

    Art, you'd have to have lived it to understand the hysteria. In fact if you didn't experience the 1950's "red scare" you cannot begin to imagine it.

     


    by David Seaton on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 11:41am

    Latest Comments