Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

I’m sure many of you have heard about how a wing of the group that ironically calls itself “anti-fascist” showed up at the home of Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson earlier this month. These tireless defenders of something spray-painted Carlson’s driveway, made verbal threats against him via megaphones, and banged on his door. And in addition to their trespassing, vandalism, and threat-making, I think they left a little of their Marxism behind. And unfortunately it’s contagious. I realized this when Carlson displayed symptoms of rapid-onset acute class envy during one of his broadcasts last week.

He was talking about the news that Amazon would be building new headquarters in New York City and the D.C. metro area. Comrade Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had previously expressed outrage over the New York headquarters. And in a segment that could have been entitled “Rich People Baaaad…” Honorary Comrade Carlson says, “Hate to admit it, but Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a very good point” (3:53-3:58 in video referenced below).

YouTube vlogger Anthony Brian Logan (hereafter referred to as “ABL”) gives, in my opinion, a good overview of the segment in this video. FYI – there are lots of thought-provoking points raised in the comments section by ABL fans who disagree with him on this. I don’t know a lot about Amazon, Jeff Bezos, or the intricacies of the tax code. So this post is not intended as a total and unconditional defense of any of them.

Carlson starts off by sarcastically referring to Bezos’ choice of the new headquarter cities as “bestowing his grace on America’s two richest cities” (2:00-2:04). Since I don’t know enough about Bezos to have an opinion about his character, I will not chide the Honorary Comrade for implicitly impugning that character. But Honorary Comrade earns his title by using “rich” as a pejorative. (And if any of my Christian readers want to remind me that Scripture is full of “Woe to you rich!” admonitions, let me remind you that those passages condemn greed and complacency. Not wealth itself. More on that to follow later in this post.) It would have been problematic enough, from my perspective, if Carlson had used “rich” in this way to describe individuals (e.g., “Those darn rich people!”), but he takes it a step further and condemns entire cities for being wealthy.

And, as ABL aptly points out, “Just because you have rich cities does not mean that everybody that is there is rich” (2:06-2:11).

In fairness to Carlson, although he has been a critic of Marxism (specifically of socialism), he has never, as far as I know, professed unconditional faith in the free market. So the problem here is not that he “flip-flopped” on an issue.

Even though Carlson was never as “hands-off” when it comes to the market as someone like Ron Paul, I think it’s fair to expect people who identify as libertarian, conservative, or Republican to be pro-business. There are lots of definitions of “pro-business,” and not all businesses are equally good, but I tend to think that these individuals typically start with a default assumption of “New business is good for communities.” Given that, I think that Carlson should have acknowledged more explicitly that he sounded kinda Marxist in this segment. If he had added some kind of “At the risk of sounding like a socialist” disclaimer in the broadcast, I would not have written this post.

The specific tweet from Comrade Ocasio-Cortez that Carlson references in this segment is one in which she laments that Amazon will be getting “hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less.” Notably, Carlson doesn’t dispute Comrade’s notion that building a business in a community doesn’t count as investing in that community.

And Carlson continues with the class-baiting by saying, “Jeff Bezos, who is the world’s richest man, will receive more than $2 billion in subsidies from you, the taxpayer” (2:38-2:46). I am not defending the subsidies that Bezos received.

But class warfare is a consequence of crony capitalism, not an antidote to it.

And I think “class-baiting” is a fair characterization of Carlson’s remarks, because they set up a paradigm of “rich man = bad, everyone poorer than him = good and oppressed.”

In addition to promoting class warfare, Carlson’s remarks ignore the fact that Bezos himself is also a taxpayer. I’m sure the subsidies and other perks have reduced his tax burden over the years, but it would surprise me if he hasn’t paid in a lot more, in terms of both dollar amount and percentage, than most Americans. And even if he hasn’t, I hold this very unpopular position:

There is nothing inherently immoral or unethical about “gaming the system” in a legal way.

Jeff Bezos would be mowing my lawn if I had a dime for every time I heard somebody say something like, “The only reason that Jeff Bezos is rich is because he knows how to work the system!” If you use your own legally-earned money to hire accountants and lawyers to find legal ways for you to avoid giving that money to the government, I say “More power to you.”

As a point of clarification, I share the sentiments of those who lament “Not rich enough for the best tax write-offs, not poor enough for food stamps.” But I diverge from many of them on what the path forward should be. I believe, as alluded to above, that taxes should be lower for everyone. I am not a fan of the mentality of “If we have to get screwed over by the government, millionaires and billionaires should, too!” Why should anybody get screwed over by the government?

“But Megan, the rich are just going to use the money they save through tax loopholes to buy luxury items. Meanwhile a lot of their employees are struggling to put food on the table!”

If Bezos is a greedy ol’ slave driver, the problem is his greed, not his wealth.

I am sure that Bezos’ critics have arguments to support why they think he’s greedy, and I might even agree with them if and when I learn more about him. But too often the wealthy (whether it’s a specific individual or just “those darn rich people” in general) are assumed to be greedy just because they have more money than most.

And in the process of making all sorts of judgments based on that assumption, the critics are forgetting one important thing:

A wealthy person’s greed is a sin, but so is a less wealthy person’s envy.

(I said “less wealthy” rather than “poor” because, let’s face it, many who rail against “the rich” are pretty wealthy themselves. If you have a roof over your head, clothes to wear, and food to eat, don’t be surprised if the person who’s living under the bridge doesn’t want to hear your sob story about your student loan debt.)

And there is most definitely an undercurrent of envy in Carlson’s multiple references to Bezos as the “richest man in the world.”

Translation: “He has plenty money. Why shouldn’t you have some of his money?”

I am sad to say that certain elements in the hierarchy of my own Church (#ThanksUSCCB) have made it a lot easier for Christians to practice envy like this without even knowing that that’s what they’re doing. And not only are they unaware that what they’re feeling and expressing is envy, they are made to feel that it is actually righteous. Paying taxes is conflated with generosity, and calls for fiscal restraint regarding the USCCB’s favorite government programs are labeled greedy. And if you criticize this paradigm, you will likely get the parable of the rich man and Lazarus thrown in your face. Here’s the thing:

I missed the part of the parable where Lazarus gets the Romans to demand that the rich man take him on as a permanent ward or else.

Returning to Carlson, his guest in the subject segment was The King’s College professor Brian Brenberg, whom I will refer to as “Guest Comrade.” Guest Comrade criticizes Bezos for “shopping around the country for 14 months going to cities to see who will give him the best deal” (4:35-4:41). Here we go again with envy and criticism of (presumably) legal methods of maximizing wealth. If you want to convince me that Bezos is greedy, you’re going to have to do better than “He has too much money and is too good at keeping it from the government!”

And Bezos “shopping around” may not even be a comprehensive characterization of the site selection process. From what I have heard, it was hardly one-sided. As ABL points out several times in his video, over 200 cities were actively competing for Amazon to choose them for the headquarters. Maybe they were wrong to do so, but then that would imply that those who live in the headquarter cities should put some of the blame for any fallout on their own local governments.

But I think that may very well be the last thing that Comrade Ocasio-Cortez wants.

By keeping the focus on Bezos and Amazon, Comrade is staying true to the Marxist model of “rich people and businesses = bad, government = good.” And she is also saving her own skin. If her constituents get fed up with their local government, they might get fed up with government in general. A government which she is now a part of.

Guest Comrade Brenberg also criticizes Bezos for lobbying for policies that will be detrimental to small businesses. I’m not saying that the concerns of small businesses aren’t relevant. But I would like to see Americans be open to a paradigm shift in the way that we think about the relationship between government and small businesses.

It is very common to hear supporters of the free market talk about how government shouldn’t pick winners and losers when it comes to the market.

But when you ask many of them about things government can do to help small businesses, it becomes abundantly clear that what they really mean is that the government is simply picking the wrong winners and losers.

If you say that you are opposed to redistribution of wealth, but you want the government to take benefits from big corporations and give them to small businesses, guess what?

You support the redistribution of wealth.

The idea that taxes should be lowered across the board for everyone, from billionaires to the fry cooks at McDonald’s, is one that you rarely (if ever) hear in Republican campaign speeches, because so much of 21st century American politics is all about pandering to the “middle class.” I put middle class in quotes because I have a suspicion that many who call themselves that actually belong to the upper class. (And yes, part of me is throwing up in my mouth a little for using all this class-based terminology, because it sounds kinda Marxist. Keep in mind that it is for demonstrative purposes only.)

And when it’s time to talk about Amazon’s new headquarters in the D.C. metro area, Carlson has this to say:

“The last thing we need is more money in Washington. It’s rich enough!” (8:31-8:35)

And even though this line sounds like it came straight from a Marxist playbook, Carlson once again ignores the fact that “rich” doesn’t mean “Everybody there is rich.” “Rich” may describe the D.C. Swamp Club, but it certainly doesn’t describe the city’s homeless. Fun fact: It really makes my ears perk up when someone sounds Marxist and oblivious to the homeless at the same time. It’s almost as if Marxism doesn’t care about the downtrodden as much as it claims to…

ABL also points out that this “rich enough” thinking is often the foundation of crippling tax policies that are the reason “why rich companies leave an area and take the jobs with ’em” (9:05-9:09). The number of Amazon jobs that I keep seeing, in sources from all across the political spectrum, is 25,000 per new headquarters. Comrade Ocasio-Cortez and some of ABL’s fans who posted comments on his video are concerned about what exactly these jobs will be. Comrade raised questions about wages, benefits, and collective bargaining rights (because apparently unions can’t get no love in NYC). She also asked, “Has the company promised to hire in the existing community?”

And like a good socialist, she doesn’t ask “How can we help New Yorkers become more competitive for jobs like these?” but instead demonizes Amazon for wanting to hire the best workers, even if those workers are found outside New York.

And she probably still wonders why people think democratic socialists are looking for a handout rather than a job.

It seems to me that the people who are mad that there aren’t more low-skill jobs in the mix and that Amazon may not be committed to hiring locally might be ignoring one critical fact:

High-skilled workers, no matter where they’re from, patronize businesses that are staffed by lower-skilled workers.

ABL also mentions that apart from the jobs at the headquarters, this development is also likely to lead to the creation of “ancillary jobs” (5:26-5:41) in the shipping and trucking industries, among others. Hmm…don’t those sound like the kinds of jobs that are very likely to have unions, particularly in places like NYC and the D.C. metro area? So that should assuage some of Comrade Ocasio-Cortez’s fears about collective bargaining. (Unless of course she knows that unions aren’t always the cure-all that the Left says they are. Ssshhh…)

I think the influx of new jobs, even if it means an influx of out-of-state workers, could also have a positive impact on that “crumbling” subway that Comrade is so worried about. Perhaps a lot of the Amazon workers will end up riding that subway to work. And if Comrade’s assumptions about the privileged wheels getting the grease are true, maybe they’ll end up successfully lobbying for subway renovations. Maybe they’ll even pay for them themselves rather than relying on taxpayer funds. (Hey, I can dream.)

Even if all of the critics’ worst fears are realized, I would not recommend that they turn to Comrade Ocasio-Cortez, Honorary Comrade Carlson, or Guest Comrade Brenberg for solutions. They have shown that they are way too devoted to overhauling the tax code in a way that still has government picking winners and losers in the market. If Amazon wrecks its headquarter communities, this will be a result of crony capitalism and other manifestations of too much government rather than too little.

And don’t you know that the government will be there in the aftermath to “help” with “free stuff,” maybe even universal basic income. Which would be a huge feather in Comrade Ocasio-Cortez’s cap indeed. Everybody wins!

If you still aren’t sure if my “Honorary Comrade” label for Carlson was justified, check out this little gem:

“Why wouldn’t Amazon, subsidized by taxpayers, spread the wealth, maybe to Detroit, Cleveland, or Toledo, or some place that actually needs it?” (9:37-9:42, 10:27-10:29)

So here we have a Fox News commentator explicitly advocating for the redistribution of wealth. And not only that, he’s already picked some preferred winners of the Class Struggle Lottery. ABL’s response to this is on point and very funny:

“ ‘Spread the wealth’? What do you mean?…I’m gettin’ triggered now.” (9:43-9:48)

To be fair, if Carlson had phrased this in a different way, such as, “I wish Amazon would have chosen a city like Detroit. I think that Detroit needed it more,” I would not be so critical. I understand that raw emotion plays better on TV than calm nuance. I also think that Carlson was actually feeling raw emotion during this segment. He sounded Marxist, not insincere. I just wish that he would have explicitly acknowledged how Marxist he sounded.

Maybe I’m just in a particularly cynical mood, but some of the controversy over these headquarters sounds like a bunch of whining to me. We’re used to that from the Left, but now some on the Right have joined the chorus (not that they were never part of it before). I am not saying that their concerns aren’t legitimate. But it seems like the most prominent critics, from all parts of the political spectrum, are looking to the government to fix the problem for the people who will actually be most affected by it if it materializes. We have the Left crying, “Are you sure you can’t make Amazon give that six-figure systems analyst job to an undocumented non-binary person with a junior high education?” And meanwhile the Right is asking, “How dare you give those tax breaks to Amazon rather than my favorite small business?”

So both sides are asking the government to pick winners and losers. And the government will hear that, correctly, as a request for it to assert more control over its constituents.

And just like that, there are no winners. Only losers.

Verso l’alto,
Megan