Posted on 08/24/2011 7:19:17 PM PDT by stolinsky
A Critical Mass in America
David C. Stolinsky
Aug. 25, 2011
In high-school physics − assuming our high school offered physics − we learned that when radioactive material reaches a critical mass, a chain reaction begins. No further input of energy is required. The reaction becomes self-sustaining. And if the right radioactive material is chosen, and the critical mass is achieved suddenly, a nuclear blast occurs, wiping out the nuclear material, the container enclosing it, and everything else within range.
But the concept of a critical mass may also apply to politics. I believe that when the number of angry, embittered, disaffected people reaches a certain point, the reaction becomes self-sustaining. No further input of energy is required. The anger feeds on itself and grows hotter.
But what if there are two groups of angry, embittered, disaffected people? What if they are angry because of the same problem, but for opposite reasons? And what if, at some point that can’t be predicted but can only be seen in retrospect, those two groups come together? What if their combination produces a critical mass? Then we have the political analog of a nuclear bomb − with similar, terribly destructive results.
And what are these two angry, embittered, disaffected groups? Look around. You can see them forming and growing:
● Group 1 is composed of people who receive − or want to receive − government benefits. Some have worked for decades and deserve these benefits. But many others have worked less, or not at all, or have recently arrived in America, and deserve little or nothing. But as the character played by Clint Eastwood in “The Unforgiven” says, deserve has nothing to do with it.
They want to receive benefits. They expect to receive benefits. They feel entitled to benefits. So they’ll be very angry if they don’t receive benefits, or if the benefits are reduced or delayed.
● Group 2 is the mirror image of Group1. It is composed of people who have worked all their lives, often for long hours, and at difficult or dangerous jobs. They may have worked two jobs, or put in many hours of overtime. They may have gone to work despite being sick, or been injured at work − and continued to work rather than claiming to be disabled. They were born in this country, or if they immigrated, they did so legally, waiting their turn, often for years.
They don’t like to pay taxes, but they do. They know their taxes pay for vital government functions like defense. But they also know their taxes pay for the benefits received by the takers in Group 1. They hope to receive Social Security and Medicare when they grow older, but they no longer expect to. And this is making them increasingly angry.
It’s as if they had been waiting in line for a movie, and a group of interlopers jumped the line. Even worse, when they finally got to the box office, they were told there were no more seats − but that they had to pay for the tickets of those who had jumped the line.
Revealingly, 47% of households pay no federal income tax. Yet most of these people vote − and many vote for politicians who want to raise income taxes on the other half of the population. Many of these people receive government benefits themselves. How long can we expect hard-working taxpayers to tolerate this gross unfairness? As columnist David Warren wrote:
The nation is divided, roughly half-and-half, between people who instinctively resent the Nanny State, and those who instinctively yearn for its ministrations.
In normal, quiet times, roughly equal groups pulling in opposite directions produce gridlock, which we see in Washington. But it is difficult to deny that the normal, quiet times are ending. Unless an economic miracle occurs, our massive budget deficits will continue to grow. To finance these deficits, the government will have three choices:
(a) Borrow more money, until individuals and foreign governments refuse to buy more of our debt, because they no longer trust our ability to repay it.
(b) Print more money, until the value of the dollar drops so far that it is no longer accepted, because it is no longer seen as a store of value.
(c) Both of the above.
Of course, politicians will attempt to cover up this drunken spending spree with phony terminology. If a planned spending increase is reduced slightly, this will be called a “spending cut.” This is similar to me telling my wife that I planned to buy a Rolls Royce, but instead will buy a Mercedes − and then boasting about my frugality in “saving” all that money. I hesitate to imagine what my wife would say about my frugality.
If such shenanigans would provoke a heated argument between people who love each other, what do you suppose they would provoke between groups that thoroughly dislike each other? As Mark Steyn notes, it is no longer true that he who pays the piper calls the tune. How long do you suppose those who pay the piper with their hard work and taxes will tolerate being told that the “elite” will continue to call the tune? How long will the worker bees tolerate cutting back their lifestyle to the essentials, while the drones in Washington live in luxury? Recall that worker bees have stingers, but drones don’t.
In Europe, the takers outnumber the producers, so Group 1 is larger than Group 2. There are a few leaders like Maggie Thatcher who advance the cause of freedom, but they are rare. The takers can riot and cause a great deal of trouble, as they have been doing in Greece and Britain. But there is no group of producers that is anywhere near the same size, so a critical mass can’t be achieved.
European nations can sink into recession or even anarchy, but they are unlikely to be wracked by an explosion. America, on the contrary, has approximately equal numbers in the two groups. If they lose patience and come together, we will see the results of a critical mass.
If we’re not careful, we will wind up with half the population angry and embittered because their government handouts have to be reduced. And the other half will be angry and embittered because they have to work two jobs to pay the taxes that fund those handouts. This is a recipe for an explosion, not a stable republic.
There is no one as angry as a person who for years has been led to believe that he is entitled to something he hasn’t worked for, but then the flow of government goodies dries up. Well, come to think of it, there is someone else that angry. That is the person who worked long hours to support his family, and also had to pay for the goodies that the unproductive receive from the government. But then, when he grows old or becomes disabled or loses his job, there is no more money left to help him and his family. In fact, he may be even more angry, and justifiably so.
Rehab in the form of slow withdrawal may help assuage the anger of the takers, but what will mollify the righteous indignation of the producers? I don’t know − do you?
A geographical area peopled by two discordant factions, each competing with the other to see which is angrier, is not a nation but a ticking time bomb. The only remaining questions are exactly when the explosion will occur, and what the resulting debris will look like. But one thing is certain − it won’t look anything like the America we knew.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.
Outstanding article.
The most often used appellation is CWII
How this plays out will also depend on how well armed the producers are vs the takers.
America is not like Europe in that we have a fairly well armed citizenry. By that I mean, unlike the UK for example, the *law abiding* citizens are well armed. Not just the criminals and the takers.
The response of the “little people” to rampaging liberal constituents in some places may be somewhat shocking to the intelligentsia. No way to be certain, but there is a significant dormant power here. Sort of like Dr. Bruce Banner.
Great article. Right on. Bump for my husband to read later.
This is nothing less than the beginning of the final battle between value producers and value destroyers.. Guess which side must win in order for you to survive...
I have been saying for years that two objects cannot occupy the same space. That simple.
Bump
By excluding such taxes from a growing number of Americans, Obama and his party hope to achieve the permanent support of an electoral majority comprised predominantly of tax beneficiaries, to the detriment of a minority producer class. And should such taxpayers complain, they are accused (as always) of greed or cruelty, while credit for their own productivity is fully taken by the government in the process of redistributing its benefits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.