The Coronavirus Pandemic

The current global pandemic is an unmatched in human history, with respect to the human reaction and efforts to overcome it with science. There have been pandemics before, as recently as 2009, when the HIN1 virus killed 12,000 Americans between April 2009 and April 2010. This virus is uniquely different and that is part of the reason why the governmental and public reaction has been unprecedented. This time, we have economic turmoil, government action, panic, and politics as a dangerous mixture.

The first case of H1N1 was detected in California on April 15, 2009. CDC reported the outbreak to the WHO (World Health Organization) on April 21st. On June 11th, the WHO declared a global pandemic.

By June 19th, all of the states in America had active cases. Caseload peaked in May and June 2009, before declining in July and August. Cases of the seasonal flu remained higher than normal that summer and the H1N1 flu returned by mid-August. By September 21^st, vaccines for the virus had been approved. The H1N1 reoccurrence peaked in October, and dropped to a low level by January 2010. The CDC took an aggressive approach to identifying this virus, quantifying the disease, and working to develop a vaccine. The HHS director declared a health emergency on April 26, 2009 and President Obama declared a national emergency in October of that year. Government actions were appropriate and timely, and the Obama administration should not be criticized for the way the H1N1 pandemic was handled.

Now fast forward to 2020.

On December 31, 2019, China reported the first case of the new virus to the WHO. January 7^th, China identified the virus as an unknown new type. On January 20th, the US NIH announced they would begin working on a vaccine for this Coronavirus and, on the same day, Washington state reported the first case in the United States. On January 23rd, the Chinese shut down Wuhan province.

On January 31^st, President Trump moved to block the entry of Chinese nationals who had visited China in the last 14 days.

February 3^rd, the Chinese government accused the United States of overreacting to the disease.

February 25^th, The CDC announced that it would start testing Remdesivir in clinical trials to see if it could cure the Coronavirus.

February 26^th, President Trump named Mike Pence to direct the Coronavirus response team.

On March 11^th, the WHO declared a pandemic for the Coronavirus.

___________________

This pandemic has had the greatest impact on the American economy of any health-related problem in the nation’s history. The 1918 flu epidemic, which killed 675,000 Americans, had only a minor effect. Entertainment and travel businesses were severely impacted over the short time and some wages increased due to a shortage of labor. During the entire period of the pandemic, President Wilson never said one word about the disease in public.

This time, we have instant access to information about the economy, the markets, and the American people.

The first significant driver during this pandemic was the stock market, which is always driven by profit expectations for the economy and America’s corporations. On February 21^st the S & P 500 stood at a level of 3337. It began to plummet soon after as investors realized the impact the pandemic might have on company earnings. On February 28^th, the index stood at 2954, a loss of 12%. The real rout began when investors realized that not just the travel industry would be impacted – the entire US economy was being shut down as an effort to stop the spread of the virus. On March 23^rd, the index had fallen to 2237 or a 34% drop! There was undoubtedly significant panic selling during that time, much of it by professional traders who try to time the market. Smart investors have stayed the course, knowing that prices will recover. Still, the loss is a shock to those with investment portfolios.

The second factor in play is government action. Trump has used has advisors in the NIH and CDC the way he should; letting them provide the picture as they see it so he has the information he needs to make decisions. For all the squawking about delays, the CDC was reacting to the outbreak very early. They did not run into trouble until the demand grew for test kits. For all the good science they do, the CDC shouldn’t be in the distribution business. Their requirement that test kits had to be issued by them or, even worse, that they had to do all the testing, became obsolete policy in less than a week. Quickly, the testing process was moved to state and private labs. This is a great example of why big government should not control large segments of the American economy. The federal government is too bureaucratic and too slow to react.

This pandemic reminds us of the military’s rule about war. When the first battle starts, throw out the battle plan.  

After the first missteps, the states were engaged and took over the testing. Since then, it has gone more smoothly. Creating inventory for essential medical equipment is now the highest priority. Of course, it takes some time to ramp up production, particularly when stockpiles are inadequate. Manufacturers produce product based on market conditions and don’t produce what they can’t sell.

The most significant government actions were the social distancing and business shut down declarations. These have had a great impact on the lives of every American. Staying home, not working, kids home, not in school – this has never happened in the history of the country. These restrictions cause anxiety, depression, and worry over sources of income that every family depends on. Many have or will lose their jobs and be unemployed.

The financial to all Americans has driven the federal government to unprecedented action to make up for the income shortfall. The recently passed $ 2.4 trillion recovery plan seeks to provide support for all segments of the American economy: unemployment payments to individuals, forgivable loans to small businesses, and aid for the most hard-hit industries. This aid was essential for the mental well being of the American people and the stabilization of the economy.

Bipartisan agreement in Congress was good to see as the parties put their differences aside for once. I am more surprised at the Republican response than the Democratic response, because Republicans have the reputation as hard-hearted capitalists, who don’t care for the common man. In this case, they have been upfront with their willingness to spend the money to help small business and individuals, no matter what the cost. The same can be said for the president, who built his case for re-election on the success of the economy. Rather than keeping the focus on the stock market, he has pivoted to placing the American people first. In his view, if we can remove the disease, the economy will fix itself.

The third component of the times is panic. The Coronavirus produces panic because of its novelty and behavior. It spreads like wildfire, and its infection rate is high. It’s easy to forget that the virus produces only cold-like symptoms in 80% of those who are infected and that most people, who are younger and don’t have underlying health conditions, will be fine. Those who have compromised health can be easily infected by contact with others and become seriously ill. The media is adding to the panic because there are few positive stories being written. Instead, they are focused on shortages, deaths, and personal hardship. This negative press weighs on the psyche of the people. One good plan for protecting one’s mental health is to avoid overexposure to the news.

In some cases, the professionals don’t help. The public wants absolute answers, but there aren’t any. The virus took hold too fast, and the research has to catch up. An accurate understanding of the disease takes time and the public has to understand that projections are estimates based on data accumulated from real world experience. Testing has to be used on everyone to establish how the disease operates. Counting only cases ignores those who already have immunity or have the disease with no symptoms. Sometimes the CDC mentions the concept of “herd” spread. This refers to the disease making its way through the entire population. Once that has happened, we’ll know how many are susceptible. As frustrating as it is to the public, the professionals can only say what they know even when the data is estimated.

In my state (Ohio), the governor has been very aggressive about stopping the spread of Coronavirus. He identified the risk early and appeared to be overreacting. Hindsight shows he was right on. I can’t say the same for his medical director who keeps presenting data that can scare a lot of people. She continues to say that the state should expect a period of 10,000 new cases in the state per day, before we reach a peak. I find that hard to believe given that the state infection rate curve is bending at 300 additional cases per day. Her numbers would probably have been correct if the state had not taken strong measures it did.

Scaring people might be good or bad. Who knows which is appropriate? It’s good if it creates compliance; its bad if it affects people’s mental health.

The fourth component to Coronavirus ecosystem is politics. This is an election year and the Left’s dislike of Trump will not allow them to unite with the rest of us to take on this unprecedented problem. They have an obvious effort underway to discredit Trump’s handling of the crisis, in order to impact his popularity and prospects for reelection. What they risk is exposing themselves as biased and selfish. That negative perception could outweigh any positive impact they think they are having.

Let’s look at a few facts.

If you indict Trump for being slow to react, you have to also indict the leaders of the other 140 countries that have been attacked by the disease. Is every world leader incompetent?

If you indict Trump for being slow, you have to indict the CDC and NIH for not having a handle on the seriousness of the outbreak and not getting anyone’s attention. As I pointed out above, NIH started looking into a vaccine for the virus the same day Washington state reported the first domestic case of the disease. That was January 20^th. They were on it.

You can’t indict Trump for blocking people coming from China and Europe, because that undoubtedly bought us time to react to the coming pandemic.

You can’t indict Trump for supply shortages. I don’t believe either the federal government or the states are to blame because no one could have foreseen the progress of this disease. Its rapid spread overwhelmed the supply chain of the country as well as federal government stockpiles. The only way to fix this problem was to engage industry to ramp up production. The support of industry has been tremendous and soon we will have all the supplies we need.

Trump has not engaged in politics with the states and has received some high marks from Democratic governors. By now, all the governors understand that they are in partnership with the administration and working together is the best for all.

Most of the politicking has come from Congressional leaders and the media, but when you look closely, our political leaders cannot escape their own behavior.

On February 24^th, Nancy Pelosi appeared in Chinatown, San Francisco saying “We want people to come to Chinatown. We are safe here.” This was a month after the first case appeared in Washington state.

As late as March 15^h, the mayor of New York, Bill De Blasio had not placed any pandemic related restrictions on the people of the city. He said, “if you love your neighborhood bar, go there now.”

We need to keep politics out picture until the pandemic is over.

The Democratic Campaign 2020

The Democratic nomination campaign is ramping up to be a real wild affair. There are conflicting forces at work, so it’s hard to predict what will ultimately happen. Will any candidate be able to lock in a majority of the delegates before the convention?

Let’s go beneath the covers and see what we can figure out.

On the surface, the Democratic campaign appears to mimic the Republican campaign of 2016. That year the Republican establishment was upended by an outsider. Why? Because there has been a growing feeling throughout America that Washington insiders are either corrupt or incompetent. Just take a look at the approval rating of Congress, which stands at 21%. The dissatisfaction the public feels drives them in the direction of an outsider for president. Their feelings are strong and visceral so that doesn’t leave much room for logic. Voters are drawn to outsider like moths going to the light.

Republicans were unhappy with their party’s establishment in 2016, because it appeared to them as a bunch of rich white men voicing a philosophy that was tired and worn out. Republicans are seldom successful when they only talk about traditional values and capitalism. There has to be something more than that, or a candidate whose personal appeal makes the presentation of these concepts more appealing.

Trump was attractive to Republican voters because of his energy and the force of his personality. As a populist, he appealed to groups who felt ignored and they stuck with him. The rest of the Republican Party was then dragged along against their will.

Fast forward to 2020, and the Democrats have a similar outsider situation. Bernie Sanders is the candidate that acts like the outsider. That’s a pretty good trick since he’s a Senator. Bernie focuses on the idea that if America had listened to his ideas a long time ago, it could have solved all the country’s problems. Now is the time to see his “democratic socialist” ideology in operation.

The difference from 2016 is that Bernie is farther from the center than Trump was. Bernie will change the government structure substantially using money from as yet undefined sources. That smells like raising taxes for the middle class. Trump, for all his personal idiosyncrasies, was in the main a Republican politician.

A substantial number of Democrats don’t like Bernie’s chances of beating Trump, and don’t see any willingness on his part to move toward the center. If Bernie loses, the party forfeits a chance at power, so they are motivated to look to a different candidate.

Bernie has enough support to win most of the primaries and gather the most delegates. The fact that three other candidates remain, divides the opposition so that no one can beat him outright. This theory will be tested in the “Super Tuesday” states because some have constituencies that favor Bernie’s competition. If Bernie wins big on Super Tuesday, the pressure will be on Warren to drop out. If Bloomberg does poorly the handwriting will also be on the wall for him. He may become Biden’s financier to continue the battle against Bernie.

Bernie appeals to very specific groups; younger voters and those with lower incomes. Twenty-eight percent of his supporters are unemployed, which explains their interest in a socialist model. Young voters do not vote in high percentages like older voters, however, so that may hurt the Democrat’s prospects in the fall.

The Democratic Party has 4750 delegate votes at the convention. Of those, 771 (16%) are superdelegates. If superdelegates pledge themselves to a particular candidate, at the start of the convention, they must vote for that candidate on the first ballot, unless released.  If the first ballot does not elect a candidate, subsequent votes are taken until someone wins. The super delegates could vote in a block to support a particular candidate. Bernie Sanders could go into the convention with a 300-delegate lead and have that lead overturned by the superdelegates.

The job facing the Democrat elites is to get Joe as many delegates as possible before the convention so they can defeat him using the superdelegates. Joe Biden is the horse they’re riding out of necessity.

It will be interesting.

Thoughts on the Trump impeachment

Now that the Trump Impeachment is over, it’s time to talk about what happened and what it means for the American political system. This was only the third impeachment in American history, not including the Nixon case. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

During the current proceedings, the Republicans pushed a narrative that transcended the politics of this single event; that no impeachment should be driven by one party alone, no impeachment should be pursued on weak evidence, and no impeachment should be pursued without due process being granted to the president. While these points served as the basis for the Republican’s defense, they should also be recognized as the best rules of engagement for the impeachment process, regardless of party.

By coming together and resisting, the Republicans saved the Democrats from themselves, and preserved the balance of power in our government. The danger of success by the Democrats, in this case, would have set a precedent that would have become common practice in the future. Armed with this approach, a future Congress could remove a president from office because they didn’t like his/her behavior.

The Democrats pushed forward on weak evidence, which should have been a brake on their enthusiasm. Strong evidence of misbehavior would remove partisanship, compelling the minority party to accept the credibility of the accusations. Weak evidence only makes the partisanship more blatant. The framers purposely defined impeachable offenses as high crimes and misdemeanors so only egregious crimes would result in the removal of a president. To remove a president from office based on minor offences would nullify elections and take away the power of the American people to select their leader.

The third error the Democrats made was to deny the president due process, during the House impeachment process. They argued during the trial phase that the Republicans were violating the norms of the American trial system by blocking witnesses when they themselves had blocked the president’s participation in the gathering of evidence. This unfairness made the public suspect the motives of the accusers.

Fortunately, the Republicans controlled the Senate, so they were able to block this dangerous adventure. If the Senate had been controlled by the Democrats, Donald Trump would have been removed from office, and the die would have been cast for all time.

One wonders why the Democrats pursued a path that resulted in failure. They must have understood that success in the Senate was only a remote possibility. Was it pressure from the base or pure hated of Trump? As the Democratic Party moved left in the time since 2016, there has been increasing pressure on the moderates to move with them. The Democrats have now moved so far left, they make Bill Clinton look like a Republican. It’s likely that pressure from the Left helped to push the impeachment narrative forward. The far Left has a greater disagreement with Trump then the moderates so they are more enthusiastic about removing him.

How much of the Democrat’s impeachment effort was driven by Trump Derangement Syndrome? Can dislike of the president produce such irrational behavior among seasoned politicians, they feel compelled to pursue the impossible? Perhaps the Democrats thought they could convince some Republicans to join them, although it would have been fanciful to imagine 20 Republicans jumping ship to favor the president’s removal. A goal to, at minimum, damage the president’s reputation, may have backfired because the partisanship was too obvious.

Categories of American politics (2018)

A study from 2018 was conducted to identify the political beliefs of the American people below the surface of their party affiliation. In other words, what are the psychological and emotional feelings that place them within a particular political ideology?

Progressive activists (8% of the adult population 20.2 million) are eighty percent white and likely have college degrees. They feel secure about themselves, most likely because they don’t have money problems. They have an aggressive approach to correcting the defects they see in American society, based on a high sensitivity to fairness and equality. They don’t mention Tribalism as a concern perhaps because they understand achieving social justice is difficult and controversial.

Traditional Liberals (11% of the adult population 27.8 million) are seventy-six percent white and likely have a college education. They reflect the liberal views of the Baby Boomer generation and support social justice with less enthusiasm than Progressive Activists do. Traditional Liberals observe Tribalism and believe it’s solution lies in America healing as a nation through tolerance of different points of view and compromise where necessary. Seventy five percent say freedom and equality are important to them.

Passive Liberals (15% of the adult population 37.9 million) are only weakly engaged in politics, but have a modern view of social issues when pushed to state their positions. This group feels isolated and alienated from their community. Seventy-two percent are not registered to vote and two-thirds do not have a college degree. They generally believe events in their lives are outside of their control. Fifty percent say the world is becoming a more dangerous place. Fifty-nine percent are female. Eighty-six percent try to avoid situations were there could be arguments.

The Politically Disengaged (26% of the adult population 65.8 million) tend to be lower income and are not engaged in politics. Forty-one percent make less than $ 30,000 per year. They are more anxious than Passive Liberals about external threats and are reluctant to discuss differences with others. They are extremely pessimistic about resolving Tribalism. Thirty-two percent say that the differences between Americans are too big to resolve.

Moderates (15% of the adult population 37.9 million) represent the political middle of the road. They are involved in their communities, volunteer, and are engaged in current affairs. This group is very troubled by Tribalism. Moderates dislike the extremism that exists at both ends of the political spectrum. They feel the American identity is slipping away. Eighty-nine percent feel that political correctness has gone too far. Sixty percent are over 45.

Traditional Conservatives (19% of the adult population 48 million) feel that America’s foundations are under attack from a liberal political culture that emphasizes diversity and downplays American accomplishments. Seventy-nine percent are white. Only forty-seven percent say America is rigged to favor the rich. Traditional Conservatives are open to discussing bipartisan solutions to America’s problems.

Devoted Conservatives (6% of the adult population 15.2 million) are the equivalent of the Progressive Activists at the other end of the political spectrum. Like their cousins, they are happy and secure in life. They see American traditions under assault and feel forced to accept Liberal dogma. This group is 88% white, 34% over 65 years of age, and 63% opposed to compromise on traditional values.

Several interesting facts emerge from these results. 

1. The radical Left is only 8% of the population yet they exert an enormous influence through Academia and the media. 

2. There are 37.9 million passive liberals who are not engaged in politics.

3. The are 65.8 million disengaged Americans who are disconnected from politics completely.

4. Devoted conservatives will not compromise their beliefs for any reason.

5. The Radical Left and the Devoted Right are mainly white and wealthy. This suggests that they can hold to a rigid ideology because their lives are secure and they don't have to make any compromises.

This data was taken from Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon. Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape. (Publisher - More in Common, 2018)

Why is America stuck in a Tribal state?

The cause of America’s tribalism is simple, if you think about it. Groups of Americans have become uncomfortable with the direction of our society, and have reverted to a tribal mentality. Tribes offer safety because they are smaller groups of like minded people.

The details explaining our tribalism are complicated and need some discussion to help understand them.

Tribalism is possible because the political morality of the Right and Left are different. People on the Left concern themselves with groups and their status. They see capitalism as unfair because it leads to poverty and inequality. Their efforts in the political seek to expand the welfare state with programs that will solve the major problems of society. People on the Right are concerned with liberty. They see man’s opportunity to succeed in the world as dependent a government that focuses on individualism and reward for hard work. To the Right, big government and welfare state programs destroy liberty through asset transfers. Expansion of the welfare state requires increased taxation, so the monetary assets of the public are transferred to government. That transfer might be legitimized if the results showed that the funded programs were effective. More often than not, they show them to be ineffective.

The personality of the Left is driven by the desire for change; a restless discomfort with the status quo and a feeling that change is normal and will make things better. The personality of the Right is driven by resistance to change and an attraction to traditions. The Right believes that traditions are the foundations for the advancement of society and dictate how much change is reasonable.

There are four major factors that push us into tribalism: changes in society, grievances of identity groups, postmodern communications, and a corrupted media.

1. The last forty years has seen enormous change to the American cultural landscape. The family has changed in character and definition, people have become less religious, and are now too busy to socialize. This is discomforting to the Right because its too much change too fast and represents a tearing down of important traditions that act to the benefit of mankind.

2. Our society has become divided by identity and lost the ability to come together as Americans. Identity groups, who have grievances, work to correct them but, even when progress is made, remain separated from the whole.

3. During the last two decades, technology has overwhelmed us. Instant communication has made us all feel that the world is moving faster. We feel pressure to live in the instant. That pressure is unsettling.

4. The traditional media has to compete with the internet for audience share, and has corrupted itself in the process. Because the internet has no filter, the most awful ideas are presented and hyped there. Every idiot has a platform. The traditional media could take the high road and provide a rational alternative, but instead chose to participate in the same game. The presentation and discussion of extreme political positions creates a misleading picture of reality to the public, while ignoring the good stories and the fundamental fairness of the American people. The artificial world presented is depressing.

The political parties are polarized because the American people are polarized. The moderate senators and Congressmen who used to populate the Congress are gone, so all that remains are the extremes. Moreover, each of the parties is fractured by ideological arguments. Democrats fight themselves over how far to the Left they should be; liberal or socialist? The Right fights itself over fiscal responsibility and the politicization of traditional values. The divide between them will not be fixed unless the American people tell the Congress to get their house in order.

How will American tribalism resolve itself? The short answer is that it will abate when the opposing tribes realize their lack of communication is not healthy and stands in the way of progress; when progress and unity start to mean more than stagnation and enmity.

Conservatives will continue to advocate for traditions and their will always be conservatives to do that. The Left, which contains many who believe in the American ideal, needs to separate itself from the radical Left and show its willingness to communicate with the Right. The identity groups need to see themselves as Americans rather than merely human beings with a set of personal characteristics.

We all need to slow down. The idea that human life must be lived through a cell phone is an absurdity that belittles the capacity we all have to make the world a better place.

What is Populism?

Populism is a word that is commonly used today to describe political trends across the globe. It is not a new concept and has existed throughout the history of human society. Populism appears under specific circumstances and acts as a warning sign of problems in a political system.

Historian Michael Kazin defines populism as “a language whose speakers conceive of ordinary people as a noble assemblage not bounded narrowly by class; view their elite opponents as self-serving and undemocratic; and seek to mobilize the former against the latter”.

In other words, when government fails to meet the needs of a group or groups, within the society, a reaction will appear that opposes the government. Populism on the Left is different than populism on the Right. Left-wing populists take the side of the people against an elite group or the establishment. Their energy comes from the common man opposing the elites. Right-wing populists take the side of the common man against elites they accuse of favoring a third group.

In the last decade and a half, a populist movement emerged in America when white men became frustrated by the federal government’s lack of interest in addressing their concerns. The media commonly report that the movement is driven by blue collar workers but the constituency is actually much broader than that. The group also includes evangelical men, men over 50, men earning at least $ 50,000 per year, and non-college educated men.

White men in America feel that all of the other identity groups are ahead of them in line: women, African-Americans, Hispanic, Gays, immigrants, etc. They see the other groups receiving attention and benefits from the government they have no access to. In addition, the radical Left’s attack on “white man’s privilege” ignores the important role white men have played in building our country.

In recent decades, post-industrial societies have embraced a neoliberal agenda of free movement of capital and labor to achieve prosperity. This view supports increased immigration as a way to adapt to changes in labor requirements. In the United States, both parties supported free trade deals. These policies impacted white men, especially after the Great Recession, when the housing bust destroyed Americans most important asset – the equity in their homes. The loss of asset value and the risk of job loss due to the immigrant pool and increased automation has caused the reaction against the government.

Donald Trump is the first populist candidate, in American history, to be elected president. He sailed through the nomination process by beating back a large group of establishment candidates who didn’t understand the populist wave. He won the election by holding the Republican base and using populist rhetoric to convince white men to vote for him. His slogan of “make America great again” suggested the renewal of a time before identity politics and political correctness began to dominate the American cultural narrative.

Populist movements are temporary, exhibiting an emotional response from the electorate that eventually burns out. These movements may or may not achieve their objectives, depending on whether the practical demands of implementing programs that fix the problem are achievable. Often, populist demands are co-opted by the major parties as attempts to entice the constituencies to join their ideology. As we saw in 2016, adding the populist constituency to the votes of one of the major parties can win an election.

Oddly, with less than a year to go before the 2020 election, the Democrats don’t seem to be addressing their problem with white men. Is it possible that the most radical elements of the Left are opposed to that effort because it would compromise their narrative?

Income inequality as a political issue

Income inequality is a highly publicized and much debated topic. How do we reconcile the arguments over this issue with reality, given the battle lines between one side and the other?

The origin of the inequality as political issue begins with Marxist theory.

Karl Marx originally proposed an economic theory that suggested how and why capitalism should be replaced. In Marx' view, capitalism, as expressed in the industrial revolution, cruelly exploited workers and turned them into valueless machines. Moreover, there was great inequality between the managers of the corporations and the workers who worked for them. Marx predicted that, at some point, workers would revolt against this exploitation, and create a transitional government that would eventually become a communist society. The new society would be egalitarian (all people would be equal) and not have an economic hierarchy.

Marx' theory developed into mature Socialist movement in Europe during the latter part of the 19th Century. Socialist leaders attempted to organize workers to prepare for the inevitable revolts, but they never happened. Meanwhile, Russia became a Communist state, during World War I, when it was taken over by a revolutionary gang. The same process took place in China under Mao. Neither followed the roadmap Marx had constructed.

In the period between the two world wars, socialist intellectuals began to think about why workers had not revolted. Was there something wrong with Marx' theory? The Frankfurt School was founded in Germany, in 1923, with the express purpose of correcting flaws in Marx' approach, using a tool called "Critical Theory." Critical theory attempted to look at Marxism from the outside in order to analyze it objectively. One conclusion they drew was Marx had not included psychology in his analysis of worker class behavior.

Using Freud's theories, the Frankfurt School concluded that workers did not revolt because they had been psychologically seduced by capitalism and were under its control. Working in a capitalist society forced the worker to earn the money that would allow him to achieve the lifestyle enjoyed by his neighbors. He was stuck on a treadmill and couldn't get off. They concluded it was a mistake to concentrate on the worker class as a constituency because it was too narrow and could not generate a revolution by itself. Instead, they would focus on all of society.

To that end, the German Social Democratic Party (SDP) published a document in 1959 called the Godesberg program. This program changed socialism's focus from exploitation of the worker to economic inequality across the whole culture. The party believed that if they could not defeat capitalism as an economic theory, they would have better luck attacking it for creating inequality. From the early 1960s to today, socialists have been attacking capitalism as the cause of inequality in the West. Their solution is to utilize government to alleviate inequality as a step toward transition to a socialist state. This tactic remains a core component of the Left’s playbook today.

To test the socialist’s idea, we examine historical income levels by economic class in the United States.

Here we see the income distribution in the United States at three different time periods: 1774, 1860, and 2011. What's notable here is that there is very little difference between income levels for each class over the two-hundred-and-forty-year span. The top tier has produced about 50% of the income, the middle tier about 35%, and the bottom tier about 10%.

These results are surprising given the state of American society when they were measured. In 1774, the United States did not exist and income was based on the colonial economy. In 1860, the industrial revolution was underway and the Civil War would soon begin. In 2011, eight years ago, the United States was operating in a mature post-industrial globalist society. Could these periods have been any different?

The most likely conclusion, to be drawn from the chart, is that a capitalist society operates by a set of poorly understood mechanisms that determine income distribution. Income is related to human capabilities and motivation. The results are similar for any time period and there is no manmade way to change the result. This means that throwing money and government programs at inequality will accomplish nothing.

How do Americans really feel about income inequality? The answer is surprising. For all the press about CEOs making 2000 times the salary of the average worker, Americans don't care about that metric. Study after study has shown that people care about their income as it relates to their peers, not some CEO. In other words, if I'm an attorney, I want to know that my income is similar to what other attorneys make. If I am below that standard, I will be unhappy.

If there is no way to make inequality go away, why waste time and money trying to do so? Focus on education and job training to help people get better jobs. And focus on keeping the economy strong so jobs are available.

Socialists understand that inequality cannot be eliminated from a capitalist system, so they advocate replacing capitalism with socialism. The only problem with that idea is that socialism has failed every time it has been tried. Socialists continue to use inequality as a hammer against capitalism to tear it down, even though they have no practical alternative.