On Point: The politics of envy

Published January 26, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Let's dream together of America's lost and lamented Golden Era: when life was easier, jobs were better, and necessities such as health care cost so little!

Is that your picture of America in the 1970s? Well, it seems to be what some of my readers recollect. Several have rebuked me for taking issue with Sen. James Webb's claim Tuesday evening, in his national speech for the Democrats, that the middle class is under siege and "losing its place at the table."

Typical of these critics was a woman who identified herself as the owner of a small moving company. "I couldn't disagree with you more that we're doing better than we were doing 30 years ago," she told me in a voice message (you can read the column that steamed her at RockyMountain News.com/drmn/on_point/). "People are having such a hard time getting their kids through college . . . . Health care is off the charts . . . Wages have not gone up . . . most people are really struggling . . . a lot of us feel that things are not getting better and things are harder."

So why do I think most Americans are better off? Glad you asked. Because median household income is significantly higher than it was in 1970; home ownership has risen and houses are bigger; average untaxed employee benefits are higher; a greater proportion of Americans go to college and own cars; unemployment is at historic lows; people spend less of their incomes today on necessities and they enjoy, believe it or not, more leisure time. And that list doesn't begin to account for the stunning inventions of recent decades, from medicines to e-mail, that so enrich our lives.

Are most people "really struggling"? Maybe - it depends on how you define the term. But if they are, their counterparts were a generation ago, too. A sense of struggle and insecurity may be the fate of most humans at all times and all places, regardless of actual progress.

Don't misunderstand: To insist that most Americans are better off is not to say that life is hunky- dory. It is not to imply that people should stop complaining, say, about college tuition and health-care costs - or even the mind-boggling incomes of some CEOs. But it is a warning against the rhetoric of those such as Webb who urge Americans to judge their status not on the basis of historical standards but in comparison to the likes of Donald Trump.

They want us to resent and envy the fortunes of others. It is an ugly temptation that we'd do well to resist.

There they go again

Once again The Denver Post cannot distinguish between a "consumer advocate" and a political activist with a narrow special agenda.

In reporting Gov. Bill Ritter's appointment this week of Ron Binz to head the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, the Post said it "was hailed by consumer advocates . . ."

Which "consumer advocates," pray tell? Why, Nancy LaPlaca of the "consumer group" Ratepayers United of Colorado.

As it happens, Ratepayers United of Colorado is not a consumers group in the sense that it tries to protect consumers from all efforts by utilities to gouge them. It is an anti-coal, pro-renewables outfit. Period.

"In an era of class- and race-based injustice," its Web site says, "what's good for ratepayers' health is a transition to less polluting sources of energy."

Of course, if that transition involves higher consumer bills because of government mandates that ignore market prices, as is the case right now with Amendment 37's solar program, consumers will just have to bear them.

It's fine that LaPlaca and other anti-coal activists get their say in the Post. What's irritating is how that newspaper equates "consumer activist" with "environmental activist," as if the interests of consumers and greens were always perfectly aligned.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News