Einstein’s century old Theory of Relativity is a remarkable way of seeing particular aspects of our universe, but it’s still rare to find non-physicists who understand it. One simple takeaway is that observers who are differently situated as to speed or gravity experience time differently. The idea that people who are differently situated may see some things differently is not a strange concept. Conversely, we are rarely surprised to learn that people who are in quite different circumstances hold some of the same beliefs, until the subjects are those we address here — inequitable wealth distribution and tax rates. Then it’s a head scratcher worthy of Einstein.
For example, in a Pew Research poll conducted four years ago, 75% of Republicans in well-off households with more than $100K of annual income opposed raising corporate tax rates. A majority, 56%, of Republicans in poor households with less than $30K of annual income agreed. The difference between these two groups in opposition to raising taxes on the relatively rich — households with more than $250K in annual income — was even smaller: 80% versus 66%.
Another Pew poll two years ago found less opposition to raising corporate taxes, but a similar difference of only about 20 percentage points between well-off and poor Republicans. The poll also found less opposition to raising taxes on those making more than $250K, but the point spread between the well-off and the poor had nearly doubled. Nevertheless, 42% of poor Republicans opposed this idea. Democrats come at this from the opposite direction, with only 5% of the well-off opposing raising taxes on corporations versus 21% of the poor. 25% of well-off Democrats opposed raising taxes on the relatively rich, while a whopping 39% of the poor would vote no — nearly the same as poor Republicans. What explains this quandary?
Enter System Justification Theory (SJT). NYU professor and political psychologist John Jost, an author of SJT, has built his twenty-five year career on it. Jost was intrigued by the contradiction of those not well off supporting status quo systems of wealth distribution and taxation, especially when research revealed they usually did not believe that someday they would join the upper class themselves. Jost and others have offered several explanations for why this powerful barrier to reform exists and is so entrenched. (Here’s a more thorough discussion and defense of SJT.)
People, especially those in precarious life circumstances, tend to fear social instability — anything that changes the rules under which they have lived.
In times of social stress, individuals who believe the system is just are happier than those who do not. Said another way, people prefer “to think of themselves as correctly placed by a just society than to think of themselves as exploited, or victimized by an unjust society.” (Here’s a review of research findings for and against the notion that conservatives are happier, which concludes that conservatives’ “self-enhancing style of self-report” leads them to tell researchers they are happier than they actually are.)
People tend to view those in more privileged classes as having more positive qualities than themselves, what psychologists call outgroup favoritism. (Research supporting this fact was highlighted in the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 494 n.11.)
“Poor people around the world identify more strongly with their nation (and less strongly with their social class) in comparison with rich people, and those who identify more strongly with the nation are less supportive of economic redistribution than those who do not.”
An alternative explanation, proposed by critics of SJT, is that people tend to support the status quo as long as they perceive that there are others in the system worse off than they are. Some commentators assert this is a key reason for opposition by poor whites to progressive changes in the system, and their support of Trump.
Bias towards the status quo is sticky. People affected by SJT tend to become even more supportive of the status quo when exposed to historic or benevolent justifications for inequality, or in the face of criticism of the system. The contempt heaped on progressives seeking to alter our present taxation scheme was further addressed by political psychologist Johnathan Haidt in his book The Righteous Mind. He observed that conservatives (system justifiers) value maintenance of the social hierarchy, and tend to have contempt for those who they see as illegitimately trying to alter it.
Jost acknowledges that because of SJT, changing systems that perpetuate inequality is very difficult. In other words, we’re in a hard place. But he offers some hope. He cites the example of outsiders and agents of social change, The Beatles, refusing to play to segregated audiences in America as a milestone in efforts to end segregation. The Beatles were arguably the most popular and well known entertainers in the world at that time. So, who might be today’s equivalent? Several sources in a web search declare it is the former professional wrestler and actor Dwayne Johnson, fka The Rock. He’s played heroes in many action films.
So how about it, Dwayne? As you’ve said, “When it's the fate of the world, it becomes my business.” If you took a stand in favor of tax system fairness, people would listen. How about agreeing to testify on the subject before Congress? Or, you could make a film in which you dramatically expose the corruption that pervades and perpetuates our unfair tax system. Here’s a pitch: You play an investigative reporter or IRS, Treasury, SEC or FBI agent looking into tax fraud. You stumble onto the shocking fact that our wealth-biased tax system is maintained and enforced by government employees who recently were highly paid lawyers and accountants representing the ultra-rich, and who, after serving the interests of those clients, then return to their former jobs even more highly compensated. The deep state tries to thwart you, but you succeed in revealing the ugly truth. If you bought such a screenplay and cast it well, you could make a film that should win the Academy Award for Best Picture. Alternatively, you could make a steamy film noir revolving around a wealth tax equivalent of the Law Against Perpetuities, as did the 1981 star vehicle Body Heat.
This work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
Stan, a devoted reader, writes:
Quite a few leaps here. I don't think the analogy to relativity in physics holds up too well, but agree that perspective is important. If Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Magic Johnson and LeBron James and other prominent blacks cannot set an example for blacks to get vaccinated, why would D. Johnson have any stroke with the electorate or Congress with respect to an issue like a more equitable tax system? There are lots of explanations for Trumpism. Why do evangelicals support someone who is clearly not living a Christian life? Who has no interest in the Bible except as a prop on church steps? Who sews the seeds of chaos and yet who exploits the system for his own personal gain? I expect that a lot of them enjoy seeing DJT give the finger to big government. Look at his latest deal to create a new social network. Stock jumped dramatically after the SPAC deal was announced. Now he will have his own platform to distribute his daily bile. Will your little people listen more to DJ than to DJT? I doubt it.
I don't like the revolving door in government but, having known some people who have revolved I would argue that the majority of them went in as dedicated Americans hoping to fix the system. . . . Just focusing on the IRS and Treasury, the problem is largely one of the laws written by Congress. A dedicated staffer can do only so much. Focus on things like the taxation of carried interests or capital gains or whatever.
It is a long way off and I have never had a good political crystal ball, but I am getting pessimistic about the midterm elections. I expect Biden will lose at least one house of Congress. If he does not get his legislative agenda accomplished in the next few months, I expect that we will be in for more of a McConnell stalemate. What can the little people do about that? Relying on DJohnson to get out the vote (which is in effect what you are saying) feels like a hail Mary to me.