Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Sumner's Explanation of The Forgotten Man - Revised for the 21st Century

Sumner's Explanation of The Forgotten Man - Revised for the 21st Century
By Joshua Lyons 9/25/09

As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed – with the praise of Y – to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X. As for A and B, who get a law to make themselves do for X what they are willing to do for him, we have nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but C is forced to comply with the new law. All this is done while Y looks on with glee and proclaims that A and B are so good for helping poor X.

A is the politician
B is the humanitarian, special interest, do-gooder, reformer, social speculator, etc.
C is The Forgotten Man (i.e. you, me, us)
X is the downtrodden, the oppressed, the little guy, the misunderstood, etc.
Y is the Mainstream Media

In other words…
As soon as THE POLITICIAN observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which THE DOWNTRODDEN is suffering, THE POLITICIAN talks it over with THE HUMANITARIAN, and THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN then propose to get a law passed – with the praise of THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA – to remedy the evil and help THE DOWNTRODDEN. Their law always proposes to determine what THE FORGOTTEN MAN shall do for THE DOWNTRODDEN or, in the better case, what THE POLITICIAN, THE HUMANITARIAN and THE FORGOTTEN MAN shall do for THE DOWNTRODDEN. As for THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN, who get a law to make themselves do for THE DOWNTRODDEN what they are willing to do for him, we have nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but THE FORGOTTEN MAN is forced to comply with the new law. All this is done while THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA looks on with glee and proclaims that THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN are so good for helping poor THE DOWNTRODDEN.

The preceding commentary was based on William Graham Sumner’s explanation of The Forgotten Man.

3 comments:

  1. This explanation sounds awfully callous towards "the downtrodden."

    It suggests, first of all, that actions are taken on their behalf without their request (since it portrays the politician as taking the initiative on his or her own), which I don't think is true.

    It makes no mention of the Forgotten Man having any vested interest in helping the downtrodden, and even gently mocks them ("poor THE DOWNTRODDEN") for reasons unclear. And the Forgotten Man is portrayed as the victim even when, as is explained, the burden is distributed to everyone.

    It also proposes a premise that I find troubling: "we have nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but THE FORGOTTEN MAN is forced to comply with the new law." The premise is that only those members of society who care strongly about a problem should be responsible for attending to it---or from another direction--that if you don't care about a social problem, you shouldn't be held accountable for it. If such were the case, how many buildings would be accessible to the handicapped? How many women would have careers? (And fair pay for women STILL needs to be addressed). Would legal segregation have survived in some states? At times not long ago there were many people--sometimes majorities of Forgotten Men--who didn't care about these problems but were forced by law to address them anyway, and I don't see how we could do otherwise and retain fairness and justice.

    In essence, this paragraph seems to trivialize the plight of those less privileged, who often do have legitimate grievances, and instead tries to suggest that the Forgotten Man is the one who is in fact downtrodden (hence the use of the "don't tread on me" insignia).


    Full disclosure, since this post is a little more charged than my previous ones: I'm a recent college grad (majored in philosophy), unemployed, fairly liberal when it comes to social justice, but not affiliated with either party. I haven't had the kinds of responsibilities (supporting a family) or burdens (taxes) that I think most people in your group have had, and I constantly try to remind myself of how those things might change my perspective.

    What I return to, however, when reading something like this post, is that I've been very privileged by birth. I was born a white male into a stable, middle-class family. Besides perhaps for my philosophy degree :), I'm an average American and I'm very very fortunate.

    The way I read it, the Forgotten Men are simply those average Americans who are privileged enough by their position that they can afford to be called upon to help the downtrodden. I would agree that they deserve to have a say in how that is undertaken, and they have the right to have their sacrifice used responsibly and effectively.

    But I don't think we have the right to claim that we should be treated as islands---isolated, self-sufficient, and free from duty to other citizens. We are products of our birth and upbringing as much as our independent efforts, and we have all (except for the truly downtrodden) benefitted from an interconnected society that extends beyond connections we see on a day-to-day basis.


    Sorry for the idealistic rant of sorts. I know this is exactly the problem conservatives have when talking to young, naive liberals like myself, but since you and your group have been so honest and open in sharing your views through print, web, radio, and in assemblies, it only seemed fair that I do the same. I don't want to be unfair, rude, or close-minded, and so I'm asking honestly: how do compassion and justice fit into this explanation of the plight of the Forgotten Man? Do you believe the benefit of leaving him alone and unaccountable would outweigh the harm being felt by the Downtrodden?

    Thanks,
    Scott Zuke
    Thurmont

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Scott,

    I appreciate your comments and your overall back and forth here and on the FNP posts.

    This commentary is based on William Graham Sumner's essay from the early 1880's... and the related commentaries of that era.

    I'll address your post very simply. You missed the point. The commentary isn't meant to disparage The Downtrodden. It's to highlight what "happens to" the Forgotten Man.

    The Forgotten Man is generally happy to help his fellow man. The focal point is that he's forced to do so by others (and to do it according to them).

    Would you like to grab lunch sometime and chat about all the questions you have? I think they're excellent and I'd like to give them the response they deserve - that this forum can't do it justice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sure, I'd like that. Let me know what you have in mind---I'm pretty flexible. smzuke at gmail dot com.

    ReplyDelete