I think this is a really interesting discussion and I've enjoyed reading the different points of view. In fact, I've altered my views slightly based on what some of you wrote.
This is a hugely complex issue that has a lot subissues:
- Income and wealth inequality - how much, if any, is unhealthy?
- Personal responsibility
- Message vs messenger
- Red herrings
- Political archetypes
- Effectiveness of the message
- a lot more I am glossing over
I figure one's views of this narrow issue at hand - if Chase's message was appropriate, and if the response to the message is appropriate - really relies on their views of everything in the above list. And since those topics are so expansive and defy definitive conclusions, I don't think it's surprising there is little consensus on the Chase discussion.
I would like to make a case for a few of the topics.
- Red Herring - I will argue that companies using personal responsibility as misdirection from larger issues is really not a problem.
- Effectiveness of the message - I will argue that Chase's message wasn't helpful at all
Red HerringI hope I am not building a strawman, but this is my understanding of the Red Herring argument. First, that income and wealth inequality is bad, at least to the levels present in the States. Second, big companies and top businessmen benefit disproportionately from certain policies, like the tax code, regulatory environment, and wage and labor laws; these substandard policies drive income and wealth inequality. Third, that people have limited mental capacity and time to debate everything that is important. Fourth, that those who benefit from inequality engage in other topics - in this case personal responsibility as a form of misdirection to limit mental capacity and time spent debating policies that are currently in their favor.
It's a coherent argument, but it certainly rests on several premises (see begging the question fallacy). Assuming premises are valid and then making a conclusion is fine (and ultimately unavoidable, how else are arguments really constructed), but it is useful to consider the premises when making an argument. Often times I think people think they are disagreeing on a conclusion, when in reality they disagree on the premises. I digress.
The particular premise I want to poke holes at is #4. That those who benefit from inequality deliberately steer the discussion toward personal responsibility. I am limiting my argument to the narrow circumstance of the personal responsibility red herring, and I am not implying that my argument extrapolates to other topics of misdirection.
Anecdotally, I recall very few circumstances of companies or bigwigs preaching on the personal responsibility pulpit. To be fair, you definitely have your conservatives who talk about welfare queens, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. But those conversations are generally very narrowly aimed at welfare policies, and generally come from career politicians. And I don't think welfare policies are what our 1%ers care about. They want low taxes, low regulation, low minimum wages and low labor standards. And they generally tackle those by arguing those policies restrict growth. Not a whole lot of personal responsibility discussion there.
Additionally, our 1% friends generally have an even more pressing priority: getting people to buy their shit! Personal responsibility is an awful message if that's their priority. They generally keep things on the level of "you deserve this."
Message EffectivenessGenerally speaking, criticizing people is an
awful way to get them to change their behavior or opinions. Most literature on topics of persuasion, negotiation, leadership, etc very much align with Dale Carnegie's classic
How to Win Friends and Influence People. And most often the key points are listen sincerely and don't criticize.
Chase had very little chance of winning friends or influencing people with that message.
If we really want to effect change on the personal responsibility front, it is probably better to illustrate the benefits of a frugal lifestyle and the tricks of advertising, and to encourage people to stick it to the 1% by
not buying their products. And also just be good fucking role models. That approach has the benefit of not risking people taking it personally, and therefore not alienating anyone who could really benefit from the message. And everyone loves a bad guy to ally against.