Every newsletter on MYLIFEplus25 is public and free to everyone, but we ask for your support. Please consider becoming a patron now to help fund our ongoing legal efforts that dare to speak truth to power. This isn't journalism, it's activism! And these efforts are only possible through the support of good people just like you who believe that change is possible.
Thank you and I hope you enjoy today’s post.
In 1965, when President Johnson declared the “War on Crime” a national priority the Voting Rights Act had just passed. One opened the door to minorities and women to take a more inclusive role in the democratic process, while the other paved the way to broken families, economic and financial exclusion, criminality, and mass incarceration. One gave legitimacy to our democracy and the other laid the groundwork for many of the societal ills and challenges we experience today.
America’s “War on Crime” consisted of an unprecedented investment in local law enforcement. As Elizabeth Hinton documented in her recent book, "America on Fire," while the “United States waged the Vietnam War abroad, federal policy makers built a pipeline to deliver surplus army weapons and technologies to local law-enforcement…” The far-reaching consequences of which have created departments that are more militarized, attack-oriented, and in general, more prone to brutality.
By Elizabeth Hinton Source: Bookshop.org
In other words, brute force has been our societal response to criminality for at least the last sixty years. And despite our most draconian efforts we aren’t seeing the results we want, and it's past time for us to confront this reality with the evidence and address it.
For many, criminality is a choice, no different than selecting a beverage, a stock purchase on the NYSE, or a vacation destination; but economists would say that criminality is a rational choice based on demands not currently being met by the limited amount of available options. Which is to say that, by systematically segregating Brown and Black minorities into inner city barrios and ghettos, where socioeconomic opportunities are fewer, we have essentially created the economic paradigm where criminality is actually the rational choice. And this should most certainly arrest our attention.
Now, I understand that the above statement probably contradicts many of our core beliefs that scream things like free will, morality, and my personal favorite — good versus evil. For many, criminality is a choice founded on a flawed or misguided upbringing and, if anything, the societal response needs to be as severe as possible, as so to break the tendency and eventually bring everyone back within the fold of our laws.
If said upbringing doesn't instill “good” character, civic responsibility, and the right kind of common sense to lead someone to play by the rules then that's “their” problem. An easy opinion to sustain while seated on the pedestal of a life that, though it may have afforded challenges along the way, the opportunities were always there for those willing to expend the efforts with the accompanied sacrifice to achieve the desired outcomes.
This is what we would call a well settled and firm belief in meritocracy — the theory that good things inevitably come to those who work hard. A theory that has served as America's response to the inequalities seen in any market-oriented, capitalist society. We also call it the American dream, the idea that we live in a fair and just society where equality of opportunity is prevalent to anyone from any background willing to apply themselves. But rarely do we seek out evidence that would contradict this core belief; actually, we defend it, if not always with evidence, then with the conviction that at the very least we are defending what Plato would've called a “noble lie.”
The nobility of this lie I will not challenge. What I will challenge, however, is our reluctance to confront it. Because by failing to do so we are underwriting the crime and inevitably the victims that come with it. And if we don't create a more inclusive economy we will forever be like the dog below chasing his tail to exhaustion.
You Tube Video:
As I have previously mentioned, prison is quite possibly the best place for better understanding the origins of criminality. The best social scientists in the world would be hard-pressed to replicate, in a controlled setting, the kinds of observations that can be made in any prison across America on any given day.
Prior to being introduced to prison, like many of you, I likewise believed that the harsher the consequence or prison sentence the more likely society would be in preventing a particular horrendous outcome from repeating itself with other individuals who, for whatever reason, believe it to be a good idea to step outside of the legal parameters of our society to achieve what often equates to a selfish gain at the expense of our collective wellbeing. But experience is forever the gold standard for better appreciating cause and effect. And the more I observed and listened the more apparent it became that what appears on the surface of human choice as a series of individuals choosing to live outside of our societal parameters, what we are in fact witnessing is rational behavior that only appears irrational because we haven't yet considered the lived reality and circumstances from where these decisions are born. So in all actuality, what I was seeing was rational, economic choice at its best.
The perceived economic choice of wealth or misery Source: FB & 123RF
Economics teaches us that we reveal our true preferences through choices. In other words, what we say we like isn't as dependable as observing the choices we actually make in defining our preferences. And the challenge is in confronting an already strained belief that criminality is an irrational choice that can be addressed through the likewise irrational response that is currently “corrections”.
But, what if the former is not irrational? And, if it's not irrational, what would that say about the sustainability of our current societal construct? And even more importantly, what would it say about our “correctional” efforts to address the reality of crime in our communities?
From a safe distance criminality can certainly seem like a simplistic choice of yes or no. But if we get close enough, what we see is a perfectly logical decision based on the socioeconomic reality currently being lived within certain segregated subsets of society — i.e., inner city ghettos and barrios.
New York Graffiti Source: unsplash.com
Inequality as it relates to economic opportunities has always existed in modern, market-based societies. What sets America apart from the rest of the world is its fundamental belief in meritocracy as the liberal equalizer in addressing said inequality. Obama repeated it so many times throughout his campaigns and presidency that it became a maxim of American excellence: “[W]hat makes America so exceptional, what makes us so special, is this basic bargain, this basic idea that in this country, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter what setbacks you may experience, in this country, if you work hard, if you are willing to take responsibility, then you can make it, you can get ahead.”
Obama Acceptance Speech 2008 Source: cspan.org
When you say it with conviction, as Obama so frequently did, it's an inspiring narrative to follow. One that justifies our inaction or unwillingness to address the growing gaps in our socioeconomic construct. One that encourages us to stay the course, because what we have is the “best there is.”
According to Richard G. Robb, a professor of economics and professional practice in international and public affairs, and CEO of Christofferson, Robb and Company (a New York and London-based investment management firm), defeating a conveniently false narrative once it becomes solidified as a belief requires an almost insurmountable amount of theory and data. A reality that works for and against us. Consider Robb’s words of caution from his recent book “Willful”:
There are several reasons to favor experiential knowledge, even if we care about knowledge only as a means to an end. First, it is often more reliable. When we hear about something secondhand, truth or completeness may have been degraded along the way, whether or not the distortions were intentional. Second, experiential knowledge is easier to remember. Psychologically, experience generates vivid memories that we retain more easily than information we read. Third, trying something is the most effective way of finding out what you don't know you don't know. As Mark Twain put it, “The person that had took a bull by the tail once had learnt sixty or seventy times as much as a person that hadn’t."
Willful by Richard G. Robb source: Thriftbooks.com
Therefore, if our belief is that crime is nothing more than a choice to be corrected with coercive measures in a cage, our saving grace should be that this is not the truth of what we see emerging from the prison sentences. And in confronting this reality, see that our beliefs related to criminality have more to do with convenient narratives we've decided to follow than they do with the evidence before us.
Like Senate Minority Leader McConnell referring to Democrats as the "soft on crime brigade.” McConnell isn't challenging the reform efforts of liberals with evidence that they are wrong, he is simply banking on the fact that most of his supporters won't ask for evidence to substantiate his claim. His statement coincides with their beliefs and until their there lived experience, or a substantial amount of evidence, clashes with those beliefs, they will simply agree with him and move on. And as I have frequently said, the biggest threat to our democracy isn't terrorism, communism, or any other ism. The most consequential threat to the democratic freedoms of this or any other republic is the moment when decisions are made from the standpoint of ideology instead of the lived experience of evidence. It is at that moment when not only does democracy perish, but economic models of rationality follow suit. Because we can only be rational when our decisions are based on actual evidence.
Senator Mitch McConnel Source: biography.com
Consider the following, we have collectively created a society where 90 percent of the wealth is in the hands of the very few individuals who make up less than 1 percent of society. Meritocracy is a comfortable narrative, but the evidence shows us that it's closer to a fabled story or myth than truth.
Evidence from a study out of Berkeley shows us some alarming facts, in that, since the 1970s almost all gains in income have gone to the top 10 percent, while the bottom half received almost none. Which brings us face to face with the myth of meritocracy.
Consider the findings of Michael J. Sandel, author of “The Tyranny of Merit”:
In today's economy, it is not easy to rise. Americans born to poor parents tend to stay poor as adults. Of those born in the bottom fifth of the income scale, only about one in twenty will make it to the top fifth; most will not even rise to the middle class. It is easier to rise from poverty in Canada or Germany, Denmark, and any other European countries than it is in the United States.
This is at odds with the long-standing faith that mobility is America’s answer to inequality. In the United States, we tell ourselves, we can afford to worry less about inequality than the class bound societies of Europe because here it is possible to rise…
The silver lining in this truth, as it relates to meritocracy, may bring us to better understand the individual choices that underwrite crime. If you are Black or Brown in this country, born to a poor family, the probability of your rise to fame and fortune is very low. Yet, as someone who is capable of seeing the fame and fortune of others, it makes sense that you would want to experience some of that in your life. What doesn't make sense, is society telling you to just stay in your lane, follow the rules, and maybe — just maybe! — you can be one of the lucky few that makes it out.
The truth of America that senators like McConnell and Schumer are hesitant to voice to their constituents is that meritocracy is really a lottery. Opportunities are largely dictated by the privileges associated with birth, race, or the opportunities that will come from certain marketable talents. But what the truth and promise needs to be, is exactly what Obama preached from his presidential pulpit of the ideal democracy. And the only way to connect the ideal with the real is through programs that foster socioeconomic inclusion at all levels of Wall Street and Main Street. We can no longer afford to have insiders and outsiders, it's time for us to all be on the same page as we shop for opportunities.
People who understand the language of money tend to overlook the fact that, to most individuals, money and the financial mechanisms that sustain it are a mystery, right up there with the origins of life, the cosmos, and why Donald Trump is so orange.
Recently, I had the opportunity to listen to an outstanding interview from the Commonwealth Club (4/24/22) with the guest Mellody Hobson, Co-CEO of Ariel Investments, chairwoman for Starbucks, former-chairwoman of DreamWorks Animation and a strong advocate for social justice through financial literacy. She spoke about money as a foreign language, and went on to clarify that until we achieve the demystification of finances there will always be barriers to entry that subjugates people to living in the shadows and margins of society. And in my humble opinion, it is there where criminality is born.
Mellody Hobson Source: wikipedia.org
The way the rules of society are written now, the insiders both make and enforce the laws that govern the lives of the outsiders. This effective separation is not conducive to social harmony. It fosters distrust, a them or us mentality, and positions all those who aren't included in the rule creation process to feel like outsiders or nonentities. And why should a nonentity care about choices and behaviors that coincide with the established norms of good conduct? Because when it becomes apparent to you that the rules are structured so as to keep you down in poverty by systematically denying you the opportunities you need to drastically alter your socioeconomic paradigm, what then is your motivation to continue acting in society’s best interest by following its laws?
This is what's known as the prisoner’s dilemma: one is better off acting in union with others but, once someone realizes or perceives that others are not cooperating they too follow suit and cease cooperation. The non-cooperation then continues to the detriment of the whole until such a time as a new social agreement exists that brings everyone back to the table of mutual cooperation.
Nobody needs an Ivy League education to comprehend that opportunities in this nation are not equally distributed. Getting ahead means more than just having the right skill set. It also means having the right education, contacts, great timing, or simply luck. And for someone whose daily reality involves worrying about money, a potential eviction, past due medical bills, how to pay for medication, or simply how to avoid hunger — survival trumps mobility every time.
Most of us would agree that knowledge is power. Yet, as a society we are hesitant to share it. The knowledge is for the insiders and the outsiders don't get it. A sort of modus operandi or exclusivity that tarnishes the very legitimacy of our democracy.
The empowerment of every member of society with the tools and understanding to make rational choices would be a game changer for the legitimacy of any democracy. The cloud of criminality that lingers over every low income community is nurtured from the distrust that stems from financial illiteracy and favortism shown to the few at the expense of the many. The defenders of the status quo understand this, they also have the power to change it, but their fears arrest their actions.
Those who are against legislative efforts that would make healthcare or a college education an inclusive part of society's guarantee for all, are against these efforts because they fear the inevitable competition that would come from everyone standing on the same stage of socioeconomic opportunity. So they hesitate, without realizing that their hesitation and fear is contributing to the very criminality that victimizes them in their own communities. And instead of challenging the convenient political rhetoric with the evidence, they close their eyes, vote for the irrational, and then lament the devastation that inevitably follows as someone else's fault.
Monkey writing on a chalkboard source: wdrfree.com
Criminality is not a mystery, a plague, and not always an irrational, bad person making bad decisions. In truth, it is the mathematical remainder of the unbalanced equation that is capitalism. And equalization, inclusion, and obviously financial literacy are the only ways to remedy the remainder.
Brute force and mass incarceration as a societal response to criminality are as unsustainable sustainable as fossil fuels for energy. Which is not to suggest that criminal prosecutions should not take place, that prisons should be closed, or that police should cease to investigate crimes. The point being made is that our collective efforts to address crime continue to fail precisely because we fail to recognize the rationality of crime from the perspective of someone other than ourselves.
The majority of crime is a rational response to the irrational reality of America. When entire subsets of society perceive themselves as excluded from the financial paradigm or matrix that creates wealth, they will feel justified in stepping outside of the rules so asked to achieve their version of success or happiness. Some will succeed, most will fail, and the secondary costs to all are insurmountable.
A politician of today would likely draft a bill that reads: it is now a crime to act rationally when said rationality leads to the breaking of any other law that in any way disfavors the insiders. They would then consider the matter closed and continue to wear blinders to prevent themselves from seeing the truth.
But, blind leaders making irrational decisions to appease an uninformed populace isn't democracy, it's a type of social manipulation meant to bring about our collective demise. On the other hand, inclusion gives us knowledge and tools where all members of society benefit; a benefit that translates into all subsets of society perceiving themselves as included; and someone who is informed and included will still be rational in their decisions as they pursue success within the boundaries of our laws. This is what America promises, and it's time for us to hold our leaders to account on this promise.
In Plato's “The Republic,” he said, “that our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole…” A rational sentiment we need to sit with for a moment as we consider the long-term viability of our democracy and nation.
The status quo of entrenched financial illiteracy is nothing less than an ongoing war being waged against Black and Brown people. But thanks to organizations like Black Lives Matter, the Black Youth Project 100, We Charge Genocide, and the Dream Defenders our leaders are being challenged with questions on both the sustainability and rationality behind pushing people into criminality and incarceration when we should be educating them for an inclusive role in our society.
In 1965, America announced its “War on Crime” and in doing so has funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into limiting opportunities and filling prisons. Imagine the potential outcome if they had just taken the time to understand the evidence and address the underlying causes of crime. We would be living in a different world where things like education and healthcare wouldn't be undelivered political promises, but the reality on which we stand. It is time for us to act, demand accountability from our leaders, and in doing so rescue future generations from lives of dependency on criminality and welfare.