Entitlement Nation

By Bernard Arogyaswamy

Despite the (admittedly gradual) recovery, the debate over so-called entitlements rages on. Coined in the 1980s to encapsulate government spending aimed at offering a helping hand (in health care, education, housing, buying food, etc.) to those who were in need of it, the label has acquired pejorative overtones. Implicitly (or, sometimes, explicitly), the label now refers to payments made to the lazy, the incompetent, the free riders, and moochers who live off the generosity of the rest of us.

The book argues that, to begin with, some of the social spending under attack is funded by earlier contributions made by the beneficiaries (e.g., Medicare, Social Security). Changes may be needed in how these systems operate, but scrapping them would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Most other social spending is essential in order to create the skills and capabilities indispensable to competing in an economically multipolar world, as well as to address the chasm of inequality that has opened up in the United States. Condemning millions to live increasingly degrading lives in a country as wealthy as ours is little short of economic eugenics.

The main thesis of this work, however, is that the entitlement mind-set is deeply rooted among the affluent and super rich as well. Ever-lower tax rates, deregulation and subsidies, and in general, highly generous treatment is taken to be a right by large corporations and the affluent. This entitlement is ensured by an army of compliant politicians and lobbyists, ideology-driven think tanks, a market-oriented media. Entitlement is a society-wide phenomenon and we are all culpable in that regard. As an exceptional nation, we reserve the right to act as we see fit in defense of our unique values. Paradoxically, we sometimes violate those very values in the process of defending them. The entitlement to be prosecutor, judge, and jury also stands out in national attitudes to globalization and our policies in science and technology.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Apr 29, 2015
• ISBN: 9781503565326

Bernard Arogyaswamy

Dr. Bernard Arogyaswamy is a professor of management, global business, and innovation. As a first-generation immigrant, he has benefited greatly from the country's meritocratic higher education system. After completing a doctorate in business administration, Bernard has taught at a Jesuit institution for over twenty-five years. During the past three decades, he has written extensively on topics as varied as culture, innovation policy, and social entrepreneurship. He has also written two books. Though a firm believer in American economic, political, and social institutions, he is concerned over the divisiveness that has gripped our society, partly rooted in the belief that some individuals and groups are gaming the system. He concurs that such opportunistic manipulation is indeed occurring but that it has spread to all segments of society in matters as diverse as immigration, globalization, taxation, and science.

Book preview

Copyright © 2015 by Bernard Arogyaswamy.

Library of Congress Control Number:   2015906612

ISBN:      Hardcover      978-1-5035-6533-3

                Softcover        978-1-5035-6531-9

                eBook             978-1-5035-6532-6

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 04/28/2015

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

705980

Contents

Preface

Chapter 1: Entitlement in Cricket and the Olympics

Chapter 2: Entitlements and Freedoms

Chapter 3: Entitlements and Disparity

Chapter 4: Corporate Entitlements

Chapter 5: Go Easy on Those Regulations

Chapter 6: American Exceptionalism

Chapter 7: Exceptionalism as Entitlement

Chapter 8: Exceptionalism—Militarism and the Entitlement to Use Force

Chapter 9: An Entitlement to Divine Favor

Chapter 10: Globalization and Its Entitlements

Chapter 11: Capitalisms and Global Entitlement

Chapter 12: Global Inequalities—A Growing Entitlement of the Wealthy

Chapter 13: Science, Technology, and the Market

Chapter 14: Business and Politics Trump Science—Does Nature Recognize Entitlements?

Conclusion

Appendix

Notes

Dedicated to:

my wife, Lalita, whose insights and observations on politics and culture have been immensely helpful,

my daughter, Tarini, whose commitment to serving the less fortunate exemplifies the thinking underlying this work, and my son-in-law, Vernon, whose comments on science and technology were greatly appreciated,

and

the millions of people who stand accused of grabbing at entitlements, while the powerful and well-connected rig the free market to ensure their own continued ascendancy.

Preface

Ever since the financial tsunami of 2007 brought many of the world’s largest economies to their knees, so to speak, austerity has almost become a mantra chanted in unison by policy makers in a large portion of the developed world. Much of Europe has been suffering from a sort of austerity hangover, with consumer spending, economic growth, and employment at alarmingly low levels. The United States, which had responded to the crisis with a stimulus package worth about $800 billion, has fared somewhat better, climbing back from historically high unemployment rates, economic stagnation, and consumer pessimism.

Despite the (admittedly gradual) recovery, the debate over so-called entitlements rages on. Coined in the 1980s to encapsulate government spending aimed at offering a helping hand (in health care, education, housing, buying food, etc.) to those who were in need of it, the label has acquired pejorative overtones. Implicitly (or sometimes explicitly), the label now refers to payments made to the lazy, the incompetent, the free riders, and the moochers, who live off the generosity of the rest of us.

The book argues that, to begin with, some of the social spending under attack is funded by earlier contributions made by the beneficiaries (e.g., Medicare, Social Security). Changes may be needed in how these systems operate, but scrapping them would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Most other social spending is essential in order to create the skills and capabilities indispensable to competing in an economically multipolar world, as well as to address the chasm of inequality, which has opened up in the United States. Condemning millions to live increasingly degrading lives in a country as wealthy as ours is little short of economic eugenics.

The main thesis of this work, however, is that the entitlement mind-set is deeply rooted among the affluent and superrich as well. Ever-lower tax rates, deregulation and subsidies, and in general, highly generous treatment are taken to be rights by large corporations and the affluent. This entitlement is ensured by an army of compliant politicians and lobbyists, the ideology-driven think tanks, a market-oriented media. Entitlement is a society-wide phenomenon, and we are all culpable in that regard. As an exceptional nation, we reserve the right to act as we see fit in defense of our unique values. Paradoxically, we sometimes violate those very values in the process of defending them. The entitlement to be prosecutor, judge, and jury also stands out in national attitudes to globalization and our policies in science and technology.

I am not contending, as numerous books have done, that America is on a fast track to decline. The country has institutions and competencies that will continue to make it a beacon to the rest of the world. However, there are, within our national psyche, tendrils of potential failure. One of these is a pervasive mentality of entitlement among all sections of society, deeply rooted in our attitudes and actions.

Chapter 1

Entitlement in Cricket and the Olympics

The British Commonwealth is a motley group of nations that have little in common besides being fraying relics of the eponymous empire, on which the sun started going down rather abruptly sixty-odd years ago. The Commonwealth, with the British ruler as its titular head, is characterized by wide disparities in income—the Anglo-Saxon contingent being the most prosperous—diverse religions and traditions, distinct ethnicities, and varied political systems. Though there is a veritable babel of languages in this unlikely agglomeration of peoples, a common thread, however tenuous, is provided by the idiosyncratic and intriguing versions of English in use. Another common thread lies in the game of cricket, which is the second most popular sport after soccer (in terms of fan following and TV viewership) in the world.¹ Though ignored and often ridiculed by the rest of the world, cricket had found a permanent home in many countries that were all too eager to rid themselves of the often-painful legacies of the past. Originating and institutionalized in England, cricket was carried to the colonies by successive waves of Englishmen eager to make their fortunes and bring civilization to the backward races (as many in the sceptered isles perceived Asians and Africans to be).² Over centuries of occupation, the British cast a shadow and a spell over the subjugated peoples, oppressing many and co-opting others, while playing their divide-and-rule game at which they became so adept. Cricket and the clubs associated with the sport were introduced and flourished nearly everywhere the little island nation planted its flag. Whether it was the old penal settlement Down Under; the antipodes (New Zealand); a fragmented and diverse India; a white supremacist South Africa, where the Dutch were uneasy co-colonizers, or East Africa; the West Indian islands; and Southeast Asia, cricket became the sport of choice, in part because there were no others. The mother institution, the Marylebone Cricket Club, or MCC, remained, for over two centuries, the rule maker, judge, and jury in the game since its establishment in 1787.³

Played initially in the commons, cricket, as its appeal broadened, became popular in schools and universities, at the county and then the national levels. The employees of the East Indian and South African companies and other private efforts to profit from trade with distant places carried their love of cricket with them. Clubs replicating those in the mother country were started, with membership limited to whites only. The traditions and style of the game traveled with the merchants and policemen and, later, with the colonial administrators. A gentlemen’s game, cricket was initially deemed to be well beyond the reach of the native to play, understand, and accept. The more tanned (to use a euphemism) the people, the less likely they were to take to cricket. Australia, though initially a penal colony, was considered a worthy pupil and potential rival. The earliest contests at the national level, later called Test matches, were played between these two nations. At one point, following a series of dismal performances by England, its supporters reportedly burned the wickets (or stumps, which stand at either end of a cricket pitch) and carried the ashes in a procession symbolizing the demise of the game in the country. The Ashes remain the most storied rivalry in cricket, putting national pride on the line every few years.⁴ Following Australia into the cricketing fraternity were South Africa (where it was exclusively confined to the British settlers), the islands in the Caribbean (again, initially the white settlers), and the Indian subcontinent. Cricket in the West Indies remained under the control of the colonists until the 1960s, by which time nearly all the players were black and the team itself was a colossus, with aggressive batsmen and dominating bowlers. In the subcontinent, cricket took root gradually, and national teams, first fielded in the early twentieth century, were initially seen as pushovers, particularly on foreign tours. Trips abroad were infrequent, however, due to the inordinately long travel times by sea.

The game’s center of gravity, in terms of power and in number of matches played, remained in England, even if the English teams sometimes came off second best to either the Australians, the West Indians, or South Africans. After the tides of independence washed over numerous British colonies in the aftermath of WWII, cricket seemed to get a new lease on life. The same forces that have made globalization such a powerful force have contributed to popularizing cricket outside its initial ambit.⁵ Countries that have embraced the game include New Zealand, Kenya, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Malaysia, and Zimbabwe (even during the dark days when Mugabe’s regime was being excoriated by the West). Enthusiasm for the game is at its highest, judging by spectator participation and television audience ratings, in the countries of the subcontinent—India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and more recently, Bangladesh. The first three have, by and large, been able to hold their own internationally, particularly in the newer forms of the game. In the 1980s, a shorter version of cricket, one lasting five hours, not five days (as Tests did), was introduced, and a World Cup, played every four years, instituted. Though Test cricket is often labeled by the cognoscenti as the real thing, the truth is that bragging rights and billions—yes, that’s billions—of dollars in TV rights are riding on the results of the World Cup, played employing the abbreviated forms of the sport. When a world champion in the limited-over game is crowned, not only do the winners net a bonanza from their share of the proceeds, players could win lucrative sponsorship contracts as well. To make the game even shorter and more convenient (so that it can be played in the evening), a newer type of cricket was born in the early years of this century. Known as Twenty20, the inaugural World Cup was played in South Africa and won by India.⁶

With the emergence of India as a regional, if not world, economic power, influence in cricketing circles has slowly and solidly shifted East. TV revenues (including broadcast rights and advertising) and sponsorship by players of products offered by multinational and local firms now run into billions of dollars. While players may earn as much as a few hundred thousand dollars from a single match, the annual incomes of the highfliers could run to a few million dollars from game fees alone. One of the leading Indian players, Tendulkar, whose best days are well behind him, still earned about $5 to $10 million a year in the twilight of his career while enjoying the adulation usually reserved for rock stars or national heroes. A far cry indeed from an era in which the game’s icons would earn perhaps a few thousand dollars a year and need to hold down full-time jobs to make ends meet.

An even more seismic shift has erupted in where the money comes from and its geographic destination. The days when ticket sales at international tests generated most of the revenues are no more than a distant memory in both hemispheres and across numerous time zones. Cricket junkies can watch matches (series between countries or tournaments) almost any time of the year. With the cricket-crazy population of India as its base, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is awash in money from TV contracts and advertisers. The amount of revenue earned by the BCCI annually is of the order of a billion dollars from these sources.⁷

Cash-generation opportunities abound, as the newly minted Indian Premier League (IPL) discovered in early 2008. Conceived by the Indian board, the IPL works similar to famous sports leagues in Europe, the United States, and Latin America. Six locations in India were selected to host the teams, and ownership rights were auctioned off. The owners (who included a Bollywood star and a business tycoon) bid on players, some of them, like the Indian captain, going for over a million dollars (for a six-week stint of cricket) guaranteed!⁸ Top players from all over the world took part in the IPL. (The only exceptions were the English players, due to a contract conflict.) Australians, South Africans, West Indians, New Zealanders, Sri Lankans, and Pakistanis had the unusual experience of playing for a team in India owned by Indians. Cricket has indeed come a long way from its origins when its power center was firmly planted in Britain and Australia.

The administrative control exercised by the traditional powers in an increasingly vibrant game is shifting gradually. Decisions made in England are now often second-guessed in Mumbai, Lahore, and Colombo, even more when they affect players from the subcontinent or have financial repercussions for the game in that region. Surprisingly, officials from India and Pakistan (countries that have rarely been on the best of terms) cooperate extensively with one another, jealously guarding their newly acquired clout. Old habits die hard, however.⁹ The powers that were still behave as though nothing much has changed, but even the recent election of a South African as the head of the international board was possible only because an Indian agreed to accept a lesser position and will, in effect, be the power behind the scenes. The English players, who were not allowed by their authorities to take part in the IPL, have also joined what is one of the best-paid leagues in the world of sport.

The excitement over the fortunes to be made in the IPL does not, however, mask the irony of a corporate entity based in a country with one of the lowest per capita incomes offering fortunes in prize money to players from home and abroad. Some local players earn more in a quarter than their no-less-talented predecessors earned in a career spanning decades. Foreign players, many from countries with per capita incomes up to thirty times that of India, are also getting rich beyond their wildest dreams. Though the axiom of the one who is paying the piper calling the tune is ingrained in most cultures, traditional attitudes die hard. The public, media, politicians, officials, and players are slow, perhaps reluctant to recognize that an era in which the erstwhile powers no longer call all the shots has ended in this nearly global sport. A sense of entitlement, a carryover from the past, to continue wielding power and control over the game, combined with the ethnic and social differences involved, makes the dramatic shift in influence in a global sport (albeit one confined to Britain’s former colonies) even harder to digest.

The Olympic Games are a far bigger stage, but even here the mind-set of entitlement to retain control is on display. The awesome display by Chinese athletes in 2008 and 2012 offers further evidence of the reluctance (on the part of wealthy nations and of others who have become used to their position of superiority) to accept changing realities in sports, as well as in numerous other areas of human endeavor. The reluctance may be based on acquired die-hard beliefs, media-driven biases, stubborn effort to deny or postpone the inevitable, or shocked disbelief that centers of power that had held sway for so long are now being eroded. Whatever the reason, the reaction in some quarters in the United States after the Beijing 2008 games was telling. For instance, American newspapers, Internet sites, and TV stations, in ranking countries by their medal tally, did so according to the total number of medals, not by the number of gold medals—perhaps because by using this method, the United States stood on top of the list.¹⁰ In fact, during a discussion involving TV commentators, one of the participants remarked that all medals, whether gold, silver, or bronze, were the same. Which obviously flew in the face of the American competitive ethos, not to mention Vince Lombardi’s famous dictum, Winning isn’t everything—it’s the only thing. One of the talking heads expressed the opinion that gold medals counted more than silver and bronze—would Phelps’s achievement have been so highly touted had he won eight straight silvers or bronzes? He was quickly drowned out presumably to avoid a possible negative audience reaction to such un-American remarks!

Clearly, despite all the idealistic rhetoric about the Olympics, nationalism is intimately tied up in the results. The Chinese media were equally disingenuous: they reported the results in ways that ensured China figured at the top (depending on the tally at the moment), extravagantly lauding the performances of their countrymen and women. The enthusiasm among the public was not confined to the venue alone (where, in any case, the attendance was limited) but in front of large screens in public spaces, in bars and restaurants, and on the Internet. In effect, the message was that China had arrived, the subtext being that the United States was no longer the world’s sports superpower. Excelling on the global stage is undoubtedly a sign that China has arrived, but all claims of national superiority are rather premature. The reaction in the American media was illuminating. The countrywide Chinese celebration was seen as part of a pattern of a rapidly escalating nationalistic feeling in a country that has traditionally seen itself as a middle kingdom, a place between heaven and earth. It all began to fall into place. The outpouring of anger at the United States when the latter (accidentally) bombed their embassy in Belgrade and when an American pilot (again, accidentally) downed a Chinese plane, the prickliness of Chinese leaders (and their desire to curb Internet communication) on human rights questions, and the almost vituperative comments made on TV and the Internet by ordinary Chinese reacting to the protests on the route of the Olympic flame completed the picture of Chinese in-your-face pride and self-congratulation. As China becomes more aware of its rise and flexes its muscles (even if it be, as in the present instance, in the field of sports), resentment seems to bubble up in countries long used to viewing themselves as leaders in competitive sports. Equating national pride with achievement in sports—ridiculous, isn’t it? Especially when others do it. The triumphalism when the United States sweeps the sprint events and dominates on the basketball court, accompanied by images of the flag, athletes with hands held over their hearts, and adoring fans, is something people in the United States have become used to and, in fact, accept as completely natural. It somehow seems unseemly and in poor taste when