Greed is Good: Use It or Lose It

In a 2014 article published in Sociological Forum (March 2014) we quoted Gordon Gecko, the lead character in the movie Wall Street, who was telling an assembled audience of stockholders that what makes our economy strong and vibrant is "greed." We propose to harness that greed by letting Gordon Gecko be Gordon Gecko, and give him the social honor of recognizing that his wealth and lavish life style do contribute, however indirectly, to the public good. Moreover, we propose to create
entrepreneurial projects or philanthropic gifts for the common good that the Geckos of the world might embrace under a heading of "targeted opportunity philanthropy" (TOP). In this proposal we would link wealthy donors with specific projects like college tuition endowments for talented students from low-income families; support for students to attend non-college technology programs; rebuilding schools in poor neighborhoods; and second-chance programs for school dropouts and ex-offenders.

But, and it is a big but, we propose that a major portion of the accumulated wealth that Gecko does not consume or give away in his lifetime via targeted opportunity endowments must be returned to the public treasury upon his death. In short, use it or lose it. There is much more to this proposal including the creation of a Family Inheritance Court to allocate some of Gecko's unspent wealth to family members. What the proposal prevents is the creation of family dynasties that allows wealth to be transferred across generations.

If you want to know more about our "use it or lose it" proposal we encourage you to read the article in Sociological Forum. 

On being an "outsider": From Ike to Trump

We were recently discussing the possible reasons why the media seem to be so hard on Trump, and why he has responded in kind. Thinking about past presidents it occurred to us that former presidents like Eisenhower, Truman, and Carter also had strained relations with the media. Why would that be the case, and what might it have to do with Trump? Our speculations took us to a view of Eisenhower, Truman, Carter, and Trump as "political outsiders;" that is, they did not have political careers that would have properly "socialized" them for their new job. If you have a political career in Washington, DC, you would have learned about the proper respect that should be shown to media elites, and the conventions of Congress and the proper respect that is shown to persons in various leadership positions.

Lacking this prior political socialization people like "Ike" Eisenhower were treated as a "mental midget" when he first assumed he could be president of Columbia University. How could he possibly become the leader of this elite university when he lacked any academic credentials that might give him credibility with the faculty? Moreover, he had the audacity to want to become President of the United States. The media somehow didn't give him credit for leading the Allied invasion of Europe and driving the German Army out of Western Europe.    

Next we have Harry Truman, who had the misfortune to be Vice President when a beloved President (who was a political careerist) died in office. The press frequently reminded us that Truman was a "haberdasher" from some Podunk town in the Midwest. When they weren't beating up on Truman, the media focused on his daughter Margaret's musical talents, and reported that she had none. Truman's experiences with the media led him to refer to them as "prostitutes of the mind."

And then there is Jimmy Carter, who could not escape the fact that he was a rube peanut farmer, and totally out of his element in Washington. Rarely mentioned was the fact that the "rube" had a degree in nuclear engineering, but then, he talked funny.

So we offer the theory that what Trump has in common with Eisenhower, Truman, and Carter, is that he is a "political outsider" who has not learned the tribal customs of the political and media elites. As an "outsider" he is fair game for the media and the careerist politicians to reject someone who is not a political careerist.

Now it is your turn. See if you can apply this theory to your favorite past presidents.   

Sociology and Science

When Robert was a graduate student his major research professor would often say: There is only one field of sociology that has any chance of having standing as a science. What was it and why? It was demography, and the reason was that they didn't talk to people, they only counted them.

When sociologists interview people or ask them to complete a questionnaire you are learning about their opinions, beliefs, and recollections, all of which are unstable and questionable as real data. The only  possible way out of this dilemma is to measure something that is more stable like a person's education or income, and then compare persons with such "structural" differences on their opinions, beliefs, etc.
Unfortunately, a great deal of sociological research today is based solely on recollections, beliefs, and attitudes, and often comparisons are made about what people report that they believed at different points in times ---not exactly what we would call "hard data." The only solution is to pay less attention to people and what they say, and more attention to the collective products of what people create--that is, their social institutions, like their educational system, or their economy, or their criminal justice system.
The sociological study of social institutions may be the best way to move beyond what people say and to realize some of the advantages of demography.