Also, it can cause Americans to turn a blind eye to the abuses of industry. If every American's lot is improved by success, then why, for example, should the laborers in the steel mills see their lives as poorer rather than better because of the success of their capitalist employers?
McElroy's analysis is convincing in light of the fact that unions are far less powerful in America than they are in Europe, and how even today, after America adopted some programs to help the indigent, so many successful American corporations like Wal-Mart are still able to avoid unionization, and celebrate the company's success as a gift to society and its employees, as well as the corporation's founders. It also explains the assumption that achievement as the main determinant of social rank in America, rather than birth. This belief is the result of the American creation of a more socially mobile society. Thus, the underlying reason for the assumption that the success of the individual is to be equated with the success of society as a whole -- if society is full of opportunity, persons who are wealthy and successful are assumed to deserve...
Because America began as a country without an aristocracy, where many persons have made their fortune, the gospel of success and wealth has become integral to American social policy legislation, as reflected the limited and controversial nature of welfare, in a way that it has not in Europe and more historically, socially stratified nations. However, to say that all Americans share this belief is something of a misnomer, given that African-Americans were historically subjugated and prevented from participating in this ideal of success. Also, it is becoming more obvious to all Americans, as the country ages, that being born to parents of wealth gives one access to better public schooling, better higher-level schooling, and thus better connections and better jobs later in life.
