Triumph of Hope Over Self-Interest

¶ … Triumph of Hope over Self-Interest, by David Brooks. Specifically, it will identify the central point of the article and respond to the idea in some way. Americans are eternally hopeful, and much of that hope is based on increasing their wealth and moving up the rungs of the income ladder. This is why so many Americans seem to vote according to their hopes, rather than their economic realities.

THE TRIUMPH OF HOPE

The central point of this article revolves around the belief that Americans will always hope to be better off than they are, and so, they tend to identify with those who have more money, rather than those who have less. As the author notes, "Many Americans admire the rich," and he continues, "Americans resent social inequity more than income inequality" (Brooks). Brooks goes on to say that Americans do not see each other as rich or poor, they see each other in common activities and as a community, rather than a social class. "They see society as a high school cafeteria, with their community at one table and other communities at other tables" (Brooks). This seems to be the case all over America, from New York to California. Everyone thinks their little piece of the U.S. is better than any other, and they do not want to be convinced otherwise. Brooks believes this is why so many politicians do not understand how to rally the people around their cause. They are too busy pitting one social class against another (Democrats vs. Republicans), when they would do better to pit community against community rather than pit rich against poor. It simply does not garner as many votes.

This seems to be a rather simple explanation for a complex problem, and yet it has credence. Most Americans do not envy the rich; they simply hope to get there too someday. This is the eternal hope that lives in most Americans, and one reason lotteries and gambling are so popular. They are "get rich quick" schemes, and eventually, someone has to win, so why not you, today? This is part of the "American dream," that everyone can own a home, a car or two or three, and can make something out of themselves, starting from pretty much nothing. There is nothing wrong with the American dream, except it does not happen to everyone. The hope lies in everyone however, and that hope is what keeps the dream alive in so many people.

How this idea applies to the political process is more complex, and since politicians really do not represent the people anyway, it is not surprising that they have not caught on to pitching their plans to hopeful Americans, rather than political parties. Most politicians represent the special interest groups and businesses that support them throughout their campaigns and reigns, and so they really do not need to know how to appeal to the people, except during elections. Therefore, every few years they pass a cut in taxes to appease the masses, and then they go back to doing whatever they do to appease their supporters. Consequently, it is not surprising they do not know how to appeal to the average American. If they could really help Americans move up the rungs of the wealth ladder, they might get a lot more support and interest from the average, hopeful American. As Brooks notes, "None of us is really poor; we're just pre-rich" (Brooks).