The Restructured Role of Individualism in the American Government

Alexis de Tocqueville, a french sociologist and political theorist, traveled to the United States in 1831 to study the success of the newly established democracy. He applauded how the American political view was characterized by liberty, equality, democracy, capitalism, and most importantly, individualism. Tocqueville explained that the freedom of individuals, regardless of economic background, allowed them to transform themselves as “Rags to Riches.” The example used in his explanation was President Lincoln’s ability to work hard and demonstrate success despite being born in a log cabin.

America’s democracy was founded upon these political values, but, however, today’s political culture does not demonstrate the same level of freedom for individuals. The main intention of this analysis is to examine how the american political culture no longer upholds the principle that all individuals share the same opportunities. The last century’s legislators and their values have shaped the political culture in America’s democracy by pretending to uphold equality and individualism.

Inequality of opportunity in the United States is first introduced in the early stages of life. The ability to innovate in the United States today is portrayed more as a privilege, rather than an equal opportunity. For example, not all socioeconomic classes in America have the same level of opportunity or chance to become an inventor. The Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard did a recent study to see who exactly becomes an inventor in the United States. Their study found that there are many “lost Einsteins” in America, which are defined as “women, minorities, and children from low-income families who would’ve had high-impact discoveries had they been exposed to innovation while growing up.” (Equality of Opportunity Project, 2017) Their study showed that if these groups invented at the same rate as white men from high-income families (70% percent of men in the U.S. are represented by a white male in the House), we would have four times as many inventors in America today.

The chart above gives us a visual demonstration on the correlation between parent income, performance of third graders on standardized math tests, and the likelihood of becoming an inventor. As one can see, the opportunity to excel is diminished at a young age due to the lack of access to financial resources required to effectively learn and become innovative. Parents with a higher income level are more likely to have high-scoring children that become inventors when they grow up. If the american government created legislation that improved opportunities for disadvantaged children and low-income individuals, the political culture could reduce disparities and even initiate innovation and economic growth. (Equality of Opportunity Project, 2017)The chart above created by the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard continues to strengthen the idea that innovation is less likely to take place in a household of lower income. For example, the number of inventors per thousand of children differs between the top 1% and the rest of society by parent income. The issued patent rate to inventors with parents from the top 1% income level was found to be 8.3 per 1,000, while the issued patent rate to inventors with parents below the 1% income level was 0.85 per 1,000. This is a clear distinction that the individualistic value of equal opportunity is not demonstrated by today’s political culture, due to the decisions made by the american democracy. (Equality of Opportunity Project, 2017)

The charts above can also be viewed at the following URL (http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/inventors_summary.pdf).

Works Cited:

Bell, Alex; Chetty, Raj; Jaravel, Xavier; Petkova, Neviana and Van, John. Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation. The Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard. December, 2017.

5 Responses to "The Restructured Role of Individualism in the American Government"

Akshit Sharma says:

February 12, 2018 at 12:35 pm

Hi Samuel, thank you for the insightful blog post. I agree with the point that you present about the fact that, in simple terms, income levels determine likelihood of being an inventor at some point in the future. This is almost reminiscent of the political inequalities being cumulative that we spoke about a few weeks ago in class. Although I agree with what you talk about in your post, I would like to point out that it cannot be solely attributed to political culture since there are more forces at play here. For example, social factors could possibly play a role here as well since many low income families would rather that they spend money on educating their young instead of funding a project/invention that may or may not succeed. It is a risk that they are usually unwilling to take since they are fighting for a stable life and would like to avoid uncertainty at any cost. Another factor could be a pure lack of awareness or willingness to pursue patenting an idea (http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/11/1-in-3-americans-invent-but-few-pursue-patents-findlaw-survey.html). All these factors, and many more contribute to the problem of stifling invention in America.
William Roberts says:

February 12, 2018 at 9:35 pm

Hello, Samuel, I thought you did a great job in your explanation of how current American democracy isn’t doing an adequate job of fostering individualism across income quintiles. And your use of the Equality of Equal Opportunity charts demonstrated your points excellently. However, I think you can further this argument even more by demonstrating how the United States compares to other nations with regards to economic mobility. For example, in comparison to other industrialized nations, economists say that the US has less mobility. Economies that experience more upward income mobility are often distinguished by more government regulation such as higher taxes, universal health care, and more union coverage. Countries that experience less mobility are often distinguished by less government regulation and an emphasis on free trade. So, realistically, the political atmosphere of the United States isn’t entirely suitable to generate high rates of economic mobility, especially when compared to other industrialized nations such as Nordic and European nations. As you said in your post, Lincoln “applauded how the American political view was characterized by liberty, equality, democracy, capitalism, and most importantly, individualism”, but, obviously, today this is not the case. In my opinion, I think the issue stems from the fact that we are, to an extent, a capitalist nation. And I’m not convinced individualism will ever be a true characteristic of American democracy solely because capitalist nations work mostly for children whose parents did well. So, although opportunity and the idea of getting ahead on your own are deeply embedded in American culture, the United Staes lack of consistent upward mobility when compared to other nations certainly challenge that notion and suggest that the American dream is more attainable abroad.
Katherine Breed says:

February 13, 2018 at 10:47 pm

Samuel,

I thought you had a very thought provoking argument. I liked that you backed your argument up with graphs and statistics. I do agree with you claim about income levels determining opportunity, however the government provides federal funding for things like public education it hopes of giving more equal opportunity. Although some may argue that public education still doesn’t offer the same benefits as those in higher income areas, The United States still provides free education to any individual. The lack of opportunity provided by ones public education is not just from a person socio-economic background. There are other factors that prevent an individuals opportunities. The U.S has a good welfare system and sets up more federal programs than other countries. Another issue faced is that people who live in low income areas are having more children to receive federal tax dollars. This ends up creating more issues and more people in low-income neighborhoods. I do think more action need to be taken in order to lessen the gap between high income individuals and low income individuals in order to function better as a society.
Haley Overlander says:

February 14, 2018 at 1:26 pm

Samuel,

I really appreciate this post. It provoked me to think more in depth about what equal opportunity really means in a more widespread context. I find your inventor perspective intriguing and it led me to delve into equal opportunity in the stance of education and access to education for lower socio-economic class individuals, given that higher education often leads to higher accounts of success.
Martin Blank of the Huffington Post states an interesting fact on children raised in lower income families: “Not only do these children lack some of the basics, their families can’t compete with affluent parents in the race to cultivate the “super child,” made possible through financial investments ranging from private tutorials to summer camp or the latest educational software. In fact, a recent study finds that the gap between what upper income parents and working class parents spend on their children has increased exponentially in the last four decades.”
With this inequality, starting from as early Kindergarten, how can one say that everyone has equal opportunity? In this day in age, it seems that ‘equal opportunity’ comes solely from wealth, status, or dumb luck. Blank also points out that “the growing disparity between the children who “have” and those who “have not” is a violation of basic American values, which are premised on the belief that every child should have a fair chance to succeed in life.” This idea pulls us back into your introduction of your blog and Tocqueville’s belief that regardless of economic or social background, everyone has the chance to transform themselves from ‘riches to rags.’ Although I do agree that there are institutions that are put in place to can help those who are underprivileged have a greater chance of success in their lives, there is still a major gap in equal opportunity that must be closed in time.

Source:

Blank, Martin J. “Giving Our Children an Equal Opportunity to Succeed.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 31 Aug. 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-j-blank/public-school_b_1844069.html.
Andrew Griffin says:

February 14, 2018 at 10:38 pm

Samuel,

Your post touched upon an important flaw in the Framers’ thinking. As the studies that you cited showed, there are many Americans who could provide immeasurable value to the US economy, and to the world. I do believe, however, you could nuance your explanation of the problem. For example, the American Psychological Organization found that in 2009, high school students in the bottom 20% of all family incomes drop out of high school at rate five times higher than that of students the same age in top 20%. This, of course, keeps the poorest individuals poor, as they are less likely to earn a high paying job without a high school diploma, let alone a college degree. What must happen in order for the United States to reach the lost children that you talk about is that we must encourage students to complete school and reform the student loan system to make it easier for impoverished students to obtain a degree. And in order to do that, the United States must stop seeing welfare as charity, and more of an investment. In other words, Americans must see social programs helping underprivileged Americans as a means of bettering our economy and keeping poor youth off of the street.

-Drew

Comments are closed.