Redefining "loser"

A repeated topic in the essays of Terrence Heath is that conservatives equate wealth with morality -- the wealthier one is the more morally right one is. Heath has another essay on that topic as part of his Three Questions series, which was prompted by a question from me. His fourth essay (still on the second question) can be summarized with: Worldly success indicates moral strength. Dependency is immoral. Undisciplined people will be weak and poor, and deservedly so. There is a moral order (which ranks America above all other countries and straights above gays). Those who are moral deserve to be in power because the preservation or promotion of immorality is itself immoral. One more step to take -- immorality must be eradicated, using tough love where possible, punishment where necessary.

The idea of wealth equals morality is discussed by Julia Baird in Newsweek. I was surprised to find out how old that idea is -- it had been around long enough that Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his journal about it in 1842, "Nobody fails who ought not to fail. There is always a reason, in the man, for his good or bad fortune." The idea filtered into the entire American culture and stayed there.

That idea got it's starkest airing in the play Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, first produced in 1949 and made into a movie in 1951. The main character is Willy Loman. It's been a long time since I saw a version (starring Dustin Hoffman as Willy?) so I don't remember the details, only that Willy sees himself as a failure. And much of our culture agreed.

But, according to Baird, by today's (2010) standards, Willy actually did all right for himself and his family. The change? Our greater understanding of failure through the Great Recession.

One of the tragic aspects of the Great Depression of the 1930s was that as people lost jobs they could not make a distinction between losing a job and being morally destroyed. You lost your job? Well, you must have done something wrong. You must have committed a great moral error. Therefore you deserve what you got. The response was a remarkably high suicide rate.

But, thankfully, that foolish idea is under assault in the general culture, if not in the land of conservatism. It is clear to many of us that we didn't cause the mess. Those of the former middle class who lost jobs and houses had been doing every thing our culture told us was the right (moral) thing to do. Besides, the moral failings (such as greed) are on prominent display by the wealthy. Questions are being asked: Why should financial success define morality? Why is an ordinary life seen as having less worth? Why do we value careers and money over relationships? Why are there deathbed regrets about losing friends and not about "I didn't work hard enough"?

Thankfully, this time around we aren't so quick to toss the "loser" label on someone who has lost their job.