Mitch,

This phony issue is popping up like mushrooms after a heavy rain. Today’s Wall Street Journal has a front page article talking about the way Democratic office seekers are trying to create an envy wave that will take them to victory. The article’s lead discusses the efforts of NC’s Brad Miller to capitalize on “the wealth gap.” He says that “wages aren’t budging for the majority of Americans.”

This tactic only works as long as the pols can keep people thinking in terms of vaguely defined groups, rather than about individuals. “The rich” are supposedly “grabbing” too much income, but does that mean that Bill Gates, to choose a famous example, earned too much last year? Tiger Woods? If people like that haven’t done anything wrong, why gripe about their success?

Conversely, “the middle class” is supposedly in a slump with wages that won’t budge. Are you saying, Mr. Miller, that no individual in middle income ranges got a raise last year? That’s certainly not the case. Are middle class individuals being denied something they’re entitled to? If so, exactly how?

And beyond creating a sense of sympathy with people who earn a lot less than he does, what does Miller propose to do? Tax “the rich” more? The government could do that, of course, but why would that do anything to help “the middle class?” Slurping more of the earnings of Gates, Woods, et al into the US Treasury won’t make people in the middle class better off. A good argument can be made that it would make at least some of them worse off, as the wealthy now have less to spend and invest.

In his wonderful book Anarachy State and Utopia, the late Robert Nozick pointed out that there are two ways of looking at income distribution. The simple minded way that appeals to many politicians is to adopt an “end state” theory, i.e., that if the distribution of income does not match up with someone’s idea of a “fair” distribution, then government needs to intervene to take some away here and give it there. On the other hand, there is the “historical” approach, which asks how the distribution of wealth came about; did individuals get what they have through just or unjust means? As long as Tiger Woods didn’t cheat, he’s entitled to his winnings.

Miller has evidently concluded that he can get away with this kind of political con artistry. Not many Nozick readers around.