The Magazine of Parody

I’ve been taking Harris Online Polls since college. In that time, I’ve racked up a lot of rewards for taking all those polls, from gift cards to binoculars to universal remotes to an room air filter, of all things. Recently, though, they changed their rewards structure, and pretty much the only things available are magazine subscriptions. I’m not terribly interested in sports magazines, and less so in so-called “men’s” magazines (although I have not one, but two subscriptions to Complex magazine purchased for me by some anonymous strangers, since 2007). Eventually, I chose a subscription to Forbes magazine, thinking it would be interesting to read a viewpoint that I’m not as familiar with. Little did I know how “different” that viewpoint would be. After reading it for several months, I’m still not convinced that it isn’t an absurdist right-wing Onion.

What I expected was something along the lines of mainstream conservative economic thought: lower taxes, less regulation, and so forth. That is certainly well-represented within the pages of the magazine, of course. What I didn’t expect was economic arguments that go completely off the rails, like constant, mind-numbing shilling for a disastrous return to the gold standard. I also didn’t expect the complete contempt for middle-class workers, either, talking about how unproductive and useless all those long-term unemployed are. The belief that hyperinflation is right around the corner is something that I’ve heard from plenty of conservative “economists” who don’t know what a liquidity trap is and don’t let the facts get in the way of their arguments, but I expect that in a presidential campaign or on Reddit, not a staid business magazine. Steve Forbes’ introductory ranting about Obama and the tax system was expected, and was often mild compared to the other commentators. Last, but not least, were truly bizarre articles like the one that describes American culture as “riding high” and offers Patsy Cline as proof (based upon the picture of the author, it’s certainly possible that’s the last singer he has held in high regard).

The articles aren’t necessarily as bad as the commentary, much like the Wall Street Journal. Every issue has a few good reads about new businesses like Dropbox or what Bill Gates is doing with his philanthropy. However, some of the articles align pretty clearly with the editorial beliefs of the magazine, which frankly is to be expected. From there, you can almost divine the rationality behind the ideology they espouse. For example, if you are in the business of selling $250,000 coats to the wealthy, your clientele is going to be the 1%. Moreover, you’re still going to be making more money selling one coat at that price than going the Walmart route of selling 10,000 coats at $20 apiece. If that is your market, then all those people making less than seven figures a year are indeed “worthless” and may as well not exist. The increase in the prices of dresses, shoes, and yachts may even explain why they think inflation is everywhere!

It would seem fairly obvious to even a child that the super-wealthy can’t exist without us middle-class working folks doing our jobs. CEO salaries don’t exist in a vacuum: it’s the businesses and workers that create the wealth that support the 1%. Like I’ve said before, I have no problem with wealth accumulation at the top as long as it’s accumulating at all levels at the same time. The writers at Forbes, though, often espouse the worst stereotypes that enemies of the rich attach to the 1%, doing themselves no real favors. Sometimes it is so over the top, it does reach parody, although I doubt it is intentional.

When it comes to a good conservative viewpoint, I’m going to have to stick with FrumForum and The American Conservative. Although I don’t often agree with what they say, most of the time (with the exception of Pat Buchanan’s rants, which you couldn’t pay me to read) at least they are based in reality. No gold bugs, no magic wands fixing all of Europe’s problems instantly through austerity, and an understanding that long-term unemployment is as much a threat to the rich as the unemployed themselves in the long run. Even the articles I vehemently disagree with don’t leave me rolling my eyes. As for Forbes, though, I’ll still read it, because I know that it won’t be too long before Charles Montgomery Burns becomes a commentator and not just a member of one of their lists.