Achievement Is Worth Celebrating
Have we seen a vibe shift revealed in the recent presidential election when it comes to the celebration of success and the value of merit? The election marked a departure from previous years, starting with President’s Trump Inaugural Address that celebrated prosperity and called for the country to flourish again. Economist Tyler Cowen even saw the vibe shift a few months earlier than most.
In the last four years we have seen a rekindling in the ideological battle between different systems like capitalism and socialism. Even though some people (usually of the “very online” variety) are moved by political and ideological ideas, most people care more about the opportunity to flourish and achieve their potential. That’s what they want for their families, relatives, and close friends as well. To have better lives and celebrate their achievements.
However, a big problem with much of the political discourse around these issues was that rather than celebrating achievement, we were more focused on bringing down those who are successful and essentially frowning upon success. Some examples include Lululemon’s diatribe on the oppression of capitalism, the guillotine that was placed outside of Jeff Bezos’s apartment, or the fiasco of the Museum of African American History and the Whiteness chart—which framed hard work, achievement, and planning as exclusively white characteristics.
The war on excellence can also be seen in states and cities that are discontinuing gifted and talented education programs. Ditto for the decision by Harvard University (among other schools) to discontinue SAT/ACT scores as a requirement for entry, regardless of the fact that doing so hurts minorities the most. Some of these measures have been reversed, but overall lowering test standards in schools continues in various states.
Perhaps the most glaring example from that list is Jeff Bezos and the guillotine. So-called “activists” were comparing late-eighteenth-century monarchs, whose wealth and status were entirely inherited, to Jeff Bezos—a self-made billionaire who worked out of a small office in 1994, whose company almost went bankrupt in the 2000s, and one who has dedicated his life to providing great customer services, and helping many others create wealth by exchanging goods and services. This is in no way a defense of Bezos’s virtue as a man; I don’t personally know him or necessarily agree with all of his points of view. But it is a defense of wealth creation, entrepreneurship, and a culture that values success, hard work, and perseverance—features that Bezos embodies and that should be celebrated, or least don’t merit a beheading in the street.
Elon Musk is certainly still reviled to this day for many different reasons, but when he was selected person of the year in 2021 by Time magazine, Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to criticize him. Even though he has shown leadership on so many issues that liberals support—such as climate action—the zero-sum narrative refuses to go away. When his company, SpaceX, achieves success that even NASA can’t fathom, the media is more interested in highlighting the negatives instead of the positives. The rich prosper at the expense of the poor, so it’s not proper to celebrate that achievement—or so the line goes.
The main problem is that we’re framing these issues in terms of the zero-sum narrative of income inequality rather than a more inclusive and positive-sum view of social mobility and achievement—a view in which people pursue meaning, fulfill their human potential, and enable others to do the same through their work. It’s impossible to not see this trend in both politics and economics. The politicization of income inequality is a static picture of inequality that vies with a more dynamic picture of social mobility. Causally (and incorrectly) linking income inequality to social mobility is an idea already very entrenched in our public discourse. In truth, the latter is basically a luxury belief.
The reality is that the best system we know that fosters that kind of upward mobility and achievement is capitalism, which allows for the subjective and inherently personal pursuit of human flourishing. Socialism, in its most common form, frowns upon that kind of personalized achievement. It should be noted that although some people mistakenly think of Scandinavian countries as democratic socialist systems, in actuality, they are very capitalist countries with a more expansive safety net. And even in these countries there are fewer self-made high net worth individuals than in the United States.
Capitalism is often only discussed in the context of the material results it produces, not in terms of the personal achievement and meaning that it enables people to cooperatively pursue. But capitalism only functions properly with other ingredients that make it more virtuous and moral, such as a culture of accepting individual initiative, valuing the virtues of commerce and voluntary exchange, and appreciating achievement and the pursuit of maximum human potential. Other systems focused on equity do not allow for individuality that is freeing and creative. Ultimately, our capitalist system improves the lives of many people beyond those entrepreneurs and innovators who gain a market reward. Moreover, research by Nobel laureate William Nordhaus has shown that even when entrepreneurs and inventors reap great financial rewards, the majority of the gains from their work goes to consumers. Nordhaus calculated that innovators only capture about 2.2 percent of the total social benefits from innovation.
However, when this success comes to be seen (to some) as excessive, we begin to say that billionaires or other high net worth individuals are a “policy failure,” frowning upon their success. We tend to just focus on the wealth people have once they reach the top and ignore the path that took them there. How we view their achievements at the beginning, if all their business dealings were honest, should not change if they reach millionaire and billionaire status. We support small businesses and entrepreneurs who stay small, but if anything becomes “too successful” we start attacking it.
We should celebrate billionaires, millionaires, and everyone who has become successful through lawful means, because we’re celebrating an act of perseverance and hard work. Virtues such as prudence, honesty, and purposefulness (not just for the person who starts a venture or project but for everyone it affects) are worthy of public praise. Or is it that besides success itself we are starting to frown upon perseverance, hard work, success, and other previously admired virtues?
When we frown upon success we frown upon the stories and the paths—often full of sacrifice and hard work—that many of the most successful people in history have pursued. Why this is happening is a big question that I’ll attempt to answer separately at some point. But for now, the main point is that it shouldn’t happen.
In his great book A Culture of Growth, Joel Mokyr notes that the success of the Industrial Revolution was not merely about the aptitudes people had to produce revolutionary technologies, engage in commerce, and invent new things, but it was also a broader cultural phenomenon of positive attitudes towards discovery, success, and hard work—the same virtues that economist Deirdre McCloskey has described in her own writings, which are very complementary to Mokyr’s.
Why don’t we have a similar problem in praising success when it comes to those in sports, art, or culture? Athletes are also making millions (and in some cases billions) throughout their lives, but they’re not put under the same microscope as business owners. These various groups do add a lot of value to society by providing entertainment to people, and people enjoy that and get inspired by it.
But businesses and entrepreneurs outside of those fields are the same. First, they are creating different services and goods that are also amazing acts of success and achievement in their own right. The more divisive narrative is the assertion that big businesses or other entrepreneurs are just stealing money from their consumers and that they should have to give it back in some way. But at the end of the day, athletes, actors, and entertainers get their money the same way entrepreneurs do: we as consumers pay for their services. It’s the same act as when we buy a product in a store or a service from another company. Why is the wealth less justified for people who give us goods and services for our house or daily life than it is for entertainers, athletes, and other public figures who entertain us?
Even more so, in a recent survey my organization conducted with NORC at the University of Chicago, my organization asked people if they think equality means equality before the law and having a fair chance to pursue opportunities regardless of where they start (equality of opportunity), if equality means that everyone should start in the same place with people given tools to help them catch up with others (equalizing starting points), or if equality means people all end up in the same place.
In what can be seen as a rejection of frowning upon success, Americans don’t believe that equality means ending up in the same place. Only 4% of U.S. adults say that, while equalizing people’s starting points only garnered 18% of the respondents. For more than 2 in 3 Americans equality was about the equality of opportunity. When people were asked about the best vehicle to climb the income ladder, their answer was resoundingly that employment—a job, not a government assistance program or even education—was the most important way to experience upward mobility. When people were asked about the most important precondition for greater social mobility and opportunity, they responded with a strong labor market or economic growth.
Clearly, many of these signs point to a way of thinking about the world that celebrates achievement, success, and agency; doesn’t frown upon success; and that advocates for equality of outcomes. Bringing the rich down will not go as far as focusing on removing barriers for everyone to climb up and creating a more dynamic economy. Disparities in outcomes don’t necessarily mean that we need to bring one group down or prop another group up.
Maybe the latest vibe shift in our politics will mean that the denigration of entrepreneurial success will not become as common as I fear, and we shouldn’t worry about something that’s not a pervasive mainstream attitude. Maybe the United States does value entrepreneurs and wealth creation more than it seems at this intensely polarized moment.
My main concern is that we are beginning to take entrepreneurs for granted and that the full dimensions of entrepreneurship are not appreciated. Have we lost the awe that entrepreneurship, hard work, and grit used to inspire? Things have not always been great, but the dynamic entrepreneurial culture that has always characterized the United States is built upon at least some reverence and recognition of those attitudes and virtues upon which it stands and that have continued to make it successful.
Only time will tell if the 2024 election marked a transitory or permanent vibe shift on this topic. However, we can’t leave it to time and political circumstances to get back to celebrating achievement and merit. The dynamism and innovation that has made the United States a world leader depends on it, and the dreams and opportunities to climb the income ladder for millions of Americans also depends on it.
Let’s celebrate achievement and stop frowning on success. You can do your part by being proud of your achievements, highlighting the wins of others, and not engaging in a zero-sum view of the world.