The Republican Party, staunchly refusing to extend even minimal co-operation with the Democrats on the many pressing issues the country faces, harkens for legitimacy to the Boston Tea Party. The connection cannot be missed: they claim the tyranny that challenges Americans in the 21st century is like that confronting Americans in the 18th. The situation is so severe that it can brook no compromise from true patriots. To question if healthcare, climate change, or massive unemployment might compare with a tax on tea is also, apparently, what true patriots would not do. Recalling the Boston Tea Party is certainly good P.R., but the resemblance is more like the French aristocracy in 1789, than the Boston commoners of 1773.
A moderate revolution in France, with limited bloodshed, replaced the absolute monarchy with a constitutional one. The leaders of that movement, hoping to establish a national polity along English lines, sought the King's co-operation. But the Royalists and the Nobles stonewalled, even allied themselves to the radical Jacobins, intending to render the new government incompetent, in hopes that it would force a counter-revolution, returning the Ancient Regime to power.
History shows this plan back-fired , with horrendous repercussions which only came to a halt at Waterloo in 1815.
Are Republicans aristocrats? Literally, no, since in America we do not have, or believe in, a titled hereditary ruling class. Republicans do represent the wealthy in America, and like the Federalists of our founding, believe the country prospers when the rich maintain their wealth and the power that goes with it. Along with this belief goes the conviction that when wealth is preserved it is also created, thus giving more people the opportunity to prosper. There is some substance to this belief. At any time in our country's history, it has always been possible for poor people to get rich. We hear about it often enough, and we also hear from time to time about rich people (usually in show business or sports) who become poor. The lesson we are to learn here is that in our society anyone can improve his condition with intelligent hard work. Opportunity in America is not the issue here. The fact stands out that in our society, those whose forebears struck it rich tend to stay that way. And it is no secret that tax laws, regulations, and good old tribal connections make the maintenance of this situation far easier than it would be in a democracy where all people truly have access to all avenues of economic opportunity.
So we have a de-facto aristocracy, which is obvious once the propaganda of equal opportunity is removed. No one can blame aristocrats for wanting to maintain their privileges...hence the modern Republican Party. However, since the democracy genie was let out of the bottle, we commoners also have had an interest in our society's well-being, and an obligation to maintain it. There can be no going back to letting the nobles run our country's affairs.
In our last serious economic crisis, the Great Depression, an aristocrat named Roosevelt made some proposals (and even got a few of them passed into law) that would save his class by expanding opportunities to the plebeians, although at the time he was branded a traitor to his class. Today Obama, a definite commoner, makes similar proposals and the aristocrats fight him at every turn. Lacking the numbers to defeat Obama in a truly democratic confrontation, the nobles seek allies among the commons: the Tea Party movement. This is a perilous strategy. The Tea Baggers, like the Jacobins before them, are a randomly angry lot, and no one can safely predict where the brunt of their anger might fall, should they actually gain power. But history reminds us that in post-revolutionary France, it was not only Louis XVI who suffered.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A PAY AS YOU GO PLAN
In 2010 America finds itself, as part of the wide world, in dire economic trouble. Understandably, the country is torn by different approaches to solving our problems, based on differing perceptions as to what caused the problems in the first place. Conservatives, apparently unaware how our distress came about, or believing it just happened, favor reductions of both taxes and government spending, along with looser regulations and opening of more resources to business as the best course toward renewed prosperity. Liberals, believing the downturn was a result of those same conservative solutions, advocate tighter regulations on business, increased government spending to stimulate employment, and higher taxes on corporations and millionaires to pay for it. Both sides are adamant, and neither, at this time, has the power to make things happen, one way or the other, to find out who is right. So very little gets done, while circumstances, and the voters, grow more impatient to have things actually get done.
Without casting blame, it is obvious that compromise is elusive. However, there are some issues where common ground may be closer than we think. In the field of debt reduction, which both sides would like to see, we can find a compromise both sides should be able to agree on. Ending, now and without fanfare, our two foreign wars of choice will do much to stem the flow of borrowed money, contributing to government solvency without causing pain to any Americans.
Other items on the chopping block: schools, unemployment, social security, highways, ecology...the list is long if it even has an end...all will hurt many people who have no alternatives at hand, hurt them in fundamental ways. Neither liberals nor conservatives claim to like drastic cuts to these programs, or the pain they will cause. So why not begin with major cuts in public debt where not only is no one injured, but major injuries will actually be curtailed? The conservatives are fond of allusions to family, pointing out that in tough times families must curtail their discretionary spending, in order to make ends meet.
What could be more discretionary than borrowing to finance wars of choice?
The difference between wars of necessity and wars of choice are obvious to anyone. If a nation is attacked, it must utilize all available resources to defend itself. But if a nation attacks another, for whatever good reasons, the activity is discretionary, and if it becomes unaffordable, ending it is just common sense. Americans will no longer be killed or maimed in foreign conflicts, and Americans will likewise cease inflicting death and injury on residents of those foreign lands. As a bonus, we will no longer be incurring unsustainable debts for goals that have proven either false or unattainable.
Some of the troops may feel betrayed, and we owe it to them to set things right. At any rate we can redeploy them for their true duty, which is national defense. If our national pride should suffer as a result of withdrawing from wars we do not need to fight, we might make good use of the opportunity to rethink our sense of national purpose. Nations, like individuals, can benefit from self examination and evaluation, especially when casualties are eliminated. America is a mature country, which values the opinions of its citizens. Surely we have enough self-respect to swallow some foolish pride.
Besides, in these tough times, pride is a luxury we cannot afford.
Without casting blame, it is obvious that compromise is elusive. However, there are some issues where common ground may be closer than we think. In the field of debt reduction, which both sides would like to see, we can find a compromise both sides should be able to agree on. Ending, now and without fanfare, our two foreign wars of choice will do much to stem the flow of borrowed money, contributing to government solvency without causing pain to any Americans.
Other items on the chopping block: schools, unemployment, social security, highways, ecology...the list is long if it even has an end...all will hurt many people who have no alternatives at hand, hurt them in fundamental ways. Neither liberals nor conservatives claim to like drastic cuts to these programs, or the pain they will cause. So why not begin with major cuts in public debt where not only is no one injured, but major injuries will actually be curtailed? The conservatives are fond of allusions to family, pointing out that in tough times families must curtail their discretionary spending, in order to make ends meet.
What could be more discretionary than borrowing to finance wars of choice?
The difference between wars of necessity and wars of choice are obvious to anyone. If a nation is attacked, it must utilize all available resources to defend itself. But if a nation attacks another, for whatever good reasons, the activity is discretionary, and if it becomes unaffordable, ending it is just common sense. Americans will no longer be killed or maimed in foreign conflicts, and Americans will likewise cease inflicting death and injury on residents of those foreign lands. As a bonus, we will no longer be incurring unsustainable debts for goals that have proven either false or unattainable.
Some of the troops may feel betrayed, and we owe it to them to set things right. At any rate we can redeploy them for their true duty, which is national defense. If our national pride should suffer as a result of withdrawing from wars we do not need to fight, we might make good use of the opportunity to rethink our sense of national purpose. Nations, like individuals, can benefit from self examination and evaluation, especially when casualties are eliminated. America is a mature country, which values the opinions of its citizens. Surely we have enough self-respect to swallow some foolish pride.
Besides, in these tough times, pride is a luxury we cannot afford.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
BACK TO THE OLD WEST?
I'm ready, any day, to hear the Governor announce that the State is bankrupt, cannot afford even to default, that he is going home, and to advise that the rest of us do the same. Load up on food and guns, and don't make any friends.
We'll be back in the thrilling days of yesteryear.
The is an irrational attraction toward such a goal. How else do we explain the trend of taking guns to places and occasions where nobody needs them? Whatever happened to the sense of achievement that came from a town's being able to boast that men didn't need to pack iron on the streets anymore? Missing holsters was a sign of civilization, like electricity, a mark of gentility matching sophisticated metropolises back east. Nowadays, packing heat grows common. Do gun toters miss those times when a man's future was only as good as his draw?
Gone is the notion that local authorities could sensibly insist that hombres check their guns when they go to town. Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson would have to deal with legally knowledgeable gunslingers now, citing recent court decisions upholding the Second Amendment as virtually sacrosanct. The lawmen of old, aware that alcohol and firearms do not safely mix, prudently sought to separate the two. Apparently they were wrong. The Founding Fathers, it seems, meant for drunks to commingle with weapons wherever and whenever they like.
Other rights are tempered according to society's needs. Most members of the NRA are probably at odds with most members of the ACLU, regarding other amendments in our Bill of Rights. But an ACLU member who believes that one ought to be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or that a religion that calls for casting live virgins into a volcano has a place in a free society is rare. Finding NRA members who believe everyone, regardless of mental state or criminal record, should be allowed to carry weapons about everywhere, is not difficult.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people," is literally true. But we also know that people with guns kill a lot more of their own kind than those without guns. Could it be that the finality of gunplay, in some people's minds, renders other rights moot? Can we not conclude from this logic that all human rights are guaranteed only when all of us are fully armed, all the time? In our folklore, this condition existed before the twentieth century. "Give me liberty, or give me death," was not merely our ideal. It was our everyday reality, in those halcyon times.
The thrilling days of yesteryear, when the only options were total liberty of action, or total liberation from earthly worries, can be tremendously attractive. We live in difficult times, when solutions to complex problems require co-operation and hard work beyond some people's capacities. Small wonder there are those who reject the present for an ideal future similar to a fabled past. To them, any social contract is not only unpleasant, it's a sin. Stalin's Gulag starts with having to pay for working sewers.
It is human to want freedom. But our nature also needs a sense of belonging, of helping out the clan. Humanity's major quest is for an always elusive balance between the two. The question before us now is whether we want a massive collapse of our polity, or if we're willing to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve it. If we would keep our society, then guns, whether we have them or not, are irrelevant.
We'll be back in the thrilling days of yesteryear.
The is an irrational attraction toward such a goal. How else do we explain the trend of taking guns to places and occasions where nobody needs them? Whatever happened to the sense of achievement that came from a town's being able to boast that men didn't need to pack iron on the streets anymore? Missing holsters was a sign of civilization, like electricity, a mark of gentility matching sophisticated metropolises back east. Nowadays, packing heat grows common. Do gun toters miss those times when a man's future was only as good as his draw?
Gone is the notion that local authorities could sensibly insist that hombres check their guns when they go to town. Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson would have to deal with legally knowledgeable gunslingers now, citing recent court decisions upholding the Second Amendment as virtually sacrosanct. The lawmen of old, aware that alcohol and firearms do not safely mix, prudently sought to separate the two. Apparently they were wrong. The Founding Fathers, it seems, meant for drunks to commingle with weapons wherever and whenever they like.
Other rights are tempered according to society's needs. Most members of the NRA are probably at odds with most members of the ACLU, regarding other amendments in our Bill of Rights. But an ACLU member who believes that one ought to be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or that a religion that calls for casting live virgins into a volcano has a place in a free society is rare. Finding NRA members who believe everyone, regardless of mental state or criminal record, should be allowed to carry weapons about everywhere, is not difficult.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people," is literally true. But we also know that people with guns kill a lot more of their own kind than those without guns. Could it be that the finality of gunplay, in some people's minds, renders other rights moot? Can we not conclude from this logic that all human rights are guaranteed only when all of us are fully armed, all the time? In our folklore, this condition existed before the twentieth century. "Give me liberty, or give me death," was not merely our ideal. It was our everyday reality, in those halcyon times.
The thrilling days of yesteryear, when the only options were total liberty of action, or total liberation from earthly worries, can be tremendously attractive. We live in difficult times, when solutions to complex problems require co-operation and hard work beyond some people's capacities. Small wonder there are those who reject the present for an ideal future similar to a fabled past. To them, any social contract is not only unpleasant, it's a sin. Stalin's Gulag starts with having to pay for working sewers.
It is human to want freedom. But our nature also needs a sense of belonging, of helping out the clan. Humanity's major quest is for an always elusive balance between the two. The question before us now is whether we want a massive collapse of our polity, or if we're willing to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve it. If we would keep our society, then guns, whether we have them or not, are irrelevant.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
LEARNING
During the last economic crunch, the local elementary school got rid of its science program. Now the library and computer classes are on the block--this in addition to class size expansion, furlough days, and other drastic cuts, all directly resulting from the stark fact that schools, like nearly everything and everybody else, are way short of money.
Money trumps everything. Lack of it renders any argument for spending it moot. And not spending money one does not have is a simple recognition of the facts of life. When a family is short, its members do without, stretching every dime until times get better...irrefutable logic, where single households are involved. Hopefully the situation does not last long and prosperity returns, and with it, spending and more prosperity for all. Holes appear in the argument, however, in times like now, when the number of households in dire straights is terrifyingly high, and the duration of the downturn is much longer than a little while. In our day the entire society is endangered. No one can predict the outcome of prolonged economic instability, but history shows that more often than not, when we do nothing, outcomes are hideous.
Concerning education, the penny-wise cost savers being implemented or proposed have the potential to foist a generation of ill-equipped and ignorant young people upon a culture already burdened by too many who are functionally illiterate. And these same economies will waste an already substantial public investment in scientific equipment, books, and computers, which the State can ill afford to replace.
We are told we have no choice, the money simply is not there. But it is somewhere, and in the same amount as always. It just needs to circulate. We are told to grin and bear it, and for quite a while we have become adroit at doing just that. Can we do nothing else?
Though they seem to occur with seasonal regularity, economic downturns are not natural occurrences. They are manmade. And while they may be unavoidable, there are methods proven to alleviate their devastation. And we know from past depressions that scrimping pennies only makes bad times worse. And education is more than a government program, it is an investment in the development of the most important resource we have. This is not a corny homily. It is the truth.
There are many adults who oppose public education on principle (having already gotten it), and many more who think too much tax money is spent on it. Most of us harbour foul memories of that time of life. Many are the valid criticisms of this huge, ungainly system. Still, for millions of children, this is the only chance they will get. California was a leader in technology, industry and business during the last century, largely due to its progressive investments in infrastructure and education. We terminate this investment at our peril.
Maybe today's children will grow up accepting that their substandard educations were a necessary evil in tough economic times. But who will teach them that? We do know that they will grow up, and the type of grown-ups depends on the investment we make in them now. We cannot depend on our all being dead before the bill comes due.
Money trumps everything. Lack of it renders any argument for spending it moot. And not spending money one does not have is a simple recognition of the facts of life. When a family is short, its members do without, stretching every dime until times get better...irrefutable logic, where single households are involved. Hopefully the situation does not last long and prosperity returns, and with it, spending and more prosperity for all. Holes appear in the argument, however, in times like now, when the number of households in dire straights is terrifyingly high, and the duration of the downturn is much longer than a little while. In our day the entire society is endangered. No one can predict the outcome of prolonged economic instability, but history shows that more often than not, when we do nothing, outcomes are hideous.
Concerning education, the penny-wise cost savers being implemented or proposed have the potential to foist a generation of ill-equipped and ignorant young people upon a culture already burdened by too many who are functionally illiterate. And these same economies will waste an already substantial public investment in scientific equipment, books, and computers, which the State can ill afford to replace.
We are told we have no choice, the money simply is not there. But it is somewhere, and in the same amount as always. It just needs to circulate. We are told to grin and bear it, and for quite a while we have become adroit at doing just that. Can we do nothing else?
Though they seem to occur with seasonal regularity, economic downturns are not natural occurrences. They are manmade. And while they may be unavoidable, there are methods proven to alleviate their devastation. And we know from past depressions that scrimping pennies only makes bad times worse. And education is more than a government program, it is an investment in the development of the most important resource we have. This is not a corny homily. It is the truth.
There are many adults who oppose public education on principle (having already gotten it), and many more who think too much tax money is spent on it. Most of us harbour foul memories of that time of life. Many are the valid criticisms of this huge, ungainly system. Still, for millions of children, this is the only chance they will get. California was a leader in technology, industry and business during the last century, largely due to its progressive investments in infrastructure and education. We terminate this investment at our peril.
Maybe today's children will grow up accepting that their substandard educations were a necessary evil in tough economic times. But who will teach them that? We do know that they will grow up, and the type of grown-ups depends on the investment we make in them now. We cannot depend on our all being dead before the bill comes due.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)