TEA PARTY IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE
"In the fight between you and the world, back the world." Franz Kafka
Rod Serling's prophetic "Twilight Zone", still tremendously popular half-a-century after its prime time, reminds us now what we were reminded then: there are stranger things than are dreamt of in our philosophy. Our eyes are opened to realities we thought we had neatly stowed. "A Stop at Willoughby", aired in 1960 during the first season, looked at the frustrations of the modern corporate individual and the impossibility of escape into a simpler, serener, stabler yesteryear. In 2012, mass movements, notably the Tea Party, have been demonstrably determined to move the entire country back to a halcyon past. Tea Partiers, extolling the individual, have substituted a collective for an individualist solution to the troubles of modernity, but the result is the same.
James Daly plays Gart Williams, a high-powered Madison Avenue executive harassed by his boss at work and his wife at home. Napping on the train back to the suburbs at night, he hears the conductor announcing "Willoughby." Upon awakening, he finds it is daylight, summertime, and...1880. The train starts moving, he awakens again, having returned to winter, 1960, nighttime. He asks another conductor about "Willoughby", only to be told there is no such stop on this line. As the pressure increases from all sides, as he gets no respite at work or at home, Williams again naps on the train, and again wakes up in Willoughby, in a summer past. He learns a little more, but he stays on the train, which returns him to modern times. His situation grows more hectic desperate. At his wits' end, he makes up his mind that next time--he stops at Willoughby.
He does. In the sleepy summertime, with the band playing on the stand, he meets a couple of boys who have been fishing. Tomorrow, he will join them. He walks happily into his new life. The scene fades to a snow bank by the railroad track, in 1960, where the authorities are picking up the body of Gart Williams, who jumped off the train. Willoughby is the name of the undertaker, into whose hearse they load the corpse.
Serling protested the fast pace and high pressure that some people succumb to in modern times, how people can be driven to suicide. There is a simple lesson here: we all need to take it easy. But two generations later, we live in a world that is obsessed with material acquisition, one that celebrates high pressure and derides the "whiners" who are unable to keep up the pace. Some of those who cheer the breakneck temper of modernity would take us back to a time before government began to interfere with the ability of the successful to really trample on everyone else. The Tea Party Patriots, the politicians who exploit them and the billionaires who finance them, have set us a goal of marching boldly into the future by going back to the past, by jettisoning all the social policies and programs that America and all other industrialized countries have adopted, starting around the 1880's. The ambitions of this mass movement resemble a collective Willoughby. Anyone who knows night and winter happen--in short, reasonable people--can see that what this movement seeks is self-destruction.
The Tea Partiers of the new millennium are a far cry from traditional conservatives. Not too long ago (say, the 1960's), conservatives were for maintaining the status quo. Believing society to be mostly in good shape, they felt it unwise to change too much, too quickly. Some change is desirable, even conservatives would agree, but changes should come slowly, only after proving they are really needed, and they will actually work. In contrast, liberals would advocate for the changes they think are needed, believing we can always make adjustments as we go along. In this respect conservatives and liberals differ only in degree. There is always room for honest disagreement and compromise. Modern "conservatives" actually detest the present. They would destroy every government function save the military and police, and compel the whole society to return to the nineteenth century, forcefully if necessary. Then (and only then) do they believe we can proceed into a future of health, wealth, and happiness. Lacking a clear explanation from the Tea Partiers as to what they seek, we are free to conclude that Serling's "Willoughby" aptly describes their goal.
Many flaws are evident in any actual Willoughby of 1880. The times were simpler, lacking the automobiles, radio, and television of the mid-twentieth century--certainly missing the computers and electronic gadgets of the twenty-first. Yet the Tea Partiers make no proposals to rid our planet of modern inventions. They would free us from the social, political, and economic changes of the modern age. They want a return to a time of low taxes and freewheeling capitalism, when each of us could theoretically ascend to celestial heights or descend into deep misery, depending on our ability and drive. With opportunity for material improvements universal, there was no need for government handouts or taxpayer giveaways. A man earned what he got and kept it. Life, they believe, was ideal.
The fishing might not be so good, though, with raw sewage and industrial waste going straight into streams. But with the twelve-hour day and six-day week, fishing might be more fantasy than experience. Still, without TV, movies, computer games and the like, there was less to do. There were books, and kids did learn to read--those who did not avail themselves of the "opportunity" to go into factory work at six years old. Concerning opportunity, we know the plutocrats who owned the country rigged the game so they and theirs had more "good old equal opportunity" than everyone else. There were no intrusive government regulations trying to give commoners a chance to improve their lot. The list: epidemics, pollution, corruption, Jim Crow, ongoing colonial wars--goes on. The point is that 1880 had its own troubles, and we cannot trade the problems we have now for those we solved then, even if we desperately want to.
The emotion of nostalgia is part of human nature, necessary in its place. Tearing down the social contract because some of us think we were better off without it is a psychotic proposition. Even without a boss as sadistic as Mr. Misrell, or a spouse as coldly ambitious as Jane Williams, the stress of living can torment even the sturdiest souls. Desperation to simplify is perfectly understandable. We can resolve to take life easier, to smell the flowers, to think. We can encourage others to do these things. We cannot get rid of bullying bosses and grasping family members by stealing Social Security for Wall Street, by turning Medicare into a cheap coupon exchange. We might improve our individual lives by realizing we all face the same challenges, and treat our fellow humans accordingly. We cannot turn back time.
Gart Williams, a man alone, gave up the fight and jumped to Willoughby. America at the start of the third millenniuim has many isolated individuals, trying to live in a corporate-dominated world We all have a rough time. Some people have banded together in a vain attempt to bring us back to halcyon days. In the process they have allied themselves with the very corporate interests that have made their lives so impossibly complicated. In terms of society, a stop at Willoughby comes down to collective suicide.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
BEFORE WE GLOAT
Rachel Maddow has revived her show's"GOP in Exile" segment. It is entertaining, but liberals and progressives are not entitled to gloat about the 2012 election. We are understandably relieved: Social Security, Medicare, Planned Parenthood, even Sesame Street (among other popular government programs) will be preserved. The losing side made no bones about taking them out. Though we get a sigh of relief, we had better forego hubris. This is not a matter of "getting down to their level" or practicing the Golden Rule. In reality the election results were, overall, decisive and pleasant for left-wingers, but still very close. Overconfidence will persuade many liberals to relax their guard, which we dare not do.
The right wing lost this battle, but it won the one before. While gloating over their 2010 victory, the winners pushed through many draconian measures designed to solidify their power. The result was an aroused popular resistance, which after two years of hard work, proved successful. But the right was defeated, not vanquished. It is still represented by a wealthy, organized, ruthless political machine. Judging from the many calls for secession and assassination, the citizens who form the base for this machine are angrier than ever before. Their hatred for Barack Obama and liberal "socialists" is undiminished, and likely to stay that way. They are already gearing up for the next battle, and their determination to win is the greater for having lost this one. The winners (this time) would preserve and expand the safety net, the social contract that depends on functioning government. The losing side would terminate it, even though many of its members directly benefit from that same social contract. They are not only voting against their enlightened self-interests, they are voting against their obvious self-interests. What they expect in return is suspicious if it can even be discerned, but no one can deny that anyone wiling to sacrifice what benefits him directly is a formidable opponent. Probably the only point that liberals and conservatives agree on is that a victory for the other side means the end of America as we know and love it. The difficulties of finding any common ground appear overwhelming.
The side that can get a few more of its partisans to vote wins. The rightwing has an advantage in that its partisans are more enthusiastic than liberals. Despite the Big Lie, liberals tend to be practical, broad-minded, thoughtful--seeking to improve a society which they basically support. Reasonable arguments do not build mass movements. Right wingers tend to be frustrated, confused, angry--distrustful of changes in the world at large yet ready to take radical measures to "restore" America to its lost greatness. These true believers are led by a cynical coterie of wealthy opportunists and their sycophants, who believe they can control the angry masses they lead. Whether they actually can, time will tell. But they are ready with the finances needed to keep the base agitated. Their coup nearly succeeded two years ago. They are not about to give up after one loss. This is why they often win.
In recent elections, results have been decisive, though the numbers have been close. Nationwide, voters are about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats got the bigger half this year. Republican power brokers are well aware that another election looms ahead, and they are preparing for it now. They have a huge advantage in available money, courtesy of the Supreme Court The Tea Party patriots who form the nucleus of the right wing still hate Obama, and the plutocrats who control the Republican Party will invest heavily to keep that hate strong. Liberals, on the other hand, seeking practical solutions to complex problems, lack that scorched-earth fervor, that fearlessness of risk, that make the right wingers so zealous. Liberals will need to compensate with hard work and resolve, to see the long fight through. We cannot afford to let hubris make us lazy.
Tea Partiers might perceive the Republican Party as a party of losers, and stay away from the polls. The plutocrats who dominate the Republican Party could cut their losses and work with the Democrats. But the possibility is greater that liberals, believing they have won the good fight, will turn away from politics and get on with their generally agreeable lives. Living a good life is worthwhile, but we dare not ignore the political scene, unpleasant as it is. We did that in the seventies, and the result was the eighties. We did that in 1994, and got government shutdown and impeachment in return. We did that in 2010, with disastrous results. The opposition is digging in for the long haul. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and gloating makes us blind.
The right wing lost this battle, but it won the one before. While gloating over their 2010 victory, the winners pushed through many draconian measures designed to solidify their power. The result was an aroused popular resistance, which after two years of hard work, proved successful. But the right was defeated, not vanquished. It is still represented by a wealthy, organized, ruthless political machine. Judging from the many calls for secession and assassination, the citizens who form the base for this machine are angrier than ever before. Their hatred for Barack Obama and liberal "socialists" is undiminished, and likely to stay that way. They are already gearing up for the next battle, and their determination to win is the greater for having lost this one. The winners (this time) would preserve and expand the safety net, the social contract that depends on functioning government. The losing side would terminate it, even though many of its members directly benefit from that same social contract. They are not only voting against their enlightened self-interests, they are voting against their obvious self-interests. What they expect in return is suspicious if it can even be discerned, but no one can deny that anyone wiling to sacrifice what benefits him directly is a formidable opponent. Probably the only point that liberals and conservatives agree on is that a victory for the other side means the end of America as we know and love it. The difficulties of finding any common ground appear overwhelming.
The side that can get a few more of its partisans to vote wins. The rightwing has an advantage in that its partisans are more enthusiastic than liberals. Despite the Big Lie, liberals tend to be practical, broad-minded, thoughtful--seeking to improve a society which they basically support. Reasonable arguments do not build mass movements. Right wingers tend to be frustrated, confused, angry--distrustful of changes in the world at large yet ready to take radical measures to "restore" America to its lost greatness. These true believers are led by a cynical coterie of wealthy opportunists and their sycophants, who believe they can control the angry masses they lead. Whether they actually can, time will tell. But they are ready with the finances needed to keep the base agitated. Their coup nearly succeeded two years ago. They are not about to give up after one loss. This is why they often win.
In recent elections, results have been decisive, though the numbers have been close. Nationwide, voters are about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats got the bigger half this year. Republican power brokers are well aware that another election looms ahead, and they are preparing for it now. They have a huge advantage in available money, courtesy of the Supreme Court The Tea Party patriots who form the nucleus of the right wing still hate Obama, and the plutocrats who control the Republican Party will invest heavily to keep that hate strong. Liberals, on the other hand, seeking practical solutions to complex problems, lack that scorched-earth fervor, that fearlessness of risk, that make the right wingers so zealous. Liberals will need to compensate with hard work and resolve, to see the long fight through. We cannot afford to let hubris make us lazy.
Tea Partiers might perceive the Republican Party as a party of losers, and stay away from the polls. The plutocrats who dominate the Republican Party could cut their losses and work with the Democrats. But the possibility is greater that liberals, believing they have won the good fight, will turn away from politics and get on with their generally agreeable lives. Living a good life is worthwhile, but we dare not ignore the political scene, unpleasant as it is. We did that in the seventies, and the result was the eighties. We did that in 1994, and got government shutdown and impeachment in return. We did that in 2010, with disastrous results. The opposition is digging in for the long haul. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and gloating makes us blind.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
SCAPEGOATS AND PUBLIC DECENCY
The Davis pepper-spraying incident has been settled for a cool million. And John Pike, the sprayer, is now an ex-UC Davis policeman. From a corporate standpoint, a guilty party has been punished, complainers paid off, public outrage placated, problem solved. A former policeman needs to find a new line of work. His education, training, and experience (mostly funded by taxpayers) are all down the rat hole. The important fact to everyone up and down the chain-of-command: the UCD administration, the University of California hierarchy, the politicians who lay down the rules for education and the businessmen who control the funding--is that the proper authorities have dealt with the problem. To the proper authorities, Pike's misdeed was not that he sprayed poison on citizens who were acting within their rights, but that he caused a public relations difficulty that higher-ups--way higher-ups--could not avoid addressing. Another scapegoat bites the dust.
Pike said he hoped he would not be made a scapegoat, which means he knew he was doomed as soon as the toxic dust had settled. We all know he did what he was accused of doing. And his arrogant expression while spraying that huddled mass does not help his cause. It is the arrogance of someone who knows he serves an invincible institution, an institution whose orders he was following. Of course, afterward he remembered that the invincible corporate monolith he served--the corporate state we all support and serve--never hesitates to chop off whatever parts of itself become troublesome. He could probably sense his comrades start to withdraw. Suddenly, nobody knew him.
Why did Pike spray? Humans have been trying to explain human actions for a long time, and have yet to come up with answers that satisfy everyone. Surely, any of us could have done the same, under the right circumstances. The fact is policemen do not make policy. Like soldiers, they obey orders, and when deployed to keep order dressed in military garb and carrying military gear, they will commit acts of war, even on citizens who are acting within their rights.
The problem is that our social, economic, and governing structure no longer suits the needs of many people, and trends indicate the system will desert many more of us as time goes by. Furthermore, our elected representatives are no longer responsive to our messages, forced instead to serve the business interests that fund their campaigns. We the People must make ourselves heard through other channels, and the Law of the Land assures us the right, "peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." Instead of listening to the protesters' grievances, the powers that be (not only in Davis, but all over the country) sent police as soldiers to quell the disturbance. There is no delicate way to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights. Still, when it happens, those at the top are ready with a routine of plausible denial, intended to put the blame on some underling whenever things go awry. This time, Pike was it.
Piling society's sins on a scapegoat is worse than merely ineffective--it allows "civilized" people to look down on "primitive" societies, and here we are, looking uncivilized. In America we teach our children not to use superior force to hurt people who make no threats, who are weak. We teach them not to harm people who are doing no harm, who are doing what they have a right to do. From the standpoint of our earliest social lessons, Pike behaved wrongly. Yet he was commanded to be there, to do what was necessary to keep order, to protect the State's property. He was doing his job, until public outrage forced his superiors to react, to deal with a problem they had not anticipated. The million-dollar settlement adds to the establishment's embarrassment. For causing legal, fiscal, and public relations problems (not for violation of moral fundamentals) Pike lost his job. Of course, there will be no criminal charges. Even today, most Americans still get a speedy and public trial, and a public trial of a UC Davis policeman would expose the guilt of everyone up the chain of command, right up to us citizens. Since we the people are still nominally in control of our government, some of us might ask some tough questions of our political leaders, which incidentally, is also our right. No, it's better from a standpoint of orderly rectitude for Pike to just lose his job and disappear.
Our social and economic problems are still rampant. There will be more protests, and now demonstrators will know their rights are to some extent protected. The next time, will police officers act more humanely, more sensibly, out of fear of being fired? Will the establishment actually try to deal effectively with the demonstrators, try to serve us all, and not only the business interests behind the scenes? Or will the powers take a harder line, attempting to frighten both police and protesters into silent obedience? Time will tell.
Pike said he hoped he would not be made a scapegoat, which means he knew he was doomed as soon as the toxic dust had settled. We all know he did what he was accused of doing. And his arrogant expression while spraying that huddled mass does not help his cause. It is the arrogance of someone who knows he serves an invincible institution, an institution whose orders he was following. Of course, afterward he remembered that the invincible corporate monolith he served--the corporate state we all support and serve--never hesitates to chop off whatever parts of itself become troublesome. He could probably sense his comrades start to withdraw. Suddenly, nobody knew him.
Why did Pike spray? Humans have been trying to explain human actions for a long time, and have yet to come up with answers that satisfy everyone. Surely, any of us could have done the same, under the right circumstances. The fact is policemen do not make policy. Like soldiers, they obey orders, and when deployed to keep order dressed in military garb and carrying military gear, they will commit acts of war, even on citizens who are acting within their rights.
The problem is that our social, economic, and governing structure no longer suits the needs of many people, and trends indicate the system will desert many more of us as time goes by. Furthermore, our elected representatives are no longer responsive to our messages, forced instead to serve the business interests that fund their campaigns. We the People must make ourselves heard through other channels, and the Law of the Land assures us the right, "peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." Instead of listening to the protesters' grievances, the powers that be (not only in Davis, but all over the country) sent police as soldiers to quell the disturbance. There is no delicate way to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights. Still, when it happens, those at the top are ready with a routine of plausible denial, intended to put the blame on some underling whenever things go awry. This time, Pike was it.
Piling society's sins on a scapegoat is worse than merely ineffective--it allows "civilized" people to look down on "primitive" societies, and here we are, looking uncivilized. In America we teach our children not to use superior force to hurt people who make no threats, who are weak. We teach them not to harm people who are doing no harm, who are doing what they have a right to do. From the standpoint of our earliest social lessons, Pike behaved wrongly. Yet he was commanded to be there, to do what was necessary to keep order, to protect the State's property. He was doing his job, until public outrage forced his superiors to react, to deal with a problem they had not anticipated. The million-dollar settlement adds to the establishment's embarrassment. For causing legal, fiscal, and public relations problems (not for violation of moral fundamentals) Pike lost his job. Of course, there will be no criminal charges. Even today, most Americans still get a speedy and public trial, and a public trial of a UC Davis policeman would expose the guilt of everyone up the chain of command, right up to us citizens. Since we the people are still nominally in control of our government, some of us might ask some tough questions of our political leaders, which incidentally, is also our right. No, it's better from a standpoint of orderly rectitude for Pike to just lose his job and disappear.
Our social and economic problems are still rampant. There will be more protests, and now demonstrators will know their rights are to some extent protected. The next time, will police officers act more humanely, more sensibly, out of fear of being fired? Will the establishment actually try to deal effectively with the demonstrators, try to serve us all, and not only the business interests behind the scenes? Or will the powers take a harder line, attempting to frighten both police and protesters into silent obedience? Time will tell.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
PIPE DREAMS OF GROVER NORQUIST
"We just need a president who can sign the legislation that the Republican House and Senate pass. We don't need someone to think. We need someone with enough digits on one hand to hold a pen." Grover Norquist
With Norquist ordering up a trained monkey to do his bidding in the White House, we look for a denial from Republicans in vain. It appears from the general acquiescence that Norquist will be one of the powers behind the throne and Mitt Romney will be a figurehead in a corporate, top-down government of a "democracy," and Republican voters seem to have no objections. More astonishing is the lack of any interest in Norquist's cocky statement on the part of the media. The U.S. Congress, which in 2012 is registering its all-time lowest levels of public approval, is in a position to claim the total subservience of the presidential nominee for one of America's two major parties, and Grover Norquist is ready to assume the subservience of Congress. The election outcome being a dead heat so far, Norquist has reasons to be smug. The Republican power brokers can count on a base that fanatically hates Barack Obama, the sleepwalking of the media, a huge advantage of money, and plots to disenfranchise voters in key swing states. Unless Obama can find some hidden votes where they really count, Norquist could very possibly be in charge of the country.
What will a Tea Party congress and a compliant president do? The stated goal of the Republican Party is to reduce {down to virtually nothing) taxes, government spending, and regulations. Then we will all be free, in an armed and theoretically polite society, to win or lose according to our abilities. The best and brightest will rise to the top, the mediocrities and inferiors will sink below, but we will all be better off in the long run as the free market works its magic. A millennium of unforeseen plenty will commence. Not everyone agrees with this celestial vision, but with the half the likely voters willing to take the gamble, the true believers might very well take power, and we could find out, one way or another.
Tea Partiers believe that if we let the economy, sick or well, run its course, any casualties will be necessary sacrifices, and the sooner we do the dirty work, the sooner we will reach equilibrium, and we can begin to climb upward toward economic rapture. They believe that if we try to "fix" the problem with help from the "nanny state," we will never be free, never have that true lift from the real "job creators." We will create a whole segment of the population that is permanently dependent on government aid, people who would be better off dead (and the rest of us would be better off with them dead). The makers of wealth among us will be permanently crippled, leaving the whole human race in a state of weakness, poverty, and darkness. Let the losers simply die so the winners can make a world where we all live better. Thus speak the true believers. This theory has its appeal. Who among us can't think of some "losers" who should just die in a world where the natural laws are right all the time? Of course, our perspectives change when we contemplate that some people surely feel the same way toward us.
In fact, natural laws have little effect on economics, a completely man-made, inexact science, subject to constant revision. Laws of nature such as weather, tectonics, and human error, visit their horrors on communist and capitalist societies alike. To lessen these horrors, we have formed social contracts to help one another.
There is a strong temptation to experience that total freedom, of turning us all loose, independent and undependable, to do our utmost. This is the freedom of driving mountain roads at breakneck speed, knowing at any moment the end could come--or of ingesting psychedelic drugs, and seeing what's in there. These excursions in defiance of common sense are widespread--probably they keep us as a race fairly sane. These are individual adventures, and though most of us survive them, till we live on this planet, under the troposphere, eating, drinking, breathing, and associating with our fellows, who must do the same.
We know that unmitigated free enterprise has been attempted before, and carried to its logical conclusion it has only resulted in depressions or wars, of unimaginable destruction. There is no evidence whatsoever that any wars or depressions have eliminated inferior and unnecessary people from the world, our history universally records that they increase human misery. To alleviate or prevent these dreadful manmade incidences, people have sought collective remedies, through their social contracts, their governments. No manmade remedies have been thoroughly successful. But to renounce them, to turn back to systems that have been tried before and are known to fail, is the very definition of insanity. Yet Grover Norquist believes that we can avoid all the pitfalls this time. We would do well not to share his pipe dream. It could be a nationwide bummer.
With Norquist ordering up a trained monkey to do his bidding in the White House, we look for a denial from Republicans in vain. It appears from the general acquiescence that Norquist will be one of the powers behind the throne and Mitt Romney will be a figurehead in a corporate, top-down government of a "democracy," and Republican voters seem to have no objections. More astonishing is the lack of any interest in Norquist's cocky statement on the part of the media. The U.S. Congress, which in 2012 is registering its all-time lowest levels of public approval, is in a position to claim the total subservience of the presidential nominee for one of America's two major parties, and Grover Norquist is ready to assume the subservience of Congress. The election outcome being a dead heat so far, Norquist has reasons to be smug. The Republican power brokers can count on a base that fanatically hates Barack Obama, the sleepwalking of the media, a huge advantage of money, and plots to disenfranchise voters in key swing states. Unless Obama can find some hidden votes where they really count, Norquist could very possibly be in charge of the country.
What will a Tea Party congress and a compliant president do? The stated goal of the Republican Party is to reduce {down to virtually nothing) taxes, government spending, and regulations. Then we will all be free, in an armed and theoretically polite society, to win or lose according to our abilities. The best and brightest will rise to the top, the mediocrities and inferiors will sink below, but we will all be better off in the long run as the free market works its magic. A millennium of unforeseen plenty will commence. Not everyone agrees with this celestial vision, but with the half the likely voters willing to take the gamble, the true believers might very well take power, and we could find out, one way or another.
Tea Partiers believe that if we let the economy, sick or well, run its course, any casualties will be necessary sacrifices, and the sooner we do the dirty work, the sooner we will reach equilibrium, and we can begin to climb upward toward economic rapture. They believe that if we try to "fix" the problem with help from the "nanny state," we will never be free, never have that true lift from the real "job creators." We will create a whole segment of the population that is permanently dependent on government aid, people who would be better off dead (and the rest of us would be better off with them dead). The makers of wealth among us will be permanently crippled, leaving the whole human race in a state of weakness, poverty, and darkness. Let the losers simply die so the winners can make a world where we all live better. Thus speak the true believers. This theory has its appeal. Who among us can't think of some "losers" who should just die in a world where the natural laws are right all the time? Of course, our perspectives change when we contemplate that some people surely feel the same way toward us.
In fact, natural laws have little effect on economics, a completely man-made, inexact science, subject to constant revision. Laws of nature such as weather, tectonics, and human error, visit their horrors on communist and capitalist societies alike. To lessen these horrors, we have formed social contracts to help one another.
There is a strong temptation to experience that total freedom, of turning us all loose, independent and undependable, to do our utmost. This is the freedom of driving mountain roads at breakneck speed, knowing at any moment the end could come--or of ingesting psychedelic drugs, and seeing what's in there. These excursions in defiance of common sense are widespread--probably they keep us as a race fairly sane. These are individual adventures, and though most of us survive them, till we live on this planet, under the troposphere, eating, drinking, breathing, and associating with our fellows, who must do the same.
We know that unmitigated free enterprise has been attempted before, and carried to its logical conclusion it has only resulted in depressions or wars, of unimaginable destruction. There is no evidence whatsoever that any wars or depressions have eliminated inferior and unnecessary people from the world, our history universally records that they increase human misery. To alleviate or prevent these dreadful manmade incidences, people have sought collective remedies, through their social contracts, their governments. No manmade remedies have been thoroughly successful. But to renounce them, to turn back to systems that have been tried before and are known to fail, is the very definition of insanity. Yet Grover Norquist believes that we can avoid all the pitfalls this time. We would do well not to share his pipe dream. It could be a nationwide bummer.
Friday, July 27, 2012
BOUGHT AND PAID FOR GOVERNMENT
"Money is the mother's milk of politics."
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, and then vote against them, you have no business being up here." Jesse Unruh
The difference between free speech and bribery ought to be obvious to everyone, though five-ninths of the Supreme Court seems a trifle confused. As a result of the Court's "Citizens' United" decision, our country is flooded by political money (much of it secret) which we all know is expected to buy elections. Though we try to control it, propaganda is quite effective at controlling populations, and nobody knows this better than advertisers and the corporations that employ them. Dictatorships of the past tried to eliminate public information that ran country to their creeds. Now the ones in control need only bury any opposition with overwhelming volume and output.
If a citizen donates a small amount to a political candidate, he does so because he wants to elect a candidate whose viewpoint and governing philosophy generally agree with his own. If a citizen donates a large amount, he is expecting from that politician special considerations which will benefit him financially. The exact amount that differentiates between a small, helpful donation, and one which will directly net financial rewards, varies, depending on individual politicians. But in the case of really large donations, the meaning is obvious. For over a century now, some citizens have sought to control or eliminate these huge donations. But now the Supreme Court tells us this is unconstitutional, that corporations are human and money is the same as free speech. And now, to no one's surprise, political spending, especially on the corporate side, has grown like an invasive plant.
Very wealthy individuals, and the corporations they control, can afford large political donations. To a billionaire, hundreds of thousands or even millions in campaign contributions cause less hardship than ten or twenty dollars would for average working stiffs. To them, these are investments, and the system is rigged so they always get them back. If their candidate wins, their investment realizes a quick return. If they lose, recovery takes a little longer. But economics in the U.S.A. always benefits the wealthy, and always has. Even in the depths of the New Deal, the rich made out quite well. They were made to share, but workers started buying things the rich were selling again, so they did just fine. Greed knows no limits, however, and those who succumb to its allure must have it all. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the greedy are in a better position to get it than they have been since the late nineteenth century.
Of course, it can be said that politicians could accept large donations and still vote their consciences, after Unruh's admonitions quoted above. But based on Unruh's benchmarks, quite a few politicians are in the wrong trade. And in modern times, we are no longer dealing in wine, women, and song. The offers from corporate coffers are measured in enough money to swing most elections. Political survival depends on keeping people in the boardrooms happy. A politician will fit the bill, or the moneyed interests will find someone who can.
Bribery by any other name still stinks. And the brand unleashed by the Supreme Court has already raised a foul reek, toxic to the concept of government by people. Should there be another way to spin this rank situation, it might be worth the amusement to hear it. The supporters of corporate bribery say anyone can play the game, provided they have the money. It just happens that only big business has that kind of money, and big businessmen have exhibited no interest in sharing. We have reached that Orwellian state whence all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Corporations, owning and totally consuming the media, will dominate politics without opposition, and corporate interests will run government for their sole benefit. This is the quintessence of fascism, as supported by the Supreme Court.
Perhaps the proposed constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people will be passed. It is making headway, and most Americans support it. But in a corporate state, things people want are of less than minimal importance. As time goes by and the burial of all media in corporate money re-iterates the party line again and again, Americans will hear less and less of opposition. For this reason, the election of 2012 is incredibly important. The republic, which our founders warned us we must work to keep, is under direct and severe threat. About half the voters (usually, about half the people who could vote do) believe a strong corporate state is a good idea. Those who disagree need to make every effort to restore a healthy republic. Should the corporate elite, the one percent, consolidate power, those who honestly believe in government by the people will be in a terrible position. America is at a place where two roads diverge. The one we choose will make all the difference.
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, and then vote against them, you have no business being up here." Jesse Unruh
The difference between free speech and bribery ought to be obvious to everyone, though five-ninths of the Supreme Court seems a trifle confused. As a result of the Court's "Citizens' United" decision, our country is flooded by political money (much of it secret) which we all know is expected to buy elections. Though we try to control it, propaganda is quite effective at controlling populations, and nobody knows this better than advertisers and the corporations that employ them. Dictatorships of the past tried to eliminate public information that ran country to their creeds. Now the ones in control need only bury any opposition with overwhelming volume and output.
If a citizen donates a small amount to a political candidate, he does so because he wants to elect a candidate whose viewpoint and governing philosophy generally agree with his own. If a citizen donates a large amount, he is expecting from that politician special considerations which will benefit him financially. The exact amount that differentiates between a small, helpful donation, and one which will directly net financial rewards, varies, depending on individual politicians. But in the case of really large donations, the meaning is obvious. For over a century now, some citizens have sought to control or eliminate these huge donations. But now the Supreme Court tells us this is unconstitutional, that corporations are human and money is the same as free speech. And now, to no one's surprise, political spending, especially on the corporate side, has grown like an invasive plant.
Very wealthy individuals, and the corporations they control, can afford large political donations. To a billionaire, hundreds of thousands or even millions in campaign contributions cause less hardship than ten or twenty dollars would for average working stiffs. To them, these are investments, and the system is rigged so they always get them back. If their candidate wins, their investment realizes a quick return. If they lose, recovery takes a little longer. But economics in the U.S.A. always benefits the wealthy, and always has. Even in the depths of the New Deal, the rich made out quite well. They were made to share, but workers started buying things the rich were selling again, so they did just fine. Greed knows no limits, however, and those who succumb to its allure must have it all. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the greedy are in a better position to get it than they have been since the late nineteenth century.
Of course, it can be said that politicians could accept large donations and still vote their consciences, after Unruh's admonitions quoted above. But based on Unruh's benchmarks, quite a few politicians are in the wrong trade. And in modern times, we are no longer dealing in wine, women, and song. The offers from corporate coffers are measured in enough money to swing most elections. Political survival depends on keeping people in the boardrooms happy. A politician will fit the bill, or the moneyed interests will find someone who can.
Bribery by any other name still stinks. And the brand unleashed by the Supreme Court has already raised a foul reek, toxic to the concept of government by people. Should there be another way to spin this rank situation, it might be worth the amusement to hear it. The supporters of corporate bribery say anyone can play the game, provided they have the money. It just happens that only big business has that kind of money, and big businessmen have exhibited no interest in sharing. We have reached that Orwellian state whence all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Corporations, owning and totally consuming the media, will dominate politics without opposition, and corporate interests will run government for their sole benefit. This is the quintessence of fascism, as supported by the Supreme Court.
Perhaps the proposed constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people will be passed. It is making headway, and most Americans support it. But in a corporate state, things people want are of less than minimal importance. As time goes by and the burial of all media in corporate money re-iterates the party line again and again, Americans will hear less and less of opposition. For this reason, the election of 2012 is incredibly important. The republic, which our founders warned us we must work to keep, is under direct and severe threat. About half the voters (usually, about half the people who could vote do) believe a strong corporate state is a good idea. Those who disagree need to make every effort to restore a healthy republic. Should the corporate elite, the one percent, consolidate power, those who honestly believe in government by the people will be in a terrible position. America is at a place where two roads diverge. The one we choose will make all the difference.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
THIS IS ONE HAPPY FAMILY, ALL RIGHT
"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life...the children; those who are in the twilight of life...the elderly; and those who are in the shadow of life...the sick, the needy, and the disabled." Hubert Humphrey
--In this Depression, we debate the practicality (not the morality) of public works to stimulate employment while the private marketplace has misplaced its magic. Leftists call for more New Deal projects, funded by government through borrowing and taxes on high incomes. Right-wingers claim that make-work does little to alleviate long-term unemployment, and that government must reduce spending so that a solid dollar will eventually restore confidence. Comparing a country to a family, which in hard times must cut back on spending, conservatives hold that government must do the same. Austerity seems to make sense, in a traditional family values way. But the argument is deceptively simple, so it can be used to deceive.
--The austerity position's simplicity ignores the actual concept of family. In the first place, when the family is financially strapped, does Dad get a new Cadillac? Does he get to buy new guns? While Grandma and the kids are doing without, does Dad get a new yacht? And what about Junior? He just got home from the wars, and is having problems adjusting. And then there's that teen-aged daughter, who somehow got herself in a "family way." The family analogies can go on and on. What we have here is not a hard-up family, but one with psychopathically misplaced priorities.
--People who use the "horse sense" family analogy relate to the Tea Party, still live in relative comfort, and tell other people to practice austerity. Perceiving no threat to themselves, they feel government spending only means higher taxes for useless programs. Poverty, unemployment, sickness, homelessness are things that happen to other people, other families. As to the country they compare the family to--well, their country is doing just fine. Somebody else's country (a country that elected a president who does not belong) is asking for government handouts, and might need to be cast adrift. People in the right country, the ones with "horse sense" need no government help...never did. Delusional fallacies are hard to refute with facts. The Tea Partiers' most dangerous delusion has to be that they share a love of rugged individualism with the ruling elite in America, believing the rulers will not use them to divide the workers from each other, and having done so, continue robbing everyone. History shows that in the latter nineteenth century, before Mussolini actually defined fascism as the merging of government with corporations, we had that situation in America. And those no-nonsense Americans helped the plutocrats to power, and were paid rather poorly for it.
--Using that horse sense, we turned a wilderness continent into a land of productive farms and factories, simultaneously denuding forests, polluting the sky, and turning rivers into flaming cesspools. At the same time a tiny minority hijacked most of the continent's wealth, to the country's economic and social detriment. We learned our lesson and delivered the New Deal, but in the last thirty or forty years, collective amnesia has taken hold. Ignoring the past, we are dooming ourselves to repeat it. The world is changing though, and despite the fact some of us still retain material comforts, rapid change makes emotional and mental comfort hard to find. Electronic media put us all in instant touch with everyone, allowing the world to intrude on what we thought had been a pretty nice situation. The tendency to circle the wagons and keep out the rest of the world is growing, though the world is already inside the circle. Any attempt to secure a bright future based on an unrealistic sense of the past has already failed.
--The past the Tea Partiers are seeking is that halcyon time when they felt they shared with the heads of major corporations the same values: hard work and self-reliance. Television heroes such as Jim Anderson, Ward Cleaver, and Jim Newton weren't rich, but they earned a living, just like the wholesome, no-nonsense Americans who watched them. And times were getting better. The people who did not share in the boom times: minorities, foreigners, people who were different--still received more than they deserved. But now, those who were left out are getting in, and the boom times are over. The good times, the Tea Partiers believe, cannot return until the social and economic scales are restored to what they were. Bring back prosperity by eliminating gains made by people who never really earned them anyway--how deceptively simple.
--But will the corporate heads, the tremendously wealthy, the one percent, willing give up the gains they have made since those good old days? Common sense says "No." So much for family values.
--In this Depression, we debate the practicality (not the morality) of public works to stimulate employment while the private marketplace has misplaced its magic. Leftists call for more New Deal projects, funded by government through borrowing and taxes on high incomes. Right-wingers claim that make-work does little to alleviate long-term unemployment, and that government must reduce spending so that a solid dollar will eventually restore confidence. Comparing a country to a family, which in hard times must cut back on spending, conservatives hold that government must do the same. Austerity seems to make sense, in a traditional family values way. But the argument is deceptively simple, so it can be used to deceive.
--The austerity position's simplicity ignores the actual concept of family. In the first place, when the family is financially strapped, does Dad get a new Cadillac? Does he get to buy new guns? While Grandma and the kids are doing without, does Dad get a new yacht? And what about Junior? He just got home from the wars, and is having problems adjusting. And then there's that teen-aged daughter, who somehow got herself in a "family way." The family analogies can go on and on. What we have here is not a hard-up family, but one with psychopathically misplaced priorities.
--People who use the "horse sense" family analogy relate to the Tea Party, still live in relative comfort, and tell other people to practice austerity. Perceiving no threat to themselves, they feel government spending only means higher taxes for useless programs. Poverty, unemployment, sickness, homelessness are things that happen to other people, other families. As to the country they compare the family to--well, their country is doing just fine. Somebody else's country (a country that elected a president who does not belong) is asking for government handouts, and might need to be cast adrift. People in the right country, the ones with "horse sense" need no government help...never did. Delusional fallacies are hard to refute with facts. The Tea Partiers' most dangerous delusion has to be that they share a love of rugged individualism with the ruling elite in America, believing the rulers will not use them to divide the workers from each other, and having done so, continue robbing everyone. History shows that in the latter nineteenth century, before Mussolini actually defined fascism as the merging of government with corporations, we had that situation in America. And those no-nonsense Americans helped the plutocrats to power, and were paid rather poorly for it.
--Using that horse sense, we turned a wilderness continent into a land of productive farms and factories, simultaneously denuding forests, polluting the sky, and turning rivers into flaming cesspools. At the same time a tiny minority hijacked most of the continent's wealth, to the country's economic and social detriment. We learned our lesson and delivered the New Deal, but in the last thirty or forty years, collective amnesia has taken hold. Ignoring the past, we are dooming ourselves to repeat it. The world is changing though, and despite the fact some of us still retain material comforts, rapid change makes emotional and mental comfort hard to find. Electronic media put us all in instant touch with everyone, allowing the world to intrude on what we thought had been a pretty nice situation. The tendency to circle the wagons and keep out the rest of the world is growing, though the world is already inside the circle. Any attempt to secure a bright future based on an unrealistic sense of the past has already failed.
--The past the Tea Partiers are seeking is that halcyon time when they felt they shared with the heads of major corporations the same values: hard work and self-reliance. Television heroes such as Jim Anderson, Ward Cleaver, and Jim Newton weren't rich, but they earned a living, just like the wholesome, no-nonsense Americans who watched them. And times were getting better. The people who did not share in the boom times: minorities, foreigners, people who were different--still received more than they deserved. But now, those who were left out are getting in, and the boom times are over. The good times, the Tea Partiers believe, cannot return until the social and economic scales are restored to what they were. Bring back prosperity by eliminating gains made by people who never really earned them anyway--how deceptively simple.
--But will the corporate heads, the tremendously wealthy, the one percent, willing give up the gains they have made since those good old days? Common sense says "No." So much for family values.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
SO IS WAR REALLY PEACE?
“We should begin a campaign against more war: no new statues, no new memorials, no new parades. No new names etched in stone.” Jerry White, The Sacramento Bee, 5/27/12
Memorial Day, 2012, saw a reversal in mainstream opinions about war. National patriotic holidays are traditionally reserved for homage to the sacrifices made by Americans in the military service. Jerry White has declared that troops need no further homage, and the best way we can thank them is to stop having wars. Until now, war fever would have drowned out such sentiment in a major newspaper. Ten years of endless war have dampened the fever so that now, someone like White can open the door. Once more we can debate the waging of war.
In the sixties and seventies, the discussion of warfare’s practicality was widespread and passionate, even ugly at times. Some of us remember. Ronald Reagan stifled the debate when he declared the Vietnam War was a “noble cause” while running against Jimmy Carter, who, like many Americans, had started out supporting the war, but had changed his mind.
As we know, Reagan won.
The victor gets the spoils. During the five years between War’s end and Reagan’s election, public opinion was quite ambiguous about the Vietnam War. We still detested communism, but there were very few who actually wanted the conflict to continue. We knew we had been conned into going to war, though we weren’t cheering that our side had lost. With Reagan’s victory, all the lies, cruelty, and death, could be justified as a noble cause. And that concept put war protesters just where Reagan wanted them: with traitors. And if one war could be a noble cause, it stood to reason they all could be. This trend would smooth the way for Reagan’s military buildup, and increased confrontation with the Soviet Union.
The joke war with Grenada proved how effective the noble cause argument had become. American ecstasy over winning a war against a tiny, impoverished island got us strutting our stuff once more. We were saving the world again, which meant that anti-war people had better get out of the way. During Reagan’s presidency we bombed Libya a couple times, shot down an Iranian airliner, and got into an illegal war against Nicaragua, which would have gotten any president but Reagan impeached. But Reagan could pretend not to remember while the right-wing propaganda machine went to work. If we were fighting another noble cause in Nicaragua, then those congressmen who tried to prevent it were the real bad guys. The Commander-in-Chief should be supreme. There was no time to debate over a noble cause. When Bush I invaded Panama we kept on cheering, so he treated us to the Gulf War. Resistance was futile during that carnival, as we deliriously watched the jets fly over and the troops move forward, while the enemy retreated in confusion. In the ecstasy of the aftermath, Bush I could gloat that Americans had “kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”
Of course, some Americans had been killed, as had many others (not that those statistics mattered much). And later, serious physical and psychic wounds, and war-related illnesses, would come back to haunt us, making life miserable for many veterans. But they had served their purpose so far as the country’s rulers were concerned. Except parades, statues, and memorials, veterans, like protesters, could be ignored while we searched for another noble cause.
The Afghanistan invasion turned out predictably: high-tech NATO forces routed Afghanistan’s backward military and let us jubilantly re-write history. America had done what empires from Alexander’s to the Soviets’ had failed to do. And before Americans could really see what a horror the occupation would become, Bush II set the stage for a full invasion of Iraq. In the case of Iraq, protesters had time to organize, and the demonstrations were huge and on a global scale, but the powers could still ignore them. We were on a roll. How could we stop in the middle of our triumphant ecstasy? Some of us remember that sick sensation from watching the fireworks on Baghdad, homes and cars decorated with flags, gloating politicians celebrating another righteous, easy war.
Then came the nightmarish struggles to pacify our conquered lands. Ten years in Afghanistan, eight in Iraq, have caused people to think, and question. And they are being heard. Jerry White, a decorated veteran of Vietnam, has sent out a call to stop going to war. Once again we can question the concepts of war as peace, freedom as slavery, ignorance as strength. Once more we are willing to listen when someone who was there reminds us that war is hell. Once more we can look at all the carnage and cruelty and honestly ask if it was worthwhile. We cannot bring back the dead… not ours, not theirs. But it has been suggested, by a combat veteran, that the only possible good we might take from this tragic decade of war is the good sense to quit.
War is not peace. Freedom is not slavery. Ignorance is not strength.
Memorial Day, 2012, saw a reversal in mainstream opinions about war. National patriotic holidays are traditionally reserved for homage to the sacrifices made by Americans in the military service. Jerry White has declared that troops need no further homage, and the best way we can thank them is to stop having wars. Until now, war fever would have drowned out such sentiment in a major newspaper. Ten years of endless war have dampened the fever so that now, someone like White can open the door. Once more we can debate the waging of war.
In the sixties and seventies, the discussion of warfare’s practicality was widespread and passionate, even ugly at times. Some of us remember. Ronald Reagan stifled the debate when he declared the Vietnam War was a “noble cause” while running against Jimmy Carter, who, like many Americans, had started out supporting the war, but had changed his mind.
As we know, Reagan won.
The victor gets the spoils. During the five years between War’s end and Reagan’s election, public opinion was quite ambiguous about the Vietnam War. We still detested communism, but there were very few who actually wanted the conflict to continue. We knew we had been conned into going to war, though we weren’t cheering that our side had lost. With Reagan’s victory, all the lies, cruelty, and death, could be justified as a noble cause. And that concept put war protesters just where Reagan wanted them: with traitors. And if one war could be a noble cause, it stood to reason they all could be. This trend would smooth the way for Reagan’s military buildup, and increased confrontation with the Soviet Union.
The joke war with Grenada proved how effective the noble cause argument had become. American ecstasy over winning a war against a tiny, impoverished island got us strutting our stuff once more. We were saving the world again, which meant that anti-war people had better get out of the way. During Reagan’s presidency we bombed Libya a couple times, shot down an Iranian airliner, and got into an illegal war against Nicaragua, which would have gotten any president but Reagan impeached. But Reagan could pretend not to remember while the right-wing propaganda machine went to work. If we were fighting another noble cause in Nicaragua, then those congressmen who tried to prevent it were the real bad guys. The Commander-in-Chief should be supreme. There was no time to debate over a noble cause. When Bush I invaded Panama we kept on cheering, so he treated us to the Gulf War. Resistance was futile during that carnival, as we deliriously watched the jets fly over and the troops move forward, while the enemy retreated in confusion. In the ecstasy of the aftermath, Bush I could gloat that Americans had “kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”
Of course, some Americans had been killed, as had many others (not that those statistics mattered much). And later, serious physical and psychic wounds, and war-related illnesses, would come back to haunt us, making life miserable for many veterans. But they had served their purpose so far as the country’s rulers were concerned. Except parades, statues, and memorials, veterans, like protesters, could be ignored while we searched for another noble cause.
The Afghanistan invasion turned out predictably: high-tech NATO forces routed Afghanistan’s backward military and let us jubilantly re-write history. America had done what empires from Alexander’s to the Soviets’ had failed to do. And before Americans could really see what a horror the occupation would become, Bush II set the stage for a full invasion of Iraq. In the case of Iraq, protesters had time to organize, and the demonstrations were huge and on a global scale, but the powers could still ignore them. We were on a roll. How could we stop in the middle of our triumphant ecstasy? Some of us remember that sick sensation from watching the fireworks on Baghdad, homes and cars decorated with flags, gloating politicians celebrating another righteous, easy war.
Then came the nightmarish struggles to pacify our conquered lands. Ten years in Afghanistan, eight in Iraq, have caused people to think, and question. And they are being heard. Jerry White, a decorated veteran of Vietnam, has sent out a call to stop going to war. Once again we can question the concepts of war as peace, freedom as slavery, ignorance as strength. Once more we are willing to listen when someone who was there reminds us that war is hell. Once more we can look at all the carnage and cruelty and honestly ask if it was worthwhile. We cannot bring back the dead… not ours, not theirs. But it has been suggested, by a combat veteran, that the only possible good we might take from this tragic decade of war is the good sense to quit.
War is not peace. Freedom is not slavery. Ignorance is not strength.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
HOW DO WE FUNCTION?
"There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."
Margaret Thatcher
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a moral justification for selfishness."
J. K. Galbraith
By denying society's existence, Margaret Thatcher reveals herself to be either extremely clueless, or extremely mendacious, as the reality of society's being is obvious. Denial also exposes that the right wing's "moral justification for selfishness" has worn thin. Individuals do look after their self-interests, and the concept of enlightened self-interest--the needs of the individual and how they fit in with the needs of everybody--is well worth examination. In the United States, about half the voting public believes (whether honestly or conveniently) Thatcher's creed, at least to some extent. Yet her followers do not bother to explain to the rest of us what is meant by the "no such thing" argument. Nor have they troubled to explain how their denial of society's existence does anything more than disguise anti-social greed.
Arguments debunking the non-society myth have been constantly presented, yet the True Believers still cling to it. Thatcher herself came of age during WWII, when her society was fighting for its life against a closely related society that had turned radically, dangerously different from her own. The nature of that life-and-death battle was how society would be ordered. Her society won, and immediately afterward, embarked on another similar struggle--mostly peaceful, yet far more prolonged. During that second struggle, Thatcher worked as a public servant, representing and for a time leading her society. And her leadership in the social engagement known as the Falklands War increased her popularity, allowing her to institute some of her anti-society policies.
Could someone declaring the non-existence of society simply not want to be bothered by the needs and wants of others? Total strangers, after all, appear to be none of our concern. Yet even a slight regard for reason compels us to see that our needs, and those of our fellows, are mutual. And even a scant knowledge of history demonstrates that individual prosperity increases when everyone prospers. Naturally, we will disagree on the extent of our mutual dependence. Of course we will debate the merits of the means of securing the general welfare. Ongoing dialogue concerning improvements in living standards is a major strength of a free society. But to deny society's existence, as a fact of life similar to gravity or the sunrise, seems like a ham-handed attempt to shut off that debate. Someone with Thatcher's intelligence has to know better. We are forced, then, to question her sincerity.
We are all responsible for ourselves, and for our well-being. Still it is impossible to imagine the seven billion selves on earth, all seeking only the gratification of their wants, along with the survival of the race. What sane individual believes he would be the one to triumph in such a chaotic struggle? Individuals tend to do well when the general welfare is disbursed generally. In complex societies, which all are now, we are naturally impatient with the desires and demands of total strangers. But the self-interest of each is subject to the self-interest of all.
Concerning families, these cannot endure without the workings of society: tolerance, politeness, mutual respect. Families in prehistoric times formed clans for their protection. Later, clans became tribes, and tribes evolved into nations. Today people are far more inter-woven and interdependent than ever before, and society is far more complex. Families are hard-pressed in the modern world, but they would be destroyed without a generally respected and sustained social fabric. We need only look at the horrible condition of families (and individuals) in failed states such as Somalia, where the social fabric has been demolished by the pandemonium of constant war.
By publicly denying society's existence, conservatives seek to justify selfishness by refusing to acknowledge any other emotions. The cause of enlightened self-interest is disregarded, and the prospect of solving our problems becomes impossible. Those who declare that society does not exist are aware that they can make those declarations because others will take responsibility for securing society. They can repeatedly sing praises justifying their grabbing all the honey they can, because they know other bees will look after the hive. We all have selfish instincts, as well as social ones. Seeking to balance both is an ongoing process. Given the realities of human nature we will never achieve it. But we must recognize and accept both.
We need conservatives to join the debate, to rationally engage us where they feel selfish motives will serve general human interests. We do not need True Believers preaching denial. But Margaret Thatcher is unfortunately not alone. Conservatives everywhere condemn and ridicule "compassion" and "empathy", and swear fealty to Ayn Rand, matron saint of the Church of the Brutally Selfish Civilization Builder. They help nobody by ignoring humanity's social impulse. If they get their way, the result will be chaos. Society will then succumb to the authoritarian rule that Thatcher so diligently opposed during her public career.
Margaret Thatcher
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a moral justification for selfishness."
J. K. Galbraith
By denying society's existence, Margaret Thatcher reveals herself to be either extremely clueless, or extremely mendacious, as the reality of society's being is obvious. Denial also exposes that the right wing's "moral justification for selfishness" has worn thin. Individuals do look after their self-interests, and the concept of enlightened self-interest--the needs of the individual and how they fit in with the needs of everybody--is well worth examination. In the United States, about half the voting public believes (whether honestly or conveniently) Thatcher's creed, at least to some extent. Yet her followers do not bother to explain to the rest of us what is meant by the "no such thing" argument. Nor have they troubled to explain how their denial of society's existence does anything more than disguise anti-social greed.
Arguments debunking the non-society myth have been constantly presented, yet the True Believers still cling to it. Thatcher herself came of age during WWII, when her society was fighting for its life against a closely related society that had turned radically, dangerously different from her own. The nature of that life-and-death battle was how society would be ordered. Her society won, and immediately afterward, embarked on another similar struggle--mostly peaceful, yet far more prolonged. During that second struggle, Thatcher worked as a public servant, representing and for a time leading her society. And her leadership in the social engagement known as the Falklands War increased her popularity, allowing her to institute some of her anti-society policies.
Could someone declaring the non-existence of society simply not want to be bothered by the needs and wants of others? Total strangers, after all, appear to be none of our concern. Yet even a slight regard for reason compels us to see that our needs, and those of our fellows, are mutual. And even a scant knowledge of history demonstrates that individual prosperity increases when everyone prospers. Naturally, we will disagree on the extent of our mutual dependence. Of course we will debate the merits of the means of securing the general welfare. Ongoing dialogue concerning improvements in living standards is a major strength of a free society. But to deny society's existence, as a fact of life similar to gravity or the sunrise, seems like a ham-handed attempt to shut off that debate. Someone with Thatcher's intelligence has to know better. We are forced, then, to question her sincerity.
We are all responsible for ourselves, and for our well-being. Still it is impossible to imagine the seven billion selves on earth, all seeking only the gratification of their wants, along with the survival of the race. What sane individual believes he would be the one to triumph in such a chaotic struggle? Individuals tend to do well when the general welfare is disbursed generally. In complex societies, which all are now, we are naturally impatient with the desires and demands of total strangers. But the self-interest of each is subject to the self-interest of all.
Concerning families, these cannot endure without the workings of society: tolerance, politeness, mutual respect. Families in prehistoric times formed clans for their protection. Later, clans became tribes, and tribes evolved into nations. Today people are far more inter-woven and interdependent than ever before, and society is far more complex. Families are hard-pressed in the modern world, but they would be destroyed without a generally respected and sustained social fabric. We need only look at the horrible condition of families (and individuals) in failed states such as Somalia, where the social fabric has been demolished by the pandemonium of constant war.
By publicly denying society's existence, conservatives seek to justify selfishness by refusing to acknowledge any other emotions. The cause of enlightened self-interest is disregarded, and the prospect of solving our problems becomes impossible. Those who declare that society does not exist are aware that they can make those declarations because others will take responsibility for securing society. They can repeatedly sing praises justifying their grabbing all the honey they can, because they know other bees will look after the hive. We all have selfish instincts, as well as social ones. Seeking to balance both is an ongoing process. Given the realities of human nature we will never achieve it. But we must recognize and accept both.
We need conservatives to join the debate, to rationally engage us where they feel selfish motives will serve general human interests. We do not need True Believers preaching denial. But Margaret Thatcher is unfortunately not alone. Conservatives everywhere condemn and ridicule "compassion" and "empathy", and swear fealty to Ayn Rand, matron saint of the Church of the Brutally Selfish Civilization Builder. They help nobody by ignoring humanity's social impulse. If they get their way, the result will be chaos. Society will then succumb to the authoritarian rule that Thatcher so diligently opposed during her public career.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
LET’S SEE YOUR PASSWORD
Employers can be picky in hard times. They can make jobseekers jump through a lot of hoops that have nothing to do with getting the job done. Nowadays employers are demanding to know the Face Book passwords of those who would work for them. Do they have that right? Private business has the prerogative to hire, or fire, for just about any reason, and there are ways to get around those few existing statute restrictions. When jobs are scarce, people will become very accommodating to those who would hire. Given bad enough economic conditions, many might even accept slavery, as opposed to starvation. Government exists, so our Declaration states, to preserve our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But economics are subject to their own natural laws, and the “job creators” have certain rights too. In this uncertain economy, when the success or failure of an enterprise (and possibly the loss of many jobs) can depend on small things, don’t employers have the right, and responsibility, to be well-informed?
The right of workers to privacy and that of employers to information often conflict. Human nature makes bosses feel their employees, no matter how good, could always do more, and makes workers feel their employers ask too much. Chattel slavery is illegal, but bosses still take a proprietary attitude toward those they pay. More control means a more efficient company, higher profits, and thus, healthier paychecks. And certainly, even with controls, working for a living is much easier than it was back in those nightmare days of Dickens or Sinclair. In the computer age, the wrong information could ruin a company, damaging an entire society. Employers have access to their workers’ addresses and phone numbers. Many demand urine samples and make other personal demands. Face Book is merely the most modern communications device. What reason could restrict employers from knowing what their employees are up to—especially since not knowing could embarrass companies and hurt profits?
There is that cherished right to privacy. But communications experts have been telling us that in the electronic age, privacy is dead, that in the global village everyone has access to everyone else’s affairs. This is one of those self-fulfilling prophecies: if we believe it, it becomes true. On the other hand, the bosses are not offering their passwords to their employees. Big Brother may be in the boardroom rather than the Kremlin, but he’s still watching us, and we still don’t get to watch him. If indeed we live in an era when privacy no longer exists, then we need to firmly insist that we all mind our own business.
Of course, we must be courteous to one another—in personal matters. But economics is not personal, courtesy won’t pay the rent, and successful private enterprise (and with it a strong economy) depends on everyone’s co-operation. We all benefit when business gets what it demands. This tale, though only partially true, is told so often that it is generally believed. Considering Face Book passwords of workers, how can such information provide legitimate benefits to any employer? Knowing in advance of employee conduct that could embarrass a corporation would be more than offset by the expense of constant monitoring of employees’ personal communications. There is, though, one solid business reason for having workers’ Face Book passwords: workers who knowingly and willingly surrender their private lives are more passive, less assertive, more “eager to please” than workers who do not. Anyone who surrenders his or her personal rights for a paycheck will be watched, will be harassed, will be broken down. Docile workers will do more for less.
“None of your business” is the polite and fitting response to demands for Face Book passwords. We would not let spies look into our windows, or a boss’s stoolie into our abodes. We would not let the boss read our letters or tap our phones. But these old-fashioned communications are protected by statute. Face Book, being new, is vulnerable. However, if we allow corporate spies to watch our Face Book pages, we have already surrendered our rights in all other matters. Individuals have the right to insist that others stay out of their affairs. But against the specter of unemployment privations, personal rights seem indefensibly useless. If we want privacy for ourselves, then we must protect it for everybody. These protections can only be achieved through the traditional social contract. In this case government has the legitimate responsibility to tell private enterprise what not to do. As of April, 2012, the State of Maryland is the only governmental entity to do its duty. If governments elsewhere do not, then the citizens must change their governments, in order to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Otherwise we face a new and terrifying definition of “company man.”
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
#31--THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
“I am a former Marine. I work two jobs. I don’t have health insurance… I haven’t had 4 consecutive days off in over 4 years. But I don’t blame Wall Street. Suck it up you whiners.”
Blog on “We Are the 53%”
The tough guy philosophy expounded by our former Marine has longstanding credibility in American society. We like to expound on how harsh, cruel, and unfair life is, then shrug and do nothing, to show others we can take it. Truly, a thick hide is a valuable asset. If we live on Planet Earth, we must sometimes silently suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, because often, nothing else can be done. Furthermore, nobody enjoys listening to somebody else complain. We all have problems. Still, there comes a time when patient endurance becomes self-inflicted cruelty. Sometimes, the pain becomes unendurable, leading people to seek solutions, and if solutions are available, people take action.
In America, we pride ourselves on rugged individualism to get things done. If Americans had not been tough, we could not have conquered this wilderness continent so quickly. In military situations, with men killing each other, mistakes can be fatal, and petty squabbling over small details can cost dearly. The ability to “suck it up” is essential to the mission. But we have already conquered the continent, the former Marine is back in civilian life, and either our everyday individual efforts are worth the effort, or they’re not. Our country exists to secure the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for every individual. We have the right to change our government if these rights are denied some, most, or all of us. Working two jobs, with scant time off and no health insurance, can cause that noble feeling of quiet desperation to wear thin. We know that politically, socially and economically, when people work together toward the common good, we all live better.
Why people turn their backs on their fellows is for each individual to answer. All of us, from time-to-time, feel that need. In the ex-Marine’s case, perhaps he feels his military commitment was sufficient service to humanity, and from now on he’ll get his—although from his own testimony, that is precious little indeed. Men come back from war with many issues, and those can include dislike and distrust of the human race. But lest we forget, many veterans have expressed a common ground with Occupy protesters. Each of us must examine his own conscience and make choices accordingly. We can also look to our innate reasoning abilities. The protesters and the Marine probably agree that “sucking up” a drab, hungry, and exhausting existence carries little visible reward, other than the opportunity to go on sucking it up, and trying not to whine.
Our rational faculties cause us to question whether the status quo is providing access to the inalienable rights our nation was created expressly to provide. Working two jobs may provide life, if life is defined by physical survival. There is precious little liberty, though, except the liberty to die hungry and homeless, should a worker (for whatever reasons) stop working. The pursuit of happiness seems out of reach, however, to all but masochists.
The “We Are the 53%” site, where the former Marine blogs, claims to represent those between the 1% ultra-rich, and the 46% who are too poor to pay income taxes. Drawing the line divides the 99% roughly in half, and the attitude of holding Wall Street blameless while expressing outright hostility toward people who are really struggling to make ends meet, right there should solve any problems the 1% might have retaining control of the country. Many of us who earn enough to pay income taxes are little better off than the ones who haven’t made the cut. We can ask ourselves what common sense there is in criticizing and abusing those who are already desperate, just because we aren’t quite that desperate… yet. We can ask ourselves how much we really have in common with the fantastically well-to-do, and if we let them continue to run the country, in what ways they would show their appreciation. We can ask ourselves what good reason there could be for leaving those with unbelievable wealth out of the equation.
In any case, it’s obvious that the super-rich (who alone are doing really well nowadays), could not go on ruling to the benefit of their unmitigated greed, should the 99% refuse to let them do it. The nation’s wealth is concentrated in a tiny demographic, a minority whose wealth grows while the rest of us get gradually poorer, while we watch our opportunities vanish. Our inalienable rights are threatened, and the danger grows. We could regain those rights, strengthen them for all of us, and do it peacefully, if we simply realize how much we commoners have in common. Most of us no longer have access to economic opportunity or social equality. We can work together to get these back. Or we can slink away and “suck it up.”
Blog on “We Are the 53%”
The tough guy philosophy expounded by our former Marine has longstanding credibility in American society. We like to expound on how harsh, cruel, and unfair life is, then shrug and do nothing, to show others we can take it. Truly, a thick hide is a valuable asset. If we live on Planet Earth, we must sometimes silently suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, because often, nothing else can be done. Furthermore, nobody enjoys listening to somebody else complain. We all have problems. Still, there comes a time when patient endurance becomes self-inflicted cruelty. Sometimes, the pain becomes unendurable, leading people to seek solutions, and if solutions are available, people take action.
In America, we pride ourselves on rugged individualism to get things done. If Americans had not been tough, we could not have conquered this wilderness continent so quickly. In military situations, with men killing each other, mistakes can be fatal, and petty squabbling over small details can cost dearly. The ability to “suck it up” is essential to the mission. But we have already conquered the continent, the former Marine is back in civilian life, and either our everyday individual efforts are worth the effort, or they’re not. Our country exists to secure the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for every individual. We have the right to change our government if these rights are denied some, most, or all of us. Working two jobs, with scant time off and no health insurance, can cause that noble feeling of quiet desperation to wear thin. We know that politically, socially and economically, when people work together toward the common good, we all live better.
Why people turn their backs on their fellows is for each individual to answer. All of us, from time-to-time, feel that need. In the ex-Marine’s case, perhaps he feels his military commitment was sufficient service to humanity, and from now on he’ll get his—although from his own testimony, that is precious little indeed. Men come back from war with many issues, and those can include dislike and distrust of the human race. But lest we forget, many veterans have expressed a common ground with Occupy protesters. Each of us must examine his own conscience and make choices accordingly. We can also look to our innate reasoning abilities. The protesters and the Marine probably agree that “sucking up” a drab, hungry, and exhausting existence carries little visible reward, other than the opportunity to go on sucking it up, and trying not to whine.
Our rational faculties cause us to question whether the status quo is providing access to the inalienable rights our nation was created expressly to provide. Working two jobs may provide life, if life is defined by physical survival. There is precious little liberty, though, except the liberty to die hungry and homeless, should a worker (for whatever reasons) stop working. The pursuit of happiness seems out of reach, however, to all but masochists.
The “We Are the 53%” site, where the former Marine blogs, claims to represent those between the 1% ultra-rich, and the 46% who are too poor to pay income taxes. Drawing the line divides the 99% roughly in half, and the attitude of holding Wall Street blameless while expressing outright hostility toward people who are really struggling to make ends meet, right there should solve any problems the 1% might have retaining control of the country. Many of us who earn enough to pay income taxes are little better off than the ones who haven’t made the cut. We can ask ourselves what common sense there is in criticizing and abusing those who are already desperate, just because we aren’t quite that desperate… yet. We can ask ourselves how much we really have in common with the fantastically well-to-do, and if we let them continue to run the country, in what ways they would show their appreciation. We can ask ourselves what good reason there could be for leaving those with unbelievable wealth out of the equation.
In any case, it’s obvious that the super-rich (who alone are doing really well nowadays), could not go on ruling to the benefit of their unmitigated greed, should the 99% refuse to let them do it. The nation’s wealth is concentrated in a tiny demographic, a minority whose wealth grows while the rest of us get gradually poorer, while we watch our opportunities vanish. Our inalienable rights are threatened, and the danger grows. We could regain those rights, strengthen them for all of us, and do it peacefully, if we simply realize how much we commoners have in common. Most of us no longer have access to economic opportunity or social equality. We can work together to get these back. Or we can slink away and “suck it up.”
Thursday, January 26, 2012
#30 -- DIVIDING THE NINETY-NINE
DIVIDING THE NINETY-NINERS, CONQUERING THE FIFTIERS
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
Whether or not Gandhi actually said that, it is true. Aristocrats, autocrats and authoritarians of all political leanings know it. This is why the one-percenters are, at the height of police brutality against Occupiers everywhere, seeking, through ridicule, to send the protesters back to ignominy. Useful idiots in right-wing media and think tanks are yelling with one voice about how “we” don’t like those lazy parasites in the occupy camps with their twisted sense of entitlement. Our ruling elites need to get the Occupy Movement out of the limelight, and fast. Police misconduct, in public, has not set well with most citizens, and the situation cannot be sustained. As the vast majority of Americans have begun to sympathize with the protesters and with their cause, the protesters are on the brink of victory. A new battle plan is in order.
The elites have a very powerful weapon: a heavy barrage of propaganda, aimed at working Americans’ solidarity. “Citizens United” assures us the fusillade will be deafening. Repeating the Big Lie often enough, loudly enough, and ubiquitously enough, should convince some workers that economic disaster is caused not by the elite, but by people just like them. Smaller groups will then fight each other to exhaustion, leaving those in power, in power. The push is on to turn “the fiftiers”—those Americans who still eat regularly, live indoors, and drive cars, against the Occupy Movement and back into the loving bosom of their natural “friends” in the one percent. Right-wing politicians and talking heads regularly gripe about the 47% who pay no income taxes (because they are too poor) while defending the right of rich people who pay no taxes to go on paying nothing. Of course, the poor, like everyone else, pay sales, gasoline, and payroll taxes, but the propaganda routinely ignores this fact, it being designed to get working people to resent each other. Some will find it easier to pick on the poor than to take on the rich. The Big Lie will not convince everybody, but it might swing a few close elections in key states.
The Big Lie says that all Americans are born with an equal chance to get ahead, that this opportunity is somehow firmly entrenched in the U. S. Constitution, that we all have it, always. Where this clause is written into the Constitution no one is able to actually point out, but the right-wing cheering section steadily reaffirms its existence. If we all really have the same opportunity, then poor people have only themselves to blame for their privations. That means we need not trouble about them. Reason and everyday events expose this falsehood, but some people still believe it. More will believe it the more they hear it, because it sounds so preposterous it must be true. The Big Lie depends on it. It often works. If it works this time, the half of us who are still solvent can write off those who have been hit hard by the recession, and get back to shopping.
At the same time the still comfortable are being exhorted to contemptuously dismiss those in need, the right wing is blasting hate messages to turn the deprived against those who are yet getting by. The premise here is that the young and poor face hardships because of “entitlements” such as Social Security, Medicare, and Unions. If all that entitlement money can just get into the hands of the big banks and the stock market, then free enterprise can stimulate the economy so everyone will have plenty of opportunity. On it goes. People who work for a living, the ninety-nine percent, will turn against each other: young vs. old, comfortable vs. needy, majorities against minorities. People who could co-operate to win freedom from want for everyone, will instead fight. The protests in the Occupy movement, all across the country, will come to naught, and the wealthy and powerful will win the class war they started.
Of course not everybody will believe the Big Lie. But most Americans like to believe that people can do well if they try. Through most of our history this belief has been proven true, for most people. But these are extreme times, and individual initiative is not enough to help most of us. What we see happening: lost jobs, lost homes, lost retirements, lost chances—really could happen to all of us. The Occupy protests are demonstrating that reality to a majority of Americans, who are starting to believe we must co-operate. But “Citizens’ United,” a gift to the elite from five of nine members of the Supreme Court, allows the upper class to overwhelm the truth with tidal waves of propaganda. The elite can buy all the signs, news shows, commercials, lobbyists, and politicians they want, and if they need more, they can buy more. The Big Lie barrage has started. It will grow.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
Whether or not Gandhi actually said that, it is true. Aristocrats, autocrats and authoritarians of all political leanings know it. This is why the one-percenters are, at the height of police brutality against Occupiers everywhere, seeking, through ridicule, to send the protesters back to ignominy. Useful idiots in right-wing media and think tanks are yelling with one voice about how “we” don’t like those lazy parasites in the occupy camps with their twisted sense of entitlement. Our ruling elites need to get the Occupy Movement out of the limelight, and fast. Police misconduct, in public, has not set well with most citizens, and the situation cannot be sustained. As the vast majority of Americans have begun to sympathize with the protesters and with their cause, the protesters are on the brink of victory. A new battle plan is in order.
The elites have a very powerful weapon: a heavy barrage of propaganda, aimed at working Americans’ solidarity. “Citizens United” assures us the fusillade will be deafening. Repeating the Big Lie often enough, loudly enough, and ubiquitously enough, should convince some workers that economic disaster is caused not by the elite, but by people just like them. Smaller groups will then fight each other to exhaustion, leaving those in power, in power. The push is on to turn “the fiftiers”—those Americans who still eat regularly, live indoors, and drive cars, against the Occupy Movement and back into the loving bosom of their natural “friends” in the one percent. Right-wing politicians and talking heads regularly gripe about the 47% who pay no income taxes (because they are too poor) while defending the right of rich people who pay no taxes to go on paying nothing. Of course, the poor, like everyone else, pay sales, gasoline, and payroll taxes, but the propaganda routinely ignores this fact, it being designed to get working people to resent each other. Some will find it easier to pick on the poor than to take on the rich. The Big Lie will not convince everybody, but it might swing a few close elections in key states.
The Big Lie says that all Americans are born with an equal chance to get ahead, that this opportunity is somehow firmly entrenched in the U. S. Constitution, that we all have it, always. Where this clause is written into the Constitution no one is able to actually point out, but the right-wing cheering section steadily reaffirms its existence. If we all really have the same opportunity, then poor people have only themselves to blame for their privations. That means we need not trouble about them. Reason and everyday events expose this falsehood, but some people still believe it. More will believe it the more they hear it, because it sounds so preposterous it must be true. The Big Lie depends on it. It often works. If it works this time, the half of us who are still solvent can write off those who have been hit hard by the recession, and get back to shopping.
At the same time the still comfortable are being exhorted to contemptuously dismiss those in need, the right wing is blasting hate messages to turn the deprived against those who are yet getting by. The premise here is that the young and poor face hardships because of “entitlements” such as Social Security, Medicare, and Unions. If all that entitlement money can just get into the hands of the big banks and the stock market, then free enterprise can stimulate the economy so everyone will have plenty of opportunity. On it goes. People who work for a living, the ninety-nine percent, will turn against each other: young vs. old, comfortable vs. needy, majorities against minorities. People who could co-operate to win freedom from want for everyone, will instead fight. The protests in the Occupy movement, all across the country, will come to naught, and the wealthy and powerful will win the class war they started.
Of course not everybody will believe the Big Lie. But most Americans like to believe that people can do well if they try. Through most of our history this belief has been proven true, for most people. But these are extreme times, and individual initiative is not enough to help most of us. What we see happening: lost jobs, lost homes, lost retirements, lost chances—really could happen to all of us. The Occupy protests are demonstrating that reality to a majority of Americans, who are starting to believe we must co-operate. But “Citizens’ United,” a gift to the elite from five of nine members of the Supreme Court, allows the upper class to overwhelm the truth with tidal waves of propaganda. The elite can buy all the signs, news shows, commercials, lobbyists, and politicians they want, and if they need more, they can buy more. The Big Lie barrage has started. It will grow.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)