"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.
Friday, July 27, 2012
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:
Posts (Atom)