A video on the web shows police officers tasing an old man who has a heart condition, in the man's own home. They wanted to take him in for observation (he had been reported as saying suicidal things). He gave the officers the finger. You cannot do that, even in your own home, so the old man found out. That this incident occurred in ultra-liberal Marin Country, and that the video survived to circulate, is disturbing. Equally disturbing is the obvious fact that the officers knew the tasers had cameras, and so did their supervisors. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that police administrators allow, even encourage, tasing as a first resort.
Citizens of a republic rely on the police for security and protection, from each other and from themselves. It is understood that police officers can use injurious or even deadly force, as part of their everyday routine. Since this authority is deemed vital to the greater good, officers are given the benefit of the doubt in their use of force. Their job can be dangerous, and there are infinite unforeseen variables to influence or hinder the decisions they must make, often without time for rational deliberation.
Nevertheless, with the broad-ranging authority given the police, they are expected to use reasonable discretion where possible. When they do not, citizens have a right to know what went wrong, and to insist that elected representatives make needed corrections.
From the video it is evident that the old man was no longer, if ever he was, a threat to anyone or himself. He was back inside his house, dazed but quiet. The time and expense required to take him in for observation was obviously not justified. But he defied their authority. So they tased him.
The taser is a marvelous invention, disabling a living target as effectively at close range as a gun, without causing visible wounds or (usually) death. The victim is reduced to writhing, terrified helplessness. He will be intimidated. Although the effect of electric shock on someone with a bad heart is unpredictable, in this case the old man lived. Since tasing is rarely fatal, seeming to solve temporary problems without permanent solutions, there is no doubt a strong temptation to employ tasers in all difficult situations. Police tend to use this new technology without much concern for the situation, the victim, or public opinion.
The victim and his family have sued. We know how these things usually go: there is a quiet settlement, on condition of eternal silence afterward. It's as if the incident never occurred, but for some missing taxpayers' money. The unfortunate deputies (they too are victims) will be thereafter assigned to restroom patrol and quietly hounded from the force, not for the tasing itself, but for causing problems for management. In due time there will be further police tasings, also recorded on video. Once people know this sort of thing has become routine, average citizens will be frightened away from any contact with police. Authority will be respected, order maintained. There is a built-in inertia in all corporate organizations that seeks to avoid difficulties, and police departments are no exception. They rarely change from within, unless there is considerable pressure to change from without.
Citizens of a free society have every right to trouble authorities with legitimate concerns, such as random electro-shocks on fellow citizens. Police have the benefit of the doubt, not free rein. Regulations dealing with officers' use of guns should be applied to tasers as well. Police, like all public servants, work for us. When they work against us, we can and should make changes. This video assures us that what happened to that sick old man can happen to anyone.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
THE CUMBERLAND GAP
How can we follow the reasoning of all these old white folks who claim the solution to all their problems will come from making their elected government go away? These people came of age in a time when government was more active than at any period in American history. At the same time they have enjoyed more economic stability and success than anyone, ever. Yet they hate their government and vote for people avowed to destroy it. They hang teabags from their hats and threaten violence if elections do not go their way. They threaten secession, and plan to repeal Constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal rights to all Americans. What has made them so upset with a world where they have come out quite well? What would they replace it with?
These old white Americans claim to want their country back, yet are unable to explain where it might have gone. So distraught are they that they would see their own comfortable lifestyles destroyed, believing perhaps that they achieved their success without any help from anybody, and they can certainly do it again. Many others will be on the brink of destitution, but these comfortable Americans in latter years will be just fine. Their goals are not conservative. Conservatism seeks the preservation of the status quo, which is just what these old white people intend to destroy.
As to what will replace the status quo, they vaguely hint at a distant and golden past. After all, they want their country "back." These well-off citizens of the dominant ethnic culture hail a time before government tyranny and taxes restricted the right of everyman to seek and find his full potential. In our history, there has never been a time when such a utopia actually existed. in our own time, to do away with government would be disastrous for us all, starting with the old and fairly prosperous, whose paper assets would be stolen by the ultra-rich, and whose personal possessions would be brutally taken by younger, crueler neighbours.
The romantic vision of a future utopia based on a halcyon past persists, however. The only time we ever came close to complete freedom from society was right after our Revolution, on the Appalachian frontier. British authority had been rejected, American authority had not yet been fully established, and beyond a thick tall veil of seemingly endless forest, a continent loomed, full of resources. Load your wagon and your long rifle, and leave your problems and past behind. No need for social security, health insurance, or unemployment compensation when there is always work to do, killing Indians and felling trees, finding everything you need right there in the wilderness. No government agents to tell a man he cannot trap or hunt, or hold slaves or shoot strangers...it was paradise on a permanent camping trip.
Of course, for these aging, comfortable Americans to imagine themselves tough enough to make it in such a world indicates a large disconnect from reality. Nor can we forget that even in that woodsy beginning of our manifest destiny, the urge to form societies and government was irresistible. That elusive true freedom was always just that.
In reality, freedom has a chance to flourish only when people guarantee it for one another, and it has little, if anything to do with tax policy or social programs, when such things are openly discussed and fairly administered. But for some reason our tea party patriots feel strongly that America needs no social contract whatever, that all taxes are theft, all government despotic. The Cumberland Gap, in its days of discovery, leading us down through the forest into the boundless West, seems to be the ideal that tea baggers hunger for. If not, it would be helpful if they would come forth with a terse description of what they want. Then the rest of us could decide for ourselves whether the idea makes any sense.
These old white Americans claim to want their country back, yet are unable to explain where it might have gone. So distraught are they that they would see their own comfortable lifestyles destroyed, believing perhaps that they achieved their success without any help from anybody, and they can certainly do it again. Many others will be on the brink of destitution, but these comfortable Americans in latter years will be just fine. Their goals are not conservative. Conservatism seeks the preservation of the status quo, which is just what these old white people intend to destroy.
As to what will replace the status quo, they vaguely hint at a distant and golden past. After all, they want their country "back." These well-off citizens of the dominant ethnic culture hail a time before government tyranny and taxes restricted the right of everyman to seek and find his full potential. In our history, there has never been a time when such a utopia actually existed. in our own time, to do away with government would be disastrous for us all, starting with the old and fairly prosperous, whose paper assets would be stolen by the ultra-rich, and whose personal possessions would be brutally taken by younger, crueler neighbours.
The romantic vision of a future utopia based on a halcyon past persists, however. The only time we ever came close to complete freedom from society was right after our Revolution, on the Appalachian frontier. British authority had been rejected, American authority had not yet been fully established, and beyond a thick tall veil of seemingly endless forest, a continent loomed, full of resources. Load your wagon and your long rifle, and leave your problems and past behind. No need for social security, health insurance, or unemployment compensation when there is always work to do, killing Indians and felling trees, finding everything you need right there in the wilderness. No government agents to tell a man he cannot trap or hunt, or hold slaves or shoot strangers...it was paradise on a permanent camping trip.
Of course, for these aging, comfortable Americans to imagine themselves tough enough to make it in such a world indicates a large disconnect from reality. Nor can we forget that even in that woodsy beginning of our manifest destiny, the urge to form societies and government was irresistible. That elusive true freedom was always just that.
In reality, freedom has a chance to flourish only when people guarantee it for one another, and it has little, if anything to do with tax policy or social programs, when such things are openly discussed and fairly administered. But for some reason our tea party patriots feel strongly that America needs no social contract whatever, that all taxes are theft, all government despotic. The Cumberland Gap, in its days of discovery, leading us down through the forest into the boundless West, seems to be the ideal that tea baggers hunger for. If not, it would be helpful if they would come forth with a terse description of what they want. Then the rest of us could decide for ourselves whether the idea makes any sense.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
G.W. Matson: MARGARET THATCHER'S WRONG TURN
G.W. Matson: MARGARET THATCHER'S WRONG TURN: "'There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.' Preceding is one of Margaret Thatcher'..."
MARGARET THATCHER'S WRONG TURN
"There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."
Preceding is one of Margaret Thatcher's most famous quotes, and in her forthright statement can be found the most honest summary of the modern conservative theory of governance. For the eleven years Thatcher led Britain, contemporary with Ronald Reagan's leading the United States, the English-speaking powers headed in a different direction toward a more pure version of rugged individualism. Their philosophy holds that mankind is happiest and most prosperous when all are free to pursue their selfish interests with no restraints other than the selfish efforts of everyone else. A noble concept, but is Thatcher's statement true or practical?
The "no society" conviction was a break with conservatism of the twentieth century up to that time, when mainstream conservatives, accepting the social safety net programs already in place, sought to hold the line there. In reality, "no society" went beyond the goals of nineteenth-century conservatives, who basically held society to be a fine invention, provided the wealthy could lead it for their own primary benefit. The attempt to create a real world situation where individuals and families basically work against one another to advance their own ends, is actually quite radical. Thatcher's quote is in the form of a statement of fact--not a desire, nor a consummation devoutly to be wished. Presented as fact, it should be fairly simple to verify. This bold declaration represents the meat and bones of modern conservatism. If Thatcher's statement turns out to be false, conservatives need to know this, so they can proceed to do something else.
In the first place, the Falkland Islands War, which solidified Thatcher's standing as a world leader, could never have been fought had Thatcher adhered to her own beliefs. Only organized societies can fight wars. In fact it is highly unlikely that there is any human undertaking requiring more social organization than war. Resources must be found and converted to things to be blown up. Soldiers must be trained to follow orders based on a rigid chain-of-command. And populations need to be united on the endeavour for it to have any chance of success. There is no individualism involved. As for families: a nation at war is supposed to be one huge extended family, but that is probably not what Thatcher meant.
When the Argentine military dictatorship invaded the Falklands, the resident population--roughly two-thousand British shepherds, none of whom had expressed any desire to become Argentines--should have been on their own, for Thatcher's philosophy to have any weight. They could have fought the Argentine army, they could have tried to get used to their new rulers, or they could have moved back to Britain if they could afford it. But if there is truly "no society", the Falklanders were certainly not the responsibility of a non-existent British society, or its representative government.
The British people, however, with Thatcher leading the charge, felt and acted differently. Although few Britons actually knew any Falklanders, and the islands lie about as far from the home country as any place on earth, the British reacted as they would to an attack on their homeland, which in most ways it was. They behaved like citizens of a complex and organized society. And Thatcher led them enthusiastically, as an elected leader of such a society would be expected to do.
From a standpoint of human rights, Thatcher acted in the only way she could. But human rights are only protected within societies. In order to do the right thing she needed to ignore what to her was a basic truth. And a truth ignored is no truth.
The Falklands War is but one symptom of the irrationality of modern conservative philosophy. Only by a return to very primitive, early Paleolithic hunting and gathering would Thatcher's statement make any sense. Humanity is a social animal, and has thriven because of it. Sensible conservatives need to renounce their double-think practice of working within a society while preaching that it does not exist. And liberals, progressives, moderates--all people who know better--need to hold conservatives to reality, because carried to its logical conclusion, the contemporary conservatives' ideal is chaos.
Preceding is one of Margaret Thatcher's most famous quotes, and in her forthright statement can be found the most honest summary of the modern conservative theory of governance. For the eleven years Thatcher led Britain, contemporary with Ronald Reagan's leading the United States, the English-speaking powers headed in a different direction toward a more pure version of rugged individualism. Their philosophy holds that mankind is happiest and most prosperous when all are free to pursue their selfish interests with no restraints other than the selfish efforts of everyone else. A noble concept, but is Thatcher's statement true or practical?
The "no society" conviction was a break with conservatism of the twentieth century up to that time, when mainstream conservatives, accepting the social safety net programs already in place, sought to hold the line there. In reality, "no society" went beyond the goals of nineteenth-century conservatives, who basically held society to be a fine invention, provided the wealthy could lead it for their own primary benefit. The attempt to create a real world situation where individuals and families basically work against one another to advance their own ends, is actually quite radical. Thatcher's quote is in the form of a statement of fact--not a desire, nor a consummation devoutly to be wished. Presented as fact, it should be fairly simple to verify. This bold declaration represents the meat and bones of modern conservatism. If Thatcher's statement turns out to be false, conservatives need to know this, so they can proceed to do something else.
In the first place, the Falkland Islands War, which solidified Thatcher's standing as a world leader, could never have been fought had Thatcher adhered to her own beliefs. Only organized societies can fight wars. In fact it is highly unlikely that there is any human undertaking requiring more social organization than war. Resources must be found and converted to things to be blown up. Soldiers must be trained to follow orders based on a rigid chain-of-command. And populations need to be united on the endeavour for it to have any chance of success. There is no individualism involved. As for families: a nation at war is supposed to be one huge extended family, but that is probably not what Thatcher meant.
When the Argentine military dictatorship invaded the Falklands, the resident population--roughly two-thousand British shepherds, none of whom had expressed any desire to become Argentines--should have been on their own, for Thatcher's philosophy to have any weight. They could have fought the Argentine army, they could have tried to get used to their new rulers, or they could have moved back to Britain if they could afford it. But if there is truly "no society", the Falklanders were certainly not the responsibility of a non-existent British society, or its representative government.
The British people, however, with Thatcher leading the charge, felt and acted differently. Although few Britons actually knew any Falklanders, and the islands lie about as far from the home country as any place on earth, the British reacted as they would to an attack on their homeland, which in most ways it was. They behaved like citizens of a complex and organized society. And Thatcher led them enthusiastically, as an elected leader of such a society would be expected to do.
From a standpoint of human rights, Thatcher acted in the only way she could. But human rights are only protected within societies. In order to do the right thing she needed to ignore what to her was a basic truth. And a truth ignored is no truth.
The Falklands War is but one symptom of the irrationality of modern conservative philosophy. Only by a return to very primitive, early Paleolithic hunting and gathering would Thatcher's statement make any sense. Humanity is a social animal, and has thriven because of it. Sensible conservatives need to renounce their double-think practice of working within a society while preaching that it does not exist. And liberals, progressives, moderates--all people who know better--need to hold conservatives to reality, because carried to its logical conclusion, the contemporary conservatives' ideal is chaos.
Friday, August 13, 2010
AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM
Some politicians, and their cheerleaders in the media, like to toss around the concept of "American exceptionalism", and how much it means to them, as part of the endless game of patriotic one-upping. They attempted to embarrass Barack Obama when he said that he believes America is exceptional, in the same way people in other countries feel their country is exceptional. Apparently there was little political hay to be made, because the controversy was quickly dropped, but the question of our country's being somehow special beyond mere national pride, as some universal truth, is worth exploring. After all, it has been brought up, and it will be brought up again.
Is it the country itself--our half of the North American continent? If so, how is the arbitrarily defined area known as the U.S.A. better than the other half of the continent and the rest of the world? Are our mountains higher? Our prairies more golden? Our oceans whiter with foam? Is the United States exceptional because of the people who reside within the borders? True, the United States is home to descendants of practically everywhere else, but many other countries are similarly populated, and more will be as the world grows more homogeneous all the time.
And science has proven that there is but one race: human.
America may be one of the first, but it is certainly not the only multi-cultural society. And yes, within our borders more people from differing cultures attempt to get along peacefully with each other than is evident in many other societies. But we still have human failings. And it seems to be that most Americans who most stridently insist on America's unique status tend also to define "true Americans" in restrictive terms. Yes, individuals are valued, and given many opportunities, but this happens in some other nations as well, and one look at our country's current situation is enough to remind us that not everyone gets the same opportunities.
Our founding principles, while not exceptional, are unusual. America was the first nation founded on core principles of the Enlightenment: equality of all, and the universal endowment of inalienable rights. As such, America has continued to survive with those principles more or less intact, despite some very rough episodes in our history. Since our founding most nations, new and old, have followed our example, but most have been nowhere near as fortunate as the United States in adhering to our ideals. A few countries, such as Britain, have come to the Enlightenment gradually. Others, like France, Germany, Italy and Japan, took to the Enlightenment after a series of severe shocks. In our hemisphere, only Canada and Costa Rica have, like the U.S., remained steadily democratic for any length of time.
So our country is the first to break with the traditional method of nation founding: clans, following strong and successful leaders, convinced of their superiority over the rest of the human race, went from there in search of conquest and plunder, eventually forming what we call nations. The United States, unlike the others, has its origins in the conviction that all humans are equal. We have conquered and plundered, however, and our history is rife with internal imperfections in putting equality into actual practice, and we are not arrived yet. Still we have made slow and halting progress, but progress nonetheless, up to the present time. Even with our tenacious imperfections, we still remain generally committed to egalitarian goals.
Here, if anywhere, is America's exceptional standing among nations: a long standing commitment to securing for humanity equal rights including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But if our stated goals are the achievement of equal rights belonging to all people, then the concept that our country is exceptional is by its nature un-American.
Is it the country itself--our half of the North American continent? If so, how is the arbitrarily defined area known as the U.S.A. better than the other half of the continent and the rest of the world? Are our mountains higher? Our prairies more golden? Our oceans whiter with foam? Is the United States exceptional because of the people who reside within the borders? True, the United States is home to descendants of practically everywhere else, but many other countries are similarly populated, and more will be as the world grows more homogeneous all the time.
And science has proven that there is but one race: human.
America may be one of the first, but it is certainly not the only multi-cultural society. And yes, within our borders more people from differing cultures attempt to get along peacefully with each other than is evident in many other societies. But we still have human failings. And it seems to be that most Americans who most stridently insist on America's unique status tend also to define "true Americans" in restrictive terms. Yes, individuals are valued, and given many opportunities, but this happens in some other nations as well, and one look at our country's current situation is enough to remind us that not everyone gets the same opportunities.
Our founding principles, while not exceptional, are unusual. America was the first nation founded on core principles of the Enlightenment: equality of all, and the universal endowment of inalienable rights. As such, America has continued to survive with those principles more or less intact, despite some very rough episodes in our history. Since our founding most nations, new and old, have followed our example, but most have been nowhere near as fortunate as the United States in adhering to our ideals. A few countries, such as Britain, have come to the Enlightenment gradually. Others, like France, Germany, Italy and Japan, took to the Enlightenment after a series of severe shocks. In our hemisphere, only Canada and Costa Rica have, like the U.S., remained steadily democratic for any length of time.
So our country is the first to break with the traditional method of nation founding: clans, following strong and successful leaders, convinced of their superiority over the rest of the human race, went from there in search of conquest and plunder, eventually forming what we call nations. The United States, unlike the others, has its origins in the conviction that all humans are equal. We have conquered and plundered, however, and our history is rife with internal imperfections in putting equality into actual practice, and we are not arrived yet. Still we have made slow and halting progress, but progress nonetheless, up to the present time. Even with our tenacious imperfections, we still remain generally committed to egalitarian goals.
Here, if anywhere, is America's exceptional standing among nations: a long standing commitment to securing for humanity equal rights including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But if our stated goals are the achievement of equal rights belonging to all people, then the concept that our country is exceptional is by its nature un-American.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
THE ANCIENT REGIME
The Republican Party, staunchly refusing to extend even minimal co-operation with the Democrats on the many pressing issues the country faces, harkens for legitimacy to the Boston Tea Party. The connection cannot be missed: they claim the tyranny that challenges Americans in the 21st century is like that confronting Americans in the 18th. The situation is so severe that it can brook no compromise from true patriots. To question if healthcare, climate change, or massive unemployment might compare with a tax on tea is also, apparently, what true patriots would not do. Recalling the Boston Tea Party is certainly good P.R., but the resemblance is more like the French aristocracy in 1789, than the Boston commoners of 1773.
A moderate revolution in France, with limited bloodshed, replaced the absolute monarchy with a constitutional one. The leaders of that movement, hoping to establish a national polity along English lines, sought the King's co-operation. But the Royalists and the Nobles stonewalled, even allied themselves to the radical Jacobins, intending to render the new government incompetent, in hopes that it would force a counter-revolution, returning the Ancient Regime to power.
History shows this plan back-fired , with horrendous repercussions which only came to a halt at Waterloo in 1815.
Are Republicans aristocrats? Literally, no, since in America we do not have, or believe in, a titled hereditary ruling class. Republicans do represent the wealthy in America, and like the Federalists of our founding, believe the country prospers when the rich maintain their wealth and the power that goes with it. Along with this belief goes the conviction that when wealth is preserved it is also created, thus giving more people the opportunity to prosper. There is some substance to this belief. At any time in our country's history, it has always been possible for poor people to get rich. We hear about it often enough, and we also hear from time to time about rich people (usually in show business or sports) who become poor. The lesson we are to learn here is that in our society anyone can improve his condition with intelligent hard work. Opportunity in America is not the issue here. The fact stands out that in our society, those whose forebears struck it rich tend to stay that way. And it is no secret that tax laws, regulations, and good old tribal connections make the maintenance of this situation far easier than it would be in a democracy where all people truly have access to all avenues of economic opportunity.
So we have a de-facto aristocracy, which is obvious once the propaganda of equal opportunity is removed. No one can blame aristocrats for wanting to maintain their privileges...hence the modern Republican Party. However, since the democracy genie was let out of the bottle, we commoners also have had an interest in our society's well-being, and an obligation to maintain it. There can be no going back to letting the nobles run our country's affairs.
In our last serious economic crisis, the Great Depression, an aristocrat named Roosevelt made some proposals (and even got a few of them passed into law) that would save his class by expanding opportunities to the plebeians, although at the time he was branded a traitor to his class. Today Obama, a definite commoner, makes similar proposals and the aristocrats fight him at every turn. Lacking the numbers to defeat Obama in a truly democratic confrontation, the nobles seek allies among the commons: the Tea Party movement. This is a perilous strategy. The Tea Baggers, like the Jacobins before them, are a randomly angry lot, and no one can safely predict where the brunt of their anger might fall, should they actually gain power. But history reminds us that in post-revolutionary France, it was not only Louis XVI who suffered.
A moderate revolution in France, with limited bloodshed, replaced the absolute monarchy with a constitutional one. The leaders of that movement, hoping to establish a national polity along English lines, sought the King's co-operation. But the Royalists and the Nobles stonewalled, even allied themselves to the radical Jacobins, intending to render the new government incompetent, in hopes that it would force a counter-revolution, returning the Ancient Regime to power.
History shows this plan back-fired , with horrendous repercussions which only came to a halt at Waterloo in 1815.
Are Republicans aristocrats? Literally, no, since in America we do not have, or believe in, a titled hereditary ruling class. Republicans do represent the wealthy in America, and like the Federalists of our founding, believe the country prospers when the rich maintain their wealth and the power that goes with it. Along with this belief goes the conviction that when wealth is preserved it is also created, thus giving more people the opportunity to prosper. There is some substance to this belief. At any time in our country's history, it has always been possible for poor people to get rich. We hear about it often enough, and we also hear from time to time about rich people (usually in show business or sports) who become poor. The lesson we are to learn here is that in our society anyone can improve his condition with intelligent hard work. Opportunity in America is not the issue here. The fact stands out that in our society, those whose forebears struck it rich tend to stay that way. And it is no secret that tax laws, regulations, and good old tribal connections make the maintenance of this situation far easier than it would be in a democracy where all people truly have access to all avenues of economic opportunity.
So we have a de-facto aristocracy, which is obvious once the propaganda of equal opportunity is removed. No one can blame aristocrats for wanting to maintain their privileges...hence the modern Republican Party. However, since the democracy genie was let out of the bottle, we commoners also have had an interest in our society's well-being, and an obligation to maintain it. There can be no going back to letting the nobles run our country's affairs.
In our last serious economic crisis, the Great Depression, an aristocrat named Roosevelt made some proposals (and even got a few of them passed into law) that would save his class by expanding opportunities to the plebeians, although at the time he was branded a traitor to his class. Today Obama, a definite commoner, makes similar proposals and the aristocrats fight him at every turn. Lacking the numbers to defeat Obama in a truly democratic confrontation, the nobles seek allies among the commons: the Tea Party movement. This is a perilous strategy. The Tea Baggers, like the Jacobins before them, are a randomly angry lot, and no one can safely predict where the brunt of their anger might fall, should they actually gain power. But history reminds us that in post-revolutionary France, it was not only Louis XVI who suffered.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A PAY AS YOU GO PLAN
In 2010 America finds itself, as part of the wide world, in dire economic trouble. Understandably, the country is torn by different approaches to solving our problems, based on differing perceptions as to what caused the problems in the first place. Conservatives, apparently unaware how our distress came about, or believing it just happened, favor reductions of both taxes and government spending, along with looser regulations and opening of more resources to business as the best course toward renewed prosperity. Liberals, believing the downturn was a result of those same conservative solutions, advocate tighter regulations on business, increased government spending to stimulate employment, and higher taxes on corporations and millionaires to pay for it. Both sides are adamant, and neither, at this time, has the power to make things happen, one way or the other, to find out who is right. So very little gets done, while circumstances, and the voters, grow more impatient to have things actually get done.
Without casting blame, it is obvious that compromise is elusive. However, there are some issues where common ground may be closer than we think. In the field of debt reduction, which both sides would like to see, we can find a compromise both sides should be able to agree on. Ending, now and without fanfare, our two foreign wars of choice will do much to stem the flow of borrowed money, contributing to government solvency without causing pain to any Americans.
Other items on the chopping block: schools, unemployment, social security, highways, ecology...the list is long if it even has an end...all will hurt many people who have no alternatives at hand, hurt them in fundamental ways. Neither liberals nor conservatives claim to like drastic cuts to these programs, or the pain they will cause. So why not begin with major cuts in public debt where not only is no one injured, but major injuries will actually be curtailed? The conservatives are fond of allusions to family, pointing out that in tough times families must curtail their discretionary spending, in order to make ends meet.
What could be more discretionary than borrowing to finance wars of choice?
The difference between wars of necessity and wars of choice are obvious to anyone. If a nation is attacked, it must utilize all available resources to defend itself. But if a nation attacks another, for whatever good reasons, the activity is discretionary, and if it becomes unaffordable, ending it is just common sense. Americans will no longer be killed or maimed in foreign conflicts, and Americans will likewise cease inflicting death and injury on residents of those foreign lands. As a bonus, we will no longer be incurring unsustainable debts for goals that have proven either false or unattainable.
Some of the troops may feel betrayed, and we owe it to them to set things right. At any rate we can redeploy them for their true duty, which is national defense. If our national pride should suffer as a result of withdrawing from wars we do not need to fight, we might make good use of the opportunity to rethink our sense of national purpose. Nations, like individuals, can benefit from self examination and evaluation, especially when casualties are eliminated. America is a mature country, which values the opinions of its citizens. Surely we have enough self-respect to swallow some foolish pride.
Besides, in these tough times, pride is a luxury we cannot afford.
Without casting blame, it is obvious that compromise is elusive. However, there are some issues where common ground may be closer than we think. In the field of debt reduction, which both sides would like to see, we can find a compromise both sides should be able to agree on. Ending, now and without fanfare, our two foreign wars of choice will do much to stem the flow of borrowed money, contributing to government solvency without causing pain to any Americans.
Other items on the chopping block: schools, unemployment, social security, highways, ecology...the list is long if it even has an end...all will hurt many people who have no alternatives at hand, hurt them in fundamental ways. Neither liberals nor conservatives claim to like drastic cuts to these programs, or the pain they will cause. So why not begin with major cuts in public debt where not only is no one injured, but major injuries will actually be curtailed? The conservatives are fond of allusions to family, pointing out that in tough times families must curtail their discretionary spending, in order to make ends meet.
What could be more discretionary than borrowing to finance wars of choice?
The difference between wars of necessity and wars of choice are obvious to anyone. If a nation is attacked, it must utilize all available resources to defend itself. But if a nation attacks another, for whatever good reasons, the activity is discretionary, and if it becomes unaffordable, ending it is just common sense. Americans will no longer be killed or maimed in foreign conflicts, and Americans will likewise cease inflicting death and injury on residents of those foreign lands. As a bonus, we will no longer be incurring unsustainable debts for goals that have proven either false or unattainable.
Some of the troops may feel betrayed, and we owe it to them to set things right. At any rate we can redeploy them for their true duty, which is national defense. If our national pride should suffer as a result of withdrawing from wars we do not need to fight, we might make good use of the opportunity to rethink our sense of national purpose. Nations, like individuals, can benefit from self examination and evaluation, especially when casualties are eliminated. America is a mature country, which values the opinions of its citizens. Surely we have enough self-respect to swallow some foolish pride.
Besides, in these tough times, pride is a luxury we cannot afford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)