We now know who the anti-Christ is, or at least the leading advocate for values that are antithetical to Christ’s teachings about brotherhood, compassion and caring for others. What could be called the Gospel of Selfishness has been espoused by many contemporary public figures, from Alan Greenspan to Rush Limbaugh and, lately, Glenn Beck, among others. However, their inspiration and mentor was the Russian émigré novelist (and pop philosopher) Ayn Rand, whose warped romantic visions continue to inspire the dark legions of modern-day libertarians. She wrote the gospel. Here is just a sample of her perverse thinking -- the defiant courtroom speech of her character Howard Roark during his trial for blowing up some buildings he had designed and that the owner altered without his approval:
“Nothing is given to man on earth…He can survive…by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others….The basic need of the creator is independence…To the creator, all relations with men are secondary…. the creator is the man who stands alone….All that proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil…The egotist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices for others…he does not exist for any other man – and asks no other man to exist for him….The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself…His moral law is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men….The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is – hands off! ….Civilization is a progress toward a society of privacy…Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
And all good conservatives said, “Amen.”
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
We're Number Eleven!
Newsweek Magazine, which could never be accused of being an America-basher, did it’s first-ever rating this week of the world’s “best” 100 countries in terms of various criteria of well being for its citizens. Guess what? We aren’t even in the top ten!
Actually, for a media news magazine, Newsweek’s ratings process was fairly rigorous and was overseen by some distinguished professionals. Given that such comparisons are always fraught with complications, data problems, judgment calls, etc., nevertheless the results are profoundly disturbing for a country that has long viewed itself (deluded itself?) that it had the “highest standard of living” in the world. The fact is, this is clearly no longer the case.
As a nation, some alarm bells should be ringing. It tells us that we have been doing a lot of things wrong in this country to have allowed countries like Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and even our neighbor to the north, Canada, to surpass us. Indeed, it is a symptom of our malaise (a word president Jimmy Carter got pilloried for using) that our leaders dare not tell us the truth because they will be accused of being unpatriotic if they say so. But history (and life itself) teaches that the first step in dealing with any problem is to admit that it exists.
Actually, for a media news magazine, Newsweek’s ratings process was fairly rigorous and was overseen by some distinguished professionals. Given that such comparisons are always fraught with complications, data problems, judgment calls, etc., nevertheless the results are profoundly disturbing for a country that has long viewed itself (deluded itself?) that it had the “highest standard of living” in the world. The fact is, this is clearly no longer the case.
As a nation, some alarm bells should be ringing. It tells us that we have been doing a lot of things wrong in this country to have allowed countries like Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and even our neighbor to the north, Canada, to surpass us. Indeed, it is a symptom of our malaise (a word president Jimmy Carter got pilloried for using) that our leaders dare not tell us the truth because they will be accused of being unpatriotic if they say so. But history (and life itself) teaches that the first step in dealing with any problem is to admit that it exists.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Doctrine of Fairness: Where the Justices Meet Justice
For better and worse, our Supreme Court is a political institution and not, despite its trappings, a temple of Olympian detachment -- as the Roberts court has amply demonstrated. The justices play a deadly serious intellectual game in which they deploy arcane legal reasoning to justify imposing their sometimes highly partisan rulings on the rest of us.
The way this rarified game is played, as any court watcher knows, is that the justices must find some “objective” external authority for their decisions. They typically select relevant items from a voluminous carpet bag stuffed with various statutes, legislative histories, precedents set by other courts and, especially, what is written in our Constitution. For instance, the currently popular doctrine of “originalism” seeks to invoke the precise meaning of the Constitution itself, and what the Founding Fathers supposedly intended, as an overriding criterion that can supersede even established laws and precedents.
The problem with this modern-day form of scholasticism is that it can easily be used to distort or even subvert the broader objectives of our society, not to mention the objectives of the Constitution itself. As stated in the Preamble, the reasons for forming “a more perfect union” were not just to secure our freedom from the British Crown or our own government but to “establish justice” and to “promote the general welfare.”
So if the Supreme Court justices take an absolutist position on any particular clause – say Second Amendment gun rights -- while being cavalier about the harm that can be caused to the general welfare by failing to ensure that there are also strict controls over the use (and misuse) of guns, then surely they are undermining the broader objectives of the Constitution.
Since we are all expected to play this judicial game by its well-established rules, perhaps the time has come to advance what might be called “the doctrine of fairness” – the idea that the general welfare clause of the Constitution ultimately trumps the purpose and meaning of its parts, or the interests of any particular stakeholder in our society. In fact, this is more consistent with the “judicial oath” that each newly appointed justice must take. The oath states that the justice will “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and the rich.”
There is some risk in this approach. A reliance on the overarching purpose of the Constitution as a whole could, of course, be used in the wrong hands to weaken the parts, especially the Bill of Rights. Our judges and legal scholars are generally uncomfortable with using such sweeping legal claims; they prefer to decide cases on narrow grounds, as a rule. But if we can develop a clearly defined and delimited vision of what the general welfare clause means (and prohibits), this would go a long way toward buffering our legal system against egregious doctrinal abuses.
One approach to articulating such a vision is what I refer to as the “Fair Society” model. The idea that fairness should be the guiding principle in any society was first articulated by Plato in his great philosophical dialogue, the Republic (its little-used subtitle is “Concerning Justice”). As Plato defined it, justice refers to an aspect of our relationships with one another. It involves “giving every man his due.” Over the centuries, there have been countless arguments among scholars over what Plato meant by the word “due”. However, the emerging, multidisciplinary science of human nature sheds much new light on this issue.
Whatever may be our perceptions, aspirations, or illusions (or, for that matter, whatever our station in life), biological survival and reproduction is our underlying purpose, both as individuals and as a society. Indeed, any organized, interdependent economy represents at heart a “collective survival enterprise,” where cooperation, competition, and conflict inevitably co-exist.
As I explain in detail elsewhere, this biological reality necessitates three distinct but complementary principles of social justice, or fairness – equality in relation to our basic needs (an imperative for all of us), equity, or “merit” in relation to our varying individual efforts and accomplishments (or transgressions), and reciprocity, or a balancing of the costs and benefits associated with being a participant in the ongoing survival enterprise.
Finding the proper balance among these three fairness principles is a fundamental challenge for our system of justice, I believe. As the great American legal scholar Learned Hand expressed it long ago: “Justice is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society,” not a partiality to any one interest over another.
It would also be fitting for our Supreme Court justices to remain humble about their role in our system of government and to remember that their assertion of the right to interpret our laws and Constitution is not, in fact, contained in our founding document. Technically, it’s a usurpation – the invocation of an “implied” power by an early chief justice, John Marshall, that subsequent generations of Americans have been willing to accept, so long as this power is not grossly abused.
In the end, the claims of justice as fairness must take precedence over any particular legal doctrine, or interest, or institution, or else we will risk undermining the implicit “social contract” that ultimately binds our people together.
The way this rarified game is played, as any court watcher knows, is that the justices must find some “objective” external authority for their decisions. They typically select relevant items from a voluminous carpet bag stuffed with various statutes, legislative histories, precedents set by other courts and, especially, what is written in our Constitution. For instance, the currently popular doctrine of “originalism” seeks to invoke the precise meaning of the Constitution itself, and what the Founding Fathers supposedly intended, as an overriding criterion that can supersede even established laws and precedents.
The problem with this modern-day form of scholasticism is that it can easily be used to distort or even subvert the broader objectives of our society, not to mention the objectives of the Constitution itself. As stated in the Preamble, the reasons for forming “a more perfect union” were not just to secure our freedom from the British Crown or our own government but to “establish justice” and to “promote the general welfare.”
So if the Supreme Court justices take an absolutist position on any particular clause – say Second Amendment gun rights -- while being cavalier about the harm that can be caused to the general welfare by failing to ensure that there are also strict controls over the use (and misuse) of guns, then surely they are undermining the broader objectives of the Constitution.
Since we are all expected to play this judicial game by its well-established rules, perhaps the time has come to advance what might be called “the doctrine of fairness” – the idea that the general welfare clause of the Constitution ultimately trumps the purpose and meaning of its parts, or the interests of any particular stakeholder in our society. In fact, this is more consistent with the “judicial oath” that each newly appointed justice must take. The oath states that the justice will “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and the rich.”
There is some risk in this approach. A reliance on the overarching purpose of the Constitution as a whole could, of course, be used in the wrong hands to weaken the parts, especially the Bill of Rights. Our judges and legal scholars are generally uncomfortable with using such sweeping legal claims; they prefer to decide cases on narrow grounds, as a rule. But if we can develop a clearly defined and delimited vision of what the general welfare clause means (and prohibits), this would go a long way toward buffering our legal system against egregious doctrinal abuses.
One approach to articulating such a vision is what I refer to as the “Fair Society” model. The idea that fairness should be the guiding principle in any society was first articulated by Plato in his great philosophical dialogue, the Republic (its little-used subtitle is “Concerning Justice”). As Plato defined it, justice refers to an aspect of our relationships with one another. It involves “giving every man his due.” Over the centuries, there have been countless arguments among scholars over what Plato meant by the word “due”. However, the emerging, multidisciplinary science of human nature sheds much new light on this issue.
Whatever may be our perceptions, aspirations, or illusions (or, for that matter, whatever our station in life), biological survival and reproduction is our underlying purpose, both as individuals and as a society. Indeed, any organized, interdependent economy represents at heart a “collective survival enterprise,” where cooperation, competition, and conflict inevitably co-exist.
As I explain in detail elsewhere, this biological reality necessitates three distinct but complementary principles of social justice, or fairness – equality in relation to our basic needs (an imperative for all of us), equity, or “merit” in relation to our varying individual efforts and accomplishments (or transgressions), and reciprocity, or a balancing of the costs and benefits associated with being a participant in the ongoing survival enterprise.
Finding the proper balance among these three fairness principles is a fundamental challenge for our system of justice, I believe. As the great American legal scholar Learned Hand expressed it long ago: “Justice is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society,” not a partiality to any one interest over another.
It would also be fitting for our Supreme Court justices to remain humble about their role in our system of government and to remember that their assertion of the right to interpret our laws and Constitution is not, in fact, contained in our founding document. Technically, it’s a usurpation – the invocation of an “implied” power by an early chief justice, John Marshall, that subsequent generations of Americans have been willing to accept, so long as this power is not grossly abused.
In the end, the claims of justice as fairness must take precedence over any particular legal doctrine, or interest, or institution, or else we will risk undermining the implicit “social contract” that ultimately binds our people together.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The European Model
Steven Hill’s new book, Europe’s Promise, is deeply depressing – unintentionally, of course. Hill meant to “correct the record” about Europe (Americans are grossly misinformed about Europe’s emergence as the global leader, ahead of China), and he wanted to inspire us with a better model for our own future. He calls it “social capitalism” (others refer to it as “welfare capitalism”) and, more broadly, the “European Way.” So why is it so depressing?
The answer, in short, is that the European Way has been hugely successful and puts into stark relief our own failings as a society over the past 50 years. It is a stinging indictment of the things we could have done much better (it was a matter of choice, not necessity), and it provides a long shopping list of the changes we need to make if we are to catch up with Europe’s surge and avoid slipping further behind.
Here are just a few bullet points about Europe that may surprise you:
•The 27 member E.U., with a population of 500 million (two-thirds larger than the U.S.), is now the world’s largest trading block, almost as large as the U.S. and China combined.
•Europe’s business sector is overwhelmingly capitalist, with many more Fortune 500 companies than the U.S. (179 versus 140). Half of the worlds 60 largest companies are European, and Europe accounts for more than 75 percent of all foreign investment in this country.
•Europe has the world's second largest military, with more “boots on the ground” than the U.S. and a global peace-keeping role that rivals our own.
•Europe has taken a decisive lead in “green design” (increasing energy efficiency), developing renewable energy systems, and cutting back on greenhouse gasses. Europe has had a cap-and-trade system in place since 2005. Similar legislation in this country failed once again in the current Congress.
•European taxes are not, repeat not, a crushing burden compared to America. Counting Social Security and Medicare taxes, along with our state and local taxes and such hidden levies as gas and telephone taxes, our taxes are very close to the rate in, say, the Netherlands at 52 percent. And if you add to that our much higher out-of-pocket costs for many services that European taxes subsidize, from health care to education, child care, elder care, transportation and sick leave, we actually do much worse.
However, the core of the “European Way,” is its all-inclusive, cradle-to-the-grave economic security and social welfare program. It’s a model for what might have been – and still could be – in this country. Imagine a country in which there is a high level of job security, where there are generous unemployment benefits and free job retraining immediately available, where, if you get sick, there is low cost or even free health services, where higher education is free or very low cost, where child care services are readily available, professional,and low cost or even free, where new parents are paid to stay at home and care for their newborns and even receive payments to help defray the cost of diapers, food, etc., where workers receive two months of vacation a year, as well as generous retirement benefits and low cost elder and nursing care.
As Hill says in his book: “To most Americans, such a place sounds like Never, Never Land. But to most Europeans…America is the outlier.” Worse, we’re clueless about the fact that we are really a second or third rate country when it comes to the standard of living and welfare of our people. It doesn't have to be that way.
The answer, in short, is that the European Way has been hugely successful and puts into stark relief our own failings as a society over the past 50 years. It is a stinging indictment of the things we could have done much better (it was a matter of choice, not necessity), and it provides a long shopping list of the changes we need to make if we are to catch up with Europe’s surge and avoid slipping further behind.
Here are just a few bullet points about Europe that may surprise you:
•The 27 member E.U., with a population of 500 million (two-thirds larger than the U.S.), is now the world’s largest trading block, almost as large as the U.S. and China combined.
•Europe’s business sector is overwhelmingly capitalist, with many more Fortune 500 companies than the U.S. (179 versus 140). Half of the worlds 60 largest companies are European, and Europe accounts for more than 75 percent of all foreign investment in this country.
•Europe has the world's second largest military, with more “boots on the ground” than the U.S. and a global peace-keeping role that rivals our own.
•Europe has taken a decisive lead in “green design” (increasing energy efficiency), developing renewable energy systems, and cutting back on greenhouse gasses. Europe has had a cap-and-trade system in place since 2005. Similar legislation in this country failed once again in the current Congress.
•European taxes are not, repeat not, a crushing burden compared to America. Counting Social Security and Medicare taxes, along with our state and local taxes and such hidden levies as gas and telephone taxes, our taxes are very close to the rate in, say, the Netherlands at 52 percent. And if you add to that our much higher out-of-pocket costs for many services that European taxes subsidize, from health care to education, child care, elder care, transportation and sick leave, we actually do much worse.
However, the core of the “European Way,” is its all-inclusive, cradle-to-the-grave economic security and social welfare program. It’s a model for what might have been – and still could be – in this country. Imagine a country in which there is a high level of job security, where there are generous unemployment benefits and free job retraining immediately available, where, if you get sick, there is low cost or even free health services, where higher education is free or very low cost, where child care services are readily available, professional,and low cost or even free, where new parents are paid to stay at home and care for their newborns and even receive payments to help defray the cost of diapers, food, etc., where workers receive two months of vacation a year, as well as generous retirement benefits and low cost elder and nursing care.
As Hill says in his book: “To most Americans, such a place sounds like Never, Never Land. But to most Europeans…America is the outlier.” Worse, we’re clueless about the fact that we are really a second or third rate country when it comes to the standard of living and welfare of our people. It doesn't have to be that way.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
In Mott's We Trust
There is a piece in the New York Times today about how the parent company of the apple juice maker Mott’s, Dr Pepper/Snapple, has demanded wage cuts, pension freezes and other concessions from its employees (and has eliminated bonuses, the summer family picnic and year-end holiday party) – despite posting record profits. The company wants to cut costs, a spokesman explained, simply because it is more generous than other local area companies in upstate New York. A worker strike over this issue is now three months old.
This is a classic zero-sum game in which the workers’ needs are sacrificed (senior employees now make perhaps $19 per hour) to enhance “shareholder value.” Not only is this deeply unfair, a clear violation of the biosocial contract (see THE FAIR SOCIETY), but it is also abominable as personnel and management policy. Don’t they know that a social Darwinist (“selfish gene”) ethic doesn’t work very well in a large organization where trust and close cooperation are essential? The name of the game is mutual benefits. Where else might this company cut corners? Hmmm!
The bottom line? Buy Martinelli’s if you have a choice.
This is a classic zero-sum game in which the workers’ needs are sacrificed (senior employees now make perhaps $19 per hour) to enhance “shareholder value.” Not only is this deeply unfair, a clear violation of the biosocial contract (see THE FAIR SOCIETY), but it is also abominable as personnel and management policy. Don’t they know that a social Darwinist (“selfish gene”) ethic doesn’t work very well in a large organization where trust and close cooperation are essential? The name of the game is mutual benefits. Where else might this company cut corners? Hmmm!
The bottom line? Buy Martinelli’s if you have a choice.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Into the Fire
The politics of this country are getting scary. We have the likes of Glenn Beck ranting about how social justice is a fascist/communist idea, and any church that preaches in favor of it should be boycotted. Then there’s Newt Gingrich, comparing the Muslims who want to build a mosque near the 9/11 site in New York City with allowing the Nazis to put up signs near a holocaust museum or the Japanese wanting to put a memorial near the sunken battleship Arizona in Pearl Harbor. Is he really comparing the Muslim faith to our sworn enemies in World War II?
What is so disturbing about these and many other incidents in our politics these days is that they are symptoms of the fact that the basic political consensus – our implicit social contract – is shredding, and that the forces of intolerance, division and confrontation are escalating. There is an eerie resemblance to the increasingly violent turmoil in Germany that preceded the Nazi takeover in 1933.
Am I comparing the Republican Party to the Nazis? No, of course not – not yet. But there are forces (and politicians) at work in that party that are ruthless in their ambitions and in their political agenda. We’re already in the frying pan. I fear we may yet find ourselves in the fire.
What is so disturbing about these and many other incidents in our politics these days is that they are symptoms of the fact that the basic political consensus – our implicit social contract – is shredding, and that the forces of intolerance, division and confrontation are escalating. There is an eerie resemblance to the increasingly violent turmoil in Germany that preceded the Nazi takeover in 1933.
Am I comparing the Republican Party to the Nazis? No, of course not – not yet. But there are forces (and politicians) at work in that party that are ruthless in their ambitions and in their political agenda. We’re already in the frying pan. I fear we may yet find ourselves in the fire.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The "Winter of Our Discontent"
The anger out there seems to find new targets almost daily. First it was health reform, then deficit spending, then illegal immigration, then the response to the oil spill, then the Obama family’s vacation plans, and now the mosque near ground zero. In his latest pander to the radical right, Newt Gingrich, a political newt if ever there was one (a lizard-like salamander, that is), accused president Obama of “pandering to radical Islam.”
Not only are Tea Party Republicans angry at everything (especially the Democrats), so is the left. They’re angry at Obama for “selling out” on the public health insurance option, climate change legislation, immigration reform, Afghanistan, and other things. Of course, this attitude is self-defeating. If you don’t like the current political reality, look out for the speeding train that’s coming at you from the right.
In sum, we seem to have become an angry and deeply divided country. No good can come from this. If there is to be a future worth waiting for, we are going to need to rediscover the concept of fairness and try to act like a civilized country.
Not only are Tea Party Republicans angry at everything (especially the Democrats), so is the left. They’re angry at Obama for “selling out” on the public health insurance option, climate change legislation, immigration reform, Afghanistan, and other things. Of course, this attitude is self-defeating. If you don’t like the current political reality, look out for the speeding train that’s coming at you from the right.
In sum, we seem to have become an angry and deeply divided country. No good can come from this. If there is to be a future worth waiting for, we are going to need to rediscover the concept of fairness and try to act like a civilized country.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
The "Missing Ingredient"
An old friend of mine who, like me, has seen huge changes in our society over the past 50 years (believe me, it’s not the same country), recently commented that it seems as though there is a “missing ingredient” these days. An important element of what makes a country a “whole” somehow seems to be lacking.
My immediate response was that she was right. But what are we missing? What have we lost that seems to have left a void in our society, and our collective psyche? In a nutshell, we’ve lost our sense of having a collective purpose, of broad national goals, and a sense of hope. Unlike many other nations that have a deep history and a strong cultural identity, America has always located its identity in “progress.”
From its very beginnings, America has been defined by its successive “missions” – colonizing a “New World,” building the world’s first mass democracy, outshining the “old world” (AKA “old Europe”) as a beacon of technological innovation and industrial development, serving as the “arsenal of democracy” in two world wars, leading the fight against Fascism in World War II, serving as the bulwark of freedom during the Cold War, and being the cutting edge developers of high technology and the Internet. All the while, we thought of ourselves as being the “land of opportunity,” a place to make a fresh start and build a better life.
But now what? America is widely blamed for the Great Recession; its model of “free market capitalism” is being widely repudiated; it is bogged down in two wars that are frustrating and that are sapping our wealth. Meanwhile, we are still (despite the technicalities) mired in the worst recession since the 1930s, with no end in sight. We are now heavily in debt to China, and we see new evidence daily that this emerging nation is becoming a global economic and political powerhouse. The “American Century” is gone forever.
Our future, in short, is murky. There is a depressing angst in the land, and the way forward is shrouded in a dense fog. What we are missing is a vision for the future that can inspire hope and a clear sense that we are making life better for our people. There is a long “to-do list.” Full employment at a living wage is a major first step. We also have a massive job to do in repairing our deteriorating infrastructure of roads, bridges, sewer systems, etc., in making health care more affordable, upgrading our failing schools, modernizing a decrepit mass transit system and, especially important, making changes in the culture and the values of corporate America.
But the foundation for all this, as I argue in my new book, The Fair Society, must be a new social contract based on three principles of fairness: equality in ensuring that everyone’s basic needs are met, equity (consistent rewards for personal “merit”), and reciprocity, so that everyone is obligated to contribute their fair share to society in return for the benefits they receive. All this is spelled out in detail in the book.
The most important point, though, is that a better future is definitely attainable if there is a clear set of objectives, visionary leadership, and a collective will to make it happen. Currently we seem to be going in the wrong direction with none of the above. But personally, I’m still hopeful.
My immediate response was that she was right. But what are we missing? What have we lost that seems to have left a void in our society, and our collective psyche? In a nutshell, we’ve lost our sense of having a collective purpose, of broad national goals, and a sense of hope. Unlike many other nations that have a deep history and a strong cultural identity, America has always located its identity in “progress.”
From its very beginnings, America has been defined by its successive “missions” – colonizing a “New World,” building the world’s first mass democracy, outshining the “old world” (AKA “old Europe”) as a beacon of technological innovation and industrial development, serving as the “arsenal of democracy” in two world wars, leading the fight against Fascism in World War II, serving as the bulwark of freedom during the Cold War, and being the cutting edge developers of high technology and the Internet. All the while, we thought of ourselves as being the “land of opportunity,” a place to make a fresh start and build a better life.
But now what? America is widely blamed for the Great Recession; its model of “free market capitalism” is being widely repudiated; it is bogged down in two wars that are frustrating and that are sapping our wealth. Meanwhile, we are still (despite the technicalities) mired in the worst recession since the 1930s, with no end in sight. We are now heavily in debt to China, and we see new evidence daily that this emerging nation is becoming a global economic and political powerhouse. The “American Century” is gone forever.
Our future, in short, is murky. There is a depressing angst in the land, and the way forward is shrouded in a dense fog. What we are missing is a vision for the future that can inspire hope and a clear sense that we are making life better for our people. There is a long “to-do list.” Full employment at a living wage is a major first step. We also have a massive job to do in repairing our deteriorating infrastructure of roads, bridges, sewer systems, etc., in making health care more affordable, upgrading our failing schools, modernizing a decrepit mass transit system and, especially important, making changes in the culture and the values of corporate America.
But the foundation for all this, as I argue in my new book, The Fair Society, must be a new social contract based on three principles of fairness: equality in ensuring that everyone’s basic needs are met, equity (consistent rewards for personal “merit”), and reciprocity, so that everyone is obligated to contribute their fair share to society in return for the benefits they receive. All this is spelled out in detail in the book.
The most important point, though, is that a better future is definitely attainable if there is a clear set of objectives, visionary leadership, and a collective will to make it happen. Currently we seem to be going in the wrong direction with none of the above. But personally, I’m still hopeful.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
An Oligarchy Masquerading as a Democracy?
Well, that’s an exaggeration. But consider this. The 2008 election provided one of the strongest mandates for change that we have seen in this country. Not only did Barack Obama – with an explicit change mantra and a clearly articulated vision – win a decisive victory but the Democrats in both houses of Congress gained seats for the second election in a row. They held decisive majorities in both houses.
Of course the economic crisis and a free-falling stock market forced a change in priorities, but there was still the expectation that we would see aggressive health reform, climate change legislation, robust energy initiatives, immigration reform and more, and a dispirited Republican party seemed at first to be acquiescent.
What happened? Part of the problem is that we have a dysfunctional system, most notably in the Senate where the 60 vote filibuster rule, which was designed for exceptional circumstances, came to be used by the Republicans for everything. A no- holds-barred partisanship has poisoned the well. So an extraordinary majority is needed to do anything. The so-called cloture rule has become a political bottleneck.
But the root of the problem is not a glitch in the machinery (which could be changed with the will, or good will, to do so). The ghost in the machine is the overwhelming influence of corporate money and influence – hundreds of millions of dollars that can dilute and ultimately frustrate any electoral mandate. In everything from the failed public option in the health reform bill to the timid financial regulations and, finally, the defeat of climate change and tabling of immigration reform, the system responded to corporate interests and thwarted the “will of the people” both at the ballot box and in public opinion polls.
Extreme partisan opposition, replete with calculated and cynical lies (remember the “death panels”) also played a role. No democracy can survive if its leaders are chronic liars. But the main culprit was a system that has some of the properties of an oligarchy – rule by (and for) a self-interested elite.
Money has always been “the mother’s milk of politics” to borrow a phrase from a Tammany Hall political boss, but these days it’s more like heroin. Fund raising has become a time-consuming preoccupation for all but the very wealthiest of politicians, because they must raise enormous sums of money in order to be competitive (in most cases). And their addiction to money serves the interests of the rich and powerful. If you think of our system as being an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy, you’d have to say it works very well.
Of course the economic crisis and a free-falling stock market forced a change in priorities, but there was still the expectation that we would see aggressive health reform, climate change legislation, robust energy initiatives, immigration reform and more, and a dispirited Republican party seemed at first to be acquiescent.
What happened? Part of the problem is that we have a dysfunctional system, most notably in the Senate where the 60 vote filibuster rule, which was designed for exceptional circumstances, came to be used by the Republicans for everything. A no- holds-barred partisanship has poisoned the well. So an extraordinary majority is needed to do anything. The so-called cloture rule has become a political bottleneck.
But the root of the problem is not a glitch in the machinery (which could be changed with the will, or good will, to do so). The ghost in the machine is the overwhelming influence of corporate money and influence – hundreds of millions of dollars that can dilute and ultimately frustrate any electoral mandate. In everything from the failed public option in the health reform bill to the timid financial regulations and, finally, the defeat of climate change and tabling of immigration reform, the system responded to corporate interests and thwarted the “will of the people” both at the ballot box and in public opinion polls.
Extreme partisan opposition, replete with calculated and cynical lies (remember the “death panels”) also played a role. No democracy can survive if its leaders are chronic liars. But the main culprit was a system that has some of the properties of an oligarchy – rule by (and for) a self-interested elite.
Money has always been “the mother’s milk of politics” to borrow a phrase from a Tammany Hall political boss, but these days it’s more like heroin. Fund raising has become a time-consuming preoccupation for all but the very wealthiest of politicians, because they must raise enormous sums of money in order to be competitive (in most cases). And their addiction to money serves the interests of the rich and powerful. If you think of our system as being an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy, you’d have to say it works very well.
From Leader to Laggard
Once upon a time in this country (and it wasn't a fairy tale either), we prided ourselves on having the highest standard of living, the best health care and education systems, an awesome industrial sector, a generous safety net and generally civil politics -- a model of democracy for the rest of the world.
How far we have slipped was driven home to me when it was reported that India is considering a national policy of making food a "right" that even the poor would be able to enjoy. What a concept. It reminded me of the fact that, in this country, there were an estimated 50 million people in 2009, including 17 million children, who experienced food "deprivation" (hunger) at some point during the year. And this year the situation is likely to be even worse. Meanwhile, our Congress recently mandated cutbacks (yes, reductions) in our food stamp program to help cover teacher salaries, Medicaid shortfalls and school nutrition programs -- all worthy measures but surely there were a thousand less cruel ways to find the money (say oil depletion allowances or tax loopholes that allow our corporations to pay the lowest effective tax rate, overall, of any OECD nation.)
This is unworthy of a "civilized" society. But maybe that's the problem.
How far we have slipped was driven home to me when it was reported that India is considering a national policy of making food a "right" that even the poor would be able to enjoy. What a concept. It reminded me of the fact that, in this country, there were an estimated 50 million people in 2009, including 17 million children, who experienced food "deprivation" (hunger) at some point during the year. And this year the situation is likely to be even worse. Meanwhile, our Congress recently mandated cutbacks (yes, reductions) in our food stamp program to help cover teacher salaries, Medicaid shortfalls and school nutrition programs -- all worthy measures but surely there were a thousand less cruel ways to find the money (say oil depletion allowances or tax loopholes that allow our corporations to pay the lowest effective tax rate, overall, of any OECD nation.)
This is unworthy of a "civilized" society. But maybe that's the problem.
Is it Unfair to Require Health Insurance?
Conservatives are in an uproar over the provision in the recently enacted health reform legislation that will require most of those who are currently uninsured to obtain health coverage by 2014, except of course for low income Americans who would receive subsidies for the premiums or be eligible for an expanded Medicaid program. Indeed, one state has already passed legislation to nullify this requirement.
Why is this mandate so unjust and unreasonable? It simply requires everyone who might use our health care system to pay a fair share to support it. Currently, many of the uninsured are in effect “free riders” on the rest of us. If they need care and can’t pay for it, the rest of us must cover those costs in our health insurance premiums. It’s the equivalent of uninsured motorist coverage in an automobile insurance policy. It’s not fair to those who do pay their way.
Of course, many of the uninsured can’t afford the high cost of insurance. For them, help is on the way. It’s the defiant, libertarian “refusniks” that are the trouble-makers. So, let’s suppose that, in lieu of mandated coverage, these refusers were given the opportunity to formally opt out of the system. If, for example, they were injured in a fall or got sick from eating hamburgers laced with e-coli bacteria, a quick check of an on-line data base would result in their being denied medical assistance. Such a change in our society and our health care system is almost certainly unthinkable, but it does drive home the point that it is unfair for the willfully uninsured to free-load on the rest of us.
Why is this mandate so unjust and unreasonable? It simply requires everyone who might use our health care system to pay a fair share to support it. Currently, many of the uninsured are in effect “free riders” on the rest of us. If they need care and can’t pay for it, the rest of us must cover those costs in our health insurance premiums. It’s the equivalent of uninsured motorist coverage in an automobile insurance policy. It’s not fair to those who do pay their way.
Of course, many of the uninsured can’t afford the high cost of insurance. For them, help is on the way. It’s the defiant, libertarian “refusniks” that are the trouble-makers. So, let’s suppose that, in lieu of mandated coverage, these refusers were given the opportunity to formally opt out of the system. If, for example, they were injured in a fall or got sick from eating hamburgers laced with e-coli bacteria, a quick check of an on-line data base would result in their being denied medical assistance. Such a change in our society and our health care system is almost certainly unthinkable, but it does drive home the point that it is unfair for the willfully uninsured to free-load on the rest of us.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Mendacity
"Liars and Lying." That's how the character "Big Daddy" characterized it in Tennessee Williams' famous Broadway play (later a movie) called "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof." Unfortunately our politics has been thoroughly poisoned with it.
Actually, it was Hitler's "propanda minister" (not his official title of course), Joseph Goebbels, who perfected the art of deliberately repeating a lie with such deep sincerity and passion that the public eventually came to believe it. The "big lie" it was called. One of many terrible consequences of this cynical strategy was the Holocaust -- ridding Nazi Germany of the "conspiracy from within" and purifying the race.
In our own era in this country, the mendacity began with president Ronald Reagan. The myth of "welfare queens" driving in Cadillacs (back when people actually thought of them as status symbols)to pick up their welfare checks lives on to this day in conservative circles, though it was long ago exposed as a fabrication. A big lie. Then there was "supply side economics" -- the myth that if you reduce taxes, especially for the rich, it would actually increase tax revenue. George H.W. Bush (later the president) got it right when he said (in public) that it was "voodoo economics." He was pilloried by the conservatives in his party for saying so, and it was later implemented (in the form of tax cuts) by the Reagan administration, with disastrous results for our national debt. Reagan ultimately resersed course. Supply side economics doesn't work, but it still lives on in conservative circles as a justification for -- you guessed it -- tax cuts for the rich.
More recently, you may recall the mythical "weapons of mass destruction." They helped get us into a disastrous war that we are still paying for. None were ever found, but there are die-hard believers who think we just didn't look hard enough, or that "liberals" are covering up the evidence.
The latest version of the big lie is the conservative charge that paying unemployment benefits actually causes unemployment, or at least perpetuates it. Who would want to work if they can collect cash from the government? Of course, it is hard to believe that the average unemployment benefit of $300 a week is much of an incentive for idleness. But more to the point, there is ample evidence that the overwhelming majority of us prefer to be working (though maybe not so hard as many of us do) and that unemployment is profoundly depressing and debilitating. The main problem is not too much unemployment compensation but too few jobs (about one for every six people who are currently unemployed).
So when the Republicans self-righteously claim that unemployment benefits are harmful, it is sheer, unadulterated mendacity. But that won't stop them from saying it, because they know that some people will be gullible enough to believe it.
Actually, it was Hitler's "propanda minister" (not his official title of course), Joseph Goebbels, who perfected the art of deliberately repeating a lie with such deep sincerity and passion that the public eventually came to believe it. The "big lie" it was called. One of many terrible consequences of this cynical strategy was the Holocaust -- ridding Nazi Germany of the "conspiracy from within" and purifying the race.
In our own era in this country, the mendacity began with president Ronald Reagan. The myth of "welfare queens" driving in Cadillacs (back when people actually thought of them as status symbols)to pick up their welfare checks lives on to this day in conservative circles, though it was long ago exposed as a fabrication. A big lie. Then there was "supply side economics" -- the myth that if you reduce taxes, especially for the rich, it would actually increase tax revenue. George H.W. Bush (later the president) got it right when he said (in public) that it was "voodoo economics." He was pilloried by the conservatives in his party for saying so, and it was later implemented (in the form of tax cuts) by the Reagan administration, with disastrous results for our national debt. Reagan ultimately resersed course. Supply side economics doesn't work, but it still lives on in conservative circles as a justification for -- you guessed it -- tax cuts for the rich.
More recently, you may recall the mythical "weapons of mass destruction." They helped get us into a disastrous war that we are still paying for. None were ever found, but there are die-hard believers who think we just didn't look hard enough, or that "liberals" are covering up the evidence.
The latest version of the big lie is the conservative charge that paying unemployment benefits actually causes unemployment, or at least perpetuates it. Who would want to work if they can collect cash from the government? Of course, it is hard to believe that the average unemployment benefit of $300 a week is much of an incentive for idleness. But more to the point, there is ample evidence that the overwhelming majority of us prefer to be working (though maybe not so hard as many of us do) and that unemployment is profoundly depressing and debilitating. The main problem is not too much unemployment compensation but too few jobs (about one for every six people who are currently unemployed).
So when the Republicans self-righteously claim that unemployment benefits are harmful, it is sheer, unadulterated mendacity. But that won't stop them from saying it, because they know that some people will be gullible enough to believe it.
A Moral Cesspool
Those who are old enough to remember the Army-McCarthy hearings during one of America's most disgraceful episodes can never forget the stinging indictment of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his bullying by the Boston lawyer Joseph Welch. The climax came when Welch finally confronted McCarthy head on:
"Until this moment, Senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or recklessness....Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator....Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
The same language could be applied to what the New York Times calls a "sleight of hand" in a Congress spooked by the budget deficits of its own making when the Senate approved a cut (yes a cut) in the food stamp program to pay for teacher salaries and school lunch improvements. Come on. Surely the money could have been found in any one of several hundred pork barrels that line the halls of Congress. This is an action that violates our deepest moral obligation as a species -- to provide for the "no-fault needs" of our brethren. Have they left no sense of decency?
"Until this moment, Senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or recklessness....Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator....Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
The same language could be applied to what the New York Times calls a "sleight of hand" in a Congress spooked by the budget deficits of its own making when the Senate approved a cut (yes a cut) in the food stamp program to pay for teacher salaries and school lunch improvements. Come on. Surely the money could have been found in any one of several hundred pork barrels that line the halls of Congress. This is an action that violates our deepest moral obligation as a species -- to provide for the "no-fault needs" of our brethren. Have they left no sense of decency?
The "Deniers"
Plato long ago pointed out that "ignorance" destroys a state. He may be right about this. Just look at our political manure pile. But sheer irrationality is not far behind as a cause of political self-immolation. Consider the "deniers" -- those right wingers who adamantly deny the evidence of climate warming.
These are some of the same people who are willing to believe in God, though we have no direct evidence, and yet they also deny a huge body of scientific evidence from many quarters that has enabled us to predict what is currently happening to global climate and warns us that it will get much worse.
Maybe the deniers should apply the "foxhole argument" to climate change. If a battlefield conversion is a route to religious faith in a stressful time, our deniers might want to make a similar "suspension of disbelief" (to borrow a phrase) for climate change. Nothing bad can come of it.
These are some of the same people who are willing to believe in God, though we have no direct evidence, and yet they also deny a huge body of scientific evidence from many quarters that has enabled us to predict what is currently happening to global climate and warns us that it will get much worse.
Maybe the deniers should apply the "foxhole argument" to climate change. If a battlefield conversion is a route to religious faith in a stressful time, our deniers might want to make a similar "suspension of disbelief" (to borrow a phrase) for climate change. Nothing bad can come of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
