Speaking of "Big Lies," here is a thoughtful analysis (epitaph?) about the birther business. Let's hope it's behind us, but will we learn any lessons? The discussion appears in today's "Progress Report" from the Center for American Progress.
POLITICS
The Death Of Birtherism
During the 2008 campaign, in an effort to quell a nasty and unsubstantiated smear that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., the Obama team took the unprecedented step of releasing the candidate's certificate of live birth, only to realize they had inadvertently fanned the flames of the fledgling "birther" conspiracy movement. This Wednesday, the White House tried to put an end to questions about the President's birthplace once and for all by releasing the long-form version of his birth certificate. "We do not have time for this kind of silliness," Obama told reporters in a press conference after making the document public. The birther story has been revived in recent weeks by the inflammatory statements of TV personality and potential GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. Although the myth that Obama was not born in the U.S. has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by leading news organizations, the White House has found the rumor stubbornly persistent. As the President put it, "this thing just keeps on going." He has generally avoided speaking on the subject over the past two years, seemingly reluctant to escalate the malicious lies. But as the story has migrated from the extremist fringes to the mainstream media, and begun influencing the views of average Americans, the President clearly felt he could no longer afford to maintain his silence. Several Democratic allies have questioned the wisdom of wading into the fray -- and the timing of the announcement -- but White House officials apparently decided one month ago that the story had become damaging and distracting, and would continue to plague them through the 2012 campaign if they didn't address it head on.
HOW DID WE GET HERE: If the endurance of the birther myth teaches us anything, it's the power of repetition. Any claim, no matter how outrageous, can take hold over time if it gets enough media exposure. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that nearly 25 percent of Americans, and 45 percent of Republicans, believed Mr. Obama was born in another country. The shocking fact that a quarter of all Americans now believe the lie -- and an additional 18 percent say they don't know where he was born -- illustrates just how successful birther conspiracists have been at sowing doubt and attracting attention from mainstream news outlets. While the exact origins of birtherism are fuzzy, it has certainly been pursued most vigorously by the far right. Early proponents included California dentist Orly Taitz and the conservative website World Net Daily. They insisted that the birth certificate produced by Obama was a forgery, and Taitz even claimed -- twice -- to have a c opy of t he "real" Kenyan birth certificate proving Obama was not American-born. A string of specious lawsuits claiming the president wasn't qualified to hold office were all dismissed by the courts, and some of the filers, including Taitz, had to pay fines. However, by then mainstream figures, including then-CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, had begun weighing in and giving extremists the attention they so desperately sought, which allowed other networks and publications to "cover the coverage." In fact, in his statement Obama gently admonished the media for being complicit in promoting birtherism. The story entered deeper into the political bloodstream when several GOP politicians realized it would be politically advantageous to play up the issue to their base. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R), Sen. David Vitter, (R- LA), and Alan Keyes all jumped on the bandwagon, while other Republicans, including Sarah Palin, simply flirted with birtherism by making leading statements like, "I think it's a fair question" to investigate Obama's birthplace. In March 2009, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) and 11 House co-sponsors introduced legislation requiring presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate. More "birther bills" would soon follow. This year alone, bills have cropped up in more than a dozen legislatures to force presidential candidates to prove their citizenship. A few Republican leaders, however, recognized that embraci ng the t heory would be toxic for the party, and distanced themselves from the birthers. Erick Erickson, the editor of the popular RedState blog, publicly purged birthers from his site in 2010.
THE AFTERMATH: On Wednesday Obama finally gave birthers what they said they always wanted: the long-form version of his birth certificate that has been kept on file in Hawaii. It surprised no one that, despite being presented with even more incontrovertible evidence that the President is an American citizen, many of them remained unconvinced. Birther crusader Pamela Geller declared on Fox that the newly-released document was "suspect," while her Fox hosts appeared to nod in agreement. Texas state representative Leo Berman (R), the author of a birther bill, complained that the certificate didn't look old enough, and Orly Taitz questioned its authenticity based on the fact that the race of Obama's father is listed as "African," not "Negro." However, several prominent voices on the right admitted that the issue seemed to be resolved. Some, including Rush Limbaugh, engaged in revisionist history by suggesting they never had any doubts about the President's origins and had been on his side all along. Other GOP leaders, confronted with the error of their past claims, tried to blame the whole affair on Obama himself, suggesting the controversy was his fault for not releasing his birth certificate earlier. "All I would say is, why did it take so long?" said potential GOP contender Newt Gingrich. He was not alone in ascribing sinister motives to the President's timing: Sarah Palin tweeted to her followers, "don't let the WH distract you w/ the birth crt," and insinuated the President was simply trying to keep attention away from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's statement later that day. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus chastised the president for not focusing on more important issues. "Unfortunately his campaign politics and talk about birth certificates is distracting him from our No. 1 priority--our economy." In the wake of the document's release, the dust seems to be settling exactly as you'd expect: some people have abandoned the cause while the die-hards fight on. But the President made it clear he wasn't concerned about the fringe: "I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest," he said. "But I’m speaking to the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press."
WHY IT STICKS: It is no coincidence that MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow titled her segments on the birther story "Birther of a Nation," an allusion to the D.W. Griffith film long thought to glorify the rise of the KKK. Doubts about the President's origins have persisted because they speak to underlying concerns and suspicions about his background, ethnicity, and race. For some, the very presence of an African-American in the Oval Office is so offensive that they simply cannot accept his authority. The birther angle conveniently allows this segment of the population to wrap up their hatred in the flag -- or more accurately, the Constitution. By suggesting Obama wasn't born in America, what they are really claiming is that he is not even legally the President. The Constitution is regarded as something close to a sacred document in conserva tive cir cles, and in the birther world, Obama's tenure itself is a violation of the founding document. The spread of the birther conspiracy into the mainstream reveals a disturbingly pervasive racial animus. This insidious fear that the America of old is being contaminated by foreign radicals isn't only manifested in the birther debate. It can be seen in hysteria about "anchor babies," Islamophobia, and Republican attempts to end birthright citizenship or prevent renewal of the Voting Rights Act. And while birtherism may always thrive only at the margins, this unsettling broader trend is firmly established. It turns out that electing a black president did not suddenly allow the country to "transcend" its checkered history with race. If anything, it has put lingering tensions front and center, and forced us to confront them.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Lies, Damned Lies, and…Republicans
Adolph Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, an evil genius if ever there was one, is responsible for the brilliant insight that if you repeat a lie often enough, with great sincerity and conviction, people can be seduced into believing it. It became known as the “Big Lie.”
The Republicans, with partisan ends in mind, have become modern-day masters of this dark art. Despite all the facts to the contrary (but who cares about the facts), the Republicans have become shameless purveyors of “terminological inexactitudes” (in Winston Churchill’s euphemism). Just look at a few examples:
* Most notorious, perhaps, were the “death panels” in the original health reform legislation. They were intended to provide the extreme elderly with information about their options for end-of-life care. They were certainly not going to “condemn” people to death, as some Republicans claimed and few of them bothered to deny.
* The “government takeover” of the health care system and “socialized medicine” was another Republican canard. The then House minority leader John Boehner famously called it “Armageddon.” In fact, it was a windfall for the private health insurance industry in exchange for restrictions in some of their more outrageous practices.
* There is the curiously short memory (to say the least) in Republican charges that President Obama and the Democrats caused our ballooning deficit with the bank bailouts (actually this was off-budget spending and was enacted in President Bush’s waning hours; they have mostly been repaid at a profit for the government). Or let’s blame the “stimulus” package (some $800 billion over two years). The latter represents only a minor share of the yawning gap caused by Bush-era tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and a recession-caused decline in tax revenues amounting to more than a trillion dollars a year.
* There is the myth that our businesses are over-taxed and that this is the prime cause of our weak economy. Apparently, the Republicans would like to forget the Clinton years, when taxes were higher and the economy thrived, or the financial meltdown and the Great Recession that began in the Bush years. If we only lower taxes for businesses (already achieving record profits and awash in hoarded cash) and the wealthy, the economy will supposedly bloom again and create many new jobs. Actually, the effective corporate tax rate is about six percent and the very wealthy (the top one percent of earners) paid 23.3 percent in 2008. (The top ten percent paid even less, 18.7 percent.) In fact, we have the lowest effective tax rates in the industrialized world.
* The most recent Big Lie is contained in the “Path to Prosperity” (AKA the Path to the Poorhouse), which the Republicans in the House have overwhelmingly approved in the form of the proposed 2012 federal budget. While it purports to be a serious deficit reduction measure, in fact the “P to P” is really a serious tax reduction measure for the rich (some $2.9 trillion over ten years), along with other goodies that are offset by draconian spending reductions of $4.4 trillion on the backs of the middle class and the poor. Most of the supposed deficit reduction would depend on a miracle -- the twice-tested, twice-failed “supply side” economic fantasy. Come on. This is smoke and mirrors with a sinister intent. Shame on them.
The Republicans, with partisan ends in mind, have become modern-day masters of this dark art. Despite all the facts to the contrary (but who cares about the facts), the Republicans have become shameless purveyors of “terminological inexactitudes” (in Winston Churchill’s euphemism). Just look at a few examples:
* Most notorious, perhaps, were the “death panels” in the original health reform legislation. They were intended to provide the extreme elderly with information about their options for end-of-life care. They were certainly not going to “condemn” people to death, as some Republicans claimed and few of them bothered to deny.
* The “government takeover” of the health care system and “socialized medicine” was another Republican canard. The then House minority leader John Boehner famously called it “Armageddon.” In fact, it was a windfall for the private health insurance industry in exchange for restrictions in some of their more outrageous practices.
* There is the curiously short memory (to say the least) in Republican charges that President Obama and the Democrats caused our ballooning deficit with the bank bailouts (actually this was off-budget spending and was enacted in President Bush’s waning hours; they have mostly been repaid at a profit for the government). Or let’s blame the “stimulus” package (some $800 billion over two years). The latter represents only a minor share of the yawning gap caused by Bush-era tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and a recession-caused decline in tax revenues amounting to more than a trillion dollars a year.
* There is the myth that our businesses are over-taxed and that this is the prime cause of our weak economy. Apparently, the Republicans would like to forget the Clinton years, when taxes were higher and the economy thrived, or the financial meltdown and the Great Recession that began in the Bush years. If we only lower taxes for businesses (already achieving record profits and awash in hoarded cash) and the wealthy, the economy will supposedly bloom again and create many new jobs. Actually, the effective corporate tax rate is about six percent and the very wealthy (the top one percent of earners) paid 23.3 percent in 2008. (The top ten percent paid even less, 18.7 percent.) In fact, we have the lowest effective tax rates in the industrialized world.
* The most recent Big Lie is contained in the “Path to Prosperity” (AKA the Path to the Poorhouse), which the Republicans in the House have overwhelmingly approved in the form of the proposed 2012 federal budget. While it purports to be a serious deficit reduction measure, in fact the “P to P” is really a serious tax reduction measure for the rich (some $2.9 trillion over ten years), along with other goodies that are offset by draconian spending reductions of $4.4 trillion on the backs of the middle class and the poor. Most of the supposed deficit reduction would depend on a miracle -- the twice-tested, twice-failed “supply side” economic fantasy. Come on. This is smoke and mirrors with a sinister intent. Shame on them.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
They Did Spell My Name Right!
Here is a review of my book in today's Wall Street Journal by an emeritus professor at the London School of Economics (where the Fabians once held sway). What else would you expect from the WSJ? My response, posted in their comments section, is also below:
By KENNETH MINOGUE
Peter Corning wants to improve, even transform, American life, but perhaps the most dramatic aspect of his project is its sheer ambition. He proposes to "bend the arc of the moral universe" and turn the country into a "fair society." The transformation can be achieved only by collective action, he says, of the sort that was revealed in the 2008 presidential election campaign—a "take-home lesson" in the possibilities of volunteer participation.
What constitutes "fair," of course, is not something people entirely agree on, but fairness is everywhere the watchword of today's radicals. And of many trend-chasing politicians. The British government has declared that its project is to "put fairness at the heart of the government's program." When both professors and politicians are to be found singing the same song, we must be in for a happy time, or perhaps we'd better just duck.
Mr. Corning's "The Fair Society" certainly expresses one of the most powerful politico-moral sentiments of our time. But it owes a great deal to the work of the philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) and the vast literature on "normative politics" that followed the publication in 1971 of Rawls's "A Theory of Justice," which asserted that "the most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position." Rawls gave us the "veil of ignorance" thought-experiment that calls on us to consider any policy or moral proposition without knowing what our own attributes—age, race, intelligence, economic class, education—would be.
Mr. Corning regrets that John Rawls has not yet been taken up as a guide to the remaking of America. The extent of current "injustice" might seem to be revealed in the fact that, when compared with many other developed nations, the U.S. suffers from high levels of poverty—and the poverty seems all the worse because of the widening gap between rich and poor. Are Americans therefore fleeing the country and seeking greener pastures elsewhere? On the contrary. Aspiring immigrants clamor for American visas—or clamber over fences to get in. Why would so many fling themselves toward an "unfair" land? It is difficult to reconcile the clash between poverty and immigration statistics. What is the reality? How should we orient ourselves?
Mr. Corning suggests bringing science into the matter—it's right there in the book's subtitle: "The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice." Making America a fair society, he says, is a project that has behind it something he calls "the multidisciplinary science of fairness," which has supposedly found that "most of us do have a bias toward cooperation and a readiness to reciprocate—a sense of fairness."
That's odd: Science usually deals in things more concrete than human dispositions. But Mr. Corning's claim is even grander: "An organized complex society," he says, is "a purposeful biologically based survival enterprise." We never quite learn whose survival is at stake or how evolution figures into all this, with its decidedly unfair survival-of-the-fittest theme. Nevertheless, survival—of the species? of the American state? of American individuals?—is the highest value, above both liberty and property. Mr. Corning would obviously have no truck with Patrick Henry's "liberty or death" proposition. Large questions slide by here without the attention they deserve.
But if the science seems obscure, the result that Mr. Corning wants to extract from it is not. The survival enterprise entails a schedule of "primary needs" common to all humans—e.g., warmth, nutrition, clean water, physical safety, social relations. The egalitarian satisfaction of such needs constitutes the first principle of the "fair society." The second principle is that any economic surplus should be distributed according to effort and ability. Finally, "each of us is obligated to contribute proportionately to the collective survival enterprise." In short, there must be reciprocity. These fairness principles are translated into a "biosocial contract" that replaces the social contract of earlier thinkers.
For Mr. Corning, the biosocial contract has "the legitimacy of science" behind it and is a great advance on what he calls "a fantasy based on some simplistic view of human nature or some outworn nineteenth-century ideology," such as socialism or capitalism. The fairness he seeks must apparently navigate two complex—and often conflicting—impulses taken to exhaust the natural activities of human beings: self-interest and altruism.
The defect of this whole way of thinking is that it fails to take seriously the fact that a great deal of what humans get up to is neither self-interested nor altruistic. It is disinterested, activities that people enter into just because they happen to want to be thus engaged—with no thought of personal advantage or the world's benefit. Many pursuits, from playing a musical instrument to making academic inquiry (the "disinterested pursuit of truth," as it is sometimes described), fit into this vital category. It is a place where many of Western civilization's great achievements originated. But disinterestedness finds no place in Mr. Corning's claims or in the tradition to which he belongs.
Mr. Minogue, a professor emeritus of political science at the London School of Economics, is the author, most recently, of "The Servile Mind: How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life" (Encounter).
___________________________________
None of the comments so far suggest that the commentators have actually read my book. They are projecting their own fantasies (and demons) into it and have mostly gotten it wrong. Alas, they had only the reviewer's comments to rely on. It's called myth making. Unfortunately, the reviewer got some things seriously wrong and left out some crucial elements. To be specific: I carefully define the term "fairness" in an entire chapter and made all of its ambiguities clear. It refers (very simply) to taking into account all of the "stakeholders' interests/needs in a given context. The reviewer (curiously) did not mention that I review the accumulating "scientific" evidence regarding a human sense of fairness in two full-length chapters. He is also quite wrong about my position on Rawls. I am sharply critical and endorse a radically different view grounded in the important (empirical) research of political scientists Frohlich and Oppenheimer. I find the reviewer's pleas on behalf of the "disinterested" to be frankly bizarre. That has little to do with economic life, or the fundamental challenge of biological survival and reproduction, which Darwin himself viewed as a collective affair in humankind. Darwin considered our social and moral proclivities to be our most important traits. For anyone who is not ideologically blinded, I would urge them to first read what is fundamentally a centrist book before passing judgment.
By KENNETH MINOGUE
Peter Corning wants to improve, even transform, American life, but perhaps the most dramatic aspect of his project is its sheer ambition. He proposes to "bend the arc of the moral universe" and turn the country into a "fair society." The transformation can be achieved only by collective action, he says, of the sort that was revealed in the 2008 presidential election campaign—a "take-home lesson" in the possibilities of volunteer participation.
What constitutes "fair," of course, is not something people entirely agree on, but fairness is everywhere the watchword of today's radicals. And of many trend-chasing politicians. The British government has declared that its project is to "put fairness at the heart of the government's program." When both professors and politicians are to be found singing the same song, we must be in for a happy time, or perhaps we'd better just duck.
Mr. Corning's "The Fair Society" certainly expresses one of the most powerful politico-moral sentiments of our time. But it owes a great deal to the work of the philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) and the vast literature on "normative politics" that followed the publication in 1971 of Rawls's "A Theory of Justice," which asserted that "the most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position." Rawls gave us the "veil of ignorance" thought-experiment that calls on us to consider any policy or moral proposition without knowing what our own attributes—age, race, intelligence, economic class, education—would be.
Mr. Corning regrets that John Rawls has not yet been taken up as a guide to the remaking of America. The extent of current "injustice" might seem to be revealed in the fact that, when compared with many other developed nations, the U.S. suffers from high levels of poverty—and the poverty seems all the worse because of the widening gap between rich and poor. Are Americans therefore fleeing the country and seeking greener pastures elsewhere? On the contrary. Aspiring immigrants clamor for American visas—or clamber over fences to get in. Why would so many fling themselves toward an "unfair" land? It is difficult to reconcile the clash between poverty and immigration statistics. What is the reality? How should we orient ourselves?
Mr. Corning suggests bringing science into the matter—it's right there in the book's subtitle: "The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice." Making America a fair society, he says, is a project that has behind it something he calls "the multidisciplinary science of fairness," which has supposedly found that "most of us do have a bias toward cooperation and a readiness to reciprocate—a sense of fairness."
That's odd: Science usually deals in things more concrete than human dispositions. But Mr. Corning's claim is even grander: "An organized complex society," he says, is "a purposeful biologically based survival enterprise." We never quite learn whose survival is at stake or how evolution figures into all this, with its decidedly unfair survival-of-the-fittest theme. Nevertheless, survival—of the species? of the American state? of American individuals?—is the highest value, above both liberty and property. Mr. Corning would obviously have no truck with Patrick Henry's "liberty or death" proposition. Large questions slide by here without the attention they deserve.
But if the science seems obscure, the result that Mr. Corning wants to extract from it is not. The survival enterprise entails a schedule of "primary needs" common to all humans—e.g., warmth, nutrition, clean water, physical safety, social relations. The egalitarian satisfaction of such needs constitutes the first principle of the "fair society." The second principle is that any economic surplus should be distributed according to effort and ability. Finally, "each of us is obligated to contribute proportionately to the collective survival enterprise." In short, there must be reciprocity. These fairness principles are translated into a "biosocial contract" that replaces the social contract of earlier thinkers.
For Mr. Corning, the biosocial contract has "the legitimacy of science" behind it and is a great advance on what he calls "a fantasy based on some simplistic view of human nature or some outworn nineteenth-century ideology," such as socialism or capitalism. The fairness he seeks must apparently navigate two complex—and often conflicting—impulses taken to exhaust the natural activities of human beings: self-interest and altruism.
The defect of this whole way of thinking is that it fails to take seriously the fact that a great deal of what humans get up to is neither self-interested nor altruistic. It is disinterested, activities that people enter into just because they happen to want to be thus engaged—with no thought of personal advantage or the world's benefit. Many pursuits, from playing a musical instrument to making academic inquiry (the "disinterested pursuit of truth," as it is sometimes described), fit into this vital category. It is a place where many of Western civilization's great achievements originated. But disinterestedness finds no place in Mr. Corning's claims or in the tradition to which he belongs.
Mr. Minogue, a professor emeritus of political science at the London School of Economics, is the author, most recently, of "The Servile Mind: How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life" (Encounter).
___________________________________
None of the comments so far suggest that the commentators have actually read my book. They are projecting their own fantasies (and demons) into it and have mostly gotten it wrong. Alas, they had only the reviewer's comments to rely on. It's called myth making. Unfortunately, the reviewer got some things seriously wrong and left out some crucial elements. To be specific: I carefully define the term "fairness" in an entire chapter and made all of its ambiguities clear. It refers (very simply) to taking into account all of the "stakeholders' interests/needs in a given context. The reviewer (curiously) did not mention that I review the accumulating "scientific" evidence regarding a human sense of fairness in two full-length chapters. He is also quite wrong about my position on Rawls. I am sharply critical and endorse a radically different view grounded in the important (empirical) research of political scientists Frohlich and Oppenheimer. I find the reviewer's pleas on behalf of the "disinterested" to be frankly bizarre. That has little to do with economic life, or the fundamental challenge of biological survival and reproduction, which Darwin himself viewed as a collective affair in humankind. Darwin considered our social and moral proclivities to be our most important traits. For anyone who is not ideologically blinded, I would urge them to first read what is fundamentally a centrist book before passing judgment.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Autism and the Fair Society
We are just beginning to get a grip on what was characterized at a recent meeting in Washington as a “national health emergency.”
There has been an explosive growth in the number of autism cases in this country in recent years. The total of autistic children is now estimated to be over 700,000 and counting. And this doesn’t count the 1.5 million or more autistic adults. This represents a huge sub-population of damaged minds (and bodies) that require very close-in, one-on-one care as children and who will carry severe disabilities with them throughout their lives.
The experts seem to agree that some of the increase can be attributed to the fact that the definition of autism has expanded over the years to embrace a broader variety of learning disabilities. But that is only a part of the explanation. Current research in genetics suggests that at least 20 different genes may be implicated in different forms of autism. But it is also very likely that certain environmental influences are co-conspirators. One suspect is vaccines, which may have synergistic properties for a sub-set of genetically susceptible children when used in combination. Toxic substances of various kinds in the environment are also suspects. Autism incidence also increases with children from older parents, and that could be due to internal genetic changes, or environmental insults that produce mutations, or both.
We are still at an early stage in investigating how our environment(s) may contribute to autism. In the meantime, we have a collective responsibility to provide additional support for the struggling families that have to cope with this very personal tragedy. For them, it amounts to a life sentence, and it represents a huge burden. Educational support for autistic children is spotty and inadequate and support for adults is non-existent.
The need for more, not less, public support is obvious. I can only hope the Republicans will remove their ideological blinders and rediscover their humanity when it comes to funding autism programs and services.
There has been an explosive growth in the number of autism cases in this country in recent years. The total of autistic children is now estimated to be over 700,000 and counting. And this doesn’t count the 1.5 million or more autistic adults. This represents a huge sub-population of damaged minds (and bodies) that require very close-in, one-on-one care as children and who will carry severe disabilities with them throughout their lives.
The experts seem to agree that some of the increase can be attributed to the fact that the definition of autism has expanded over the years to embrace a broader variety of learning disabilities. But that is only a part of the explanation. Current research in genetics suggests that at least 20 different genes may be implicated in different forms of autism. But it is also very likely that certain environmental influences are co-conspirators. One suspect is vaccines, which may have synergistic properties for a sub-set of genetically susceptible children when used in combination. Toxic substances of various kinds in the environment are also suspects. Autism incidence also increases with children from older parents, and that could be due to internal genetic changes, or environmental insults that produce mutations, or both.
We are still at an early stage in investigating how our environment(s) may contribute to autism. In the meantime, we have a collective responsibility to provide additional support for the struggling families that have to cope with this very personal tragedy. For them, it amounts to a life sentence, and it represents a huge burden. Educational support for autistic children is spotty and inadequate and support for adults is non-existent.
The need for more, not less, public support is obvious. I can only hope the Republicans will remove their ideological blinders and rediscover their humanity when it comes to funding autism programs and services.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Ayn Rand Shrugged (Part Three)
Perhaps the most radical aspect of Ayn Rand’s political views is her contempt for the law. In effect, she sets the rights of her creative geniuses (and captains of industry) above the law, and above the legally recognized rights of others, including especially those “second raters”, “parasites”, and repulsive “masses” that she often denigrates.
Consider the case of Rand’s defiantly heroic character, architect Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. In the story, Roark, who is an outcast in his profession because of his unconventional designs, agrees to (secretly) help a mediocre old school friend, Peter Keating, win a large housing development contract on the condition that there must be no changes at all to Roark’s innovative plans. Keating agrees and, in fronting on the project for Roark, dutifully inserts a similar “no change” clause into his contract with the client/owner. But as the buildings go up, the owner violates the contract by unilaterally making some cosmetic changes, and Keating acquiesces. So Roark sneaks onto the project site one night and blows up all the buildings. Then, after confessing to the act, he makes a long-winded philosophical justification to the court. Here is a brief excerpt:
"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 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."
Guess what? Even though Roark has confessed to demolishing the buildings, the jury acquits him! This is really perverse. Roark’s grievance was with his friend. He had no contract with the owner whose property he destroyed, and no legal claim against him. It was Keating who failed to insist upon and defend the “no change” contract clause. Roark’s recourse was to bring a lawsuit against Keating. But, according to Rand, Roark was not bound to act in accordance with the law, or the principle of punishing only the culprit, or even respecting property rights. And neither, it seems, was the judge and the jury that absolved him! (Indeed, why was there a jury?) Even as fiction, this is frankly absurd. (A similar trampling of the law occurs in Atlas Shrugged.)
Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is a dangerous doctrine -- a poison in the bloodstream of the body politic.
Consider the case of Rand’s defiantly heroic character, architect Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. In the story, Roark, who is an outcast in his profession because of his unconventional designs, agrees to (secretly) help a mediocre old school friend, Peter Keating, win a large housing development contract on the condition that there must be no changes at all to Roark’s innovative plans. Keating agrees and, in fronting on the project for Roark, dutifully inserts a similar “no change” clause into his contract with the client/owner. But as the buildings go up, the owner violates the contract by unilaterally making some cosmetic changes, and Keating acquiesces. So Roark sneaks onto the project site one night and blows up all the buildings. Then, after confessing to the act, he makes a long-winded philosophical justification to the court. Here is a brief excerpt:
"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 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."
Guess what? Even though Roark has confessed to demolishing the buildings, the jury acquits him! This is really perverse. Roark’s grievance was with his friend. He had no contract with the owner whose property he destroyed, and no legal claim against him. It was Keating who failed to insist upon and defend the “no change” contract clause. Roark’s recourse was to bring a lawsuit against Keating. But, according to Rand, Roark was not bound to act in accordance with the law, or the principle of punishing only the culprit, or even respecting property rights. And neither, it seems, was the judge and the jury that absolved him! (Indeed, why was there a jury?) Even as fiction, this is frankly absurd. (A similar trampling of the law occurs in Atlas Shrugged.)
Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is a dangerous doctrine -- a poison in the bloodstream of the body politic.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Ayn Rand Shrugged (Part Two)
It would require a Ph.D. dissertation to fully deconstruct Ayn Rand’s utopian (or rather dystopian) ideal. Here is an abbreviated outline of some key points:
* Rand’s idolizing of the creative genius (epitomized by architect Howard Roark in her novel The Fountainhead) is a fantasy. Genius is a much overrated virtue. Good ideas come from many quarters, often from the bottom up or as an outgrowth of experience down in the trenches. Many “geniuses” turn out to be crackpots or charlatans and faddists who later fade from the scene. More important, most successful innovations these days are the product of many contributions. A “new idea” is only the beginning. As for your average CEO, he/she is much more likely to be an overpaid bureaucrat. A Bill Gates or Steve Jobs stands out as an exception to the rule. Also, as Malcolm Gladwell showed so convincingly in his recent book, Outliers, most of the great success stories these days are due to having unique opportunities (the right time and place) and a specially favored, supportive environment – from family background to schools, communities and cultures. Gates and Jobs are prime examples
* Rand’s idealization of “free markets” is also fundamentally at odds with reality, as many critics have noted. Markets are unavoidably shaped (distorted) by differences in power and wealth, by gaming and deception, and by the many ways in which a system can become a rigged game that favors an entrenched and perhaps corrupt few. “Merit” is only one of many reasons for the way in which power and wealth are distributed.
* Rand’s view of how a complex economy works is also naïve. Modern societies cannot be divided into two monolithic classes – the creative elite and the dependent, parasitical “masses” who exploit them. A complex economy consists of an inextricable network of cooperation and interdependencies – and reciprocities. Most of us contribute in one way or another in return for the benefits (and rights) that we receive in return, and most of the remainder would do so if they could find a job.
* Rand’s elitism is deeply anti-democratic. It is totally at odds with the principle of political equality, the fundamental value underlying democratic societies. She would curtail the right of the “masses” to use government as an instrument of the “general will” (to borrow a term from Rousseau) and to act collectively to advance the “general welfare,” as opposed to the welfasre of the Howard Roarks.
* Finally, Rand’s brand of libertarianism is profoundly unfair in terms of the three fairness precepts elucidated in my book The Fair Society – namely, equality, equity and reciprocity. Indeed, the term “social justice” is not even in Rand’s working vocabulary. She would deny the principle of equality in relation to our universal “basic needs” (which are biological imperatives for all of us); she is uncritical about equity, “or merit” (geniuses are not the only ones who contribute to our society), and there is no place in her scheme for reciprocity, or reciprocal obligations.
The science of human nature teaches that in every society there are a large number of moral eunuchs – perhaps one-quarter of us – who are more or less fairness “challenged.” A society is in deep trouble when these egocentrics have the lion’s share of the power and wealth, with no real constraints, and are imbued with an ideology that justifies their self-interests and encourages exploitative behavior.
I’ll talk about Rand’s contempt for the law in the third installment.
* Rand’s idolizing of the creative genius (epitomized by architect Howard Roark in her novel The Fountainhead) is a fantasy. Genius is a much overrated virtue. Good ideas come from many quarters, often from the bottom up or as an outgrowth of experience down in the trenches. Many “geniuses” turn out to be crackpots or charlatans and faddists who later fade from the scene. More important, most successful innovations these days are the product of many contributions. A “new idea” is only the beginning. As for your average CEO, he/she is much more likely to be an overpaid bureaucrat. A Bill Gates or Steve Jobs stands out as an exception to the rule. Also, as Malcolm Gladwell showed so convincingly in his recent book, Outliers, most of the great success stories these days are due to having unique opportunities (the right time and place) and a specially favored, supportive environment – from family background to schools, communities and cultures. Gates and Jobs are prime examples
* Rand’s idealization of “free markets” is also fundamentally at odds with reality, as many critics have noted. Markets are unavoidably shaped (distorted) by differences in power and wealth, by gaming and deception, and by the many ways in which a system can become a rigged game that favors an entrenched and perhaps corrupt few. “Merit” is only one of many reasons for the way in which power and wealth are distributed.
* Rand’s view of how a complex economy works is also naïve. Modern societies cannot be divided into two monolithic classes – the creative elite and the dependent, parasitical “masses” who exploit them. A complex economy consists of an inextricable network of cooperation and interdependencies – and reciprocities. Most of us contribute in one way or another in return for the benefits (and rights) that we receive in return, and most of the remainder would do so if they could find a job.
* Rand’s elitism is deeply anti-democratic. It is totally at odds with the principle of political equality, the fundamental value underlying democratic societies. She would curtail the right of the “masses” to use government as an instrument of the “general will” (to borrow a term from Rousseau) and to act collectively to advance the “general welfare,” as opposed to the welfasre of the Howard Roarks.
* Finally, Rand’s brand of libertarianism is profoundly unfair in terms of the three fairness precepts elucidated in my book The Fair Society – namely, equality, equity and reciprocity. Indeed, the term “social justice” is not even in Rand’s working vocabulary. She would deny the principle of equality in relation to our universal “basic needs” (which are biological imperatives for all of us); she is uncritical about equity, “or merit” (geniuses are not the only ones who contribute to our society), and there is no place in her scheme for reciprocity, or reciprocal obligations.
The science of human nature teaches that in every society there are a large number of moral eunuchs – perhaps one-quarter of us – who are more or less fairness “challenged.” A society is in deep trouble when these egocentrics have the lion’s share of the power and wealth, with no real constraints, and are imbued with an ideology that justifies their self-interests and encourages exploitative behavior.
I’ll talk about Rand’s contempt for the law in the third installment.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Ayn Rand Shrugged (Part One)
Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, first published in 1957, is near the top of the current best-seller list -- to my amazement. I knew that it has long enjoyed a cult following as a sort of CEO’s bible, inspiring each new generation of libertarian political conservatives. Now it seems that the gospel according to Ayn is spreading beyond the Tea Party to the parasitical “masses” that she denounces. Of course, the new movie based on the book is probably also helping sales. But what does this say about Ayn Rand, and what does this say about us?
The first thing you need to know about her is that she was an embittered émigré from Communist Russia. She saw the totalitarian state as an enemy of the human spirit. So far, so good. But she went to the other extreme and became, in effect, an anti-democratic elitist – a kind of modern, capitalist equivalent of those who, over many centuries, have justified the privileges (and property) of the landed aristocracy and denigrated the unwashed peasants. In other words, the rich deserve their wealth and power.
In Rand’s modern version of this self-serving ideology, all human progress depends on the anointed few who have talent and creativity. In her novels and her so-called "Objectivist” philosophy, she idealized the creative genius and promoted an ethic of “rational selfishness.” She rejected any obligation to the “moochers,” and “spongers” and “parasites” who benefit from their work. Government, moreover, is seen by her as a tool of the masses that suppresses the liberty of the creative class. (It was a kind of flip-side to Marxism, where the state was seen as a “handmaiden” of the capitalist class.)
All this culminates in Rand’s paean to the deserving elite in Atlas Shrugged, where a mysterious figure, John Galt, leads in organizing a strike by the creative few (including the captains of industry!), which ultimately brings down the oppressive state and leads to a libertarian, free (capitalist) market society. The Progress Report calls Rand’s work “a frightful concoction of hyper-egotism, power-worship, and anarcho-capitalism.”
Actually, it’s much worse than that; it’s totally callous and mean-spirited. While Rand idealized the rich and powerful and endowed them with virtues they often don’t have, she was hostile to all the rest of society. She opposed all welfare, all help for the poor, all infrastructure spending, and proposed that taxes be made voluntary (which produces free-riders, of course). Government should be limited to protecting the laws (especially property laws) and national defense. In a 1953 interview with Mike Wallace, she declared that altruism is evil and selfishness is a virtue, and anyone who succumbs to weakness or frailty is unworthy of love.
This is profoundly immoral. Ayn Rand and her true believers, who include many of the wealthy and powerful in our society, share an ethic that is the very antithesis of the values of every recognized religion, not to mention the Golden Rule, the one ethical principle that is found in every human society (with a few dysfunctional exceptions). More important, it does violence in various ways to our evolutionary heritage and our biological “human nature”. The science of human nature – not to mention the reality of how any organized human society works -- contradicts her values. Her philosophy is deeply, irretrievably unfair and subversive to the social contract. I’ll elaborate in Part Two.
The first thing you need to know about her is that she was an embittered émigré from Communist Russia. She saw the totalitarian state as an enemy of the human spirit. So far, so good. But she went to the other extreme and became, in effect, an anti-democratic elitist – a kind of modern, capitalist equivalent of those who, over many centuries, have justified the privileges (and property) of the landed aristocracy and denigrated the unwashed peasants. In other words, the rich deserve their wealth and power.
In Rand’s modern version of this self-serving ideology, all human progress depends on the anointed few who have talent and creativity. In her novels and her so-called "Objectivist” philosophy, she idealized the creative genius and promoted an ethic of “rational selfishness.” She rejected any obligation to the “moochers,” and “spongers” and “parasites” who benefit from their work. Government, moreover, is seen by her as a tool of the masses that suppresses the liberty of the creative class. (It was a kind of flip-side to Marxism, where the state was seen as a “handmaiden” of the capitalist class.)
All this culminates in Rand’s paean to the deserving elite in Atlas Shrugged, where a mysterious figure, John Galt, leads in organizing a strike by the creative few (including the captains of industry!), which ultimately brings down the oppressive state and leads to a libertarian, free (capitalist) market society. The Progress Report calls Rand’s work “a frightful concoction of hyper-egotism, power-worship, and anarcho-capitalism.”
Actually, it’s much worse than that; it’s totally callous and mean-spirited. While Rand idealized the rich and powerful and endowed them with virtues they often don’t have, she was hostile to all the rest of society. She opposed all welfare, all help for the poor, all infrastructure spending, and proposed that taxes be made voluntary (which produces free-riders, of course). Government should be limited to protecting the laws (especially property laws) and national defense. In a 1953 interview with Mike Wallace, she declared that altruism is evil and selfishness is a virtue, and anyone who succumbs to weakness or frailty is unworthy of love.
This is profoundly immoral. Ayn Rand and her true believers, who include many of the wealthy and powerful in our society, share an ethic that is the very antithesis of the values of every recognized religion, not to mention the Golden Rule, the one ethical principle that is found in every human society (with a few dysfunctional exceptions). More important, it does violence in various ways to our evolutionary heritage and our biological “human nature”. The science of human nature – not to mention the reality of how any organized human society works -- contradicts her values. Her philosophy is deeply, irretrievably unfair and subversive to the social contract. I’ll elaborate in Part Two.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Back to Basics
We all know that a balanced diet, good exercise, and adequate sleep are prerequisites for a healthy life, even if we frequently ignore this advice. Three articles on health in the New York Times Magazine this past weekend – with some startling new information (for me) – have turned me into a born-again health enthusiast – no, fanatic.
The “news” about nutrition is the growing evidence that sugar (both sucrose and fructose) is not only closely linked to obesity and diabetes but is increasingly implicated in various forms of cancer. As one of the leading researchers in the field put it, “Sugar scares me.” Sugar is not directly carcinogenic, it seems. Rather, it induces insulin resistance in the body, which leads to elevated levels of insulin, and this can cause mutations that lead to malignant tumors.
As for exercise, the evidence continues to mount that lack of sufficient body movement of various kinds is the most important cause of obesity in otherwise normal persons. The Center for Disease Control recommends the equivalent of 30 minutes a day of exercise for anyone over 16 years of age. In 2008, the percentage of Americans between 20 and 59 who achieved that level was 3.5 percent. For those over 60, the number was 2.4 percent.
In one study of obese people it was found that they averaged 10 hours a day of sitting time. Those who sit more are not only more likely to be obese but they sharply increase their mortality risk. For those who sit for 6 hours a day or more, the increased death rate for men was 20 percent and for women it was 40 percent.
Finally, there is the problem of getting adequate sleep. The National Sleep Foundation reports that 72 percent of us get less than enough sleep as a rule (we average 6.9 hours and we need 8 hours or more). Some 39 percent of us are seriously sleep deprived, and it’s not clear if we can “catch up” on weekends for what we miss during the week.
The consequences are unambiguous. When you are sleep deprived, your cognitive performance declines significantly and sometimes dangerously. In other words, you are losing more than sleep; you are losing your competence and efficiency as well.
So, for me it’s back to basics: diet, exercise and sleep.
The “news” about nutrition is the growing evidence that sugar (both sucrose and fructose) is not only closely linked to obesity and diabetes but is increasingly implicated in various forms of cancer. As one of the leading researchers in the field put it, “Sugar scares me.” Sugar is not directly carcinogenic, it seems. Rather, it induces insulin resistance in the body, which leads to elevated levels of insulin, and this can cause mutations that lead to malignant tumors.
As for exercise, the evidence continues to mount that lack of sufficient body movement of various kinds is the most important cause of obesity in otherwise normal persons. The Center for Disease Control recommends the equivalent of 30 minutes a day of exercise for anyone over 16 years of age. In 2008, the percentage of Americans between 20 and 59 who achieved that level was 3.5 percent. For those over 60, the number was 2.4 percent.
In one study of obese people it was found that they averaged 10 hours a day of sitting time. Those who sit more are not only more likely to be obese but they sharply increase their mortality risk. For those who sit for 6 hours a day or more, the increased death rate for men was 20 percent and for women it was 40 percent.
Finally, there is the problem of getting adequate sleep. The National Sleep Foundation reports that 72 percent of us get less than enough sleep as a rule (we average 6.9 hours and we need 8 hours or more). Some 39 percent of us are seriously sleep deprived, and it’s not clear if we can “catch up” on weekends for what we miss during the week.
The consequences are unambiguous. When you are sleep deprived, your cognitive performance declines significantly and sometimes dangerously. In other words, you are losing more than sleep; you are losing your competence and efficiency as well.
So, for me it’s back to basics: diet, exercise and sleep.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Qualified Praise for Happiness
Even though the economy is still on the “critical list” for anyone who is not in the upper 20 percent of the economic pyramid, we can still aspire to happiness – or so we are being told by an army of happiness researchers (and in a plethora of books about happiness). What’s up?
If you’re a conspiracy theorist, you might suspect that it’s a plot to deflect our attention from the ugly facts of mass unemployment and under-employment (more than 25 million of us if you do the math properly) and our spreading wasteland of poverty (about 75 million of us, or one-quarter of the population, if the counting is done right).
But the cynical view is not fair to the many researchers who have been making a genuine effort to find non-monetary measures of well being and the quality of life. Their commendable work becomes a problem only when our pundits use it to hype happiness as something that is unrelated to income and who blithely ignore the economic hardship that is so prevalent these days. Don’t worry if you’re poor, the argument runs. You can still be happy, and that is the most important thing in life. After all, there are even unhappy millionaires.
In reality, our basic biological needs are inescapable imperatives, and any shortfall can cause varying degrees of harm – and unhappiness! You are not likely to be happy when you are hungry, or in pain, or freezing cold, or seriously sleep deprived, or sick, or clinically depressed, or unemployed. So income is obviously necessary, if not sufficient, for happiness.
Maybe our founding fathers had things in the right order after all. “Life” comes before “liberty,” and only then “the pursuit of happiness.” We can all hope for happiness, but let’s put first things first.
If you’re a conspiracy theorist, you might suspect that it’s a plot to deflect our attention from the ugly facts of mass unemployment and under-employment (more than 25 million of us if you do the math properly) and our spreading wasteland of poverty (about 75 million of us, or one-quarter of the population, if the counting is done right).
But the cynical view is not fair to the many researchers who have been making a genuine effort to find non-monetary measures of well being and the quality of life. Their commendable work becomes a problem only when our pundits use it to hype happiness as something that is unrelated to income and who blithely ignore the economic hardship that is so prevalent these days. Don’t worry if you’re poor, the argument runs. You can still be happy, and that is the most important thing in life. After all, there are even unhappy millionaires.
In reality, our basic biological needs are inescapable imperatives, and any shortfall can cause varying degrees of harm – and unhappiness! You are not likely to be happy when you are hungry, or in pain, or freezing cold, or seriously sleep deprived, or sick, or clinically depressed, or unemployed. So income is obviously necessary, if not sufficient, for happiness.
Maybe our founding fathers had things in the right order after all. “Life” comes before “liberty,” and only then “the pursuit of happiness.” We can all hope for happiness, but let’s put first things first.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Where Did All the Workers Go?
Some 27 million American workers have gone missing. Census data analyzed by USA Today indicates that the percentage of our population that is in the labor force is at its lowest level since 1983. Before women began to join in force, in the 1970s, the percentage was 40.4. The peak was reached in 2000 at 49.3 percent. Now it has dropped to 45.4 percent.
The conservative explanation is that this is due to the natural aging of the baby boomers, but there’s a problem with this. A lot of the baby boomers lost a lot of money in the financial (and housing) meltdown, or never had enough to retire even before the deluge. The evidence suggests they are trying to work longer rather than retiring early. A new AP poll of the elderly found that 25 percent have no savings for retirement and another 25 percent anticipate that they will never retire.
The obvious explanation for the missing workers is more distressing. There are 27 million people out there who are looking for work and can’t find jobs. It’s the jobs that have gone missing. This conclusion is consistent with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ own “alternative” estimate of unemployment, which includes work force drop-outs who have given up looking for a job, not to mention those who don’t get counted at all – the never-employed but willing to work. The total may be about 27 million.
It’s time to start a conversation about a national commitment to a full-employment program as a humane and constructive alternative to an ever-growing army of safety-net dependents, and the desperately poor who have fallen through the net.
The conservative explanation is that this is due to the natural aging of the baby boomers, but there’s a problem with this. A lot of the baby boomers lost a lot of money in the financial (and housing) meltdown, or never had enough to retire even before the deluge. The evidence suggests they are trying to work longer rather than retiring early. A new AP poll of the elderly found that 25 percent have no savings for retirement and another 25 percent anticipate that they will never retire.
The obvious explanation for the missing workers is more distressing. There are 27 million people out there who are looking for work and can’t find jobs. It’s the jobs that have gone missing. This conclusion is consistent with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ own “alternative” estimate of unemployment, which includes work force drop-outs who have given up looking for a job, not to mention those who don’t get counted at all – the never-employed but willing to work. The total may be about 27 million.
It’s time to start a conversation about a national commitment to a full-employment program as a humane and constructive alternative to an ever-growing army of safety-net dependents, and the desperately poor who have fallen through the net.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Business as Usual for the Ratings Agencies
The “independent” bond credit rating agencies – like Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s Investors’ Services – are supposed to be watchdogs that assess and certify the risks associated with investing in various securities.
In practice, they have become cheerleaders for the banks and investment houses. They have a built-in conflict of interest, since they are paid by these institutions for doing bond ratings. And, in effect, they became co-conspirators in the rampant fraud and misrepresentation that led to the great financial meltdown.
So you would expect root-and-branch changes in this thoroughly corrupted industry in the wake of our financial 9/11. Wrong. The only thing that has changed is the lip-service they pay to reforms in their practices. It turns out that most of the senior executives who were responsible for inciting and allowing this con-game are still in place. They’re still earning multi-million-dollar salaries, and they’re still pressuring their staffs to be “accommodating” to the banks – who are, after all, their real customers. For the rest of us, it’s caveat emptor as usual.
Whatever happened to the concept of “integrity?”
In practice, they have become cheerleaders for the banks and investment houses. They have a built-in conflict of interest, since they are paid by these institutions for doing bond ratings. And, in effect, they became co-conspirators in the rampant fraud and misrepresentation that led to the great financial meltdown.
So you would expect root-and-branch changes in this thoroughly corrupted industry in the wake of our financial 9/11. Wrong. The only thing that has changed is the lip-service they pay to reforms in their practices. It turns out that most of the senior executives who were responsible for inciting and allowing this con-game are still in place. They’re still earning multi-million-dollar salaries, and they’re still pressuring their staffs to be “accommodating” to the banks – who are, after all, their real customers. For the rest of us, it’s caveat emptor as usual.
Whatever happened to the concept of “integrity?”
Sunday, April 17, 2011
We’re Winning the “Race to the Bottom”
Over the past 30 years it has seemed that our nation’s employers have been doing all they can to suppress the wages and benefits of our workers. The combination of outsourcing, union busting, two-tiered wage scales (with sharply lower levels for new hires), benefit cost-shifting, hiring temps, and other measures have steadily eroded the standard of living of our workers. It has been referred to as a “race to the bottom.” Now we have evidence that we are winning this race.
It seems that IKEA, the inventor of the big box stores and a paragon of Swedish social values, recently built a new plant in Virginia, rather than in Sweden, and the reason was our low wage and benefit scales. Swedish workers get $19 per hour and five weeks of vacation, among other benefits. Workers at the Virginia plant get $8 an hour and 12days of vacation, and even less than that for some of the work that is contracted out. (A recent major study showed that American workers need to earn $15 or more per hour in order to fully meet their basic needs.)
With wages like that, it’s no wonder that we’re also winning the race for the highest gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor. Among all 30 of the “advanced” OECD countries, we now rank third from the bottom, just behind Mexico and Turkey. Sweden ranks at the top. Its Gini index is 23. Ours is 46. Some of us might argue that Sweden needs to “catch up” with us. Others might conclude that we’re winning the wrong race.
It seems that IKEA, the inventor of the big box stores and a paragon of Swedish social values, recently built a new plant in Virginia, rather than in Sweden, and the reason was our low wage and benefit scales. Swedish workers get $19 per hour and five weeks of vacation, among other benefits. Workers at the Virginia plant get $8 an hour and 12days of vacation, and even less than that for some of the work that is contracted out. (A recent major study showed that American workers need to earn $15 or more per hour in order to fully meet their basic needs.)
With wages like that, it’s no wonder that we’re also winning the race for the highest gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor. Among all 30 of the “advanced” OECD countries, we now rank third from the bottom, just behind Mexico and Turkey. Sweden ranks at the top. Its Gini index is 23. Ours is 46. Some of us might argue that Sweden needs to “catch up” with us. Others might conclude that we’re winning the wrong race.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Obama Returns
After the “shellacking,” as he put it, that President Obama and the Democrats suffered in the mid-term election, the pundits all assumed that this chastened progressive would veer to the “center” (whatever that means these days). And sure enough, he dealt progressives a body blow by agreeing to extend the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy for two years.
Then, in the most recent budget battle, he agreed to Republican demands for cutbacks to food programs for the poor, clean water projects, community health centers, low income energy assistance, community development grants, and high speed rail projects, among $38 billion in budget cuts just for the next six months.
But then the Republican House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan unveiled a radical right-wing budget for 2012 that proposed over $4 trillion in budget cuts in the next ten years coupled with about $2.9 trillion in tax cuts weighted toward the wealthy. Deficit reduction is supposed to occur through the twice-tried and twice-failed false promise of “supply side” economics (AKA the trickle down effect from increased spending by the rich).
But that wasn’t enough. Rep. Ryan also called for (in effect) privatizing Medicare and letting future elderly pay a much greater share of the costs, and he proposed to gut Medicaid by converting the program to fixed “block grants” to the states that would force serious reductions in health care services to the poor over time.
Such a Draconian and obviously partisan plan for deficit reduction gave the President an opening for championing a more balanced and fair-minded approach. As he put it in his speech the other night: “These are the kinds of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America that I believe in. I believe it paints a picture of our future that is deeply pessimistic…There is nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill….If we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have an obligation to prove we can afford our commitments.”
Among other things, the President called for letting the Bush era tax cuts expire, eliminating various tax subsidies and windfalls that benefit special interests, and even cutting military spending further to help reduce our deficit. So now we have before us a clear choice. Stay tuned!
Then, in the most recent budget battle, he agreed to Republican demands for cutbacks to food programs for the poor, clean water projects, community health centers, low income energy assistance, community development grants, and high speed rail projects, among $38 billion in budget cuts just for the next six months.
But then the Republican House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan unveiled a radical right-wing budget for 2012 that proposed over $4 trillion in budget cuts in the next ten years coupled with about $2.9 trillion in tax cuts weighted toward the wealthy. Deficit reduction is supposed to occur through the twice-tried and twice-failed false promise of “supply side” economics (AKA the trickle down effect from increased spending by the rich).
But that wasn’t enough. Rep. Ryan also called for (in effect) privatizing Medicare and letting future elderly pay a much greater share of the costs, and he proposed to gut Medicaid by converting the program to fixed “block grants” to the states that would force serious reductions in health care services to the poor over time.
Such a Draconian and obviously partisan plan for deficit reduction gave the President an opening for championing a more balanced and fair-minded approach. As he put it in his speech the other night: “These are the kinds of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America that I believe in. I believe it paints a picture of our future that is deeply pessimistic…There is nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill….If we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have an obligation to prove we can afford our commitments.”
Among other things, the President called for letting the Bush era tax cuts expire, eliminating various tax subsidies and windfalls that benefit special interests, and even cutting military spending further to help reduce our deficit. So now we have before us a clear choice. Stay tuned!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Unfair Taxes?
Hired guns for the rich and powerful have been advancing the argument recently that the wealthy actually pay more than their fair share of the taxes. Really? Yes, in 2008, it is said, the top one percent of the tax returns with a mere 20 percent of the total “adjusted gross income” paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes.
Well, let’s take a closer look. Actually, the top one percent last year took home almost one-quarter (24 percent) of the total income and the top 10 percent took home almost half (49 percent). Meanwhile, about 25 million of us were unemployed or under-employed (if you do the count properly) and about one-quarter of our population, or 75 million people, were living in more or less extreme poverty. Some 50 million people actually went hungry some of the time in 2010. In other words, the rich have most of the money and the poor are struggling to meet their basic needs.
Another way of judging what is fair with taxes is to look at personal taxes as a percent of a person’s income. Despite the fact that the high earners have the highest marginal tax rate, in fact they contrive in various ways (including lower taxes on capital gains) to pay only 22.7 percent of their income in taxes. Equally important, federal income taxes are only part of the tax burden. A fair accounting should include payroll taxes, which are very “regressive” – meaning that the middle class and working class pay proportionately much more than do the well-to-do, who earn much more than the “cap.” Likewise, sales taxes take a larger share of the income of the poor than they do of the rich. As a percentage of their income, the middle class and the poor pay a much greater share of the total tax burden.
With CEO salaries again on an ascending arc while workers’ wages are flat and the prices of basic commodities like food and energy are ratcheting up (meaning that the poor are getting relatively poorer), it’s time to stop shedding crocodile tears for the rich.
Well, let’s take a closer look. Actually, the top one percent last year took home almost one-quarter (24 percent) of the total income and the top 10 percent took home almost half (49 percent). Meanwhile, about 25 million of us were unemployed or under-employed (if you do the count properly) and about one-quarter of our population, or 75 million people, were living in more or less extreme poverty. Some 50 million people actually went hungry some of the time in 2010. In other words, the rich have most of the money and the poor are struggling to meet their basic needs.
Another way of judging what is fair with taxes is to look at personal taxes as a percent of a person’s income. Despite the fact that the high earners have the highest marginal tax rate, in fact they contrive in various ways (including lower taxes on capital gains) to pay only 22.7 percent of their income in taxes. Equally important, federal income taxes are only part of the tax burden. A fair accounting should include payroll taxes, which are very “regressive” – meaning that the middle class and working class pay proportionately much more than do the well-to-do, who earn much more than the “cap.” Likewise, sales taxes take a larger share of the income of the poor than they do of the rich. As a percentage of their income, the middle class and the poor pay a much greater share of the total tax burden.
With CEO salaries again on an ascending arc while workers’ wages are flat and the prices of basic commodities like food and energy are ratcheting up (meaning that the poor are getting relatively poorer), it’s time to stop shedding crocodile tears for the rich.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Paul Ryan’s Poison Pill
Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s sweeping ten year budget plan, announced with much fanfare three days ago is a “Path to Prosperity” (as it’s titled) only for the affluent. For the rest of us, it’s a poison pill – a plan to gut Medicare and Medicaid, along with drastic cuts in many other things, like education benefits, in the name of deficit reduction while passing the savings along in the form of tax cuts for high-earners.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, about two-thirds of the projected $4 trillion in budget cuts over ten years would come from programs that benefit lower income Americans, while the tax burden would shift to the middle class. Nevertheless, conservative pundits across the spectrum from A to B have heaped lavish praise on this charade. Indeed, it’s really an agenda for repealing the New Deal and every other social welfare measure since the 1930s.
And how will all this lead to deficit reduction? According to the Ryan plan, the tax cuts will stimulate an economic boom and a gusher of new tax revenues. Back in the 1980s, this was called “supply side economics” (AKA “voodoo economics”). President Ronald Reagan tried it, and it didn’t work. President George Bush tried it again, and it didn’t work any better. Both experiments produced huge increases in our national debt. Funny that this doesn’t seem to matter to the Republicans. It kind of makes you suspicious.
There’s a war going on between the rich and the poor, and the rich are lying to us.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, about two-thirds of the projected $4 trillion in budget cuts over ten years would come from programs that benefit lower income Americans, while the tax burden would shift to the middle class. Nevertheless, conservative pundits across the spectrum from A to B have heaped lavish praise on this charade. Indeed, it’s really an agenda for repealing the New Deal and every other social welfare measure since the 1930s.
And how will all this lead to deficit reduction? According to the Ryan plan, the tax cuts will stimulate an economic boom and a gusher of new tax revenues. Back in the 1980s, this was called “supply side economics” (AKA “voodoo economics”). President Ronald Reagan tried it, and it didn’t work. President George Bush tried it again, and it didn’t work any better. Both experiments produced huge increases in our national debt. Funny that this doesn’t seem to matter to the Republicans. It kind of makes you suspicious.
There’s a war going on between the rich and the poor, and the rich are lying to us.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
I Have a Dream
Why not? It’s not the same as Martin Luther King’s dream, but it’s in the same spirit.
Imagine what it would be like if we were able to achieve a “Fair Society” – a vision sketched out in some detail in my new book. It would entail a new “biosocial contract” based on the three fairness principles I identify and discuss in the book, namely, equality in relation to our basic biological needs, equity (or merit) in relation to our efforts, achievements and contributions, and reciprocity, which requires everyone to contribute a fair share to society in return for the benefits they receive. In general, it would require us to strike a better balance between the interests of the rich and powerful few and the rest of our society.
What would a fair society look like? What would have to change? For starters, we would have to make some serious structural changes in our political system in order to lay the groundwork for the many substantive changes that would amount to a drastic change of direction toward what various European countries have achieved (shame on us).
One major structural change would be complete public financing of our elections, federal and state. We could take the money out of our bloated defense budget – the biggest pork barrel in history. I like the Arizona election financing law (which the Supreme Court in its perverse wisdom seems ready to strike down) that the budget cap for those who accept public financing would rise in tandem with privately financed candidacies.
Next, we need to revise the filibuster (cloture) rule, which would involve a simple change in the Senate rules at the beginning of each new Congress. Now it represents a permanent roadblock to getting much of anything done in the Senate. I’d favor reducing it to 55 votes and limiting it only to major pieces of legislation.
Packing the Supreme Court – an idea that goes back to FDR in 1937 – is also a good idea, I think. If the number of justices was increased to 11 (with two more liberals to tip the balance), and if a mandatory retirement age was imposed to increase turnover on the Court, it would no longer be a reliable tool of the rich and powerful.
As for substantive changes, where do I begin? To summarize a chapter-length laundry list in my book, a key element would be a national commitment to full employment at a living wage, not our delusional minimum wage. We should also have Medicare for all – a single payer system that would, at a stroke, save at least $120 billion in premiums that now support the profits, advertising budgets and lobbying expenses of private insurers. Another high priority item should be free child care and an expansive preschool program like the model in Chicago that has lifted some of its 90,000 poor children out of the intellectual ghettos of that city. We also need to expand, not contract, such safety net programs as unemployment insurance (over 40 percent of those laid off in the recession are still unemployed as their benefits are running out). We also ought to follow the South Korean model and pay our teachers better than our lawyers and bankers, so that teaching will become the highest prestige job! We also need tax reform across the board – from closing offshore tax havens to eliminating oil company and mega-farm subsidies. And how about free college education in return for, say, two years of national service?
There’s much more that could be done. (See the discussion in The Fair Society.) And the end result would be transformative. All we lack is the leadership and the collective will. Who will step forward?
Imagine what it would be like if we were able to achieve a “Fair Society” – a vision sketched out in some detail in my new book. It would entail a new “biosocial contract” based on the three fairness principles I identify and discuss in the book, namely, equality in relation to our basic biological needs, equity (or merit) in relation to our efforts, achievements and contributions, and reciprocity, which requires everyone to contribute a fair share to society in return for the benefits they receive. In general, it would require us to strike a better balance between the interests of the rich and powerful few and the rest of our society.
What would a fair society look like? What would have to change? For starters, we would have to make some serious structural changes in our political system in order to lay the groundwork for the many substantive changes that would amount to a drastic change of direction toward what various European countries have achieved (shame on us).
One major structural change would be complete public financing of our elections, federal and state. We could take the money out of our bloated defense budget – the biggest pork barrel in history. I like the Arizona election financing law (which the Supreme Court in its perverse wisdom seems ready to strike down) that the budget cap for those who accept public financing would rise in tandem with privately financed candidacies.
Next, we need to revise the filibuster (cloture) rule, which would involve a simple change in the Senate rules at the beginning of each new Congress. Now it represents a permanent roadblock to getting much of anything done in the Senate. I’d favor reducing it to 55 votes and limiting it only to major pieces of legislation.
Packing the Supreme Court – an idea that goes back to FDR in 1937 – is also a good idea, I think. If the number of justices was increased to 11 (with two more liberals to tip the balance), and if a mandatory retirement age was imposed to increase turnover on the Court, it would no longer be a reliable tool of the rich and powerful.
As for substantive changes, where do I begin? To summarize a chapter-length laundry list in my book, a key element would be a national commitment to full employment at a living wage, not our delusional minimum wage. We should also have Medicare for all – a single payer system that would, at a stroke, save at least $120 billion in premiums that now support the profits, advertising budgets and lobbying expenses of private insurers. Another high priority item should be free child care and an expansive preschool program like the model in Chicago that has lifted some of its 90,000 poor children out of the intellectual ghettos of that city. We also need to expand, not contract, such safety net programs as unemployment insurance (over 40 percent of those laid off in the recession are still unemployed as their benefits are running out). We also ought to follow the South Korean model and pay our teachers better than our lawyers and bankers, so that teaching will become the highest prestige job! We also need tax reform across the board – from closing offshore tax havens to eliminating oil company and mega-farm subsidies. And how about free college education in return for, say, two years of national service?
There’s much more that could be done. (See the discussion in The Fair Society.) And the end result would be transformative. All we lack is the leadership and the collective will. Who will step forward?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
In Praise of Idealism
America was once renowned for its idealism – its optimism, its “can do” spirit, and above all its faith in progress. Just look at all of our past accomplishments as a nation.
Now it seems that we have lost that spark. Cynicism, distrust, and pessimism about the future are endemic. Most Americans, in public opinion polls, think we are going in “the wrong direction,” and Republicans in various states, and now at the national level, are doing all they can to unravel the safety net and gut the programs that represent investments in our future in favor of further tax cuts for the “haves.” This is the road to national decline.
Yet one of the great lessons of history is that positive changes are possible, though not easy. In fact, no great social change has occurred without idealism, and a lot of hard work. Think about Martin Luther King and civil rights, or Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and women's suffrage, or the struggle for worker rights, or the many hard-fought battles to create our national park system. And that's only in this country. How about, say, William Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery in England (50 years before we did and without a civil war). Or think of Martin Luther and the Reformation. Or think of Egypt!
If it is the right thing to do -- social justice -- it's not naïve idealism. It’s only a bigger challenge for those who have the will, and the skills, and the perseverance to make those changes happen. We need more idealism, not less.
Now it seems that we have lost that spark. Cynicism, distrust, and pessimism about the future are endemic. Most Americans, in public opinion polls, think we are going in “the wrong direction,” and Republicans in various states, and now at the national level, are doing all they can to unravel the safety net and gut the programs that represent investments in our future in favor of further tax cuts for the “haves.” This is the road to national decline.
Yet one of the great lessons of history is that positive changes are possible, though not easy. In fact, no great social change has occurred without idealism, and a lot of hard work. Think about Martin Luther King and civil rights, or Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and women's suffrage, or the struggle for worker rights, or the many hard-fought battles to create our national park system. And that's only in this country. How about, say, William Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery in England (50 years before we did and without a civil war). Or think of Martin Luther and the Reformation. Or think of Egypt!
If it is the right thing to do -- social justice -- it's not naïve idealism. It’s only a bigger challenge for those who have the will, and the skills, and the perseverance to make those changes happen. We need more idealism, not less.
Monday, April 4, 2011
How to Lie With Statistics
That’s the title of a classic book by Darrell Huff. Unfortunately, it did no permanent good. People are still at it.
One of the most glaring examples is our “official” poverty line statistic, which is used to rationalize such things as our minimum wage, our welfare policies, and more. As of 2009, the poverty line was set at an income of $20,050 for a family of four. Even by this measure, some 14.3 percent of Americans are living in poverty. But, as I show in The Fair Society, this is delusional; there are many studies showing that at least twice as much income is required in this economy to meet the basic needs of a family.
Now a new, in-depth study commissioned by a non-profit women’s organization has shown that even a single worker needs to Earn at least $30,000 (or about twice the current minimum wage), in order to cover the basic needs, including some savings for emergencies and retirement. And for a family with two children, a minimally adequate standard of living would require $57,756 a year (or $67,920 if both parents are working), or a combined salary of about $32 per hour (or $16 each).
Unfortunately, our national average income is about $40,000 per capita. Indeed, for college graduates, the median income is $55,000 (close to adequate) while the median income for high school graduates is about $32,000 (meaning half our non-college workers have less). In other words, the estimate that about one quarter of our population (or 75 million people) are living in poverty seems about right. When will we face up to this ugly little fact?
One of the most glaring examples is our “official” poverty line statistic, which is used to rationalize such things as our minimum wage, our welfare policies, and more. As of 2009, the poverty line was set at an income of $20,050 for a family of four. Even by this measure, some 14.3 percent of Americans are living in poverty. But, as I show in The Fair Society, this is delusional; there are many studies showing that at least twice as much income is required in this economy to meet the basic needs of a family.
Now a new, in-depth study commissioned by a non-profit women’s organization has shown that even a single worker needs to Earn at least $30,000 (or about twice the current minimum wage), in order to cover the basic needs, including some savings for emergencies and retirement. And for a family with two children, a minimally adequate standard of living would require $57,756 a year (or $67,920 if both parents are working), or a combined salary of about $32 per hour (or $16 each).
Unfortunately, our national average income is about $40,000 per capita. Indeed, for college graduates, the median income is $55,000 (close to adequate) while the median income for high school graduates is about $32,000 (meaning half our non-college workers have less). In other words, the estimate that about one quarter of our population (or 75 million people) are living in poverty seems about right. When will we face up to this ugly little fact?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
