"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?" I'm introducing this quote before its author because I want the message evaluated on its own, regardless of the messenger. The quip belongs to John Maynard Keynes, the 20th Century British economist for whom Keynesian economics is named. While those on the political right are no fans of Keynes or his economic theories, they would do well to consider those words or perhaps these of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Even though the Constitution makes no mention of limiting congressional reelection, let's say that none of our Founding Fathers imagined an elaborate federal government with career politicians. I'm not sure what if any relevance this bears on today's society. They didn't imagine a telephone either, let alone a stealth bomber or a Google search. To say the least, our country has changed dramatically since the 1700s. If you ran a roadside vegetable stand you wouldn't have a staff attorney on your payroll, but if your little produce business grew to be the size of Del Monte Foods, you would not only have a lawyer on your staff, you would have a team of them. Responding to changing needs and circumstances shouldn't be confused with abandoning sacred principle, while refusing to recognize and adapt to change may be nothing more than maintaining a foolish consistency. When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?
Oh how the facts have changed! Based on 1790 census data, the entire United States at that time was less populous than most current states and even some counties. Comparing real GDP numbers, meaning economic output figures that have been adjusted for the purpose of valid apples to apples comparison, at the time George Washington took office, our economy would produce less in the eight years of his presidency than our economy produced on the day of President Obama's inauguration. The world's largest air force is the U.S. Air Force and the world's second largest air force is the U.S. Navy. This is not your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's United States.
Mayberry, N.C. may have done just fine with a small volunteer fire department but that wouldn't work for Chicago. Mayberry's law enforcement had a total force of two, one of whom, Deputy Barney Fife, was issued only one bullet, which he was ordered to keep in his pocket instead of his pistol. I don't think that would work for New York City. Take a look around, Goober; we're not in Mayberry anymore. We have the world's largest economy and the world's most powerful military. Like it or not we're major players on the global stage and managing the purely domestic affairs of this vast and extremely complex nation is no mean feat either.
Americans dislike government but rational Americans also concede that government is necessary. The work of our elected officials is difficult, sophisticated and important. Doing it well is beyond the ability of most people. Why then would anyone argue that this work should be done exclusively by dilettantes rather than at least some professionals? No one would say that Warren Buffet must leave the investment world after 12 years or Lee Iacocca shouldn't be allowed to make a career in the auto industry. If we need a job done, it's an act of sheer lunacy to systematically exclude the most qualified candidates from consideration.
I really didn't intend this piece to be about term limits as such. I'll take that topic up in a future post. My point here is to reject the reasoning that since our founders pictured society a certain way, we should be barred from altering that vision in any way lest we betray some core value. By 18th Century standards our constitutional democracy was remarkably enlightened, but we certainly had room for improvement. More to the point, as circumstances evolve, we need to be nimble enough to respond to a changing world.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
765 Reasons to Be Proud
Last night former eBay CEO Meg Whitman received several million votes in her failed bid (no pun intended) for the California governorship and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina received millions of votes in an unsuccessful run for the Senate. A close friend of mine is also a chief executive of sorts, albeit of a much smaller company, and he entered politics this year as well, running for a district-wide state office. While a shift of 100,000 votes would look like a meaningless rounding error in the above races for Governor or Senator, for my friend Bill an additional 7,000 votes would have given him a victory in his first political campaign.
Unlike campaigns that threw a fortune into attack ads and mud at their opponents, Bill's campaign directed all of its resources into putting his ideas forward and letting them rise or fall on their merits. Truth be told, we were disappointed but not surprised by his loss at the polls. Everyone loves a good David vs. Goliath story with a triumphant underdog, but in reality we tend to see why the smart money bets on Goliath. Bill isn't an Elk, a Lion or a Mason. He isn't on the school board, zoning board or planning board. He's not a union member, he belongs to no church and he has only lived in his district for 12 years, which makes him a newcomer by local standards. In short, at the beginning of the election cycle he was a cipher to most voters and he was up against a popular multi-term Republican incumbent in a very Republican district. That's not an uphill battle; that's an uphill four minute mile in street shoes.
Things have gotten ugly in this country. Our political discourse at the moment is only slightly more civilized than a cockfight, and political leaders have been regarded with contempt. Republicans, who had a huge night last night, have an approval rating that would generally spell disaster, and on the other side of the aisle, Harry Reid only survived because he was perceived as a Democratic frying pan to Sharron Angle's Grand Old Fire. Many voters are selecting whomever they despise less.
That said, spending election night in my friend's living room reminded me what's great about our political process and let me forget the cynicism and anger for a while. I sat there with a man who sought nothing more than a chance to make his contribution to our self-governing society. He wasn't seeking money, power, a pension or anything else, nor was he trying to advance any agenda other than doing whatever he can to improve the lives and fortunes of those in his district. This was a case of civic minded public service in its purest and noblest form. He and I have some major differences in political philosophy, yet he welcomed my input as well as that of anyone else who was willing to talk to him. He wanted to hear from everyone both despite and because of political differences. That's how a representative of the people should be!
When all the returns were in, Bill received 765 votes or 6% of those cast. That's actually an impressive tally for a little known third party candidate in that race. He should be proud of every vote because he earned each one of them with his ideas not his party affiliation. He ran a selfless and honorable race and his message resonated with a significant number of people. I wish that everyone would see up close what it's really like to run for office. Those who put themselves out there deserve our respect, and around Election Day, those who dared to step into the ring have earned the right to stand a little taller, win or lose. I'm thankful that I had a ringside seat.
Unlike campaigns that threw a fortune into attack ads and mud at their opponents, Bill's campaign directed all of its resources into putting his ideas forward and letting them rise or fall on their merits. Truth be told, we were disappointed but not surprised by his loss at the polls. Everyone loves a good David vs. Goliath story with a triumphant underdog, but in reality we tend to see why the smart money bets on Goliath. Bill isn't an Elk, a Lion or a Mason. He isn't on the school board, zoning board or planning board. He's not a union member, he belongs to no church and he has only lived in his district for 12 years, which makes him a newcomer by local standards. In short, at the beginning of the election cycle he was a cipher to most voters and he was up against a popular multi-term Republican incumbent in a very Republican district. That's not an uphill battle; that's an uphill four minute mile in street shoes.
Things have gotten ugly in this country. Our political discourse at the moment is only slightly more civilized than a cockfight, and political leaders have been regarded with contempt. Republicans, who had a huge night last night, have an approval rating that would generally spell disaster, and on the other side of the aisle, Harry Reid only survived because he was perceived as a Democratic frying pan to Sharron Angle's Grand Old Fire. Many voters are selecting whomever they despise less.
That said, spending election night in my friend's living room reminded me what's great about our political process and let me forget the cynicism and anger for a while. I sat there with a man who sought nothing more than a chance to make his contribution to our self-governing society. He wasn't seeking money, power, a pension or anything else, nor was he trying to advance any agenda other than doing whatever he can to improve the lives and fortunes of those in his district. This was a case of civic minded public service in its purest and noblest form. He and I have some major differences in political philosophy, yet he welcomed my input as well as that of anyone else who was willing to talk to him. He wanted to hear from everyone both despite and because of political differences. That's how a representative of the people should be!
When all the returns were in, Bill received 765 votes or 6% of those cast. That's actually an impressive tally for a little known third party candidate in that race. He should be proud of every vote because he earned each one of them with his ideas not his party affiliation. He ran a selfless and honorable race and his message resonated with a significant number of people. I wish that everyone would see up close what it's really like to run for office. Those who put themselves out there deserve our respect, and around Election Day, those who dared to step into the ring have earned the right to stand a little taller, win or lose. I'm thankful that I had a ringside seat.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
A 21st Century Reality Check Regarding the 18th Century
Wistful reflection is a mighty force; it can turn The Great Depression into The Good Ol' Days or the 18th Century into the halcyon days of power to the people, unlike today when pointy-headed elitists are enslaving us by straying from our founders’ ideals. I don’t know whether to laugh, cry or scream as I watch Tea Partiers not only pine for these days but argue that anyone who doesn’t is historically ignorant. Before I explore this I want to state clearly that I have tremendous admiration for the architects of our democratic republic. I do, however, believe that a society should endeavor to perfect itself over time. I won’t presume to speak for our Founding Fathers, but I suspect they would agree. My quarrel is not with our nation’s founders but with my contemporaries who think we’ve veered dangerously off course ever since powdered wigs went out of vogue.
I first want to clear up the misconception that the Constitution was designed to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. On the contrary, it was drafted in order to increase the power of the federal government. Before the Constitution was ratified, the U.S. was operating under the Articles of Confederation, which created a central government that was far too weak. While the delegates to the Constitutional Convention feared a central government that was too powerful and they did seek to limit its intrusiveness, they understood above all that we needed to make the federal government stronger if we were to survive as a nation.
Federalists who were pushing for this Constitution with greater power vested in the national government were essentially in campaign mode trying to persuade those who feared central authority that it wouldn’t be so bad. I’m not suggesting that the authors of the Federalist Papers weren’t legitimately interested in small government, but that circumstances compelled them to spend an inordinate amount of time stressing limited government in order to gain the requisite support for a new constitution which, as a matter of necessity, created a more powerful federal government.
We campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Idealized visions are great but they tend to fall apart once exposed to reality. It’s unfair and meaningless to compare person A’s campaign promises to person B’s administration because the latter involves actually dealing with the real world. For example, with the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson gave us one of the world’s great masterpieces. In that document he points to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable. That’s terrific except Jefferson was a slave owner. In this regard, Jefferson’s actions repudiate his own eloquent words. Such is the nature of the conflict between the very tidy theoretical world and the messier, far more complex real world.
At our nation’s inception, many Founding Fathers supported slavery and feared a powerful government. We see their preferences reflected in the early days of the republic. We also see an elitist form of very limited democracy. Only rich (land owning) white males had any political franchise at all. They could vote for Representatives, but for Senator or President, they could only vote for those who vote for these elected officials. Women, Blacks, Native Americans and Whites who didn’t own land had no say whatsoever.
As circumstances change we need to adapt. I’m willing to bet that Microsoft didn’t have an employee handbook when it was run out of someone’s garage. So what? We can endlessly debate the appropriate size and reach of government and still come no closer to a definitive answer than if we were debating whether green or purple is the prettier color. Hamilton, Jay and Madison were brilliant men, but luckily we’re not bound to follow in perpetuity whatever they imagined in the 18th Century. Through Constitutional amendment, reasonable if controversial interpretation, or changes regarding matters on which the Constitution is silent, we’re no longer bound by some of the less enlightened 18th Century conventions and therefore not condemned to live in a country without a truly free and democratic society.
I first want to clear up the misconception that the Constitution was designed to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. On the contrary, it was drafted in order to increase the power of the federal government. Before the Constitution was ratified, the U.S. was operating under the Articles of Confederation, which created a central government that was far too weak. While the delegates to the Constitutional Convention feared a central government that was too powerful and they did seek to limit its intrusiveness, they understood above all that we needed to make the federal government stronger if we were to survive as a nation.
Federalists who were pushing for this Constitution with greater power vested in the national government were essentially in campaign mode trying to persuade those who feared central authority that it wouldn’t be so bad. I’m not suggesting that the authors of the Federalist Papers weren’t legitimately interested in small government, but that circumstances compelled them to spend an inordinate amount of time stressing limited government in order to gain the requisite support for a new constitution which, as a matter of necessity, created a more powerful federal government.
We campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Idealized visions are great but they tend to fall apart once exposed to reality. It’s unfair and meaningless to compare person A’s campaign promises to person B’s administration because the latter involves actually dealing with the real world. For example, with the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson gave us one of the world’s great masterpieces. In that document he points to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable. That’s terrific except Jefferson was a slave owner. In this regard, Jefferson’s actions repudiate his own eloquent words. Such is the nature of the conflict between the very tidy theoretical world and the messier, far more complex real world.
At our nation’s inception, many Founding Fathers supported slavery and feared a powerful government. We see their preferences reflected in the early days of the republic. We also see an elitist form of very limited democracy. Only rich (land owning) white males had any political franchise at all. They could vote for Representatives, but for Senator or President, they could only vote for those who vote for these elected officials. Women, Blacks, Native Americans and Whites who didn’t own land had no say whatsoever.
As circumstances change we need to adapt. I’m willing to bet that Microsoft didn’t have an employee handbook when it was run out of someone’s garage. So what? We can endlessly debate the appropriate size and reach of government and still come no closer to a definitive answer than if we were debating whether green or purple is the prettier color. Hamilton, Jay and Madison were brilliant men, but luckily we’re not bound to follow in perpetuity whatever they imagined in the 18th Century. Through Constitutional amendment, reasonable if controversial interpretation, or changes regarding matters on which the Constitution is silent, we’re no longer bound by some of the less enlightened 18th Century conventions and therefore not condemned to live in a country without a truly free and democratic society.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Decency and Humanity Lie in Ashes
When chastised for his biased editing of the British Gazette, Winston Churchill quipped, "I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire." This was a great laugh line because the entire English speaking world understood that everyone would be on the side of the heroic firefighters who save people's homes and against the fires that destroy them. Sadly however, this week it's no longer as funny since some right wingers in this country have allied themselves with the flames, applauding a decision in rural Olbion County, Tennessee ordering firefighters to stand idly by and allow a home to burn to the ground because the homeowner didn't pay a $75 dollar fee.
The residents not only lost all of their earthly possessions, but their three dogs and a cat were also burned alive in the blaze. For those of you who aren't animal lovers, I ask you this, what if these pets were children instead? Should we let them die for fear that otherwise people may feel less compelled to pay the $75 fee, or should our basic humanity dictate that a bare minimum level of decency must be maintained, even in the face of a possible revenue decline, which can then be addressed? The homeowner offered to pay the fee, and both he and his neighbor offered to pay the firefighters whatever it cost to put out the fire, but they were told it was too late at that point.
I want to discuss two related though very different groups of people. First, there are those who support the fiscal decision to offer or refuse basic public safety resources like a fire department based on an opt-in fee. They philosophically prefer small, a la carte government and this "pay-to-spray" policy represents such an ideology put into practice. The other group is comprised of those who take delight in this family's tragedy. I want to discuss the second group first.
Glenn Beck and his sidekick spent some time on the radio show not only supporting the decision that forbade the firefighters to extinguish the fire, but also mocking the victim over and over. Beck's point, when he could interrupt his lackey's salting the wounds of the now homeless family, was that if we show any human decency and come to the aid of those who failed to pay the $75, they would be sponging off their neighbors. The one and only thing that both Beck and his co-host blurted out in perfect unison was that if the firefighters had put out the fire, "NO ONE" would play the $75. This speaks volumes about Glenn Beck. In his mind, unless people are allowed to suffer the most gut-wrenching, heartbreaking consequences, 100% of the people will be dishonorable 100% of the time. Luckily, as usual, he's wrong. Most people who expect to receive services pay the required fees whether or not it's possible that they could get away with gaming the system. While we all know this, we need to understand that someone whose entire life revolves around spreading fear and hatred is incapable of seeing humankind's better nature. Of course Beck would never have empathy for the victim because, as he said on national television, empathy leads to genocide. Don't ask me to explain; I can't untangle the twisted and tortured mind of Glenn Beck.
As far as the more tepid supporters of this sad event are concerned, I have to ask you, is this is really the world in which you want to live? First of all, this is a sufficiently obvious pubic good that it should never be considered a luxury item people choose to buy. Even if you somehow reject the notion of fire prevention as part of the public weal, there are any number of better schemes to keep revenues in line with costs than refusing to save the life of someone who failed to pay a small fee. Also, let's consider human error. If you dislike the public sector so much that you would make fire protection a free market option, you very likely believe the government is inept and that clerical errors will abound. If you're right, should the people who live at #145 and paid their fee be left to lose their home or worse because a clerk erroneously posted their payment to #154? Come on, people, we're better than this.
The residents not only lost all of their earthly possessions, but their three dogs and a cat were also burned alive in the blaze. For those of you who aren't animal lovers, I ask you this, what if these pets were children instead? Should we let them die for fear that otherwise people may feel less compelled to pay the $75 fee, or should our basic humanity dictate that a bare minimum level of decency must be maintained, even in the face of a possible revenue decline, which can then be addressed? The homeowner offered to pay the fee, and both he and his neighbor offered to pay the firefighters whatever it cost to put out the fire, but they were told it was too late at that point.
I want to discuss two related though very different groups of people. First, there are those who support the fiscal decision to offer or refuse basic public safety resources like a fire department based on an opt-in fee. They philosophically prefer small, a la carte government and this "pay-to-spray" policy represents such an ideology put into practice. The other group is comprised of those who take delight in this family's tragedy. I want to discuss the second group first.
Glenn Beck and his sidekick spent some time on the radio show not only supporting the decision that forbade the firefighters to extinguish the fire, but also mocking the victim over and over. Beck's point, when he could interrupt his lackey's salting the wounds of the now homeless family, was that if we show any human decency and come to the aid of those who failed to pay the $75, they would be sponging off their neighbors. The one and only thing that both Beck and his co-host blurted out in perfect unison was that if the firefighters had put out the fire, "NO ONE" would play the $75. This speaks volumes about Glenn Beck. In his mind, unless people are allowed to suffer the most gut-wrenching, heartbreaking consequences, 100% of the people will be dishonorable 100% of the time. Luckily, as usual, he's wrong. Most people who expect to receive services pay the required fees whether or not it's possible that they could get away with gaming the system. While we all know this, we need to understand that someone whose entire life revolves around spreading fear and hatred is incapable of seeing humankind's better nature. Of course Beck would never have empathy for the victim because, as he said on national television, empathy leads to genocide. Don't ask me to explain; I can't untangle the twisted and tortured mind of Glenn Beck.
As far as the more tepid supporters of this sad event are concerned, I have to ask you, is this is really the world in which you want to live? First of all, this is a sufficiently obvious pubic good that it should never be considered a luxury item people choose to buy. Even if you somehow reject the notion of fire prevention as part of the public weal, there are any number of better schemes to keep revenues in line with costs than refusing to save the life of someone who failed to pay a small fee. Also, let's consider human error. If you dislike the public sector so much that you would make fire protection a free market option, you very likely believe the government is inept and that clerical errors will abound. If you're right, should the people who live at #145 and paid their fee be left to lose their home or worse because a clerk erroneously posted their payment to #154? Come on, people, we're better than this.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
The Fundamental Problem of Fundamentalism
Nine years ago today we watched in horror as a series of carefully planned attacks were carried out against innocent victims who had no idea they would be targets of such savagery. It's hard for most people to imagine how anyone can be so inhuman as to deliberately cause maximum suffering and loss of innocent life. Perversely though not surprisingly, this was yet another atrocity done in the name of God, or as Muslims call Him, Allah. Speaking of God, one of His self-appointed press secretaries down in Florida dominated the news this week, as we paid far too much attention to this inconsequential flyspeck of a man who overextended his 15 minutes of fame by threatening to make a big show of burning the Koran. This would have served no purpose whatsoever except to inject a booster shot of hatred into a few already hate-poisoned souls.
Religion has enriched humanity by inspiring charity, compassion and other virtues, but religious fundamentalism and fanaticism have led to some horrendous things. Right now Muslims may be more likely than others to commit acts of terror explicitly in the name of their faith, but we should not, by any stretch of the imagination, conclude that the Koran is a book of violence while the Bible is a book of peace. Both of these sacred texts can be horrifying if read a certain way. We see in our Bible, particularly the Old Testament, a prime example of the God as bogeyman paradigm, a ghost story designed to terrify the masses and cow them into submission. You needn't go through the Bible with a fine-tooth comb to see some very disturbing things. Let's just look at a couple of the Bible's greatest hits, the Ten Commandments and the great flood/Noah's Ark.
There are variations of the Ten Commandments but in every case the first several involve playing to the ego of a needy and insecure God who even admits He's jealous and will punish descendants of those who reject Him to the third and fourth generation (Deut. 5:9). The Bible thus paints God as not only petty but also savagely vindictive, attacking generation after generation of innocent victims if someone in their lineage wouldn't invite Him to sit at the cool kids' table. The Bible also orders us to commit acts of heinous brutality if the Ten Commandments are violated. If anyone fails to speak of God with awe and reverence he is guilty of blasphemy and we must throw rocks at him until he's dead (Lev. 24:13-16). People are also to be killed for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and the punishment for being a disobedient son? Yup, we must throw rocks at him until he's dead (Deut 21:18-21).
The tale of Noah's Ark shows our God at his most bloodthirsty. He got angry and decided he would spare eight people (one couple, their three sons and their wives) and the bare minimum number of creatures necessary for repopulation, then He would drown every other living thing. God's sociopathic overreaction makes Vlad the Impaler look like the Dalai Lama, yet we would condemn the whole of Islam as brutally savage based on a news story about one jagoff blowing up a pizzeria.
I'm not insulting God. I would be if and only if I believed the Bible to be a direct dictation from God to an infallible stenographer, which I most assuredly do not. For one thing the story of Noah's Ark doesn't pass the laugh test. Rain falling at a rate that would cover the mountains in a few weeks would sink the USS Nimitz let alone a wooden boat laden with elephants, hippos, etc. Plus, though Bible defenders try to explain this away, a great many of the animals aboard this floating food chain would not be on the passenger list so much as the menu. Somebody just made it up. If you seek spiritual enlightenment to be the best person you can be I applaud you, but don't adopt fanaticism; nothing good comes of it no matter what Moses claims the talking shrubbery told him.
Religion has enriched humanity by inspiring charity, compassion and other virtues, but religious fundamentalism and fanaticism have led to some horrendous things. Right now Muslims may be more likely than others to commit acts of terror explicitly in the name of their faith, but we should not, by any stretch of the imagination, conclude that the Koran is a book of violence while the Bible is a book of peace. Both of these sacred texts can be horrifying if read a certain way. We see in our Bible, particularly the Old Testament, a prime example of the God as bogeyman paradigm, a ghost story designed to terrify the masses and cow them into submission. You needn't go through the Bible with a fine-tooth comb to see some very disturbing things. Let's just look at a couple of the Bible's greatest hits, the Ten Commandments and the great flood/Noah's Ark.
There are variations of the Ten Commandments but in every case the first several involve playing to the ego of a needy and insecure God who even admits He's jealous and will punish descendants of those who reject Him to the third and fourth generation (Deut. 5:9). The Bible thus paints God as not only petty but also savagely vindictive, attacking generation after generation of innocent victims if someone in their lineage wouldn't invite Him to sit at the cool kids' table. The Bible also orders us to commit acts of heinous brutality if the Ten Commandments are violated. If anyone fails to speak of God with awe and reverence he is guilty of blasphemy and we must throw rocks at him until he's dead (Lev. 24:13-16). People are also to be killed for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and the punishment for being a disobedient son? Yup, we must throw rocks at him until he's dead (Deut 21:18-21).
The tale of Noah's Ark shows our God at his most bloodthirsty. He got angry and decided he would spare eight people (one couple, their three sons and their wives) and the bare minimum number of creatures necessary for repopulation, then He would drown every other living thing. God's sociopathic overreaction makes Vlad the Impaler look like the Dalai Lama, yet we would condemn the whole of Islam as brutally savage based on a news story about one jagoff blowing up a pizzeria.
I'm not insulting God. I would be if and only if I believed the Bible to be a direct dictation from God to an infallible stenographer, which I most assuredly do not. For one thing the story of Noah's Ark doesn't pass the laugh test. Rain falling at a rate that would cover the mountains in a few weeks would sink the USS Nimitz let alone a wooden boat laden with elephants, hippos, etc. Plus, though Bible defenders try to explain this away, a great many of the animals aboard this floating food chain would not be on the passenger list so much as the menu. Somebody just made it up. If you seek spiritual enlightenment to be the best person you can be I applaud you, but don't adopt fanaticism; nothing good comes of it no matter what Moses claims the talking shrubbery told him.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Fighting the Wrong "Elites"
The American political landscape is littered with examples of one group pitted against another. One such divide is what some on the right call the "culture war." As they frame it, this is a battle between salt of the earth "real" Americans who believe in traditional values, and their opponents, referred to as "liberal elites," whose views are more progressive, and who tend to live on either coast, especially in large metropolitan areas. For about the last forty-five years, the rivalry between these two factions has had very important electoral implications, raising the significance of this debate beyond just competing schools of thought in the marketplace of ideas.
Without rehashing the entire history that got us here, Nixon's southern strategy, the Reagan coalition and so forth, suffice it to say that millions of Americans felt the country had changed too much too fast and Republicans masterfully capitalized on the disquiet that swept through the South and other rural areas, changing the political map ever since. The defection of these traditional "values voters" to the Republican party has sparked debate over whether or not they're well served by that move. Some believe these people have been hoodwinked by clever political operatives who convince them they'll benefit by backing candidates who stand on their side on wedge issues such as abortion and gay rights.
That's precisely what historian and author Thomas Frank argues in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas? His central thesis is that these people were snookered by a classic bait and switch. Lure the voters by firing them up over some hot button social issues and have them vote you into office. Once elected, do nothing about these issues. Instead, use your position to greatly enhance the wealth and power of the privileged few, often to the detriment of those you suckered into voting for you against their own interest. In other words, market yourself as the party of Hallelujah, though you're actually the party of Halliburton. Dr. Frank's book is controversial, and there has been some rebuttal, but I'm not interested in whether or not his analysis is perfect; I'm interested in examining the consequences and wisdom of the choices we make. I'm second to none in my desire to see small town America take on the "elites", but the battle should be against the right elite.
The real elite are the select few at the very top of the economic ladder who have done exceedingly well in the last 30 years while the rest of the country has not. The richest 1% of the population holds as much wealth as the bottom 95% combined, and in this country money in many ways equals power. I would love to see the middle class fight to prevent its further erosion rather than siding with the very rich and abetting their efforts to control an even bigger share of the pie. Instead, too many people continue to harm themselves and others by injudiciously backing people who don't care about them.
Nobody wants to pay taxes but everybody wants the road paved. We all want to give the least and get the most, but what separates the privileged few from everyone else is that they have the power to make their wishes reality unless people stand up to them. Right now our economy is being held hostage. We're supposedly doomed unless we placate the richest Americans because decision makers are hamstrung, not knowing if the top tax rate will return to where it was during the Clinton years. Really? Well, if you lack the business acumen to handle uncertainty in this uncertain world, your $24 million pay is overinflated by at least $23.95 million and your shareholders would like it back please.
Before making its own mistakes, the labor movement taught us that if we stand together we can create a society of broadly shared prosperity that became the envy of the world. History has also taught us that polarization of wealth is a recipe for disaster. It will be a glorious day when "real" Americans take on the real "elites."
Without rehashing the entire history that got us here, Nixon's southern strategy, the Reagan coalition and so forth, suffice it to say that millions of Americans felt the country had changed too much too fast and Republicans masterfully capitalized on the disquiet that swept through the South and other rural areas, changing the political map ever since. The defection of these traditional "values voters" to the Republican party has sparked debate over whether or not they're well served by that move. Some believe these people have been hoodwinked by clever political operatives who convince them they'll benefit by backing candidates who stand on their side on wedge issues such as abortion and gay rights.
That's precisely what historian and author Thomas Frank argues in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas? His central thesis is that these people were snookered by a classic bait and switch. Lure the voters by firing them up over some hot button social issues and have them vote you into office. Once elected, do nothing about these issues. Instead, use your position to greatly enhance the wealth and power of the privileged few, often to the detriment of those you suckered into voting for you against their own interest. In other words, market yourself as the party of Hallelujah, though you're actually the party of Halliburton. Dr. Frank's book is controversial, and there has been some rebuttal, but I'm not interested in whether or not his analysis is perfect; I'm interested in examining the consequences and wisdom of the choices we make. I'm second to none in my desire to see small town America take on the "elites", but the battle should be against the right elite.
The real elite are the select few at the very top of the economic ladder who have done exceedingly well in the last 30 years while the rest of the country has not. The richest 1% of the population holds as much wealth as the bottom 95% combined, and in this country money in many ways equals power. I would love to see the middle class fight to prevent its further erosion rather than siding with the very rich and abetting their efforts to control an even bigger share of the pie. Instead, too many people continue to harm themselves and others by injudiciously backing people who don't care about them.
Nobody wants to pay taxes but everybody wants the road paved. We all want to give the least and get the most, but what separates the privileged few from everyone else is that they have the power to make their wishes reality unless people stand up to them. Right now our economy is being held hostage. We're supposedly doomed unless we placate the richest Americans because decision makers are hamstrung, not knowing if the top tax rate will return to where it was during the Clinton years. Really? Well, if you lack the business acumen to handle uncertainty in this uncertain world, your $24 million pay is overinflated by at least $23.95 million and your shareholders would like it back please.
Before making its own mistakes, the labor movement taught us that if we stand together we can create a society of broadly shared prosperity that became the envy of the world. History has also taught us that polarization of wealth is a recipe for disaster. It will be a glorious day when "real" Americans take on the real "elites."
Monday, August 30, 2010
Some Gave All Most Gave None
Wars call for broadly shared sacrifice. During WWII sixteen million Americans served in the armed forces; at maximum troop strength, about eight million served at once. More importantly, everyone on the home front sacrificed as well. That's what a country a war looks like even if that war isn't being fought on home soil. Civilians rationed goods because the military came first while they risked their lives defending everyone else. No one's life was unaffected by the war.
Our wars got smaller after WWII, but the Korean and Vietnam wars still had the draft so families from a broad cross section of America were asked to put their loved ones in harm's way. This is no longer the case. We haven't had a military draft since 1973, but we've sent troops to fight in conflicts large and small in the '80's, 90's, 00's and now 10's. We're increasingly asking a small few to bear what should be borne by the many. I don't want to muddy this discussion with a fiscal policy debate, but bellowing "We're a country at war!" and "Lower my taxes!" in the same breath would have been unthinkable anywhere in the world at any time in history except the United States in the 21st Century. The simultaneous belief that we're at war but shouldn't be inconvenienced by taxes, a draft or anything else betrays a troubling mindset I'll discuss in a moment, but first I want to talk about the heroic men and women who have served our country.
Whether through the old Billy Ray Cyrus song or some other source, you've probably heard the saying, "All gave some; some gave all" in reference to our war veterans. These words remind us that we owe these heroes more than we could ever repay. They have earned our support and our eternal gratitude. However, the quote only refers to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and those who paid a different price but served just as honorably. If we expand the circle to describe our entire "country at war" right now we should say, "Some gave all; most gave none."
Our military personnel put their lives on the line every day without question or hesitation. That's the code of the warrior and they view their incredible selflessness as nothing more that doing their duty. Even those who sustain severe, debilitating injuries often want to go back to their units and continue the fight! Let me repeat, we owe a debt to these heroes that is far too large to ever repay. Since the troops think only of duty and honor without regard to their own safety, we must be unwavering in our commitment to only place them in the mortal danger when absolutely necessary. To do otherwise is to hold this supreme sacrifice cheap, which would be an abomination that defies words.
While we would never deliberately treat our fighting men and women so recklessly, there's a danger to citizens clamoring for war while they have no skin in the game. People love to imperiously say, "off with their heads!" any time someone in the world displeases them, and unless those urges are tempered by the horrific reality of war, it's far too easy to violate our sacred covenant with the military by effectively regarding these precious young lives as cannon fodder.
Last month the nation closely watched the saga of Lindsay Lohan but few noticed that we also lost 65 troops in Afghanistan, which is our worst monthly loss to date. More than half of the fallen will never see a 25th birthday. We've now been in Afghanistan for nearly nine years and it's time to reevaluate the mission and what we can expect to gain in exchange for this loss of life. Supporting our troops means advocating for them because they'll never say no to risking their lives for their country. We owe them our real support, not just the token effort of slapping a $5 ribbon-shaped magnet on a $30,000 SUV.
Our wars got smaller after WWII, but the Korean and Vietnam wars still had the draft so families from a broad cross section of America were asked to put their loved ones in harm's way. This is no longer the case. We haven't had a military draft since 1973, but we've sent troops to fight in conflicts large and small in the '80's, 90's, 00's and now 10's. We're increasingly asking a small few to bear what should be borne by the many. I don't want to muddy this discussion with a fiscal policy debate, but bellowing "We're a country at war!" and "Lower my taxes!" in the same breath would have been unthinkable anywhere in the world at any time in history except the United States in the 21st Century. The simultaneous belief that we're at war but shouldn't be inconvenienced by taxes, a draft or anything else betrays a troubling mindset I'll discuss in a moment, but first I want to talk about the heroic men and women who have served our country.
Whether through the old Billy Ray Cyrus song or some other source, you've probably heard the saying, "All gave some; some gave all" in reference to our war veterans. These words remind us that we owe these heroes more than we could ever repay. They have earned our support and our eternal gratitude. However, the quote only refers to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and those who paid a different price but served just as honorably. If we expand the circle to describe our entire "country at war" right now we should say, "Some gave all; most gave none."
Our military personnel put their lives on the line every day without question or hesitation. That's the code of the warrior and they view their incredible selflessness as nothing more that doing their duty. Even those who sustain severe, debilitating injuries often want to go back to their units and continue the fight! Let me repeat, we owe a debt to these heroes that is far too large to ever repay. Since the troops think only of duty and honor without regard to their own safety, we must be unwavering in our commitment to only place them in the mortal danger when absolutely necessary. To do otherwise is to hold this supreme sacrifice cheap, which would be an abomination that defies words.
While we would never deliberately treat our fighting men and women so recklessly, there's a danger to citizens clamoring for war while they have no skin in the game. People love to imperiously say, "off with their heads!" any time someone in the world displeases them, and unless those urges are tempered by the horrific reality of war, it's far too easy to violate our sacred covenant with the military by effectively regarding these precious young lives as cannon fodder.
Last month the nation closely watched the saga of Lindsay Lohan but few noticed that we also lost 65 troops in Afghanistan, which is our worst monthly loss to date. More than half of the fallen will never see a 25th birthday. We've now been in Afghanistan for nearly nine years and it's time to reevaluate the mission and what we can expect to gain in exchange for this loss of life. Supporting our troops means advocating for them because they'll never say no to risking their lives for their country. We owe them our real support, not just the token effort of slapping a $5 ribbon-shaped magnet on a $30,000 SUV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)