"It’s the hardest vote I've taken;" so said Al Franken of his vote for Obama's tax deal with Republicans. Franken explains his vote by declaring in a post on Huffington Post that "This isn't a great deal by any stretch of the imagination. But I got into this line of work because I wanted to stand up for Minnesota families trying to put food on the table and build a better life for their kids. And, for them, the only thing worse than a bad deal would be no deal at all. That's why I voted yes yesterday -- and why I will continue my fight for economic policies that create jobs, address our deficit problem, and build new opportunities for Minnesota." I find thus mea culpa disingenuous, shallow, and short sighted.
Disingenuous, because he would have us believe that those who voted against the Deal did not face the same fundamental issue of deciding between the immediate and the momentous. Does he really believe that Bernie Sanders, who made the role of excessive wealth in producing our current situation so clear in his eight hour filibuster, did not face the same situation?
Shallow, because Franken apparently believes that his job as a progressive is to pass laws for the benefit of the people. That belief leads directly to beltway politics in which the decisions, indeed the debate, is the province of a few elected "representatives." To the contrary, the job of a progressive is to educate and inform his constituency so that they can be the force he or she brings to the national legislature and so that when push comes to shove, as in this case between the wealthy and the rest of us, the people are prepared to fight. Had Franken done what Sanders has done his whole political life, namely meet with small groups of constituents not just at election time but routinely and in that context listened acutely and intelligently putting what he knew to be the case in Washington together with what his people knew to be the case at home and, in discussion, had offered a synthesis to be considered with those of his constituents, had he done these things, as Bernie has, he would not have to indulge in such childish angst. I have watched videos of Bernie interacting with small groups of his constituents. I have watched him conducting a high school class in civics which consisted largely of listening to their answers to questions he posed and responding to questions they posed. Bernie sees the job of the politician as including a large commitment to create an informed, comprehending constituency and listening carefully and intelligently to them. These are things that, I suspect, have never occurred to Al Franken. They are however essential to an effective progressive candidate. In progressivism the people are the power, not money. It is therefore incumbent upon progressive politicians to develop the best informed, most comprehending, constituency possible so that when push comes to shove, when you have to decide between immediate benefits and long-term disaster your people understand and are with you. People will sacrifice the immediate for the future if the alternatives and consequences are clearly laid out. The people who accepted FDR's leadership were not afraid to occupy General Motors' plants in a massive sit down strike. Their wives brought food to them despite the threats from General Motors. Earlier than that workers had to confront hired thugs in the Pullman strike and were machine-gunned in their tents in the Colorado miners' strike.
Finally, Franken's defense that he voted for the Deal so hungry people would continue to have food and shelter, if not a job, is even in this context, short sighted. Did he explain to his people that the social security tax, Franken disingenuously refers to it as a payroll tax, was a first step to weaken social security by depriving it of revenue and was intended to condition people to this process? Did he remind them that ever since LBJ used it to fund the Vietnam War they have let government raid their Social Security fund and that Congress had not seen fit to protect these funds by prohibiting their use for other purpose? We now have billions of dollars in IOUs that Congress now says there is no money to repay. Again, by continuing the Bush tax cuts we are transferring even more money to the wealthy. Did Franken lay out the enormity of the debt that this generation is imposing on those very children he seemed so concerned for?
In short, sacrifice, big time, is going to be necessary if the people are to wrest control of America from the wealthy. Due to technology and corporate and political takeover, the wealthy are deeply entrenched in our society. They control the production and distribution of our national product. They control our means of communication. They are heavily in the business of defining life for our citizens. It reminds one of the military's complaint about the difficulty of fighting insurgents because they are so thoroughly integrated into their society. Think of corporations as huge multidimensional insurgents focused on overthrowing our democracy and what we face becomes clearer. The insidious power of these proponents of privilege make it clear why progressives have a primary duty to educate, to communicate and to listen so that the people and the leadership progressively become one.
I have used Bernie Sanders as something of a paradigm of what a progressive politician should look like in our search for more of the same. However, I am conscious of the fact the Sanders functions in a small state with many small towns and it may be said that large states and major cities may not be susceptible to this level of citizen involvement.
To such concerns I would point out that large cities have realized Bernie's style of progressive politics. In the 1960s Saul Alinsky, using collegial and intensive involvement with Chicago's primarily Black poor people was able to develop organizational structures that empowered these people to better their lot through effective political measures. This was done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. A second way for progressive politicians to emulate Bernie's approach in the context of larger jurisdictions is by focused television or radio engagement. FDR did this on a national scale with his Fireside Chats in which he conveyed to ordinary people the state of things and what was being done. I remember, as a young teenager, our family sitting around our Majestic radio listing to these chats. Everybody respected Roosevelt and knew he would have something of substance to say. Again, you may have noticed that television evangelists are able to accrue a substantial audience by the intimacy they convey over television. That same intimacy can be conveyed over radio. I member (old people are forever uttering that phrase) when the soap opera "Ma Perkins" had a favorite character eliminated. There was massive outrage and mourning. These things demonstrate that we can create the intimacy necessary for politicians and people to work together in a joint effort to educate and improve a world that we have let technology dominate. Progressives need to investigate the use of public access channels on their local television cable stations. They need to investigate low power television, which can provide well-targeted, cheap broadcasting to local communities. Religious groups and now corporations are actively scooping there up. Why have we not seen Amy Goodman, Al Franken, Ralph Nader and other progressives pushing an effort to acquire some of these licenses for progressive purposes? I think the answer is that we are too focused on issues and candidates to focus on the people. We can create an environment for progressive, people-powered, politics to flourish. Where is the organized, MoveOn-like effort to do this?
Bob Newhard
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
On Rescuing Hostages
President Obama would have us believe that the best he could do in dealing with Republican's on extending the Bush tax cuts was to save the paltry middle class tax cuts and extend unemployment benefits historically granted when unemployment reached 7.2% which were being held hostage by the Republican concern for the wealthiest one tenth of one percent and their estate tax. This is so putrid with pusillanimity it stinks. Paul Krugman has an excellent analysis of Obama's game plying in an article that can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/opinion/10krugman.html?pagewanted=print
However, I want to consider the undeclared ramifications and implications of this sickening fiasco.
To begin with, the real hostage was not the existing middle class, grievous though their situation is, the real hostage is our democracy. If we let the wealthy of this country continue to call the political tune we will loose the democracy that was born 234 years ago and which so many have fought to preserve from those who would destroy it. As a class, the wealthy of this country and their corporate institutions have made it abundantly clear that they do not want a democracy. They want an oligarchic plutocracy and their religious constituency wants a theocracy. They have suborned every democratic institution we have from our legislature, to the presidency to the Supreme Court. They have corrupted our societal communications and the national dialogue our democracy requires. This is the enemy Lincoln feared; the enemy from within. We are down to our last line of defense; the people in whom democracy ultimately puts its trust. There is no "reaching out" to those who are corrupting our national dialogue with fear and innuendo, who suborn our government with bribes and political payoffs, who divert vast sums from our national productivity to their own satiated ends. This enemy must be put in the searchlight of truth and justice so that its repellent selfishness is clear to all.
The duplicity and manipulativeness of Obama's rescue of the middle class becomes glaringly apparent when we consider that he knew from the day he began to campaign for President that the Bush tax cuts were due to expire during his term in office, if he won. Presumably he knew this was a monstrous gift to the wealthy, which was denying adequate education to the majority of American children, which adversely affected a broad range of government services required by the increasing homeless and jobless population, created by the financial shenanigans of this same wealthy class and, above all, is exacerbating a rapidly increasing wealth gap between the rich and the rest of us that is now threatening the continued existence of our democracy. I repeat, he knew these things going in. This being the case, where was the effort to raise the public consciousness of the seriousness of the threat posed by the excessively rich and the degree to which these tax cuts had contributed to it. Where was the connection between the wealthy recipients of these tax cuts and their financial institutions that created our current "Great Recession?" Where was the effort to use his bully pulpit and oratorical gifts to redress the long standing rule of wealth rather than people in this country? This tax issue was pregnant with all sorts of political potential to greatly improve our society and the quality of life within it. Why was it so tragically wasted?
I think the answer can initially be found in Bill Clinton's administration and the advent of his Democratic Leadership Council. With this came the political notion, that one could win more political battles by "out Republicanizing" the Republicans. Why, one might ask, would Democrats think that winning legislative battles and elections by emulating Republicans be even considered as a strategy. The answer, I believe, is that Democrats had been so often out of power since the Reagan Revolution, that they would do anything, even out-Republican the Republicans, to obtain political power. In brief, an obsession with politcs rather than with the welfare of the people overtook the Democratic Party and, in so doing, rendered it spineless.
I also believe that Clinton came to believe that money was more important than people in getting elected and staying in power. Money could buy television commercials, which politicians found more effective overall than speaking to and mingling with many groups at many places. Jim Hightower in one of his books recounts an episode in which a young congressional candidate, with a very active support group, was invited by the Democratic Party to Washington D. C. along with a number of other promising candidates for orientation and help in developing their campaigns. At the gathering he was introduced to a number of PAC leaders and lobbyists. The group of candidates was told that these were the people they needed to get to know because they provided the money for extensive television ads, etc. They were there, in short, to enable match making between candidates and lobbyists. The young candidate protested that these were the people and this was the process, namely beltway politics, which he and his campaign were opposed to. He was immediately counted out. His primary opponent who had lost to the Republican in the two previous elections received the funding, won the primary and again lost to the Republican. Obama, in my opinion, bought into this Clintonesque, DLC, beltway-centered Democratic politics.
Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee tried to initiate a 50 state rejuvenation of the
Democratic Party structure. This would have done much to distribute Party power and resources more widely. He was vigorously opposed by Rahm Emanuel. One of the first things Obama did was appoint Emanuel as his chief of staff and remove Dean from his chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.
Obama is but one of many who would call themselves Democrats, but who were at best powder-blue dogs.
However, things may be changing. With Nancy Pelosi's refusal to let Obama's tax deal come to the House floor and Bernie Sanders' filibuster challenge not only to Obama's tax deal, but more importantly to the destructive role of excessive wealth in this society, we may have discovered the long-sought political nexus for a Progressive challenge to the Democratic-Republican political duopoly of wealth. Now is the time, I believe, for Progressives to speak out and demand not only government of by and for the people, but that progressive leadership become as bold and energetic as Pelosi and Sanders in their attack on wealth and privilege. Ralph Nader has called for a Progressive candidate to oppose Obama in 2012. Let us end this nightmare of rampant plutocracy and, as Howard Dean urged, return America to its people. Let us rise up and free the hostages. Perhaps we are responding to Denis Kucinich's plea in the 2008 Presidential campaign, "Wake up America, Wake up." Nancy and Bernie may be our alarm clocks.
Bob Newhard
However, I want to consider the undeclared ramifications and implications of this sickening fiasco.
To begin with, the real hostage was not the existing middle class, grievous though their situation is, the real hostage is our democracy. If we let the wealthy of this country continue to call the political tune we will loose the democracy that was born 234 years ago and which so many have fought to preserve from those who would destroy it. As a class, the wealthy of this country and their corporate institutions have made it abundantly clear that they do not want a democracy. They want an oligarchic plutocracy and their religious constituency wants a theocracy. They have suborned every democratic institution we have from our legislature, to the presidency to the Supreme Court. They have corrupted our societal communications and the national dialogue our democracy requires. This is the enemy Lincoln feared; the enemy from within. We are down to our last line of defense; the people in whom democracy ultimately puts its trust. There is no "reaching out" to those who are corrupting our national dialogue with fear and innuendo, who suborn our government with bribes and political payoffs, who divert vast sums from our national productivity to their own satiated ends. This enemy must be put in the searchlight of truth and justice so that its repellent selfishness is clear to all.
The duplicity and manipulativeness of Obama's rescue of the middle class becomes glaringly apparent when we consider that he knew from the day he began to campaign for President that the Bush tax cuts were due to expire during his term in office, if he won. Presumably he knew this was a monstrous gift to the wealthy, which was denying adequate education to the majority of American children, which adversely affected a broad range of government services required by the increasing homeless and jobless population, created by the financial shenanigans of this same wealthy class and, above all, is exacerbating a rapidly increasing wealth gap between the rich and the rest of us that is now threatening the continued existence of our democracy. I repeat, he knew these things going in. This being the case, where was the effort to raise the public consciousness of the seriousness of the threat posed by the excessively rich and the degree to which these tax cuts had contributed to it. Where was the connection between the wealthy recipients of these tax cuts and their financial institutions that created our current "Great Recession?" Where was the effort to use his bully pulpit and oratorical gifts to redress the long standing rule of wealth rather than people in this country? This tax issue was pregnant with all sorts of political potential to greatly improve our society and the quality of life within it. Why was it so tragically wasted?
I think the answer can initially be found in Bill Clinton's administration and the advent of his Democratic Leadership Council. With this came the political notion, that one could win more political battles by "out Republicanizing" the Republicans. Why, one might ask, would Democrats think that winning legislative battles and elections by emulating Republicans be even considered as a strategy. The answer, I believe, is that Democrats had been so often out of power since the Reagan Revolution, that they would do anything, even out-Republican the Republicans, to obtain political power. In brief, an obsession with politcs rather than with the welfare of the people overtook the Democratic Party and, in so doing, rendered it spineless.
I also believe that Clinton came to believe that money was more important than people in getting elected and staying in power. Money could buy television commercials, which politicians found more effective overall than speaking to and mingling with many groups at many places. Jim Hightower in one of his books recounts an episode in which a young congressional candidate, with a very active support group, was invited by the Democratic Party to Washington D. C. along with a number of other promising candidates for orientation and help in developing their campaigns. At the gathering he was introduced to a number of PAC leaders and lobbyists. The group of candidates was told that these were the people they needed to get to know because they provided the money for extensive television ads, etc. They were there, in short, to enable match making between candidates and lobbyists. The young candidate protested that these were the people and this was the process, namely beltway politics, which he and his campaign were opposed to. He was immediately counted out. His primary opponent who had lost to the Republican in the two previous elections received the funding, won the primary and again lost to the Republican. Obama, in my opinion, bought into this Clintonesque, DLC, beltway-centered Democratic politics.
Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee tried to initiate a 50 state rejuvenation of the
Democratic Party structure. This would have done much to distribute Party power and resources more widely. He was vigorously opposed by Rahm Emanuel. One of the first things Obama did was appoint Emanuel as his chief of staff and remove Dean from his chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.
Obama is but one of many who would call themselves Democrats, but who were at best powder-blue dogs.
However, things may be changing. With Nancy Pelosi's refusal to let Obama's tax deal come to the House floor and Bernie Sanders' filibuster challenge not only to Obama's tax deal, but more importantly to the destructive role of excessive wealth in this society, we may have discovered the long-sought political nexus for a Progressive challenge to the Democratic-Republican political duopoly of wealth. Now is the time, I believe, for Progressives to speak out and demand not only government of by and for the people, but that progressive leadership become as bold and energetic as Pelosi and Sanders in their attack on wealth and privilege. Ralph Nader has called for a Progressive candidate to oppose Obama in 2012. Let us end this nightmare of rampant plutocracy and, as Howard Dean urged, return America to its people. Let us rise up and free the hostages. Perhaps we are responding to Denis Kucinich's plea in the 2008 Presidential campaign, "Wake up America, Wake up." Nancy and Bernie may be our alarm clocks.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Depression and War
The other day my wife Eleanor was reading a book on the psychology of decision making. The author rather gratuitously threw in the remark that Roosevelt's New Deal did not end the Great Depression. World War 2 did. We all hear this remark, usually from those who prefer governance by corporations rather than governments of, by, and for the people. This remark is both true and deceptively false.
It is true that Roosevelt's policies did not bring the economy back to the exceptionally high levels preceding the 1929 crash. We should be grateful that it did not because that economy was based on the speculation that led to the depression in the first place..The other day my wife Eleanor was reading a book on the psychology of decision making. The author rather gratuitously threw in the remark that Roosevelt's New Deal did not end the Great Depression. World War 2 did. We all hear this remark, usually from those who prefer governance by corporations rather than governments of, by, and for the people. This remark is both true and deceptively false.
It is true that Roosevelt's policies did not bring the economy back to the exceptionally high levels preceding the 1929 crash. We should be grateful that it did not because that economy was based on the speculation that led to the depression in the first place. However, his policies did bring the economy back about half way by 1935.
The argument is deceptively false because it is meant to imply that government did not bring back the economy. The economy of World War 2 was a government economy, par excellence and vitiates this old conservative argument completely.
The interesting question is, "Why does one form of government spending (war) work so much better than another (peace)?
Examining major economies victimized by the Great Depression, which was world wide, we find that war and the preparation for war, was the effective antidote to the depression. The German economy, which was far worse than ours due in part to the continuing reparations the World War 1 allies imposed, was brought back by Hitler's militarization program. The English by the need to rearm, the United States by the need to rearm, Japan came out of the Great Depression in 1932, perhaps, bcause it had been militarizing since militarism became a dominant feature of Japanese development with the Meiji Restoration of 1869. Its 1905 victory over Russia greatly enhanced its prestige, and culminated in Japan's aggressive colonialism, a hallmark of world powers at the time.
But why is war so much more effective than other efforts to reconvert from major economic downturns? Some would say that war affects everybody. This is to say that, short of war, not everybody is affected seriously by a depression. And this is to say that those least affected, the wealthy, are unwilling and not required to contribute to fight this kind of national calamity to the extent they are in war. I ask why not? The answer to that question, I believe, can be found in American economic mythology, namely, that anyone can be an economic success and if they are not it must be their own fault. My own father, a mechanic who was able to hold on to his job throughout the depression, although at meager pay, looked down on WPA workers who, by his definition, had gone on the dole. The rich have this myth working for them day and night. Poor people will blame each other for their economic plight rather than the wealthy who have caused the situation and continue to profit from it. This is the sad tale of American economic naiveté.
This line of reasoning is, I believe, prima facie evidence that it is the wealthy that insure that this level of societal effort is not launched against depressions. If we now look at some facts surrounding World War 2 that made it effective in finally ending the Great Depression the substance of this argument will be further vindicated.
For one, the federal tax rate on the wealthiest was 94%. It had even been 77% under Herbert Hover. Ronald Reagan dropped it from 70% to 28%. It is now 35% and Obama's effort to raise it to 40% is being labeled "socialist" by Republicans. One of the major reasons the 2nd World War brought back full employment was that the wealthy were required to pay their fair share of the cost of that war. This along with government planning and rationing of resources is the real meaning of World War 2 as an end to the depression. Everyone had to contribute their fair share. This is the democratic method of dealing with economic downturns once under way. Preventing or minimizing those downturns inherent in the capitalist system is a matter of vigilant, continuous regulation so that capitalism's ever present excesses are not allowed to create economic havoc.
One of the best metaphors for capitalism is fire. Capitalism should be viewed as a hazard similar to fire and should be controlled with the same diligence. Capitalism, like fire, can be useful, but also like fire it is very destructive when out of control. Like fire, it must be kept away from combustible fuel, i.e. excess profits that feed a frenzy of speculation; we must have mechanisms at hand when it bursts into flame, i.e. legal fire hoses; it must be subject to constant vigilance and checked on frequently by competent watchdogs. Capitalism is not good or bad, it simply is. We need a population not subject to the blandishments of speculation, but capable of placing capitalism in a place where it can do no harm. Children have been taught the need to protect our environment and it is paying off. Similarly they need to be taught the destructiveness of uncontrolled capitalism and the need and mechanisms for controlling it.
Bob Newhard
However, his policies did bring the economy back about half way by 1935.
The argument is deceptively false because it is meant to imply that government did not bring back the economy. The economy of World War 2 was a government economy, par excellence and vitiates this old conservative argument completely.
The interesting question is, "Why does one form of government spending (war) work so much better than another (peace)?
Examining major economies victimized by the Great Depression, which was world wide, we find that war and the preparation for war, was the effective antidote to the depression. The German economy, which was far worse than ours due in part to the continuing reparations the World War 1 allies imposed, was brought back by Hitler's militarization program. The English by the need to rearm, the United States by the need to rearm, Japan came out of the Great Depression in 1932, perhaps, bcause it had been militarizing since militarism became a dominant feature of Japanese development with the Meiji Restoration of 1869. Its 1905 victory over Russia greatly enhanced its prestige, and culminated in Japan's aggressive colonialism, a hallmark of world powers at the time.
But why is war so much more effective than other efforts to reconvert from major economic downturns? Some would say that war affects everybody. This is to say that, short of war, not everybody is affected seriously by a depression. And this is to say that those least affected, the wealthy, are unwilling and not required to contribute to fight this kind of national calamity to the extent they are in war. I ask why not? The answer to that question, I believe, can be found in American economic mythology, namely, that anyone can be an economic success and if they are not it must be their own fault. My own father, a mechanic who was able to hold on to his job throughout the depression, although at meager pay, looked down on WPA workers who, by his definition, had gone on the dole. The rich have this myth working for them day and night. Poor people will blame each other for their economic plight rather than the wealthy who have caused the situation and continue to profit from it. This is the sad tale of American economic naiveté.
This line of reasoning is, I believe, prima facie evidence that it is the wealthy that insure that this level of societal effort is not launched against depressions. If we now look at some facts surrounding World War 2 that made it effective in finally ending the Great Depression the substance of this argument will be further vindicated.
For one, the federal tax rate on the wealthiest was 94%. It had even been 77% under Herbert Hover. Ronald Reagan dropped it from 70% to 28%. It is now 35% and Obama's effort to raise it to 40% is being labeled "socialist" by Republicans. One of the major reasons the 2nd World War brought back full employment was that the wealthy were required to pay their fair share of the cost of that war. This along with government planning and rationing of resources is the real meaning of World War 2 as an end to the depression. Everyone had to contribute their fair share. This is the democratic method of dealing with economic downturns once under way. Preventing or minimizing those downturns inherent in the capitalist system is a matter of vigilant, continuous regulation so that capitalism's ever present excesses are not allowed to create economic havoc.
One of the best metaphors for capitalism is fire. Capitalism should be viewed as a hazard similar to fire and should be controlled with the same diligence. Capitalism, like fire, can be useful, but also like fire it is very destructive when out of control. Like fire, it must be kept away from combustible fuel, i.e. excess profits that feed a frenzy of speculation; we must have mechanisms at hand when it bursts into flame, i.e. legal fire hoses; it must be subject to constant vigilance and checked on frequently by competent watchdogs. Capitalism is not good or bad, it simply is. We need a population not subject to the blandishments of speculation, but capable of placing capitalism in a place where it can do no harm. Children have been taught the need to protect our environment and it is paying off. Similarly they need to be taught the destructiveness of uncontrolled capitalism and the need and mechanisms for controlling it.
Bob Newhard
It is true that Roosevelt's policies did not bring the economy back to the exceptionally high levels preceding the 1929 crash. We should be grateful that it did not because that economy was based on the speculation that led to the depression in the first place..The other day my wife Eleanor was reading a book on the psychology of decision making. The author rather gratuitously threw in the remark that Roosevelt's New Deal did not end the Great Depression. World War 2 did. We all hear this remark, usually from those who prefer governance by corporations rather than governments of, by, and for the people. This remark is both true and deceptively false.
It is true that Roosevelt's policies did not bring the economy back to the exceptionally high levels preceding the 1929 crash. We should be grateful that it did not because that economy was based on the speculation that led to the depression in the first place. However, his policies did bring the economy back about half way by 1935.
The argument is deceptively false because it is meant to imply that government did not bring back the economy. The economy of World War 2 was a government economy, par excellence and vitiates this old conservative argument completely.
The interesting question is, "Why does one form of government spending (war) work so much better than another (peace)?
Examining major economies victimized by the Great Depression, which was world wide, we find that war and the preparation for war, was the effective antidote to the depression. The German economy, which was far worse than ours due in part to the continuing reparations the World War 1 allies imposed, was brought back by Hitler's militarization program. The English by the need to rearm, the United States by the need to rearm, Japan came out of the Great Depression in 1932, perhaps, bcause it had been militarizing since militarism became a dominant feature of Japanese development with the Meiji Restoration of 1869. Its 1905 victory over Russia greatly enhanced its prestige, and culminated in Japan's aggressive colonialism, a hallmark of world powers at the time.
But why is war so much more effective than other efforts to reconvert from major economic downturns? Some would say that war affects everybody. This is to say that, short of war, not everybody is affected seriously by a depression. And this is to say that those least affected, the wealthy, are unwilling and not required to contribute to fight this kind of national calamity to the extent they are in war. I ask why not? The answer to that question, I believe, can be found in American economic mythology, namely, that anyone can be an economic success and if they are not it must be their own fault. My own father, a mechanic who was able to hold on to his job throughout the depression, although at meager pay, looked down on WPA workers who, by his definition, had gone on the dole. The rich have this myth working for them day and night. Poor people will blame each other for their economic plight rather than the wealthy who have caused the situation and continue to profit from it. This is the sad tale of American economic naiveté.
This line of reasoning is, I believe, prima facie evidence that it is the wealthy that insure that this level of societal effort is not launched against depressions. If we now look at some facts surrounding World War 2 that made it effective in finally ending the Great Depression the substance of this argument will be further vindicated.
For one, the federal tax rate on the wealthiest was 94%. It had even been 77% under Herbert Hover. Ronald Reagan dropped it from 70% to 28%. It is now 35% and Obama's effort to raise it to 40% is being labeled "socialist" by Republicans. One of the major reasons the 2nd World War brought back full employment was that the wealthy were required to pay their fair share of the cost of that war. This along with government planning and rationing of resources is the real meaning of World War 2 as an end to the depression. Everyone had to contribute their fair share. This is the democratic method of dealing with economic downturns once under way. Preventing or minimizing those downturns inherent in the capitalist system is a matter of vigilant, continuous regulation so that capitalism's ever present excesses are not allowed to create economic havoc.
One of the best metaphors for capitalism is fire. Capitalism should be viewed as a hazard similar to fire and should be controlled with the same diligence. Capitalism, like fire, can be useful, but also like fire it is very destructive when out of control. Like fire, it must be kept away from combustible fuel, i.e. excess profits that feed a frenzy of speculation; we must have mechanisms at hand when it bursts into flame, i.e. legal fire hoses; it must be subject to constant vigilance and checked on frequently by competent watchdogs. Capitalism is not good or bad, it simply is. We need a population not subject to the blandishments of speculation, but capable of placing capitalism in a place where it can do no harm. Children have been taught the need to protect our environment and it is paying off. Similarly they need to be taught the destructiveness of uncontrolled capitalism and the need and mechanisms for controlling it.
Bob Newhard
However, his policies did bring the economy back about half way by 1935.
The argument is deceptively false because it is meant to imply that government did not bring back the economy. The economy of World War 2 was a government economy, par excellence and vitiates this old conservative argument completely.
The interesting question is, "Why does one form of government spending (war) work so much better than another (peace)?
Examining major economies victimized by the Great Depression, which was world wide, we find that war and the preparation for war, was the effective antidote to the depression. The German economy, which was far worse than ours due in part to the continuing reparations the World War 1 allies imposed, was brought back by Hitler's militarization program. The English by the need to rearm, the United States by the need to rearm, Japan came out of the Great Depression in 1932, perhaps, bcause it had been militarizing since militarism became a dominant feature of Japanese development with the Meiji Restoration of 1869. Its 1905 victory over Russia greatly enhanced its prestige, and culminated in Japan's aggressive colonialism, a hallmark of world powers at the time.
But why is war so much more effective than other efforts to reconvert from major economic downturns? Some would say that war affects everybody. This is to say that, short of war, not everybody is affected seriously by a depression. And this is to say that those least affected, the wealthy, are unwilling and not required to contribute to fight this kind of national calamity to the extent they are in war. I ask why not? The answer to that question, I believe, can be found in American economic mythology, namely, that anyone can be an economic success and if they are not it must be their own fault. My own father, a mechanic who was able to hold on to his job throughout the depression, although at meager pay, looked down on WPA workers who, by his definition, had gone on the dole. The rich have this myth working for them day and night. Poor people will blame each other for their economic plight rather than the wealthy who have caused the situation and continue to profit from it. This is the sad tale of American economic naiveté.
This line of reasoning is, I believe, prima facie evidence that it is the wealthy that insure that this level of societal effort is not launched against depressions. If we now look at some facts surrounding World War 2 that made it effective in finally ending the Great Depression the substance of this argument will be further vindicated.
For one, the federal tax rate on the wealthiest was 94%. It had even been 77% under Herbert Hover. Ronald Reagan dropped it from 70% to 28%. It is now 35% and Obama's effort to raise it to 40% is being labeled "socialist" by Republicans. One of the major reasons the 2nd World War brought back full employment was that the wealthy were required to pay their fair share of the cost of that war. This along with government planning and rationing of resources is the real meaning of World War 2 as an end to the depression. Everyone had to contribute their fair share. This is the democratic method of dealing with economic downturns once under way. Preventing or minimizing those downturns inherent in the capitalist system is a matter of vigilant, continuous regulation so that capitalism's ever present excesses are not allowed to create economic havoc.
One of the best metaphors for capitalism is fire. Capitalism should be viewed as a hazard similar to fire and should be controlled with the same diligence. Capitalism, like fire, can be useful, but also like fire it is very destructive when out of control. Like fire, it must be kept away from combustible fuel, i.e. excess profits that feed a frenzy of speculation; we must have mechanisms at hand when it bursts into flame, i.e. legal fire hoses; it must be subject to constant vigilance and checked on frequently by competent watchdogs. Capitalism is not good or bad, it simply is. We need a population not subject to the blandishments of speculation, but capable of placing capitalism in a place where it can do no harm. Children have been taught the need to protect our environment and it is paying off. Similarly they need to be taught the destructiveness of uncontrolled capitalism and the need and mechanisms for controlling it.
Bob Newhard
Saturday, November 13, 2010
What Have We Learned from This
The political debacle of our recent election is and will be the subject of many explanations. That the American people could, after two short years of indecisive efforts to mitigate the damage, return to considerable power the very people responsible for the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, will elicit many explanations. I want to try to put some pieces together that may offer some insight into what happened.
Politically, I found the fact that Harry Reid, a powerful and rewarding Senate Majority Leader from the small state of Nevada, was nonetheless in great jeopardy from a political unknown and a new small party. What populace would trade the benefits flowing from a powerful politician for a political unknown? The salient fact in this anomaly is that Reid never the less won, but only because of the Black and Latino vote. He got a minority of the white vote.
Another relevant observation can be found in a report by MIT economist David Autor in which he looked at the shifting employment landscape in America. He found that automation has had a far deeper impact on employment than is commonly understood, especially on the middle class. He argues that it is a prime factor in the shrinking middle class in America because the jobs it primarily eliminates are those that have traditionally been held by the middle class, e.g. manufacturing, which he notes is about as productive as it has always been except it uses robots rather than humans. Service jobs, another major category of middle class employment also are shrinking, e.g. grocery clerks replaced by automatic check-out machines. The middle class has been subject to increasing economic stress since the beginning of automation in the 1950s according to Autor.
Putting the political phenomena we have recently been experiencing together with this economic impact on the middle class suggests that white people increasingly sense a diminution of economic and political power and are in a crazy kind of rebellion. The Tea Party, predominantly middle class whites, attacks Wall Street on the one hand and big federal government, which is the only power that could possibly control Wall Street, on the other hand. The fact that the populism that usually accompanies a major economic downturn is conservative this time instead of its usual liberal expression further validates this connection between job loss and the nature of the current political chaos. In this connection Autor argues that outsourcing is a precursor to automation and will be increasingly vulnerable to automation.
The middle class has been generally regarded as the social prerequisite for democracy. In this country the middle class has, since its emergence, been predominantly white. Autor describes a hollowing out process in which professional, e.g. lawyer and managerial jobs are at the high end and low wage jobs such as gardening at the low end and the declining middle class between these two.
These two factors, Reid's political survival courtesy of two minority groups, hence the increasing importance of minorities, and an automation-driven shrinking of the middle class, may be salient factors in the political craziness we are witnessing. A socio-political craziness of this kind, rooted in the fear caused by a relentless economic process can be a very dangerous phenomenon. Think of Germany in the depths of the depression following World War I and paying its former adversaries reparations at the same time. As you see the Far Right, including the Religious Right, emphasize "tradition," i.e. family values, at the expense of the Bill of Rights, think of white retention of power.
But, unfortunately, that is not all. Autor makes it clear that we have not yet seen the full impact of automation. He describes a manufacturing plant in Japan. The plant uses robots to make robots. The plant runs in the dark 24 hours a day. Obviously "the job" is going to have to be vastly reinterpreted or a substitute found. The job has been more than a source of income for most Americans. It is and has been an easily available source of human significance. The psychological trauma of being unemployed, especially long term, will be a source of deep discontent. I read recently of a man's utter despair as he packed up the company tools he had used for 15 years, to be shipped to his company's replacement plant in China.
It is, in my judgment, incumbent on progressives to develop and vigorously promote antidotes to this impending disaster. We must not be dissuaded by accusations of socialism or social planning, generally from those who have no idea of what they are talking about. I was struck by FDR's inclusion of the word "planning" in his 1932 nomination acceptance speech. We have been so heavily indoctrinated by the Right, especially since Ronald Reagan, that many view the term as subversive.
The impact of technology on humanity, of which automation is an instance, needs to be a major focus in the development of a progressive perspective.
As I finished this article I stumbled upon an excellent article by Chris Hedges on his analysis of the fundamental message of the recent election, which sees fascism at work in the political craziness. I strongly recommend reading Chris' article titled "A Recipe for Fascism", which can be found at http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_recipe_for_fascism_20101108/
Bob Newhard
Politically, I found the fact that Harry Reid, a powerful and rewarding Senate Majority Leader from the small state of Nevada, was nonetheless in great jeopardy from a political unknown and a new small party. What populace would trade the benefits flowing from a powerful politician for a political unknown? The salient fact in this anomaly is that Reid never the less won, but only because of the Black and Latino vote. He got a minority of the white vote.
Another relevant observation can be found in a report by MIT economist David Autor in which he looked at the shifting employment landscape in America. He found that automation has had a far deeper impact on employment than is commonly understood, especially on the middle class. He argues that it is a prime factor in the shrinking middle class in America because the jobs it primarily eliminates are those that have traditionally been held by the middle class, e.g. manufacturing, which he notes is about as productive as it has always been except it uses robots rather than humans. Service jobs, another major category of middle class employment also are shrinking, e.g. grocery clerks replaced by automatic check-out machines. The middle class has been subject to increasing economic stress since the beginning of automation in the 1950s according to Autor.
Putting the political phenomena we have recently been experiencing together with this economic impact on the middle class suggests that white people increasingly sense a diminution of economic and political power and are in a crazy kind of rebellion. The Tea Party, predominantly middle class whites, attacks Wall Street on the one hand and big federal government, which is the only power that could possibly control Wall Street, on the other hand. The fact that the populism that usually accompanies a major economic downturn is conservative this time instead of its usual liberal expression further validates this connection between job loss and the nature of the current political chaos. In this connection Autor argues that outsourcing is a precursor to automation and will be increasingly vulnerable to automation.
The middle class has been generally regarded as the social prerequisite for democracy. In this country the middle class has, since its emergence, been predominantly white. Autor describes a hollowing out process in which professional, e.g. lawyer and managerial jobs are at the high end and low wage jobs such as gardening at the low end and the declining middle class between these two.
These two factors, Reid's political survival courtesy of two minority groups, hence the increasing importance of minorities, and an automation-driven shrinking of the middle class, may be salient factors in the political craziness we are witnessing. A socio-political craziness of this kind, rooted in the fear caused by a relentless economic process can be a very dangerous phenomenon. Think of Germany in the depths of the depression following World War I and paying its former adversaries reparations at the same time. As you see the Far Right, including the Religious Right, emphasize "tradition," i.e. family values, at the expense of the Bill of Rights, think of white retention of power.
But, unfortunately, that is not all. Autor makes it clear that we have not yet seen the full impact of automation. He describes a manufacturing plant in Japan. The plant uses robots to make robots. The plant runs in the dark 24 hours a day. Obviously "the job" is going to have to be vastly reinterpreted or a substitute found. The job has been more than a source of income for most Americans. It is and has been an easily available source of human significance. The psychological trauma of being unemployed, especially long term, will be a source of deep discontent. I read recently of a man's utter despair as he packed up the company tools he had used for 15 years, to be shipped to his company's replacement plant in China.
It is, in my judgment, incumbent on progressives to develop and vigorously promote antidotes to this impending disaster. We must not be dissuaded by accusations of socialism or social planning, generally from those who have no idea of what they are talking about. I was struck by FDR's inclusion of the word "planning" in his 1932 nomination acceptance speech. We have been so heavily indoctrinated by the Right, especially since Ronald Reagan, that many view the term as subversive.
The impact of technology on humanity, of which automation is an instance, needs to be a major focus in the development of a progressive perspective.
As I finished this article I stumbled upon an excellent article by Chris Hedges on his analysis of the fundamental message of the recent election, which sees fascism at work in the political craziness. I strongly recommend reading Chris' article titled "A Recipe for Fascism", which can be found at http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_recipe_for_fascism_20101108/
Bob Newhard
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Ecology of Capitalism
An ecologist studies the relationships between living organisms. But first he must understand the organism itself. To do this he studies its behavior patterns so that, among other things, he can determine whether those behaviors are good, bad or indifferent for his own species. Capitalism, I suggest, is in and of itself just one more of those wild beasts whose behavior patterns need to be identified and made widely known so that a democratic society can develop appropriate responses to its natural behaviors.
An initial observation will reveal that capitalism has no inherent restraints. It is a cannibal devouring its own kind as readily as other prey. It will consume resources with no regard for anything but its own appetite. Another initial observation will be that said appetite is insatiable. It will, left to its own devices, literally eat itself out of house and home. It is especially aggressive when civilization seeks to defend itself by fencing this wild beast in. It will, as Grover Norquist infamously said, drown an infant government in its bathtub.
Our ecologist of capitalism will discover additional behaviors of this wild thing. Number one perhaps is that it will seek to turn everything it captures into a profit making market and it is tenacious in this pursuit. It never stops from satiation. The occasion for this column was a recent report on how banks, having exhausted much of their traditional sources of profit are now turning to Baby Boomers and other senior citizens for the money they have squirreled away for the exigencies of old age. They are looking for ways to pry this money, which they regard as a disposable resource, loose for investment in more risky instruments than a savings account or a certificate of deposit.
It is important to understand the dimensions of this insatiability. It is the major source of the increasing triviality and shallowness of this society. In its search for markets capitalism will turn the most pressing needs of society, e.g. crime prevention, into a reality show so media corporations and advertisers can make money. It will make a video game out of the mass killing of warfare for the same purpose. In this process it will create distorting images of everything from people to history in order to more easily turn the individual's emotions into a key to unlock his purse. A Disney version of history comes to mind or Hollywood's battle of the Alamo. By this process it creates an empire of illusion, to use Chris Hedges' words, in which the emotional content of illusion trumps truth. It will change everything from clothing fashions to automobile fashions as frequently as consumers will part with their money and deliberately weaken both by planned obsolescence in order to preserve a market. It will stimulate envy and greed in order to create or enhance a market. Finally, it views government as its prime competitor and will do whatever it can to either control or destroy it, much as it would any other capitalist competitor. All these things, and vastly more, this wild beast will do if left to its own natural behaviors. It is so very obvious that this beast must be assiduously controlled lest it destroy our planet and us.
Capitalism, like any wild carnivore, has one virtue. It has energy. Human beings have a natural predilection for entropy. As a species that learned to grow things, we found the sowing of crops preferable to the risks of the hunt. We preferred to stay in one place rather than roam the unknown in search of prey. The vibrant self interest released by capitalism provides energy not unlike that which war generates and perhaps for the same basic reason. Energy, like fire, can be destructive or, if suitably controlled, can produce very useful products and services. We cannot allow ourselves to be dazzled by its occasional displays. We must be continuously cognizant of the danger it poses. We must not, as we advise small children, play with fire.
Until we as a nation begin to treat capitalism as science treats a natural organism, we will forever be its victims. Put conversely, as long as we regard capitalism ideologically, we will be its victims. A number of so-called "mixed economies" such as those of Scandinavia and much of Western Europe have, since World War II, understood this necessity. They have taken large steps to insure that capitalism serves society.
In the long run we know this planet cannot tolerate a human economy of compound growth. In the shorter term we know that capitalism's insatiable appetite will greatly, probably violently, exacerbate the competition for decreasing resources. In the immediate world we see it grossly corrupting democracies, fomenting wars and destroying the democratic process. We know we will have to develop a much better economic process if humanity is to survive.
It is high time this nation realized that the ideological approach to politics, social thinking, and most especially our economy is massively counter productive. These social functions must be based on the study of and well-being of humanity. To get people to understand this should be a major focus of the progressive agenda.
Bob Newhard
An initial observation will reveal that capitalism has no inherent restraints. It is a cannibal devouring its own kind as readily as other prey. It will consume resources with no regard for anything but its own appetite. Another initial observation will be that said appetite is insatiable. It will, left to its own devices, literally eat itself out of house and home. It is especially aggressive when civilization seeks to defend itself by fencing this wild beast in. It will, as Grover Norquist infamously said, drown an infant government in its bathtub.
Our ecologist of capitalism will discover additional behaviors of this wild thing. Number one perhaps is that it will seek to turn everything it captures into a profit making market and it is tenacious in this pursuit. It never stops from satiation. The occasion for this column was a recent report on how banks, having exhausted much of their traditional sources of profit are now turning to Baby Boomers and other senior citizens for the money they have squirreled away for the exigencies of old age. They are looking for ways to pry this money, which they regard as a disposable resource, loose for investment in more risky instruments than a savings account or a certificate of deposit.
It is important to understand the dimensions of this insatiability. It is the major source of the increasing triviality and shallowness of this society. In its search for markets capitalism will turn the most pressing needs of society, e.g. crime prevention, into a reality show so media corporations and advertisers can make money. It will make a video game out of the mass killing of warfare for the same purpose. In this process it will create distorting images of everything from people to history in order to more easily turn the individual's emotions into a key to unlock his purse. A Disney version of history comes to mind or Hollywood's battle of the Alamo. By this process it creates an empire of illusion, to use Chris Hedges' words, in which the emotional content of illusion trumps truth. It will change everything from clothing fashions to automobile fashions as frequently as consumers will part with their money and deliberately weaken both by planned obsolescence in order to preserve a market. It will stimulate envy and greed in order to create or enhance a market. Finally, it views government as its prime competitor and will do whatever it can to either control or destroy it, much as it would any other capitalist competitor. All these things, and vastly more, this wild beast will do if left to its own natural behaviors. It is so very obvious that this beast must be assiduously controlled lest it destroy our planet and us.
Capitalism, like any wild carnivore, has one virtue. It has energy. Human beings have a natural predilection for entropy. As a species that learned to grow things, we found the sowing of crops preferable to the risks of the hunt. We preferred to stay in one place rather than roam the unknown in search of prey. The vibrant self interest released by capitalism provides energy not unlike that which war generates and perhaps for the same basic reason. Energy, like fire, can be destructive or, if suitably controlled, can produce very useful products and services. We cannot allow ourselves to be dazzled by its occasional displays. We must be continuously cognizant of the danger it poses. We must not, as we advise small children, play with fire.
Until we as a nation begin to treat capitalism as science treats a natural organism, we will forever be its victims. Put conversely, as long as we regard capitalism ideologically, we will be its victims. A number of so-called "mixed economies" such as those of Scandinavia and much of Western Europe have, since World War II, understood this necessity. They have taken large steps to insure that capitalism serves society.
In the long run we know this planet cannot tolerate a human economy of compound growth. In the shorter term we know that capitalism's insatiable appetite will greatly, probably violently, exacerbate the competition for decreasing resources. In the immediate world we see it grossly corrupting democracies, fomenting wars and destroying the democratic process. We know we will have to develop a much better economic process if humanity is to survive.
It is high time this nation realized that the ideological approach to politics, social thinking, and most especially our economy is massively counter productive. These social functions must be based on the study of and well-being of humanity. To get people to understand this should be a major focus of the progressive agenda.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Greed is more than a personal fault.
Your mother, no doubt, impressed upon you that greed was bad and, not always to your liking, that sharing was good. What happened on the way to becoming an adult where, obviously, greed is rewarded and sharing is at best, propaganda as in President H. W. Bush's "thousand points of light" surrogate for tax supported public assistance? I suggest the difference is between the small world of the family and neighbors and a world of money cut loose from the ties of the world in which humans matter most.
Greed, as a social phenomenon, has become increasingly acceptable. We have had, for example, the clichés "Greed is good" and "He who dies with the most toys wins" bandied about. Why this metamorphosis? I suspect it is a consequence of maintaining a "free market" capitalist economy. When you have saturated a market based on need, as technology has with increasing efficiency done, it is imperative that some substitute for need be found lest an economy begin to collapse for want of markets. Rapidly moving from a market of need to a market of greed is a feature of a modern affluent society.
It is not hard to see this process in action in our society. Manufacturing used to be the major segment of this country's economy. It is now finance, otherwise known as debt. In my youth the bellwether of economic activity was the price of steel. It is now consumer confidence. This is due substantially to the uncontrolled, indeed encouraged, migration of jobs to places with cheap labor, a process Karl Marx delineated over a hundred years ago. As a result, we now have a consumer economy not a production economy. Either consume or go bust!
A consumer based market offers several advantages to business. A need-based market is relatively narrow, limited by what is required to maintain basic human requirements, which do not change that much. The only way to substantially expand this market is to breed more humans. A consumer based economy driven by human desire rather than need, is, obviously, as large and variable as the human imagination and greed can make it. This being the case those profiting from markets greatly value greed and will do what they can to make it culturally acceptable. Hence the need to create a constant greed stimulus using, for example, the feeling of inferiority if one does not keep up with the Joneses. Thus greed has become an economic imperative, modifying our culture in ways destructive of society and the environment. These ways may often be subtle but none the less effective. For example, it would be interesting to know how massively the values of this society have been trivialized by the culture of constant novelty this process has created.
Greed is thus a major factor in the economy that has been developed in this country. As such, greed has become destructive of our society by focusing more resources on the frivolous at the expense of the necessary; on the desires of the few in preference to the needs of the many. This syndrome, I might point out, was the immediate cause of the French Revolution.
The need to constantly develop and promote markets is, in my judgment, a root cause of our massive over consumption. It is relatively easy to see how rampant consumerism eventuates in a cultural acceptance of greed. This market-driven, hyper-consumerism has led to the enculturation of greed. We have an economic system whose masters would make greedheads of us all. In my judgment, the problem of acculturated greed indicates that we do not yet understand the perils of affluence. "Shop 'till you drop" is more ominous than one might think.
Bob Newhard
Greed, as a social phenomenon, has become increasingly acceptable. We have had, for example, the clichés "Greed is good" and "He who dies with the most toys wins" bandied about. Why this metamorphosis? I suspect it is a consequence of maintaining a "free market" capitalist economy. When you have saturated a market based on need, as technology has with increasing efficiency done, it is imperative that some substitute for need be found lest an economy begin to collapse for want of markets. Rapidly moving from a market of need to a market of greed is a feature of a modern affluent society.
It is not hard to see this process in action in our society. Manufacturing used to be the major segment of this country's economy. It is now finance, otherwise known as debt. In my youth the bellwether of economic activity was the price of steel. It is now consumer confidence. This is due substantially to the uncontrolled, indeed encouraged, migration of jobs to places with cheap labor, a process Karl Marx delineated over a hundred years ago. As a result, we now have a consumer economy not a production economy. Either consume or go bust!
A consumer based market offers several advantages to business. A need-based market is relatively narrow, limited by what is required to maintain basic human requirements, which do not change that much. The only way to substantially expand this market is to breed more humans. A consumer based economy driven by human desire rather than need, is, obviously, as large and variable as the human imagination and greed can make it. This being the case those profiting from markets greatly value greed and will do what they can to make it culturally acceptable. Hence the need to create a constant greed stimulus using, for example, the feeling of inferiority if one does not keep up with the Joneses. Thus greed has become an economic imperative, modifying our culture in ways destructive of society and the environment. These ways may often be subtle but none the less effective. For example, it would be interesting to know how massively the values of this society have been trivialized by the culture of constant novelty this process has created.
Greed is thus a major factor in the economy that has been developed in this country. As such, greed has become destructive of our society by focusing more resources on the frivolous at the expense of the necessary; on the desires of the few in preference to the needs of the many. This syndrome, I might point out, was the immediate cause of the French Revolution.
The need to constantly develop and promote markets is, in my judgment, a root cause of our massive over consumption. It is relatively easy to see how rampant consumerism eventuates in a cultural acceptance of greed. This market-driven, hyper-consumerism has led to the enculturation of greed. We have an economic system whose masters would make greedheads of us all. In my judgment, the problem of acculturated greed indicates that we do not yet understand the perils of affluence. "Shop 'till you drop" is more ominous than one might think.
Bob Newhard
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Why We Have Had and Why We are Doomed to Endless War
For those who may think that the military does not set national policy I submit as evidence to the contrary the endless war we have had and can expect to have.
It all began with the military's determination to eliminate the kind of citizen opposition to war that the Vietnam escapade produced. The solution was to convert a citizen draft army to a volunteer-based army. The military believed, rightly it seems, that the only substantial reason for the mass objection to the Vietnam War lay in all young men being eligible for military service. (Why the resistance to the draft was so vigorous in this war but not World War II apparently was not asked.)This, obviously, included the children of the middle and wealthy classes. The concern for the casualties, both American and Vietnamese, was distinctly secondary to that of keeping one's child out of harms way. The military believes that people will never permit a return to the draft and the endangerment of their children as long as we have a paid military to do the job.
With the removal of the only major restraint on the military, it follows from the above observation that there will be no end of war until there is a return to the draft or our economy collapses entirely from the economic burden of endless war. The likelihood of people voting to restore the draft is next to nil. Therefore endless war. We have got to the place where war is no longer an instrument of policy, but policy is an instrument for the pursuit of successful war. Military domination of the government budget, and, hence, military priorities will continue to be the national priorities. In short, the United States military has finessed the country into endless war and the populace is continually diverted from understanding this by a barrage of ingenuous sentiment about troop heroism and sacrifice by our corporate media. It is doubtful that even President Eisenhower in his farewell warning about the military-industrial complex could have seen how far this duopoly of destruction would go.
Lt. Col. Paul Yingling in his article The Founders’Wisdom, published in the Armed Forces Journal gives a quite detailed account of what we have lost and what we can expect by abandoning the draft. The article, which I highly recommend, can be found at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/02/4384885/. Colonel Yingling, for example, points out that the decision to go to war is much easier to reach with our volunteer army. There is greatly diminished opposition because people, especially the middle and upper classes, no longer need fear that their children might have to go. Congress was freed from the intense citizen pressure of concerned parents and their children and has surrendered its Constitutionally mandated responsibility to declare war. Thus, immediately after 9/11 G. W. Bush could declare "This is war." The media did not point out that only Congress, not the President, can declare war. Bush may not have even known this. However, the voluntary military has obviously cut the executive branch of government loose from the oversight of Congress, which our Constitution-based separation of powers was intended to prevent. Without the draft, citizen opposition is not felt by Congress and Congress is free to regard the interests of the defense contractors who contributed to their campaigns. Thus the absence of a draft leads to a corruption of government and a fundamental abrogation of the Constitution.
It has been argued that the Founders did not envision the need for an immediate response to a threat to the nation. Yingling points out that the Founders drew a distinction between the Amy and the Navy. They viewed the Army as a small corps of regulars to be complemented by male civilians in time of need. This way their great fear of the threat a standing army posed to citizen freedom and well being could be avoided. The navy, on the other hand, was viewed as a continuously full-complemented armed service because of the continuing need to protect commerce and, not so incidentally, because it was stationed at sea and hence not among the citizens and their civilian affairs. The distinction between the two services was so significant that they are treated in separate articles of the Constitution. Today we see one manifestation of their concern, in the ease with which military practice and technology flow to Homeland Security and thence to local police. SWAT teams are versions of military assault teams turned loose in a civilian, often neighborhood, context.
Col. Yingling asserts that there probably is no more fundamental constraint on executive power in the Constitution's scheme of checks and balances, than the restriction of habeas corpus. The Constitution declares “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Yet, under the sway of the military we have cooked up devices such as imprisoning American citizens without trial on so-called foreign soil, as if the Founders had to spell out for children that habeus corpus applied to the treatment of American citizens by the American government no matter where that treatment is applied. In brief, we have gimmicked our way around our own constitution.
To sum up, the military has been empowered to defeat our basic American rights, to ruin our economy, to gain political sway over our legislature, and to insinuate itself into the everyday fabric of our society. As an example, our own local Californian now has a weekly military supplement, as though it was as common as the sports or business section. All this has been accomplished with the willing cooperation of our corporate-controlled all-pervasive media. Until the public realizes the extent to which this nation is controlled by its military and appreciates the immense threat to our democracy that it represents, we will not even see the beginning of a return to the fundamental values of a democratic society. The enormity of such a sea change in our national ethos is elaborated on by John Feffer in his article Gorbachev of the Pentagon?, which can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/gorbachev-of-the-pentagon_b_742180.html. Feffer compares the task of bringing the Americana military under control (he like Chalmers Johnson uses the term "dismantling,") to that of Gorbachev's successful effort to break up the Soviet Union. He describes the unique talents and knowledge that Gorbachev' brought to this monumental task and why it will take someone of his caliber to break the hold of the American military. More than one civilization has collapsed under the burden of its military. May we recover our founding concern for democracy before it is too late.
Bob Newhard
P.S. A rebuttal to Yingling's article by Curtis L. Gilroy, titled Defending the all-volunteer force, may be found at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/04/4537015
Yingling's response to his critics, titled The All-Volunteer Force: The Debate, may be found at http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/07/the-allvolunteer-force-the-deb/
It all began with the military's determination to eliminate the kind of citizen opposition to war that the Vietnam escapade produced. The solution was to convert a citizen draft army to a volunteer-based army. The military believed, rightly it seems, that the only substantial reason for the mass objection to the Vietnam War lay in all young men being eligible for military service. (Why the resistance to the draft was so vigorous in this war but not World War II apparently was not asked.)This, obviously, included the children of the middle and wealthy classes. The concern for the casualties, both American and Vietnamese, was distinctly secondary to that of keeping one's child out of harms way. The military believes that people will never permit a return to the draft and the endangerment of their children as long as we have a paid military to do the job.
With the removal of the only major restraint on the military, it follows from the above observation that there will be no end of war until there is a return to the draft or our economy collapses entirely from the economic burden of endless war. The likelihood of people voting to restore the draft is next to nil. Therefore endless war. We have got to the place where war is no longer an instrument of policy, but policy is an instrument for the pursuit of successful war. Military domination of the government budget, and, hence, military priorities will continue to be the national priorities. In short, the United States military has finessed the country into endless war and the populace is continually diverted from understanding this by a barrage of ingenuous sentiment about troop heroism and sacrifice by our corporate media. It is doubtful that even President Eisenhower in his farewell warning about the military-industrial complex could have seen how far this duopoly of destruction would go.
Lt. Col. Paul Yingling in his article The Founders’Wisdom, published in the Armed Forces Journal gives a quite detailed account of what we have lost and what we can expect by abandoning the draft. The article, which I highly recommend, can be found at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/02/4384885/. Colonel Yingling, for example, points out that the decision to go to war is much easier to reach with our volunteer army. There is greatly diminished opposition because people, especially the middle and upper classes, no longer need fear that their children might have to go. Congress was freed from the intense citizen pressure of concerned parents and their children and has surrendered its Constitutionally mandated responsibility to declare war. Thus, immediately after 9/11 G. W. Bush could declare "This is war." The media did not point out that only Congress, not the President, can declare war. Bush may not have even known this. However, the voluntary military has obviously cut the executive branch of government loose from the oversight of Congress, which our Constitution-based separation of powers was intended to prevent. Without the draft, citizen opposition is not felt by Congress and Congress is free to regard the interests of the defense contractors who contributed to their campaigns. Thus the absence of a draft leads to a corruption of government and a fundamental abrogation of the Constitution.
It has been argued that the Founders did not envision the need for an immediate response to a threat to the nation. Yingling points out that the Founders drew a distinction between the Amy and the Navy. They viewed the Army as a small corps of regulars to be complemented by male civilians in time of need. This way their great fear of the threat a standing army posed to citizen freedom and well being could be avoided. The navy, on the other hand, was viewed as a continuously full-complemented armed service because of the continuing need to protect commerce and, not so incidentally, because it was stationed at sea and hence not among the citizens and their civilian affairs. The distinction between the two services was so significant that they are treated in separate articles of the Constitution. Today we see one manifestation of their concern, in the ease with which military practice and technology flow to Homeland Security and thence to local police. SWAT teams are versions of military assault teams turned loose in a civilian, often neighborhood, context.
Col. Yingling asserts that there probably is no more fundamental constraint on executive power in the Constitution's scheme of checks and balances, than the restriction of habeas corpus. The Constitution declares “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Yet, under the sway of the military we have cooked up devices such as imprisoning American citizens without trial on so-called foreign soil, as if the Founders had to spell out for children that habeus corpus applied to the treatment of American citizens by the American government no matter where that treatment is applied. In brief, we have gimmicked our way around our own constitution.
To sum up, the military has been empowered to defeat our basic American rights, to ruin our economy, to gain political sway over our legislature, and to insinuate itself into the everyday fabric of our society. As an example, our own local Californian now has a weekly military supplement, as though it was as common as the sports or business section. All this has been accomplished with the willing cooperation of our corporate-controlled all-pervasive media. Until the public realizes the extent to which this nation is controlled by its military and appreciates the immense threat to our democracy that it represents, we will not even see the beginning of a return to the fundamental values of a democratic society. The enormity of such a sea change in our national ethos is elaborated on by John Feffer in his article Gorbachev of the Pentagon?, which can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/gorbachev-of-the-pentagon_b_742180.html. Feffer compares the task of bringing the Americana military under control (he like Chalmers Johnson uses the term "dismantling,") to that of Gorbachev's successful effort to break up the Soviet Union. He describes the unique talents and knowledge that Gorbachev' brought to this monumental task and why it will take someone of his caliber to break the hold of the American military. More than one civilization has collapsed under the burden of its military. May we recover our founding concern for democracy before it is too late.
Bob Newhard
P.S. A rebuttal to Yingling's article by Curtis L. Gilroy, titled Defending the all-volunteer force, may be found at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/04/4537015
Yingling's response to his critics, titled The All-Volunteer Force: The Debate, may be found at http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/07/the-allvolunteer-force-the-deb/
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Originists
Originist appears to be the in vogue term for Supreme Court justices who believe the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the members of the Constitutional Convention that created the document. Just how the intentions of a group of men in a meeting kept secret from the public, relying on the notes of members, well over two hundred years ago, using terminology no longer in use, with a vastly different experiential background is to be ascertained is a matter that has been given heightened concern by the Republican appointees to the current Court who have now confirmed that corporations are persons and can spend their vast wealth to support candidates of their choosing.
However, my concern is not to dwell on the dispute between Originists and what are now being called Living Constitutionalists, who argue that the Constitution was created to be modified as time and conditions change. Rather it is to note that the Original Intent interpretation is always preferred by conservatives and to explore one of the reasons I think this is so.
Interpreting the Constitution as closely as possible to the intent of men in circumstances substantially different from our own generates an increasing gap between the Constitution we live under and the circumstances we live in. In a large, technology-driven, multiethnic, society such as ours and in a world of transnational mega-corporations, rapidly moving information, not to mention movement of people and cultures, the Constitution is at risk of becoming an ancient artifact, venerated but of little use in dealing with the real world in the interests of "we the people." What, in other words, does free speech for a Rupert Murdoch mean other than the ability to drown out other speech with his Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks. What does our right to vote mean when the Constitution is subverted by supporting the powerful corporations rather than protecting the electoral environment of the people. The veneration of the past that is a consequence of the Originist doctrine makes the Constitution almost a sacred document as incapable of meaningful change as was the Catholic Church when faced with the doctrine-challenging evidence of science and not inconceivably, with the same results.
Let us focus a little more on the corporation as a case in point. The corporation began as a device by which investors could avoid the full impact of corporate failure. Only the money invested in the corporation would be lost, not the rest of the investor's funds. While this diminution of personal risk freed up the flow of money, it also created a different class of people. An individual, even a partnership risked their total resources in case of failure. This form of business can be expected to breed more caution than the corporate enterprise, e.g. Enron. Initially the corporation also had the legal advantage of having a monopoly, as in the case of the East India Company, generally regarded as the first corporation. It was granted a charter by the English crown in return for a share of the profits. It was this monopolistic form of the corporation that Thomas Jefferson urged killing at its birth.
One question I ask is who benefits by the increasing gap between the Constitution and the circumstances it is used to govern. I think it is the corporations. As the gap increases there is an increasing amount of economic activity that is only marginally controlled at best simply because the Constitution makes no mention of it, at least as interpreted by the Originists. This lack of control means wealth and power gradually shift to the corporations, which become major power centers seeking to either wrest control by the state for their own purposes or to control the state by economic subversion of its electoral, legislative and administrative processes. This has become increasingly the case as corporations, unlike nations, have become global in their structure and access to resources.
The corporate power that has built upon this gap is sufficient not only to challenge the power of government, it is more flexible and devious in controlling the populace than the more rule-bound government and can infiltrate government via many channels, not the least of which are our representatives. In brief the Constitution needs either a major overhaul or replacement if it is to be of continuing use to our citizens. In my judgment the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a bad place to begin. For example, article 24 states " Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality." Wouldn't that be a switch?
Bob Newhard
However, my concern is not to dwell on the dispute between Originists and what are now being called Living Constitutionalists, who argue that the Constitution was created to be modified as time and conditions change. Rather it is to note that the Original Intent interpretation is always preferred by conservatives and to explore one of the reasons I think this is so.
Interpreting the Constitution as closely as possible to the intent of men in circumstances substantially different from our own generates an increasing gap between the Constitution we live under and the circumstances we live in. In a large, technology-driven, multiethnic, society such as ours and in a world of transnational mega-corporations, rapidly moving information, not to mention movement of people and cultures, the Constitution is at risk of becoming an ancient artifact, venerated but of little use in dealing with the real world in the interests of "we the people." What, in other words, does free speech for a Rupert Murdoch mean other than the ability to drown out other speech with his Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks. What does our right to vote mean when the Constitution is subverted by supporting the powerful corporations rather than protecting the electoral environment of the people. The veneration of the past that is a consequence of the Originist doctrine makes the Constitution almost a sacred document as incapable of meaningful change as was the Catholic Church when faced with the doctrine-challenging evidence of science and not inconceivably, with the same results.
Let us focus a little more on the corporation as a case in point. The corporation began as a device by which investors could avoid the full impact of corporate failure. Only the money invested in the corporation would be lost, not the rest of the investor's funds. While this diminution of personal risk freed up the flow of money, it also created a different class of people. An individual, even a partnership risked their total resources in case of failure. This form of business can be expected to breed more caution than the corporate enterprise, e.g. Enron. Initially the corporation also had the legal advantage of having a monopoly, as in the case of the East India Company, generally regarded as the first corporation. It was granted a charter by the English crown in return for a share of the profits. It was this monopolistic form of the corporation that Thomas Jefferson urged killing at its birth.
One question I ask is who benefits by the increasing gap between the Constitution and the circumstances it is used to govern. I think it is the corporations. As the gap increases there is an increasing amount of economic activity that is only marginally controlled at best simply because the Constitution makes no mention of it, at least as interpreted by the Originists. This lack of control means wealth and power gradually shift to the corporations, which become major power centers seeking to either wrest control by the state for their own purposes or to control the state by economic subversion of its electoral, legislative and administrative processes. This has become increasingly the case as corporations, unlike nations, have become global in their structure and access to resources.
The corporate power that has built upon this gap is sufficient not only to challenge the power of government, it is more flexible and devious in controlling the populace than the more rule-bound government and can infiltrate government via many channels, not the least of which are our representatives. In brief the Constitution needs either a major overhaul or replacement if it is to be of continuing use to our citizens. In my judgment the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a bad place to begin. For example, article 24 states " Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality." Wouldn't that be a switch?
Bob Newhard
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Moral Values and Mankind's Survival
As I have noted previously, morality is a two edged sword.
On the one hand it may promote community harmony by way of common consent; on the other it may promote some of the worst violence when the morals of one society are opposed to those of another society. Obviously, the threat posed by radically differing moral systems, especially in a world of increasing lethality of weaponry, must be addressed if our species is to survive. This is the subject of a new book by Sam Harris (Previous books: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason; Letters to a Christian Nation) titled The Moral Landscape Thinking About Human Values in Universal Terms. The book is due out in early October this year.
At least since Socrates asked "What is the Good?" humans have been asking what moral values are. Are they derived from other sources, if so what sources? Many societies, having a deity to protect them against adversity derived their moral values from said deity as did the Hebrews when Moses descended from the mountain top with their god's commandments. With the Age of Reason humans began to think about other origins for moral values. Emmanuel Kant supposed they were derived from social necessity, e.g. The injunction against lying was necessary because no society could persist if everybody lied. However, many people continue to believe that morality is derived from their god. As such there is no way to challenge those values without impiety or worse. Hence Christians can require everyone in a society to observe their religious days and Muslims can deny females an education. This feature of moral judgments, namely, their absolute arbitrariness, makes them impervious to any other human needs. This is the basic reason that such values present considerable danger to a world of different moral systems, which is being increasingly forced to live closer to each other and more interdependently.
That this issue has immediate practical and major significance can be illustrated by the following. One of the most influential books of the last few years, especially in conservative circles, is Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order in which it is argued that with the end of the Cold War the origins of conflict shifted from ideological differences to cultural differences. Thus the basic issue in our invasion of Iraq is not oil, but an episode in a fundamental clash between East and West. In this clash Huntington urges America and Europe to stand firm, indeed assertively, in support of Western values, such as human rights, democracy, and capitalism, as though democracy and capitalism are inherently compatible. Can you imagine a planet torn by such conflicts, where every resource conflict becomes a cultural conflict and all this embroilment in the context of increasingly lethal modern weaponry? In all probability it would be the end of civilization, if not our species. An instance of this kind of shift from political to cultural alignments can be found, especially since the "coalition of the willing" has been so gravely depleted, in the media's increasing use of "West" and "Western" when referring to the troops of the United States and its remaining allies. It is now referring to our invasion of Afghanistan as a fight between the insurgents and the West. This change in terminology is insidious, morally reprehensible, and extremely dangerous. The corporate powers that be and their religious cohorts are willing to risk a global conflict between cultures to further their own narrow and pecuniary interests. This is but one episode in the malicious use of global cultural fault lines. A brief, but articulate favorable review of Huntington's book by retired United States diplomat Marc E. Nicholson may be found at http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-Order/product-reviews/0684844419/ref=undefinedhist_5?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar
In his criticism of Huntington's book, William McNeill, the eminent historian emeritus from the University of Chicago, agrees with Huntington on the increasing importance of world cultures in international relations, but argues that this will result in greater tolerance of diversity as it generates increasing amounts of cultural sophistication. His critical essay may be found at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jan/09/decline-of-the-west/?pagination=false. A very powerful argument for the necessity and reality of diversity by Edward Said can be found at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6705627964658699201#.
Another solution to this dilemma, promoted especially by liberal religionists, has been to identify the elements of the world's value systems and therefrom create a value system for mankind. Eclecticism in religion-founded value systems has never gotten very far perhaps because these common values, few though they be, are seldom as important to a religion and its cultural aura as are the specific practices of a religion.
Many people seem to think that Huntington's thesis and those of his critics like McNeill exhaust the possible responses to this critical dilemma for mankind. However, Sam Harris in his above referenced new book seeks a new moral value ethos. It would find its roots in the human condition as science reveals it. Why the human condition?, because it is that which is most common to all humanity. Why science?, because it has the disciplinary universality that a moral system for mankind requires and it is rooted in the only human enterprise based on reality as assessed by scrupulous and testable honesty. Harris is prepared to take on issues long avoided by both scientists and philosophers when he argues that there are moral facts just as there are natural facts. Sam, as a kind of preface to his book, offers answers to 12 major questions he expects to be lodged against his thesis. These may be found on the Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/the-moral-landscape-q-a-w_b_694305.html.
Thinking about how the world may organize (disorganize?) itself in the not too distant future can help articulate a progressive posture. This is much needed if we are to avoid the disaster attendant upon a nation motivated by conservative patriotic hoopla and the militarism which can so easily subvert American democracy. Here are three scenarios for the future, i.e. 1) cultural warfare, 2) increasing cultural diversity and mutual accommodation continually vulnerable to those who would exacerbate and exploit the sublimated differences, to wit Yugoslavia, 3) creation of a new value system based on science and human happiness; an example of which could be the increasing global environmental movement.
The ideological differences of the Cold War, in which there were only two primary protagonists, killed millions, maimed millions more and consumed enormous amounts of the world's resources. The enormity of a conflict between many cultures, (Huntington thinks primary conflicts will be between Western culture and the Confucian culture of China and between Western culture and Islam), makes World War II pale by comparison. Whatever the operating motif is, people will pour every difference into them. Civilizations are much bigger funnels than nations and we can expect every difference people have, e.g. resource competition, population growth, to be poured into these funnels of arbitrary cultural values with absolutely disastrous consequences for mankind. Huntington's thesis is being avidly adopted by the political right and used to galvanize resistance to everything foreign from Muslims to immigrants to the rising economic power of South America led by socialist governments. The opportunity to confuse, mislead and manipulate people in this mix of values, resources and power is enormous. Progressives can provide a nexus for keeping the public eye on the ball, namely the influence of corporations and the wealthy, and also provide the context for organizing citizen resistance to the process. Barbara Tuchman in her book The Guns of August points out that European socialists tried to stop World War I by calling a general strike in the opposing nations. It fell apart as party members followed their nationalist allegiances rather than their political allegiance. Hopefully we can make the tyranny, insidiousness and sheer power of corporate wealth clear so that people will finally see their commonality as a species in time to prevent the disaster which shall surely eventuate from the conservative Huntington scenario.
Bob Newhard
On the one hand it may promote community harmony by way of common consent; on the other it may promote some of the worst violence when the morals of one society are opposed to those of another society. Obviously, the threat posed by radically differing moral systems, especially in a world of increasing lethality of weaponry, must be addressed if our species is to survive. This is the subject of a new book by Sam Harris (Previous books: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason; Letters to a Christian Nation) titled The Moral Landscape Thinking About Human Values in Universal Terms. The book is due out in early October this year.
At least since Socrates asked "What is the Good?" humans have been asking what moral values are. Are they derived from other sources, if so what sources? Many societies, having a deity to protect them against adversity derived their moral values from said deity as did the Hebrews when Moses descended from the mountain top with their god's commandments. With the Age of Reason humans began to think about other origins for moral values. Emmanuel Kant supposed they were derived from social necessity, e.g. The injunction against lying was necessary because no society could persist if everybody lied. However, many people continue to believe that morality is derived from their god. As such there is no way to challenge those values without impiety or worse. Hence Christians can require everyone in a society to observe their religious days and Muslims can deny females an education. This feature of moral judgments, namely, their absolute arbitrariness, makes them impervious to any other human needs. This is the basic reason that such values present considerable danger to a world of different moral systems, which is being increasingly forced to live closer to each other and more interdependently.
That this issue has immediate practical and major significance can be illustrated by the following. One of the most influential books of the last few years, especially in conservative circles, is Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order in which it is argued that with the end of the Cold War the origins of conflict shifted from ideological differences to cultural differences. Thus the basic issue in our invasion of Iraq is not oil, but an episode in a fundamental clash between East and West. In this clash Huntington urges America and Europe to stand firm, indeed assertively, in support of Western values, such as human rights, democracy, and capitalism, as though democracy and capitalism are inherently compatible. Can you imagine a planet torn by such conflicts, where every resource conflict becomes a cultural conflict and all this embroilment in the context of increasingly lethal modern weaponry? In all probability it would be the end of civilization, if not our species. An instance of this kind of shift from political to cultural alignments can be found, especially since the "coalition of the willing" has been so gravely depleted, in the media's increasing use of "West" and "Western" when referring to the troops of the United States and its remaining allies. It is now referring to our invasion of Afghanistan as a fight between the insurgents and the West. This change in terminology is insidious, morally reprehensible, and extremely dangerous. The corporate powers that be and their religious cohorts are willing to risk a global conflict between cultures to further their own narrow and pecuniary interests. This is but one episode in the malicious use of global cultural fault lines. A brief, but articulate favorable review of Huntington's book by retired United States diplomat Marc E. Nicholson may be found at http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-Order/product-reviews/0684844419/ref=undefinedhist_5?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar
In his criticism of Huntington's book, William McNeill, the eminent historian emeritus from the University of Chicago, agrees with Huntington on the increasing importance of world cultures in international relations, but argues that this will result in greater tolerance of diversity as it generates increasing amounts of cultural sophistication. His critical essay may be found at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jan/09/decline-of-the-west/?pagination=false. A very powerful argument for the necessity and reality of diversity by Edward Said can be found at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6705627964658699201#.
Another solution to this dilemma, promoted especially by liberal religionists, has been to identify the elements of the world's value systems and therefrom create a value system for mankind. Eclecticism in religion-founded value systems has never gotten very far perhaps because these common values, few though they be, are seldom as important to a religion and its cultural aura as are the specific practices of a religion.
Many people seem to think that Huntington's thesis and those of his critics like McNeill exhaust the possible responses to this critical dilemma for mankind. However, Sam Harris in his above referenced new book seeks a new moral value ethos. It would find its roots in the human condition as science reveals it. Why the human condition?, because it is that which is most common to all humanity. Why science?, because it has the disciplinary universality that a moral system for mankind requires and it is rooted in the only human enterprise based on reality as assessed by scrupulous and testable honesty. Harris is prepared to take on issues long avoided by both scientists and philosophers when he argues that there are moral facts just as there are natural facts. Sam, as a kind of preface to his book, offers answers to 12 major questions he expects to be lodged against his thesis. These may be found on the Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/the-moral-landscape-q-a-w_b_694305.html.
Thinking about how the world may organize (disorganize?) itself in the not too distant future can help articulate a progressive posture. This is much needed if we are to avoid the disaster attendant upon a nation motivated by conservative patriotic hoopla and the militarism which can so easily subvert American democracy. Here are three scenarios for the future, i.e. 1) cultural warfare, 2) increasing cultural diversity and mutual accommodation continually vulnerable to those who would exacerbate and exploit the sublimated differences, to wit Yugoslavia, 3) creation of a new value system based on science and human happiness; an example of which could be the increasing global environmental movement.
The ideological differences of the Cold War, in which there were only two primary protagonists, killed millions, maimed millions more and consumed enormous amounts of the world's resources. The enormity of a conflict between many cultures, (Huntington thinks primary conflicts will be between Western culture and the Confucian culture of China and between Western culture and Islam), makes World War II pale by comparison. Whatever the operating motif is, people will pour every difference into them. Civilizations are much bigger funnels than nations and we can expect every difference people have, e.g. resource competition, population growth, to be poured into these funnels of arbitrary cultural values with absolutely disastrous consequences for mankind. Huntington's thesis is being avidly adopted by the political right and used to galvanize resistance to everything foreign from Muslims to immigrants to the rising economic power of South America led by socialist governments. The opportunity to confuse, mislead and manipulate people in this mix of values, resources and power is enormous. Progressives can provide a nexus for keeping the public eye on the ball, namely the influence of corporations and the wealthy, and also provide the context for organizing citizen resistance to the process. Barbara Tuchman in her book The Guns of August points out that European socialists tried to stop World War I by calling a general strike in the opposing nations. It fell apart as party members followed their nationalist allegiances rather than their political allegiance. Hopefully we can make the tyranny, insidiousness and sheer power of corporate wealth clear so that people will finally see their commonality as a species in time to prevent the disaster which shall surely eventuate from the conservative Huntington scenario.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Thinking about the Forgotten
I have been reading Blood on our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq by Nicolas J.S. Davies. Early in his account Davies draws attention to this country's criminal disregard for international law. He finds this doubly egregious because Article 6 of the United States Constitution specifically declares "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
The burden of this portion of his book is that we, as a people and as a government, no longer pursue the rule of law in international issues. It was not always this way. At the end of World War II people were so impressed with the horrific loss that war incurred (62 to 78 million of which 40 to 52 million were civilians) that it was clear that national differences could no longer be addressed in this fashion and that a rule of law must exist among nations by which national conflicts could be arbitrated; hence the establishment of the United Nations, largely under the urging of Franklin Roosevelt who coined its name. This time, unlike the Senate's rejection of the League of Nations Treaty, the United Nations treaty easily passed the Senate with only two nay votes. This was recognition that the nation state was no longer to be regarded as the end-all of socio/political organization. For purposes of preventing war it was to be subservient to the rule of international law as administered by the United Nations. However, Roosevelt's successors soon reverted to the anarchy of nationalism, initially by trying to use the United Nations as a instrument of United States foreign policy. e.g. the Korean Conflict, which we refused to call a war, but rather a "Police Action." While it is the case that the newly minted United Nations was immediately presented with the unprecedented burden of two nuclear superpowers contesting for global domination, the United States, a prime mover in establishing the U.N. made little effort to support the U. N. in its role of peacekeeper. Indeed, as time wore on Americans began to regard the U.N. as an enemy, indeed many Conservatives urged our withdrawal from the organization. We withdrew our obligatory funding of the U.N. and denigrated it at every opportunity. All this without once recalling the monumental horrors it was designed to prevent. As a result we have had 65 years of continuous global conflict with millions more humans killed, maimed and deprived of a decent life. We have squandered the resources of this planet, condemned our posterity to the effects of global warming, diminishing water supplies, incipient food shortages and the chaos of a collection of nations armed to the teeth with an ever increasing capacity to kill, maim and destroy. One result of our self-perceived role as the world's "sole remaining superpower" was our embarking on a largely lawless journey in world affairs, e.g. the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and now threats to bomb Iran.
In my judgment what has to change is a mass perception of ourselves as humans living together on the only home we have, the earth. We must cease seeing the nation as the ultimate socio/political unit and ourselves primarily as citizens of a country. The nation must become an instrument through which we pledge our allegiance and efforts to our world. But how?
The global environmental movement has shown us that humans can seek solutions to global problems. As reflected in a recent article in WorldWatch magazine the environmental movement is beginning to realize that it will have to expand its vision and efforts to include economic issues if our ecological problems are resolved. This suggests to me that the need to address socio/political concerns will be seen as a prerequisite to accomplishing the ecological goals of environmentalists. The environment is shared by all humans and is therefore a fit vehicle to begin shifting the human mind-set from nation to world. Yet another task progressives could take the lead in.
Bob Newhard
The burden of this portion of his book is that we, as a people and as a government, no longer pursue the rule of law in international issues. It was not always this way. At the end of World War II people were so impressed with the horrific loss that war incurred (62 to 78 million of which 40 to 52 million were civilians) that it was clear that national differences could no longer be addressed in this fashion and that a rule of law must exist among nations by which national conflicts could be arbitrated; hence the establishment of the United Nations, largely under the urging of Franklin Roosevelt who coined its name. This time, unlike the Senate's rejection of the League of Nations Treaty, the United Nations treaty easily passed the Senate with only two nay votes. This was recognition that the nation state was no longer to be regarded as the end-all of socio/political organization. For purposes of preventing war it was to be subservient to the rule of international law as administered by the United Nations. However, Roosevelt's successors soon reverted to the anarchy of nationalism, initially by trying to use the United Nations as a instrument of United States foreign policy. e.g. the Korean Conflict, which we refused to call a war, but rather a "Police Action." While it is the case that the newly minted United Nations was immediately presented with the unprecedented burden of two nuclear superpowers contesting for global domination, the United States, a prime mover in establishing the U.N. made little effort to support the U. N. in its role of peacekeeper. Indeed, as time wore on Americans began to regard the U.N. as an enemy, indeed many Conservatives urged our withdrawal from the organization. We withdrew our obligatory funding of the U.N. and denigrated it at every opportunity. All this without once recalling the monumental horrors it was designed to prevent. As a result we have had 65 years of continuous global conflict with millions more humans killed, maimed and deprived of a decent life. We have squandered the resources of this planet, condemned our posterity to the effects of global warming, diminishing water supplies, incipient food shortages and the chaos of a collection of nations armed to the teeth with an ever increasing capacity to kill, maim and destroy. One result of our self-perceived role as the world's "sole remaining superpower" was our embarking on a largely lawless journey in world affairs, e.g. the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and now threats to bomb Iran.
In my judgment what has to change is a mass perception of ourselves as humans living together on the only home we have, the earth. We must cease seeing the nation as the ultimate socio/political unit and ourselves primarily as citizens of a country. The nation must become an instrument through which we pledge our allegiance and efforts to our world. But how?
The global environmental movement has shown us that humans can seek solutions to global problems. As reflected in a recent article in WorldWatch magazine the environmental movement is beginning to realize that it will have to expand its vision and efforts to include economic issues if our ecological problems are resolved. This suggests to me that the need to address socio/political concerns will be seen as a prerequisite to accomplishing the ecological goals of environmentalists. The environment is shared by all humans and is therefore a fit vehicle to begin shifting the human mind-set from nation to world. Yet another task progressives could take the lead in.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Democracy is Not Enough
One of the more interesting contrasts between the conservative political posture and that of progressives is that conservatives emphasize personal values, which are by their nature abstract. They stress morality which, when pressed for instances, amounts to little more than convention. They stress individuality no matter what the economic circumstances; they stress courage, e.g. Reagan's "walk tall", no matter how stupid the goal. Progressives stress equality and fairness, which are social virtues. We have a host of programs to achieve various aspects of these values, which we tend to stress more than the values themselves. The result is that conservatives make personal attributes the center of their political mantra. Progressives make society the center of theirs. The personal will always trump the social in the minds of the majority of people. This is a fundamental problem for progressives and is why progressives make headway mainly when society has fallen apart and its value is starkly reduced to personal terms.
In what follows I will try to articulate a way to begin bridging this gap by suggesting that progressives need to get personal and a way to do this without sacrificing the need for major social change.
As I read Thomas Jefferson, he not only tried to establish the basis for democracy, i.e. all men are created equal, but also the fundamental purpose of democracy, i.e. the optimization of the citizen's potential. I think this is why he laid such a heavy emphasis on education. I think Hilary Clinton had this in mind when she published her book It Takes a Village, a phrase taken from an African tribe that believes the group is fundamental to human beings. She was taken to task in the 1996 presidential election, by Bob Dole who countered that it takes a family to raise a child. Given the looseness and irresponsibility of political propaganda this dispute could go on endlessly and this is all the conservatives need to retain credibility and relevance. Get most people to identify with the personal or near personal, e.g. family, and they will relegate social justice to the back burner.
However, let us try to understand "individual" in a more developed fashion. Suppose we use Maslow's hierarchy of human needs to define the individual for political purposes. The conservative argues that human freedom is preeminent. What is done with that freedom is of less consequence. If it is used to deprive others of their freedom by producing an elite of wealth and hence power, that is ok. Nobody, in their view, ever promised anything resembling a level playing field. Hence the wealthy, whose wealth continually accrues more wealth, deserve to grasp and hold all the wealth they can. I submit this is nothing more than the law of the jungle. Republican's since the 19th century have advocated social Darwinism as the modus vivendi for our society. Corporate leaders are fond of regarding business competition as war and advocate The Art of War by Sun Tzu as a strategy manual for corporate competition.
Maslow, however, proposed and it has been widely accepted in sociological circles, that individuals are a bundle of needs. At the bottom of his needs hierarchy are survival needs, e.g. food. Near the top of the hierarchy are needs for self-esteem, achievement and the respect of others. At the top of the hierarchy are a collection of needs he calls "Self actualization" needs, e.g. morality, creativity, spontaneity. I suggest democracy can be viewed as an instrument for meeting this hierarchy of needs with the objective of producing citizens whose lives are optimized as they move from necessity to self optimization. The conservative view of democracy, at best, leaves human beings with the freedom of the jungle to be victimized by those who dominate the jungle. Hence we have the hopeless poor, the haggard job holder and the dominating rich. Some conservatives, when faced with the brutality of their sociopolitical philosophy, proclaim their advocacy of charity. Indeed Bush 1 advocated the charity of a "thousand points of light" to replace government aid programs. Conservatives do not aim at producing a society, but rather a continuous warfare of competing classes, with many people at Maslow's survival level, many more in jobs held mainly to avoid sinking to a survival level and a few with the resources to seek self optimization.
Looked at this way, progressivism is far more concerned for the individual than is conservatism. Progressivism, so understood, can bring far more of that overwhelming concern of libertarians, i.e. merit, to the surface than can a society ruled by the so-called meritorious.
I want to underscore the absolute barbarity that underlies the conservative view of society. Theirs is that of a collection of human beings seeking their own ends at the expense of others. Notably, these are the same people who have the unmitigated gall to call those who seek social justice advocates of class warfare. I suggest that progressives devote considerable energy to thinking out, articulating and pushing its concern for the civilized individual rather than the self-centered barbarism that issues from conservative ideology.
Bob Newhard
In what follows I will try to articulate a way to begin bridging this gap by suggesting that progressives need to get personal and a way to do this without sacrificing the need for major social change.
As I read Thomas Jefferson, he not only tried to establish the basis for democracy, i.e. all men are created equal, but also the fundamental purpose of democracy, i.e. the optimization of the citizen's potential. I think this is why he laid such a heavy emphasis on education. I think Hilary Clinton had this in mind when she published her book It Takes a Village, a phrase taken from an African tribe that believes the group is fundamental to human beings. She was taken to task in the 1996 presidential election, by Bob Dole who countered that it takes a family to raise a child. Given the looseness and irresponsibility of political propaganda this dispute could go on endlessly and this is all the conservatives need to retain credibility and relevance. Get most people to identify with the personal or near personal, e.g. family, and they will relegate social justice to the back burner.
However, let us try to understand "individual" in a more developed fashion. Suppose we use Maslow's hierarchy of human needs to define the individual for political purposes. The conservative argues that human freedom is preeminent. What is done with that freedom is of less consequence. If it is used to deprive others of their freedom by producing an elite of wealth and hence power, that is ok. Nobody, in their view, ever promised anything resembling a level playing field. Hence the wealthy, whose wealth continually accrues more wealth, deserve to grasp and hold all the wealth they can. I submit this is nothing more than the law of the jungle. Republican's since the 19th century have advocated social Darwinism as the modus vivendi for our society. Corporate leaders are fond of regarding business competition as war and advocate The Art of War by Sun Tzu as a strategy manual for corporate competition.
Maslow, however, proposed and it has been widely accepted in sociological circles, that individuals are a bundle of needs. At the bottom of his needs hierarchy are survival needs, e.g. food. Near the top of the hierarchy are needs for self-esteem, achievement and the respect of others. At the top of the hierarchy are a collection of needs he calls "Self actualization" needs, e.g. morality, creativity, spontaneity. I suggest democracy can be viewed as an instrument for meeting this hierarchy of needs with the objective of producing citizens whose lives are optimized as they move from necessity to self optimization. The conservative view of democracy, at best, leaves human beings with the freedom of the jungle to be victimized by those who dominate the jungle. Hence we have the hopeless poor, the haggard job holder and the dominating rich. Some conservatives, when faced with the brutality of their sociopolitical philosophy, proclaim their advocacy of charity. Indeed Bush 1 advocated the charity of a "thousand points of light" to replace government aid programs. Conservatives do not aim at producing a society, but rather a continuous warfare of competing classes, with many people at Maslow's survival level, many more in jobs held mainly to avoid sinking to a survival level and a few with the resources to seek self optimization.
Looked at this way, progressivism is far more concerned for the individual than is conservatism. Progressivism, so understood, can bring far more of that overwhelming concern of libertarians, i.e. merit, to the surface than can a society ruled by the so-called meritorious.
I want to underscore the absolute barbarity that underlies the conservative view of society. Theirs is that of a collection of human beings seeking their own ends at the expense of others. Notably, these are the same people who have the unmitigated gall to call those who seek social justice advocates of class warfare. I suggest that progressives devote considerable energy to thinking out, articulating and pushing its concern for the civilized individual rather than the self-centered barbarism that issues from conservative ideology.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Complexity and the Understanding of Our Times
I have written before on what I call "abstraction." I have remarked the human capacity to form general observations, e.g. that all of the same kind of thing have common properties, and then to treat those properties as independent elements for thought. As an example, the Egyptians knew the common properties of the right triangle. They used it to reallocate land to the appropriate owners after the annual flooding of the Nile. However it was a Greek, Pythagoras, who formulated the abstraction that in the right triangle the square of the long side (hypotenuse) equaled the sum of the squares of the other two sides.
Humans have applied this capacity in a variety of ways ranging from religion to science. In sociopolitical fields it is, for example, rampant in the fictions of law. In terms of our immediate situation it is what permitted the economic debacle which we are living through. Alan Greenspan, who was hired to watch over this process admitted he did not understand the process of securitizing mortgages, but idiotically and ideologically he assumed the "market" would control any such process: this meant he believed investors and sellers would understand even if he did not. The Indian government did not invest in these securities because, as they said, they did not understand them.
I have been reading recently of what I take to be another dimension of this human capability, namely, complexity. I have been reading The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter. We have had a number of works of late on societal collapse, perhaps because of concerns about our own future, that attribute such events to exhaustion of resources by disastrous agricultural practices or other processes or by overpopulation, war, climate shifts, etc. Tainter sees sociopolitical complexity as another reason for societal collapse. The underlying thesis is that primitive societies, e.g. hunter gatherers, direct all their resources to survival. As societies become more complex, i.e. functions other than hunting and gathering are adopted, such as social organization, religion, etc. they impose a greater energy demand upon the society. As long as the increased complexity pays off in added benefits everything works. However, when the burden of this continually increasing sociopolitical complexity outstrips the energy available to support it the society begins to decline at an increasing rate until a tipping point is reached and collapse takes place.
Using, as so many have in the past, the Roman Empire as a primary, although not the only, example of this process, Tainter asks why should the most dominant, powerful, empire of its time collapse, and in comparatively short order? It did not exhaust its immense and diverse resources. Rather it became so complex it was no longer governable. If you will recall, in this process of decline and disintegration the Empire had to be split into the Western and Eastern Roman Empires.
Let us look at some of the steps along the path to decline and collapse:
• The time came when the Roman army could no longer be supplied with manpower from Roman citizenry alone. "Barbarians" were recruited and could earn Roman citizenship and a retirement farm through military service. We did away with the draft after Vietnam and are now giving citizenship to those who serve in our volunteer (paid) military.
• The early success of Rome's military operations and the economic benefits it brought to Rome through loot, tribute and taxes sustained a vastly improved standard of living in Rome thereby addicting Romans to militarism.
• As complexity continued to rise with the increasing vastness of the empire the gains relative to the cost of this militarism began to decline. Eventually further expansion was halted and imperial policy shifted to maintenance of the Empire, especially against the increasing pressure of the barbarians.
• In defense of the Empire's perimeter the Romans began to recruit barbarians in their home areas rather than move them from one point to another as pressures required. This identity of soldiers and their home contributed to the rise of local power, which eventually contributed to the fragmentation of the Empire. Rome had been sensitive to this issue under the Republic, which forbade an army commander to bring his army any closer to Rome than the Rubicon river. As you know, Julius Caesar disregarded this rule and Rome became a despotic imperium as a result. Maxim: A standing army is a two edged sword. It inevitably breeds militarism and thereby distorts democracy's goals, it inevitably creates an elite focused on controlling that army's power, it devours resources with little societal benefit and it is not focused on human wellbeing. I admit that is a little long for a maxim, but the consequences of militarism, which our society increasingly suffers from cannot be overemphasized.
To continue with sociopolitical complexity; Tainter offers four concepts fundamental to understanding sociopolitical collapse
Four concepts discussed to this point can lead to an understanding of why complex societies collapse. These concepts are:
1. human societies are problem-solving organizations;
2. sociopolitical systems require energy for their maintenance;
3. increased complexity carries with it increased costs per capita; and
4. investment in sociopolitical complexity as a problem-solving response often reaches a point of declining marginal returns.
Let me see if I can illustrate some of this process using a fundamental sociopolitical component - communication. This activity is at its simplest when one human being we'll call "A", communicates with another we'll call "B", although, as a retired public librarian I know that his situation is anything but simple. Now bring a third human being "C" into this process. Not only do A and B have to figure out what the other is communicating, including all those variables such as intention, frame of reference, etc. they now have to figure out the same variables regarding C. Most importantly A and B now have to figure out how C's communication modifies that between them with regard to all the variables of human discourse. This is where the exponential increase in complexity begins. C of course is presented with this more complex problem for starters. It is easy to see how rapidly complexity with regard to this component of society can progress exponentially to criticality. This is not to say that complexity in itself is always the problem. We put men on the moon and built the Large Hadron Collider using complexity. We also created our current financial debacle, the near destruction of New Orleans and the Deepwaater Horizon oil well explosion relying on complexity. One of the major differences between these two results of communication complexity is the extent to which a passionate and determined effort to understand underlay these efforts, or did not. If understanding is the goal the resulting complexities, while not free from mistakes are decidedly less prone to them. Complexity of communication because it so rapidly increases the problems of communication is a refuge for scoundrels and can create monstrous results for mankind. Perhaps the most notable example is war. The G. W. Bush administration deliberately polluted society's communication complexity by lying about the motives of Saddam Hussein and by disguising their motive to control middle eastern oil and declaring that the enterprise would be a "cakewalk."
Another consequence of sociopolitical complexity and one that initially stimulated my interest in it, is complexity's effect on democracy. From what we have said above it is easy to see how rapidly the ordinary citizen of any sizable democracy can be and is aced out of the effective participation democracy presupposes. This is why I think it is extremely important for citizens to understand societal complexity, to demand the transparency necessary for that understanding, to receive training in how to deal with it, and to have the experience of evaluating with others a proposed course of social action. The latter is important because participation in such groups enhances the awareness of this complexity and can reveal methods for dealing with it. Not least of the benefits can be an improved understanding of when to trust complexity and to what degree and when not to trust it.
We have politicians promising "transparency" without, in my judgment, understanding the enormity of introducing transparency to any appreciable degree into the complexity of our enormous governmental environment. It is questionable whether in the long run this country, not to mention this state can maintain its current structure. Long ago the magazine The Futurist carried an article arguing that the North American continent would politically realign itself into economically similar "countries." The author suggested that economic identities would eventually outweigh the current political configurations. The common economic concerns of the Pacific Coast, Rocky Mountain, Great Plains and Eastern Seaboard would be the "countries" of the future. As he put it, the farmers of our Midwest have far more in common with the Canadian Prairie Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba than they do with either seaboard of the North American continent. Among other things, commonality of interest goes a long way toward reducing the burden of sociopolitical complexity.
The length of this post may prompt readers to consider it an example of its subject.
Bob Newhard
Humans have applied this capacity in a variety of ways ranging from religion to science. In sociopolitical fields it is, for example, rampant in the fictions of law. In terms of our immediate situation it is what permitted the economic debacle which we are living through. Alan Greenspan, who was hired to watch over this process admitted he did not understand the process of securitizing mortgages, but idiotically and ideologically he assumed the "market" would control any such process: this meant he believed investors and sellers would understand even if he did not. The Indian government did not invest in these securities because, as they said, they did not understand them.
I have been reading recently of what I take to be another dimension of this human capability, namely, complexity. I have been reading The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter. We have had a number of works of late on societal collapse, perhaps because of concerns about our own future, that attribute such events to exhaustion of resources by disastrous agricultural practices or other processes or by overpopulation, war, climate shifts, etc. Tainter sees sociopolitical complexity as another reason for societal collapse. The underlying thesis is that primitive societies, e.g. hunter gatherers, direct all their resources to survival. As societies become more complex, i.e. functions other than hunting and gathering are adopted, such as social organization, religion, etc. they impose a greater energy demand upon the society. As long as the increased complexity pays off in added benefits everything works. However, when the burden of this continually increasing sociopolitical complexity outstrips the energy available to support it the society begins to decline at an increasing rate until a tipping point is reached and collapse takes place.
Using, as so many have in the past, the Roman Empire as a primary, although not the only, example of this process, Tainter asks why should the most dominant, powerful, empire of its time collapse, and in comparatively short order? It did not exhaust its immense and diverse resources. Rather it became so complex it was no longer governable. If you will recall, in this process of decline and disintegration the Empire had to be split into the Western and Eastern Roman Empires.
Let us look at some of the steps along the path to decline and collapse:
• The time came when the Roman army could no longer be supplied with manpower from Roman citizenry alone. "Barbarians" were recruited and could earn Roman citizenship and a retirement farm through military service. We did away with the draft after Vietnam and are now giving citizenship to those who serve in our volunteer (paid) military.
• The early success of Rome's military operations and the economic benefits it brought to Rome through loot, tribute and taxes sustained a vastly improved standard of living in Rome thereby addicting Romans to militarism.
• As complexity continued to rise with the increasing vastness of the empire the gains relative to the cost of this militarism began to decline. Eventually further expansion was halted and imperial policy shifted to maintenance of the Empire, especially against the increasing pressure of the barbarians.
• In defense of the Empire's perimeter the Romans began to recruit barbarians in their home areas rather than move them from one point to another as pressures required. This identity of soldiers and their home contributed to the rise of local power, which eventually contributed to the fragmentation of the Empire. Rome had been sensitive to this issue under the Republic, which forbade an army commander to bring his army any closer to Rome than the Rubicon river. As you know, Julius Caesar disregarded this rule and Rome became a despotic imperium as a result. Maxim: A standing army is a two edged sword. It inevitably breeds militarism and thereby distorts democracy's goals, it inevitably creates an elite focused on controlling that army's power, it devours resources with little societal benefit and it is not focused on human wellbeing. I admit that is a little long for a maxim, but the consequences of militarism, which our society increasingly suffers from cannot be overemphasized.
To continue with sociopolitical complexity; Tainter offers four concepts fundamental to understanding sociopolitical collapse
Four concepts discussed to this point can lead to an understanding of why complex societies collapse. These concepts are:
1. human societies are problem-solving organizations;
2. sociopolitical systems require energy for their maintenance;
3. increased complexity carries with it increased costs per capita; and
4. investment in sociopolitical complexity as a problem-solving response often reaches a point of declining marginal returns.
Let me see if I can illustrate some of this process using a fundamental sociopolitical component - communication. This activity is at its simplest when one human being we'll call "A", communicates with another we'll call "B", although, as a retired public librarian I know that his situation is anything but simple. Now bring a third human being "C" into this process. Not only do A and B have to figure out what the other is communicating, including all those variables such as intention, frame of reference, etc. they now have to figure out the same variables regarding C. Most importantly A and B now have to figure out how C's communication modifies that between them with regard to all the variables of human discourse. This is where the exponential increase in complexity begins. C of course is presented with this more complex problem for starters. It is easy to see how rapidly complexity with regard to this component of society can progress exponentially to criticality. This is not to say that complexity in itself is always the problem. We put men on the moon and built the Large Hadron Collider using complexity. We also created our current financial debacle, the near destruction of New Orleans and the Deepwaater Horizon oil well explosion relying on complexity. One of the major differences between these two results of communication complexity is the extent to which a passionate and determined effort to understand underlay these efforts, or did not. If understanding is the goal the resulting complexities, while not free from mistakes are decidedly less prone to them. Complexity of communication because it so rapidly increases the problems of communication is a refuge for scoundrels and can create monstrous results for mankind. Perhaps the most notable example is war. The G. W. Bush administration deliberately polluted society's communication complexity by lying about the motives of Saddam Hussein and by disguising their motive to control middle eastern oil and declaring that the enterprise would be a "cakewalk."
Another consequence of sociopolitical complexity and one that initially stimulated my interest in it, is complexity's effect on democracy. From what we have said above it is easy to see how rapidly the ordinary citizen of any sizable democracy can be and is aced out of the effective participation democracy presupposes. This is why I think it is extremely important for citizens to understand societal complexity, to demand the transparency necessary for that understanding, to receive training in how to deal with it, and to have the experience of evaluating with others a proposed course of social action. The latter is important because participation in such groups enhances the awareness of this complexity and can reveal methods for dealing with it. Not least of the benefits can be an improved understanding of when to trust complexity and to what degree and when not to trust it.
We have politicians promising "transparency" without, in my judgment, understanding the enormity of introducing transparency to any appreciable degree into the complexity of our enormous governmental environment. It is questionable whether in the long run this country, not to mention this state can maintain its current structure. Long ago the magazine The Futurist carried an article arguing that the North American continent would politically realign itself into economically similar "countries." The author suggested that economic identities would eventually outweigh the current political configurations. The common economic concerns of the Pacific Coast, Rocky Mountain, Great Plains and Eastern Seaboard would be the "countries" of the future. As he put it, the farmers of our Midwest have far more in common with the Canadian Prairie Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba than they do with either seaboard of the North American continent. Among other things, commonality of interest goes a long way toward reducing the burden of sociopolitical complexity.
The length of this post may prompt readers to consider it an example of its subject.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, July 11, 2010
"Deficit" as a Code Word of the Wealthy
According to reports, the primary concern of the G 20 conference in Toronto was the level of global debt. Most of the proposals were for a new round of austerity to reduce this deficit. Many counties, e.g. Germany wanted to attack this problem before it gets any worse. Obama wanted to go slower so that his stimulus program, (Another word for borrowing on the international financial market.) would have more time to take effect.
The thing that struck me was that the only solution considered was reducing cost, i.e. austerity, not increasing revenue. Reducing costs affects the mass of the world's population. Increasing revenue, if done fairly, would affect the much fewer rich. It should be remembered that the G 20 confab represents the interests of the global moneyed class, not the majority of citizens of the attending countries. In effect, the G-20, by its austerity pitch betrays its money, not people, roots. The popular press would have us believe that it is dealing with the world economy and its necessities.
I went to the World Social Forum's web site to see if this needed focus on the wealthy was in evidence. As far as I can see it was not. There was an abundance of sentiment about bettering the lives of the poor, about the evils of global capitalism, but I could find no specific proposals on redistribution of wealth and mechanisms for achieving this. I have visited various progressive web sites such as Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). I could find no proposals for redistribution of the world's wealth and mechanism's for achieving it and for maintaining an equitable distribution. Yet it is clear that the current mechanism for wealth generation and ownership are central to the world's economic problems.
It is not that the policy and mechanisms are unknown. For example James Tobin, a now deceased professor of economics, proposed what has been called the Tobin Tax. This is a very small, less than 1%, tax on global currency speculation transactions. This market processes over $1.8 trillion dollars daily. Tobin was concerned with transferring wealth from the rich portions of this planet to the poorest. He estimated a transaction tax, analogous to a sales tax, on this market, a market primarily of the rich, would generate about 300 billion a year, which was about what the United Nations said was necessary to achieve their goal of stamping out the abject poverty experienced by billions of people and providing a basic education for children.
It is high time progressives made the redistribution of wealth a prominent, well-articulated, political objective. Far from being the basis of unfairness that the political Right likes to paint such an effort, it is the prerequisite for creating a reasonably fair, healthy, democratic society. Excessively concentrated wealth must be seen as a fundamental enemy of democracy and human well being.
Bob Newhard
The thing that struck me was that the only solution considered was reducing cost, i.e. austerity, not increasing revenue. Reducing costs affects the mass of the world's population. Increasing revenue, if done fairly, would affect the much fewer rich. It should be remembered that the G 20 confab represents the interests of the global moneyed class, not the majority of citizens of the attending countries. In effect, the G-20, by its austerity pitch betrays its money, not people, roots. The popular press would have us believe that it is dealing with the world economy and its necessities.
I went to the World Social Forum's web site to see if this needed focus on the wealthy was in evidence. As far as I can see it was not. There was an abundance of sentiment about bettering the lives of the poor, about the evils of global capitalism, but I could find no specific proposals on redistribution of wealth and mechanisms for achieving this. I have visited various progressive web sites such as Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). I could find no proposals for redistribution of the world's wealth and mechanism's for achieving it and for maintaining an equitable distribution. Yet it is clear that the current mechanism for wealth generation and ownership are central to the world's economic problems.
It is not that the policy and mechanisms are unknown. For example James Tobin, a now deceased professor of economics, proposed what has been called the Tobin Tax. This is a very small, less than 1%, tax on global currency speculation transactions. This market processes over $1.8 trillion dollars daily. Tobin was concerned with transferring wealth from the rich portions of this planet to the poorest. He estimated a transaction tax, analogous to a sales tax, on this market, a market primarily of the rich, would generate about 300 billion a year, which was about what the United Nations said was necessary to achieve their goal of stamping out the abject poverty experienced by billions of people and providing a basic education for children.
It is high time progressives made the redistribution of wealth a prominent, well-articulated, political objective. Far from being the basis of unfairness that the political Right likes to paint such an effort, it is the prerequisite for creating a reasonably fair, healthy, democratic society. Excessively concentrated wealth must be seen as a fundamental enemy of democracy and human well being.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Maturity
Recently my wife Eleanor and I attended the high school graduation celebration for one of our young relatives. This young lady graduated with honors. She wants to be a psychologist or a nurse and to my surprise, admires the young people of the 1960's, especially their protests against the Vietnam war and for civil rights. Dare one hope that hers is the generation that may bail this country out of its long nightmare of shallowness and militarism? But the most impressive thing about this youngster is that several years ago she lost her sister in an ATV crash with a train. She and her sister were very close. When offered rooms of their own they chose to continue sharing a room. For teenagers focused on establishing their individual identity this would seem to be a rarity. She came out of this traumatic loss with a concern not only to help others, but the understanding that society's welfare is central to this concern. To me this was a startling level of maturity in one so young. It would have been so easy, I am tempted to say natural, for her to have been embittered by a perceived unfairness in the traumatic loss she had experienced. I asked myself, in light of this display of maturity, how societies managed with their great traumas of which war is the preeminent one.
Until World War II the United States demonstrated a good deal of maturity in its response to war. While we were as guilty as most of using war, or threat of war, to get our way, nonetheless, after every war we demobilized and demilitarized. This demonstrated a degree of maturity as we repeatedly returned to a focus on civilian society at the end of each war.
Immediately after World War II we again demonstrated maturity when we established the Marshall Plan to help our erstwhile enemies recover after the war. Being as we had the only viable economy after the war this "generosity" also created jobs for returning soldiers, which helped avoid the bonus-march unrest following World War I. The Marshall Plan not only demonstrated maturity, but also that we were able to become a learning society as we recognized one of the sources of World War II in the depression-exacerbating reparations following World War I. However, all of this was lost as we failed to find some life-saving détente with the Russians. Both sides had humanity as a stated concern, for America it was liberty, for Russia the welfare of the proletariat. Had we fought as manfully for peace as we did for war we may have avoided the loss of millions of lives and massive human displacement and suffering that the so-called Cold War brought upon mankind. The bellicose Winston Churchill put an end to all hopes with his Iron Curtain speech.
Now we are again faced with a test of national maturity. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were uncalled for. After 9-11 we were not faced with a "war" as G. W. Bush and his ruling neocons declared. We had the opportunity to use the overwhelming sympathy and willingness to cooperate of most of the world. We could have created a cooperative police action to track down the perpetrators and subject them to a world tribunal as was done with other criminals such as Milosevic. This, however, did not suit the plans of the neocons to create a defacto empire out of the "sole remaining superpower." The smallness of mind, the gross failure to understand human resistance to occupation by foreigners, especially as it developed after World War II, completely escaped them as they converted foreign policy into military policy.
What would national maturity now require of us? Many urged, and many thought, Obama would pursue getting us out of the aggressive wars initiated by G. W. Bush. This time the maturity required some of the courage displayed by Roosevelt in opposing Wall Street (the financiers tried to organize a coup) or by Truman, who fired General MacArthur at the height of his poularity for insubordination. In Barak Obama it was not forthcoming and hence we have not displayed the maturity to remove our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.
This time it is up to we the people to create a movement for national maturity. We have no Roosevelt or Truman or Marshall. Maybe we shall find one in a Congressman Grayson or Congressman Sestak. For now it is totally up to us. Nine years after a hubris-driven and murderous mistake was made, it is time for an exercise of the national maturity we have demonstrated before.
Bob Newhard
Until World War II the United States demonstrated a good deal of maturity in its response to war. While we were as guilty as most of using war, or threat of war, to get our way, nonetheless, after every war we demobilized and demilitarized. This demonstrated a degree of maturity as we repeatedly returned to a focus on civilian society at the end of each war.
Immediately after World War II we again demonstrated maturity when we established the Marshall Plan to help our erstwhile enemies recover after the war. Being as we had the only viable economy after the war this "generosity" also created jobs for returning soldiers, which helped avoid the bonus-march unrest following World War I. The Marshall Plan not only demonstrated maturity, but also that we were able to become a learning society as we recognized one of the sources of World War II in the depression-exacerbating reparations following World War I. However, all of this was lost as we failed to find some life-saving détente with the Russians. Both sides had humanity as a stated concern, for America it was liberty, for Russia the welfare of the proletariat. Had we fought as manfully for peace as we did for war we may have avoided the loss of millions of lives and massive human displacement and suffering that the so-called Cold War brought upon mankind. The bellicose Winston Churchill put an end to all hopes with his Iron Curtain speech.
Now we are again faced with a test of national maturity. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were uncalled for. After 9-11 we were not faced with a "war" as G. W. Bush and his ruling neocons declared. We had the opportunity to use the overwhelming sympathy and willingness to cooperate of most of the world. We could have created a cooperative police action to track down the perpetrators and subject them to a world tribunal as was done with other criminals such as Milosevic. This, however, did not suit the plans of the neocons to create a defacto empire out of the "sole remaining superpower." The smallness of mind, the gross failure to understand human resistance to occupation by foreigners, especially as it developed after World War II, completely escaped them as they converted foreign policy into military policy.
What would national maturity now require of us? Many urged, and many thought, Obama would pursue getting us out of the aggressive wars initiated by G. W. Bush. This time the maturity required some of the courage displayed by Roosevelt in opposing Wall Street (the financiers tried to organize a coup) or by Truman, who fired General MacArthur at the height of his poularity for insubordination. In Barak Obama it was not forthcoming and hence we have not displayed the maturity to remove our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.
This time it is up to we the people to create a movement for national maturity. We have no Roosevelt or Truman or Marshall. Maybe we shall find one in a Congressman Grayson or Congressman Sestak. For now it is totally up to us. Nine years after a hubris-driven and murderous mistake was made, it is time for an exercise of the national maturity we have demonstrated before.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, June 13, 2010
The Politics of Values
Since the advent of Reaganism we have been subjected to the politics of values. But what are values and how do they play out in politics?
Let us consider values as distinct from facts. Facts require evidence, values do not. Facts have a greater or lesser amount of evidence to support them. The more evidence the greater the facticity. Values are human creations, they are not found in nature. They have a substantial degree of emotional content. Being a human creation, having no necessary connection to the natural world, and being emotionally charged makes them an ideal vehicle for controlling society.
This being the case values should always be examined, especially when being employed to persuade people. Questions that need to be honestly explored are: Who is pushing the particular values? Do they have any non-value interest in the effort being made? If so what are those interests and who else will benefit by society's pursuit of them?
Another downside of values is, that being detached from the real world, they can be treated as absolutes because there can be no fact contradicting them. This makes values immune to any imperative derived from the natural world, e.g. global warming or overpopulation. This detachment from reality also means that belief in values can lead to a kind of insanity. Human beings can invest any amount of passion, good or bad, they choose in support of them. This is compounded by their apparently absolute nature, another "benefit" of being detached form the real, testable, world of fact. As a result, there is nothing to cast doubt on a value and the human passion for certainty finds a safe home. Thus people are free to believe any fantasy by calling it a value, which, being absolute, cannot be challenged. As a result "belief" is elevated to the highest levels of certainty and is so psychologically powerful that many people cannot distinguish between belief and fact.
Some examples may clarify the relevance of this argument against the innocence of values. We have, for example, placed a high value on human life. Left unexamined, this value has been and is being used to thwart human birth reduction. Millions of people, e.g. Christian, Muslim, believe preventing the birth of human beings and aborting the human fetus is morally wrong. Yet the evidence is that this planet cannot handle unlimited human births. This obviously insane behavior is not only tolerated, but encouraged because values that once had relevance when humans were few and weak, have gone unexamined, and are even frequently reinvigorated despite the obvious consequences. Obviously we are at a stage where the quality of human life, not, the quantity, is of primary importance. It is also obvious that the facts have trumped values in importance.
Finally, as alluded to above, values are used by the powerful to control those less powerful. An interesting study would be to delineate the primary values of a society and then analyze the use made of those values by the controlling elite to control the rest of the society. In my last column I attempted to do that with the American value of freedom. As I tried to show, this value, left unexamined, has permitted corporations to defend their constant immersive propaganda as their right to exercise free speech. They, of course, have a huge megaphone, that will easily drown out the free speech of others. Because of the high value we place on free speech, we, including the Supreme Court, have allowed the free speech of some to kill the free speech of others. Obviously the facts surrounding this issue would call for a greater opportunity to be heard for those with a weaker voice, but the value of free speech cloaked in its robe of absoluteness, is not allowed to be challenged by the facts,
Socrates declared that the unexamined life was not worth living. One might add that the unexamined value can be a source of great harm to the living.
Bob Newhard
Let us consider values as distinct from facts. Facts require evidence, values do not. Facts have a greater or lesser amount of evidence to support them. The more evidence the greater the facticity. Values are human creations, they are not found in nature. They have a substantial degree of emotional content. Being a human creation, having no necessary connection to the natural world, and being emotionally charged makes them an ideal vehicle for controlling society.
This being the case values should always be examined, especially when being employed to persuade people. Questions that need to be honestly explored are: Who is pushing the particular values? Do they have any non-value interest in the effort being made? If so what are those interests and who else will benefit by society's pursuit of them?
Another downside of values is, that being detached from the real world, they can be treated as absolutes because there can be no fact contradicting them. This makes values immune to any imperative derived from the natural world, e.g. global warming or overpopulation. This detachment from reality also means that belief in values can lead to a kind of insanity. Human beings can invest any amount of passion, good or bad, they choose in support of them. This is compounded by their apparently absolute nature, another "benefit" of being detached form the real, testable, world of fact. As a result, there is nothing to cast doubt on a value and the human passion for certainty finds a safe home. Thus people are free to believe any fantasy by calling it a value, which, being absolute, cannot be challenged. As a result "belief" is elevated to the highest levels of certainty and is so psychologically powerful that many people cannot distinguish between belief and fact.
Some examples may clarify the relevance of this argument against the innocence of values. We have, for example, placed a high value on human life. Left unexamined, this value has been and is being used to thwart human birth reduction. Millions of people, e.g. Christian, Muslim, believe preventing the birth of human beings and aborting the human fetus is morally wrong. Yet the evidence is that this planet cannot handle unlimited human births. This obviously insane behavior is not only tolerated, but encouraged because values that once had relevance when humans were few and weak, have gone unexamined, and are even frequently reinvigorated despite the obvious consequences. Obviously we are at a stage where the quality of human life, not, the quantity, is of primary importance. It is also obvious that the facts have trumped values in importance.
Finally, as alluded to above, values are used by the powerful to control those less powerful. An interesting study would be to delineate the primary values of a society and then analyze the use made of those values by the controlling elite to control the rest of the society. In my last column I attempted to do that with the American value of freedom. As I tried to show, this value, left unexamined, has permitted corporations to defend their constant immersive propaganda as their right to exercise free speech. They, of course, have a huge megaphone, that will easily drown out the free speech of others. Because of the high value we place on free speech, we, including the Supreme Court, have allowed the free speech of some to kill the free speech of others. Obviously the facts surrounding this issue would call for a greater opportunity to be heard for those with a weaker voice, but the value of free speech cloaked in its robe of absoluteness, is not allowed to be challenged by the facts,
Socrates declared that the unexamined life was not worth living. One might add that the unexamined value can be a source of great harm to the living.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Freedom versus power
Rand Paul, the GOP candidate for Kentucky's U.S. senate seat and son of Libertarian leader Ron Paul, recently stated that he believed the Civil Rights law of 1964 should have applied to public venues only, not private establishments. He argues that the Federal Government has no right to tell private business, organizations, etc. whom they can serve or admit as members with respect to race or sexual orientation. For him, when it comes to freedom of the individual versus other rights, there is no higher value than freedom. Many people view this argument as fundamental to the "American way." Others simply declare he is a racist and would be done with it. I think there is a more fundamental issue here and it is one that infects a good deal of American politics.
The argument from democracy as individual freedom goes back to the nation's founders. Jefferson believed freedom was fundamental to a democracy, however, he recognized that freedom had to have an economic base configured to democracy's needs. For this reason he argued for a nation of small farmers, each having the land and associated resources to maintain his economic independence of other citizens. In contrast Hamilton, among others, saw no threat to democracy when employees were dependent upon a factory owner for their jobs.
However, freedom and society can be in conflict because in addition to freedom all societies generate power. Under conditions of absolute freedom that power will gravitate to the strongest individuals or groups who, in their own interests will destroy the freedom of others. This is the law of the jungle. A democracy is intended to distribute the power a society generates to all its members thus assuring that freedom is not lost to those who agglomerate power. This simple lesson, I believe is at the root of much of what is wrong, dysfunctional, and potentially destructive of our society.
In Rand Paul's case if people and institutions, except those of government, were free to discriminate the power available to discriminate would be at least equal to that of government. The majority of employees work in the private sector. Think about the implications of that one fact. Michael Lind has an excellent article on this matter at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/05/25/rand_paul_black_like_him. Lind recalls the book Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin that relates how Griffin, who had had his white skin darkened by a dermatologist, experienced the hostile racism that permeated the southern states. Griffin's experiences alone are enough to indicate the consequences of Paul's distinction between public and private sector racism.
This advocacy of radical individualism by Libertarians plays out in our own area also. The Murrieta Public Library as well as some others, offers as reading rewards at their summer reading programs for children, coupons from In 'N Out Burger for a free burger. The coupons are emblazoned with a burger, fries and a soda. I have repeatedly expressed my concern, in view of our rampant and increasingly dangerous childhood obesity epidemic. Every major political office from the President, to the Surgeon General, to the California Governor, and the Riverside County Health Officer has expressed their profound concern over what we are doing to children. In most of these cases they have launched programs to fight this trend. This generation of children is projected to be the first in 200 years to have a shorter average life span than the preceding generation. Adult onset diabetes usually first seen at age 45 to 55 is now being seen in children 14 to 16. Over the last 20 years childhood diabetes has increased 10 fold. I have presented this information to the city's Library Commission, to the Library Director and to the City Council. I have been told that it is not the Library's role to determine what the child eats; it is the child's parent. Put another way, the Library can offer coupons for food that is bad for the children, thereby becoming a shill for corporate marketing to the young, and it is up to the parent to stop them. That this is the environment in which this epidemic has occurred and has demonstrably failed escapes them. When children are threatened by commercial products, as in cases from defective cribs to cigarettes, we do not trust parents to protect their children; we pass laws enforced by government. This is exactly the same argument the Libertarians have used repeatedly and is, at root, the same as Rand Paul's racism, i.e. government has no right to tell free individuals in a democratic society what to do. Of course government does, of necessity, tell citizens what to do and often penalizes them if they don’t, e.g. our traffic laws. That an argument this transparently ludicrous should have power in this democracy bespeaks the low level of citizen education, awareness, concern, and, I believe, the power of the media. Why is it that people cannot see that a democratic society requires a strong government to keep the strong (think corporations), from preying on the rest of the citizenry. Is there a risk in a strong government? Of course there is if it is not held accountable by the people. But the people have to be adequately informed, willing to make government part of their lives and pass on a culture of responsible citizenship to their offspring. Without this they shall never be free. Without this they will be deceived pawns of the wealthy and the corporations they control. The pernicious practice of divorcing freedom from power so that power can prevail will inevitably destroy our democracy.
In the mouths of Libertarians "freedom" means power for the few. As recently made evident by the Tea Party rallies saturated with Libertarians, the Party has been a cover for racists, white militia, etc., all of whom prefer power to democracy. Unless capitalism is controlled by a responsible democratic government, it is nothing but a method for transferring power to the wealthy few. These people will trade this delusory notion of freedom for power any time for they know that power allows them great latitude to manipulate the ill defined , easily manipulated, and generally emotion-driven concept of freedom. Until the American public gets this through their heads we shall never have an effective democratic government. Until Progressives make this use of "freedom" clear to the public, they have failed in their presumed purpose.
Bob Newhard
The argument from democracy as individual freedom goes back to the nation's founders. Jefferson believed freedom was fundamental to a democracy, however, he recognized that freedom had to have an economic base configured to democracy's needs. For this reason he argued for a nation of small farmers, each having the land and associated resources to maintain his economic independence of other citizens. In contrast Hamilton, among others, saw no threat to democracy when employees were dependent upon a factory owner for their jobs.
However, freedom and society can be in conflict because in addition to freedom all societies generate power. Under conditions of absolute freedom that power will gravitate to the strongest individuals or groups who, in their own interests will destroy the freedom of others. This is the law of the jungle. A democracy is intended to distribute the power a society generates to all its members thus assuring that freedom is not lost to those who agglomerate power. This simple lesson, I believe is at the root of much of what is wrong, dysfunctional, and potentially destructive of our society.
In Rand Paul's case if people and institutions, except those of government, were free to discriminate the power available to discriminate would be at least equal to that of government. The majority of employees work in the private sector. Think about the implications of that one fact. Michael Lind has an excellent article on this matter at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/05/25/rand_paul_black_like_him. Lind recalls the book Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin that relates how Griffin, who had had his white skin darkened by a dermatologist, experienced the hostile racism that permeated the southern states. Griffin's experiences alone are enough to indicate the consequences of Paul's distinction between public and private sector racism.
This advocacy of radical individualism by Libertarians plays out in our own area also. The Murrieta Public Library as well as some others, offers as reading rewards at their summer reading programs for children, coupons from In 'N Out Burger for a free burger. The coupons are emblazoned with a burger, fries and a soda. I have repeatedly expressed my concern, in view of our rampant and increasingly dangerous childhood obesity epidemic. Every major political office from the President, to the Surgeon General, to the California Governor, and the Riverside County Health Officer has expressed their profound concern over what we are doing to children. In most of these cases they have launched programs to fight this trend. This generation of children is projected to be the first in 200 years to have a shorter average life span than the preceding generation. Adult onset diabetes usually first seen at age 45 to 55 is now being seen in children 14 to 16. Over the last 20 years childhood diabetes has increased 10 fold. I have presented this information to the city's Library Commission, to the Library Director and to the City Council. I have been told that it is not the Library's role to determine what the child eats; it is the child's parent. Put another way, the Library can offer coupons for food that is bad for the children, thereby becoming a shill for corporate marketing to the young, and it is up to the parent to stop them. That this is the environment in which this epidemic has occurred and has demonstrably failed escapes them. When children are threatened by commercial products, as in cases from defective cribs to cigarettes, we do not trust parents to protect their children; we pass laws enforced by government. This is exactly the same argument the Libertarians have used repeatedly and is, at root, the same as Rand Paul's racism, i.e. government has no right to tell free individuals in a democratic society what to do. Of course government does, of necessity, tell citizens what to do and often penalizes them if they don’t, e.g. our traffic laws. That an argument this transparently ludicrous should have power in this democracy bespeaks the low level of citizen education, awareness, concern, and, I believe, the power of the media. Why is it that people cannot see that a democratic society requires a strong government to keep the strong (think corporations), from preying on the rest of the citizenry. Is there a risk in a strong government? Of course there is if it is not held accountable by the people. But the people have to be adequately informed, willing to make government part of their lives and pass on a culture of responsible citizenship to their offspring. Without this they shall never be free. Without this they will be deceived pawns of the wealthy and the corporations they control. The pernicious practice of divorcing freedom from power so that power can prevail will inevitably destroy our democracy.
In the mouths of Libertarians "freedom" means power for the few. As recently made evident by the Tea Party rallies saturated with Libertarians, the Party has been a cover for racists, white militia, etc., all of whom prefer power to democracy. Unless capitalism is controlled by a responsible democratic government, it is nothing but a method for transferring power to the wealthy few. These people will trade this delusory notion of freedom for power any time for they know that power allows them great latitude to manipulate the ill defined , easily manipulated, and generally emotion-driven concept of freedom. Until the American public gets this through their heads we shall never have an effective democratic government. Until Progressives make this use of "freedom" clear to the public, they have failed in their presumed purpose.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Drowning in Denial
"Denial" is often offered as an account of why someone refuses to acknowledge the obvious. This has become a cultural phenomenon in the United States. But what are we really saying when we say a person or collection of persons denies that something obvious or exceedingly well founded either does not exist or is not true?
Two psychologists, Michael A. Milburn and Sheree D. Conrad, in their book Politics of Denial offer an explanation of the denial phenomenon. They say that this kind of adamant denial has its origin in the denier's childhood. Children unable to face a situation restore their sense of equilibrium by denying whatever they cannot face. We have often seen children put their hands over their eyes or pull the covers over their head when faced with an unplessantness. Supposedly, if it is not seen it does not exist. The human psyche requires this kind of protection. Having found the techniques useful in childhood, many people continue to use it throughout their lives. Indeed as they become adults they become belligerent in its defense. And when a large number of people find their society facing a catastrophe this kind of denial can become national policy. Denial in this sense thus becomes a very dangerous "madness of crowds" reaction to reality. Milburn and Conrad argue that this delusive mentality now dominates the Republican Party.
Bill Moyers in a talk titled Penguins and the Politics of Denial suggested that the way to deal with this phenomenon in the radical religious right is to translate an issue, in this case global warming, into the language and thought patterns of the religious right. He suggests, for instance, using the story of Noah, whom God had warned of an imminent flood, to build an ark. Noah's fellow citizens jeered him and denied the reality he declared. This, according to Moyers, rather then the language of science used by global warming environmentalists, could convince these deniers of the reality of global warming. This is seen by one writer as an advance in the effort to convince a large segment of the American population that something needs to be done. But is it the right thing? I think not. It is, in effect, to sacrifice science and the exactitude and discipline of its language to the vagaries of religious usage in which it enters into a welter of irresolvable "interpretations". There is nothing for it but that those who think in terms of stories need to realize that language matters. In my university days I had an Ethiopian friend working on his degree in pharmacology who assured me that one could not "do" science in Amharic, the major language of Ethiopia.
Making denial the threat to our society that it is is the work of those who manipulate this human failing. A prime example is the oil companies. Exxon Mobil, for example has given millions to the American Enterprise Institute to produce reports denying global warming or at least questioning its validity, which for political purposes amounts to the same thing. As a result the Institute advertised grants of $10,000 to any scientist who would produce a paper at least questioning the validity of global warming. Then there are those who use the ignorance of the deniers for political purposes. You may remember the scene from the 2008 Republican Convention when Sara Palin supporters, old and young, energetically chanted "Drill, baby drill." These people in their enthusiastic ignorance were pursuing continuing and increasing harm, both global warming and oil-spill, to the only planet they or their children have. Talk about immaturity!
There is another aspect to this gross denial which is that it is another instance of what I have called the downside of abstraction. Humans, when they were still living close to the real world as hunter-gathers and even as farmers had to take account of reality moment by moment, and could not indulge denial without great peril to themselves. They could indulge myth because it was generally used to emphasize reality. Thus the various rain and corn dances were performed to insure that the real world would remain true to them. Similarly, humans in their hubris prayed for the sun to return at the winter solstice. They were not creating a different world as today's deniers do. Once again it is the remoteness of people's mental state from the demands of the real world that allows this type of insanity to not only flourish, but to influence policies of the world's largest military power. That is frightening in its implications. I think this kind of mass craziness, undisciplined by reality is, to a considerable extent, the product of societal affluence. We need to be vigorous in our pursuit of understanding the downside of affluence before we do consummate damage to this planet and thus to ourselves and our posterity.
Bob Newhard
Two psychologists, Michael A. Milburn and Sheree D. Conrad, in their book Politics of Denial offer an explanation of the denial phenomenon. They say that this kind of adamant denial has its origin in the denier's childhood. Children unable to face a situation restore their sense of equilibrium by denying whatever they cannot face. We have often seen children put their hands over their eyes or pull the covers over their head when faced with an unplessantness. Supposedly, if it is not seen it does not exist. The human psyche requires this kind of protection. Having found the techniques useful in childhood, many people continue to use it throughout their lives. Indeed as they become adults they become belligerent in its defense. And when a large number of people find their society facing a catastrophe this kind of denial can become national policy. Denial in this sense thus becomes a very dangerous "madness of crowds" reaction to reality. Milburn and Conrad argue that this delusive mentality now dominates the Republican Party.
Bill Moyers in a talk titled Penguins and the Politics of Denial suggested that the way to deal with this phenomenon in the radical religious right is to translate an issue, in this case global warming, into the language and thought patterns of the religious right. He suggests, for instance, using the story of Noah, whom God had warned of an imminent flood, to build an ark. Noah's fellow citizens jeered him and denied the reality he declared. This, according to Moyers, rather then the language of science used by global warming environmentalists, could convince these deniers of the reality of global warming. This is seen by one writer as an advance in the effort to convince a large segment of the American population that something needs to be done. But is it the right thing? I think not. It is, in effect, to sacrifice science and the exactitude and discipline of its language to the vagaries of religious usage in which it enters into a welter of irresolvable "interpretations". There is nothing for it but that those who think in terms of stories need to realize that language matters. In my university days I had an Ethiopian friend working on his degree in pharmacology who assured me that one could not "do" science in Amharic, the major language of Ethiopia.
Making denial the threat to our society that it is is the work of those who manipulate this human failing. A prime example is the oil companies. Exxon Mobil, for example has given millions to the American Enterprise Institute to produce reports denying global warming or at least questioning its validity, which for political purposes amounts to the same thing. As a result the Institute advertised grants of $10,000 to any scientist who would produce a paper at least questioning the validity of global warming. Then there are those who use the ignorance of the deniers for political purposes. You may remember the scene from the 2008 Republican Convention when Sara Palin supporters, old and young, energetically chanted "Drill, baby drill." These people in their enthusiastic ignorance were pursuing continuing and increasing harm, both global warming and oil-spill, to the only planet they or their children have. Talk about immaturity!
There is another aspect to this gross denial which is that it is another instance of what I have called the downside of abstraction. Humans, when they were still living close to the real world as hunter-gathers and even as farmers had to take account of reality moment by moment, and could not indulge denial without great peril to themselves. They could indulge myth because it was generally used to emphasize reality. Thus the various rain and corn dances were performed to insure that the real world would remain true to them. Similarly, humans in their hubris prayed for the sun to return at the winter solstice. They were not creating a different world as today's deniers do. Once again it is the remoteness of people's mental state from the demands of the real world that allows this type of insanity to not only flourish, but to influence policies of the world's largest military power. That is frightening in its implications. I think this kind of mass craziness, undisciplined by reality is, to a considerable extent, the product of societal affluence. We need to be vigorous in our pursuit of understanding the downside of affluence before we do consummate damage to this planet and thus to ourselves and our posterity.
Bob Newhard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)