If the American political scene were broken down using notable chickens, here is what might serve as appropriate characterizations of the most prominent types.
Foghorn Leghorns. These are none other than the southern fried Republicans who continue to bray and cluck over the “socialist” plans of the Democratic President and the largely Democratic congress. Their fear is if the Democrats have their way, the country will end up looking like one of those creepy decadent European countries or maybe Canada, except, of course, for their fine hockey players. They chant “my country tis of me” or “my country, right or wrong.” They would never chant “my country right or left.”
Chickens That Cross the Road. These are nominal Democrats from historically red states who are nervous about getting re-elected, so they scurry back and forth across the political road from left to right and from right to left so as to create the illusion that they are middle-of-the-roaders and therefore appealing to the independent vote, the vote that got them into office in the first place. They don’t cross the road to get to the other side. They cross the road to get the vote from the folks standing in the middle.
Chicken Littles. These are the Democrats who are comfortably ensconced in liberalism and therefore view the President as a backslider and all-too-ready compromiser with the Republicans. They started out thinking pragmatism was a good thing, but now view it as a euphemism for backsliding. Every time an issue comes up and the President doesn’t take a hard liberal stand, they foresee the day when the whole liberal agenda will come crashing down as if the sky is falling. The pink could of liberalism will disappear.
The Little Red Hen. This is President Obama’s persona. He invites everyone to the table to help with the making of policy, but in the end he will have to do it himself because no other political chickens have the courage or faith that he can pull it off. But as the story goes, the Little Red hen gets to eat the pie all by herself.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The New Golden Rule
The recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court in favor of a gold mining company operating near Juneau, Alaska, is a golden spike driven into the heart of the Clean Water Act. Apparently gold mining is a strategically necessary industry worthy of sacrificing a lake here and there for the sake of keeping that ever precious supply of gold in the market place ready to serve the greater good. According to the Supreme Court majority, gold-mining trumps clean water.
The convoluted thinking that led to these polluted waters is mind boggling. The majority opinion said the Army Corps of Engineers has the power to determine what the least damaging impact mine waste might have, and that polluting and destroying all of the life in one measly 23 acre lake is better than the alternatives. Apparently the Court did not consider the possibility that there might be lower-impact solutions more costly to the mining company or that upholding the Clean Water Act in its original intent is not an option. As Calvin Coolidge used to say, ‘The business of America is business” and the current Court is all about business as usual.
I never realized that gold was as strategic as, say, oil and gas. The American currency went off the gold standard back in 1934. Sure, we hear about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but we never hear about reducing our dependence on foreign gold. So why would the Supreme Court go so far as to show support of a gold mine over clean water?
My guess is that the majority of the Supreme Court is subconsciously using a combination of “NIMBY” and supply and demand. Clearly, the lake near Juneau is far removed from, say, the Potomac (remoteness). And there are thousands of lakes up there in Alaska (supply). Besides, Alaska is much bigger than Texas and is closer to the Soviet Union than the lower 48, so why worry about losing a little lake so far removed from civilization as they know it?
Moreover, given the rate at which the Fed is printing money, we may find it necessary to go back on the gold standard at some time in the future just to restore confidence in those Chinese investors who practically own us already. Therefore, deep down inside their combined centers of primordial fear, those conservative judges are just looking out for the future welfare of America. What’s a little lake when you think of all the jobs, the product, the gold flowing into our mint molds, and into our very own shiny bars. The thought feels so solid, so safe, so business-like, so standard!
Perhaps the conservative justices are taking their cue from watching our military leaders testify before Congress about how well the wars are going, thanks to surges and drones, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan…and eventually in Iran and North Korea…and later in Zimbabwe and off the coast of Somalia, etc. They like to hear from officials “in charge” who are the real data collectors and data generators, not some flimsy activist organization like Amnesty International or the Sierra Club or Earth-Justice that throw around these theories about genocide or global warming without really being grounded in the hard facts of the real business…as usual.
So when the Army Corps of Engineers speaks, conservative justices listen. And so we have a new golden rule: an ounce of gold is worth more than a pristine lake, especially when it’s way over there.”
The convoluted thinking that led to these polluted waters is mind boggling. The majority opinion said the Army Corps of Engineers has the power to determine what the least damaging impact mine waste might have, and that polluting and destroying all of the life in one measly 23 acre lake is better than the alternatives. Apparently the Court did not consider the possibility that there might be lower-impact solutions more costly to the mining company or that upholding the Clean Water Act in its original intent is not an option. As Calvin Coolidge used to say, ‘The business of America is business” and the current Court is all about business as usual.
I never realized that gold was as strategic as, say, oil and gas. The American currency went off the gold standard back in 1934. Sure, we hear about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but we never hear about reducing our dependence on foreign gold. So why would the Supreme Court go so far as to show support of a gold mine over clean water?
My guess is that the majority of the Supreme Court is subconsciously using a combination of “NIMBY” and supply and demand. Clearly, the lake near Juneau is far removed from, say, the Potomac (remoteness). And there are thousands of lakes up there in Alaska (supply). Besides, Alaska is much bigger than Texas and is closer to the Soviet Union than the lower 48, so why worry about losing a little lake so far removed from civilization as they know it?
Moreover, given the rate at which the Fed is printing money, we may find it necessary to go back on the gold standard at some time in the future just to restore confidence in those Chinese investors who practically own us already. Therefore, deep down inside their combined centers of primordial fear, those conservative judges are just looking out for the future welfare of America. What’s a little lake when you think of all the jobs, the product, the gold flowing into our mint molds, and into our very own shiny bars. The thought feels so solid, so safe, so business-like, so standard!
Perhaps the conservative justices are taking their cue from watching our military leaders testify before Congress about how well the wars are going, thanks to surges and drones, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan…and eventually in Iran and North Korea…and later in Zimbabwe and off the coast of Somalia, etc. They like to hear from officials “in charge” who are the real data collectors and data generators, not some flimsy activist organization like Amnesty International or the Sierra Club or Earth-Justice that throw around these theories about genocide or global warming without really being grounded in the hard facts of the real business…as usual.
So when the Army Corps of Engineers speaks, conservative justices listen. And so we have a new golden rule: an ounce of gold is worth more than a pristine lake, especially when it’s way over there.”
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Pragmatism or Pussy-footing?
Watching the amateur video vignettes from Iran over the past week, I am tempted to ask, “Why can’t the United States do something to support those poor people crying for democracy?” The truth is, given America’s history in dealing with Iran, boldness is not an option. We need to tread very lightly around the periphery of Iran and not thrust ourselves upon it. We have meddled before with the ultimate consequences of bringing upon it an Islamic state. Our former pragmatic approach of supporting a dictator we could influence over a democracy we couldn’t led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Pragmatism of the moment has unintended consequences, as does any other form of short-term thinking.
Iran is the issue of the moment on the international scene. Health care is the issue at home. The public option is the crux of the issue, and the Republicans have already staked out their “principled” position: private enterprise trumps public welfare at all costs. In the ever fallible belief that private enterprise is more efficient and more trustworthy than anything the government might produce, they are ready to deny a public option of any kind in our health care mix. Even though health care costs are careening out of control under our present circumstances, Republicans are saying essentially “stay the course.” No new ideas need apply.
The Democrats who have safe seats are all for the public option. Those who face mid-term elections or who are from historically red states are equivocating under the aegis of “pragmatism.” They feel they can’t afford to have their names sullied with the “socialistic mud” the Republicans will sling at them, so they are distancing themselves from the public option for fear of losing the independent vote, even through a recent poll says 70 percent of Americans want a public option.
Pragmatism turns out to be more often than not about maintaining the status quo rather than about actual problem-solving. It is about fear of losing the next election rather than about doing what is right. It is about short-term, selfish thinking and not about long-term public benefit.
There are times when it is best to step back and restrain from acting. Iran is a good example before us right now. But when politicians fail to act because they are fearful of the consequences to their longevity in office, then they are more concerned for their own political well-being than they are for the public good. And that approach to problem-solving is no better than the Republicans who hide behind dubious principle to re-supply their campaign coffers with corporate contributions. It is time for the pussy-footing Democrats hiding behind the concept of pragmatism to step up and show courage for the benefit of the American public. The public option for health care deserves your full support because we the public deserve the public option.
Iran is the issue of the moment on the international scene. Health care is the issue at home. The public option is the crux of the issue, and the Republicans have already staked out their “principled” position: private enterprise trumps public welfare at all costs. In the ever fallible belief that private enterprise is more efficient and more trustworthy than anything the government might produce, they are ready to deny a public option of any kind in our health care mix. Even though health care costs are careening out of control under our present circumstances, Republicans are saying essentially “stay the course.” No new ideas need apply.
The Democrats who have safe seats are all for the public option. Those who face mid-term elections or who are from historically red states are equivocating under the aegis of “pragmatism.” They feel they can’t afford to have their names sullied with the “socialistic mud” the Republicans will sling at them, so they are distancing themselves from the public option for fear of losing the independent vote, even through a recent poll says 70 percent of Americans want a public option.
Pragmatism turns out to be more often than not about maintaining the status quo rather than about actual problem-solving. It is about fear of losing the next election rather than about doing what is right. It is about short-term, selfish thinking and not about long-term public benefit.
There are times when it is best to step back and restrain from acting. Iran is a good example before us right now. But when politicians fail to act because they are fearful of the consequences to their longevity in office, then they are more concerned for their own political well-being than they are for the public good. And that approach to problem-solving is no better than the Republicans who hide behind dubious principle to re-supply their campaign coffers with corporate contributions. It is time for the pussy-footing Democrats hiding behind the concept of pragmatism to step up and show courage for the benefit of the American public. The public option for health care deserves your full support because we the public deserve the public option.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Only Power Left
The debate over the meaning of the second amendment often focuses on two issues: hunting and self-defense. Hunters fear having their guns taken away by liberals and self-defense advocates argue that personal weapons are the last defense against tyranny by government. In reality, these two issues are not the sources of motivation to uphold the second amendment. They are simply symptoms of a greater need: that need is personal power. A gun provides an instant source of power to the individual who bears it. Suddenly, with gun in hand or armed with the thought of access to a gun, the individual feels instantly empowered. He has at least the illusion of power over life and death. He can choose to kill, or he can choose not to kill. That notion is about as powerful as an individual can obtain under any circumstances, but particularly in modern America in the 21st Century.
America was built on rugged individualism, or so we have taught ourselves to believe. The self-made man is our generic mythical hero, as are specific iterations such as Natty Bumppo, the Lone Ranger, Rambo, and The Terminator, depending on personal taste and generation. We believe in the power of the individual and his Emersonian self-reliance.
Today, powerful, impersonal corporations dominate commerce, agriculture, industry, retail, and finance. When you call a private or public agency, a person, a doctor, a merchant, or your mother, most often you get a voicemail with all kinds of options that leave you unable to speak to an actual person. You have your job at the will of people far removed from your personal world. If something goes wrong, you have to hire a lawyer to intervene on your behalf, but often the cost of the lawyer is greater than the benefit you will receive from having the wrong righted. The average American is powerless over most aspects of his or her life. It is tempting, therefore, to listen to the advice of the NRA and purchase a weapon. After all, it is a one-time purchase, you may never need it, but it instills an instant feeling of power that you never had before.
Yes, you have to buy ammunition, and it costs a bit to maintain a supply, especially if you target practice regularly. But most gun owners never shoot their guns after a few rounds at the target range, if ever. So keeping a gun is rather inexpensive after the initial purchase. It certainly is cheaper than Viagra, which costs about $14 per round and makes you feel powerful for only an hour or so.
The self-defense and hunting arguments are mere surface issues that mask the underlying need for personal power in an increasingly complex, regulated, overwhelming world. Today the powerless American wants a piece of tradition that exudes power: the gun that won the West. The vote seems impotent by comparison. It really doesn’t count for much. By itself it is a drop of oil in a supertanker. The prairie schooner was a personal, human-scale vessel, a self-contained microcosm carrying a family to a new life. The ship of state today is a supertanker that shifts direction a degree or two over seemingly endless spans of time while talking heads shout of egregious tacks in wrong directions as if they were discussing a toy sailboat on a pond.
The gun, after all, is seen by its advocates as a talisman of future triumph, of individual virility in a world that is run by forces far removed from the personal habitat of the individual American who seeks a sense of selfhood against the perceived armada of multinational corporate and government indifference.
America was built on rugged individualism, or so we have taught ourselves to believe. The self-made man is our generic mythical hero, as are specific iterations such as Natty Bumppo, the Lone Ranger, Rambo, and The Terminator, depending on personal taste and generation. We believe in the power of the individual and his Emersonian self-reliance.
Today, powerful, impersonal corporations dominate commerce, agriculture, industry, retail, and finance. When you call a private or public agency, a person, a doctor, a merchant, or your mother, most often you get a voicemail with all kinds of options that leave you unable to speak to an actual person. You have your job at the will of people far removed from your personal world. If something goes wrong, you have to hire a lawyer to intervene on your behalf, but often the cost of the lawyer is greater than the benefit you will receive from having the wrong righted. The average American is powerless over most aspects of his or her life. It is tempting, therefore, to listen to the advice of the NRA and purchase a weapon. After all, it is a one-time purchase, you may never need it, but it instills an instant feeling of power that you never had before.
Yes, you have to buy ammunition, and it costs a bit to maintain a supply, especially if you target practice regularly. But most gun owners never shoot their guns after a few rounds at the target range, if ever. So keeping a gun is rather inexpensive after the initial purchase. It certainly is cheaper than Viagra, which costs about $14 per round and makes you feel powerful for only an hour or so.
The self-defense and hunting arguments are mere surface issues that mask the underlying need for personal power in an increasingly complex, regulated, overwhelming world. Today the powerless American wants a piece of tradition that exudes power: the gun that won the West. The vote seems impotent by comparison. It really doesn’t count for much. By itself it is a drop of oil in a supertanker. The prairie schooner was a personal, human-scale vessel, a self-contained microcosm carrying a family to a new life. The ship of state today is a supertanker that shifts direction a degree or two over seemingly endless spans of time while talking heads shout of egregious tacks in wrong directions as if they were discussing a toy sailboat on a pond.
The gun, after all, is seen by its advocates as a talisman of future triumph, of individual virility in a world that is run by forces far removed from the personal habitat of the individual American who seeks a sense of selfhood against the perceived armada of multinational corporate and government indifference.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Real Trickle-Down Economics
All right investment bankers, have it your way…with one caveat: you get your big pay checks if and when national unemployment reaches a comfortable threshold (4%). When that happens, and you make it happen because you believe in trickle-down economics, then and only then will you get your outrageous bonuses and paychecks.
Until now the investment bankers have pursued short-term profits and bonuses based on those profits. Why not get bankers to think patriotically as a means toward boosting the economy as a whole with their eye on broadening the economic benefit first and then getting their reward because it benefited their country first and themselves eventually. Instead of instant gratification, which is fleeting at best, give them the opportunity to produce genuine social benefit ahead of personal gain. After all, these investment guys aren’t like Pavlov’s dogs or even their own AKC hunters; they don’t need a billion dollar biscuit tossed to them for every trick they perform. They are human beings with long-term planning skills and a need for long-term fulfillment. By keeping an eye on reducing unemployment, they can have sustainable rewards for their conscientious and benevolent work, be seen as heroes by the public, and put truth in the belief that trickle-down economics actually works.
Up to now these bankers have chased the illusion that he who dies with the most money wins. Research has shown that excessive income does not buy happiness. Somebody always finds a way to earn more, acquire the bigger private jet or yacht, or purchase the more exotic island paradise. You can’t get ahead forever, even if you get ahead for awhile. There is always a Trump to make you feel bad. Therefore, knowing you are working for others as well as yourself will be far more satisfying because the benefits will be longer-lasting and genuinely meaningful.
Reducing unemployment and keeping it low will benefit investment bankers tremendously because it will remove the hue and cry to tax the daylights out of their bonuses, a cry that is always heard when times are tough. These “masters of the universe” will be able to keep their disproportionate share of the economic pie because their taxes will remain lower than they would be otherwise, the economy will be stable and growing, and the public will be shown that trickle-down economics can work.
Putting a ceiling on banker earnings without leaving some incentive would pull the tires off the vehicles that can truly generate speed and set the pace for economic development that can benefit the rest of us regular folks. By looking out for the little guy through the pursuit of low unemployment, the big guy is looking out for himself as well in the long run. He’ll also feel a lot happier because he won’t have to build that even bigger castle with the deeper moat in order to hide his shame or arrogance. He can stride around in public with pride because he has done good as well as done well. His deferred gratification might be hard to get used to in the beginning, but his pain will be a mosquito bite compared to the tiger mauling of unemployment. Since unemployment affects millions of Americans and investment bankers number in the thousands, the overall pain reduction would be astronomical. See, real trickle-down costs less in every way.
Until now the investment bankers have pursued short-term profits and bonuses based on those profits. Why not get bankers to think patriotically as a means toward boosting the economy as a whole with their eye on broadening the economic benefit first and then getting their reward because it benefited their country first and themselves eventually. Instead of instant gratification, which is fleeting at best, give them the opportunity to produce genuine social benefit ahead of personal gain. After all, these investment guys aren’t like Pavlov’s dogs or even their own AKC hunters; they don’t need a billion dollar biscuit tossed to them for every trick they perform. They are human beings with long-term planning skills and a need for long-term fulfillment. By keeping an eye on reducing unemployment, they can have sustainable rewards for their conscientious and benevolent work, be seen as heroes by the public, and put truth in the belief that trickle-down economics actually works.
Up to now these bankers have chased the illusion that he who dies with the most money wins. Research has shown that excessive income does not buy happiness. Somebody always finds a way to earn more, acquire the bigger private jet or yacht, or purchase the more exotic island paradise. You can’t get ahead forever, even if you get ahead for awhile. There is always a Trump to make you feel bad. Therefore, knowing you are working for others as well as yourself will be far more satisfying because the benefits will be longer-lasting and genuinely meaningful.
Reducing unemployment and keeping it low will benefit investment bankers tremendously because it will remove the hue and cry to tax the daylights out of their bonuses, a cry that is always heard when times are tough. These “masters of the universe” will be able to keep their disproportionate share of the economic pie because their taxes will remain lower than they would be otherwise, the economy will be stable and growing, and the public will be shown that trickle-down economics can work.
Putting a ceiling on banker earnings without leaving some incentive would pull the tires off the vehicles that can truly generate speed and set the pace for economic development that can benefit the rest of us regular folks. By looking out for the little guy through the pursuit of low unemployment, the big guy is looking out for himself as well in the long run. He’ll also feel a lot happier because he won’t have to build that even bigger castle with the deeper moat in order to hide his shame or arrogance. He can stride around in public with pride because he has done good as well as done well. His deferred gratification might be hard to get used to in the beginning, but his pain will be a mosquito bite compared to the tiger mauling of unemployment. Since unemployment affects millions of Americans and investment bankers number in the thousands, the overall pain reduction would be astronomical. See, real trickle-down costs less in every way.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Happiness Happens
I am sitting here at my laptop that is electronically chirping away on the library table behind the couch facing the window that frames the most spectacular view from our cabin of the high peaks above Crestone, Colorado. It is where I sit most mornings, reading the New York Times or writing, sometimes a poem, sometimes a political diatribe, sometimes an email to a friend. The finches, juncos, pinion jays, and black-headed grosbeaks are at the feeders, the snow still drapes the peaks, and I am happy.
Today my wife and I will hike up a favorite trail to a high lake where I hope to catch a cutthroat trout. Two days ago we saw thirty elk near the same trailhead where we made our first arduous attempt at reaching the lake only to find that a half mile from it we were too enervated to continue through the remaining snow near the top of our climb. The trail is dominated by aspen from start to almost tree line where a narrow band of spruce and fir shades the remaining snow. Today we will make it all the way. We are ready.
Climbing up through the aspen is like walking back in time from almost summer at the trailhead to winter at the top. The entire hike is a timeline in reverse of the coming of spring. You literally start in June and end up in March. The leaves on the aspen get incrementally smaller and smaller until they are barely buds on stark gray limbs.
I sit here happy, not at the prospect of another climb, but in the moment. Happiness happens, and it has happened to me again this morning.
Throughout most of my life I bought into the idea of the pursuit of happiness as one of the most attractive rights articulated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. I always thought that happiness was something to be pursued, as a dog chases a rabbit. Now I realize that the pursuit of happiness is more like believing in the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. The pot of gold is nothing but a fairy tale and looking for it only sets me up for disappointment. It is illusory and self-defeating to pursue happiness.
There is also a perverse notion that somehow we must earn it, and that the meaning is in the struggle. Thanks to folks like Benjamin Franklin, Horatio Alger Jr., Andrew Carnegie, and Norman Vincent Peale, we have been taught that the road to happiness is paved with a lot of hard work. Our work ethic permeates everything we do, and consequently we measure the value of our lives by how much we have earned through diligence, fortitude, and the application of human energy. Meaning is derived from the investment of our selves. We set lofty goals for ourselves and then spend most of our lives trying to achieve those goals, only to find that we fell short and had to compromise, or that circumstances interfered and we had to change direction. Gifts other than our own talents are superfluous. They may be nice, but they don’t count for much.
After more than 200 years of such nonsense, Daniel Gilbert, in his stunning book Stumbling on Happiness, has essentially proven that true happiness simply happens and is not earned. Gilbert shows us that our realizations never quite measure up to our expectations when we pursue happiness. We are therefore happiest when we stumble on it, when happiness happens.
The Danes have shown this idea of happiness to be true. They are said to be one of the happiest people on the planet because they are pleasantly surprised when good things happen. They set themselves up to be happier because they maintain low expectations rather than great ones. They may not personally achieve a great deal in terms of material measurements (although they as a culture have a very high standard of living as well as quality of life) but they are happier because they do not pursue happiness. They let it happen.
Consequently, I have a new resolution to keep so that the opportunity for happiness can happen. I will no longer pursue it. I will stumble on it; I will run across it; it will rear its pleasant surprise. I will no longer run past it in the pursuit of it. I will let it happen.
Today my wife and I will hike up a favorite trail to a high lake where I hope to catch a cutthroat trout. Two days ago we saw thirty elk near the same trailhead where we made our first arduous attempt at reaching the lake only to find that a half mile from it we were too enervated to continue through the remaining snow near the top of our climb. The trail is dominated by aspen from start to almost tree line where a narrow band of spruce and fir shades the remaining snow. Today we will make it all the way. We are ready.
Climbing up through the aspen is like walking back in time from almost summer at the trailhead to winter at the top. The entire hike is a timeline in reverse of the coming of spring. You literally start in June and end up in March. The leaves on the aspen get incrementally smaller and smaller until they are barely buds on stark gray limbs.
I sit here happy, not at the prospect of another climb, but in the moment. Happiness happens, and it has happened to me again this morning.
Throughout most of my life I bought into the idea of the pursuit of happiness as one of the most attractive rights articulated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. I always thought that happiness was something to be pursued, as a dog chases a rabbit. Now I realize that the pursuit of happiness is more like believing in the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. The pot of gold is nothing but a fairy tale and looking for it only sets me up for disappointment. It is illusory and self-defeating to pursue happiness.
There is also a perverse notion that somehow we must earn it, and that the meaning is in the struggle. Thanks to folks like Benjamin Franklin, Horatio Alger Jr., Andrew Carnegie, and Norman Vincent Peale, we have been taught that the road to happiness is paved with a lot of hard work. Our work ethic permeates everything we do, and consequently we measure the value of our lives by how much we have earned through diligence, fortitude, and the application of human energy. Meaning is derived from the investment of our selves. We set lofty goals for ourselves and then spend most of our lives trying to achieve those goals, only to find that we fell short and had to compromise, or that circumstances interfered and we had to change direction. Gifts other than our own talents are superfluous. They may be nice, but they don’t count for much.
After more than 200 years of such nonsense, Daniel Gilbert, in his stunning book Stumbling on Happiness, has essentially proven that true happiness simply happens and is not earned. Gilbert shows us that our realizations never quite measure up to our expectations when we pursue happiness. We are therefore happiest when we stumble on it, when happiness happens.
The Danes have shown this idea of happiness to be true. They are said to be one of the happiest people on the planet because they are pleasantly surprised when good things happen. They set themselves up to be happier because they maintain low expectations rather than great ones. They may not personally achieve a great deal in terms of material measurements (although they as a culture have a very high standard of living as well as quality of life) but they are happier because they do not pursue happiness. They let it happen.
Consequently, I have a new resolution to keep so that the opportunity for happiness can happen. I will no longer pursue it. I will stumble on it; I will run across it; it will rear its pleasant surprise. I will no longer run past it in the pursuit of it. I will let it happen.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Oath-some
I can remember the first television programming I ever saw on my family’s first black and white TV. It was 1953 so you might expect that I would recall Kukla, Fran, and Ollie, a primitive but memorable prototype of what would blossom much later into The Muppets. But no, it was the tedious but mesmerizing McCarthy Hearings. I was seven years old at the time and I kept hearing the word “oath” mentioned by Senator McCarthy from time to time. He didn’t mention it as often as he mentioned the word “communist” but I got the impression it wasn’t a good idea to be called a communist because people he was interviewing at the time refused to admit that they were one, over and over again. However, in McCarthy’s mind, it was good to take an oath because that made you a good guy. At the time I asked my father what an oath was, and he told me it was something you said with your hand on a bible which meant that you meant it more than anything else you might say. Later on I saw other programs such as Perry Mason so I got a fairly good idea what an oath was at least in a court room. I also watched JFK’s inauguration ceremony on TV and then knew there was more than one kind of oath one might take.
The New York Times reported recently that a group of Harvard MBA graduates had volunteered to take an oath requiring them to behave ethically in their business practices as they started their careers. Their apparent belief is that by taking an oath, which is a kind of Duracell or Energizer promise with the extra gravitas of ceremony, they will go through life practicing principles of fairness and will keep an eye on the greater good in their business practices. They seem to be forgetting that they will probably encounter a shareholder or two during the course of their careers who will insist that profits and not good intentions are the measure of success, and that solid dividends are a greater source of satisfaction than doing some amorphous or un-measurable “greater good.” The shareholders may even remind the “oath-some” executive that “nice guys finish last.”
Cultures are filled with various forms of formal promises. American culture features marriage vows, testimony oaths, a pledge of allegiance, and more specific ones that pertain to military service, the Boy Scouts, etc. We even sign an oath when we finish filling out our income tax each year, promising the government that we have done our best to tell the truth about income and deductions. My question is: If these promises, oaths, vows, and pledges actually work, why do we have so many lawyers and so many rich ones to boot? The answer is promises don’t work. And that’s why we have laws, written contracts, regulations, and courts. We can make all of the promises we want, but the bottom line is we need to be held accountable because we are all vulnerable to human failing. We may aspire to be guided by Warren Buffett, but we may end up being in the hands of Bernie Madoff. We may have taken an oath, but our oath does not protect us from the actions of others. The fair application of law will. It’s the only practical tool we have.
So when some business leaders and conservative thinkers say we need more freedom to operate business in America and that we need to fear an over-reaction to the recent collapse of the economy by over-regulation, I say let us use regulation and law to encourage real economic development, not bubbles. In other words let’s get real. Forget the promises.
A favorite saying among conservatives is, “That which governs best, governs least.” Perhaps a better alternative is, “That which governs best, governs fairly.” After all, laissez-faire is more laissez than fair.
The New York Times reported recently that a group of Harvard MBA graduates had volunteered to take an oath requiring them to behave ethically in their business practices as they started their careers. Their apparent belief is that by taking an oath, which is a kind of Duracell or Energizer promise with the extra gravitas of ceremony, they will go through life practicing principles of fairness and will keep an eye on the greater good in their business practices. They seem to be forgetting that they will probably encounter a shareholder or two during the course of their careers who will insist that profits and not good intentions are the measure of success, and that solid dividends are a greater source of satisfaction than doing some amorphous or un-measurable “greater good.” The shareholders may even remind the “oath-some” executive that “nice guys finish last.”
Cultures are filled with various forms of formal promises. American culture features marriage vows, testimony oaths, a pledge of allegiance, and more specific ones that pertain to military service, the Boy Scouts, etc. We even sign an oath when we finish filling out our income tax each year, promising the government that we have done our best to tell the truth about income and deductions. My question is: If these promises, oaths, vows, and pledges actually work, why do we have so many lawyers and so many rich ones to boot? The answer is promises don’t work. And that’s why we have laws, written contracts, regulations, and courts. We can make all of the promises we want, but the bottom line is we need to be held accountable because we are all vulnerable to human failing. We may aspire to be guided by Warren Buffett, but we may end up being in the hands of Bernie Madoff. We may have taken an oath, but our oath does not protect us from the actions of others. The fair application of law will. It’s the only practical tool we have.
So when some business leaders and conservative thinkers say we need more freedom to operate business in America and that we need to fear an over-reaction to the recent collapse of the economy by over-regulation, I say let us use regulation and law to encourage real economic development, not bubbles. In other words let’s get real. Forget the promises.
A favorite saying among conservatives is, “That which governs best, governs least.” Perhaps a better alternative is, “That which governs best, governs fairly.” After all, laissez-faire is more laissez than fair.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Is She Wiser Than a White Man?
The white male self-appointed spokesmen for the Republican Party (Newt, Rush) have declared Sonya Sotomayor’s remark about her personal experience providing a more profound qualification for the Supreme Court than that of a white male is somehow racist or an example of “reverse racism.” They are able to say that with the confidence of folks who haven’t a clue what racism really is because they have the privilege of never having experienced racism and probably never will.
I doubt that Newt or Rush have ever had to worry about whether or not they would get a bank loan, be able to purchase a house, get a job, or join a country club because of their race or gender. It has never occurred to them that their sex or race would ever play a role in their being denied any of those things. That assumption is what constitutes privilege. And racism is, in part, based on privilege: those who have it and those who don’t. We can rest assured that Sonya Sotomayor never suffered from having those privileges growing up. She probably, at the very least, experienced others having privileges and exercising them around her.
The concept of “reverse racism” assumes a level playing field where no matter what direction hurtful sentiments or actions come from, they have equal value. That is simply not true. For a couple of white males to declare that Sonya’s observations are an example of “reverse racism” could only be mouthed most easily by a white male because it is he who is most insulated from what true oppression is all about. He has never experienced it. He has never even been close to experiencing it. And he can always escape from it into one of his still remaining bastions of white male privilege where his kind still rules or at least represents a majority, such as the Senate, The House of Representatives, Wall Street, or the Augusta Country Club.
Sotomayor is positioned to bring a keener sense of justice in the face of privilege because she has known what it is like to be without privilege. No white men who have joined the Supreme Court have this firsthand knowledge. They can’t. It is impossible. They wake up enveloped in privilege and they go home to it every evening. And that’s all her statement meant.
Presidents who have never been in battle and who send troops to war live privileged lives as well and make war decisions without the benefit of personal war experience. Does that make their decisions necessarily wrong or misguided? No. It makes them intellectual, academic, political or strategic decisions without the benefit of personal memory. Perhaps, one could say, that is just as well. On the other hand, personal experience in war just might cause a president to think twice before committing our troops to unnecessary wars, as did President Bush to the war in Iraq.
Sonya Sotomayor will bring an experienced perspective to the Supreme Court, a perspective that has been forged by both a fulfillment of a version of the American Dream and the hardships of race, gender, and poverty encountered along the way. She will see unwarranted privilege where others see the status quo. She will give justice a chance to penetrate heretofore impenetrable bastions of privilege, providing the little guy a playing field that does not ineffably or inevitably favor privilege. She will pursue justice in the face of tradition, the status quo, and prior understanding when those need questioning and upon those when they need upholding.
If the Republican Party truly wants to reverse direction away from extinction, it needs to understand what racism and sexism truly are. I would recommend they start with a small book’s clear message: Privilege, Power, and Difference by Allan G. Johnson. It is unfortunately out of print, which says something about how much privilege still exists in this country in spite of the fact that we have recently elected an African-American to the highest office. It should be required reading for both Republicans and Democrats alike, but most folks have the privilege of not having to face its message. And that’s the on-going problem. Meanwhile, I would invite Limbaugh, Gingrich, Tancredo, and the others who so easily call Ms. Sotomayor a racist, to read Johnson’s book and then see how comfortably they direct the term “racist” her way.
I doubt that Newt or Rush have ever had to worry about whether or not they would get a bank loan, be able to purchase a house, get a job, or join a country club because of their race or gender. It has never occurred to them that their sex or race would ever play a role in their being denied any of those things. That assumption is what constitutes privilege. And racism is, in part, based on privilege: those who have it and those who don’t. We can rest assured that Sonya Sotomayor never suffered from having those privileges growing up. She probably, at the very least, experienced others having privileges and exercising them around her.
The concept of “reverse racism” assumes a level playing field where no matter what direction hurtful sentiments or actions come from, they have equal value. That is simply not true. For a couple of white males to declare that Sonya’s observations are an example of “reverse racism” could only be mouthed most easily by a white male because it is he who is most insulated from what true oppression is all about. He has never experienced it. He has never even been close to experiencing it. And he can always escape from it into one of his still remaining bastions of white male privilege where his kind still rules or at least represents a majority, such as the Senate, The House of Representatives, Wall Street, or the Augusta Country Club.
Sotomayor is positioned to bring a keener sense of justice in the face of privilege because she has known what it is like to be without privilege. No white men who have joined the Supreme Court have this firsthand knowledge. They can’t. It is impossible. They wake up enveloped in privilege and they go home to it every evening. And that’s all her statement meant.
Presidents who have never been in battle and who send troops to war live privileged lives as well and make war decisions without the benefit of personal war experience. Does that make their decisions necessarily wrong or misguided? No. It makes them intellectual, academic, political or strategic decisions without the benefit of personal memory. Perhaps, one could say, that is just as well. On the other hand, personal experience in war just might cause a president to think twice before committing our troops to unnecessary wars, as did President Bush to the war in Iraq.
Sonya Sotomayor will bring an experienced perspective to the Supreme Court, a perspective that has been forged by both a fulfillment of a version of the American Dream and the hardships of race, gender, and poverty encountered along the way. She will see unwarranted privilege where others see the status quo. She will give justice a chance to penetrate heretofore impenetrable bastions of privilege, providing the little guy a playing field that does not ineffably or inevitably favor privilege. She will pursue justice in the face of tradition, the status quo, and prior understanding when those need questioning and upon those when they need upholding.
If the Republican Party truly wants to reverse direction away from extinction, it needs to understand what racism and sexism truly are. I would recommend they start with a small book’s clear message: Privilege, Power, and Difference by Allan G. Johnson. It is unfortunately out of print, which says something about how much privilege still exists in this country in spite of the fact that we have recently elected an African-American to the highest office. It should be required reading for both Republicans and Democrats alike, but most folks have the privilege of not having to face its message. And that’s the on-going problem. Meanwhile, I would invite Limbaugh, Gingrich, Tancredo, and the others who so easily call Ms. Sotomayor a racist, to read Johnson’s book and then see how comfortably they direct the term “racist” her way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
