Our country has struggled with the issue of immigration for decades. Despite repeated efforts in congress no meaningful change has occurred. The reasons for this are clear. Globalization brought the United States into world competition with cheaper labor markets. Allowing migration of low cost labor from central America provided a way to lower labor costs in the US. This was not new, migrant labor had been used for agriculture in the Western states since the turn of the 20th century, but farm worker unionization in the 60s made much of the in country labor more expensive. Business and agri-business owners (mostly Republicans) need cheap labor to control costs especially in unskilled jobs. This labor force must not be able to vote or it will have political power, unionize and defeat it cost controls. Those immigrants who can vote, tend to vote Democratic in expectation that their wage demands will be supported by a "labor friendly" party. Republicans want cheap labor that can't vote. They are always opposed to a "route to citizenship" because it means a route to voting.
Democrats want immigrants that can vote and that support them, but the workers cannot take jobs away from established Democratic voters, and must not reduce the level of wage and job protections that Democrats have championed over the years. Democrats want immigrant voters who don't compete with their non-immigrant voters for jobs. Democrats want a "route to citizenship" and voting, but don't have a way to prevent these citizens from competing with "old economy" voters, who are shifting Republican as a result.
In simplified form, both parties want two classes of citizens: cheap workers who can't vote, and voters who can't work at competing jobs. No wonder there is no solution for there is no intersection of these two groups! Blue collar workers have shifted Republican on the promise that immigrant labor will be restricted and tariffs will protect American jobs. This is a totally traditionally Democratic position now being proposed and implemented by Republicans! And Democrats are supporting free trade to improve trade and citizenship for immigrants to get more voters. Crazy! You can't make this stuff up.
The US was built with slave and indentured servant labor. A two class society with non-voting laborers and voting citizens would return US to this model. It is the model of Rome and all civilizations that expand by exploiting part of their citizens in second class status. This violates a real democracy, but the US was not a "real democracy" until the 13th and 14th amendments after the civil war, and may not be one yet. (Women certainly question this with the right to vote (19th amendment in 1920), but a full rights amendment never granted.)
So there are two clear paths to solving the immigration issue:
1) tighten control of illegal immigration, and allow all legal immigrants seeking opportunity or protection to enter the country and have a reasonable path to citizenship.
2) create a two tiered society in which immigrant labor is allowed to enter under limited controlled status to work but never given full citizenship.
Neither party supports either of these solutions! Both argue for vague platitudes to avoid the undesirable impact of a real solution.
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
LEADERS AND LOVE
This quote is from Krishnamurti, a talk at Poona India 9/21/1958.(available on the Krishnamurti site):
...I say that a leader, a follower, a virtuous man does not know love. I say that to you. You who are leaders, you who are followers, who are struggling to be virtuous, I say you do not know love. Do not argue with me for a moment; do not say, `Prove it to me'. I will reason with you, show you, but first, please listen to what I have to say, without being defensive, aggressive, approving or denying. I say that a leader, a follower, or a man who is trying to be virtuous, such an individual does not know what love is... a leader who says, I know the way, I know all about life, I have experienced the ultimate Reality, I have the goods, obviously is very concerned about himself and his visions and about transmitting his visions to the poor listener; a leader wants to lead people to something which he thinks is right. So the leader, whether it is the political, the social, the religious leader or whether it is your wife or husband, such a one has no love. He may talk about love, he may offer to show you the way of love, he may do all the things that love is supposed to do, but the actual feeling of love is not there, - because he is a leader. If there is love you cease to be a leader, for love exercises no authority. And the same applies to the follower. The moment you follow, you are accepting authority, are you not? - the authority which gives you security, a safe corner in heaven or a safe corner in this world. When you follow, seeking security for yourself, your family, your race, your nation, that following indicates that you want to be safe, and a man who seeks safety knows no quality of love...
Given the recent US experience with leadership this observation takes on a significant meaning. When the people are afraid, they want someone to take away the fear, to reassure them. In this context, the people become passive and accepting. They are used but not loved, not respected as independent. Only where discontent and challenge are allowed to express themselves and acknowledge the fear and confusion does freedom exist. And only then can there be love.
...I say that a leader, a follower, a virtuous man does not know love. I say that to you. You who are leaders, you who are followers, who are struggling to be virtuous, I say you do not know love. Do not argue with me for a moment; do not say, `Prove it to me'. I will reason with you, show you, but first, please listen to what I have to say, without being defensive, aggressive, approving or denying. I say that a leader, a follower, or a man who is trying to be virtuous, such an individual does not know what love is... a leader who says, I know the way, I know all about life, I have experienced the ultimate Reality, I have the goods, obviously is very concerned about himself and his visions and about transmitting his visions to the poor listener; a leader wants to lead people to something which he thinks is right. So the leader, whether it is the political, the social, the religious leader or whether it is your wife or husband, such a one has no love. He may talk about love, he may offer to show you the way of love, he may do all the things that love is supposed to do, but the actual feeling of love is not there, - because he is a leader. If there is love you cease to be a leader, for love exercises no authority. And the same applies to the follower. The moment you follow, you are accepting authority, are you not? - the authority which gives you security, a safe corner in heaven or a safe corner in this world. When you follow, seeking security for yourself, your family, your race, your nation, that following indicates that you want to be safe, and a man who seeks safety knows no quality of love...
Given the recent US experience with leadership this observation takes on a significant meaning. When the people are afraid, they want someone to take away the fear, to reassure them. In this context, the people become passive and accepting. They are used but not loved, not respected as independent. Only where discontent and challenge are allowed to express themselves and acknowledge the fear and confusion does freedom exist. And only then can there be love.
Friday, September 28, 2018
POLITICS AS VALUES AND DRAMA: Joan Didion and the Kavanaugh hearing
Joan Didion's POLITICAL FICTIONS remains as relevant as ever in the age of Senate Public TV hearings. Her book begins with politics of the Dukakis candidacy. She is eloquent about how insiders create a political message that captures the public response without
relating to the issues of the people. This has become a major occupation of political strategists, even perhaps by foreign intervention! Discussing the Clinton-Lewinsky
scandal, she seems more partisan about the Right marshaling forces against
Clinton through Starr. Didion moves to the left here, and there is
little discussion of the political manipulation of the Clintons toward their
opponents. Their role in politics, for better and worse, has impacted right up to the last election. The last part of the book
is about the rise of the "Religious Right" and here she
paints a broad negative picture exploring the effectiveness in
this group's rise to power.
In this last section, she misses a fundamental point from her own SLOUCHING TO BETHLEHEM: The 60's was a chaotic time. The PBS special on the 60s describes the "baby boomer" generation split: those who smoked dope, had free love, and believed in personal self gratification, and those who studied, stayed home, and believed that self denial and discipline is essential for a good society. The commentary of Bork, Meese, and Buchanan commenting in the documentary is instructive. While the narrator extols the 60's rebellion as the seeds of social change in various countries, these men see the events as a failure to respect authority, and self indulgence without any social value. This is the fundamental conflict of the 60s, which has become the political world of the 90s and beyond. It is what fueled the rise of the "Religious Right". She is correct to see that their media presence is no different than any other political manipulators, just as compromised, but it appeals to the values of certain constituents. Today, as cannabis is gradually legalizing across the country, Sessions still threatens to prosecute its use at the federal level.
The “rebel” agenda proposes to relax certain social constraints: pro-abortion, decriminalize marihuana, provide social rights for gays, more social and economic recognition for women, and (some) racial equality. The opposing view sees "rebels" as “self indulgent”, creating moral chaos, and is reactive to perceived changes: women are getting too many abortions, MJ is too freely used, gays have become a major minority in the population despite AIDS, and women make up more of the labor force as the needs of the society move away from physically demanding jobs, leaving uneducated White Males behind. This is the reality of the society changing, and it is doubtful that liberal views accelerated this, nor that conservative ones will stop it. The “Conservative” agenda (i.e. “moral majority”, “Religious Right”, “compassionate conservative”) is an attempt to return to a value system that rejects the social changes that have been expanding in the country since the 60s. There is no evidence that a political system can enact laws, policies or whatever to counteract the prevailing social mores of a society. There can be a major conflict of legitimacy with the society taking a turn at totalitarianism and then a collapse of the regime. Will we go through a cycle of South American politics to learn this?
In this last section, she misses a fundamental point from her own SLOUCHING TO BETHLEHEM: The 60's was a chaotic time. The PBS special on the 60s describes the "baby boomer" generation split: those who smoked dope, had free love, and believed in personal self gratification, and those who studied, stayed home, and believed that self denial and discipline is essential for a good society. The commentary of Bork, Meese, and Buchanan commenting in the documentary is instructive. While the narrator extols the 60's rebellion as the seeds of social change in various countries, these men see the events as a failure to respect authority, and self indulgence without any social value. This is the fundamental conflict of the 60s, which has become the political world of the 90s and beyond. It is what fueled the rise of the "Religious Right". She is correct to see that their media presence is no different than any other political manipulators, just as compromised, but it appeals to the values of certain constituents. Today, as cannabis is gradually legalizing across the country, Sessions still threatens to prosecute its use at the federal level.
The “rebel” agenda proposes to relax certain social constraints: pro-abortion, decriminalize marihuana, provide social rights for gays, more social and economic recognition for women, and (some) racial equality. The opposing view sees "rebels" as “self indulgent”, creating moral chaos, and is reactive to perceived changes: women are getting too many abortions, MJ is too freely used, gays have become a major minority in the population despite AIDS, and women make up more of the labor force as the needs of the society move away from physically demanding jobs, leaving uneducated White Males behind. This is the reality of the society changing, and it is doubtful that liberal views accelerated this, nor that conservative ones will stop it. The “Conservative” agenda (i.e. “moral majority”, “Religious Right”, “compassionate conservative”) is an attempt to return to a value system that rejects the social changes that have been expanding in the country since the 60s. There is no evidence that a political system can enact laws, policies or whatever to counteract the prevailing social mores of a society. There can be a major conflict of legitimacy with the society taking a turn at totalitarianism and then a collapse of the regime. Will we go through a cycle of South American politics to learn this?
What makes this political focus on value
struggles so troublesome is how it fails to reflect the actual tasks of the government. Clinton was the archetypal “rebel”, a self indulgent, brilliant, self
motivated person, who was willing to
take whatever position necessary to gain his personal power. Though it seemed that
his goal in office was to lead an “inclusive” and caring government, in fact his administration was often the
opposite. It extended the trend of favoring the grow of wealth for the super rich. It grew the economy with limited benefit to
labor. “Welfare to work” was not a boon to the welfare mothers. While encouraging minority groups he enacted "law and order" statutes that expanding the mostly Black prison population. Clinton was busy with his sexual imitation
of JFK and his ability to co-opt the center of politics which drove the
Republicans farther to the Right. Also consider the Reagan
administrations. Reagan is viewed both during and afterward as a high point in the
vision of “conservative” politics and personally given credit for this, though it is
clear that he was
in some stage of Alzheimer’s disease, and unclear how much policy was decided by others. The “invasion” of Grenada, and the Marine debacle in
Lebanon were the examples of a poor foreign policy
which “took credit” for the “collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism”,
a process which began long before that administration, to which they made
almost no contribution. The supposedly
fiscal conservatives created tax cuts for the wealthy and excessive
spending that drove the country into its worse deficits. Didion’s portrayal of the Reagan administration as
a movie script esp the Iran-Contra mess is not far fetched, and it expresses the underlying wish for a
macho, morally black and white story with a successful outcome which is the
product of years of watching Hollywood “oaters” by the generation just before
the “boomers”. The movie WAG THE DOG, where script writers and media fabricators create a media distraction for presidential misconduct assumes a public with very
limited capacity for ambiguity and discrimination, a public that requires simple one dimension adolescent
stage heroes. Citizens who cannot tolerate moral
complexity and balancing competing interests are unable to make careful political decisions.
Fast forward to the present. The country elects a president who promises to reverse all the social and economic issues that distress conservatives, with a joint majority in Congress that grudgingly supports him. Though not elected by majority, enough people in critical states support this fantasy to vote for a man with no experience in politics, and marginal success in his business. They want to believe the fantasy promoted by political operatives that this will correct the imbalances of the last 8+ years. The results so far suggest the same favoring of the needs of the wealthy over middle and lower class citizens and a total disregard for debt (that only a real estate developer can have). This simple minded view of world relationships in both the Bush and Clinton eras is exaggerated in the current administration: America is the "lone superpower" and can tell everyone else what to do. The failure to recognize how this supports unification against our country is idiotic. No country is powerful enough to ignore the rest of the world, nor should be.
In this context, the Senate hearings on Kavanaugh are pure political theater. The idea of holding public hearings on television to assess the reality of accusations against a man is stupid. Once informed of the accusations, if the committee was unwilling to carry out the personal investigations by professionals to assess this situation, they should simply have said they were are unwilling to do so. Instead, the two characters are the leads in a drama which devolves down to whose fault it is because the investigations have never taken place. The shallow and mindless grandstanding of the various senators reveals more than anything else the silly and hollow nature of the proceedings. The hearing pretends to be about values, but are simply empty political maneuvering about a major decision regarding the Supreme Court. The country is careening toward a situation in which the balance of power established in the Constitution is systematically undermined.
Fast forward to the present. The country elects a president who promises to reverse all the social and economic issues that distress conservatives, with a joint majority in Congress that grudgingly supports him. Though not elected by majority, enough people in critical states support this fantasy to vote for a man with no experience in politics, and marginal success in his business. They want to believe the fantasy promoted by political operatives that this will correct the imbalances of the last 8+ years. The results so far suggest the same favoring of the needs of the wealthy over middle and lower class citizens and a total disregard for debt (that only a real estate developer can have). This simple minded view of world relationships in both the Bush and Clinton eras is exaggerated in the current administration: America is the "lone superpower" and can tell everyone else what to do. The failure to recognize how this supports unification against our country is idiotic. No country is powerful enough to ignore the rest of the world, nor should be.
In this context, the Senate hearings on Kavanaugh are pure political theater. The idea of holding public hearings on television to assess the reality of accusations against a man is stupid. Once informed of the accusations, if the committee was unwilling to carry out the personal investigations by professionals to assess this situation, they should simply have said they were are unwilling to do so. Instead, the two characters are the leads in a drama which devolves down to whose fault it is because the investigations have never taken place. The shallow and mindless grandstanding of the various senators reveals more than anything else the silly and hollow nature of the proceedings. The hearing pretends to be about values, but are simply empty political maneuvering about a major decision regarding the Supreme Court. The country is careening toward a situation in which the balance of power established in the Constitution is systematically undermined.
Governments must believe the fantasies they spew out to convince voters. If actions exaggerate the economic and social imbalances while assuring they are reducing them eventually they will hit a wall. If problems in security and economic stability are addressed with repetitive platitudes instead of exploring the complex changes in policy needed no changes occur. Reagan becomes a
dramatic cowboy hero despite the myriad failures and impotence of his
administration. JFK is champion of a bold new vision, cut
down before his prime, despite his inability to move civil
rights in the congress, his dangerous course in Vietnam, the failure in the Bay of Pigs, and his drug addiction and sexual
distractions. The fifties are idealized
as a high point in American moral culture despite the betrayal of personal
liberty by HUAC and McCarthy (which ultimately had to be stopped by the US
Army!), using FBI data collected by a closet
homosexual/transsexual. The nuances of reality are so collapsed in this discourse that no balanced approach to governing society is possible. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which have left the Arab world in chaotic turmoil are not so easily dismissed. In the words of Colin Powell, "If you break it, you own it."
It is no wonder that with increasing frequency we are selecting leaders for the country who portray themselves in fundamentally adolescent terms (and often behave that way as well). The public is encouraged to believe that the country is weakening because of its failure to fulfill its adolescent dreams (either “rebel” or “conservative”) instead of recognizing that an adult world is never so idealized and must accept compromises to function.
It is no wonder that with increasing frequency we are selecting leaders for the country who portray themselves in fundamentally adolescent terms (and often behave that way as well). The public is encouraged to believe that the country is weakening because of its failure to fulfill its adolescent dreams (either “rebel” or “conservative”) instead of recognizing that an adult world is never so idealized and must accept compromises to function.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
9/11 REDUX
Niall Ferguson wrote a piece about 9/11 soon
after (Dec2001) that sees the event as a marker in certain trends occurring in
the world: 1) international
spread of terrorism with its arrival in NYC so recently 2) ECONOMIC
contraction of the world economy due to the paradoxical segmentation occurring
despite efforts at globalization and free trade. He cited the growing wealth inequity across
richer and poorer countries as well as the strain of demand on raw materials
esp oil as a source of energy and its long term pressure on the world
economy. He specifically cited the
dilemma in Saudi Arabia of decreasing prices at the demand of western allies
which contracted the internal economy of the country. He did not comment on the irony that
globalization of economic development would favor the emergence of China and
India as it has to challenge US and European dominance. 3) The shift from informal to formal imperialism
in US foreign policy. He chose to
frame this as "imperialism" because he was writing a book comparing US as
an imperial power to Britain in the late 19th and early 20th
century. I think it is more accurate
to frame this as the failure to transition from a view of the US as a
superpower antagonist to some other role in international relations.
He did not explore the subtle interweaving of the three elements: The spread of terrorism is the globalization of a symptom. Terrorism arises when a minority attempts to overpower a vastly more powerful majority. It is the statement that the minority does not see a more legitimate route to power and is always abandoned for legitimate recognition. The majority recognizes the power demand for what it is, and can be caught in a struggle to prevent sharing of power. When this occurs a totalitarian shift seems inevitable because of the population control needed to manage, and end, terrorism in a country. And paradoxically, it ends almost immediately when its power sharing demands are recognized (Ireland, Algeria , etc).
The economic changes in the world are about a complex shift in inequities: in developed countries, the lower tier of the labor market and middle tier of white collar labor are being devalued down to a level of world wide labor costs. At the same time, in underdeveloped regions like China and India there is substantial improvement in the economic position of labor in the middle and upper range tiers, and some improvement in lower tiers as well. This is a shift of economic activity across borders, and not an overall contraction, but in developed countries it is felt as a contraction. One would expect that this would lead to terrorism in these countries, and is probably doing so in individual acts of violence,and more dramatic political changes.
Islamic terror does not always seem to be primarily religious, and the anti-Americanism provides the focus for this energy, but not its fundamental source. The 9/11 bombers were identified out drinking before the attack, not a sign of Islamic purity and tradition. The US response to challenge terror "completely," in the Bush administration and after, misses the problem of rising expectations and economic instability. All those who preached NAFTA and etc are now reaping the whirlwind of rapid and unstable economic changes. Instead of addressing the root issues in world affairs, which are north/south issues now tearing apart the UN, the current administration has set itself in a hardline imperialist position, the exact response to favor the view of the terrorists about the US role. When the US does things to ameliorate the north-south divide, as in responding to humanitarian crises in other countries, it immediately undermines the terrorist position in the local region.
He did not explore the subtle interweaving of the three elements: The spread of terrorism is the globalization of a symptom. Terrorism arises when a minority attempts to overpower a vastly more powerful majority. It is the statement that the minority does not see a more legitimate route to power and is always abandoned for legitimate recognition. The majority recognizes the power demand for what it is, and can be caught in a struggle to prevent sharing of power. When this occurs a totalitarian shift seems inevitable because of the population control needed to manage, and end, terrorism in a country. And paradoxically, it ends almost immediately when its power sharing demands are recognized (Ireland, Algeria , etc).
The economic changes in the world are about a complex shift in inequities: in developed countries, the lower tier of the labor market and middle tier of white collar labor are being devalued down to a level of world wide labor costs. At the same time, in underdeveloped regions like China and India there is substantial improvement in the economic position of labor in the middle and upper range tiers, and some improvement in lower tiers as well. This is a shift of economic activity across borders, and not an overall contraction, but in developed countries it is felt as a contraction. One would expect that this would lead to terrorism in these countries, and is probably doing so in individual acts of violence,and more dramatic political changes.
Islamic terror does not always seem to be primarily religious, and the anti-Americanism provides the focus for this energy, but not its fundamental source. The 9/11 bombers were identified out drinking before the attack, not a sign of Islamic purity and tradition. The US response to challenge terror "completely," in the Bush administration and after, misses the problem of rising expectations and economic instability. All those who preached NAFTA and etc are now reaping the whirlwind of rapid and unstable economic changes. Instead of addressing the root issues in world affairs, which are north/south issues now tearing apart the UN, the current administration has set itself in a hardline imperialist position, the exact response to favor the view of the terrorists about the US role. When the US does things to ameliorate the north-south divide, as in responding to humanitarian crises in other countries, it immediately undermines the terrorist position in the local region.
The President Bush/Secretary Rice view reframed the north/south issue as "promoting democracy". This has given rise to the result that in deposing the Taliban and Saddam, we have left the resulting countries in a
worse position re economic stability than they were before and less democratic! ISIS and the horrible mess in Iraq and Syria are the direct consequence that Colin Powell predicted before the 2nd gulf war: It's the Pottery Barn slogan: you break it, you own it.
It appears that the laws of Karma operate in international affairs:
1) US deposes the ruler in Iran and install the Shah for more favorable oil relationship
2) The Iranian people revolt and install Khomenei to attack the US and reject the intrusion
3) Saddam H is armed and encouraged to fight Iran as a proxy.
4) He fails but attacks Kuwait instead.
5) US eliminates Saddam in two invasions and leaves Iraq in chaos.
6) The residual military and others unite with forces in Syria to create ISIS and recapture the country.
7) The war to topple ISIS destabilizes both Iraq and Syria and facilitates Russia's re-entry.
A similar Karmic cycle can be drawn for the interventions in Afghanistan that led to Bin Laden.
The 9/11 attack on the US sent a message that the US interventions could be countered by external agents. The US responded to this by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2) ignoring the karmic implications. Bin Laden's goal was to cause fundamental political fragmentation of the US. The long and unproductive wars in both countries have weakened and divided the country. The failures of previous administrations has given President Trump the resources to take advantage of the very divided country. This is not just a disagreement like Vietnam, whether to fight or not, it is a loss of national resources: respect for US interventions, decimation of the military and the young men and women injured in the endless war, and the economic costs.
The lessons of 9/11 have not yet been learned.
It appears that the laws of Karma operate in international affairs:
1) US deposes the ruler in Iran and install the Shah for more favorable oil relationship
2) The Iranian people revolt and install Khomenei to attack the US and reject the intrusion
3) Saddam H is armed and encouraged to fight Iran as a proxy.
4) He fails but attacks Kuwait instead.
5) US eliminates Saddam in two invasions and leaves Iraq in chaos.
6) The residual military and others unite with forces in Syria to create ISIS and recapture the country.
7) The war to topple ISIS destabilizes both Iraq and Syria and facilitates Russia's re-entry.
A similar Karmic cycle can be drawn for the interventions in Afghanistan that led to Bin Laden.
The 9/11 attack on the US sent a message that the US interventions could be countered by external agents. The US responded to this by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2) ignoring the karmic implications. Bin Laden's goal was to cause fundamental political fragmentation of the US. The long and unproductive wars in both countries have weakened and divided the country. The failures of previous administrations has given President Trump the resources to take advantage of the very divided country. This is not just a disagreement like Vietnam, whether to fight or not, it is a loss of national resources: respect for US interventions, decimation of the military and the young men and women injured in the endless war, and the economic costs.
The lessons of 9/11 have not yet been learned.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
ON RELIGION
Religion is the answer to man's humanity. The two great sources of suffering are loneliness and death, the perception of the end of existence of self. Religion, Marx's "opiate of the masses" is offered as the cure for these. It offers a strong group affiliation that will not be overcome by other group or individual values, with a morality to protect the integrity of the community. And in one form or another, it promises eternal life, the end of death. Each major religion embodies the words and insights of some wise person who thought about life and proposed guides on how it might be lived successfully. Every religion has evolutionary survival as its basic value, though few acknowledge evolution as a reality!
The great irony is that as groups coalesce around a specific body of wisdom, t become hostile to groups that embody another wisdom, and this often leads to violence and death. The insight that is meant to ease the fear of death only makes it that much more likely to occur! And this is not the result of any particular teaching, but, across humanity, wars between religious groups have been frequent and violent. The "cure" for death has lethal side effects.
Is there no solution to this? After centuries of religious wars, and two world wars, Europeans seem to be reducing their commitment to religious institutions, and becoming more secular. The Islamic countries, unified by Ottoman imperial power, have fragmented into traditional religious subgroups, and ignited a series of wars, with the help of western nations that reflect their religious differences. The belief that you get to heaven sooner by dying in battle only allows the escape from intolerable features of earthly life. War as a solution to human suffering is a cruel solution indeed. And the world is moving toward it.
One answer is to make everyday human life pleasant enough to be worth living. This is a social and economic challenge to society, not simply a religious one, but there is a morality to social and economic decisions. The marxist solution to a fair society has proven no more valid than the capitalist model it intended to replace. The problem is not in the theory, but in the human capacity to find balance in life.
How do you create a society in which each person is fairly valued for her ability to contribute to the community, and still recognize that some persons are more gifted than others? And who can be trusted to decide? This is the social challenge of living effectively in groups that manage the loneliness of human life. This is the morality of economic planning and the intersection of religion and economics. The current Pope Francis is noteworthy for his efforts to address the issues of social inequality within the confines of Catholicism. The wealth inequality gap that has ballooned in the US, and in the world at large, indicates that the process for valuing people is totally out of balance at this time. The political pressure of the wealthy to preserve and expand their relative wealth in current US society, with notable exceptions like Warren Buffett, are clear signs that our society does not understand the moral basis of economics, and will cause more suffering as a result until the process is re-balanced.
This will not come by praying. And it will not come by returning to a traditional patriarchal religious system, as is clear from the current battles in the Islamic world. The notion of right-livelihood, and respect for the environment, and the ability to value others who are different without needing to make them join your tribe ----these are the skills that are needed to create a livable human society.
The challenge of dealing with death is always the same: acceptance. Acceptance of the reality of being a living thing, and human and therefore bound by death. Illusions of immortality only devalue the importance of the present moment. When living everyday is meaningful enough for each person, then there will be no hurry to escape the present, and no need to be afraid of doing so when the time comes.
The great irony is that as groups coalesce around a specific body of wisdom, t become hostile to groups that embody another wisdom, and this often leads to violence and death. The insight that is meant to ease the fear of death only makes it that much more likely to occur! And this is not the result of any particular teaching, but, across humanity, wars between religious groups have been frequent and violent. The "cure" for death has lethal side effects.
Is there no solution to this? After centuries of religious wars, and two world wars, Europeans seem to be reducing their commitment to religious institutions, and becoming more secular. The Islamic countries, unified by Ottoman imperial power, have fragmented into traditional religious subgroups, and ignited a series of wars, with the help of western nations that reflect their religious differences. The belief that you get to heaven sooner by dying in battle only allows the escape from intolerable features of earthly life. War as a solution to human suffering is a cruel solution indeed. And the world is moving toward it.
One answer is to make everyday human life pleasant enough to be worth living. This is a social and economic challenge to society, not simply a religious one, but there is a morality to social and economic decisions. The marxist solution to a fair society has proven no more valid than the capitalist model it intended to replace. The problem is not in the theory, but in the human capacity to find balance in life.
How do you create a society in which each person is fairly valued for her ability to contribute to the community, and still recognize that some persons are more gifted than others? And who can be trusted to decide? This is the social challenge of living effectively in groups that manage the loneliness of human life. This is the morality of economic planning and the intersection of religion and economics. The current Pope Francis is noteworthy for his efforts to address the issues of social inequality within the confines of Catholicism. The wealth inequality gap that has ballooned in the US, and in the world at large, indicates that the process for valuing people is totally out of balance at this time. The political pressure of the wealthy to preserve and expand their relative wealth in current US society, with notable exceptions like Warren Buffett, are clear signs that our society does not understand the moral basis of economics, and will cause more suffering as a result until the process is re-balanced.
This will not come by praying. And it will not come by returning to a traditional patriarchal religious system, as is clear from the current battles in the Islamic world. The notion of right-livelihood, and respect for the environment, and the ability to value others who are different without needing to make them join your tribe ----these are the skills that are needed to create a livable human society.
The challenge of dealing with death is always the same: acceptance. Acceptance of the reality of being a living thing, and human and therefore bound by death. Illusions of immortality only devalue the importance of the present moment. When living everyday is meaningful enough for each person, then there will be no hurry to escape the present, and no need to be afraid of doing so when the time comes.
The French Take a VACATION
-->
(I wrote this back in 2004 or 5. It captured my sense that the US was going off in the wrong direction, though the French had their own strange ideas. 14 years have exaggerated the differences and complicated the picture with the role of immigration in both countries.)
A recent NPR piece gives a significantly different
perspective on human values. It seems,
according to the reporter, that France guarantees each citizen a month of
vacation every year. This
includes every working citizen, and even extends to those who are
unemployed. This surely exceeds the
social tolerance of American culture.
But wait, there is more: it
seems, according to the reporter, that not all French citizens are accepting
this right (or is it a responsibility?) and going on vacation. So the French government has assigned
counselors the task of identifying why certain families do not choose to go,
and then counseling or educating them so that they will begin to enjoy this
benefit.
To the average American,
this seems truly “over the top”:
it typifies the peculiar French culture and its seeming deviance from
any rational course of action. How can
we make sense of this culture, with its concern for art, fine food and wine,
and this apparent obsession for the relaxation of its citizens?
While still nominally a capitalist economy, France shows an
unusual concern for the well being and lifestyle of its citizens. According to capitalist principles, the
primary concern for the individual or the state should be the return on
expended capital, ie money or its equivalent.
As Marx eloquently pointed out, humans are equivalent to “labor”, and
represent a cost (or, more recently, a “consumer”). It is the job of the human consumer to
allocate his/her capital for whatever vacation he or she may choose. For the French government to encourage or
demand that the citizen choose vacation is to reverse the capitalist flow. Perhaps the wily French have calculated that
the increased consumption, which occurs during the vacations of the French,
helps pay for the cost of encouraging this, or even covers the cost of lost
production to the economy. (Probably
not.) Surely there are other ways to
stimulate consumer demand that are more product specific and not so geared to
improving the lives of the citizens.
France is not REALLY a dedicated capitalist
system. As a country they put far too
much emphasis on quality of life, REGARDLESS OF THE PROVEN ECONOMIC
RETURN. A country that is so concerned
about culture, or the preservation of language, or the careful preparation of food, even to the
point of being too expensive to create truly “profitable restaurant chains”
cannot claim to really be capitalist.
While its social welfare system is extensive, it is not so extensive to justify being
considered Socialist. And what’s more,
many of the cultural concerns of the French are not part of the social welfare
system.
In the end we must conclude that the French are concerned
about some other value, not directly related to return on capital, and therefore not readily translated into
American language or culture. It is no
wonder that they remain such a mystery.
Sunday, July 23, 2017
Thoreau at 200
H. D. Thoreau would be 200 July 12th. There has been much finger pointing over recent changes in national policy regarding conservation. Let's assume that there is reasonable evidence that the earth is getting warmer, overall. Also assume that human activity makes some contribution to this warming, though the percentage is unknown. And for that matter, if the entire world population became totally involved in radically reducing greenhouse gases and other conservation measures, no one knows how much that would slow global warming if any, and how long it would take to have an impact. So climate change deniers and conservationists have in common the inability to translate observable data on global warming into the "correction of" global warming at a defined rate of improvement. Thoreau was a surveyor and scientific observer of Nature, and he would have been concerned about this lack of information.
The verbal battle between the "deniers" and the "conservationists" is intense and both sides call on scientific studies, some of which are useful but limited, and others are of dubious validity. This does not mean that there is no way to decide the issue. There is ample data to show that carbon emissions pollute the environment and cause public health problems. There is ample data to show that the exponentially increasing human population is making the earth less habitable. And there is ample data to show that the accumulation of human waste and discarded materials (trash!) are impacting people's lives. Why then did Al Gore choose to focus on climate change as his "Inconvenient Truth" rather than pollution? Why do environmentalists so often focus on "extinction of species"("extinction is forever") as the crucial issue, rather than quality of life of human habitability? The answer is political, not scientific. Climate change and extinction are dramatic extreme situations which are presumed to be irreversible. They are presented as relatively all or none: either we prevent the earth from "warming up" or the seas rise, cities are flooded, and crops dry out = major human crisis. This would have appealed to Thoreau. Living for two years in a cabin by a lake, and withdrawing into the simplest lifestyle was his way of saying "all or none": either you give up all the useless trappings of modern (19th century) life or you don't. Most people didn't and still don't and this stance is more symbolic and media driven than practical and life focused.
If we want to be "measured" conservationists we might start with a few simple assumptions:
1) set aside some land for wilderness and natural beauty and do not develop it, and utilize other lands effectively for economic purposes
2) regulate the discharge of toxic materials into the environment so that each person has a safe and practically healthy surrounding space
3) consume materials in such a manner that the earth and people in it are self sustaining and do not degrade its habitability.
Each of these proposals seems reasonable enough until one begins to ask "how much" and "which places" and "who must stop consuming what". For both individuals and countries these complex issues became controversial debates with frustrating outcomes.
The Grand Canyon is relatively preserved though parts are flooded by the Hoover dam which provides significant hydroelectric power for Nevada and California. But Glen Canyon was flooded and destroyed by the Glen Canyon dam in the 1960s despite a major political battle by the Sierra Club. This is considered a great natural loss of a beautiful environment. But without it, the silt debris in Lake Mead would likely have choked off the Hoover Dam by now and created new problems. Changing environmental patterns always have consequences not always foreseen.
New England was beset by acid rain in the 1950s, (and London terrible smog storms), and power plant emissions were presumed to be significant factors. After major political battles, emissions were reduced and coal firing greatly reduced, and now the coal industry is fighting back to try and regain jobs it will probably never use. Changes in regulation of the environment have human consequences which must be factored in.
The oceans are currently filled with unthinkable amounts of pollution, especially along coastlines, because it is easy to dump trash into them, and the assumption is made that they are so vast that the trash would somehow "disappear". It hasn't and it now forms island like accumulations in regions of current intersection. Do we really not care enough about the preservation of ocean space to find other ways (more expensive) to eliminate trash, or not create it in the first place? None of these are big headline issues for the nightly news. They are the basis for fund raising drives by organizations that advocate for conservation and the environment. Why do we need such organizations instead of a general societal goal for preserving the earth as habitable?
Thoreau's message was that it was each individual's task to balance his or her life to the needs of the natural world. But what if the person is too greedy? or doesnt have any knowledge of the natural world because he grew up in Queens(you know who you are)? or works for a company that saves money for profits by not attending to environmental issues?
Is it possible to create a sustained environmental focus based on individual initiative? The Sierra Club arranges outdoor activities and trips for its members, and the general public, including trips to National Parks and scenic areas. If everyone in the country visited natural regions every year would that help? Or would it just crowd the natural areas and make them "theme parks" with horrible traffic? Should everyone bear the additional costs of recycling trash and waste, or should the poor be required to pay less and the wealthy more? What is fair? For centuries rivers around great population centers have been polluted by waste human and industrial. The Ganges is a dramatic example, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught on fire because of pollution, Love Canal in New York is credited with multiple cancer deaths as a result of pollution. Who should bear the cost of protecting the rivers and how to offset the disposal of chemicals and other materials if they cannot just be dumped? Environmentalists see this as clearly all-or-none: stop polluting, stop developing and honor the land. Commercial interests all agree except for the particular interest of theirs: stop polluting, but what I am doing doesn't have evidence that it is toxic "enough" to humans. (Why is it ok to dump any manufactured chemicals into rivers?) Political solutions are most effective when they balance the needs of both parties in the situation. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to find this balance, and no small part of this is the rhetoric of the conservation movement and its assurance that in a certain number of years the world will be irreversibly The current administration has withdrawn the US from the Paris Accords (has it really?). This backlash is the result of targeting key corporate "bogeymen" and they in turn fund political opponents. Companies do some bad things. And so do people. And getting people and companies to change is a political process best accomplished by real negotiation and not by the polarization of the current debate on both sides. And by the way, does anyone really think that the country will return to using coal as a major fuel source? How can the people impacted by this declining industry be realistically empowered to economic recovery?
The verbal battle between the "deniers" and the "conservationists" is intense and both sides call on scientific studies, some of which are useful but limited, and others are of dubious validity. This does not mean that there is no way to decide the issue. There is ample data to show that carbon emissions pollute the environment and cause public health problems. There is ample data to show that the exponentially increasing human population is making the earth less habitable. And there is ample data to show that the accumulation of human waste and discarded materials (trash!) are impacting people's lives. Why then did Al Gore choose to focus on climate change as his "Inconvenient Truth" rather than pollution? Why do environmentalists so often focus on "extinction of species"("extinction is forever") as the crucial issue, rather than quality of life of human habitability? The answer is political, not scientific. Climate change and extinction are dramatic extreme situations which are presumed to be irreversible. They are presented as relatively all or none: either we prevent the earth from "warming up" or the seas rise, cities are flooded, and crops dry out = major human crisis. This would have appealed to Thoreau. Living for two years in a cabin by a lake, and withdrawing into the simplest lifestyle was his way of saying "all or none": either you give up all the useless trappings of modern (19th century) life or you don't. Most people didn't and still don't and this stance is more symbolic and media driven than practical and life focused.
If we want to be "measured" conservationists we might start with a few simple assumptions:
1) set aside some land for wilderness and natural beauty and do not develop it, and utilize other lands effectively for economic purposes
2) regulate the discharge of toxic materials into the environment so that each person has a safe and practically healthy surrounding space
3) consume materials in such a manner that the earth and people in it are self sustaining and do not degrade its habitability.
Each of these proposals seems reasonable enough until one begins to ask "how much" and "which places" and "who must stop consuming what". For both individuals and countries these complex issues became controversial debates with frustrating outcomes.
The Grand Canyon is relatively preserved though parts are flooded by the Hoover dam which provides significant hydroelectric power for Nevada and California. But Glen Canyon was flooded and destroyed by the Glen Canyon dam in the 1960s despite a major political battle by the Sierra Club. This is considered a great natural loss of a beautiful environment. But without it, the silt debris in Lake Mead would likely have choked off the Hoover Dam by now and created new problems. Changing environmental patterns always have consequences not always foreseen.
New England was beset by acid rain in the 1950s, (and London terrible smog storms), and power plant emissions were presumed to be significant factors. After major political battles, emissions were reduced and coal firing greatly reduced, and now the coal industry is fighting back to try and regain jobs it will probably never use. Changes in regulation of the environment have human consequences which must be factored in.
The oceans are currently filled with unthinkable amounts of pollution, especially along coastlines, because it is easy to dump trash into them, and the assumption is made that they are so vast that the trash would somehow "disappear". It hasn't and it now forms island like accumulations in regions of current intersection. Do we really not care enough about the preservation of ocean space to find other ways (more expensive) to eliminate trash, or not create it in the first place? None of these are big headline issues for the nightly news. They are the basis for fund raising drives by organizations that advocate for conservation and the environment. Why do we need such organizations instead of a general societal goal for preserving the earth as habitable?
Thoreau's message was that it was each individual's task to balance his or her life to the needs of the natural world. But what if the person is too greedy? or doesnt have any knowledge of the natural world because he grew up in Queens(you know who you are)? or works for a company that saves money for profits by not attending to environmental issues?
Is it possible to create a sustained environmental focus based on individual initiative? The Sierra Club arranges outdoor activities and trips for its members, and the general public, including trips to National Parks and scenic areas. If everyone in the country visited natural regions every year would that help? Or would it just crowd the natural areas and make them "theme parks" with horrible traffic? Should everyone bear the additional costs of recycling trash and waste, or should the poor be required to pay less and the wealthy more? What is fair? For centuries rivers around great population centers have been polluted by waste human and industrial. The Ganges is a dramatic example, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught on fire because of pollution, Love Canal in New York is credited with multiple cancer deaths as a result of pollution. Who should bear the cost of protecting the rivers and how to offset the disposal of chemicals and other materials if they cannot just be dumped? Environmentalists see this as clearly all-or-none: stop polluting, stop developing and honor the land. Commercial interests all agree except for the particular interest of theirs: stop polluting, but what I am doing doesn't have evidence that it is toxic "enough" to humans. (Why is it ok to dump any manufactured chemicals into rivers?) Political solutions are most effective when they balance the needs of both parties in the situation. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to find this balance, and no small part of this is the rhetoric of the conservation movement and its assurance that in a certain number of years the world will be irreversibly The current administration has withdrawn the US from the Paris Accords (has it really?). This backlash is the result of targeting key corporate "bogeymen" and they in turn fund political opponents. Companies do some bad things. And so do people. And getting people and companies to change is a political process best accomplished by real negotiation and not by the polarization of the current debate on both sides. And by the way, does anyone really think that the country will return to using coal as a major fuel source? How can the people impacted by this declining industry be realistically empowered to economic recovery?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)