Genre

Friday, November 25, 2011

Reminiscence: Getting Settled in Grenoble, 1970

***

So there we were, A----- and I, married less than a week, there in our new home a quarter of the way up Mt. Moucherotte, above Grenoble, France.  It was early October 1970.

1

Everyone seems to find it interesting to discuss "Where were you when ... ?"  In my generation the events discussed have traditionally been when JFK was killed (or RFK or MLK...), when Lyndon Johnson announced he wasn't going to run for re-election, when the Democratic Party Convention met in Chicago in 1968, and when Neil Armstrong in 1969 made his giant leap for mankind.  All but the NASA news was bad, but the tipping point for me was the election of Richard Nixon, November 5, 1968.

I'd met Eugene McCarthy, along with Cesar Chavez, out in California that spring as the Viet Nam unrest was coming to a boil.  I helped campaign for McCarthy, although until his assassination I was a little distracted by admiration of Robert Kennedy.  Until Hubert Humphrey had parroted LBJ for so long as his Vice President, I'd always liked  him too; but of course, as the Convention neared, he was tainted for me as for so many others by his defense of the status quo.

During the Chicago uprising, I began to think maybe this was not the America where I wanted to live anymore.  Despite my vote for the disappointing Humphrey, the night Nixon was elected sealed the deal.  

I'd taken my little portable TV to a friend's house that election night.  One or two other friends had brought their little TVs as well, so that we could follow coverage by several different networks as the party progressed.  I didn't usually drink much, but that night as the electoral picture darkened, I got plastered.  I don't know how I got home, frankly, but in the morning my car was in its usual place in the parking lot and my TV was beside my bed, still on, tuned to the best news channel in northern California (though the news was still bad).

By then, I'd decided that as soon as I finished up my graduate work - which would probably be in July or August of that year (1969) - I was going to emigrate, probably for good, to France.   I'd had a fine experience my Junior Year in Paris in 1962-63, so I thought I could feel more "at home" in that country than in what my native country had become.

2

But then, on the ship to Europe in September, I met A-----.  Leaving the U.S. for good didn't seem so certain or so attractive after that.  By the time we married a year later, back in her home state, I would for sure be coming back to the U. S. at the end of that year with her in Grenoble.

When we had met, I was on my way to a job I'd been lucky enough to find in Lyon, south of Paris halfway on the road to Marseilles on the banks of the beautiful Rhone River.  That job was for only a year, and I hadn't lined up anything back in the States to come home to, so in mid-June I was again lucky to find the next year's job in Grenoble.  A----- knew that was where we would be heading if she married me.  Maybe it even seemed like it would be fun.

Even when I knew it might be just for myself, or for the two of us, I knew in late June that I had to find a place to live in Grenoble in 1970-71.  The run of good luck continued when I learned that Mme. D-----, who lived in a flat downtown, liked to rent out her summer house through the colder months of the year to visiting Americans; it was in Seyssins, a small village up on the Alp where the 1968 Olympic Ski Jump had been in another village much higher up called St. Nizier.

I - or we - would need a car.

But I flew out of Nice to A-----'s home state, met her family and some friends, and asked A----- to marry me; we went down to Texas to meet my family; returned north to plan the wedding and to get married on October 3.

After a three-day honeymoon, we climbed on a plane to Grenoble.

3

The trip was long.  We had to change planes three times.  The last leg was bumpy and hot, and we arrived in Grenoble in the middle of the day - after having little sleep for most of two days.  We got into a hotel pretty efficiently, but awoke - starving hungry - about 2 a.m. ...   We had to find food, but there was no one to tell us where we could. Then too we were lucky; after only about 20 minutes in random wanderings, we found a little neighborhood restaurant across the street from the local newspaper offices.

I hadn't thought to worry about changing planes, adjusting to the changing time zones, getting sleep, or finding food in the middle of the first night in Grenoble.  But all that luckily turned out well enough after all.  On the other hand, I had been a little concerned first about getting into our house for the nine months ahead and especially about the peculiar French complexities of buying a car.

First, A-----'s and my visit with Mme. D----- went very well, and she gave us our house key.  Then we set out to look for a car.  I didn't know even where to begin.  We found a taxi, and I just asked the driver where we - of modest means - should go to look for a car.  He took us to a Simca dealer.

4



We arrived at the dealership around 1 p.m., I think it was.  I thought it might take all the rest of that day and at least the whole of the following day to get through all of the red tape.  But not a bit of it!  Right there on the floor was a four-door, stick-shift sedan that we could afford.  That would be fine.  The purchase went smoothly too.  And the salesman had assumed it was his responsibility to walk us through the insurance and registration complexities.  He sent us off in a taxi to an insurer whom he knew; that and the registration went off without a hitch, and by 5 p.m. we drove away in our own car!  Wow, my getting happily married had improved the whole world, even French bureaucracy!

5

So, with surprisingly little trouble, there we were in Mme. D-----'s chalet, having had no trouble finding it in the little village up on the side of a mountain and having a key that worked.  The electricity was on, the telephone was hooked up, the gas stove - strange as it was - worked, the heat seemed to be fine... We could settle right in.

The house was set into the side of the mountain, with a steep road coming straight up from the highway from town that seemed far below.  If you drove beyond the house on your left and turned left, you could turn around and park outside our little gate.  If you kept going on that little street, you could zigzag back down the mountainside, winding slowly - and less steeply - down to the highway.  Oh, the house was called and its address was "Les Fenouilleres," the fennels.  We didn't see any fennel bushes, but there was a lovely string of raspberry bushes along one side of the house.

The second floor was not open to us.  Mme. D----- had explained that she kept her summer clothes and things in the bedrooms up there.  We still had plenty of room for us at that time: the kitchen just inside the door from the road on the high side of the steep hill where we were perched, the large formal dining room with its heavy dark furniture beyond it; the bedroom beyond a little half-bath on the right of the kitchen as one entered the kitchen from the little road on the high side, and beyond the bed and bathrooms - next to the dining room - was a little den looking out into the sky behind the little house toward the impressive "Chaine de Belledonne" (the Bella Donna mountain range).

The garage was beneath the den and bedroom.  Access to it was from a little unpaved alleyway off the steep road up.  You could turn left there and immediately right to mount our steeply paved driveway into the garage.  From there, you could enter the basement and go up the stairs to the kitchen.  There was nothing distinctive about the garage.  In the dank, dark, spider-webby basement there was one, distinctive feature: the "Salle de Bains," the bathroom - with no toilet but the one place in the house where you could bathe.

The bathtub itself was tall.  You had to climb inside by using steps.  It was narrow and deep.  You couldn't lie down, far from it; you had to sit with your knees at least level with your waist.  But the water was deliciously hot, and you could fill the tub up to your armpits.  I got in the habit of taking with me for my leisurely bath several copies of The Sporting News (to which I had subscribed while back in the States), where I would pore over all that week's box scores...

6

But I hadn't been entirely mistaken about the complexities of moving into a foreign country.  It was weather that ultimately brought this home, first an episode with fog  and then... snow!

I had a job, of course, although I could do much of my work at home; pretty soon A----- was coming with me down to work.  There was a little American library nearby, and A----- quickly struck up a friendship with the head librarian, as well as with one of the other patrons.  One foggy morning I accidentally left the fog lights on when we arrived in the morning, so when it came time to go home in mid-afternoon, the battery was dead.

I didn't know what to do, but A----- went right to her librarian friend for advice.  Mme. V------ happened to be nearby too.  She volunteered to drop us at the nearest service station about a mile away.  So far, so good.  But no, the service station people did not drive to dead cars and give them a jump, especially so near closing time.  That was apparently how it was done in France in those days.  I was welcome to bring the dead battery to them, and they could charge it right up.  I believe they even were kind enough to loan me a screwdriver.

A----- and I trudged together through what was now a constant cold drizzle back to the Simca sedan, me worrying all the way if we could get the damned battery out without electrocuting ourselves in the meantime.  By the time we had it out, it was growing dark.  The service station was about to close!  The battery was pretty darn heavy too.  I hoisted it onto my shoulder as we hurried back.

But they were able to recharge the battery in jig time, and I was able to haul it all the way back and even hook it up again.  Crisis overcome!  (And at least I never left the headlights on again.)

7

As for the snow...

We knew, of course, living on an Alp after all, that there would be snow to contend with.  That would have been true down in the city of Grenoble itself, site of the 1968 Olympics.  So we knew that at home we would need a snow shovel.  At least we knew that once we discovered that the only tools in the garage were for gardening.  At least there was a rake.

We set out to find a snow shovel soon after arriving at Les Fenouilleres, first casting about for a good-sized hardware store, which we eventually found.  I asked if they had a snow shovel.  There was some confusion, maybe because at first I hadn't known how to say "pel de neige" (shovel for snow), but then the man said Yes they had one, seeming to believe this was an exotic request.  He brought us a little camp shovel that as a Boy Scout I might have used to dig a little rain trench around the outside of my tent.  It folded up.  He must have thought I wanted something for digging out my car from a deep drift.  When I said we needed something larger, he said they couldn't help us.

I could tell now this enterprise was going to be tricky, but when we got home I got out Mme. D-----'s phonebook and started calling the hardware stores one at a time.  A----- and I knew exactly what we wanted, of course:  a metal handle on a wooden pole, with a curved aluminum blade at the other end.  From our first sally into that first shop, I now knew to call this a pel de neige... When greeted with a long pause on the phone, I usually jumped in to explain that I would need to clean the snow off the driveway to my garage.  The usual answer was No, they didn't carry those, maybe when the snow season actually started...  We weren't not feeling comfortable doing that.

Fortunately someone at work told me (or maybe it was Mme. D----- herself) that it would be wise for us who lived on a mountain to have chains for our rear tires, and we were able to find those with a minimum of trouble.  And I did have to use them often later on, clipping them on for the steep climb up or to go down from the main town highway and taking them off (for down) or putting them on (for up) at the foot of the hill.  I got reasonably adept at that, even in my good suit.

One evening coming home, I found it snowing harder and harder as I zigzagged up the back way to our house and decided not even to try to get up into the garage.  I parked on the street by our little gate.  Next morning, sure enough, the car was buried under about a foot of snow.  It was bitter cold too.  But using just my hands and feet, I managed to unearth the Simca and clear a pathway into the street ... before realizing that the car wouldn't start.

Well, there was this steep road going downhill just a few feet away.  If only A----- and I could get the Simca around the corner, I could pop the clutch on the way down and the car was sure to start.  A----- gamely bundled up and came out with me, and the two of us got the car headed out in the right direction.  I got inside to guide it and realized that the mailman had presented himself as a volunteer to push with A-----.  It worked like a charm, and I was right on time for work.

8

But the snow shovel saga continued.  When I got back home after that first snow, I parked again on the street and went down to the basement from inside.  There were several pieces of lumber.  I used one board to just push the snow down the driveway all the way to the other side of the little alley below.  So I could make it then to the garage... having used the end of a board instead of a shovel.

After ten calls or so, someone at one of the stores said brightly, Yes! they had a pel de neige!  I couldn't believe it.  "For removing snow?" I asked skeptically. Yes! "From my driveway?" Yes!  We headed down into the city to search for this magical shop.

It turned out to be big, brightly lit, and modern, even if it had been hard to find on a windy little back street.  What a relief.

Yes! you called about the pel de neige! said the young man inside, evidently the fellow I had spoken to on the telephone.  He scurried out back into the storage area.  After a few minutes, he came back with an iron coal shovel!  Even empty, I could barely lift this monstrous thing, let alone with a load of snow inside its ample scoop.

We did make a purchase in that store, though.  I bought a hammer and a few nails.  When we got home again, I nailed a small board across the top of the longer board, in a T shape.  That turned out to be my snow shovel for the whole season.

***

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

The Abortion Debate: The Unalienable Right to Life and to Liberty [essay]




***


1

Most so-called "social conservative" ambitions are anti-libertarian, seeking to limit or eliminate individual freedom in order to impose behaviors most extreme Christian conservatives approve and prohibit behaviors they abhor.  The majority of Americans continue to reject such restrictions on individual liberty and remain loyal to the most basic rights valued by the founders of the United States.

The standard principle has been and continues to be that an adult individual should have the liberty to do whatever he or she wants, unless doing so would harm someone else.  No one would claim that an individual should have the right to murder his or her enemy, but individual liberty - we seem to agree - should be abridged or eliminated only if the behavior desired would harm another person.

The abortion question is more complex than most issues raised by the social conservatives.  It is also a highly emotional issue that has generated more passion than rational discourse.  For these reasons, we should be especially motivated to bring to bear on the abortion issue some cool reason, based on fundamental American values.

2

Near the end of life, we agree, the individual has the right to refuse extraordinary efforts to prolong her or his life.  Others have no right to prohibit the individual from making such a choice since it would harm no one else.  For example, if an 80-year-old man learns he has colon cancer, he is free to tell his doctors not to operate and not to start chemo- or radiation therapy, but merely to keep him as comfortable as possible as the cancer kills him.

We agree, that is, that society does not have the right to intervene in such a personal choice and to dictate that a life - even an undesired, tortured, intolerable life - should be prolonged.  Only the individual himself or herself can make such a free choice, even if some or even most of us were to think the right thing to do from a moral perspective would be to continue the suffering.

Now, if that same man were facing colon cancer while also suffering a significant level of senile dementia, he would have already lost the freedom to make a responsible choice about his own health.  His liberty would have been significantly lessened, not by others but by "nature" or " chance" or even "God."  So, we also agree that if before losing the capacity to make responsible choices, this poor man had given his daughter the right (the responsibility, the freedom) to make health decisions on his behalf, then she - not he and not society - would have the right to say that her father should not have surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation; and it would be wrong for others to try to intervene, even if they disagree with her decision on religious or any other grounds.  The action chosen could be considered "harming" the Dad, but since he had freely opted for his daughter to make such choices for him, it would be wrong for others to limit or eliminate her freedom to do so.

3

This daughter's legally established freedom to choose her aging father's medical treatment has a parallel near the beginning of life.  If an otherwise healthy one-year-old were severely injured in an automobile accident and could survive only after prolonged, extraordinary medical procedures and if the youngster were unlikely to be able to function independently at any future time, then we agree that the unfortunate child's parents would have the responsibility (the right, the freedom) to decide whether extraordinary medical measures would be continued or the child would be allowed to die naturally.  This is not a matter for legal intervention, or for a public vote; it is a private matter between the parents and their child's doctors.  We seem to agree on this principle just as we do about the end-of-life decision-making.

Incidentally, if the child had been born illegitimately and the biological father had never had any role in the birth or care of the child, then it would also be reasonably clear that the mother alone would have to make the life-or-death decision.  She could consult anyone she wished, but she would decide whether or not her child was to be allowed to die.  This would be her responsibility and her right.

We should acknowledge, however, that a public responsibility is felt for the safety of children in general.  Doctors, school teachers, counsellors, day care workers, and others are often formally required to report signs of possible child abuse, the suspected abusers often being the parents themselves.  In such instances, we think the parents cannot be trusted to make appropriate free choices for their own children.  And we seem to agree that public intervention is warranted in cases of such child abuse.  So, couldn't one reasonably claim that public intervention in a single mother's decision to "let nature take its course," not undertaking extraordinary medical procedures in order to preserve life, is also warranted?

Since intervention in the relation between a parent and her or their child is recognized as a violation of what we usually consider an inalienable right, the liberty to make choices for those for whom we are responsible, unusual safeguards are imposed.  Signs of child abuse must be documentable, repeated, or severe; once reported, a complex process of investigation is begun, and even in a case of abuse it is only after a high level of proof is achieved that the parents' decision regarding the child is contravened.  Such questioning of the person's judgment who is responsible for the well-being of another is recognized as a momentous, extraordinary, and rare event.
4
"Social conservatives" might believe that the mother with a severely injured child would be sinning against God's law if she were to allow the child to die without taking advantage of all possible medical procedures, but while they may have the right to say so, they may not intervene between her and her child's doctors as this decision is being made.

Such conservatives do wish to intervene in some personal decisions.  They clearly think for example that if two men want to marry each other, or two women, they should not be free to do so.  Such an action is so contrary to their religious beliefs that they would have our very legal system prevent it from happening.  They would prevent the two gays or two lesbians from freely choosing to marry, even though doing so would harm no one.  But to intervene would violate the unalienable right to liberty that has been one of the principal cornerstones of our culture. 

"Social conservatives" would do it anyway, if they could.

5

Some of these extremists would go so far as to prohibit the sale of birth control devices to minors and to support the refusal of a pharmacist to sell birth control devices to anyone.  Prevention of conception, however, does not harm anyone, and so in America one has an unalienable right to freely choose to take measures to prevent impregnation.  An individual or even a highly vocal group may believe that to protect oneself from unwanted pregnancy is a sin against divine law, but it remains the individual's own choice whether or not to do so.  (The child who might have been conceived if a woman and man had engaged in unprotected sex obviously does not exist and cannot be said to "have been harmed" by the free choice to use birth control.)

Social conservatives generally also want to prevent an impregnated woman from freely deciding to end her pregnancy by having an abortion.  They might even want to claim that such a prohibition is not a violation of the woman's unalienable right to liberty because in the case of an abortion there is a "child" who does exist who would be harmed by the abortion.

Because this claim could be made (rationally), it is worth our considering whether or not it has any more merit than the desired prohibition of same-sex marriage or of birth control (either of which has little or no merit).
6
Until late in a pregnancy, a fertilized egg or a foetus inside the mother's womb is not only incapable of making a choice for itself.  It is not even capable of surviving without the mother's choice to nurture it inside herself.  It is not reasonable to claim that such an organism is an existing person; thus, it is not reasonable to maintain that it would be criminal for the mother to freely choose to end the pregnancy at such an early stage of gestation.
At some point during the pregnancy, however, the foetus will have developed enough that, if  born, even prematurely, extraordinary "neo-natal" medical devices and procedures could be employed in attempting to save the new-born's life.  At such a late stage of gestation, in other words, it becomes somewhat more reasonable to think of the new-born as "an existing child."  If for some reason such an infant should actually be born prematurely, surely it is the parents' responsibility to decide if such extraordinary procedures should be undertaken or if the underdeveloped new-born should be made as comfortable as possible as nature takes its own course.  This situation would be essentially the same as the decision about the seriously injured one-year-old discussed above and is comparable to the daughter's deciding her father's treatment when he is so near the end of life that she has been given the responsibility of making this momentous decision for him.

In fact, at such a late stage of her pregnancy, for the mother to decide to continue nurturing the foetus inside her is really the same decision; i.e. the choice as to whether the means needed to create a living person will be provided (or continued).  This would be the mother's free choice, it would seem, just as it would be primarily her choice as to whether or not to use extraordinary neo-natal procedures to extend the tenuous life of an underdeveloped new-born.

7

Here is an outline of the argument presented here:
  1. An adult individual in America has the inalienable right to the liberty to do whatever he or she wants, unless doing so would harm someone else.
  2. Near the end of life, for example, the individual has the right to refuse extraordinary efforts to prolong her or his life, and if she or he has delegated the authority to another in case of his or her own incapacity, the designee is free to do so.  This is not considered "harm" to the aging individual.
  3. If an infant can survive an injury or disease only after prolonged, extraordinary medical procedures with little hope of ever achieving true health, then the child's parents may choose whether the child will be allowed to die naturally.
  4. If some individuals' choices are contrary to another's values, the second person (or group) does not have the right to prevent the first person from doing what she or he wants unless it harms another.
  5. Questioning the judgment of a person who is responsible for the well-being of another is recognized as an extraordinary and very rare event.
  6. A mother's choosing to terminate an early pregnancy cannot be considered "harm to another" any more than preventing pregnancy either by use of birth control pills or devices or by abstention from sex can be so considered.
  7. The parents of a child born so prematurely that the chances of what they consider "normal life" are small  have the freedom, the right, to tell doctors to withhold extraordinary, neo-natal procedures.  This is parallel to the end-of-life decision of an older person's designee.
  8. A mother's choosing to end a pregnancy even late in the gestation period, when medical authorities are doubtful of the foetus's capacity to survive on its own without extraordinary measures, is also the same, isn't it?

The truth or relevance of any of these statements may be questioned, and the logical relations among the statements may also be challenged.  But to make emotional pronouncements about one's religious beliefs would not be convincing or relevant.  And, furthermore, the most complex social issues - including all those relating to our inalienable rights as American citizens - are the most important for us to discuss logically, exercising the very coolest and soundest reason of which we are capable.



***

Sunday, November 6, 2011

The 99% - 1% Question: the National Interest

***

The cardinal American values are peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty, and justice for all. These values should be pursued, supported, and honored above all others. Actions that threaten or diminish them should be avoided or prohibited, vilified, or at least highly taxed. Public leaders praising these essential values should be supported; those whose decisions undermine them should be hounded out of their positions of influence.



Peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty and justice for all: the most persistent threat to these essential values is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Equality of opportunity is not possible when power – social, political, or economic power – is highly concentrated. Justice is undermined. Liberty is diminished. Peace too is endangered when power is concentrated, because a means of perpetuating the hold on power by few is demonizing so-called enemies, promoting fear, and pursuing social conflict at home or war abroad. Prosperity depends on peace and equality of opportunity. Concentration of power – as the Founding Fathers clearly understood – threatens our pursuit and attainment of all that we value.



When political and economic leaders are forced to admit that failure of this or that individual company threatens the viability of the entire national economy, it is clear that such companies have become too large and too powerful, in other words that wealth and power has indeed become too concentrated. Care must be taken to prevent such concentration of corporate power, through rigorous fiscal and taxation policies and through prudent management of the economy in general.



*



The value of a nation’s economic system is measured by the degree to which the system benefits the nation including its public institutions, its businesses, its workers, and its families. A prudently managed capitalist economy has proven its ability to benefit a nation more effectively than any other kind of economic system. Capitalism is the most reliable means of making progress toward our essential values; to continue functioning efficiently and effectively, a capitalist economy must find a right balance between (a) reward to the most successful and (b) protection for all from a high concentration of power – economic or political – in the hands of the few. One might say, for example, that if the richest 5% or fewer of the nation’s population controls 50% or more of the nation’s economic assets, then the capitalist system is prevented from sustaining the most consistent and effective achievement of equality of opportunity, prosperity, justice, and liberty for all, as well as the stablest peace possible in an uncertain world.



High-minded and unselfish people do exist, but as our founding fathers realized, the most common motive for one’s actions is self-interest. As the wealth of a nation becomes overly concentrated in the hands of the few, experience has shown time and again that members of the wealthiest group, acting rationally, use their economic power to insure the continuation of their own financial advantage, including even that of future generations of their families. Although a relative few rich people give generously to those needing help, many – perhaps most – grow more and more motivated by selfishness, greed, and the pursuit of political power. Also, a nation in which a significant number of its poorer citizens are held in a perpetual state of dependence on charity is clearly not experiencing what might be accurately called prosperity.



*



As Lincoln wrote, “Labor precedes capital.” In a healthy capitalist economy, workers make products and provide services. Owners of the firms employing the workers are paid by customers for the goods or services they purchase, and earn profits according to the ratio between the price paid and the cost of materials and labor employed. In this system most individuals receiving income are either business owners or their employees; a relative few use money itself – rather than goods or services – as a means of earning income; in a healthy capitalist economy, those few make their money by providing loans to or investments in the businesses that make the goods or provide the services. Their role is solely to facilitate the efficient production and exchange of goods and services.



The long-term health of an economy and the prosperity of a nation depend in no small measure on the degree to which income earned results from the production of goods or services, rather than from the manipulation of money. The greater the proportion of income earned resulting from money manipulation, the more vulnerable the economy is to disruptive cyclical swings from times of great prosperity, created by money’s making money, and great privation resulting from the distortion of the healthy capitalist economy caused by such a high level of dependence on money itself to generate income, rather than on the production of goods and services.



A high level of concentration of wealth in the hands of the few makes it inevitable that the economy will be characterized by a relatively high degree of dependence on income from money manipulation rather than on producing goods and services or directly facilitating such production. This is true because, in this unhealthy system, the few controlling the economy have a surplus of money that they control directly, in contrast to the businesses manufacturing goods or providing services that they control somewhat less directly. When wealth and power is highly concentrated, it is to be expected and rational for the wealthy to find it more and more convenient and vastly more efficient to make their additional income more and more from finance than from production. But in excess, this practice has disastrous consequences.



Concentration of wealth thus creates distortion of a capitalist system that threatens the nation’s prosperity.



*



A capitalist economy is a tool for achieving the highest level of prosperity possible for a nation and its citizens; the value of our economy lies in the cleverness, the skill, and the wisdom with which it is managed to the benefit of a nation’s citizens. As a complex and always changing tool, our capitalist economy requires careful and skillful management in order to create enduring and widely shared prosperity. Over-managed or over-controlled, a capitalist economy has the tendency to stagnate, to impede technological innovation, and to bog down in paperwork and bureaucracy. But, left without sufficient managerial control, a capitalist system has the tendency to create greater and greater concentration of wealth and economic power and to produce greater and greater dependence on finance rather that production. In any case, the economy must be considered a tool which can be used, consciously and deliberately, rather than a force of nature which can only be observed and endured.



*



For a democracy to work as it is intended, creating the conditions under which the citizenry – through elected representatives – may govern themselves, it is necessary for citizens to learn the facts, not merely to exchange opposing opinions or hear others do so . The most critical function of the public media is to acquaint the citizenry with the facts, which those in the media must come to know and to report as objectively, as fully, and in as disinterested a manner as possible. This is insured by the media’s taking seriously its core mission as conveyor of fact rather than opinion and by a diversity of individual media outlets which when taken together can cancel out the subjective residue that may remain in each other’s reporting despite good-faith effort.



When economic, political, and social control of the media becomes concentrated in the hands of a relative few, the chances of such disinterested reporting of the facts and actual conditions is significantly reduced. Social and political diversity will be diminished, and narrow partisanship will be increased. Biased readers, viewers, and listeners will come to use the media as the drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination.



Seeking arguments for support of one’s bias or for opinions supporting one’s self-interest is not to seek the truth in order to make reasoned decisions, which is the approach needed for a successful democracy. Concentration of media control thus undermines the effectiveness of democratic processes themselves.



*



The greatest thing about our great nation is the ideals upon which it was founded. If we are to continue America’s noble tradition and live up to our great mission in the world and in human history, we must do everything in our power to nurture, sustain, and pursue our essential values. Highly concentrated wealth and power threaten all that we hold most dear in the United States of America: peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty, and justice for all.

Note: This essay was first posted with the title: "The Too Big To Fail Discussion" in January 2010.

 ***