The November Election: How to decide? Part One [essay]

***

**

*

1a

The cardinal American values - as I have said before - 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.

As we approach our National Election Day in November, it would only make sense to keep these values that underlie our founding documents and our 200 years of corporate endeavor uppermost in our decision-making about for whom we will vote.

1b

A good, specific frame of reference would also be the U. S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which begins by saying that the legitimate purposes of government are -

    a. to "establish Justice,
    b. to "insure domestic Tranquility,"
    c. to "provide for the common Defence,"
    d. to "promote the General Welfare," and
    e. to "secure the Blessings of Liberty."

In addition, these benefits are to be sought and secured by national government both "to ourselves and our posterity."

I would paraphrase the purposes for our national government thus:

1. to establish justice,
2. to keep peace within the nation,
3. to provide adequately for the nation’s defense from outside forces,
4. to promote the people's general well-being, and
5. to guarantee freedom to all in America.

And our government should be headed in the direction of pursuing these good ends both to ourselves and our descendants, which is to say, both short-term and long-term.  We mustn't forget to consider the long-term consequences of our actions today, but we mustn't ignore the needs of today, especially in hard times.

Keeping these national purposes and core American values clearly in mind as the national election approaches, we should say to ourselves that actions or policies tending to jeopardize any of our traditional values or our government's essential purposes are reprehensible and should be stopped and punished.

Laws and proposed laws that threaten any of these goals should be rejected or repealed. Leaders, media, and public figures who advocate or promote policies contrary to pursuit of these fundamental goals should be hotly criticized and discouraged from doing so, and should lose their positions of influence.

2

Peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty, and justice for all: the most persistent threat today to these essential values is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Equality of opportunity is simply not possible when power – social, political, or economic power – is extremely concentrated, as it is today. Justice is undermined when some can afford more and more skillful legal counsel than the rest of us. Liberty is diminished when the wealthy work to guard wealth for themselves and to limit others' powers to get ahead. Peace too is endangered when power is highly concentrated, because one tried and true means of perpetuating the hold onto power by the few is to use propaganda to promote fear by demonizing so-called "enemies," and to stir up social conflict at home and war abroad. Prosperity depends on peace abroad and equality of opportunity at home.

In short – as the Founding Fathers clearly understood –  extreme concentration of power threatens our pursuit and attainment of all that we value most highly.

If we fail to elect the candidates whose policies more credibly address the pervasive issue of the currently high concentration of power in the hands of the few, then our lives will be diminished in many ways.  Ironically, even the lives of the most powerful themselves will be diminished, as well as the lives of the rest of us.  At least long-term, our national experience - which since the 18th century has been no different in this regard from other national histories - shows that widely shared prosperity benefits all, including even the most prosperous among the rich. 

"A rising tide" of widely shared peace and prosperity "raises all boats," as the saying goes.  On the other hand, "a rising tide" of wealth and power for only a few "raises only the yachts of the luckiest among the very rich," as we might say based on our national economic history.

3a

We should bear in mind that the wealth-power gap of today does not separate the socio-economic class that we traditionally think of as "the rich" from the so-called middle and lower classes. The gap in the usual and usually healthy continuum from the richest on down toward the poor lies instead between, on the one side, the poor, the rich, and the middle-income  and on the other side, only a few, the Super-Rich.  It's not even the wealthiest 1%, but more like the wealthiest 0.1% who pose the real problem.

We should not think of concern about this gap as "class warfare" either, but as a problem comparable to democracy vs. plutocracy, rule over the people by a tiny, privileged few.

Also, we should keep in mind "the red herring" problem, the political gimmick of claiming that a particular matter is the central issue that should should decide the election, when in reality that matter is not central to problems currently facing our nation at all. 

And finally, as always, we need to be skeptical of what candidates claim are their motivating values and look instead at the policies and the concrete measures they favor, and dispassionately consider what values they are actually pursuing.

3b

So, as we approach the election, we should keep clear in our minds - not traditional loyalties, not political dogma, not bias or fear or even love.  We should reason carefully with these factors before us:

1. Keep our eyes on the central issue, not chasing after "red herrings,"
2. Beware of false claims about values that are contradicted by candidates' specific proposals (and those of their primary supporters),
3. The abnormal gap separating the have's (money and power) from the have-not's is undermining all that America stands for, and therefore,
4. Reducing this toxic divide between the Super-Rich and all the rest of us is the central issue on which the current election should be decided.

4a

If a candidate today tells you that she or he will cut taxes, create jobs, and reduce the government debt by cutting spending, then we have to ask ourselves, Just how can this be done? 

The details of such a plan are even more critical for us to know than they would be otherwise, as we weigh the most important issue - whether or not reducing taxes and spending while lowering the debt will shrink the abnormally wide gap separating the Super-Rich from all the rest of us - because doing all three of these things at the same time seems on the surface to be logically impossible. 

It seems obvious to anyone who thinks about it that cutting taxes would tend to increase the debt, not reduce it.  Even if spending is reduced by the same percentage as the tax cut, or if taxes are cut at the same level as the spending reduction, the debt would not be reduced, merely kept the same.  Before we can judge, we need to see the math: What taxes? How much lost revenue? What spending cuts (and at what social costs), and How much will be saved by making them?  How would - in fact, how could - cutting our government's revenues reduce the debt?

Whoops! Now, wait just a cotton-picking minute there, partner!  There we go, chasing the red herring.

4b

It's true that - at least on the surface - it would seem that the pursuit of reducing the debt by cutting taxes does not make sense.  But even if proponents of this policy have some hidden magic up their sleeves that would solve this riddle, the main point is - IT DOES NOT MATTER.

The size of the debt is not a critical issue at this time, and besides, a time of deflation - in this case resulting from the Great Recession of 2008-2009 - is no time to be striving to reduce the national debt.  The time for working on that rather routine and not-now extreme long-term problem is ideally a time of prosperity, when the economy is chugging along at top or near-top speed. 

If an individual candidate or a particular political party claims that cutting government spending is the key issue in this election, we might be suspicious that their real values are not in fact among the cardinal American values: peace, justice, equality of opportunity, together with liberty and the pursuit of prosperity for all.

This suspicion seems particularly relevant when the claimed goal of reducing the debt is linked to a goal of cutting revenues.

What other issues do some seem to think are central to this campaign? and How do proposed policies and actions affect progress toward our country's traditional values?

Those questions... in Part Two.

*

**

***

The November Election: How to decide? Part Two [essay]

***

**
*

In Part One of this piece, I said:

"Peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty, and justice for all: the most persistent threat today to these essential values is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Equality of opportunity is simply not possible when power – social, political, or economic power – is extremely concentrated, as it is today. Justice is undermined when some can afford more and more skillful legal counsel than the rest of us. Liberty is diminished when the wealthy work to guard wealth for themselves and to limit others' powers to get ahead. Peace too is endangered when power is highly concentrated, because one tried and true means of perpetuating the hold onto power by the few is to use propaganda to promote fear by demonizing so-called "enemies," and to stir up social conflict at home and war abroad. Prosperity depends on both peace abroad and equality of opportunity at home.

"In short – as the Founding Fathers clearly understood – extreme concentration of power threatens our pursuit and attainment of all that we value most highly.

"If we fail to elect the candidates whose policies more credibly address the pervasive issue of the currently high concentration of power in the hands of the few, then our lives will be diminished in many ways. Ironically, even the lives of the most powerful themselves will be diminished, as well as the lives of the rest of us. At least long-term, our national experience - which since the 18th century has been no different in this regard from other national histories - shows that widely shared prosperity benefits all, including even the most prosperous among the rich."


Now, how should we proceed here in Part Two?

First, we should recall the problems that are widely believed to be the central issues in this election. Then we can look at each issue and review how, if at all, differing opinions on each topic relate to the key problem we face, the huge disparity between the wealth and power of a few and the comparatively meager wealth and power of the rest of us.

1

Before we begin such a review, let's recall that from time to time, several issues are mentioned that are of great significance to a relative few, such as Birth control and Abortion rights, Immigration, Same-sex marriage, and other topics.  Questions of freedom, justice, perhaps equality of opportunity may be relevant in discussion of these issues, but none of the issues themselves are closely related to the central issue in this election, which threatens all five of our core values as a nation.

Traditionally, areas of concern often debated in presidential campaigns include: Foreign Affairs, the U. S. economy including taxes, and education.  In recent years, health care has also been an issue.  Two other issues of concern now are the way political campaigns are funded, and public restrictions on private businesses (especially financial institutions).

So, we need to ask ourselves how the central issue - toxic concentration of wealth and power - would be impacted by the various, differing opinions on each of these issues:

1. Campaign Finance
2. Government Regulation of business
3. Education
4. Health Care
5. Foreign Affairs, and
6. The Economy.

The purpose here is not to make a detailed or authoritative analysis of the impact on today's enormous concentration of power and wealth of the contrasting positions on all these topics, but to demonstrate ways in which one should consider for whom to vote based on whether we perceive that a particular candidate's policies will make the key problem we face worse or better.

a.  Campaign Finance



The Supreme Court's recent "Citizens United" decision was either good or bad, depending on the candidate speaking.  But it is clear to all that the decision to this point has certainly had a big impact on the wealth-power gap.  Or, rather, those few in whom wealth and power in America today is highly concentrated have certainly exploited the new potential they have been given to increase their already powerful influence on elections.

Because there is now no limit on the amount wealthy persons (including Corporations, who - as at least one candidate has recently affirmed - are also persons) can give anonymously to political campaigns - and experience has shown that the amount of money a candidate spends on her or his campaign decides the election more often than not - current legislation regarding campaign financing is likely to help the rich and powerful keep or increase their wealth and power.  The result is continuation of the downward spiral from democracy, or rule by representatives of the people, and toward plutocracy, which is rule by the richest few.

Candidates who have acknowledged the need for change in campaign finance legislation deserve our support, and those who either ignore or oppose such reform should be hotly criticized.  The proposed legislation requiring full disclosure of all gifts above $10,000 to campaigns, political action committees, and also to political issue "social service" non-profits would help, but not fully resolve the issue.  The proposed Constitutional Amendment clarifying that Corporations are not "persons" is sorely needed but has little chance of approval for a while.

b.  Government Regulation

No one supports mindless and inefficient bureaucracy, which slows social progress including economic growth, but for decades in America there have been many complaints about over-weening government interference and unnecessary regulation.  But since the recent Great Recession in particular, there have also been loud voices calling attention to the vast and profound harm that de-regulation over the last three decades has done to our economy.

Would return to more efficient and updated public restraints on business tend to increase the current trend redistributing wealth and power from the people generally to a few individuals and a few large corporations?  If so, then candidates supporting more (and better) regulation should be supported, and those still complaining that we have too much regulation already should not.

The current weakness of business regulation has led to reduced competition as the large and wealthy corporations continue to corner larger and larger markets, becoming "too big to fail."  Weak regulation has contributed significantly to less and less commitment to truth in media, as well as to riskier business speculation as we saw recently in personal credit and in real estate.

On the other hand, in the 2012 elections there are even fewer candidates for office who are seeking more government requirements for business accountability than there are supporting campaign finance reform.  In other words, although increasing accountability is needed to stop the greater and greater concentration of wealth and power, positions on this issue taken by current candidates are not likely to influence our decisions about whom to support.

c.  Education

Equality of opportunity is a key to addressing the problem of the disparity between the Super-rich and the rest of us, and as we learned in the 1950s, "separate is not equal."  But the amount of quality education available to poor and middle-income Americans today is far from equal to that accessible only to the Rich and Super-Rich.  The misguided and unnecessary pursuit of a "red herring" - national debt control - has led to actual cuts in local tax revenue, driving down educational quality across the nation.

Candidates who support immediate change to make college more available to all should be supported.  Those candidates committed to raising the level of public education generally - to all families, in all sections of all our communities - should be preferred over those who complain how much such efforts may cost.  Those who cut or arbitrarily limit taxes and force public school teacher lay-offs, school mergers, and larger classes in public schools or who seek to undermine public education by issuing vouchers should be vilified, defied, and thrown out of office wherever possible.

d.  Health Care

People living in deteriorating and crime-infested neighborhoods - for whom good and healthy food is difficult to find, whose health is poor or insecure - do not have an equal opportunity to find and hold good jobs and to get ahead.  Without equal opportunity it is highly probable that the wide gap separating those with lower incomes from those more fortunate will grow wider still.

Good, well-insured health care must be made equally accessible to all if all of us are to have the opportunity to advance.  Those candidates today who oppose the few, minimal steps toward this goal that have recently been taken need our support, and those committed to reverse recent progress, thus reducing the chances we have for narrowing the gap between the Super-Rich and the rest of us must be opposed.  Those who have protested our recent steps forward the loudest must be the most hotly criticized of all. 

e.  Foreign Affairs

The foreign policy issues in the November elections are the instability in the Middle East and, as always it seems, the threat of war.

The questions of how to deal with the Syrian civil war and what to do about Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons endanger our prospectives for peace, a core American goal.  We should oppose candidates who speak recklessly about the U. S. intervening (again) militarily in Middle Eastern conflicts - including the intractable Palestinian-Israeli crisis.  The Super-Rich and the huge global corporations profit from American military involvement, and "tough talk" about abandoning our friends the Israelis, about invading Syria, standing up to China, and bombing Iran serves their interests more than it serves our country's.

We have "the big stick"; our leaders should be those who "speak softly."

f.  The Economy

The two central questions about the U. S. Economy in 2012 - taxes and jobs - boil down to the same one, How to get the economic engine hitting again on all cylinders?  The challenge for us, as we decide whom to support and whom to oppose, is to distinguish those economic policies which will get us rolling the sooner toward reversing the movement tilting toward the increasing benefit of the wealthiest Americans.

The essential problem in a time of economic deflation, depression, or recession is that too little money is being spent relative to the goods and services that the current economy can produce.  The solution, therefore, is to increase the amount of money being spent.

When a candidate says he or she supports reducing or freezing taxes, that does sound relevant to the central issue; increasing taxes - it would seem - would actually further reduce the amount of money being spent.  But let's think that over a moment. 

It's not the amount of wealth in the economy that is the problem: it is the lack of money being spent.   Therefore, increasing the amount of wealth by reducing taxes is good or bad depending on whether the dollars being made available will actually get spent, right away, on goods and services produced by the American economy. 

Reducing the taxes of those who are less likely to spend here and now, on real goods and services will not address the problem.  Reducing the taxes on those who are eager or even desperate to spend - on basic necessities such as food, housing, clothing - would most effectively address the problems of recession.

Candidates who support reduction of taxes on the lower-income Americans thus deserve our support, while those seeking to reduce or even freeze taxes on the very wealthy should not be supported.  (Note: Even increasing taxes on the rich - closing loopholes, raising the graduation of income taxes, taxing capital income at the same or nearly the same rate as income earned - this would not significantly harm economic recovery.)

The benefit of increasing the amount spent on goods and services here and now is that businesses will produce more as more is sold, and will need to hire more workers and buy more supplies; suppliers will produce more and will need more workers.  (If this spiral were to go on too long - say, ten years - then there would be more demand than an economy at full capacity could produce, and price inflation would result.  But the immediate problem we face today is the opposite.)

One problem, though, with reducing taxes as a means of increasing money being spent is that it takes time.  Federal income tax, of course, is paid only once a year.  New spending now is the goal... which means that direct government employment of a larger number of workers is the better, immediately-effective way to get the economy rolling.  Big government projects - rebuilding bridges and highways, for example - take some time to get rolling; but putting back to work the many laid-off government workers - teachers, police officers, fire fighters, et al. - could be done very quickly.

Thus, candidates who are bold enough to support rebuilding essential government services right away, even if money is not yet on hand to pay for it, should be supported since this is the most efficient way to start us moving again toward widely shared prosperity.

3

As we seek to know what candidates in November will help the country the most, we have to refuse to chase red herrings - the size of the national debt, social issues, the unfair trade practices of China, questions about American military intervention in foreign conflicts, etc. - and keep rigorously focused on the problem undermining our progresses toward achievement of our most fundamental national values.  Our core values are long-term and broadly-shared peace, prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty, and justice.

All five of these national goals and essential cultural values are threatened today by the widening disparity of power and wealth in the hands of the very, very rich, at the expense of all the rest of us.  Who is likely to work to reduce that gap?  Who is more likely to increase it further?

We can decide if we take this approach.

***

**

*

Wise (and Lucky) Sayings 13 from Ron Lucius

*
**
***

Everything is everything.

Nothing is nothing.

……………………………………………………….................Ron Lucius

*
*

Pretty good is Pretty Good.

Pretty bad is Bad.

……………………………………………………….................Ron Lucius

***

**

*

Taxes: Why Won't We Pay More? [essay]

***

It has become a mantra among many today to say that Americans will not tolerate paying higher taxes. There are two different reasons for this opposition.

1

Americans are notoriously more independent than individuals living in other developed democracies, where the average percentage of annual income paid in taxes is far higher than in the U. S. More than citizens of most other developed democracies, Americans tend to resist anyone’s telling them what they must do or what they may not do.

On the other hand, even in the United States few reasonable people fail to understand that many of those things upon which we depend for our well-being, from roads to electricity (for instance), can be provided only by government or at least by using the government-provided infrastructure on which these services rest. In fact, many of these necessary services, from the currency to defense and foreign policy (for instance), can be provided only by our national government. And of course, since we are preternaturally opposed to our government’s running profit-making businesses, for our government to provide the services we all need and want, we must pay taxes.

To many, however, it seems natural today to select as our governmental representatives only those who promise (like George Herbert Walker Bush), “No new taxes!” In fact, there may be a sizeable group who would demand promises from their political candidates to actually cut taxes, even though what we pay now is already relatively low for the citizens of a developed capitalist democracy.

As independent, free-wheeling individuals we Americans naturally dislike government in general. We may dislike national government more than state, county, and local government – or not – but in any case, we have a built-in distaste for government in general. It is not illogical for a recent, serious book on government to be called “A Necessary Evil.”

Today this endemic American distaste for government is exacerbated by the distrust of our elected officials, and of all government. This distrust is usually considered to have had its most recent origins in the administration of President Richard Nixon. Until that time, although they endeavored to be responsible to the public they served, media outlets not only tried to avoid partisan reports; they also had a tendency to “spin” the national news in order to show the U. S. government – of either party - in a favorite light. They did so even to the point of refusing to “scoop” their competitors rather than disparage our government, out of the respect they felt – and thought that all of us living in a representational democracy should feel – for our government. As a rule they encouraged their readers and listeners, as patriots, to respect their government.

It was harder and harder for our media to maintain that conventional stance as the war in Viet Nam dragged on and on and as the Armed Services’ reports on the war’s progress more and more often proved to be more public relations than the truth. Eventually it became unmistakably clear that President Nixon and his allies were more interested in serving their own ends – at least their desire to continue themselves in office – than in honestly serving those who had put them in (temporary) control of their government. In that difficult time the media realized that they had the responsibility to expose our leaders’ hypocrisy and lack of integrity. We have not recovered from this traumatized state of mind even thirty-six years after the President’s resignation in disgrace.

Thus, when presidential candidate Ronald Reagan joked in 1980 that the scariest words one might hear were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you,” the tinder of our endemic dislike for government was even more ready to catch fire than it would have been.

(By the way, even though President Reagan was known as “the Teflon president,” the same was not true of the members of his administration, who all were subject to greater and more hostile scrutiny from the media than was common before 1970. And though he escaped the ignominy that might have been expected from the Iran-Contra scandal, if anything our distrust of government during Reagan’s tenure became more deep-seated than it had been before.)

Today, of course, every radio host and every blogger as well as every cable channel and every traditional media service seems to spend more time seeking scandal than trying to ascertain the facts of our corporate daily experience; and the long-held convention of showing respect for elected officials seems as old-fashioned as the Model T.

Thus, one key reason our aversion to paying higher taxes is more intense than the common-sense self-interest of wanting to keep non-discretionary spending to a minimum and our innate distaste for government. We resist taxes from any government even more today than we would “naturally” because we feel we cannot trust legislators or administrators to spend our money wisely or even honestly.

2

Our culture grew out of distrust and dislike for a social and economic elite. The first European-Americans from whom our basic attitudes, values, and politics grew were interested in making their own way, of succeeding in a young capitalist society where merit and talent were more valuable than inherited property or social distinction.

Europeans have always tended to look upon us as materialistic, pragmatic, unconventional, and self-interested. They have observed that we tend to be more interested in the here and now than in the distant future, more focused on facts than on theory or philosophy, more apt to be doers than thinkers. Such observations are certainly over-simple and may even be negatively biased, but they are based on the truth; they approximate the way most of us tend to be in reality.

An essential part of this middle-class culture we have inherited is a desire to use our money – every dollar – for real, concrete, and immediate benefits. We are less likely than many other peoples to plan long-term, to seek abstract ideals, to value what intangible benefits our money can buy. We want to pay for something we can see and touch. When we give to charity, as we do to an extraordinary extent, we expect to see for ourselves just how our generosity has benefited others. When we make a purchase for ourselves, we expect to experience what we have bought now, without delay.

We tend to expect immediate returns on our money, whether the return lie in securing prudent assets we need for the security and well-being of ourselves and our families, or in achieving immediate personal gratification or irresponsible quick-fixes. In other words, this practical element innate in American life is neither good nor bad in itself; it may be either. But this basic trait is observable every day all around us, whether directed to useful, responsible ends or to thoughtless frivolities.

The second fundamental reason we don’t want to pay higher taxes, then, even though we now pay less than citizens of other developed nations, is that we do not see for ourselves in concrete and immediate ways the goods and services that taxes tend to support. What good taxes do seems unreal, abstract.

Our competitive and fast-changing economy benefits some and disadvantages others. Those of us earning the benefits are expected to help the disadvantaged through government policies and programs. The concept is generally accepted, even honored; but the benefits to others who may be far removed from our own experience may seem artificial and unreal. This is particularly true of federal taxes, which are often used to the benefit of others living far away from us and for benefits that are themselves complex and hard to understand.

3

So Americans today, more than usually, say they will not vote for any candidate who does assert that she or he will not raise our taxes for two reasons: (1) more than usually, we distrust government, and also (2) we do not value government actions that provide benefits we do not see ourselves.

We know that taxes – even more than “the poor” – will be with us always. There are two ways a capitalist nation may support its government: through taxes, or through borrowing. The option of supporting government today by taking on more national debt seems risky to many of us (including the International Monetary Fund).

On the other hand, all of us can look around ourselves today and see that –

• Public education is failing
• Basic infrastructure is deteriorating
• Health care is ineffective, compared to that in other developed nations
• Our electoral system is dominated by big money
• Our media is factionalized and controlled by a profit motive to the exclusion of public service
• Volunteerism is declining (except in the schools), and the number of those giving to charity is dwindling
• Efforts to serve our interests abroad seem permanently underfunded.

As long as we are at war, particulary in a distant land, if we are to have good government in the United States of America, our government will need to be better funded than it is today. This would be true even if we had no corruption (such as paying unscrupulous corporations grossly inflated fees or winking at wealthy companies’ or individuals’ unwise or unprincipled actions).

Our government is under-funded. We do not want to take on more debt. Our only remaining alternative is to devise a raise in our taxes that the majority of Americans, despite our distrust and our desire for immediate gratification, can recognize as fair and just to all.

To fail to accept this conclusion, is to prevent our nation from moving forward, as we all want.

***

First Day of School [reminiscence]

***

**

*

1

In 1982 the network evening news included a 1-  or 2-minute commentary.  It may have originated on CBS with "wise old guy" Eric Sevareid making sage remarks on one subject or another, and I suppose a remnant of this practice was the brief segment by the late Andy Rooney on "Sixty Minutes."  In 1982, the comments were delivered by Bill Moyers.

On one early September Monday evening that year, Moyers described in detail his and his wife's Sunday before, as they drove their youngest child - a son, I believe - to his first day at college.  The description was focused mainly on the drive home, the arrival, and the entry into the now-childless home.  It was as touching a description of the "empty nest syndrome" as one could ever hope to hear.

That happened to have been the very day when I had delivered our older child - our daughter - to kindergarten.

...And the emotions were all exactly the same!  The fear, the loss, the excitement, the pride: all just the same as Moyers had described.

 My wife A----- sent Bill Moyers a note thanking him for his remarks that night, explaining the particular force it had had with us.  A few days later, we received a Thank-you note from him along with a transcript of the commentary.  It's still tucked up in L-----'s Baby Book.

2

My own first day at college was rather different from the one Bill Moyers described for their son.  In 1960, I'd chosen to attend a university 1,100 miles away from my home.  I took the train, and this was a period when the railroads were protesting the federal government's (right) decision to require them to continue passenger service rather than exclusively the more lucrative freight, so long as they hoped to use publicly financed and maintained tracks.  They were protesting by having long, unpredictable delays in the passenger runs - not caused by weather or breakdowns or safety hazards (other than the competition for track time with the larger, faster freight trains, that is), just delays to discourage anyone from trying to travel by train.

So I arrived nine hours later than scheduled.  (That, by the way, was the closest to on-time for any train trip I made between home and college; once we were a full twenty-four hours late!)

My Dad had mentioned to me that he knew two professors at the university I was to attend, one a former student and the other the father of a friend I'd had in elementary school.  So anyway, I arrived with my large suitcase and a footlocker at the local train station expecting to tell a taxi driver - that would be my first cab - the name of my dorm, trusting he would know where it was.

But as I was standing there on the platform with my stuff, looking for a taxi-driver to ask to help me with my luggage, I heard my name called by a woman I didn't know who had a young man there with her.  Yes, Dad had apparently arranged with his friend to greet me - the woman was his wife - and get me from the station to my dorm.  I never really knew how they had known when to show up.  But I was sure grateful for the help, and my former friend - who was soon going to be leaving for Harvard - managed to get the foot locker in and out of the family station wagon and up to my room.

That night, I was over-powered with strong emotion.  In the darkness, I wandered down from the hill overlooking the main campus trying to get the lay of the land.  There was no one else around that I could see.  Finally, my emotions had welled up to a high enough pitch that I just began to run. 

I ran down the lamplit pathways, and in and out of the tall old trees on the quad.  I came to realize that what I was feeling was the joy of being free!  Free of the "me" I had been, in response to (and in collaboration with) my parents and all the gazillions of people my parents knew in our hometown.  Free to start my own life, building my own self.

Wow! I remember it so well.

3

The day our youngest - our son - went to Junior High was pretty memorable too.  W----- himself has always been a very even-tempered guy, self-confident enough to be different from anyone else he knew, tall and good-looking, cheerful, soft-spoken. 

At the end of sixth grade in June the year before, all the children had been taken by bus to the junior high they were to attend the next year, to meet the Principal and Vice-Principal and to have a tour.  That seemed to be a wise tradition in our school district.

In addition, W----- and his fellow students were all invited with their parents in late summer to an orientation session at the "new" school (which in W-----'s case was actually the oldest school building in town).  We met in the auditorium for a while and then went into the hall where we got a copy of W-----'s class schedule with the room numbers marked.  We also got a school map, I seem to recall.  There were older students on hand to help us find our way around.

So we walked from one classroom to the other and helped W----- find the most direct route in each case.  We'd all been assured that there would be older student volunteers and of course teachers in the halls between classes that first couple of days to make sure no one got (or felt) lost.

It again fell to me to take W----- to school that first day.  I asked him how he was doing.  He said "Fine" in the familiar unruffled and perky manner.  He had all the stuff he would need and was ready to go.  As we drove toward the school, I asked if his mother had said where she would pick him up at the end of the day.  He explained in his usual, patient way that she would pick him up in the same place where I would drop him off.  After a while, I did notice that he seemed a little quieter than usual, but when I thought of something to say, in responding he was his usual self.

When the school was finally in sight, just before I made the last turn, W----- abruptly stiffened and made a worrying sound, sort of like someone asleep who was having a bad dream.  I said something bland, like "It's not too busy.  Orderly..."  But by this time, W----- was moving his hands and legs rather randomly and saying, "Oh... Oh," or something like that.

I said I was going to go in with him.  Everything was fine.  He would have a good day.  I cut right across a lane of traffic toward the teachers' parking lot which was just there, and said I'd park there and we would go in.

And just as abruptly, W----- moved in the classic way from which we get the phrase, "He pulled himself together."

"No," he said.  "I'm going in."

I stopped.  He got out and crossed the street, looking both ways, but not looking back at me... and disappeared up the wide steps.  I was as proud of him as I had ever been.

Until those last couple of minutes, I had not been anxious, at all, either.

But that night I asked A----- how his first day had been, and she said, "Oh, just fine."  And W----- at supper was his usual self.  He didn't seem to remember his little momentary freak-out...

But I sure did.

*
**
***

Religious Freedom #2 [essay]

*

**

***

Lately, I started - and did not finish - a thought-piece discussing "religious freedom" in the United States, because one hears in the public discussion fairly often these days the charge - usually made with considerable anger - that religious freedom is currently "under attack."

The claim emerged prominently on the scene in response to a provision of the 2010 federal reform of health insurance, requiring religious institutions - like the Catholic Church - to offer the employees of its social-service agencies and universities health insurance covering such controversial therapies such as birth control.  Although the churches and other such institutions were exempted from this requirement, the other organizations operated by them are not exempt.

In my earlier essay, I reviewed the Constitutional provision for "the free exercise of  religion," pointing out that the individuals employed by these organizations were of course free to exercise their religious conviction that contraceptive is immoral, even if it is covered by their insurance policy, and that those employees whose religious convictions did not prohibit use of birth control methods remained as free to use it as the majority of American women who have it covered by their insurance.

Why, then, I asked, was there so much vitriol in the claims that this provision violates religious freedom?  And I simply couldn't think of an answer to my own question.

2

One reader helped me out by explaining that perhaps a person opposed to contraception, for whatever reason, would resist paying insurance premiums, revenue from which would be used for others using birth control.  "My religious freedom," such an individual might claim, "will be violated if others use, in part, my money to use birth control."

That's the kind of explanation I was looking for, so I appreciate the coaching.  We could imagine that a person fervently condemning contraception of any "unnatural" kind (unlike abstinence) might even be moved to great anger by this impression, even if this individual were to realize that her or his opposition to anyone else's use of legal birth control methods is another matter, properly addressed by efforts to change the law.  Just because we disagree with a law, we do not have a right to ignore it. 

3

Also, the way group insurance works is that every group-member pays the same premium for the same plan, even though the great majority of the conditions covered by the plan are never used by that individual.  Some of my premium, for example, would go to cover the treatment of a person seriously injured in a car accident that killed someone else, which was caused by the survivor's having been drunk at the time.  I do not approve of drunk driving, but a little of the money used to treat this jerk's injuries would come from my premium.


Finally, church-affiliated universities, hospitals and charities would not have to provide or pay for the controversial coverage. Instead, we are told, coverage for birth control could be offered to women directly by their employers’ insurance companies, “with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.”

Since there is no real issue actually threatening the religious freedom of the religious institutions involved, it is right and proper for all of us to support the freedom to choose contraception of women employees (or students) of the non-church organizations involved.

And anger and vitriol expended in this discussion by true believers is more properly directed at the law making the use of birth control legal.

I'm beginning to think that when people claim they value FREEDOM, they mean  their freedom to prevent other people from doing what they freely choose to do. 

***

**

*

Religious Freedom #1 [essay]

*

**

***

There has been a lot of talk recently, by Catholic leaders and by various Republican politicians, about what has been called "religious freedom."   One politician has also said that he values religious freedom and follows all the (other) values in our country's founding documents.  However, just what is meant by these individuals when they speak of "attacks on religious freedom" is unclear.

1

It is true that many of the original European immigrants to America in the 17th and early 18th centuries came here in search of freedom to worship according to their own creed and their own practices.  The "pilgrims" who came to Plymouth Rock are of course such individuals, and their historic "Mayflower Compact" was the result of negotiations between the Christian sect emigrating from Europe, the Puritans, and those they called "strangers" who did not share their religious convictions.


My own ancestors on my father's side in 1733 came to Georgia along with others from the Palatine region of what is now Germany who were called "Salzburgers,"  Protestants who had been persecuted by warring Catholic and Lutheran forces from both French and Germanic regions during the 100 Years War.  (My own ancestors were apparently pursuing that other goal that drove many Europeans to colonial America: economic advantage.  The "Dariks" found passage along with their highly religious neighbors from the Palatine region to England  first and from there to Savannah.)

2

Also, of course, the very first provision in the Bill of Rights amending the Constitution protects those in the United States from the government's establishment of one particular religion as the official religion of the country, and prohibits Americans from preventing an individual from exercising his or her own preferred religion.  We are guaranteed the right to worship - or not to worship - as we see fit, without hindrance from others.

It seems that this right was considered of vital importance by our founders, not really because they believed every individual should be allowed to worship or not as she or he decided, but because the founders themselves had already chosen a wide variety of different sects to follow: Puritans, Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, and so on.  No one wanted someone else, even the democratic majority of "someones else," to dictate how they themselves would worship and conduct themselves morally.


The First Amendment, for our founders and for us, would seem to indicate that neither individuals nor groups may impose their religious beliefs and practices on others.  "Freedom of religion," then, essentially means freedom from possible interference in one's individual choice about which religion to follow, if any, and what moral principles to pursue in one's own behavior.

3

The specific cause of the recent claims that "religious freedom" is now "under attack" was apparently the health insurance legislation passed by our representatives in Washington in 2010, which requires all health insurance companies to cover contraceptive procedures and therapies.  Religious organizations like churches are exempt from this requirement, but the insurance policies offered by the universities, social service agencies, and other organizations that are supported and controlled by religious organizations are not exempt.  According to the new law, their employee health insurance policies must cover birth control treatments, .

Now, many - perhaps most - of the employees of these organizations such as a university or a hospital do not share the beliefs of the supporting religious institution.  Even those who do  apparently value their freedom to go against their church's teachings and use birth control anyway.  (98% of American Catholic women do so, as we have learned.)  And of course, no one is required to use birth control just because it is covered by her or his health insurance policy.

4

In America, however, the basic motivation of "religious freedom" has been protection of individuals from enforcement of religious practices on those who do not share the beliefs behind them, from the "strangers" (non-Puritans) on board the Mayflower to the anti-Church of England sentiment behind the first amendment of the U. S. Constitution.


The 2010 law would seem entirely congruent with the traditional meaning of "religious freedom" on this continent.  The individual may not be forced by the government to follow the religious beliefs or practices of soneone else's religion.  So where's the "attack on religious freedom" in the 2010 health care law?


And why all the anger?  The rage over this issue doesn't appear to be mere posturing covering up deeper or darker reasons that the complainants have for opposing President Obama and those who supported the 2010 law.  (It does so for many Obama opponents, it seems.)  This anger seems to be genuine.  Some seem to actually think that the new law imposes on them someone else's religious beliefs and practices, which would be "an attack on their religious freedom."

5

So, the question is, In what way does the new law impose anti-Catholic or anti-Christian beliefs or practices on the Christians in the U. S. of A. today?

[PAUSE.  Resume two weeks later...]

Well, I give up.  I can't answer my own question.  It seems impossible to find a reasonable and logical way to explain how the new law could be considered an infringement on one's right to freedom of worship.

Rather, all the vitriol - other than the made-up rhetoric of those pursuing merely political gain - seems to derive from some people's belief that contraception is so very contrary to their own religious traditions that it should not be permitted for anyone, ever... and should certainly not be facilitated by law or by health insurance.

Maybe someone could speculate why anyone - let alone quite a few people - think this, but that is clearly beyond my own imaginative powers.  What we can observe is that according to the primary law of our nation, The Constitution, it is equally prohibited for a law to impose a core belief on others who do not share it as it is to impose on others a more trivial religious custom (like attending worship services, for example... it would probably be rude to mention divorce right now...).

Am I wrong?  Have I missed something?

***

**

*

A Trip to the Allergist [reminiscence]

*

**

***

1

When I was growing up in Central Texas, I had persistent problems with pollen allergies.  We didn't know what in particular I was allergic to, but it seemed that anytime, any day, my eyes could start itching, or I could start sneezing, or my chest could become congested - having an asthma attack, we said - or I could have to blot my runny nose every couple of minutes.  Mother used to say it was worst when the many wild and domestic cedar bushes in the Hill Country all around my hometown were blooming... but I didn't know any plant bloomed year round!

My sneezing would sometimes get so bad I would injure my neck and shoulder, and for days I'd have "a crick in my neck," sometimes very painfully. 

The pediatrician always prescribed Benedryl, but that made me sleepy.  So I took it only when I was feeling sort of desperate... unless my parents insisted.

I read somewhere that a youngster with a tendency to "hay fever" would outgrow it in her or his early twenties, and that it would return in one's forties or fifties.  And sure enough, when I went north to college at 18, I did notice a remarkable reduction of my usual symptoms.  (I didn't want to think it was really the plants in my hometown that had been giving me such problems, but...) Oh, and headaches too; I didn't mention that my head congestion often gave me headaches, as a kid at home.

2

I wasn't entirely free of pollen allergy symptoms while I was in college, but the episodes did seem to come only during certain seasons.  I read then that some thought allergic reactions were brought on by stress.  It occurred to me that maybe my parents had known this theory too.

In those years I found some over-the-counter medicines that helped.  One had some caffeine in it, which I discovered was a good idea.  I had observed too that having coffee or tea, or a Coke (preferably a Dr. Pepper) would help, sometimes as much as a pill.  I took Chlorotrimeton for a time - prescribed by somebody - and Coricidin D, the one with the caffeine, was my pill of choice.

3

But still, in my - let's say - "early maturity,"  whether I was in the Midwest, Europe, the Northeast, or the West Coast, my allergies were everywhere what I thought of as "under control."  Even when I visited my family in Central Texas, always for only a few days at a time, I didn't ever feel as vulnerable as I'd had to earlier.

Then, five years after our marriage, A----- and I moved from the East Coast to one of the Great Lakes states.  My new job was in a small village, where we built a house and started our family.  The region was fairly swampy, but the village had grown up around one hill in the center.  Two distinctive features of the area were its black squirrels and the grove of oak trees on that central hill, who loved the acorns of course.

Even the logo of my employer was a stylized oak tree.  We were proud of it.  Our weekly newsletter was called "The Oak Leaf."

4

I was 33 when we made that move.  The allergy symptoms returned about at the level I remembered from childhood in Texas.  I thought it was too early for the return onslaught, and I got to know Coricidin D real well... as well as coffee.  But I was uncomfortable most of the time, some days worse than others.  We had a line of big pine trees marking the lot line next to our house, and my wife and I theorized that their blooming - seeing the waves of yellow pollen blowing around - must have been the cause of my discomfort.  This theory seemed to gain strength from my mother's theory about Texas cedar.  Well, pines and cedars are both evergreens, aren't they?

Always alert for new developments regarding allergies, I did know that considerable advances had been made in allergy treatments.  I'd heard about "scratch tests," where the doctors figured out just what it was that provoked the allergic reactions.  At that time, I didn't know what use could be made of this information. 

And of course, we weren't going to move away from our wonderful new house just because of a little discomfort to Daddy, even if testing should confirm our theory about the pines next door.

5

But after three or four years, we decided to look around to see if there was an allergy specialist around.  One way or another, we discovered a certain Dr. Brenneman in another small village about forty-five miles away.

But I was reluctant to call him.  I thought I should wait until there was at least a brief respite in my allergies.  I thought it would screw up the examination and the tests if I was at or near my worst.  The episodes couldn't last forever, could they? But for a long time, I didn't feel any let-up.

Then, finally I was feeling better, so I made an appointment with Dr. Brenneman.  The intake was pretty standard - a lot of paperwork focusing mainly on my allergy history, a quick encounter with a nurse who weighed me, took my temperature and blood pressure, and told me I had done the right thing coming to the renowned Dr B. even if his office was kind of far from my home.

After a while the doctor himself hustled in, his hands full of the pages of history I had carefully written out.  He went through my allergy history of the last year.  He would quietly ask a simple question like "when was your first episode this year?"  When I would say something like "late January or early February," he would seem to pounce and call out something like "January 29?!"

That seemed odd, but the specific dates he attached to my anecdotal memories all seemed credible, so, every time he hollered one out,  I said a simple "Yes."

"March 27?" he'd propose in his aggressive manner.  "Yes," I'd say, quietly.

"June 3?" "Yes."  (And so on.)

We wereviewed almost a whole year that way.  The exchange was challenging, interesting, and laborious.  But I was impressed.  "Boy!," I was thinking, "this man knows, he knows!"  (By the way, in the course of my review, Dr. Brenneman explained away our theory that the pine trees were the source of my problems.  It turns out that any pollen you can see is very unlikely to be breathed in, creating hay fever.  Such pollen is just too heavy, and simply falls to the ground.)

When we got through that part of my interview, the doctor pulled out a little pen light, tilted my head back and looked carefully up each nostril.  He didn't speak during this part.  Then, each ear.  He probably listened to my lungs too, but I don't particularly remember that.

Finally, he looked me in the eye and said, in that somewhat stentorian voice:  "You know you're sick, don't you?"

"Well, no," I said.  "I waited until I was feeling good for a change before coming in."

"You have forgotten what it's like," he said, "to feel good."

6

Well, that seemed credible too, I had to admit to myself.  I waited for more wisdom.

"Here's what we're going to do," Dr. Brenneman announced.  I later learned that he'd published a well-known book on food allergies, but at this time it surprised me when we did not move directly to the famed scratch tests.  "I have tested a special diet," he said, "consisting of a healthy combination of all the nutrients we need, but with only foods to which a tiny minority of people has ever reported allergic reaction."

I was listening, as he took a printed sheet from a little box on the desk.  "You eat nothing - and I mean nothing - but rice and beets for a week...and I guarantee, a guarantee you know, that you will feel like a new man" (emphasis added by him).

I was looking over the printed diet instructions and absorbing what he said.  I would like feeling "like a new man" after all, especially now that I knew I was sick right at the time I thought I was feeling fine.

"Rice and beets," he repeated emphatically. "You can have some tea if you need to, but with your meals you should have only water... Do you think your wife will do this for you?"

Of course, I was sure, if that was what was needed for my health and well-being.  I didn't even wonder right away whether if I did feel like a new man after a week, I'd be eating nothing but rice and beets for my whole remaining life. 

But he evidently anticipated my worrying that.  "Then," he said, "when we know for proof positive," he said, "that your persistent allergies are indeed food-based, we'll start adding back to your diet various other foods, starting with those known to cause allergic reactions - like yours - for lots of people.  That way we can identify the foods you must avoid in order to continue healthy, symptom-free."

I now know that this approach is known as "the elimination diet," at that time the food allergy equivalent to the scratch test for air-born allergens   Anyway, I left Dr. B. vowing to cut out all foods except rice and beets, with an occasional cup of tea in-between meals.  In only a week, maybe I would feel like a new man.

7

Anyway, A----- faithfully fixed me a big plate of rice and beets every evening after a smaller plate of rice and beets at noon.  I can't remember if I skipped breakfast altogether, but that's unlikely.  Guess what I had for breakfast?

After a rather long week of this, I headed back for my follow-up conference with Dr. Brenneman.  I had to break the news to him that I didn't feel any different than I had the week before.  He acknowledged, then, that the source of my problems was not in my diet.  He may have been disappointed; I imagined he was.  But he said, "Now, here's what we will do," and he explained the scratch test routine: 

I could begin immediately in the lab across the lobby, a technician giving me a series of scratches on my back with a tiny drop of serum made from a variety of possible air-born allergies.  In a couple of days, I'd come back, and the technician would check the results.  The allergens I'd reacted to most would be administered later in a line across the back of my shoulder.  I believe he said that they used to test for 60 different alleregens, but that number had been reduced based on experience.

Yes, that turned to be true: I was tested for only 59!  My back was covered with new scratches from collar to belt-line.

A day or so later, when I took off my shirt for the technician, she said, "Oh!" implying that mine were unusual results.  She showed me a printed chart with the 59 scratches and their labels.  I'd had at least a minor response to 48 of them.  She marked them on the chart, then marked them on a chart she would give to Dr. Brenneman, noting by number how mild or how strong the reaction had been to each.

Although some molds, house dust, cat dander, and the like had provoked some reactions, almost all my allergens were various pollens... one of which was oak.  Dr. Brenneman later told me that oak was the only tree that bloomed year-round, at least in that region.

8

He himself was present at my next meeting with the technician.  He wanted to tell me that my reaction to ragweed, in two different species, had been severe enough so that he had decided to dilute the serum a drop of which was to be administered under the skin that day.  I can't remember which subcutaneous doses I was to receive, but it was fewer than a dozen.

Then, I was to return to the main waiting room for 30 minutes or so in order to give enough time for these pricks that afternoon to reveal how much I was allergic to them.  A serum customized just for me would finally be developed.

Perhaps I'd known that I would be cooling my heels for a time.  I had a paperback with me, and the time went by pretty fast.  After 20 minutes, or maybe longer, someone on Dr. Brenneman's staff happened to walk by, nodding to the several folks waiting there.  She paused as I greeted her, and I noticed that her eyes widened a bit.

"How are you feeling?" she asked.  When I said I was all right, her next question was "Can you breathe all right?"  I hadn't noticed any problem except for a slight headache and maybe a little eye strain.  She took my pulse.  She hadn't done this with anyone else, but I didn't know if anyone there had had the same tests as me.  "Now," she said firmly, "you just stay there.  Dr. Brenneman will be right with you."

One of the secretaries came right over to sit across from me.  She said the doctor would be coming soon.

The next thing I knew, Dr. Brenneman was looking up into my eyes.  He spoke gently and slowly.  "Now, here's what we're going to do.  Even though we diluted your serum to half strength, you're having a severe reaction."  He took something from the nurse behind him and looked back into my eyes.

He held up for me to see a huge syringe (I thought) as he said, "I'm going to put some adrenalin now directly into your heart.  That will protect you.  We'll see how you respond to that, and then decide what's next.  Do you understand and consent?"

Directly into my heart, eh?  I said, as cheerfully as I could, "Let's just wait a little while longer, okay?  I'm feeling all right.  Let's just give my body more time to calm down again."

And even though I was clearly causing a major disruption in the staff's normal routine, that's what we did.  I don't think anyone was delegated to sit right with me that whole time, but I presume staff members were keeping an eye on me.  Did I go back to my book?  Probably!

9

I later learned that I was showing symptoms of "anaphylactic shock," when one's neck swells, in the worst scenario growing so swollen that one's breathing is threatened.  I was still feeling pretty good, though, and managed to remain calm.

I don't know how much longer I sat there; I'm sure it was at least another half-hour, at which time the nurse reappeared with a stethoscope and a blood pressure cuff.  She said I looked much better, and I said I'd never felt really bad.  She came back in a few minutes and watched as I stood up.  I walked around a little (probably went to the bathroom).  Following instructions, I set up another appointment in a week or so with the doctor's secretary but was free to go, if I was really feeling okay.

I really was, so I went out to my car and drove the forty-five minutes or so back to the office.  I made it in time for my last scheduled committee meeting that day, which didn't last long.  I thought maybe I should knock off an hour early, said Goodbye to my secretary (who agreed it might be a good idea for me to leave), and went home.

10

Everyone at the doctor's office had been studiously calm.  No one had said anything unusual in my little meeting at work, and my secretary hadn't either.  So it was surprising when I walked in the kitchen door, and A----- flipped out.

"What happened?!" she exclaimed.  When she told me I looked terrible, I looked in the bathroom mirror.  My appearance was in fact considerably altered.  I looked puffy and pale.  My neck, A----- said, was as big as a piano leg.  I went upstairs for a little lie-down.  After supper and a good night's sleep, I was looking - and still feeling - normal again.  But it had been a dramatic experience, to say the least.

At my next appointment, the technician gave me a shot in the thigh consisting of an individualized mix of serum made from several of my worst allergens.  After a half-hour without any drama at all, I was free to go.

Dr. Brenneman said it was fine for the company nurse to administer my shots from then on.  His office would send me the serum whenever I ran out, and I would take it to the nurse for my shot.  This would be weekly for some period of time and then bi-weekly indefinitely.

So I ended up giving myself the shots for six or eight years.  I probably saw Dr. Brenneman at least one more time, but he just said to keep up with the shots.

11

Well, in a year or so - maybe I was by then down to a monthly shot - I noticed I was feeling better for longer periods of time than I had for decades.  By george, this desensitizination treatment was working!

Then, it was time to move on.  The family moved back East.  I had enough serum for a little while, but I began to get a little anxious about whether or not I could continue to get my usual supply from Dr. Brenneman's office.  I must have gotten it all right, but the local pharmacy seemed reluctant to sell me the insulin needles I needed without a prescription.

A----- found me a local allergist.  I explained my situation, but concluded by asking a question that hadni't really occurred to me before.

"How will we know whether the shots have accomplished all they can?"

He replied:  "There's only one way: you would have to stop having them."  He gave me the prescriptions I needed (or he got them from Dr. Brenneman; I don't remember), but I never had them filled. 

How I felt - and continued to feel - was good, better than "all right."  Now, I never even wonder anymore what it felt like - years ago - to be the "old man" I used to be and before I began to feel like a "new man."

*

**

***

Is Freedom More Important than Equality? [essay]

*

**

***

Which do you want more?

1

"Okay now, would you like chocolate? or strawberry?"

"Both!"

This is the conversation one imagines with a four-year-old at an ice-cream stand on a hot summer day.  And rather often in life, it seems that the right answer to "Which one?" is indeed "Both!"  Should a business - for example - do what serves the customer best? or what most rewards the most effective employees?  Well, the boss has to figure out how to do both, of course!  And all too often it's not easy to achieve both.

The even harder fact of life is that very often good objectives - such as, health and happiness, compassion and high standards, the individual and general society, virtue and love, emotion and reason... - very often, a pair of good objectives find themselves in tension with each other.  They are both good; we want...  both!

So how do you decide - if you have to - which is more important?

2

Even in divisive times like today, Americans profess - and seem to actually believe - that the fundamental goals we should all value are equality, life, liberty, and happiness.  Our most revered founding document tells us we should value these, and we don't seem to question its wisdom on this point.  All of us are created equal, and among our inherent rights are the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to seek to achieve happiness or well-being.

But in our public discourse today, two of these do seem to be in tension with each other, or even in opposition to each other: Equality and  Freedom.  We usually refer to both the value of equality of opportunity for all and the value of individual freedom for everyone, or at least every citizen.  Unfortunately, it seems painfully evident that we often have to choose between the two.

3

Freedom and Equality: believe it or not, the way we use these terms in public discourse today, both of these concepts are relative.

Take Freedom first. 

Surely, just about everyone knows the often quoted Supreme Court Justice's saying that we can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium.  Except for those kinds of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, one's freedom is limited by the freedom of others and by the need for social order. In general I am not free to harm someone else, I am not free to violate the rights of others, I am not free to break the law, I am not free to steal or destroy someone else's property, and so on and so forth.

In a tyrannical state, the absolute ruler may be absolutely free; she or he can do anything he or she wants. But in a democracy, no one's freedom is absolute.

4

And what about Equality?

"Equal" is a relative term by definition. My height is equal or not equal to yours, and when the Declaration of Independence says that all people are created equal, it means "equal to all other people." That goes without saying, doesn't it?

Even if we were to say, "All of those fence posts are equal" (in height), we would still be using a relative term and would mean "equal to each other."  And if we were to say, "Those posts are absolutely equal," we would be using the word "absolutely" to mean "exactly" or "utterly," since there is no such thing - anywhere - as "absolute equality."

5

We hear a lot about freedom these days from angry people. "I value FREEDOM," one might say proudly or even defiantly, using the term more as a talisman or charm than as a meaningful concept. "Oh," the speaker expects his or her audience to think: "if that person values freedom, he must be a good person since freedom is good."  That speaker is not using the word "freedom" meaningfully but rhetorically, to achieve a certain effect rather than to communicate.

A specific example today would be those claiming that our current health-care law "violates religious freedom," since the law says that church-affiliated universities and social service organizations must continue to offer coverage of birth control drugs in their employee health insurance plans.  When someone says this, knowing that most Americans highly value religious freedom, she or he is not talking about everyone's freedom so much as trying to create the notion, "I'm a good person who values good things."

Someone else might say,"I want my freedom!" or "We have to take back America and restore our Freedom."   Looked at more closely, it becomes clear that this angry person wants to be "free" to decide what everyone, including everyone else, will do. That is true as well of those claiming violations of religious freedom, since they want to impose their religious principles on their, possibly non-religious employees.

Another example is the group calling themselves New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, who have been working to have the law approving same-sex marriage thrown out. This is not really valuing freedom, but valuing one's own freedom to impose his or her will on others.

As a result, whenever a person says "I value FREEDOM," using one phrasing or another, we have to ask ourselves WHOSE freedom is being valued?  Our country's founding documents say we should value everyone's freedom, as we say "liberty for all" when pledging allegiance to our flag.

6

There is ambiguity in the concept of equality, too.

I remember Mr. Johnson, my 11th grade American History teacher, explaining to us that "All men are created equal" does not really mean that everyone is equal - as in of equal ability or equal height or weight - but that we are all born with an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. "All men are created," he said, "with an equal opportunity to prove themselves unequal."

And since it is obvious that we are not all born with equal intelligence, health, emotional sensitivity, or physical strength, what Mr. Johnson said seems a fair way to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence. It's not the person that's equal to all others but the person's opportunity that's equal to the opportunity of all others.

So when people are being careful with their words, they may say that all living Americans have - or should have - freedom of speech and religion, of voting for their government representatives confidentially, and so on. But they do not say we all are - or should be - equal; they say we all have - or should have - equal opportunity.

7

We started by saying that sometimes it seems Freedom and Equality-of-opportunity are in tension with or in opposition to each other. 

"Freedom is power," one often hears, but "power is Freedom" also.  One person may have more power - more economic power, for instance, (meaning more money) or more political power - than another person, and that means having more freedom to do as one chooses than those less powerful.  In other words, the less wealthy and the less politically "connected" have fewer opportunities to succeed than the more wealthy and politically influential.

On the other hand, the original Communists said that everyone should be equal; that is, everyone should receive what they need equitably and contribute as much as possible to the community.  In other words, everyone would be held to an equal standard of work and an equal standard of compensation.  But this situation - if it could ever be achieved - would significantly limit the individual's freedom to undertake personal initiatives; all initiatives would be designed to serve the community, not the individual.

In the capitalist system, of course, we know that limiting one's opportunity to "get ahead" also in practice limits the amount of material progress achieved in the community.  Choosing to expect everyone to meet an equal standard - or to achieve "equality" - would come at the sacrifice of individual freedom.

We in America have learned together that suppressing individuals' freedom in order to achieve equality will not work and inhibits human progress.  Following the assertions of our founding documents, we have also learned that suppressing some people's equality of opportunity in order to enhance the freedom of others is wrong and ineffective.

But we can see that in the practical world, as guides of our actions Freedom and Equality are in tension with each other in real and meaningful ways.

8

"Daddy" at the ice-cream stand could order his four-year-old one small scoop of strawberry and one small scoop of chocolate.  In that case, a little of both alternatives could be achieved.  That might be called a win-win situation in that little case, or it might be called a "compromise."

If "Daddy" were choosing for himself, he might want to consider the historical context.  Maybe, for instance, two days ago he had chocolate ice cream... and maybe the time before that too.  So he might say it's time to have his other favorite and order strawberry.

Politically or socially, these same two approaches should be possible: maybe at one time - such as, for instance, around 1900 (if not in 2012) - we might look around and say that we've been adopting laws and practices favoring higher and higher rewards to those at the wealthy and powerful end of the scale, freeing them to satisfy their every whim, but at the same time tending to overlook the legitimate need of others for more nearly equal opportunities to succeed.  In such a situation, we might want to act in accord with our professed belief that both freedom and equality are important and to shift our focus more toward achieving "equal opportunity for all."

"Daddy's" compromise of ordering one small scoop of chocolate and one of strawberry is another approach to achieving "Both" equal opportunity across society and individual freedom: strive to achieve an appropriate balance between these two conflicting, fundamental American values.

When our laws and practices have created such a high degree of equality among all citizens that the zeal to initiate new ways of doing things is waning, then our nation would be out of balance on the "equal opportunity" side of the spectrum.

And when our laws and practices have created such a high degree of the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few that a high percentage of the public is becoming disengaged from the political process, because of feeling dis-empowered, then our nation would be out of balance on the "freedom" side of the spectrum - at least the freedom of the wealthy few and of the large corporations.

We must ask ourselves today then, as the election season heats up, whether we are in either imbalanced situation.  If we are, we must elect representatives and officials who will help us move back toward balance.

We will not survive as the America we say we want to be if we do not have an appropriate balance for all Americans between equal opportunity and freedom.

*

**

***

To My Grandfolks House We'd Go [reminiscence]

***

**

*

My father had been an orphan since he was 13 years old.  So I had only one set of grandparents, my mother's folks, who lived four or even five hours north of us in the town of Cleburne, Texas.

They sometimes visited us at our home, and even brought my great-aunt - who didn't drive - with them now and then.  But we went to their house more often than they came to us.  Altogether we probably saw them once a year or so, most often with our family doing the driving.

1

We usually went on a fairly small state road that went through Lampasas, Texas, so we thought of that as the Lampasas route.  For some reason, the children liked that way better.  My Dad, though - maybe just for some variety - sometimes directed us through the other route, passing through Waco on a U S highway. 

Whichever route we took, we very seldom stopped along the way.  But there was one real landmark on the Waco route.  The highway actually passed the city center on the East.  At the junction with the Business Route into the city, there was a roundabout, the only one I ever saw until I went to Europe many years later.  We called it "the Waco circle," as just about everyone did.  That could have been because there was a well-known restaurant there called "The Circle."  I'll bet there are even now thousands of us still vertical and compos mentis who remember that diner-type place.

Every time we passed, my Dad would share a memory of an earlier time when he had stopped there at The Circle.  It was more or less halfway between Austin, where he had worked for years at the university, and his hometown of Fort Worth, where he still had friends, including former associates at the Star-Telegram where he'd worked on and off for a number of years.

2

The only thing I can remember about the Lampasas route is that quite close to Austin was a tiny town - just a few buildings strung along the little state highway - called Coxville.  There, somewhat hidden by trees and overgrown bushes was a small, dingy, orangeish building with an old sign on it: "The Coxville Zoo."  It seemed to be open for business despite its rundown appearance.  But even my sister and I never wanted to stop for a visit.

It sure was a landmark, though, and a welcome one too when we were heading back from Cleburne, since it meant we would be home soon.

I think it was on the Waco route, or maybe on an alternate route between Waco and Cleburne, that we sometimes went by a town called Waxahatchie, known in those days for its honey, and another even littler place called Hico.

That's pronounced HIGH - koh.

But whenever he drove us by there, my Dad would holler out: "HIGH-koh, (pause), HEE-koh, (then rapidly) HIGH-koh  HEE-koh  HIGH-koh!"

We thought it was silly for him to say this, everytime we went through... but how silly is it that I remember it now, 60 years later?

3

There was one especially memorable time the four of us piled into our little sedan - a two-door black Ford from about 1947 or '48 - to go to Cleburne for Christmas.  It may have been Christmas or the day before, but there was even a little more than the usual excitement that morning as we hustled our way into our places in the car.  My parents did seem a little more breathless than we usually saw them, if I'm not imagining it.  So we set out on the Waco route.

I may have read my Classics Illustrated or one of my biographies of great Americans as children - like Patrick Henry, Boy Patriot, or Abigail Adams, a Girl of Colonial Days - while my sister looked at her insufferable Photoplay magazine. 

But as we approached the Waco circle, my mother and father had apparently had a private little conversation, with a sad result.  We drove all the way around the circle.

"Hey kids!" Dad called out as we headed now in the opposite direction: "We're going home again just for a few minutes!"

Both my parents seemed upset, an unusual situation for us, so neither I nor my stupid sister even asked why or said anything else.  Oh, maybe one of us asked if we could go to the bathroom.

The point is, as we figured it out in a moment or two more, that we realized that our secret Christmas presents - the ones Santa brings in the night - had not made it to the car that morning in all the rush. 

No, despite its adding four hours or so to our car trip, we didn't complain.

*

**

***

The So-called "Conservative Challenge" and a "Liberal Answer" from 50 Years Ago, Part Three [essay]

***

**

*

1

Senator Eugene McCarthy was a liberal candidate for the presidency running in the primaries against Lyndon Johnson in 1967-68.  His book on what he called “the Conservative Challenge” had been published in 1964 but was reissued in 1968.

Many of his statements about the “challenge” from conservatives and about the current state of affairs turn out to be relevant to conservatives’ values, initiatives, and actions of today.   Many statements about his own time could be made with equal force in our own time.

McCarthy’s “Answer” is divided into several parts.  The first two parts – “The Scales of Economic Justice" and "Of Payrolls and Property" – were the subjects of my first two reports.  This final report deals with the rest.

2

Part III is called “The Responsibilities of Responsible Government.” Reported below, ignoring the original page order, are what seem to me the most interesting statements in this and the concluding parts.  

A general theme is that liberals find government action to be needed and effective in the pursuit of social justice.

“It has been argued that once the federal government moves to meet a particular problem, complete federal control or operation inevitably follows.  The overwhelming weight of evidence in our national history is against this assertion.” [p. 65]

[Social Security] “was violently opposed by conservatives when it was first presented, and it has been fought by them at nearly every stage at which significant improvement or extension has been proposed.” [p. 97]

“…Experience has shown that this [Social Security] program, including nearly all citizens of the United States, has been most effective as a national program.” [p. 66]

[On the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] “Again experience has proved the inadequacy of the conservative judgment and demonstrated the need for the application of reasoned judgment in developing governmental programs to meet economic and fiscal needs.” [p. 104]

3

Particular social problems of 1964, 1968… and 2012 are then discussed:

“…On November 19, 1945, President Truman requested the enactment of a national health program.” [p. 63]

“There are those who argue that private insurance, together with state aid for the indigent sick, is adequate.  The obvious answer is that, for many, this has not been the case.”[p. 66]

4

“The state as an institution concerned primarily with the temporal good of man has a right and an obligation to set up standards for education, and the right to require its citizens to meet these standards insofar as it is possible to do so.  The standards, of course, must be reasonable and must leave open great areas of freedom for the pursuit of truth and individual fulfillment.” [p. 74]

“The last four Presidents – Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson – have asked for greater federal participation in financing education in the United States.” [p. 71]

“ ‘Education,’ [President Kennedy said in 1963] ‘is the keystone in the arch of freedom and progress.  …For the nation, increasing the quality and availability of education is vital to both our national security and our domestic well-being.’ ” [p. 76]

5

“The consequences of discrimination [in civil rights] are everywhere evident, but most clearly in the case of Negroes.  The median income of Negro families is about 50 percent that of white families.  In 1961 Negroes made up 21 percent of the unemployed, although they made up only 11 percent of the working force. …” [p. 80]

“ ‘A conservative,’ [William Buckley] states… ‘is seldom disposed to use the federal government as a sword of social justice, for the sword is generally two-edged.’” [p. 82]

“Basic to the operation of the legislative branch of the government is … rule by majority vote.  Frustrating the majority by prolonged debate was in no way sustained or supported at the Constitutional Convention. …Since 1917, when the Senate authorized the limitation of debate by two-thirds of those present and voting, closure has been moved 27 times and has failed 22 times.  It has failed every time when it was invoked with reference to civil rights – some 11 times.” [p. 89]

6

“The danger of subordination of individuals or minorities to the will of the majority has been offset primarily by our emphasis on individual rights, our insistence on tolerance of nonconformity, and the support and freedom and measure of authority we give to the government.” [p. 78]

“Alexander Hamilton [wrote] in The Federalist No. 22…: ‘To give a minority a negative upon a majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … The majority, in order that something might be done, must conform to the views of the minority, and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater…’” [p. 90]

“Free speech and the right to express minority positions is not the same as unlimited speech.” [p. 93]

7

In our own time, conservatives seek to “starve” government in order to prohibit what they see as the liberal inclination to use government as a fundamental tool for pursuing social justice – quality public education, accessible health care, individual civil rights, protection of the average American, and security for the poor and the aging – issues which, my goodness, are the very problems we are trying to deal with today.

*

**

***