The REAL Amerikuh

*

An impassioned Letter to the Editor in our local newspaper the other day made me think.  The letter did not seem worth commenting on at the paper's website, but here's the more general thought it raised:

Students of art, music, literature, and theatre often speculate about what features of the artwork's creator's unconscious are embodied or revealed in the particular instance of imagination one is contemplating.  The vision of "America" behind this particular Letter to the Editor is clearly a work of a feverish imagination or fantasy, so maybe analysing what it reveals about the author's subconscious or character would be revealing in a more general way.

I say this because the man writing the Letter seems to me not so much a unique individual, but a representative of a loud and potentially influential side of our current culture.

1

The writer himself is concerned about the crucial difference between appearance and reality (I might say, the difference between imagination and truth).  His intent seems to be to make sure his readers understand that the "America" supported by one of the national candidates on November 6 is not the same as "ours."

He complains about the real America today, for which the other party is responsible.  America today is not recognizeable from what it once was, he says.  These were his particular concerns:

1. "continuing massive debt"
2. "political correctness," which has apparently contributed significantly to America's decline
3. "constant attempts to divide and incite different groups of people
4. "the ability of a minority [of Americans] to overrule the majority on moral, religious and patriotic issues and more.
5. "the assault on Christianity" and our hope to "preserve this nation 'under God'"
6. "photo ID should be required in all states," though the letter-writer doesn't say why he thinks so.

What apparently does this writer hate about our nation today?  And what were the key features of the "America" of the past which he has imagined?  What does this tell us about the mass of Americans who seem to feel the same way?

2

First, let's reconstruct this man's America in its better days.

That America had at most a small national debt; when a large debt did accumulate, it was paid down quickly.  Everybody took this as their responsibility.

People got along with each other, and everyone agreed this was as it should be.

In America, you didn't have to worry about offending someone just by using a word that everyone uses, and has always used, to refer to some minority group, like saying someone is "physically challenged" instead of being crippled.  That's too bad for him, of course, but that's the truth.  Okay, we know "Nigger" shouldn't be used anymore, but what's wrong with talking about a colored girl instead of "an Afro-American woman," Right?  And Polack jokes?  They're just jokes!

As in all true representative democracies, the majority of Americans' views on all key matters were embodied in our laws and customs.

Everyone was Christian, or at least everyone understood that America is and always has been a God-fearing and God-loving Christian nation.  (As for you Jews, we always included you too, didn't we?  And you appreciated that.)

No one - or at least no respectable and self-respecting individual - had anything to hide and wouldn't think twice about having a photo ID handy at all times, if it were required by majority rule.

Now that's the America - my letter-writer would say - the America that used to be but recently has been stolen from us.

3

The reason a person fervently holds to a view that is obviously false is often that this person wishes with all his heart and mind that the fantasy were reality.  He or she fears against all hope that if reality were as "bad" as what he denies he sees around him, his life would be worthless and he would be nothing.

True believers in the early fifteenth century feared they would be unimportant and not special if the sun and all the other heavenly bodies did not revolve around our mighty earth.  In the 19th century, many feared their lives would be meaningless and lacking in value if in our ancestry, we could find animals, like monkeys. 

So, since we must remain as valuable, as meaningful, as special, and as significant as we have been thinking we are, we are driven to deny the evident facts that are right there for us to see around us.

4

If everyone is the same as we are, as deserving of respect, then we are not special as we have always thought.

If we have not always been in the majority, but merely in the dominant class or party, then those others are at least as powerful as we are... maybe more so!

If our values and beliefs are only as true as those of others, then we are not superior as we have always thought we were.

If we are not special, in the majority, all-powerful (though compassionate), and morally superior, then, we are not safe.  Someone is out to get us.  We just don't want to think what might happen.  We and everything else are going right to hell.

5

That's my portrait of this man who wrote his angry Letter to the Editor.  What he most hates about our real America today is that he and those he is used to interacting with now have to deal with Blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans... Muslims for God's sake! 

They don't share this man's culture, his religious practices, his ideas... and they seem to think this is all right (unlike Jews, who know their place).  They even think it's all right for folks to disagree with each other about public issues, out loud.  They think it is fine to let people make bad choices and commit immoralities that would have shocked our parents, and they are even willing to weaken our government by running up a big national debt.  That makes all of us unsafe!

6

There are many Americans who see things as this man does.  How can we make them feel secure enough that they can help the rest of us face the real challenges of tomorrow?


Note:
If you found this article interesting, you might also be interested in this one
http://byronderrick.blogspot.com/2010/03/essay-too-much-government-not-enough.html

*



[...shhh! overheard... ]

 

*

 

Political Rant 2

Also Overheard in the Tavern on the Corner

 

“Well, just let me tell you.

“The United States Government, you know?  The government doesn’t have to pay its bills.  No, they don’t.  They just print up as much as they need to spend on all these things.  Retirement income for old people, or food stamps, or paying certain people to go to college, you know?

“That government just keeps on running up the credit account.  That can’t go on.  We can’t stand for it.  It’s flirting with disaster.

“You buy something, you got to pay for it.  That’s what I always heard.  You can’t live on credit, owing other people all the time.  Pay your debts, they always tell me.

“Me, yes.  Me.  I can’t just print up some more money, can I?  Even if it is to help somebody else or to protect my family or even my property.  Can I?

“How is it fair? Tell me that.  I have to pay up, and the U S Government, well they’re the same as me, right?  Get rid of the debt is what I say.  Now!”

“Oops, I guess this card is maxxed out.  Can you cover this one for me, pal?  I’ll go cash this Social Security check.  That should tied us over for a while.”

“So, what was that we were saying?  Yeah, thanks, buddy.  Here's to you!"

**

[overheard...]

*                                                                                                                                                                                              *

 

Political Rant

Overheard in the Tavern on the Corner

*

“They got government aid when they were down, ok?  Okay, that’s ok, that’s what it’s for.  But now – now, they’re used to it.  They depend on it.  They feel they’re entitled to it!

 

“They’d rather – as you might say – get fat, like sitting around, with their hand out!

 

“Taking our government money, that we pay in… for public security, for investment in our economy, to protect our way of life with health and education and all that …

 

“Taking it, instead of getting to work like normal people, getting to work, doing what they need to do to take care of themselves…

 

“Instead of being dependent on others, on our tax money!

 

“And I tell you one thing: I’m fed up with those government subsidies of big, rich business corporations!”

 

*

*

Ron Lucius say…

The Wisest Sayings of

 The Old Wise Guy

a compendium

___________________________________________

*

"Me first" means "Us last."
……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

*

Words speak louder than thoughts.
……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

*

"Do for yourself what you need or want, and can do."

"Do for others what you'd want them to do for you."

One rule is silver, the other gold. The two rules are of more value joined than disconnected.

……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

*

First things first,
Enough is enough,
_______but good enough is not good enough.

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

*

Not trying is the same as failing.

……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

*

Nothing worthwhile is ever -
    perfect,
    completed, or
    easy.

Anything worth doing is always -
    engaging,
    challenging, and
    needed.

……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

*

Less is less.
……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

*

Some say, Let us provide as much as possible for ourselves, keeping our own taxes as low as possible, providing for others as little as we can get away with.

Others say, Let us provide for all of us as much as we can.

……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

*

More
.....   is not enough.

Less
.....   is more.

Enough
....   is enough.

All
.....are true.

Which is it
.....   today?

……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

*

A pain in the Neck
is better than a pain in the A--

……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

*


Enough is enough, all agree.
Too much is too much, most would agree.
So, not enough is not enough, right?

……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

*

Everything is everything.
Nothing is nothing.

……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius

                               "A penny for the old guy"

*



Changes: Bad for Our Language? [reminiscence]

***

**

*

I learned in college that languages are living and that linguistic change is inevitable.  Also, by helping its speakers adapt to changing surrounding conditions, change in language is probably even good.  (As for English, the fact that Norman and Saxon could essentially merge over time actually shaped the world itself.)  The protests and the efforts to resist language changes by the French Academy, old-line English teachers and librarians, and other old fuddy-duddies, we learned, were appropriately the objects of satire.

I learned to feel superior to those who said, "Why, tsk-tsk, you are using 'improper English.'"  Americans generally seemed less resistant to changes in English than our British contemporaries, we thought, and in that respect we on our side of the Atlantic were actually better than they, even though clearly they did not think so.

Well, I am now old enough to have seen quite a few linguistic changes myself - not passing fads or trendy phraseology, but lasting changes in our language.  And, I confess, I find it easier to sympathize with the Academy or our European forbears than I used to.  Egad, I've become an old fuddy-duddy myself!

1

Another thing I learned 50 years ago is that many lasting language changes over the centuries have resulted from confusions of one word or phrase with another, similar one.  The similarity may come from usage of both terms' appropriately taking place in the same context - let's say, hypothetically, in discussions of logic and debate - or the similarity may be in the way the words sound or (I imagine) in the way the written word looks on the page.

When the original meanings of the two words that become confused for one another are different, then for us to begin to use them interchangeably impoverishes our language at least slightly since that would mean we would be likely to not notice differences that exist in "reality," thus diminishing the world that we live in itself.  But we are coming up with new words all the time to refer to the new things we experience or observe, or differences within experiences that we had not perceived before... so the variety and complexity of our world remain as rich as ever.

Oh, how sweet, appropriate, and normal... just as I learned it.

But when two words whose meanings used to be the opposite of each to come to mean the same thing? (old fuddy-duddy speaking)  How is that okay?

Yes, I am talking about the two words: imply and infer.  Within my lifetime, the contrasting meanings of these two words have just about finished merging into the same, one meaning.  Imply has flat out won; infer is used now as often as not to refer to exactly the same action that once - in my own lifetime! - referred only to imply.

2

Back when I was learning how people come to communicate with each other, I learned that to imply something meant to lead someone to understand that information indirectly, by hinting at it, or by providing sufficient cause for one's reader or listener to - yes - to infer it for herself or himself!  To imply meant to communicate indirectly; to infer meant to deduce what was implied from what was explicitly stated.  You imply; I infer. 

Yes, originally, these two words referred to exactly the opposite ends of the process of transferring information from one person to another, when the communication is not direct.

Infer still exists in our language, but if you look it up you will find that one of its meanings is imply.  When you hear infer used, you will find the speaker means imply, which you already knew, didn't you?!  But you may not have known that infer used to mean the opposite of imply: infer meant to deduce, to derive by reasoning, to conclude from evidence observed.

Yes, it seems to me that we have confused ourselves unnecessarily, and we have reduced the clarity of our understanding of how we communicate among each other.

3

Yes, it bugs me, old fuddy-duddy that I am.  And there is another confusion between two words of originally opposite meanings that for some reason doesn't irritate me as much, but which I still notice whenever I hear it.  It's the phrase "to beg the question."

It seems that when speakers want to impress us with how clever they are at uncovering hidden truths, that phrase is likely to appear.  From some source, we are told, we hear X stated; well then, the clever speaker points out that X, if you think about it, should make you wonder about Y.  This is phrased:  "If X is true, as we are told, that begs the question Y."   In other words, by X being stated, the question Y is raised; we must find the answer to Y in order to fully understand X.

That is often true, of course. A political commentator, for instance, might say, "The economy under President A has been lousy," which raises the question, "Is that President A's fault?"  And we hear people say that or see them write it today by stating "That statement begs the question, 'Is that the President's fault?'"

That's as common a usage today, I would say, as using infer to mean imply. 

4

When I was teaching English to a class of French-speakers, following my school's practice I gave them exercises translating single sentences from English into French.  Using the required text, I gave them this sentence for translating: "The man walked down the hall and turned into a room."

After only a moment of silence, everyone laughed.  Can you tell why?  To "turn into," they had learned in vocabulary classes meant to "become."  My sentence, to them, was the same as "The man went down the hall and became a room."

The sentence might have asked this man to "step" into the room, which would not have provoked a laugh (but I suspect would have sent my students scrambling through their English-to-French dictionaries).  If I had been telling them a story, I might have said that our nameless man had previously been forbidden to go into that room for some reason.

In fact, the story might say he had been warned that if he ever "set foot" into that room, he would risk arrest and criminal prosecution.  Now, to step into a room (or into anywhere) is the same thing as to set foot into that place, but to step in seems simply to go into the room while to set foot into the room would focus on the first tiny part of the process of going in.  So, both phrases mean pretty much the same thing although the second one implies there is something special about this particular entrance.

5

Recently, I have begun to hear individuals, when talking about one such special "going in," as to "step foot into" the place.  Maybe it was a deported Egyptian activist, for instance, who had been forbidden by the Mubarak administration from even beginning to return to her homeland.  After the Arab Spring, she could "step foot" again onto her native soil.

The speakers I have heard using this phrase, in other words, were correct to call attention to what was special in the context here... But they are making the simplest (and among the silliest) confusion between "step" and "set," no doubt because of the way the words sound alike.

It seems as though, however, that to "step foot" into something is going to be joining all the other phrases in our language.  This one at least makes me laugh.

*

**

***

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?

***

**

*