Just read Garrison Keillor’s e-mail interview with David Talbot in Salon, who expresses the thought that he is writing highly partison polemics against the right these days because he feels the country is “slipping away.” Great words for a thought I have all the time: it’s starting to feel like the mid-1930’s in Germany here: we can see Very Bad Things occurring, brought on by the calculated actions of Very bad People, and yet we seem nearly powerless to do stop it.
Except we’re not. We could vote the bastards out. This exact moment, I’d like to think Senator Kerry will eke out a narrow win. But the big picture indicators aren’t so clear. Economy is improving. Iraq will be better off. Nader is on the ballot in enough states to force Kerry to win big if he’s gonna win at all. And finally, the cause for greatest alarm: 45% of my fellow Americans think George Bush is a wonderful leader.
Certainly some of the blame can be laid at the feet of our lazy, inept and foolish media. But theie ultimate goal is to sell soap. If Americans flocked to cable news channels where all they did all day long was discuss ways we could improve the lives of our fellow citizens, there’d by a dozen such channels. Old Ben Franklin was right in this as in so many things: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” We now face the exact danger the good Doctor warned us of. Will we Americans be able to reclaim our heritage of freedom? I think we will, but it’ll be a close thing.
Perhaps it will teach us that we must be constantly on guard against the inherent dangers of a free and democratic society.
I wonder if we aren’t reaping some of the rewards of our inattention (and in the case of some antii-taxers, all out war) on quality public education. Our press corps is so poorly educated that they do not seem to recognize any of the fundamental truths of the political process. They seem totally unaware of their complicity in bringing about the downfall of democracy—remembering that democracy is not a partison concept, but a national one. Again, as old BF put it, “It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
Indeed, those who would be the masters of our unfree society are actively campaigning against free speech. Anyone who dares to gainsay their lies and foolishness is shouted down as a pariah, a fringe lunatic who should be ignored. Once more, Ben Franklin: “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Aye, Dr. Franklin, aye.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” America remains at its heart a virtuous nation. But that virtue is under attack by those whose interests in threatens. It is not virtuous to abandon civil institutions like government, schools and libraries in favor of corporations. When I see the members of the US Olympic team mumble through or ignore altogether the words of the US national anthem, I wonder if their children will remember when Olympians were members of nations first, corporate sponsors second. Or will they stand on the platform to receive their gold medal, while the FedEx anthem plays, or the Nike theme song?
My friend Ray likes to think that corporations shouldn’t be treated like second class citizens because, after all, they are comprised of inddividuals: shareholders, employees, customers, vendors, etc. And of course, corporations are composed of such people. But a corporation is by legal definition an entity designed and solely dedicated to the diverting of wealth from all its constituents to its shareholders. It is a model that has many virtues since it allows many people to exchange their commodity (labor, capital, etc.) for a commodity they value more highly (money, power, etc.) But ultimately, the model is just that: a model. It is a means to an end. When we lose sight of that end, we begin to lose ourselves. And boy, have we started to lose sight of the end.
The goal is not to amass more toys than the other kids. The goal is to have as many of us as possible have the greatest number of toys possible. And if that means limiting the number of toys any one person can have so that there is enough to go around, so be it. The slight dimunition in initiative caused by the limit is regrettable and its effects should be minimized. But the limit is not to be avoided for that reason.
Just like helping people in need: helping people in need will no doubt entail problems of people either feigning need when it does not in truth exist, or of motivating some to seek out need knowing that it will be addressed by others’ generosity. Real problems indeed – problems that should be addressed with real care. But not problems sufficiently vexing to forbid the helping of others, or to make that help so niggardly and stingy that it is nearly no help at all. We are a virtuous people – mostly, still. How can we let the moneyed interests convince us not to use our own money to help our brothers and sisters who need it? How have we let them convince us that the best way to help others is solely by helping ourselves. Self-indulgence is not virtue, and those that ask us to celebrate it appeal to our worst selves. Those that ask us to lend a selfless helping hand to our neighbors see the virtue in us. We should thank and celebrate them.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Auto-Bio Update
"I was born of a poor black sharecropper in rural Mississippi in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and three."
That's how a proper auto-biography should start, it seems to me, and should slowly and inexorably build to something like, "And that's why I've devoted the last years of my life to working with my foundation to stamp out child poverty once and for all."
My auto-biography isn't going to quite fit that mold. More of a, "I watched a great deal of TV as a kid, mostly Pop-Eye, Hercules and Mighty Mouse, and on Saturdays quite a bit of Bugs Bunny." And building in essentially random lurches to something like, "And so, as the end of my days approach, I cherish fondly my 15 year plaque for continuous service in the Deli/Appetizer Department, and look forward hopefully to the grandkid getting out of the joint and into a halfway house, hopefully for good this time."
So I'm a bit daunted by the prospect, and have more or less resolved to start work on my little tale in whatever random bits seem to pop onto the keyboard.
Like when I was 14 or so and went to Montreal with Rickety Basket, and we drank and (I at least) made out with a girl.
That's how a proper auto-biography should start, it seems to me, and should slowly and inexorably build to something like, "And that's why I've devoted the last years of my life to working with my foundation to stamp out child poverty once and for all."
My auto-biography isn't going to quite fit that mold. More of a, "I watched a great deal of TV as a kid, mostly Pop-Eye, Hercules and Mighty Mouse, and on Saturdays quite a bit of Bugs Bunny." And building in essentially random lurches to something like, "And so, as the end of my days approach, I cherish fondly my 15 year plaque for continuous service in the Deli/Appetizer Department, and look forward hopefully to the grandkid getting out of the joint and into a halfway house, hopefully for good this time."
So I'm a bit daunted by the prospect, and have more or less resolved to start work on my little tale in whatever random bits seem to pop onto the keyboard.
Like when I was 14 or so and went to Montreal with Rickety Basket, and we drank and (I at least) made out with a girl.
Fahreheit 911
Just saw Michael Moore's movie. Very impressive.
I was expecting a loose, wallowing, sloppy mess, similar to some of his previous work. Instead, I was treated to a much tighter, much less self-indulgent, much more patient and thoughtful work. Kudos to MM, and Hazzah! for the Republic.
Amongst my reactions:
- Rather than being shocked or disappointed at the Preznit's failure to act once told of the attack on WTC, I found myself feeling sorry for him. He seemed to be clearly disengaged from the reading with the kids activity. Instead, he seemed aware that he should be thinking Serious Thoughts and perhaps Doing Something. I mentioned this to Kathleen who pointed out that those were exactly the reasons she found it so damning. Had he stayed engaged with the kids, or not shown any understanding of what he was told, then he'd be aloof, neglectful. Rather, he was perfectly aware of the potential gravity of the news, and rather than deciding on a course of action (even if that course was to continue the reading activity), he seemed palpably unsure what to do. Probably the right view.
- Intense anger at the crappy lives we subject far too many of our countrymen to. Notably the gaggle of young black men who are ripe targets for the Marine recruiters, who seemed so bright, so thoughtful -- in short, so capable of contributing to society, yet likely destined not to realize anything like their true potential. Also true of Lila Liscomb, who's been abused horribly by the economic tumult in her region, and whose grief over the pointless loss of her son would touch the hardest heart.
- Strong sense that, contrary to the Conventional Wisdom, this film can and will change people's minds. There's developed a strand of CV that says the film is largely preaching to the choir, and that few marginal voters and no Bush supporters would have their minds changed. Crap. I don't see how one could absorb the information in this film and not come away with the sense that the Preznit lied us into Iraq, and that we are failing miserably in the basic blocking and tackling of so-called "homeland defense."
- An overwhelming desire to do something so that the young black guys (ripe pickin's for the Marine recruiters), Lila Liscomb, and hell, all those poor soldiers in Iraq, even those two dumb bastards trolling the parking lot at the down-market mall -- all of them-- could hold jobs that gave them both adequate income as well as real respect and dignity. Do Something like start a business that could grow large enough to make a real difference.
Double dare any comments on this one...
I was expecting a loose, wallowing, sloppy mess, similar to some of his previous work. Instead, I was treated to a much tighter, much less self-indulgent, much more patient and thoughtful work. Kudos to MM, and Hazzah! for the Republic.
Amongst my reactions:
- Rather than being shocked or disappointed at the Preznit's failure to act once told of the attack on WTC, I found myself feeling sorry for him. He seemed to be clearly disengaged from the reading with the kids activity. Instead, he seemed aware that he should be thinking Serious Thoughts and perhaps Doing Something. I mentioned this to Kathleen who pointed out that those were exactly the reasons she found it so damning. Had he stayed engaged with the kids, or not shown any understanding of what he was told, then he'd be aloof, neglectful. Rather, he was perfectly aware of the potential gravity of the news, and rather than deciding on a course of action (even if that course was to continue the reading activity), he seemed palpably unsure what to do. Probably the right view.
- Intense anger at the crappy lives we subject far too many of our countrymen to. Notably the gaggle of young black men who are ripe targets for the Marine recruiters, who seemed so bright, so thoughtful -- in short, so capable of contributing to society, yet likely destined not to realize anything like their true potential. Also true of Lila Liscomb, who's been abused horribly by the economic tumult in her region, and whose grief over the pointless loss of her son would touch the hardest heart.
- Strong sense that, contrary to the Conventional Wisdom, this film can and will change people's minds. There's developed a strand of CV that says the film is largely preaching to the choir, and that few marginal voters and no Bush supporters would have their minds changed. Crap. I don't see how one could absorb the information in this film and not come away with the sense that the Preznit lied us into Iraq, and that we are failing miserably in the basic blocking and tackling of so-called "homeland defense."
- An overwhelming desire to do something so that the young black guys (ripe pickin's for the Marine recruiters), Lila Liscomb, and hell, all those poor soldiers in Iraq, even those two dumb bastards trolling the parking lot at the down-market mall -- all of them-- could hold jobs that gave them both adequate income as well as real respect and dignity. Do Something like start a business that could grow large enough to make a real difference.
Double dare any comments on this one...
Personal
I'm resolving to spend at least some time every day writing, so I might as well do it here.
I'm a bit worried about my work appearing in public, but somehow or other that seems to be part of what's compelling me to do it.
I heard that dreadful Fleetwood Mac song "Don't Stop Dreamin' 'Bout Tomorrow" on the radio yesterday. I am also reading Bill Clinton's auto-biography. Together, a Clintonian interlude in my thinking.
Clinton's book is thoroughly enjoyable -- so far. I'm about half way through, and he's toying with running in '92. He's a wonderful writer, and has led an interesting life. In the spirit of his own philosophy (as reflected in that damn Fleetwood Mac song), I'm looking forward to the next volume.
I'd like to start writing my own auto-biography, and it occurs to me that my impulse to do so is in fact forward looking rather than historical (thanks, Bill.) I'm about at the mid-point of my reasonable life expectancy, and taking the time to do a summary will of course be helpful to my own efforts that great things lay ahead (some pretty great things are in the past, after all). But I'm thinking of it more as a note to the "generations a-comin.'" My own mother lies unconscious, unlikely to survive more than a few more days or weeks. My father is in OK shape, but the effects of aging have left him more or less bed-ridden and unable to care for himself. (A woman at his old-folks-home, Kirkland Village, has evidently completed a biography of him as a labor of love.) So thoughts of mortality, of the finite nature of the life, are heavy in the air, and are no doubt afflicting my own psyche. Hence, the thought about the mid-life auto-biography.
Stay tuned. With God's grace, more tomorrow.
I'm a bit worried about my work appearing in public, but somehow or other that seems to be part of what's compelling me to do it.
I heard that dreadful Fleetwood Mac song "Don't Stop Dreamin' 'Bout Tomorrow" on the radio yesterday. I am also reading Bill Clinton's auto-biography. Together, a Clintonian interlude in my thinking.
Clinton's book is thoroughly enjoyable -- so far. I'm about half way through, and he's toying with running in '92. He's a wonderful writer, and has led an interesting life. In the spirit of his own philosophy (as reflected in that damn Fleetwood Mac song), I'm looking forward to the next volume.
I'd like to start writing my own auto-biography, and it occurs to me that my impulse to do so is in fact forward looking rather than historical (thanks, Bill.) I'm about at the mid-point of my reasonable life expectancy, and taking the time to do a summary will of course be helpful to my own efforts that great things lay ahead (some pretty great things are in the past, after all). But I'm thinking of it more as a note to the "generations a-comin.'" My own mother lies unconscious, unlikely to survive more than a few more days or weeks. My father is in OK shape, but the effects of aging have left him more or less bed-ridden and unable to care for himself. (A woman at his old-folks-home, Kirkland Village, has evidently completed a biography of him as a labor of love.) So thoughts of mortality, of the finite nature of the life, are heavy in the air, and are no doubt afflicting my own psyche. Hence, the thought about the mid-life auto-biography.
Stay tuned. With God's grace, more tomorrow.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Who to be Really Mad At...
Is it the idiot Preznit? Well, he is a poor politician and an even poorer policy-maker, but no, he's not at the top of the list. Why, he and his people and just taking advantage of the way the game's played (sort of like the Yankees).
So, it must be the evil corrupt press, right? No! Evil and corrupt, yes. Probably even lazy and a bit stupid. But the press' problem is not that they are biased in favor of conservative (though their coverage undeniably is). The main problem is that they are scared -- part of a burgeoning trend toward cowqardice in our society, which I believe is linked to the corporatization not just of journalism, but of our society as a whole.
The press' problem is that a) they are scared of getting yelled at by crazy right wingers and b) they have only one real goal: selling soap. If Americans lined up for liberal propaganda coming from their news, why, that's what they'd be selling. And you know what, that might just be happening. Air America seems to have better and better advertising on their air. Maybe there is money to be made pandering to the left.
Meantime, the crux of the press' problem is that they do not disclose their own biases. Fox News, on the other hand, pretty clear who they're rooting for. But so-called mainstream journos do not disclose their own biases in favor of the liberals. So, when a conservative says something foolish and outlandish, it's covered as "controversial," or "hard-hitting." Were a liberal to do the same thing, it'd be "insane," or "nutty." How can they be so different? Because the unspoken premise of the mainstream is that the liberals are the good guys, and are held to a higher standard. Dems are supposed to be normal, sensible, reasoned, scrupulously correct. Repubs, on the other hand, are the Snidely Whiplashes, and are supposed to be liars, self-serving, vitriolic rich bastards.
So, thus, the press.
But that's not who to really be mad at...
The folsk that deserve the highest level of opprobium, based on their highest level of responsibility, is the approximately one-half of our fellow citizens who think that Bush is not an idiot, and that the conservatives have really gotten things going in the right way. Conservatives have a valuable role to play in our system, but the current crop (dating back to poor old Ronald Reagan), is not playing their part. These guys are interested in power for power's sake, and for no other ends. And their ambition and lack of caring is so naked, that for so many voters to miss it is an act of intentional self-delusion. The right-wing's agenda is no secret.
The good news is, like McCarthy-ism, when this things falls, it will fall quickly and completely. Our society will resume its progressive ways, inexorably -- the only question is when. One of these days, perhpas even before the election, eenough Americans are going to wake up and say, hey, wait a minute -- why isn't the government -- my government, our government -- making more of a difference in my life and in the lives of my fellow voters? When that day comes, we start the next chapter.
Comment, if you dare!
So, it must be the evil corrupt press, right? No! Evil and corrupt, yes. Probably even lazy and a bit stupid. But the press' problem is not that they are biased in favor of conservative (though their coverage undeniably is). The main problem is that they are scared -- part of a burgeoning trend toward cowqardice in our society, which I believe is linked to the corporatization not just of journalism, but of our society as a whole.
The press' problem is that a) they are scared of getting yelled at by crazy right wingers and b) they have only one real goal: selling soap. If Americans lined up for liberal propaganda coming from their news, why, that's what they'd be selling. And you know what, that might just be happening. Air America seems to have better and better advertising on their air. Maybe there is money to be made pandering to the left.
Meantime, the crux of the press' problem is that they do not disclose their own biases. Fox News, on the other hand, pretty clear who they're rooting for. But so-called mainstream journos do not disclose their own biases in favor of the liberals. So, when a conservative says something foolish and outlandish, it's covered as "controversial," or "hard-hitting." Were a liberal to do the same thing, it'd be "insane," or "nutty." How can they be so different? Because the unspoken premise of the mainstream is that the liberals are the good guys, and are held to a higher standard. Dems are supposed to be normal, sensible, reasoned, scrupulously correct. Repubs, on the other hand, are the Snidely Whiplashes, and are supposed to be liars, self-serving, vitriolic rich bastards.
So, thus, the press.
But that's not who to really be mad at...
The folsk that deserve the highest level of opprobium, based on their highest level of responsibility, is the approximately one-half of our fellow citizens who think that Bush is not an idiot, and that the conservatives have really gotten things going in the right way. Conservatives have a valuable role to play in our system, but the current crop (dating back to poor old Ronald Reagan), is not playing their part. These guys are interested in power for power's sake, and for no other ends. And their ambition and lack of caring is so naked, that for so many voters to miss it is an act of intentional self-delusion. The right-wing's agenda is no secret.
The good news is, like McCarthy-ism, when this things falls, it will fall quickly and completely. Our society will resume its progressive ways, inexorably -- the only question is when. One of these days, perhpas even before the election, eenough Americans are going to wake up and say, hey, wait a minute -- why isn't the government -- my government, our government -- making more of a difference in my life and in the lives of my fellow voters? When that day comes, we start the next chapter.
Comment, if you dare!
Hang on a minute...
The Senate yesterday debated the merits of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. As obivously ludicrous and fundamentally mean-spirited as this is, I prefer to tweak this latest "Hey-Look-Over-There-At-That-Shiny-Thing" tactic on precedural grounds.
I recall that during the 1992 campaign, just about the most important thing we could do to save our society and protect our children from an amoral, caotic future was to amend the constitution...to outlaw flag burning.
I don't believe such an amendment has been adopted yet.
So my favorite retort to the RNC idiots on gay marriage is, "first things first." Let's get the whole flag-burning problem squared away, then turn to gay marriage.
I recall that during the 1992 campaign, just about the most important thing we could do to save our society and protect our children from an amoral, caotic future was to amend the constitution...to outlaw flag burning.
I don't believe such an amendment has been adopted yet.
So my favorite retort to the RNC idiots on gay marriage is, "first things first." Let's get the whole flag-burning problem squared away, then turn to gay marriage.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Talk of the Day
Today's political chatter is all about Bill Clinton's Big Book. The reviews are so far pretty predictable -- complaints mostly that the book is too long (who remembers the Emperor of Austria in Amadeus complaining that Mozart's brilliant work was very good except that it had "too many notes"). Some complain that it is not self-flagellating enough, or that it spends too much time on policy, or that it is rambling and unfocused.
Haven't read it myself. My guess is that none of this is true. First, it is likely neither too long nor too short -- just right. Secondly, it is probably just self-flagellating enough. Third, it probably spends just enough time on policy, and finally it is likely neither rambling nor unfocused.
I'm guessing that the book is in fact very good -- engaging, thoughtful, entertaining, etc. I'm still not sure why the mainstream press has such a hard time with this, other than it would reveal their 8 years of Clinton bashing as the unjustifiable smear that it largely was.
Meantime, Bush lies regularly and often (as did Reagan), and somehow his moral fitness to hold office isn't a question. (This proving it was about the sex). Even the President's own betrayal of voters (promising to clamp down on factory emissions or mercury levels, for example, or providing real prescription drug benefits to seniors) is not seen as far worse than President Clinton's betrayal of his marriage vows.
Down still remains up, but there is an undeniable, inexorable growth in the forces of goodness and light. Day by day, the cracks in the moribund facade of the Republican Right grow, and the day when it all comes tumbling down nears. Will it arrive in time for the election in November? Hard to say. No matter what, the tide has turned and the Day of the Progressives is on the way.
The question is, will that day come in time to avert the disaster that is growing in the Muslim world, which President Bush seems intent on precipitating? Let's hope so.
And let's hope that history proves out the greatness of President Kerry.
There. Now it's your turn.
Today's political chatter is all about Bill Clinton's Big Book. The reviews are so far pretty predictable -- complaints mostly that the book is too long (who remembers the Emperor of Austria in Amadeus complaining that Mozart's brilliant work was very good except that it had "too many notes"). Some complain that it is not self-flagellating enough, or that it spends too much time on policy, or that it is rambling and unfocused.
Haven't read it myself. My guess is that none of this is true. First, it is likely neither too long nor too short -- just right. Secondly, it is probably just self-flagellating enough. Third, it probably spends just enough time on policy, and finally it is likely neither rambling nor unfocused.
I'm guessing that the book is in fact very good -- engaging, thoughtful, entertaining, etc. I'm still not sure why the mainstream press has such a hard time with this, other than it would reveal their 8 years of Clinton bashing as the unjustifiable smear that it largely was.
Meantime, Bush lies regularly and often (as did Reagan), and somehow his moral fitness to hold office isn't a question. (This proving it was about the sex). Even the President's own betrayal of voters (promising to clamp down on factory emissions or mercury levels, for example, or providing real prescription drug benefits to seniors) is not seen as far worse than President Clinton's betrayal of his marriage vows.
Down still remains up, but there is an undeniable, inexorable growth in the forces of goodness and light. Day by day, the cracks in the moribund facade of the Republican Right grow, and the day when it all comes tumbling down nears. Will it arrive in time for the election in November? Hard to say. No matter what, the tide has turned and the Day of the Progressives is on the way.
The question is, will that day come in time to avert the disaster that is growing in the Muslim world, which President Bush seems intent on precipitating? Let's hope so.
And let's hope that history proves out the greatness of President Kerry.
There. Now it's your turn.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Ronald Reagan
The nation mourns the loss of a two-term, popular President. Which is as it should be.
For me, the big lesson about the nation's reaction to the death of President Reagan (which was rather similar to the reaction to his presidency -- gushing, fawning by and large, with a signifincant slice of bilous outrage) is that people react to the person, not to the message. As a conservative, Reagan was only so-so. Big tax increases, larger government, odd foreign adventures, etc. But his rhetoric, and indeed his whole personality, was conservative, and since people liked him, they accepte his message.
I'm sure there are other, probably generational/demographic, forces that underlie Reagan's success. But his agreeable, likable persona is a key reason why he is remembered so fondly, even though he should be one of our least popular presidents based on his policies.
All of which makes me nervous about John Kerry. Haven't seen enough yet to know whether or not he's a likable guy. Nor has Bush shown enough negative traits to turn off enough people. No matter how you cut it, something like 40-45% of all Americans continue to support the President, even though (again) by any reasonable measure his presidency has been a disaster. I think for many of his supporters, it's hard to get past his genial, downhome, plain-speaking, authentic manner.
I continue to worry that our side needs to do a much better job of reaching out to "red-state" repubs and helping them see why we reject so much of the republican credo, and why ours is not only far less scary than they;ve been led to believe, but is actually preferable to what they've got.
And, I think we'll need a "gipper" of our own to do that, and I don't think Senator Kerry is that guy. (I suspect if he loses to Bush he'll become a figure much like Barry Goldwater -- someone on whose shoulders the next generation of pregressives stands).
Post away!
For me, the big lesson about the nation's reaction to the death of President Reagan (which was rather similar to the reaction to his presidency -- gushing, fawning by and large, with a signifincant slice of bilous outrage) is that people react to the person, not to the message. As a conservative, Reagan was only so-so. Big tax increases, larger government, odd foreign adventures, etc. But his rhetoric, and indeed his whole personality, was conservative, and since people liked him, they accepte his message.
I'm sure there are other, probably generational/demographic, forces that underlie Reagan's success. But his agreeable, likable persona is a key reason why he is remembered so fondly, even though he should be one of our least popular presidents based on his policies.
All of which makes me nervous about John Kerry. Haven't seen enough yet to know whether or not he's a likable guy. Nor has Bush shown enough negative traits to turn off enough people. No matter how you cut it, something like 40-45% of all Americans continue to support the President, even though (again) by any reasonable measure his presidency has been a disaster. I think for many of his supporters, it's hard to get past his genial, downhome, plain-speaking, authentic manner.
I continue to worry that our side needs to do a much better job of reaching out to "red-state" repubs and helping them see why we reject so much of the republican credo, and why ours is not only far less scary than they;ve been led to believe, but is actually preferable to what they've got.
And, I think we'll need a "gipper" of our own to do that, and I don't think Senator Kerry is that guy. (I suspect if he loses to Bush he'll become a figure much like Barry Goldwater -- someone on whose shoulders the next generation of pregressives stands).
Post away!
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Welcome to What To Think
Welcome to the first posting on "What To Think." The mission of this blog is to declare in plain terms what you should think. The focus will be largely on matters political, but may wonder off into other areas should I develop the sense that people need to be told What To Think about other topics.
I pretend no special knowledge, skills, background, insight or even intellgence. I am just exactly dumb enough to think that these deficits are no bar to being able to divine and explain The Truth. So, pretty dumb.
Opening thought for the day:
The liberal critique of the conservative movement is now well-defined and in high dudgeon. If liberals are to avoid the same pitfalls as the conservatives (whose entire point of view is a critique of the left), we must move the discussion onto why liberals are better for most Americans.
It's great to have a liberal attack machine that is starting to compete with the well-oiled machine of the right. But we must start to talk about things that we will do in office that will meaningfully improve the lives of most voters.
I believe that liberals' future lies in focusing on the value of government services. All voters value clean air, pure water, etc. All voters value national security and law and order. All voters value adequate investments in infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.). All voters value quality education.
The way to capture the necessary portion of voters who now support the bad guys (repubs) is to help them see that the things they value most -- environment, security, infrastructure, education -- are best promoted by the dems. The repubs have no credibility on these issues.
To those that say that the repubs will simply continue to lie to voters about their positions and accomplishments I can only say, there has never been a time in our history when the truth didn't prevail. When the "greatest generation" stood on the brink of annihilation in 1941, they didn't see how they could win. All they had was faith -- faith that the righteous will prevail. So too am I consoled by the same faith.
Americans are not a petty, smug or arrogant group. On the contrary, we are large-minded, generous to a fault, humble. We live in a free and open democratic system, and we will have a government that reflects our will. It may take a bit of patience tog et there, but we will get there. In fact, we are already well on our way.
Here are some basic principles.
1. The government is not the problem. It is not a foreign entity that has landed here from another planet. It is the instrument through which we take universal action as a nation. It is exactly the kind of government we want. It can be effective or not, large or small, dedicated or indifferent, but we are not without ability to shape and control it. Just as repubs are fond of saying when dems bash corporations, "hey, companies are just collections of people," so too are governments just collections of people.
2. The government provides significant value. Taxes are by and large a good deal. Government services benefit each of us in numerous ways each and every day. All those services cost money. For what we pay, we get decent value. The debate should be around how to get the best value, not how to get no value. Money paid in taxes is not wasted. Much of it goes to worthy causes.
3. We deserve a society that takes better care of its needy. My experience is that under republican rule, recipients of government services are too often made to feel that the government is doing them a favor they don't really deserve. When I see how schools are build using cheap designs, cheap materials, etc., the message I see us sending is, "we don't really care enough about school children to spend a decent sum on them." When I see a welfare center that looks like a waiting room at a bus depot, the message I see us sending welfare recipients is, "you have failed and we can hardly stand to support you at a subsistence level."
Wouldn't we really prefer school buildings that said, "Welcome leaders of tomorrow! Enter the temple of knowledge!" (When I look at older schools, this seems closer to the message we used to send.) Or welfare offices that said, "Worry not. We will help you get back to the life you deserve."
4. Our government must weigh the interests of all its citizens, not just those who have access to capital and power. Minimum working conditions should provide a life of dignity to those at the bottom rung -- even if it means those who own businesses must make a little less. Men and women who choose to work in public service, like the military, should earn a living wage, even if people could be found to do the work for less. (I think of the NYPD -- most of whom could use a raise, but don't get it for fear that the taxpayers won't fund it. You know what -- most taxpayers would never miss the extra 3 cents a week they'd pay so that civil servants could do a little better.)
5. Truth matters. Just getting up and saying things because they advance your position without regard to their truth or falsity is simply not acceptable. There is a line -- which can be hard to draw -- between spinning and lying. But draw it we must, or else we end up with things like "John McCain is against breast cancer research," or "Ronald Reagan saved our economy by cutting our taxes." Or that global warming is just a theory, or that evolution is just as legitimate as the Bible. Our society needs mechanisms to talk about issues. When truth is irrelevant, we damage those mechanisms.
6. There is more that unites us than divides us. As a nation, we are in many ways quite homogeneous. We should focus on the common values we broadly share, and de-emphasize the areas where we strongly disagree and are fractitious. The debate around abortion is of course important to our society; however, it ought not to drown out discussion of other importnat things like economic justice, racial inequality and the need for quality education.
7. Those with more means should pay more than those with less. Progressive taxation is a simple issue of fundamental fairness. Rich people can afford to pay a larger portion of their incomes to support necessary government services than poor or middle class people can.
8. Our future lies in strengthening our ties to the other humans on the planet. Americans are a great and wonderful people. So too are the Armenians, Brazilians, and Indonesians. The Koreans, Mexicans and Swedes. The Peruvians, French and Vietnamese. And on and on. One day in the not-too-distant future, the idea of nationhood will be more like city-hood today. One can hardly imagine the good citizens of Houston rising up in arms against the evi-doers of Dallas. Someday, we'll think like that about Americans and Russians, Chinese and Indians, even Iraqis and Iranians.
Well, that should get things started. Fire away.
I pretend no special knowledge, skills, background, insight or even intellgence. I am just exactly dumb enough to think that these deficits are no bar to being able to divine and explain The Truth. So, pretty dumb.
Opening thought for the day:
The liberal critique of the conservative movement is now well-defined and in high dudgeon. If liberals are to avoid the same pitfalls as the conservatives (whose entire point of view is a critique of the left), we must move the discussion onto why liberals are better for most Americans.
It's great to have a liberal attack machine that is starting to compete with the well-oiled machine of the right. But we must start to talk about things that we will do in office that will meaningfully improve the lives of most voters.
I believe that liberals' future lies in focusing on the value of government services. All voters value clean air, pure water, etc. All voters value national security and law and order. All voters value adequate investments in infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.). All voters value quality education.
The way to capture the necessary portion of voters who now support the bad guys (repubs) is to help them see that the things they value most -- environment, security, infrastructure, education -- are best promoted by the dems. The repubs have no credibility on these issues.
To those that say that the repubs will simply continue to lie to voters about their positions and accomplishments I can only say, there has never been a time in our history when the truth didn't prevail. When the "greatest generation" stood on the brink of annihilation in 1941, they didn't see how they could win. All they had was faith -- faith that the righteous will prevail. So too am I consoled by the same faith.
Americans are not a petty, smug or arrogant group. On the contrary, we are large-minded, generous to a fault, humble. We live in a free and open democratic system, and we will have a government that reflects our will. It may take a bit of patience tog et there, but we will get there. In fact, we are already well on our way.
Here are some basic principles.
1. The government is not the problem. It is not a foreign entity that has landed here from another planet. It is the instrument through which we take universal action as a nation. It is exactly the kind of government we want. It can be effective or not, large or small, dedicated or indifferent, but we are not without ability to shape and control it. Just as repubs are fond of saying when dems bash corporations, "hey, companies are just collections of people," so too are governments just collections of people.
2. The government provides significant value. Taxes are by and large a good deal. Government services benefit each of us in numerous ways each and every day. All those services cost money. For what we pay, we get decent value. The debate should be around how to get the best value, not how to get no value. Money paid in taxes is not wasted. Much of it goes to worthy causes.
3. We deserve a society that takes better care of its needy. My experience is that under republican rule, recipients of government services are too often made to feel that the government is doing them a favor they don't really deserve. When I see how schools are build using cheap designs, cheap materials, etc., the message I see us sending is, "we don't really care enough about school children to spend a decent sum on them." When I see a welfare center that looks like a waiting room at a bus depot, the message I see us sending welfare recipients is, "you have failed and we can hardly stand to support you at a subsistence level."
Wouldn't we really prefer school buildings that said, "Welcome leaders of tomorrow! Enter the temple of knowledge!" (When I look at older schools, this seems closer to the message we used to send.) Or welfare offices that said, "Worry not. We will help you get back to the life you deserve."
4. Our government must weigh the interests of all its citizens, not just those who have access to capital and power. Minimum working conditions should provide a life of dignity to those at the bottom rung -- even if it means those who own businesses must make a little less. Men and women who choose to work in public service, like the military, should earn a living wage, even if people could be found to do the work for less. (I think of the NYPD -- most of whom could use a raise, but don't get it for fear that the taxpayers won't fund it. You know what -- most taxpayers would never miss the extra 3 cents a week they'd pay so that civil servants could do a little better.)
5. Truth matters. Just getting up and saying things because they advance your position without regard to their truth or falsity is simply not acceptable. There is a line -- which can be hard to draw -- between spinning and lying. But draw it we must, or else we end up with things like "John McCain is against breast cancer research," or "Ronald Reagan saved our economy by cutting our taxes." Or that global warming is just a theory, or that evolution is just as legitimate as the Bible. Our society needs mechanisms to talk about issues. When truth is irrelevant, we damage those mechanisms.
6. There is more that unites us than divides us. As a nation, we are in many ways quite homogeneous. We should focus on the common values we broadly share, and de-emphasize the areas where we strongly disagree and are fractitious. The debate around abortion is of course important to our society; however, it ought not to drown out discussion of other importnat things like economic justice, racial inequality and the need for quality education.
7. Those with more means should pay more than those with less. Progressive taxation is a simple issue of fundamental fairness. Rich people can afford to pay a larger portion of their incomes to support necessary government services than poor or middle class people can.
8. Our future lies in strengthening our ties to the other humans on the planet. Americans are a great and wonderful people. So too are the Armenians, Brazilians, and Indonesians. The Koreans, Mexicans and Swedes. The Peruvians, French and Vietnamese. And on and on. One day in the not-too-distant future, the idea of nationhood will be more like city-hood today. One can hardly imagine the good citizens of Houston rising up in arms against the evi-doers of Dallas. Someday, we'll think like that about Americans and Russians, Chinese and Indians, even Iraqis and Iranians.
Well, that should get things started. Fire away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)