Today's world, like past times, is beset by crime, violence, poverty, and injustice. It is a complex task to establish the causes for violence in different parts of the world. Historians, sociologists, and geographers grapple with these issues. Politicians, world organizations, and non-governmental organizations try to do something about them. Although it is a tough sell to claim to identify a unifying cause, the manpower for violence in the world is found in one factor. In today's world, as in the past, the combination of hard times and disillusioned young men make for a violent mix.
The common denominator for violence in the world is the lack of opportunities for young men. This is true in the inner cities of the United States and it is the main cause of high crime rates. This is the case in violence-prone trouble spots around the world. It has also been true in crises throughout modern history. Unproductive lives of young men lead to violence.
In the inner cities of the U.S., the main cause of high crime rates is underemployment of young men. The unemployment rates in poor urban areas of the U.S. tend to be two or three times that of the national average. For young men, it is even worse. In Southeast D.C., the unemployment rate for young men is around 40%. When men do not have jobs, they cannot support a family, and both men and women do not see the advantage in marriage. Therefore, children tend to be raised by single women, with little support from the men. A startling fact is that the poverty rate in America for children whose mothers wait until they're married to have children, wait until they are 20 year old to have children, and obtain a high school degree is seven percent. For all others, it is 85%!
When men do not have to get up for work, and do not have family responsibilities after work, what will they be doing late at night? With little at stake, they take on risky behaviors that are violent or lead to violence.
It might be argued that the women have an equal role in the pathologies of the ghettos. Even though the crime rate for girls has climbed, and even though irresponsible behavior among girls adds to the degradation of inner-city life, the violence is particularly a male domain.
In poor nations, violence is caused by under-productive young men. Besides the crime situation, similar to that of inner-city America, there is the political violence that destroys societies in many places around the world. In Haiti the unemployment rate for young men exceeds 50%. Available jobs are government jobs obtained by the party that wins an election. So elections are not peaceful civic affairs like we know them. They are matters of providing productive livelihoods. Young men intimidate voters, and if their party loses, use violence to try to change the results.
Many countries do not have working democracies, so that young men do not have any outlets for their frustrations. In places like Palestine, with unemployment hovering at 60%, young men are easily led to radical politics. The manpower for terrorism comes from the refugee camps and jail cells. Young, largely-uneducated men are easy marks for political demagogues; they follow these radical leaders thinking it is a way to be important when the society around them indicates that they are not.
Besides the examples in modern-day America and around the world, history holds examples of great trouble being caused by unproductive young males. In the 1930s, with severe, world-wide unemployment, young men were on the city streets, panhandling or looking for work or merely hanging out. The political radicals of the time such as Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy were able to motivate these men into being the instruments of terror for fascist governments. In Germany, the SA (Storm Troups) and SS (Shield Squadron) were young men given a mission and a purpose. In Italy, the Blackshirts (CCNN) manned Mussolini's police state. Earlier, in czarist Russia, young idealistic men with no discernible options for changing Russia, turned to the Bolsheviks and other radicals. They, along with disillusioned young soldiers, provided the manpower for the first communist revolution. Modern history is replete with examples of men being motivated toward violence by the lack of economic opportunity and political voice.
Some might argue that young men could not have succeeded if they acted alone. For example, Hitler’s ascension to power depended on older people and women voting power to the Nazi party. That is true, but the Nazis would never have been in a position to be voted in if it were not for young men and their tendency to be duped by radical nationalist politicians. One might argue also that once Hitler took power and unemployment fell to seven percent, that the young men would no longer be motivated to extreme politics. But by this time, the police state was in place, the propaganda was flowing, and the damage was done. In fact, many Germans were grateful for Hitler raising German pride after the defeat of World War I and the Great Depression.
A common thread runs through the problems of the world: the feeling by young men in difficult times that they are not worthy. In American inner cities, unemployed men seek quick gains through gangs and violence because their view of their own futures is not bright. In poor nations around the world, political violence appears in places where young men are increasingly frustrated by economics and politics. But it is not a new phenomenon; there are historical examples demonstrating this to be a long-running problem. In looking at trouble spots in our nation, throughout the world, and throughout history, a common denominator is populations of bored, unproductive young men.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
America in 2010: What we are not
Reporter and author David Halberstam, who died in 2009, once said, "America is a generous and strong country. It is fashionable to make fun, but it’s true." You can see this generosity all over the world. In Africa, between our government's aid and private initiatives by people such as Bill and Melinda Gates, we spend more to combat AIDS than any African government does. Even the totally self-indulgent NBA is contributing to fighting malaria. Its Nothing but Nets program provides African families with mosquito netting that cuts malaria cases by 80 percent.
Around the United States, volunteers are working in locations in need of housing, education, and environmental clean-up. This is an important part of the American character. But as we begin the next decade, we should take note of a couple serious flaws in that character. We should face the things that we are not.
(1) We are not a people who play by the rules. Every presidential candidate talks about it; every president refers to it. We are, they say, a people who play by the rules, and as such should be treated fairly. But that is not who we are.
In some very important ways we do abide by the law. After Supreme Court decisions on divisive issues, Americans who may disagree vehemently will still accept the decisions. After elections, we abide by the results.
But in day-to-day matters, we show a blatant disregard for the law. You need go no further to see this than to take a ride. Speed limits are the law, but we do not follow them; worse, we do not tolerate people who do. It is against the law to tailgate, and aggressive driving is a crime. No matter; both are commonplace. People make up their own traffic rules. As a result, we lose 43,000 Americans a year in car wrecks. The number one killer, more even than alcohol, is speed. Fact: if we slow down, we save thousands of lives. But we as a society have made the decision that these deaths serve our freedom to drive how we want. And yet, how often do you see someone speeding, tailgating, and weaving dangerously in and out of traffic only to roll up next to them at the next light? Thousands of lives lost and nothing gained.
People cheat on their income taxes - that is to say, people violate the law to the tune of about $350 billion a year for individuals and maybe another $250 billion for corporations. You’ve heard the arguments. The tax code is unfair. Why shouldn't I get away with things if big corporations and rich people do? My tax money goes to things I oppose. It is merely the law, and we see ourselves above it.
(2) We are not a civil society. Someone asked me to download 'lil Wayne's latest, No Ceilings. I couldn't. It was n-word this and f-bomb that and weapons and weed. Nothing uplifting, nothing positive anywhere on the CD.
Look at the blogosphere. In a typical chat room or blog, there may be an attempt at discussion, but it very quickly deteriorates into personal attacks and obscenity. The subject hardly matters. You can look at a blog on the Chicago Cubs, one you would think would be wholesome and baseball-oriented (though, admittedly, depressing). But quickly you find out what graphic acts fans want to administer to the general manager - and his family! - over some measly trade.
Last week I was being passed on the highway by an elderly gentleman, who was going 60 to my 55 mph. A motorcycle roared up behind him. As soon as he could, the biker whipped around the car, giving him the finger and cursing at him. For what? For driving the way he should. Besides the lawlessness, traffic is another example of the incivility we have become accustomed to.
In 2010 there are two ways we can make our own society better and safer, and it will not cost us a thing. We can make up our minds to obey the law and we can try to treat each other civilly. That’s all. Are we willing to do that?
Around the United States, volunteers are working in locations in need of housing, education, and environmental clean-up. This is an important part of the American character. But as we begin the next decade, we should take note of a couple serious flaws in that character. We should face the things that we are not.
(1) We are not a people who play by the rules. Every presidential candidate talks about it; every president refers to it. We are, they say, a people who play by the rules, and as such should be treated fairly. But that is not who we are.
In some very important ways we do abide by the law. After Supreme Court decisions on divisive issues, Americans who may disagree vehemently will still accept the decisions. After elections, we abide by the results.
But in day-to-day matters, we show a blatant disregard for the law. You need go no further to see this than to take a ride. Speed limits are the law, but we do not follow them; worse, we do not tolerate people who do. It is against the law to tailgate, and aggressive driving is a crime. No matter; both are commonplace. People make up their own traffic rules. As a result, we lose 43,000 Americans a year in car wrecks. The number one killer, more even than alcohol, is speed. Fact: if we slow down, we save thousands of lives. But we as a society have made the decision that these deaths serve our freedom to drive how we want. And yet, how often do you see someone speeding, tailgating, and weaving dangerously in and out of traffic only to roll up next to them at the next light? Thousands of lives lost and nothing gained.
People cheat on their income taxes - that is to say, people violate the law to the tune of about $350 billion a year for individuals and maybe another $250 billion for corporations. You’ve heard the arguments. The tax code is unfair. Why shouldn't I get away with things if big corporations and rich people do? My tax money goes to things I oppose. It is merely the law, and we see ourselves above it.
(2) We are not a civil society. Someone asked me to download 'lil Wayne's latest, No Ceilings. I couldn't. It was n-word this and f-bomb that and weapons and weed. Nothing uplifting, nothing positive anywhere on the CD.
Look at the blogosphere. In a typical chat room or blog, there may be an attempt at discussion, but it very quickly deteriorates into personal attacks and obscenity. The subject hardly matters. You can look at a blog on the Chicago Cubs, one you would think would be wholesome and baseball-oriented (though, admittedly, depressing). But quickly you find out what graphic acts fans want to administer to the general manager - and his family! - over some measly trade.
Last week I was being passed on the highway by an elderly gentleman, who was going 60 to my 55 mph. A motorcycle roared up behind him. As soon as he could, the biker whipped around the car, giving him the finger and cursing at him. For what? For driving the way he should. Besides the lawlessness, traffic is another example of the incivility we have become accustomed to.
In 2010 there are two ways we can make our own society better and safer, and it will not cost us a thing. We can make up our minds to obey the law and we can try to treat each other civilly. That’s all. Are we willing to do that?
Monday, November 9, 2009
A Necessary Wart
From Iraq to Afghanistan, Will History See It Any Differently?
Victorious English general Oliver Cromwell, Britain's Lord Protector, leader of the New Model Army and victor in England's Civil War once told a portrait painter, who assumed he would be covering over anything unsightly, to paint him "warts and all." And so Cromwell has come down through the years full of warts - physical imperfections, yes, but also more long-lasting ugliness: brutal treatment of Ireland, unforgiven by the Irish still; the execution of a king (who, as monarchs of the time go, wasn't so bad); and an oppressive Puritan reign. No dancing, no colorful art, no fun.
Fast forward to our place and time, we find an American leader faced with a decision regarding Afghanistan. President Obama had promised to get the troops out of Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq, and send them to Afghanistan where we join other NATO forces in fighting one of the unquestionable evil forces in the world, the Taliban. Of course, Mr. Bush sent our troops to topple another unquestionably evil force, Saddam Hussein. Which they did. All that got the then-president was about a 26 percent approval rating and a legacy-loss for John McCain in 2008.
The current presidential portrait of Barack Obama is a pretty one. Some luster has come off the President's image by way of a nasty health care debate, but forces seem to be rallying toward some sort of health care reform. But for Americans, war tends to un-do presidencies. President Johnson had his Great Society social programs unravel at the feet of Vietnam. President Carter was done in by a failed military mission over Iran. The senior President Bush’s successful campaign leading an international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait left him with soaring popularity ratings, but the glory was too short-lived for a second term. The junior Bush’s adventurism in Iraq turned into a long-lasting insurgency; Iraq is a foreign policy wart that will endure for a long time.
Even as Obama acknowledges his Nobel Peace Prize, he is pursuing what he calls "a necessary war." Which is to say, a necessary wart. Losing American lives in the faraway Hindu Kush, over a long struggle, with little chance of a democratic Afghanistan, will not be what wins a second term for Obama. How can he minimize the blemish? He can keep NATO involved to take some of the heat, and win some big ones at home - on health care; on energy; and on economic recovery - using his domestic victories to mask the wart that will be Afghanistan.
Victorious English general Oliver Cromwell, Britain's Lord Protector, leader of the New Model Army and victor in England's Civil War once told a portrait painter, who assumed he would be covering over anything unsightly, to paint him "warts and all." And so Cromwell has come down through the years full of warts - physical imperfections, yes, but also more long-lasting ugliness: brutal treatment of Ireland, unforgiven by the Irish still; the execution of a king (who, as monarchs of the time go, wasn't so bad); and an oppressive Puritan reign. No dancing, no colorful art, no fun.
Fast forward to our place and time, we find an American leader faced with a decision regarding Afghanistan. President Obama had promised to get the troops out of Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq, and send them to Afghanistan where we join other NATO forces in fighting one of the unquestionable evil forces in the world, the Taliban. Of course, Mr. Bush sent our troops to topple another unquestionably evil force, Saddam Hussein. Which they did. All that got the then-president was about a 26 percent approval rating and a legacy-loss for John McCain in 2008.
The current presidential portrait of Barack Obama is a pretty one. Some luster has come off the President's image by way of a nasty health care debate, but forces seem to be rallying toward some sort of health care reform. But for Americans, war tends to un-do presidencies. President Johnson had his Great Society social programs unravel at the feet of Vietnam. President Carter was done in by a failed military mission over Iran. The senior President Bush’s successful campaign leading an international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait left him with soaring popularity ratings, but the glory was too short-lived for a second term. The junior Bush’s adventurism in Iraq turned into a long-lasting insurgency; Iraq is a foreign policy wart that will endure for a long time.
Even as Obama acknowledges his Nobel Peace Prize, he is pursuing what he calls "a necessary war." Which is to say, a necessary wart. Losing American lives in the faraway Hindu Kush, over a long struggle, with little chance of a democratic Afghanistan, will not be what wins a second term for Obama. How can he minimize the blemish? He can keep NATO involved to take some of the heat, and win some big ones at home - on health care; on energy; and on economic recovery - using his domestic victories to mask the wart that will be Afghanistan.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Solving Our Problems: Let’s Go "Multi"
Perhaps you’ve heard the old joke that goes: There are two types of people in the world, those who divide people into two types and those that don’t. One of the smartest people ever, Steven J. Gould, wrote about people’s disturbing characteristic of dividing things into two’s. That makes it easier to say that someone is for us or against us. This dualism adds to our dueling.
It also prevents us from seeing solutions to our problems. In local school districts, it’s either whole language or phonics (in reality, just about any reading program has both). In politics it’s liberal versus conservative. In Washington, DC politics, it’s black versus white. In the Bible belt, one finds Christians versus anyone who isn’t.
The radio bands are cleanly divided into liberal and conservative camps, and ratings depend on one side demonizing the other. The country isn’t served by this. When pressed on his liberal credentials, then-President Clinton said, "That dog won’t hunt anymore." Like him or hate him, his effort to blur the distinction might have merit.
Around the Internet there is a campaign to paint the world as a coming battleground. The Muslims are coming and coming fast! Soon they will take over Europe, then "Islamify" the US. Then won’t Christians who ignored all the signs be sorry!
In matters of race, we have issues, but we show progress. The quiet progress comes from interracial marriages and mixed race neighborhoods. Moreover, it comes from mixed race people. Tiger Woods signaled, by his notoriety, a change in our concept of race. Black/white distinctions are being blurred by the idea of multi-racial.
Our true selves as Americans show up not as blots of black, white and other, but as a mix. If Tiger by virtue of his parentage is cool, having a mixed-race president is way cool.
Religious distinctions, products of our minds and not physical characteristics, should be easily bridgeable. But we insist on exclusivity. Maybe it’s time for "make it cool" to be multi-religious. Mike Mansfield in his book The Japanese Mind describes how the Japanese can, with no internal contradictions and no social discomfort, be of several beliefs. They may be Christian, Buddhist, and Shinto at the same time, choosing rituals from each, as they deem fit.
And why not? Why can’t I choose a theology drawing on the Wisdom of Solomon and David, the meditative awareness of the Buddha, the poetry of the Quran, and the humility of Jesus? Religion at its best creates community, and our diverse society is rich in the wisdom of the ages.
Yet we feel we must choose one and only one.
I know someone whose wife is a Muslim Moroccan who followed her white, Christian husband to the U.S. from Spain. She believes in celebrating everyone’s holidays. She enjoys St Patrick’s Day with the relish of the Irish, Christmas with the sense of joy experienced by Christians, and Eid with the reverence of her own faith.
But that we all could embrace such an outlook. But we seem stuck in our dualist nature. Pro-Con. Go-No-Go. We argue to argue. We can, however, be more than the residue of our little philosophical encampments.
I admit there are limitations. One cannot, for example, be both a Red Sox and Yankee fan. That would be silly.
It also prevents us from seeing solutions to our problems. In local school districts, it’s either whole language or phonics (in reality, just about any reading program has both). In politics it’s liberal versus conservative. In Washington, DC politics, it’s black versus white. In the Bible belt, one finds Christians versus anyone who isn’t.
The radio bands are cleanly divided into liberal and conservative camps, and ratings depend on one side demonizing the other. The country isn’t served by this. When pressed on his liberal credentials, then-President Clinton said, "That dog won’t hunt anymore." Like him or hate him, his effort to blur the distinction might have merit.
Around the Internet there is a campaign to paint the world as a coming battleground. The Muslims are coming and coming fast! Soon they will take over Europe, then "Islamify" the US. Then won’t Christians who ignored all the signs be sorry!
In matters of race, we have issues, but we show progress. The quiet progress comes from interracial marriages and mixed race neighborhoods. Moreover, it comes from mixed race people. Tiger Woods signaled, by his notoriety, a change in our concept of race. Black/white distinctions are being blurred by the idea of multi-racial.
Our true selves as Americans show up not as blots of black, white and other, but as a mix. If Tiger by virtue of his parentage is cool, having a mixed-race president is way cool.
Religious distinctions, products of our minds and not physical characteristics, should be easily bridgeable. But we insist on exclusivity. Maybe it’s time for "make it cool" to be multi-religious. Mike Mansfield in his book The Japanese Mind describes how the Japanese can, with no internal contradictions and no social discomfort, be of several beliefs. They may be Christian, Buddhist, and Shinto at the same time, choosing rituals from each, as they deem fit.
And why not? Why can’t I choose a theology drawing on the Wisdom of Solomon and David, the meditative awareness of the Buddha, the poetry of the Quran, and the humility of Jesus? Religion at its best creates community, and our diverse society is rich in the wisdom of the ages.
Yet we feel we must choose one and only one.
I know someone whose wife is a Muslim Moroccan who followed her white, Christian husband to the U.S. from Spain. She believes in celebrating everyone’s holidays. She enjoys St Patrick’s Day with the relish of the Irish, Christmas with the sense of joy experienced by Christians, and Eid with the reverence of her own faith.
But that we all could embrace such an outlook. But we seem stuck in our dualist nature. Pro-Con. Go-No-Go. We argue to argue. We can, however, be more than the residue of our little philosophical encampments.
I admit there are limitations. One cannot, for example, be both a Red Sox and Yankee fan. That would be silly.
What if the world is too complicated for democracy?
Could 2009 be the beginning of the post-democracy era, complements of the current financial crisis?
Francis Fukayama once declared the "end of history," to wit, that the Great Questions of History have been answered, and that the consensus was that the best course for mankind was economic capitalism combined with a democratic government. There would be no more need for conflict; the case was closed in favor of modern Western values. The winning model included human rights, free and fair elections, and free markets.
Then came 9-11, which left no doubt that conflict remains, and that the consensus was not so consensual. There are people who object to modern notions of economics and government, and some become violent.
Asia would seem to be a case study proving that capitalism and democracy don’t need each other. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in reality. South Korea and Singapore followed suit. All three became wealthy. President Lee, the former leader of Singapore said that personal freedoms, which we value as key to our democracy, will lead to the downfall of the US. Such freedom unleashes individualism, which leads to decadence and instability. Meanwhile "soft authoritarian" countries on the Pacific Rim are sporting growing economies; their price is personal freedom, which Confucian societies value less than conformity and stability. China is following the same lead as the other "tiger economies," and this formerly-communist economy is increasing its GDP faster than any other nation, while its currently communist government swats away the flies of dissent. This model says that government will offer a stable environment for business; people are free to do as they will, within the confines of this ordered society, and everyone benefits. Except perhaps artists, oddballs, weirdoes, innovators, non-conformists, rebelling teenagers, and anyone else not in line with the grand scheme of things. And why defend them, at the expense of a rising prosperity?
So maybe we are too free, and our decadent lifestyles will cost us our position atop the hierarchy of nations. But the financial crisis of 2008-2009 brought another possibility: that the sheer complexity of economic life in the modern world is in the process of making democracy as we know it obsolete.
When the effects of the largest financial crisis in 3/4 of a century were becoming felt, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Appointed, not elected, bureaucrats. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, laid out the national response, leading our representatives in Congress to at first interfere with and then rubberstamp President Bush’s economic team’s plan. Meanwhile, we regular citizens tried to grasp both the causes and the enormity of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to begin to fix this? Maybe a trillion-and-a-half when all is said and done? To paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there and now we’re talking real money.
The Chinese understand a system run by unelected bureaucrats. That is not what Americans expect out of government. But we have to deal with the complexities of re-regulating investment banks, controlling complex investment instruments, manipulating our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is possible, just possible, that the local politician we elected (wherever in the U.S. we live) as our congressperson because she/he did such a great job on the school board is not up to this?
In fact, the elected head of the executive branch was little visible at the forefront of the crisis, which added to the inclination of the nation to elect the opposition political party to the presidency. What bold actions are in store from our new elected officials? Well, the new president brought in experienced bureaucrats to fill his economic team. Other fundamental changes? No. There is a stimulus plan, pretty much like the one pushed by President Bush, only bigger.
Is this abrogation of the policy limelight by elected officials in favor of insiders a good thing or a bad thing? If the central bankers deem it necessary to bail out big corporations, increase unemployment benefits, and create jobs, why should we object? If the welfare of big business means the welfare of most of us, what is the problem? If we need fast action, why put our faith in the slow, political process of democracy?
Maybe we shouldn’t worry about the rights of those on the political and social fringe, because our idea of the fringe has changed over time. In his book Supercapitalism, Robert Reich, who is more optimistic than I am about the state of democracy today, looked back at the ‘50s as the Golden Years, saying that America offered high-paying blue collar jobs, corporate statesmanship, and a government-industry-labor partnership that maintained stability and prosperity; he noted that the cost was a rigid and stifling conformity. Peter Beinart recently wrote in Time that "The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order -- to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas..."
Maybe people need only the appearance of control over their own lives. We can debate personal rights, protest over the internet a military action we disagree with, and decide local issues. Are we ready to leave the meat of national/global policy-making, the part that controls how people make a living, to the experts? That is how China does it and they are expanding at 8% a year.
Francis Fukayama once declared the "end of history," to wit, that the Great Questions of History have been answered, and that the consensus was that the best course for mankind was economic capitalism combined with a democratic government. There would be no more need for conflict; the case was closed in favor of modern Western values. The winning model included human rights, free and fair elections, and free markets.
Then came 9-11, which left no doubt that conflict remains, and that the consensus was not so consensual. There are people who object to modern notions of economics and government, and some become violent.
Asia would seem to be a case study proving that capitalism and democracy don’t need each other. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in reality. South Korea and Singapore followed suit. All three became wealthy. President Lee, the former leader of Singapore said that personal freedoms, which we value as key to our democracy, will lead to the downfall of the US. Such freedom unleashes individualism, which leads to decadence and instability. Meanwhile "soft authoritarian" countries on the Pacific Rim are sporting growing economies; their price is personal freedom, which Confucian societies value less than conformity and stability. China is following the same lead as the other "tiger economies," and this formerly-communist economy is increasing its GDP faster than any other nation, while its currently communist government swats away the flies of dissent. This model says that government will offer a stable environment for business; people are free to do as they will, within the confines of this ordered society, and everyone benefits. Except perhaps artists, oddballs, weirdoes, innovators, non-conformists, rebelling teenagers, and anyone else not in line with the grand scheme of things. And why defend them, at the expense of a rising prosperity?
So maybe we are too free, and our decadent lifestyles will cost us our position atop the hierarchy of nations. But the financial crisis of 2008-2009 brought another possibility: that the sheer complexity of economic life in the modern world is in the process of making democracy as we know it obsolete.
When the effects of the largest financial crisis in 3/4 of a century were becoming felt, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Appointed, not elected, bureaucrats. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, laid out the national response, leading our representatives in Congress to at first interfere with and then rubberstamp President Bush’s economic team’s plan. Meanwhile, we regular citizens tried to grasp both the causes and the enormity of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to begin to fix this? Maybe a trillion-and-a-half when all is said and done? To paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there and now we’re talking real money.
The Chinese understand a system run by unelected bureaucrats. That is not what Americans expect out of government. But we have to deal with the complexities of re-regulating investment banks, controlling complex investment instruments, manipulating our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is possible, just possible, that the local politician we elected (wherever in the U.S. we live) as our congressperson because she/he did such a great job on the school board is not up to this?
In fact, the elected head of the executive branch was little visible at the forefront of the crisis, which added to the inclination of the nation to elect the opposition political party to the presidency. What bold actions are in store from our new elected officials? Well, the new president brought in experienced bureaucrats to fill his economic team. Other fundamental changes? No. There is a stimulus plan, pretty much like the one pushed by President Bush, only bigger.
Is this abrogation of the policy limelight by elected officials in favor of insiders a good thing or a bad thing? If the central bankers deem it necessary to bail out big corporations, increase unemployment benefits, and create jobs, why should we object? If the welfare of big business means the welfare of most of us, what is the problem? If we need fast action, why put our faith in the slow, political process of democracy?
Maybe we shouldn’t worry about the rights of those on the political and social fringe, because our idea of the fringe has changed over time. In his book Supercapitalism, Robert Reich, who is more optimistic than I am about the state of democracy today, looked back at the ‘50s as the Golden Years, saying that America offered high-paying blue collar jobs, corporate statesmanship, and a government-industry-labor partnership that maintained stability and prosperity; he noted that the cost was a rigid and stifling conformity. Peter Beinart recently wrote in Time that "The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order -- to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas..."
Maybe people need only the appearance of control over their own lives. We can debate personal rights, protest over the internet a military action we disagree with, and decide local issues. Are we ready to leave the meat of national/global policy-making, the part that controls how people make a living, to the experts? That is how China does it and they are expanding at 8% a year.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
About A Civil Disagreement Blog
A Civil Disagreement Blog is sponsored by A Civil Disagreement. Its purpose is to provide a civilized forum for users to discuss national & international politics and social issues. The information can be anything related to politics or society and it is meant for everyone. We encourage a lively discussion though we insist that any disagreements remain civilized. Please keep it clean. The editorial staff reserves the right to remove, or edit, any posts they feel are inappropriate for this community. The editorial staff also reserves the right to correct the spelling and/or grammar for any post on the blog. If anyone reads what they interpret as an inappropriate post, please send an email to customer-service@acivildisagreement.com immediately.
This blog is meant for entertainment purposes only. A Civil Disagreement Blog and its editors are not responsible for the safety or effectiveness of any information, or claims made, within a post. It is the total responsibility of the reader to do his/her homework with regard to any information contained within a post. It is also the total responsibility of the reader to understand that all posts are solely the opinion of the author and it is the reader's responsibility to ensure all information is correct and accurate before they use the information for any purpose.
At A Civil Disagreement, we believe there’s something missing - a place where regular Americans can go to contribute well-thought-out opinions on politics and today's social issues. Our mission is to provide a respectful and thoughtful forum for different voices - liberal, conservative and alternative views - on a new political question each month. We hope you enjoy politics from this vantage point. We hope that this is a testament to the idea that WE THE PEOPLE have something of value to add, and that political thought is not the monopoly of politicians and professional political operatives.
This blog is meant for entertainment purposes only. A Civil Disagreement Blog and its editors are not responsible for the safety or effectiveness of any information, or claims made, within a post. It is the total responsibility of the reader to do his/her homework with regard to any information contained within a post. It is also the total responsibility of the reader to understand that all posts are solely the opinion of the author and it is the reader's responsibility to ensure all information is correct and accurate before they use the information for any purpose.
At A Civil Disagreement, we believe there’s something missing - a place where regular Americans can go to contribute well-thought-out opinions on politics and today's social issues. Our mission is to provide a respectful and thoughtful forum for different voices - liberal, conservative and alternative views - on a new political question each month. We hope you enjoy politics from this vantage point. We hope that this is a testament to the idea that WE THE PEOPLE have something of value to add, and that political thought is not the monopoly of politicians and professional political operatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
