It struck me recently in a Facebook discussion with one of Betty's cousins (technically a first cousin once removed, if anyone cares) what the real problem with the current conservative "small government" idea is. The problem is checks and balances, arguably the wisest thing our Constitution writers ever did. In the problems of their day - big states vs. little, legislative vs. executive, etc. - they set up a system where neither side had control. The bicameral legislature and other structures made it very difficult for one side to dominate the other. One side could not tyrranize the other. This concept is a very large factor in the success of our republic so far. Indeed, it is a major reason that our government is not even larger than it is now.
But we have a problem now. Business, specifically "Big Business", is now effectively out of control. In the recent banking crisis, the government bailed out several of the largest banks, because if they went out of business the ensuing chaos could have ruined the entire American economy. They were making high-risk loans, and why not? It wasn't their risk. Either the borrowers repaid, or the government covered the loss, lest the entire country collapse. The automotive industry got a similar bailout, for a similar reason. So the Fortune 100 are immortal; if they screw up, no matter how stupidly, they have the U. S. Treasury to fall back on.
Someone, somehow, has to provide a balance. In the late 19th century, as America transformed from primarily agricultural to primarily industrial, we had a similar situation. Corporations and industrialists simply went to Congress or the state legislature with bags of cash, and went home with empty bags and favorable legislation. Bosses and supervisors followed their employees to the polls and directed them how to vote. These abuses were overcome, but only with great difficulty. Not coincidentally, the labor unions began organizing in this time. After the Roosevelt era reforms, labor unions were strong enough to be a counterbalance to corporate power.
But now, the unions are too weak to be an effective balance to the corporations. This is unfortunate; Big Labor is the most economically sensible balance for Big Business. So what is left? Only Big Government. This is hardly ideal, but I see no better alternative. Benito Mussolini himself said that Corporatism was a more accurate name for his system than Fascism. I really don't like living in a system where a CEO can move a headquarters, disrupting thousands of lives, just because he wants to.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Class War in the USA
{Okay, back to hell-in-a-handcart rants.}
It has been a tactic of the fright-wing demagogues to shout “class war!” whenever someone notices that the middle class is shrinking, and that this shrinking is encouraged by government policies. Is class warfare a bad thing? Yes, especially when it is in progress and my side is losing, because we have been convinced that the war isn’t happening. People have been convinced that policies that help the rich get richer are somehow magically good for them too. What is frightening is the persistence of this belief even after the experience of the 21st century so far.
The zero decade had massive parallels to the 1920’s – uncontrolled financial system, bubbles in land and stocks, rapid introduction of new technologies, growing acceptance of formerly unacceptable behavior. The teens are shaping up as a replay of the 1930’s – massive unemployment, economic stagnation, a growing sense of fear in the employed and of hopelessness in the unemployed. I just cannot shake the fear that the late teens or early 20’s will see a replay of the 1940’s. And this time with nukes. Yes, I fear that the end of civilization, or even life as we know it, is again a real possibility.
The class war? It is a major contributor to the trajectory I see our society moving along. It is happening because the upper class, like nearly everyone else in this country, has no awareness of history. Yesterday is old news; last year is antiquity. Henry Ford was far from perfect as a human being, but he did one of the best things anyone has ever done for America. He paid his workers much more than he needed to. He was no altruist; he did it for perfectly selfish capitalist reasons. But, unlike so very many business people, especially now, he thought past the next quarter’s balance sheet. This high pay rate did two long-term things for Ford and his company. They could get the cream of the workforce, which forced other manufacturers to follow suit. And with the extra pay, workers could afford luxuries, which at the time a Ford car definitely was.
The result was that Henry Ford got fabulously rich, richer by orders of magnitude than he would have been had he not paid his workers so well. And the workers, indeed the whole country, got much richer. Of course the real world never runs smoothly; the consequences also included the boom of the 1920’s and crash of the 1930’s. But after the reforms of the Roosevelt administration, enabling the rise of the big industrial labor unions in the 1950’s, the middle class grew to a near majority of the population. Even with the Cold War and the Vietnam war, the 1950’s and 60’s were a happy time in America. Many of the good things of that era, most notably the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty, were made possible by the affluence of the large, stable and comfortable middle class.
The oil shock of the early 70’s followed by the inflation of the late 70’s, on top of the Vietnam defeat, shook the confidence of the country. The upper class, meanwhile, had felt put upon by the Roosevelt reforms that kept relatively tight control over financial institutions. When Ronald Reagan was elected, the campaign began to convince people that government was the root of all evil. This could not have succeeded if all Americans were not so ignorant of history. The rich did not realize that a big and healthy middle class made them richer, and that a regulated financial system gave them greater security. The middle class forgot their parents’ stories of the Great Depression; they forgot that while labor unions were far from perfect, overall life was better with them than without. And large numbers of the poor bought the line that social conservatism and economic conservatism were the same thing.
The result of these factors is the devastation of the middle class. While most of the loss of high-paying low skill jobs is the result of foreign competition, the widespread disrepute of labor unions is a major factor. But now the educated middle class also sees itself in danger. I’ve gone into this elsewhere. Ariana Huffington is one of the few known people who have seen the likely end of this trend: the USA as a third world country, where the rich have nearly everything and everyone else is poor.
Ironically, the loss of the middle class will reduce the wealth of the wealthy. The rich in third world countries have less than the rich in developed countries with a healthy middle class. Why? The middle class is the class that spends money, and thus keeps the economy moving. If no one has any spare cash after food, clothing and shelter, then economic activity ends there. The supply-side vs. demand-side debate of the eighties was easily the silliest public discussion since the founding of the republic. You need both; that this isn’t obvious to anyone astounds me.
Many people have said that for a lot of acquisitive people it really isn’t about the money; it’s a grand game and money is how you keep score. Such people are much less interested in what they have than in having more than others: where do I rank? These are the people who don’t mind a class war and the end of the middle class. Whether I get more or everyone else gets less, I win! Only relative wealth matters, not absolute. This attitude, and those people, will be the death of the USA as a major country.
It has been a tactic of the fright-wing demagogues to shout “class war!” whenever someone notices that the middle class is shrinking, and that this shrinking is encouraged by government policies. Is class warfare a bad thing? Yes, especially when it is in progress and my side is losing, because we have been convinced that the war isn’t happening. People have been convinced that policies that help the rich get richer are somehow magically good for them too. What is frightening is the persistence of this belief even after the experience of the 21st century so far.
The zero decade had massive parallels to the 1920’s – uncontrolled financial system, bubbles in land and stocks, rapid introduction of new technologies, growing acceptance of formerly unacceptable behavior. The teens are shaping up as a replay of the 1930’s – massive unemployment, economic stagnation, a growing sense of fear in the employed and of hopelessness in the unemployed. I just cannot shake the fear that the late teens or early 20’s will see a replay of the 1940’s. And this time with nukes. Yes, I fear that the end of civilization, or even life as we know it, is again a real possibility.
The class war? It is a major contributor to the trajectory I see our society moving along. It is happening because the upper class, like nearly everyone else in this country, has no awareness of history. Yesterday is old news; last year is antiquity. Henry Ford was far from perfect as a human being, but he did one of the best things anyone has ever done for America. He paid his workers much more than he needed to. He was no altruist; he did it for perfectly selfish capitalist reasons. But, unlike so very many business people, especially now, he thought past the next quarter’s balance sheet. This high pay rate did two long-term things for Ford and his company. They could get the cream of the workforce, which forced other manufacturers to follow suit. And with the extra pay, workers could afford luxuries, which at the time a Ford car definitely was.
The result was that Henry Ford got fabulously rich, richer by orders of magnitude than he would have been had he not paid his workers so well. And the workers, indeed the whole country, got much richer. Of course the real world never runs smoothly; the consequences also included the boom of the 1920’s and crash of the 1930’s. But after the reforms of the Roosevelt administration, enabling the rise of the big industrial labor unions in the 1950’s, the middle class grew to a near majority of the population. Even with the Cold War and the Vietnam war, the 1950’s and 60’s were a happy time in America. Many of the good things of that era, most notably the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty, were made possible by the affluence of the large, stable and comfortable middle class.
The oil shock of the early 70’s followed by the inflation of the late 70’s, on top of the Vietnam defeat, shook the confidence of the country. The upper class, meanwhile, had felt put upon by the Roosevelt reforms that kept relatively tight control over financial institutions. When Ronald Reagan was elected, the campaign began to convince people that government was the root of all evil. This could not have succeeded if all Americans were not so ignorant of history. The rich did not realize that a big and healthy middle class made them richer, and that a regulated financial system gave them greater security. The middle class forgot their parents’ stories of the Great Depression; they forgot that while labor unions were far from perfect, overall life was better with them than without. And large numbers of the poor bought the line that social conservatism and economic conservatism were the same thing.
The result of these factors is the devastation of the middle class. While most of the loss of high-paying low skill jobs is the result of foreign competition, the widespread disrepute of labor unions is a major factor. But now the educated middle class also sees itself in danger. I’ve gone into this elsewhere. Ariana Huffington is one of the few known people who have seen the likely end of this trend: the USA as a third world country, where the rich have nearly everything and everyone else is poor.
Ironically, the loss of the middle class will reduce the wealth of the wealthy. The rich in third world countries have less than the rich in developed countries with a healthy middle class. Why? The middle class is the class that spends money, and thus keeps the economy moving. If no one has any spare cash after food, clothing and shelter, then economic activity ends there. The supply-side vs. demand-side debate of the eighties was easily the silliest public discussion since the founding of the republic. You need both; that this isn’t obvious to anyone astounds me.
Many people have said that for a lot of acquisitive people it really isn’t about the money; it’s a grand game and money is how you keep score. Such people are much less interested in what they have than in having more than others: where do I rank? These are the people who don’t mind a class war and the end of the middle class. Whether I get more or everyone else gets less, I win! Only relative wealth matters, not absolute. This attitude, and those people, will be the death of the USA as a major country.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Traditional Rock
On the radio today, classical WDPR, I heard an interview with the Blue Man Group, who have a performance in Dayton soon. During the interview the music that accompanies their performance was mentioned. One of the troupe referred to it as rock - "well, maybe not traditional rock."
Dear Lord, I must be old. Rock is now traditional. Chuck Berry, Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney - give it up; get your rockin' chairs ready. You're trad now. Though, I suppose, since so many of the originators of the genre are dead, maybe it's just as well. We can just ignore how young most of them were at their deaths.
In a way, it's kind of healthy, and I've seen few enough signs of cultural health these days. Young people, including young musicians, know and have some appreciation for the rock masters of the Eisenhower through Nixon years. When I was young, it wasn't done to admit to any taste for or appreciation of our parents' music. It was yet another not-so-smart attitude from the Baby Boomer generation, and I'm glad our kids did not continue it. Thanks, youngsters!
Dear Lord, I must be old. Rock is now traditional. Chuck Berry, Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney - give it up; get your rockin' chairs ready. You're trad now. Though, I suppose, since so many of the originators of the genre are dead, maybe it's just as well. We can just ignore how young most of them were at their deaths.
In a way, it's kind of healthy, and I've seen few enough signs of cultural health these days. Young people, including young musicians, know and have some appreciation for the rock masters of the Eisenhower through Nixon years. When I was young, it wasn't done to admit to any taste for or appreciation of our parents' music. It was yet another not-so-smart attitude from the Baby Boomer generation, and I'm glad our kids did not continue it. Thanks, youngsters!
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The Right is Insane, the Left is Impotent and there’s Nobody in the Center
Before Microsoft Windows, the classical example of insanity was repeating an action and expecting it to have a different result. Now, of course, a PC service tech won’t even listen until you’ve repeated it twice at least.
This has had an unfortunate effect on American politics. Now, even those few people who know a little of history are likely to ignore it. People now hold economic and political opinions as revealed dogma; only truly evil people would disagree.
The American right wing is advocating a continuation, even an expansion, of the very policies that put us in the current predicament. The policies that produced the 1930’s have also produced the 2010’s. The American left is divided into a hand-wringing moderate wing, and a socialist nut-squad who cannot see that their ideas as well have been tried and failed.
In party terms, the Republicans have a moderate, center-oriented wing but it is being bludgeoned into submissive irrelevance by the true-believing right. The Democrats have a moderate, center-oriented wing but it keeps trying for bi-partisan solutions, apparently unaware that “bi-partisan” requires two sides trying to come together. At least the Democrats are not yet controlled by their maniacs, but they have accomplished so little.
It seems that currently the right-wing crazies outnumber the left-wing nutcases by a fairly large amount. So the right may wind up in control of things when our balance is completely gone. And that, as Arianna Huffington is saying, will result in the USA becoming just another third-world country – the richest few will control everything, and we will no longer have a large middle class.
All summer without a post and I come up with another h-in-h rant. I’m sorry. I’ll try to have something more cheerful for the next post. I’d better; I have another gripe almost ready to go.
This has had an unfortunate effect on American politics. Now, even those few people who know a little of history are likely to ignore it. People now hold economic and political opinions as revealed dogma; only truly evil people would disagree.
The American right wing is advocating a continuation, even an expansion, of the very policies that put us in the current predicament. The policies that produced the 1930’s have also produced the 2010’s. The American left is divided into a hand-wringing moderate wing, and a socialist nut-squad who cannot see that their ideas as well have been tried and failed.
In party terms, the Republicans have a moderate, center-oriented wing but it is being bludgeoned into submissive irrelevance by the true-believing right. The Democrats have a moderate, center-oriented wing but it keeps trying for bi-partisan solutions, apparently unaware that “bi-partisan” requires two sides trying to come together. At least the Democrats are not yet controlled by their maniacs, but they have accomplished so little.
It seems that currently the right-wing crazies outnumber the left-wing nutcases by a fairly large amount. So the right may wind up in control of things when our balance is completely gone. And that, as Arianna Huffington is saying, will result in the USA becoming just another third-world country – the richest few will control everything, and we will no longer have a large middle class.
All summer without a post and I come up with another h-in-h rant. I’m sorry. I’ll try to have something more cheerful for the next post. I’d better; I have another gripe almost ready to go.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Shortly after the last post, Betty and I flew out to Oakland, CA to visit Tom and Kelly for a week. That was an incredibly good time. Best, of course, was time with my first son, and his marvelously witty wife. We would have liked more time with Kelly, but what we had was high quality. It's kind of unfortunate that she has a day job again, but that's show biz. Pay yer dues, kid. She is making progress. Tom says that she often makes more from her performing than it costs, and people are beginning to call her with offers. Good luck, babe!
We, of course, did most of the usual Bay Area tourist things: cable cars, Fisherman's Wharf, Golden Gate Park and Ocean Beach. Also Berkeley's Municipal Pier and Sausalito. But easily the best tourist thing was Muir Woods. Going there from Oakland, we didn't take the famous Golden Gate bridge; that would involve lots of city driving through San Francisco. Coming from the I-580 bridge and going cross-country to Muir Woods reminded us a lot of West Virginia - tight curves, steep hills and no guard rails. Who needs guard rails? Most places the trees won't let you roll all the way down those 300 or 400 foot drops. And the trees are immense, and the whole place is beautiful. We walked around the path in awe; the feeling was the same as hiking in WV woods, or the Smokies. Sure, the Grand Canyon is awe-inspiring in its way, but we grew up in tree country and have Druids in our remote ancestry.
Tuesday Betty wasn't feeling good, so Tom and I went to Alcatraz and the City Lights bookstore. It was so good - SO GOOD! - to have that much time with Tom. He really is fun to be with, and I already miss him as much as I did before we went. But City Lights was good. I found a postcard with a Lawrence Ferlinghetti poem, and thought it would appeal to Jim Costanzo. I was right; after we got back he called and told me it was possibly the best thing he had ever had from family. Made me very happy!
The big surprise, though, was that I really liked San Fran and the whole Bay area. I had such a stereotype of California as the land of the flake and the home of the nutcase. But I found friendly, mostly normal people. Not only that, they walk on sidewalks and use public transportation as a normal way to go places. Add in the odd, non-chain shops and entertainments and you have most of what I like about New York City with little of what I don't like - dirt and fear. Sure, Ohio is still home, but if you see someone on a bus in Dayton it's an even money bet that they either can't afford a car or their driver's license is suspended or revoked.
So, even if Tom and Kelly end up elsewhere, I would like to go back sometime. (Of course if they stay around there I'm for sure going to go back.) I'm not quite ready to join Tony Bennett yet, but I'm closer than I ever expected to be.
We, of course, did most of the usual Bay Area tourist things: cable cars, Fisherman's Wharf, Golden Gate Park and Ocean Beach. Also Berkeley's Municipal Pier and Sausalito. But easily the best tourist thing was Muir Woods. Going there from Oakland, we didn't take the famous Golden Gate bridge; that would involve lots of city driving through San Francisco. Coming from the I-580 bridge and going cross-country to Muir Woods reminded us a lot of West Virginia - tight curves, steep hills and no guard rails. Who needs guard rails? Most places the trees won't let you roll all the way down those 300 or 400 foot drops. And the trees are immense, and the whole place is beautiful. We walked around the path in awe; the feeling was the same as hiking in WV woods, or the Smokies. Sure, the Grand Canyon is awe-inspiring in its way, but we grew up in tree country and have Druids in our remote ancestry.
Tuesday Betty wasn't feeling good, so Tom and I went to Alcatraz and the City Lights bookstore. It was so good - SO GOOD! - to have that much time with Tom. He really is fun to be with, and I already miss him as much as I did before we went. But City Lights was good. I found a postcard with a Lawrence Ferlinghetti poem, and thought it would appeal to Jim Costanzo. I was right; after we got back he called and told me it was possibly the best thing he had ever had from family. Made me very happy!
The big surprise, though, was that I really liked San Fran and the whole Bay area. I had such a stereotype of California as the land of the flake and the home of the nutcase. But I found friendly, mostly normal people. Not only that, they walk on sidewalks and use public transportation as a normal way to go places. Add in the odd, non-chain shops and entertainments and you have most of what I like about New York City with little of what I don't like - dirt and fear. Sure, Ohio is still home, but if you see someone on a bus in Dayton it's an even money bet that they either can't afford a car or their driver's license is suspended or revoked.
So, even if Tom and Kelly end up elsewhere, I would like to go back sometime. (Of course if they stay around there I'm for sure going to go back.) I'm not quite ready to join Tony Bennett yet, but I'm closer than I ever expected to be.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Now Fearful
{continued from Not Hopeful.}
What has inspired my fear is the “Tea Party” movement. It looks like simply unfocused anger, apparently fed by two deep-seated fears. One is the well-founded fear that America is no longer supreme in the world. The movement seems to include those who fear that the USA is no longer able to do anything we want, that no one can compel us or forbid us, and those who fear that the USA is no longer a moral leader. Few will admit these fears openly; thus I have to insert weasel words – “apparently”, “seems”. I could be wrong. Indeed, I profoundly hope that I am wrong. Because this kind of nationalism is a terrible danger, as World Wars I and II surely demonstrate. This has a frightening resemblance to the kind of inferiority complex in Germany that contributed so heavily to those horrible wars. The loss of moral leadership is harder to admit, at least in so many words. We’re losing the sense, never fully justified, that America was admired, not just envied.
The other basic fear is more personal: a fear that our lives are not under our own control. Certainly government has the power to exercise more control than anyone could tolerate, even if it is not currently doing so. But this fear also has an economic and personal component. It is not just fear of excessive taxation, or excessive economic regulation, though that is the public face of it. It is also the fear that maybe my life is not at all under my control. A certain type of rugged individualism is a major factor in the American psyche. If I try hard, I will succeed, and if I don’t succeed I didn’t really try. This has, for many people, the force of a religious doctrine. Unfortunately it is really not correct. If I don’t try, I won’t succeed; that part is clearly true. But human history has uncounted examples of people who tried as hard as anyone, and completely failed. Logically, effort is a “necessary but not sufficient condition” of success.
The conservative emphasis on personal responsibility is not, in itself, a bad thing. Indeed no system lasts long when people need not take responsibility for themselves. But the real problem is opportunity. Can people effectively take responsibility for their lives? The rugged individualist ethic goes deep in our national culture and psyche. I feel that this is because until the 20th century, it was possible to live your own life completely. Just head west till you found a place you liked, and plant a crop or hunt. It might not be easy, or comfortable, but for all but disabled men it was doable. This hasn’t been possible for a long time now, but the attitude persists among us. We are all limited in our choices.
Growing one’s own food is a live option for very few of us. For better or worse, the vast majority of Americans live in a money-only economy. If we want food, clothing or shelter, we buy them. And the thing about money is, you don’t have it until someone gives you some. What we call “earning” money is really trading something we have that is not money (merchandise or labor, most commonly) for money. This means that to get, say, food, we need to find someone with money. We must convince them that we can give them something they want and to give us money in exchange for it. Then we find someone with food, and convince them to take our money in exchange for their food. (I’m making this sound like a more complex version of bartering. It is, but it’s a vast improvement; that’s a subject for another time.)
This gives us two problems to solve: we must sell something, and we must buy something. But the system does not guarantee that either will be possible. We may not be able to find anyone who will pay for anything we have, and we may not be able to find anyone who can sell what we want to buy. Indeed, there may not be anyone who will pay for what we have, or sell us what we need. The second case is what happens in a famine. In this country that is hardly a serious risk any more. But the first happens all the time, for a lot of people and a lot of reasons. Here is my favorite example: In the nineteenth century, telegraph operators were respected skilled workers. It took time and practice to learn the Morse code and acquire speed in transmitting and receiving messages. Such men were in demand; they received a good amount of money for their work. But then came the telephone. The demand for telegraph operators dwindled and died. Men who had been respected middle-class wage-earners had to acquire a different skill or join the underclass. The examples in my own life are Fortran (me) and Cobol programmers. And the older one is, the harder it is to acquire a new marketable skill.
So here we have modern American conservatives. They are committed to the belief that good people always succeed in America, and they know that they are good people. If someone fails, they must try again until they succeed. But by now, a majority of Americans has either lost a job, through no fault of their own, or has a close friend who has lost theirs. This is particularly true among the well-paid but low-skill jobs, which are now getting very scarce. (The post from May 2009 has more detail on this.) And what should be happening, isn’t happening. They cannot find anyone who wants what they have, no matter how valuable the searcher knows it is and no matter how hard they work at looking. That’s not supposed to happen to good people. And it’s hardest for the middle-aged. If they acquire a new skill, they are competing with fresh young workers for entry-level jobs. Employers who should look at their proven record of good work instead look at the lower salaries that young, childless workers are happy with.
This has the effect of a failure of one’s religion. The bedrock I’ve been standing on isn’t rock after all; my life is not what I thought it was. I thought that if I worked hard I was safe, but I worked hard and I’ve been tossed out in the street. The lifeline came loose in my hand. Probably the most common reaction to this experience is the conviction that somebody screwed up the system, and they must be stopped. It must be somebody’s fault, and it sure ain’t mine! And the search for the scapegoat begins.
{a third installment will probably follow}
What has inspired my fear is the “Tea Party” movement. It looks like simply unfocused anger, apparently fed by two deep-seated fears. One is the well-founded fear that America is no longer supreme in the world. The movement seems to include those who fear that the USA is no longer able to do anything we want, that no one can compel us or forbid us, and those who fear that the USA is no longer a moral leader. Few will admit these fears openly; thus I have to insert weasel words – “apparently”, “seems”. I could be wrong. Indeed, I profoundly hope that I am wrong. Because this kind of nationalism is a terrible danger, as World Wars I and II surely demonstrate. This has a frightening resemblance to the kind of inferiority complex in Germany that contributed so heavily to those horrible wars. The loss of moral leadership is harder to admit, at least in so many words. We’re losing the sense, never fully justified, that America was admired, not just envied.
The other basic fear is more personal: a fear that our lives are not under our own control. Certainly government has the power to exercise more control than anyone could tolerate, even if it is not currently doing so. But this fear also has an economic and personal component. It is not just fear of excessive taxation, or excessive economic regulation, though that is the public face of it. It is also the fear that maybe my life is not at all under my control. A certain type of rugged individualism is a major factor in the American psyche. If I try hard, I will succeed, and if I don’t succeed I didn’t really try. This has, for many people, the force of a religious doctrine. Unfortunately it is really not correct. If I don’t try, I won’t succeed; that part is clearly true. But human history has uncounted examples of people who tried as hard as anyone, and completely failed. Logically, effort is a “necessary but not sufficient condition” of success.
The conservative emphasis on personal responsibility is not, in itself, a bad thing. Indeed no system lasts long when people need not take responsibility for themselves. But the real problem is opportunity. Can people effectively take responsibility for their lives? The rugged individualist ethic goes deep in our national culture and psyche. I feel that this is because until the 20th century, it was possible to live your own life completely. Just head west till you found a place you liked, and plant a crop or hunt. It might not be easy, or comfortable, but for all but disabled men it was doable. This hasn’t been possible for a long time now, but the attitude persists among us. We are all limited in our choices.
Growing one’s own food is a live option for very few of us. For better or worse, the vast majority of Americans live in a money-only economy. If we want food, clothing or shelter, we buy them. And the thing about money is, you don’t have it until someone gives you some. What we call “earning” money is really trading something we have that is not money (merchandise or labor, most commonly) for money. This means that to get, say, food, we need to find someone with money. We must convince them that we can give them something they want and to give us money in exchange for it. Then we find someone with food, and convince them to take our money in exchange for their food. (I’m making this sound like a more complex version of bartering. It is, but it’s a vast improvement; that’s a subject for another time.)
This gives us two problems to solve: we must sell something, and we must buy something. But the system does not guarantee that either will be possible. We may not be able to find anyone who will pay for anything we have, and we may not be able to find anyone who can sell what we want to buy. Indeed, there may not be anyone who will pay for what we have, or sell us what we need. The second case is what happens in a famine. In this country that is hardly a serious risk any more. But the first happens all the time, for a lot of people and a lot of reasons. Here is my favorite example: In the nineteenth century, telegraph operators were respected skilled workers. It took time and practice to learn the Morse code and acquire speed in transmitting and receiving messages. Such men were in demand; they received a good amount of money for their work. But then came the telephone. The demand for telegraph operators dwindled and died. Men who had been respected middle-class wage-earners had to acquire a different skill or join the underclass. The examples in my own life are Fortran (me) and Cobol programmers. And the older one is, the harder it is to acquire a new marketable skill.
So here we have modern American conservatives. They are committed to the belief that good people always succeed in America, and they know that they are good people. If someone fails, they must try again until they succeed. But by now, a majority of Americans has either lost a job, through no fault of their own, or has a close friend who has lost theirs. This is particularly true among the well-paid but low-skill jobs, which are now getting very scarce. (The post from May 2009 has more detail on this.) And what should be happening, isn’t happening. They cannot find anyone who wants what they have, no matter how valuable the searcher knows it is and no matter how hard they work at looking. That’s not supposed to happen to good people. And it’s hardest for the middle-aged. If they acquire a new skill, they are competing with fresh young workers for entry-level jobs. Employers who should look at their proven record of good work instead look at the lower salaries that young, childless workers are happy with.
This has the effect of a failure of one’s religion. The bedrock I’ve been standing on isn’t rock after all; my life is not what I thought it was. I thought that if I worked hard I was safe, but I worked hard and I’ve been tossed out in the street. The lifeline came loose in my hand. Probably the most common reaction to this experience is the conviction that somebody screwed up the system, and they must be stopped. It must be somebody’s fault, and it sure ain’t mine! And the search for the scapegoat begins.
{a third installment will probably follow}
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
No Longer Hopeful
I have gone beyond unhopeful to fearful about my country. It has been bad enough that so many people, left and right, ignore everything that they do not already agree with. That truth is neither sought nor valued. That the right says “everything American is the best”, and the left says “anything American is defective at best.” Both of them disregard any contrary evidence. And most of all, that the center, the moderates, are shrinking in number and almost totally without influence. I am a moderate, a centrist, myself, so both sides ridicule me as belonging to the other side, no matter how loudly I say that I am center. Though if anything, the intransigence of the right is pushing me slightly left of center.
I will probably be pushed back to the center soon; intransigence inspires intransigence. I began losing hope when I saw the beginning of an unstable oscillation between left and right. When George Bush, without even gaining a popular majority, rammed through a legislative program which was supported only by the far right, just because he could, I first got worried. In former times a president in such a position was politically very cautious; the “thin mandate blues” prevented extremist actions. But W went on as though every American loved his policies. The federal budget was nearly under control, which I thought could only be explained by divine intervention. Well, he sure took care of that.
That’s when I began to worry that “the center cannot hold” was not poetry any more. I once read an article which explained the pronounced tendency towards political instability of Hispanic countries. This author noted that the Spanish language has no equivalent to the English word “compromise”. The nearest equivalent has a strong connotation of “sell out”. Thus everyone’s position must be all or nothing, and in practice it boiled down, more often than not, into government by the strongest only because he is the strongest. In this country we once had the “spoils system” for filling government jobs, after someone, maybe Andrew Jackson, pronounced “To the victor belong the spoils.” Eventually the country got tired of the chaos of a completely new government after each election, especially when a president (Garfield) was murdered by a man who didn’t get a government job. But with the calls to repeal the new health care reform, we are sliding toward a system of a whole new set of laws after each election.
This way lies madness.
{more along this line will follow.}
I will probably be pushed back to the center soon; intransigence inspires intransigence. I began losing hope when I saw the beginning of an unstable oscillation between left and right. When George Bush, without even gaining a popular majority, rammed through a legislative program which was supported only by the far right, just because he could, I first got worried. In former times a president in such a position was politically very cautious; the “thin mandate blues” prevented extremist actions. But W went on as though every American loved his policies. The federal budget was nearly under control, which I thought could only be explained by divine intervention. Well, he sure took care of that.
That’s when I began to worry that “the center cannot hold” was not poetry any more. I once read an article which explained the pronounced tendency towards political instability of Hispanic countries. This author noted that the Spanish language has no equivalent to the English word “compromise”. The nearest equivalent has a strong connotation of “sell out”. Thus everyone’s position must be all or nothing, and in practice it boiled down, more often than not, into government by the strongest only because he is the strongest. In this country we once had the “spoils system” for filling government jobs, after someone, maybe Andrew Jackson, pronounced “To the victor belong the spoils.” Eventually the country got tired of the chaos of a completely new government after each election, especially when a president (Garfield) was murdered by a man who didn’t get a government job. But with the calls to repeal the new health care reform, we are sliding toward a system of a whole new set of laws after each election.
This way lies madness.
{more along this line will follow.}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
