Category Archives: politics

Silencing the Pearl: healthcare for people, not profit

Posted on September 29, 2009 | 4 Comments

John SteinbeckThe word was passed out among the neighbors where they stood close packed in the little yard behind the brush fence. And they repeated among themselves, “Juana wants the doctor.” A wonderful thing, a memorable thing, to want the doctor. To get him would be a remarkable thing. The doctor never came to the cluster of brush houses. Why should he, when he had more than he could do to take care of the rich people who lived in the stone and plaster houses of the town.
- John Steinbeck

In the coastal village of La Paz, where Steinbeck’s tragic tale of need and greed, The Pearl, takes place, to want a doctor, or rather, to ask for a doctor, is a rare and memorable thing for the poor families of the brush houses who live off the sea. These people care for themselves, and for each other; when one is sick or wounded, as when the baby Coyotito gets stung by a scorpion, they all come together to help in the cure, or at the very least, to lend their sympathies and support. Theirs are lives of constant maintenance, constant vigilance, for to call for the doctor is simply unheard of, everyone knows that he will not treat them, as they have no money. Thus we watch sadly as Juana, in a desperate act to save her wounded child, brazenly marches to the doctor’s gate with her man, Kino, and the entire village in tow, only to be turned away because the rich doctor cannot be bothered to put down his chocolate and cookies and help a poor Indian family who cannot pay.

The stark contrasts highlighted in this timeless fable, between community and individual desire, generosity and greed, poverty and wealth, ignorance and knowledge, the bonds of familial love and the bitter boundless hate of the oppressor, speak to us in strong, clear tones, because they are the human contrasts that reside within each one of us. They are also simple, ancient themes, that still strike to the heart of possibly every major issue that continues to plague our modern and less modern societies even today.

Basic as they are, these are the themes that should be central to any analysis and debate about how best to reform our healthcare system. These are the themes that we must consider and weigh on our moral scales to find the solution for turning our sick and diseased system into a healthy, vibrant one that functions for all, not just for those who can afford its skyrocketing costs. For, it has been said, the greatest reflection of a society’s ethics is how it cares for its sick, its young and its elderly.

Instead, as we try to overhaul our failing system, the argument about the best approach inevitably finds itself framed in the old capitalism vs. socialism context, with the usual shouting from both ends of the political spectrum, and those in the middle looking both ways and wondering who to listen to. The usual hard-core free marketers say that any intervention by the government in healthcare will put the private insurance companies out of business and put us on the path to socialized medicine. Those of a more progressive view see nothing wrong with this, calling healthcare a basic human right that should not be left in the hands of the free market, but instead provided by the government, equally for all, like education. And, as usual, the politicians in Washington are duking it out over the details, and pandering to their electoral bases and campaign contributors, rather than doing what they were theoretically hired by the people to do: lead. For this is an issue that needs more than a few laws rewritten, or a few policies reworded. It needs a thorough philosophical analysis and overhaul. Much like during past turning points in our history, such as the civil war, or the civil rights movement, we need to ask ourselves, what kind of society do we want to be? We need to look inside, we need to find some answers to some basic moral questions, and we need to elevate the discourse beyond the deafening roar of ignorance. For this, we need philosophers, which, unfortunately – unlike in Norway – are rarely found among our policy makers.

It is indeed disheartening to see the same old games being played out in Washington, and the same old arguments trumpeted for the umpteenth time, when this time, it should be different. We are not talking about the banks, who do provide us with a genuine service, and play a critical role in our healthy functioning as a society, but without which, though inconvenient, each of us could survive on an individual level. We are not talking about who runs the company that you buy your car, mail your package, or catch your train from; again, all valuable services that fill a genuine need in our society, and without the efficient functioning of which our lives and nation would be greatly impacted for the worse, but without the need for which many people go for years, never even giving them a single thought. We are talking about a basic human need, one that binds us all together as mortals, and that every one of us carries in us every day.

Even if you are young and generally healthy, if you are uninsured in this country the thought is ever present somewhere in your mind: what happens if I have an accident? What happens if I am the victim of an attack, or if I suddenly develop some rare disease? More commonly: what happens if I want to have a child? The average medical cost of an uncomplicated birth these days is $7,600 (2004 dollars), but can go much higher, depending on location, complications and level of care, an amount that few middle class couples have stashed away, let alone working class couples. And then, even if you do pay for the baby out of pocket, now you have an uninsured child that you must pray remains healthy, so you don’t have to mortgage your home, if you are so fortunate to own one.

Something is very very wrong with this picture. And it doesn’t even take into account the vast numbers of people who are not healthy, who are sick and need healthcare, but can’t receive it for all of the many reasons that we have heard countless times by now: their insurance won’t cover it, or they were dropped by their provider for some technicality, or, they are just uninsurable.

This is not humane. With all of the hurling of statistics and figures and finger pointing and name-calling taking place, the true, real, honest discussion of what is the best and most humane system for healthcare is simply not happening. There is too much appeasement to the free-marketers stomping their feet and screaming about capitalism being slaughtered, and the profits of the massive, bloated insurance companies being threatened. Those who suggest that this is not – and should not be – the central issue are dismissed as blasphemous socialists. But the truth is, they are not going far enough. Not only should the central issue not be the financial profit of the insurance providers or the hospitals or the doctors or, for that matter, the patients or their lawyers – it should not even be part of the discussion. The central issue should be the people of this nation, and how to provide them with the best possible care given all the resources, knowledge and tools at our disposal. This is, quite simply, a moral issue, something that every other advanced free-market democracy in the world has realized, except us. There should be no profit motive in healthcare.

Yes, I know. Take the profit motive out of anything and the quality declines. Really? Is there truly no other way? Have we really become so cynical and hard about our own nature that we succumb to the power of greed at every turn rather than looking deeper into ourselves and searching for a higher truth? Is it totally naive to believe and hope that this nation of humans can do something for an aim other than personal wealth or material gain?

Kino and Juana and Coyotito had a happy, albeit very simple and modest life. But then Kino, in his mad effort to pay the doctor to cure his sick child, found The Pearl of the World, and it destroyed their happiness. They lost everything they had, instead of gaining what they dreamt of. An old old story, certainly, but no less true in the telling today than ever. We are looking for an answer to our ailing healthcare system, which makes a few rich, and leaves many to go bankrupt or die. We are looking for The Pearl of the World, a solution to healthcare that keeps the rich getting richer, and yet provides universal coverage, a solution that makes everyone happy, capitalists and socialists alike, solves all the problems. It doesn’t exist, it can’t exist, because where there is greed, where there is profit to be made, it always wins out, and someone always loses. In the case of healthcare, what they lose may just be their life.

As Kino struggles to sell his pearl to better their lives, he is tormented by the music of the pearl, which is evil, harsh, yet hypnotic. It changes him, he becomes fierce and brutal in his quest to realize the wealth that should be his, now that he has the pearl. It drowns out the song of the family, that happy music that has always brought him peace, and joy. He must pass through a tragic journey to finally acknowledge that the pearl is not the solution, the pearl brings only evil and wrong, and he must abandon the pearl, if he is to regain the true, right path, if he is to regain any semblance of the happiness and peace he knew before. As he prepares to rid them of it, he hears “the music of the pearl, distorted and insane.” But he does it, perhaps the hardest thing he has ever done, or will ever have to do, he flings that glorious pearl back into the sea. He and Juana “saw the little splash in the distance, and they stood side by side watching the place for a long time.”

The lesson is a simple one, but not an easy one to learn. We cannot put our healthcare system on the right path without letting go of the illusion that it can provide the kind of care that is needed to all people of this country, regardless of race, gender, age, class, or medical history, without letting go of the pearl, the promise of wealth, greed. There is no happy ending if we hold onto the illusion of the pearl, and listen to its evil music. We must toss it back to the sea, and look at what really matters in this whole discussion of reform: people. If we can do that, if we can let go of the Pearl of the World, we can possibly redeem ourselves, and our nation’s ability to care for one another. If we cannot, the droning, driving, maddening music of the pearl will win, as it always does.

“And the pearl lay on the floor of the sea. A crab scampering over the bottom raised a little cloud of sand, and when it settled the pearl was gone. And the music of the pearl drifted to a whisper and disappeared.”
.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in health, healthcare, literature, politics

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The pursuit of Happiness: an inalienable right for the straight

Posted on November 20, 2008 | 10 Comments

The Declaration of IndependenceWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- The Declaration of Independence

With the hotly debated passage of Proposition 8 in California, which amends the state constitution to prohibit marriage between members of the same gender, as well as the passage of similar propositions in Arizona and Florida, a lot of people are asking the question: what is marriage?

We each have our own personal definition of marriage, which may cause us to embrace or reject it in our own lives, but how we define it legally and as a state-issued license is really what lies at the heart of the issue. In a country founded on equal rights, how does sexual preference give the state authority to grant or deny its citizens their rights? What interest does the state have in limiting the definition of marriage to only apply to heterosexual couples? The answer is: none. The interest lies elsewhere. These state bans on homosexuals’ access to the same legal and social status as their heterosexual compatriots are simply unconstitutional.

As we analyze what marriage means in our society, perhaps the marriage that most pressingly needs to be examined is the messy one that has plagued our nation from its inception: that between church and state. One of those murky issues that spans the two, how we define marriage is a good representation of where our society stands today on the relationship of religion and government, which, although clearly spelled out as separated in the Constitution, continue to drag out their centuries-long divorce, battling and baffling the sober, secular members of the population. For secularists, the definition of marriage is simple: a governmental institution requiring a legal contract between two people, and affording them privileges and protections under the law regarding areas of property rights, healthcare, childcare, citizenship, etc. However, as with most aspects of human life, the definition of marriage becomes much more complex when regarded through the prism of religion.

Religion battles gay marriageAn oft-repeated phrase of those who oppose gay marriage is that it is a sacred institution “between one man and one woman.” This personal belief, however, is not explicitly supported by scripture, as many would claim. Numerous quotes are tossed about from the Bible attesting to this supposedly divine institution, but the institution of marriage was created by man, just as the Bible was written by men. And that Bible does not state that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, but rather makes many references to polygamy (or, more specifically, polygyny) in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15, Solomon with his famous 700 wives and 300 concubines in 1 Kings 11:3, among numerous others), and the New Testament does not explicitly refute it. The “one man one woman” belief is an adjustment to the institution, polygamy only becoming illegal in the United States in 1862, with the passage of the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act.

If the definition of marriage can be altered from “one man, many women,” to “one man, one woman,” why can’t it be altered to “one human, one human?” From the state’s point of view there should be no difference in a marriage contract between two people of the opposite or the same sex, just as there can be no difference in a business contract. Hence, a ban on same-sex marriage is outright religiously-informed state-sanctioned homophobia, masqueraded as acceptable because the majority of voters bought into the propaganda. In California, the religious right spent millions to mobilize volunteers and get out the message across the ethnic spectrum to pass the ban, with a campaign that “had begun with white evangelical churches but had spread to more than 1,130 Hispanic churches whose pastors convinced their members that same-sex marriage threatened the traditional family.” (NYTimes)

Moreover, members of the Mormon Church, the very religious sect that practiced polygamy in the United States until the late 19th century, were huge contributors to the cause, donating roughly half of the $40 million raised by the Yes to 8 campaign, “including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. The money allowed the drive to intensify a sharp-elbowed advertising campaign, and support for the measure was catapulted ahead; it ultimately won with 52 percent of the vote.” (NYTimes) Interesting, given that the Mormons’ defiance of the outlawing of polygamy led to the 1878 unanimous Supreme Court Reynolds v. United States decision which declared that “laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” (findlaw.com) In other words, you can believe what you want to believe, and you can practice your religion, so long as you do not engage in any activity contrary to the law of the land. Denied what they felt was their right to practice their religion as prescribed by their doctrine they now want to expand that law of the land to prohibit others from practicing their beliefs, specifically because it is contrary to their religious doctrine.

With laws banning same-sex marriage now on the books in 30 states, it is time to take a truly sober look at what is happening to our government, and to our society at large. The Religious Right rants against so-called “secular fascism” destroying the moral fabric of our society, but it is the Religious Right that want to defy the founding principles of the nation, and pick and choose what rights and privileges are granted under the law, according to their own “moral” values. The Declaration of Independence stated that to secure the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Granted, these state laws or amendments to state constitutions have been passed through the democratic process, with the majority consent of the governed (after the most expensive campaigns for their passage (as well as their defeat) have been waged). But are these laws even legal? Can the majority vote to deny legal rights to a minority? These questions will undoubtedly be raised and tested in the courts, the hopeful result of which will be the barring of any religiously motivated laws from becoming destructive to the safety and happiness of any portion of the population.

The ninth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which, under our federalist system of government, trumps the individual state constitutions, clearly states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In exercising our rights, including, most emphatically, our right to freedom of religion, we must not deny or disparage any of our other rights, such as our inalienable right to the pursuit of Happiness.
.

→ 10 Comments

Posted in politics, religion

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Are we free at last?

Posted on November 6, 2008 | 7 Comments

Maya AngelouIf growing up is painful for the Southern Black girl, being aware of her displacement is the rust on the razor that threatens the throat. It is an unnecessary insult.
- Maya Angelou

When I was seven or eight years old, I watched a documentary on television about the civil rights movement. Until that time, I had never seen skin as having a color. My father was a jazz musician, his buddies, black and white, were often at the house. Louis Armstrong records provided our evening music. My very first “boyfriend,” in first grade, was named Oscar. We held hands, and he kissed me on the cheek. It didn’t occur to me until years later that his skin was a different color than mine. That night when I saw the marchers in Alabama being beaten by the police on our little black and white television, I woke up to what race meant in my country. I buried myself in my mother’s arms and wept, “I don’t want to be white.”

We have each of us experienced race in our own, personal way. From the moment I awoke to the reality of the racially divided world that we live in, I have carried the sadness that I felt that night, watching those brave men and women defy oppression, and walk toward the violence, anger and hatred that stood between them and freedom; sadness, mainly, for the heinous wrongs that were committed against the Africans brought to this country as slaves and all of their descendants treated as much less than equal, but also sadness for all of us, that our entire country had to bear this burden, and deal with the ugly prejudices that separate us, holding all of us back from being truly free.

In I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Maya Angelou wrote: “In Stamps (Arkansas) the segregation was so complete that most Black children didn’t really, absolutely know what whites looked like. Other than that they were different, to be dreaded, and in that dread was included the hostility of the powerless against the powerful, the poor against the rich, the worker against the worked for and the ragged against the well dressed. I remember never believing that whites were really real.”

Segregation in public institutions has been illegal in this country for half a century, but segregation of racial and ethnic communities continues to exist. Perhaps it is a basic human instinct, to gather with one’s own ethnic group, for safety and comfort; however it fosters ignorance, on both sides of the racial divide. What we do not know, we fear. It can also have a powerful impact on our psychology as a society, promoting negative stereotypes, both of the racial other, as well as within each racial community. Psychological examinations of young black children were used as evidence of the negative effects of segregation in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education that ended segregation in the public schools in 1954. Sadly, resegregation of our nations schools has been on the rise since the early 1990s, most notably in the Northeast and West, and it’s not simply a black and white issue anymore. “For Latinos, California and New York have the dubious distinction of ranking first and second respectively as the most segregated states for Latino students. Forty-seven percent of Latinos in California, and 58% in New York, attend schools that have… ‘intense segregation’ — schools with 90%-100% non-white students.” (USAToday)

Living in segregated communities may give us the illusion of safety and security in our neighborhoods, but it is not good for us as a society, and it shouldn’t be passed on to the next generation. How can we break down the barriers of ignorance and distrust if we do not live together? Today we are one huge step closer to proving to ourselves, and to the world, that we are ready to be free at last of the racial inequalities that have tethered our society’s progress. But that dream of a perfect union will forever elude us as long as we remain so separated from one another.

When Maya Angelou’s little brother asked their Uncle Willie why the whites hated the blacks so much, he responded, “They don’t really hate us. They don’t know us. How can they hate us? They mostly scared.”

Obama and supportersI have often wondered what would happen if our collective memory was expunged, if we, as a nation, or world, suddenly developed amnesia, and all of the old prejudicial grips on our minds, hearts and consciences, passed down through the generations, just disappeared. Would we return to that innocence of childhood where we truly judged one another not on the color of our skin, but on the content of our character? It is impossible, of course, to erase the centuries of history, bias and fear that each generation passes down to the next. But today I do believe it is possible to move beyond them; we have proven that as a society we can recognize the errors of our fathers and mothers, try to repair what we can in our present, and teach our children to be at once wiser and more innocent and trusting than we have been. By electing a man with black skin to be the leader of our country, and in many ways, the world, we haven’t forgotten, but perhaps we have forgiven, each other, and ourselves.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in literature, politics, race, women

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Why don’t we vote? Click here.

Posted on October 31, 2008 | 17 Comments

Change in all things is sweet.
- Aristotle

With just days to go until the most important election of the century, or of our lifetimes, or of the history of the world, depending on how you want to look at it and who you are listening to, the tension is getting almost too thick to cut with a hatchet (never mind a scalpel). And as poll after poll hammers home numbers implying the results of the election a foregone conclusion, the excitement, anxiety and desperation in both camps seem to be focusing in not so much on what the results of the vote will be, but on whether those results will be accurate and untainted.

A fraud-free election clearly benefits the winning party, as it can then claim a mandate to govern the people without question; an election shrouded in suspicion of fraud, however, logically benefits the losing party, as it can then claim grounds for questioning the results, the winner’s legitimacy, and even legal action, not to mention whining rights for the next four years. Thus as the shouts grow louder and the nail-biting intensifies the closer we get to November 4, it is important to examine not only the allegations of voter fraud, but also who is making them, and what their true motives are. It is important, too, to ask how can we still have a system that allows such instances of fraud or potential fraud to exist? For no matter what party benefits from the fraudulent actions or allegations, the ones who truly lose are always the same: us.

Anyone conscious during the last two presidential elections knows that voter fraud, in all its permutations, whether investigated and prosecuted or relegated to the eternal rumblings of perceived paranoid conspiracy theories, is indeed threatening to “destroy the fabric of our democracy,” as John McCain stated in the last presidential debate,* even if only in our minds. The power of suggestion should never be underestimated, and the repeated accusations and subsequent widespread belief that the elections in this country are less than a fair and accurate reflection of the will of the people is a demoralizing force with many ramifications on the electorate, and thus the functionality of our democracy. In other words, when people think their vote doesn’t count, they don’t vote. Studies have shown that in actuality, occurrences of voter fraud, i.e. ballots cast under a false name or identity, are “extremely rare,” one study “found a voter fraud rate of .00004 of a percent, saying, ‘Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.’” So if voter fraud is not actually happening, why all the fuss about it, and what can we do to change the negative psychological impact it has on our country and at the polls?

For one thing is clear: while we vociferously defend and project our democratic ideals, both at home and to the world, nearly half of eligible voters in the US do not vote. This can be attributed to many reasons, among them disenchantment, indifference, contentment, socio-economic and hereditery factors, multiculturalism, education, even weather. It is a complex study to determine why, for instance, voter turnout in Western Europe averages 77%, in Australia 95%, while in the United States it approaches 50%. But regardless of the complexities, the numbers still beg the question: if voting is a critical aspect of democracy, and nearly half of our electorate does not vote, does that not imply that nearly half do not want democracy? And if not, what do they want?

Democracy is, simply put, rule of the people, and that power to rule is exercised through free elections. If people are not voting, then they are relinquishing their power, and they might as well live in a monarchy. But are they relinquishing it out of a rejection of democracy, or a rejection of our implementation of democracy? If the former, then we need to revisit some of our basic assumptions regarding our society. If the latter, a better system for registering all legal citizens of the US to vote, once they reach eighteen or have achieved legal status through naturalization, would patently go a long way to improving our voter turnout numbers. Why not make it mandatory? We should not need these voter registration drives that allow for countless inaccuracies and fraudulent registrations. Eliminate the need, and you eliminate the fraud and accusations of fraud that help strip our electoral process of legitimacy. Voting is compulsory in Australia, and many other countries, with varying levels of punishment for those that don’t comply, resulting in the highest voter turnouts in democracies on record. Perhaps mandatory voting is an infringement on the freedoms that we jealously enjoy here in the US, but would mandatory voter registration be such an infringement? Yes or no, we could certainly go a long way toward involving more of the population in the electoral process by revamping the voter registration process and educating the public on their right, and civic duty, to vote.

Even more in need of an overhaul than how we register voters, however, is how we actually vote. Voter fraud may not be happening as much as we think, but voter suppression, intimidation and ballot error absolutely are; even if voters make it to the polls, there is no guarantee that they will successfully cast their ballots in the current system, which is already being stretched to the breaking point under the weight of higher turnout this year. How do we fix this? With the same ingenious tool that allows you to read these words from the other side of the world: the internet. Is it so far-fetched to think that we, the country that produced eBay, online banking and income tax e-filing cannot conceive of and implement a method of voting via the internet?

If part of the reason that millions of people don’t vote on November 4 is that it’s a Tuesday, or the lines are too long, or the weather is bad, if part of the reason that hundreds of thousands of ballots do not get counted is because absentee ballots arrive too late, or disappear, or machines malfunction, if part of the reason that untold numbers of potential voters get turned away at the polls is because they don’t have the right kind of ID, or they are minorities intimidated by a police presence or threatening partisan behavior, it can all be resolved by pulling our antiquated, haphazard, disparate and frankly desperately broken system of casting and counting ballots into the twenty-first century with an internet-based system that employs state-of-the-art encryption and identification technology, that produces a verifiable paper trail in quadruplicate, and that provides the results in seconds, versus hours, days, or even months. Sure, there are challenges to creating such a system, sure it raises questions about vulnerability to hackers influencing election results, yes, it absolutely would require the best minds and talents that this country possesses to architect a system that could be viewed as trustworthy by all the people, of all political affiliations, while also protecting our right to privacy. But given that our current system is so riddled with problems and errors, is already so vulnerable to partisan influence and electorate distrust and is quite literally incapable of handling the number of voters in a growing population, could it really be worse? And the benefits of moving both a voter registration** and a voting system to the internet would be so huge, that if successful, we just may see some real upward movement in the number of people who participate and therefore fulfill the promise and potential of our democracy.

“If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.” So wrote Aristotle in 350 B.C. Over 2300 years later, are we not finally ready to make this a reality here in the US? Whatever happens four days from now, we must keep trying to make fears of voter fraud and voter suppression part of the past. Every vote should count. Except Mickey Mouse’s, and of course, Homer Simpson’s.

.

__________________________

* In his debate statement, McCain was referring to one particular organization, ACORN, which is now under federal investigation on charges of nationwide voter registration fraud, though there are numerous potentially more egregious examples of fraudulent voter registration, and, even worse, voter suppression, underway, that are not getting near the coverage that ACORN’s activities are. Check these out for more information:


Group’s Tally of New Voters Was Vastly Overstated: New York Times, 10/23/08

McCain’s Warning About Voter Fraud Stokes a Fiery Campaign Even Further: New York Times, 10/26/08

A Myth of Voter Fraud: The Washington Independent, 10/28/08

Election fraud fears: the cure: The LA Times, 10/27/08

Vote watchdogs warn of troubles on election day: The LA Times, 10/30/08

Party Lawyers Ready to Keep an Eye on the Polls: The New York Times, 10/27/08

Black America may get a president before black Americans get to vote: The Guardian, 10/27/08

** Many states already have some type of online voter registration in place, but ideally we will move toward all 50 states adopting similar systems so that voter registration can be updated easily as people move about the country.

→ 17 Comments

Posted in philosophy, politics

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Barack Obama is a capitalist pig

Posted on October 22, 2008 | 42 Comments

When the rich are outvoted, as frequently happens, it is the joint treasury of the poor which exceeds their accumulations. Every man owns something, if it is only a cow or a wheelbarrow or his arms, and so has that property to dispose of.

So wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson in his Essays, Poems, Addresses of 1844. Today we are witnessing an unprecedented pooling of the people’s treasury in the revolutionary financing of a candidate for president in what could be seen as the clearest outvoting of the rich by the poor(er) in our nation’s history. And, in an undeniably ironic twist, Barack Obama’s record-setting figures for fundraising from average contributors is the ultimate example of capitalism at work in an American election, an election in which the Republican candidate has taken government regulated public funds, while painting his opponent as a socialist.

Let’s take a closer look at exactly what the Obama campaign has accomplished. Their just released figures for the month of September are staggering: over $150 million dollars raised, all through private citizens, with an average donation of less than $100 per contributor. In that one month alone, they added 632,000 new donors, totaling over 3.1 million contributors to the campaign. Their largest contributing groups are retirees and students, neither of which make up the wealthiest demographics of society.

For the first time in the history of US elections, regular people are able to directly impact a campaign by opening their wallets. Nurses, firemen, schoolteachers, and yes, even plumbers, have paid for this candidate’s run for the highest office, giving sometimes as little as $5 or $10, and if he succeeds, he will be beholden to their interests, and not to those of the large corporations or wealthy donors that usually make up the majority of a campaign’s bank account.* If one of the principles of democracy is that “all members of the society have equal access to power,” can it not be said that we are finally truly witnessing democracy at work in our presidential elections?

So who, or what, is to credit for this historical democratization of the campaign financing process? The candidate himself, as the leader of his campaign, certainly is due some credit. However his responsibility for this unprecedented feat can only go so far; he obviously put the right people in place to handle it, and it is their know-how, coupled by the timing in the evolution of web-based technology that should be congratulated for the achievement here. Additionally, perhaps, is the element of readiness on the part of the people. We are the eBay, amazon.com and Facebook generation, whether twenty-one or seventy-one, Americans increasingly do everything online, from networking with friends, to planning a party, to getting our news, to buying a car. Perhaps not even as recent as four years ago were we ready for the revolution in politics that the internet could offer. Or perhaps we were, but no candidate knew how to take advantage of it. In any case, here we are, with an amazing 46% of adult Americans getting involved in the political process via the internet, whether it’s simply following the candidates’ campaigns online, or pulling out their credit cards to help their chosen one cross the finish line.

John McCain’s campaign, by contrast, did not pull in a huge number of small contributions by ordinary citizens, but rather opted, as all presidential candidates have done since Watergate, to accept public financing, which greatly limited what they could receive, and spend. As they try to compete against the Obama juggernaut which is overwhemingly outspending them in the most crucial final leg of the race, they are looking to increase their coffers through campaign finance loopholes that allow them to collect large donations from wealthy donors. Obama is also receiving contributions from wealthy donors, though the numbers pale in comparison to what his campaign has collected from small donors.*

McCain has admitted to possessing very limited knowledge of computers and the internet, so he is clearly not the candidate to helm an online fundraising force like Obama is. Due to the obvious imbalance in the two campaigns in this regard, it is impossible to draw any tempting conclusions in reference to people voting with their wallets, we have to rely on the old-fashioned polls for our gauge of the political temperature on either side. But let’s say that the Republicans take a page from Obama’s playbook and build their own populace-based fundraising machine next time around (and I don’t doubt they will). I think it is safe to assume that we are looking at a whole new era of campaign financing. And here, another irony: John McCain famously fought in the Senate to reform a campaign financing system that he rightfully saw as corrupt and out of control. And yet it is during his run for the presidency that the system finally is truly reformed… by his opponent.

“Under the dominion of an idea which possesses the minds of multitudes, as civil freedom or the religious sentiment, the powers of persons are no longer subjects of calculation. A nation of men unanimously bent on freedom or conquest can easily confound the arithmetic of statists, and achieve extravagant actions, out of all proportion to their means,” wrote Emerson. From the clear divisions of political sentiment in this country, we cannot say that we are a nation of one mind, or that one candidate, one man, has brought the entire population under the dominion of an idea, or set of ideas. But we can regard what the Obama campaign has achieved in this election cycle as extravagant actions, certainly, as it has studied lessons from the past, embraced the technology and mood of the present and reinvented the future of campaign financing, defying all expectations and odds, and most definitely out of all proportion to its means. “Public” campaign financing is dead, long live campaign financing by the public!

Think about it: what is the public financing system but one of the very socialist constructs that we Americans so vociferously reject? Funds collected from the public by the government are doled out to the candidates with restrictions and regulations attached, while forbidding the use of the free market to get a candidate’s message out to the people. Like all socialist institutions, the aims behind the adoption of such a system were noble ones, but in practice it just doesn’t work in safeguarding against corruption; on the contrary, it may lead to even greater corruption via the need to circumvent the system and appeal to wealthy supporters. Thus to those that buy the claims by his opponents that Obama is a socialist, I would point to his campaign as a bellwether of his likely leadership on policy initiatives and legislation. He understood the current system was broken, he realized the potential of access to unlimited funds via the public, and in the most astonishing democratization of capitalism that we have ever seen in a presidential election, he is riding the waves of the free market to the White House. And that’s an all American pig that doesn’t need any lipstick.

______________________________

*A New York Times article this morning examined the contributions by wealthy donors to both candidates via fund-raising committees that allow much higher donations than the campaign finance laws allow individual donors to give to the campaigns directly. The argument could certainly be made that Obama may in fact feel beholden to these individuals that are giving $25,000 or $30,000 each to help him reach the White House. However the article states that there were only about 2000 such contributors to his campaign, for a total of less than $150 million through September. Compared to the 3.1 million small donors for a total of $605 million raised, it doesn’t change the fact that the campaign is still overwhelmingly funded by average citizens contributing less than $100 each. It should be noted that the McCain campaign has raised more money than the Obama camp through these wealthy donors, as the limits on the Republican side were raised to $70,000 per donor in the fine print.

→ 42 Comments

Posted in politics, literature

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Screwtape emails

Posted on October 11, 2008 | 8 Comments

My dear Wormwood,

I am filled with pride at your recent successes. You have made such formidable progress in just these few short weeks with both the male and the female patient, though particularly with the female. Congratulations are in order. You have outdone yourself and made Our Father below rejoice over his recent acquisitions. You truly took to heart what I told you long ago about rejecting argument when dealing with these humans, and relying on jargon as your best ally in keeping them in our clutches. Remember how I told you that by “the very act of arguing, you awake the patient’s reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result?” Those are words to live by, Wormwood. And your hard work is only just beginning to pay off. You will see your success grow immeasurably, as your two patients take the same methods you have used on them and apply them to the large number of other humans that they address in their speeches, thus becoming your foot soldiers and recruiting untold numbers of other souls to our fold. Bravo, Wormwood. Again, I applaud you.

Your success with the female patient is particularly gratifying, given her outspoken allegiance to the Enemy. She claims to be a Christian, one of those of renewed personal faith, or “born again,” as they are called these days. Though normally we are in the danger zone with any creatures who tie themselves to the Enemy, fortunately for us she is of that particular breed that is filled with the righteous arrogance that sometimes comes to those who are reawakened or converted to the Enemy’s path, the firm and unwavering belief that they know the truth, that they are perpetuating the Enemy’s will, and that they have a mission to spread that “truth” to as many other humans as possible. Arrogance, as we know, is ripe breeding ground for our work, and, when coupled with fierce ambition, as it is in her case, it is a golden opportunity to plant our seeds and watch them grow. Thus she is a specially valuable asset to our cause, as she can do our work while maintaining the charade of belonging to the Enemy’s camp. We know that this works wonders with these humans, there is almost no limit to the atrocities that they can commit without persecution, if it is done in the name of Christianity.

Despite your success, you must not rest on your laurels, dear nephew, as it is Our Father’s great wish that these two patients of yours will win this contest and become the leaders of their people, thus giving them unlimited opportunities to spread our messages to the other human animals of their country, and potentially to those of all the world. Just think of all the souls that we shall welcome below as a result of your efforts! You have worked your way to this trusted position, which is why these two precious subjects were placed in your hands, but you must continue your assault without pause. I am continuously observing the behavior of your patients, and want to point out to you a few crucial moments that are most telling of the strides you have made with them, and, consequentially, with their faithful followers.

This is beautiful work. You have obviously listened when I told you that “some ages are lukewarm and complacent, and then it is our business to soothe them yet faster asleep. Other ages, of which the present is one, are unbalanced and prone to faction, and it is our business to inflame them.” And as we have discussed, what better way to inflame them than to play to their fears, fear of the “other,” the unfamiliar, but especially, as this is a nation of humans that is particularly fearful and has suffered from an attack of terrorism in recent memory, fear of fear. For what is terrorism? It is the use of terror, or fear, as a weapon. An incredibly delicious idea. So a fear of terrorism is in fact a fear of greater fear. Your patient’s extremely skillful inciting of this fear regarding her opponent is an exemplary achievement for you, for it displays her willingness to listen to your influence, to play upon and invigorate the fears of her followers, and to encourage in them their most base emotion: fear of the other. Fortunately for us the opponent in this case can easily be classified by this group of humans as the other, as his skin is dark, which for many of them tends to be reason enough to despise, discredit and fear him.

Another moment I would like to analyze, if you would indulge me, is this telling exchange between the male patient and his listening crowd. Here he is also emphasizing that his opponent is unknown, and therefore scary to those that want the comfort of familiar faces and names in their leaders. You did well to encourage this kind of approach in your subject, as it elicits just the kind of ignorant and angry response from his followers that we are hoping for.

If you will allow me this one criticism, your subject does not seem to be entirely pleased with the shout of “terrorist!” that his appeal to the crowd has drawn, as he visibly grimaces and looks surprised. You must try harder, my nephew, for he must not waver in his attack. Keep up the pressure, and he will be fully in your grasp, like the female patient so clearly is. Remember what I told you, “all mortals tend to turn into the thing they are pretending to be.” To your credit, your patient did not condemn the human’s outburst, but continued with his rhetoric, which was a beautiful strategy of accusing his opponent of the very acts that both of your patients are in fact guilty of.

Yes, my dear Wormwood, these displays on the part of your patients and their followers are very heartening to me and to Our Father below, especially as they appear to be increasing in frequency, and in vehemence. It has come to my attention that the human animals attending these gatherings held by your patients are becoming increasingly vitriolic, and even calling for violence towards the opponent. You realize if you succeed in bringing about violence between humans as a direct result of your influence, you will undoubtedly be promoted to the next level. If you manage – and I tremble with excitement at the thought – to bring about murder as a result of your work, you will be forever in Our Father’s graces, and there is no telling where he will place you next.

However I must be harsh with you for a moment, for as you grow closer to realizing your goal, I’m afraid that you might get a bit sloppy from your desperate desire to succeed. You see, your two patients, despite your best efforts, are not winning in their contest. They are winning with their followers, but they are losing with the general population of humans, because their tactics are too transparent. Humans in general don’t like to see our methods being carried out before their eyes, and if it is too obvious, they will reject your patients and turn to their opponent, which may mean that they reject us and become vulnerable to the Enemy. You must stop this. You must be more careful in your work with these two, for although I think we are safe in assuming that their souls are ours at this point, as well as many of their followers, we want to keep our eyes on the greater prize, the vast number of souls we can reach if they attain a position of power. I know I told you to keep up the attack, however you must also be more subtle, stop pushing them so hard so fast. Remember, as I told you long ago, “the safest road to Hell is the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” Bring them along softly, my dear nephew, and we will have not only their souls, but the millions that they bring with them.

Your affectionate uncle,
SCREWTAPE

PS: So as not to leave you too crestfallen or discouraged by my final words, I am including some evidence of the wonderfully wicked ideas and attitudes displayed by some of your patients’ loyal followers. I watch them often, as it warms my heart to know that the ignorance, prejudice, fear and unmasked hatred displayed here are the result of your labors. Fine work, my boy, mighty fine work.

*****************************

The above piece is a reference to The Screwtape Letters, by C. S. Lewis. Though it does cite some of his phrases, it is solely and completely written by me, in an attempt to approximate his style.

NC

.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in literature, politics, religion

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

An (oval) office of one’s own

Posted on October 4, 2008 | 16 Comments

In a hundred years… women will have ceased to be the protected sex. Logically they will take part in all the activities and exertions that were once denied them.

Almost one hundred years after Virginia Woolf wrote those words in her painfully beautiful and witty A Room of One’s Own, it is indeed the Year of the Woman. Hillary Clinton, Benazir Bhutto, Tina Fey, Diablo Cody, and now, Sarah Palin. Sure, there have been some notable men so far this year as well, but it’s the women we are talking about right now. Everyone is talking about women. And why? Because women are fascinating.

Woolf wrote about the fascination that women hold for men, and the wildly contradictory (and often ridiculous) opinions that men had formed about them:

“Are they capable of education or incapable? Napoleon thought them incapable. Dr. Johnson thought the opposite. Have they souls or have they not souls? Some savages say they have none. Others, on the contrary, maintain that women are half divine and worship them on that account. Some sages hold that they are shallower in the brain; others that they are deeper in the consciousness. Goethe honoured them; Mussolini despises them. Wherever one looked men thought about women and thought differently… It was distressing, it was bewildering, it was humiliating. Truth had run through my fingers. Every drop had escaped.”

Today the fascination is no less, and thankfully more informed than some of the above cited convictions (despite whatever prejudicial vestiges may still tinge our modern conversation), and is held by not just one sex, but both. Women, whatever their sexual orientation may be, are fascinated by women. What they say, what they wear, what they do and how they do it. Oh sure, we love the boys too, but it’s the girls that are really exciting.

Why? Perhaps because we have heard comparatively little from and about women throughout our lives. They (and therefore we) remain still somewhat mysterious, untested, unknown. We read about great women scattered here and there throughout the pages of our history books that are otherwise completely filled with men. We have certainly come a long way since Woolf’s time, and, in recent years especially, American women have made unbelievable strides in gaining positions of prominence and power in business, politics and the media. And now they are closer than ever to holding high office.

When a woman rises to the spotlight in any sphere, we (women) inevitably measure ourselves against her, could I do what she is doing? Is she me? Am I her? We identify with her and we reject her at the same time, because two sides of the same coin are at work: our innate desire to succeed and prove ourselves and our innate fear of failure. In those areas where women’s abilities and competence are still untested and questioned we are especially ecstatic and fearful when one of Us breaks through the barriers. Will she pass the test? Will she prove that we are all worthy? Or will she plunge us back into decades of waiting and hoping for another chance?

We thought Hillary just might do it. She had the guts, the drive, the experience, the support. Even women who didn’t like her couldn’t help but feel that prickle of pride that she was in the big ring, she was a contender. She held her own, and she lasted twelve rounds, but in the end she was not the victor, rightly or wrongly. We took a breath, thought, ok, maybe next time. At least she has famously cracked that ceiling. And then along came Sarah.

Sarah Palin, whatever you may think of her politics and qualifications, is a woman who has riveted this nation like no other politician in recent memory. “Since her name was announced as John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin has generated more US-based internet search traffic than Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Michael Phelps and Barack Obama combined.” (www.fivethirtyeight.com) In just the first two days after the announcement that she was the Republican VP pick, “the number of U.S. Internet searches for “Sarah Palin” reached a peak greater than any other political personality in the past three years.” (www.time.com) She has beaten all ratings records with both her convention speech and her debate with her democratic counterpart.

What is it about this woman that enthralls us so much? Whether you recoil in horror when she opens her mouth, or you applaud her folksy down-home mannerisms and “Sarah six-pack” style, it is undeniable that we are all completely in awe of her. How does she do it? Five kids! A new baby! Governor of Alaska, and now candidate for the second highest office in the country? OK, so she doesn’t read any newspapers, can’t name any important Supreme Court cases, gets her facts and figures on energy wrong, oh and on our military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, oh and that whole “Bush Doctrine” thing. The woman has still got the country reeling and the Washington suits panting like excited dogs.

Women envy, admire and revile her, and all with good reason. She represents a new day, certainly, and a new reality. When Hustler is producing an adult film starring Sarah Palin look-a-likes called “Nailin’ Palin,” you know we have entered a new era. This is the Republican nominee for Vice-President! Did we become Italy all of a sudden? (Cicciolina, an Italian porn star, was elected to their parliament in 1987, serving only one term, after which she co-founded the political movement Partito dell’Amore (Party of Love).) Is Ms. Palin going to start wearing skimpier and skimpier clothing the closer we get to November 4 and the further the poll numbers sink for McCain?

The fact that Palin looked and sounded like a programmed Stepford Wives robot during her debate with Senator Joe Biden on Thursday night doesn’t seem to have altered the nation’s view of her much, in fact she has risen in the majority’s esteem (84% said she did better than they expected and 55% said their opinion of her had changed for the better in two separate surveys) simply because she managed to wink and grin and recite her way through the 90 minutes, leaping high above the sadly low bar that had been set for her after her disastrous media interviews.

This is insanity. There is no denying that she has that certain something, that star quality that humans, and Americans in particular, seem to admire above all else. Those of us who are scared out of our wits at the possibility of a Palin presidency find ourselves squirming in discomfort as she fixes the camera with that smile and emits vacuous conservative platitudes in between “you betchas” and “doggone its.” It is truly as if fiction has overtaken reality and we are no longer living in the Age of Reason, but the Age of Utter Stupidity.

How can the nation not realize that this woman, beguiling and talented in front of the camera as she may be, is sorely unqualified to be our vice-president, let alone our president? How did we go from Virginia Woolf’s reality, where women were just winning the right to vote but were still fighting demoralizing obstacles to any positions of power, to Palin’s blind and ruthless ambition skyrocketing her to a shot at the second most powerful position in the world? How did we trade Senator Clinton for Governor Palin? What are the qualities that we want in our female leaders? Are good looks and cut-throat drive really what it takes to get a woman in the White House? We thought Hillary was ambitious and would stop at nothing. Sarah the pit bull makes Hillary seem like a pussycat.

Woolf wrote of the generations of women who have lived throughout the ages without a voice, and how those who had a literary gift or a touch of genius, or, say, a passion for politics, had to suffer in silence, some, perhaps many, becoming insane and even suicidal because of their societal prison. A woman needs money and a room of her own, if she is to write fiction or poetry, she said. True words, even today. And if she wants to become president of the United States?

→ 16 Comments

Posted in literature, politics, women

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Who dropped the ice-nine in the financial markets?

Posted on October 1, 2008 | 13 Comments

As we watch financial giant after financial giant tumble and our dear leaders in Washington rush about and try to throw our money at a problem which seems to have only just kicked off its first leg of a world tour, I can’t help but wonder what would the late, great Kurt Vonnegut have made of the current crisis?

And as those in Washington who are supposed to be governing this land flail about and try to get their minds around this mess (how many of them even truly understand what is happening in the financial markets, and are qualified to make any judgment about how best to use billions of our dollars to fix it? where are the hearings with economists, specifically those not tied to any of the big financial houses?), we the people sit at home and watch our savings disappear, as well as our tax dollars, and wonder, when and how did I sign up for this?

I think of Vonnegut’s Dr. Felix Hoenikker, who, in Cat’s Cradle, secretly created ice-nine, a crystal which, when introduced to water, would teach all of the atoms of all water throughout the world to lock and freeze in a new way, thus freezing the entire planet, as well as any human that touched it to their lips (being, as we are, made primarily of water).

Why Hoenikker and his ice-nine? Here’s why:

This is supposed to be the country where if you work hard and play by the rules, eventually you’ll get your own little slice of the American dream. So why is it that time and again it’s those that don’t play by the rules, but grab the biggest piece of the pie they can, trashing it for the rest of us in the process, that get cleaned up and sent off with a pat on the butt to poison another day like some spoiled children, by a government who doesn’t know squat about good parenting?

Where are the level heads? Where are the clear thinkers? Where are the mature adults that can do what they have been elected and paid by the people to do: govern and lead? Why is it that we at home know that this was a bad bill that didn’t deserve to pass, and (at least many of us) let out a collective sigh of relief when it failed, while the leadership of both parties in the House used all their muscle to push it through?

And this without knowing what was really included in the bill, because, certainly in their view, we, the average and ordinary citizens, are not capable of grasping it, we couldn’t handle that kind of information. How about letting us in on the discussion before you grab our money and hand it over to the culprits who are already responsible for our retirement funds heading south and our homes being foreclosed on. How about a little transparency in the process instead of closed-door dealings and grand announcements that “a deal has been reached.” How about treating the people who gave you your jobs with a little respect.

While the politicians slam the podium and proclaim that this is not the time for laying blame but the time for working together to bring about a solution, I can only half agree. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been criticized by both parties for her “partisan” speech before the House vote, as she blamed the tactics of the Bush administration and the laissez-faire economics that have ruled Washington under the right-wing leadership for much of the past three decades. Well, whether you thought it was good timing for that speech or not, she was right, and rather than try to avoid the issue of who is to blame, and why, it seems that we very much need to examine that very subject, thoroughly, and understand just exactly what went wrong here. Because it has happened before, and it will happen again, unless we bring the real problems at the heart of the matter out into the light, and talk about real solutions, rather than applying band-aids that will just fall off and allow the wound to infect and fester. Of course the Right will continue to push deregulation as the answer, and the Left will call for more regulation, but that conversation needs to happen, and it needs to happen now.

Why did Dr. Hoenikker create ice-nine? For no reason, he just wanted to. And he left it in the hands of his three irresponsible children. And guess what, the ice-nine made its way into the water, eventually, and froze the earth (sorry to be a spoiler, it’s still worth reading!).

What does this have to do with our current financial crisis? Well, nothing. And everything. Our global economy today is so entangled that one person’s actions in the market can produce a butterfly effect that could bankrupt nations, and certainly make or break personal fortunes. Our financial system has become like the water that covers 70% of the earth, it touches everyone, from Jakarta to Vancouver. No-one is immune from the ripple, it determines what we eat, where we live (if we are lucky to even afford housing), how we move about. With so much at stake, who is watching to keep someone from dropping some ice-nine down their sink drain and freezing the entire financial world? Where are the cops? Where is the accountability?

The laissez-faire economics of the past three decades have failed. It’s time to stop throwing good money after bad, and repairing a broken system with some duct tape and a staple gun. Get back to the fundamentals, and make some real changes, including accountability. We can’t afford to look the other way anymore, we need to keep our eyes on the ice-nine, at all times.

In the words of the great Bokonon:

Around and around and around we spin,
With feet of lead and wings of tin…

.

→ 13 Comments

Posted in financial markets, literature, politics

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,