Growing a Stronger America - More Self-sufficient, a Stronger Citizenry, a World-Class Infrastructure

America is a great country.  But we are slipping.  If we want to remain great, we need to grow a stronger America.  America must become more self-sufficient.  It must do everything it can to create a better educated, healthier, more engaged citizenry and rebuild a strong middle class.  And it must either replace or repair an aging, often archaic, infrastructure with one that will both meet the needs of the citizenry as well as support our economy’s competitiveness into the next century.

More Self-Sufficient:  The impact of globalizations has been a disaster for America’s well-being.  Instead of the advertised promise of globalization, it has become a curse for all but the multi-national corporations engaged in it.  Yes, most of us do like spending less money for all sorts of merchandise, and it has kept the inflation rate down, but we have paid a heavy price for that benefit.

First there is the well-publicized loss of good-paying, middle class jobs.  This has resulted in millions of previously well-employed men either being unemployed, employed in a new field at a fraction of their previous wage, or at the same job but at a wage that has stagnated for decades.  This has decimated the middle class.

That impact may have gotten the most publicity, but there is much more.  The loss of earning power by a large segment of the population has resulted in a weaker domestic economy.  You can’t buy as much when you’re not earning as much.  It’s as simple as that.  And the influx of less-expensive goods from abroad together with our dependence on imported oil has worsened our balance of trade deficit, thus weakening our economic independence.  Foreign countries own 34% of US debt, and China alone owns over 7% or $1.2 trillion.

Beyond weakening the domestic economy by reducing spending, globalization together with tax policy has increased income inequality.  From 1980 to 2014, the US per capita GDP increased from $28,133 (adjusted for inflation) to $50,211.  That’s an increase of 78%.  (The figures vary considerably, so I used the ones showing the least growth.)  By comparison, the increase in the US median personal income (not the average, but the center point) rose from $20,919 to $28,829, an increase of only 37%.  By contrast, looking at the increase in average personal income, which is skewed by the increase of those in the top income categories, the increase is 104%.  

The economy has grown, multi-national corporations have profited, the rich have gotten richer, but the average worker has not.  Without question, the middle class has been left behind and adversely impacted by these forces.  This is not healthy for our economy or our society.

Further, we have now become more dependent on the health of other, specifically Asian, economies.  The fortunes of our corporations and thus the stock market are subject to the vagaries of these economies, as we’ve often seen.  The stock market has been more volatile since globalization than before.  And surprisingly it doesn’t matter how strong or unconnected with global trade a company is … markets are so interconnected that when there’s a rumble in Asia’s economy, all U.S. stocks go down.

Lastly, but significantly, because what is happening in distant corners of the world has become even more important to American corporations and our economy, it has given more credence to the argument that we need a huge military able to go to any spot in the world to defend our national security.  We are witnessing an increased blurring between what is in our national security interest and what is in the interest of our multi-national corporations.  But they are not the same.  

That’s really what happened in Iraq, as our national security was never at stake, not even had there been WMDs in Iraq. We should never be in a position of going to war to protect corporate supply lines.  We should never expend the lives of our youth and our material wealth for such a purpose.

For all these reasons, we must do everything we can to make America more self-sufficient.  We must bring manufacturing back through tax and other policies.  And we must engage in a serious effort both to conserve energy use as well as wean ourselves from our addiction to oil by developing alternative energy sources and alternative energy transport.

A Stronger Citizenry.  The United States, when compared with the rest of the industrialized world, ranks nowhere near the top, more often near the bottom, on various markers that measure the strength of its citizenry:  education, health, and political engagement.

Education.  Whether we look at the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) math and science scores which show the US ranking  25th and 24th, respectively, among 30 OECD countries, or data that places us 18th out of 23 comparing high school graduation rates, or 15th in college completion, or 10th in the percentage of 25-34 year-olds holding an associate degree or higher, the status of US education is definitely not world class.  (Note: the number of OECD countries used for comparison varies because of the number that have available data.)

Health.  Looking at health status compared with the other OECD countries, the US again does not fare well.  The US ranks 26th in life expectancy, has the 7th highest rate of infant mortality, ranks dead last (first) by far in the percentage of overweight and obese children and adults, has the 6th highest rate of diabetes, ranks 18th in 5-year survival for cervical cancer though it does rank 1st in breast cancer survival, and ranks dead last in access to health care (2013, so before Obamacare fully kicked in) … oddly the US ranks 1st in people self-reporting that they were in good health … all this despite the US spending 2 1/2 times the OECD average on health care per capita.

Political Engagement.  The US ranks 31st out of the 34 OECD countries in the percentage of voting age population who actually vote.  The result is that a rather small minority typically decides who governs us.  For example, in 2000, the voter turnout was 

51.2%.  Since Bush won with 47.9% of the popular vote (actually less than Gore got), only 24.5% or less the 1/4 of the voting age population elected Bush.  In 2008, the voter turnout rate was higher, 58.2%.  And Barack Obama won with 52.9% of the vote.  But that still meant that 30.8%, less than 1/3, of the voting age population elected him.  

It should be a point of extreme concern and embarrassment, if not shame, that the US … the founder of the modern democratic state and the wealthiest and economically strongest country in the world … has its elections decided by such a small minority of its voting-age population.  That election results express the will of the majority is even more important now that the two major parties have such extremely divergent positions on most issues.

Regardless what the cause is … voter apathy, voting barriers (for example, our elections occur on a weekday whereas most occur on the weekend or a declared holiday), poor campaigns, lack of education … something is not right and it must be addressed.  For starters, just changing the day that our elections are held, or declaring at least Presidential elections a national holiday, would most likely make a significant difference.  

But Republicans seem intent on doing everything they can to create more barriers to voting, not less.  Could this be because studies consistently show that non-voters are disproportionately poor or less well-off, younger, and tend to favor higher taxes and more government spending?  For example, 46% of nonvoters have household incomes below $30,000, while the percentage among voters is 19%.  43% of nonvoters are people of color, while only 22% of voters are.  And 34% of nonvoters are under 30, while only 10% of voters are.

Our democracy is based on the philosophy of majority rule.  But the reality is far from that.

How can we be a great country, let alone the leader of the world, with a citizenry that is relatively poorly educated, less healthy, and not politically engaged when compared with other developed countries?  A country’s strength and competitiveness are not based on the strength of the top 20% of its citizens, but on the strength of all its citizens.  

In addition to these factors on which there is comparative data, I noted in a recent post, “Our Failed Economic/Social/Political System,” that America has not lived up to its promise or its potential to provide true equal opportunity regarding “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and that this was critical to our country’s future well-being.  I noted there that in addition to various factors, including equal access to health care and a quality education, rebuilding a strong middle class was critical.

Improving education, health care, and political engagement, providing meaningful equal opportunity, and rebuilding a strong middle class will require more than a band-aid approach.  We must find the strength to rethink these issues at the most fundamental level and devise a strategy for each that will lift America’s citizenry up to an appropriate level for a country that proclaims itself to be the best in the world.

A Healthy Infrastructure.  In another recent post, “Our Archaic Transportation System,” I lamented how our transportation system is not up to meeting our needs now, let alone in the coming decades.  The same has been reported elsewhere on everything ranging from our electric grid to the state of our water and sewer systems.  

We pride ourselves on being a great and powerful country, on the cutting edge of technology, and yet in many important areas of our nation’s infrastructure, not only is it outdated but it is often crumbling and undependable.  This situation must be corrected if we are to continue being a strong nation and a world leader.  

Addressing most of the issues I’ve noted will necessitate a shift in our national priorities, as I’ve noted in various posts.  If we are serious about growing a stronger America, improving our nation’s health, it will require us to reexamine what is important and how best to use our resources to provide what is needed.  This will require a nation and a Congress who first and foremost ask, “What is in the best interest of the nation,” because they understand that what is in the nation’s best interest is ultimately also in our own individual best interest.

Our Failed Economic/Social/Political System

America has a failed economic/social/political system.  I did not use the word “broken” because America has never reached its promise, never fulfilled its potential.  What is the promise of America?  It’s found in the words of the Declaration pf Independence … “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.”

We are a country of great wealth, the strongest economy in the world, and yet we live in a country where a vast portion of our population have never tasted the fruits of equality and where income inequality is greater than it’s ever been.  We live in a country where for a vast portion of our population, because of the lack of meaningful equal opportunity, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are almost meaningless, a cruel tease.

First, let’s be clear what is meant by “equality” and “all men are created equal.”  When the writers of the Declaration used that phrase, they were speaking in a spiritual sense, not a practical one.  It was a statement of the Enlightenment’s vision of natural rights, as elucidated by John Locke, among others.  

Obviously, all men are not created or born equal because they are born to vastly different circumstances, whether to poverty or wealth, whether disabled or healthy, whether black or white.  What the Declaration meant is that all men (and women) come out of the womb equal in the sense that they all have the God-spirit inside them, they are all of equal value.

And because they are all of equal value in the eyes of their Creator, they all have and deserve an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This equality does not mean that they all have a right to have or achieve the same status and wealth, but that every person has an equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  

What each person makes of that equal opportunity is that person’s responsibility.  But it is the system’s responsibility to insure that everyone have that equal opportunity.  That latter thought is expressed in the Declaration when it says, “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”

How has our system fared in that regard?  In answering this question, I shall limit myself to the period post-Civil War, post-14th Amendment, post-19th amendment.  Clearly, before those points, even viewed in a strictly legal sense,  the vast majority of the population was in no sense equal, either because they were female or they were black.

First, though, the question must be asked, what is necessary, what is the foundation that an economic/social/political system need provide, in order for there to be meaningful equal opportunity?  I think the following:

• The laws must provide for equal opportunity.
• Social authority and peer pressure must not tolerate any deviation from equal opportunity and discrimination must be denounced as unacceptable.  
• All children, regardless of background, must have an equal education opportunity both with regards to its quality and to its accessibility.  
• Recognizing that a certain minimum standard of living is necessary for a person’s feeling of self-worth because it enables them to secure safe housing and sufficient food, the system must provide a method to secure that standard of living for those who cannot obtain it of their own accord.
• All people must be guaranteed access to adequate health care; if you do not have your health, you cannot make full use of equal opportunity.
• The system must foster a sound middle class, which is often a launching pad for further upward mobility.  

1.   Legal equal opportunity.  With the glaring continuing exception of sexual orientation (and gender identity), Federal law and most state laws provide that discrimination is illegal in all areas of the public sphere … employment, housing, entertainment, restaurants, etc.  By executive order, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in federal employment.  And by virtue of the Supreme Court decision, discrimination in marriage laws is now illegal.

2.   De facto discrimination.  But despite all the laws on the books, de facto discrimination towards blacks and towards other people of color is rampant.  Discrimination towards women is not uncommon, and certainly pay equality is not a general practice.  

Part of the reason for this continuing discrimination is our history … old attitudes die hard …  but the other part is we cannot say that “social authority and peer pressure” do not tolerate discrimination and denounce it.  Some social authorities do, and in some communities peer pressure does, but as a general matter, discrimination is the elephant in the room.  It’s there but few care to discuss it.  Those in power in our society appear to have little or no interest in ending this discrimination.

3.    Equal opportunity of education.   Before children even enter school, a significant factor impacts their educational opportunity … the extent to which they are exposed to basic learning skills, including reading, during their pre-school years. Not surprisingly, inner city children living in poverty suffer most from a lack of such exposure. We cannot change the family circumstances into which a child is born, but we can insure that every child receive full exposure to learning skills through pre-school programs.

Regarding primary and secondary education, there is huge inequality in the quality of education between states, within states, and within metropolitan areas.   The reason is that very little funding comes from the federal government (10%).  The rest comes from state and local sources, with local property taxes accounting for 50-70% of available funding in most localities.  Thus, the funding available varies greatly depending on the wealth of the school district’s residents.  

While quality of education is not solely dependent on the amount of money spent per student, it does have a real impact.   The other significant factor impacting quality is the attitude of teachers.  Many teachers in inner city school seem to view their students as hopeless and so put forth little effort beyond crowd control.  

The combination of these two factors delivers a double whammy to inner city school children.  The average high school graduation rate in the 50 largest cities was only 53% according to a 2009 report.  And for those who did manage to graduate, without a solid primary and secondary education the thought of higher education is so far out of reach it isn’t even a dream for most.  

That such students are in fact, however, not hopeless is shown by the ample examples of schools run with a different attitude that achieve "amazing" results with underprivileged children. 

4.   Minimum standard of living.  The Federal government spends a huge amount of money (11% of the Federal budget) on a variety of programs to provide financial assistance to those in need, primarily to families with dependent children.  This funding is augmented somewhat by the states.  With regards to food stamps, it should be noted that a large percentage of recipients work … the working poor.  But despite all of this spending, not only do we have a stubborn poverty rate that hovers around 14%, but the living conditions that most people in poverty encounter are horrendous and homelessness is a serious problem.  

What has gone wrong?  I understand the problem is complex, but rather than spend money on education and jobs to bring people into the workforce, we have doled out money to people and thus not surprisingly their status has typically not changed; they have become more dependent, not less so.  And there is no talk of fundamentally changing the system to help raise the poor out of poverty.  The reason … those with power in society really aren’t interested.  Clinton’s workfare program was a farce.  All the Republicans want to do is cut aid.  They seem to think that if you’re poor, if you don’t have a job, it’s your fault.  You’re lazy.

5.   Universal health care.  Despite all the effort to pass Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act, and the increase in the numbers of insured Americans that resulted from that measure, we still have a very inefficient, cumbersome system that relies primarily on private insurers.  And while many more are insured now, the plans that they can afford are mediocre in their coverage and many who previously had better employer-sponsored plans now find themselves with either plans that cost them more or provide less coverage and thus ultimately cost them more if there is a health emergency.  

This criticism is separate from that of our health care system which has so many serious problems that it is almost dysfunctional.  We continue to have both a health care system and accessibility to it that is substantially inferior to most of the other industrialized countries.

6.   A sound middle class.  This is the one area where the United States really used to excel.  We had a large sound middle class.  But then globalization and the trade agreements that fostered that movement resulted in millions of jobs leaving the U.S.  This was great for multi-national corporations, but bad for workers.  As a result, many formerly middle-class men are now unemployed, or they have found work at only a fraction of their former wage, or if still at their former jobs their wages have stagnated since the mid-70s because of overseas competition.   

Why would successive administrations, both Republican and Democrat, support this disastrous movement?  Because power in the U.S. lies with the major corporations and they wanted to be free to move jobs where labor costs less.  And because economic theorists said it was the right thing to do.  There has been no movement to either build new middle-class wage jobs or bring old ones back.  What effort there has been recently is to raise the wages of service workers, as in the fast food industry, to a living wage, which is important but does not create a middle class

Bottom line on all these fronts … our economic, social, and political system is controlled by powerful corporations and people with substantial wealth.  These forces have shown no interest in the betterment of their fellow citizens.  Their only interest is their pursuit of ever more wealth and power.  As a result, the Republican Party has no interest in the issues I’ve raised.  And Democrats, while they have an interest, lack the courage to stand up to these interests and call for a massive restructuring of how our government provides for the common good and helps those in need.  

And so the rich and powerful have gotten richer and more powerful, while the poor and middle class have gotten poorer and more powerless.   The problem is not so much one of insufficient funds or sources of revenue.  The problem is “the vision thing,” a lack of leadership and skewed priorities.  A disconnect from the promise of our founding documents.

This problem is far-reaching, extending into all areas of government responsibility, not just those affecting the poor and middle class.  As has become increasingly clear to me through my writing, regardless what the issue … the environment and energy policy, tax fairness, globalization, financial institution regulation, our archaic transportation system, replacing/repairing our infrastructure, education, health care, civil rights, foreign policy, and defense … it all comes back to real power residing with powerful corporations and the wealthy, not the voters who elect their representatives and the President.  We have a democracy in format, but not in substance.  

Money and power have of course always been a factor in American, and indeed all, politics.  It’s the nature of the beast.  And it’s also appropriate.  Business and finance have an important role to play in the health of our economy and should be supported.  

But the grip on power and influence by major corporations and the wealthy has increased greatly over the course of the last decade or more to the detriment of the common good.  Our system has lost its balance.  The Supreme Court decision in Citizens v United will surely aggravate the situation.  

If we are to reclaim government of the people, by the people, and for the people. then we must find a way to get big money if not totally then mostly out of politics.  Public financing of election is one obvious way.   There may be others, but that is not the topic for this post.

This will require an aroused electorate, because this will be the first test of the power of the people v the power of corporations.  (See my post, “How the Koch Brothers Hijacked the Middle Class Revolt and How To Take It Back.”)  Only if there is a popular movement so strong that members of Congress know that if they do not implement the will of the people they will be turned out of office does this have a chance of getting passed into law.

America’s Regressive Progressive Tax System

Most people think that under our tax system the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those with less income, with those with the lowest income paying the lowest rate.   This is called a progressive tax system.  

The reasoning behind a progressive system is twofold: one philosophical, one practical.  

Philosophically, under our social contract, all citizens have a responsibility to support the work of the government in providing for the greater good and its helping insure that those in need still have a chance at “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as promised in the Declaration of Independence.  Those citizens with more wealth, who have benefited more from the system, have a moral responsibility to give back and support their fellow citizens by contributing a greater share of their income through taxes to support the government.

Practically, the wealthier you are, the higher the percentage of your income you can afford to pay in taxes because despite that higher tax rate so much is still left over for your personal use.  On the other hand, if you have only a very modest income, you can hardly afford to pay any taxes and still have a livable standard of living.

Our federal income tax is based on this theory, although it is far less progressive today than it has been in the past.  For example, in the 1950s during the Eisenhower years, the wealthiest American’s payed a marginal tax rate of 90%.  During the Johnson and Nixon years, that rate dropped to 70%.  Under Reagan the rate dropped to 50%.  And under Bush II, the rate dropped to 35%.

Did these higher federal income tax rates hurt the wealthy or the country during this period?  No.  The wealthy were still quite wealthy.  And the country was strong economically, with of course the usual dips of the economic cycle.

So what have we gotten in exchange for these reduced taxes on the wealthy?  Nothing but ever increasing deficits (despite a reversal in the last years of the Clinton presidency), reduced government ability to pay for infrastructure projects, education, and provide a safety net for those in need, and increased income inequality.  The economy and nation have not grown stronger; the rich have just gotten richer.

But the story doesn’t end with the federal income tax.  It gets much worse when factoring in state and local taxes, especially sales taxes, which fall disproportionately on those with less income and are thus regressive.  This is especially severe in those states that currently have no income tax and so rely totally on regressive taxes.  For example, the state of Washington has the most regressive tax system in the country.  There the poorest 20% of residents pay seven times as much of their income in state and local taxes as the top 1%.

Each year, Citizens for Tax Justice issues a report, “Who Pays Taxes in America.”  The most recent CTJ report shows that combined local, state and federal taxes produce a system that more resembles a flat tax than a progressive tax: In 2015: 

The top 1% - those with incomes averaging $1.7 million - will pay 32.6% of their income        in taxes.  

The same is roughly true for the next 9% - those averaging more than $176,000. 

The next 50% - those averaging between $49,000 and 125,000 will pay an average of 29%.  

The next 20%, those with an average of $30,000, will pay 23%.  

The bottom 20%, averaging $15,000, most of whom live in poverty as defined by the government, will pay 19% of their income in total taxes.

The unfairness of this system is manifest.  It’s unfair even that those who earn $200,000 a year pay the same tax rate as those earning many millions.  It is outrageous that the middle class pays virtually the same rate … 29% as opposed to 32%.  It is beyond belief that the poorest 20% of Americans pay 19% of their incomes in taxes … yes, they typically pay little or no federal income tax, but state and local sales taxes take a substantial cut out of their pockets when they are barely scraping by.

This describes a tax system that should put the United States to shame.  And it should put the wealthiest Americans to shame, although I think the evidence shows that that emotion is almost impossible to call forth from them, the example of Warren Buffet to the contrary notwithstanding.

The solution is that the federal income tax should be put back on a much more progressive scale, as it was for most of its history.  And state and local governments should be required to use a progressive income tax for their tax revenue rather than a sales tax or other regressive tax system.  

This not only makes moral sense, it makes economic sense.  The result would be a substantial boost in real income for most Americans with a resulting boost in spending and thus to our consumer economy.  If the net changes were not tax revenue neutral … that is if the changes resulted in higher tax revenues … that would provide much-needed funds to begin repairing our country’s neglected infrastructure and for other important but underfunded government tasks.

Our current tax system should be unconstitutional, but there is no measure in the constitution that requires fairness in the legislative process.  But if legislators and the general population cannot see, when presented with these facts … and they are facts, that our tax system is unfair, not to the rich as they frequently complain but to the rest of the populace, and that it hinders a large portion of the population in the exercise of their right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,”  then our nation is at a very sad point.

Our Archaic Transportation System

The United States prides itself in being a technologically advanced country, a leader in the technology revolution, and yet our transportation system is archaic.  It is based primarily on a mode of transportation … the car and truck … that was developed a century ago and that technologically has not progressed much in the intervening years.  And it is based on the use of a fuel which has been recognized as causing the coming disaster of climate change.  

It is inefficient and not user-friendly.  For example, despite the vastness of the NJ turnpike, during the extended rush “hour” it is a slog.  And on a recent trip back from the city to Philadelphia, the 17 mile trip from the Verrazano Narrows bridge to the Goethels Bridge took 2 hours!  A huge traffic backup caused by a lane closure.

To the extent that we have a passenger rail system, it too is outmoded and archaic, both as regards the equipment and the infrastructure.  The technological advances made and implemented in western Europe and other countries with advanced, efficient rail systems put us to shame.  (I can’t speak to the quality of the freight system.)

Our air travel system also is caught in this technologically archaic vise.  Air travel makes sense for long flights … say 800 miles or more.  But for shorter flights, it is both terribly inefficient and not user friendly.  By the time you factor in the time it takes to get to the airport, be there the suggested amount of time prior to flight for security and other reasons, and then getting from the airport into the city you’re traveling to, the fact that the actual flying time may be short is irrelevant.  The total amount of time spent and the discomfort experienced is far greater than it would be using regional transportation on an up-to-date high speed rail system.  But that system doesn’t exist.

Why is our transportation system, a vital part of our future economic competitiveness and our national security, in this sad shape?  There are two reasons, one causing technological backwardness in this area.  The other results in the outdated infrastructure.

The reason why our transportation system is technologically archaic is that the powers/corporations behind the old technology are extremely powerful.  Basically, we’re talking about big oil.  Big oil has for decades not wanted electric cars to be developed (when technologically they easily could) and big oil has not wanted an efficient rail system that would compete with cars for carrying people.

But we need both electric cars and an efficient rail system.  Trains need to carry much more of the regional traffic and cars should be used primarily for local purposes and getting to transportation hubs.

It’s no secret that in our governmental system, power resides with the major corporations who lobby Congress and who contribute heavily to campaigns.  There simply exists no countervailing corporate force for changing our archaic transportation system.

The reason why our infrastructure is outdated is said to be that we just don’t have the money.  But that’s not true.  The problem is that the money is going for other things, primarily defense.  Now defense is important, but a large chunk of that huge budget does not advance our security; it only advances the corporate welfare, and yes, also jobs, in the defense industry, which is very powerful.

So again, it’s a question of the power lying with corporations who have a vested interest and there being no countervailing corporate force for changing the way the budget is allocated.

A reader might counter that to change our system would be hugely dislocating for everyone and would harm us.  While it would be somewhat dislocating, I don’t think it would be hugely so for the average person and more importantly it is necessary for our national survival and competitiveness in the future.

Another counter argument is that if we shift money from the defense industry it will cost lots of jobs and people will suffer.  While again there would be dislocation, the shift of funds into infrastructure projects will create a huge number of jobs which will provide ample employment for not only those who lose their jobs as a result of the cutback in defense spending but also for many who are currently un- or underemployed.

Interestingly, these same arguments were not successful when corporate power was on the side of technology or globalization rather than the ones who were being dislocated.  It all comes down to who has the ear of Congress.

Our future economic competitiveness and national security depend on all aspects of our infrastructure being technologically advanced and in top condition.  We have a long way to catch up on both fronts.  The patriotic and sensible thing to do would be to start on both these projects ASAP.

How Faith in Consumerism/Technology Replaced Faith in God

A friend of mine said once that whenever anyone walked through the doors of our Buddhist temple, it was because they were suffering and they were seeking a path to end their suffering.  That is probably a statement that can be made of all religions.  

In the past, when true faith in God was high, most people looked to religion to ease their insecurity and if not end their suffering, at least give them faith that there was some larger reason for their suffering.  Belief in God trumped everything else. “The Lord works in mysterious ways”; if we mere mortals can’t understand why, it’s not in our place to ask.  Even when people were in dire circumstances or tragedy struck, their faith in God was not questioned, indeed could not be questioned because to question it would have left them bereft of spiritual support, alone and unprotected; instead their faith provided them with comfort.

Enter the modern age of capitalism and consumerism.  Just as Darwin’s theory of evolution was taking root in the public mind, creating fissures in the bedrock of faith in the Bible and in God (the Scopes Monkey trial was in 1925), and the scope of the terrors of WWI raised questions anew about God’s mysterious way, there rose in our midst a new preacher, the ad agencies who promised happiness and security through the acquisition of goods and wealth.  Shaken in their beliefs, people were open to a new way to end their suffering, a new faith, and thus were an easy target for the siren call of consumerism.

And so for most of the 20th century, although surveys in the U.S. consistently reported that the vast majority of people stated they believed in God, religious service attendance declined as did membership.  People were giving lip-service to a belief in God, most likely as a result of peer pressure, the desire to belong to the group.  Their actions spoke otherwise.

But although the masses bought in to consumerism and its promise of happiness, people found themselves still feeling insecure and alone.  Small wonder!  And so during the last decade or so, the siren call of the new technology and social media found an avid audience.  If you observe people on the street, in restaurants, in any public setting, it would appear that most people have been fully taken in by the illusion of connectedness, of multitudes of friends, that the new technology provides.  Their faith in this illusion is so strong because it seems directly to answer their deepest longing.  Indeed the only word to describe their constant attachment to their electronics is “addiction.”   How sad.

At about the same time, though, a slight change in this shift of allegiance away from God could be observed.  Some people, mainly among the young, were feeling the effects of having no spiritual support.  They had grown up in an era in which they were not exposed to true faith.  So, unlike their parents, their faith wasn’t shaken, it never existed; there was just emptiness.  While they didn’t reject consumerism and technology, they were looking for something deeper to end their suffering and insecurity.

On the Protestant stage, numerous mega-churches … orthodox in the sense of preaching the inviolability of the Bible as the word of God … began preaching that God wants you to be rich.  That together with their emotional enticements … being born again and having a “personal relationship with Christ” … and “relevant” formatting resulted in soaring membership and attendance.  An odd marriage of convenience.

On the Jewish front, there has also been a large increase in the Orthodox community, both the more liberal Modern Orthodox and the ultra-Orthodox.  Without, however, the accommodation to modern culture seen in the Protestant mega-churches. 

But these changes in the Protestant and Jewish communities are small blips in the overall decline in religiosity as measured by attendance and membership.  The false idols of Consumerism/Technology still hold the greatest sway in our modern culture.  And so the vast majority of people, bereft of any sense of their spirituality, are left feeling alone and insecure behind a facade of connectedness at the same time as their ability to find some security through consuming, illusory though it may be, is impacted by falling real wages.

One can only hope that another false idol doesn’t appear on the scene to lead a weakened people astray and that instead a true source of spirituality, accessible to modern man, makes its presence felt and awakens people to their true self … to the God, Buddha, Higher Power, or whatever one calls it within them. 

Raising a Secure and Happy Child

I have written in previous posts (1/7/13 & 1/10/13) how all abuse and violence stems from man’s insecurity, and further that it is the cause of all social conflict and war.  Insecurity is destructive.  I have also written a book, Raising a Happy Child, that posits that this insecurity is not inherent in man’s nature but learned.  And that the cycle of insecure parents raising insecure children who become insecure parents who raise … can be broken if parents become aware of this issue and take the steps I suggest in the book.

One of the things I discuss in the book is the critical nature of meeting a baby’s needs to be nurtured in first few months.  I cite as a problem the common feeling that it’s ok or even good to let a baby cry.  One doesn’t want to spoil a child, etc.  

As I note in the book, on the contrary this is harmful to the child because it creates feelings of insecurity.  A baby doesn’t cry for no reason.  It is seeking nurturing.  Birth is a very traumatic event for a baby, to leave the warmth and security of the womb for the harsh reality of the world, where very shortly after birth he is typically removed from his mother and put in a basinet.   That can only be scary.

While meditating recently, I thought of the example of how an animal mother cares for her young after birth.  For an animal mother, there is no purpose in life other than nurturing her young and seeing that they are safe until they are weened or its equivalent.  Except if the mother has to hunt for food, the young are always in close contact and within site of the mother.  And during the periods when they are alone, the litter has each other’s company for warmth and security.

How different that is from the contemporary human experience, at least in developed countries.  While a typical mother certainly cares deeply for her baby, often the baby’s needs are somewhat in conflict with the mother’s needs, interest, and convenience.  And so the baby’s needs often just aren’t met.  As a result, the baby experiences insecurity, which makes it cry all the more.

Now I do not mean to imply that the baby is neglected.  It is a rare mother who neglects her child, in the legal sense of the word, even in today’s culture.  However, the typical baby just does not get the frequent or almost constant nurturing it needs and wants. The advent of body slings has certainly improved the physical contact between mother and child, but that doesn’t meet all the baby’s needs.

But you can’t really blame mothers.  They are not taught what a baby needs.  Instead, they are taught, for example, that it’s good to let a baby cry.  Their own experience, the example of peers, the books they read … none of these begin to explain the amount of nurturing a baby needs in order to not start life feeling insecure, which creates a growing element for later learned insecurities.

What we need is to recognize that there is a conflict between the desires of modern man, our way of life, and the needs of babies.  Even before a couple decides to have a baby, they need to be made aware of what the baby’s needs will be and the “sacrifices” they will need to make for the sake of the baby’s well-being.   If they then decide to have a baby, there is at least a better chance that the baby will grow up secure and happy.

But because we are human beings and not animals, because we have a brain that can either be channeled to neurosis or to peace and happiness, more is required of a parent than early child nurturing.  That “more” does not depend on how much money the parents make.  Whether affluent or poor, whether living in a gated community or in an urban ghetto, whether a child grows up happy and secure depends in large part to how the child is equipped by his upbringing to handle the challenges that life will throw his way.

What does that mean?  It means raising a child to have a sense of security … not material security but spiritual security, faith that regardless what life throws his way all will be well because he will always go deep within himself and be at peace and find happiness in the moment … and self-love … not in the modern sense of “I’m wonderful” but in the spiritual sense of  “I’m a good person.”  

If a child is not raised in this manner, then attaining success and possessions as defined by his peer group will not make him happy because below the facade of happiness will always be a deep-seated insecurity.  But if a child does possess spiritual security and self-love, then regardless what life throws his way, even if he does not achieve success in the eyes of his peers or even lives in poverty, he will still be secure and happy because he will know who he is and will not be dependent on the approval of others.

It’s No Sin to Be Rich, BUT …

In recent years, observers in the United States have noted that the rich feel that they have no obligation for anyone else’s welfare.  In third world countries such as Angola (I just saw a shocking documentary about Angola, but the same could be said of many 3rd world countries, especially in Africa), the disregard of the rich for the poor is even more shocking because the divide is so clear and the poverty so visible and horrendous.

There is nothing wrong … morally, spiritually, ethically … with being rich.  Of course, there may be such problems with how one became rich, but that’s another matter and not the subject of this post.  This is about the moral, ethical, spiritual and civic obligations that come with being rich.

First, though, I need to define what I mean by “being rich.”  Rich is certainly a relative term.  By rich I don’t just mean fabulously wealthy … e.g. people who buy $50 million condos for their first or second residence.  (Incredibly there appears to be no shortage of such people in the global economy.)   

Webster’s defines “rich” as “having abundant possessions and especially material wealth.”  “Abundance” is in turn defined as “an ample quantity” or “a relative degree of plentifulness” or “extreme plentifulness.”

In the United States and other developed countries the dividing line between rich and not rich is a much finer line than the line between rich and poor in third world countries.  When President Obama was talking about tax rates at one point, he defined rich as anyone earning over $250,000 a year.  I would not be quite so conservative.  In 2010, the top 1% made $380,000 or more.  That clearly indicates a relative degree of plentifulness.  The top .09%, or 267,000 people, had an adjusted gross income of $1 million or more; extreme plentifulness.

For the purposes of this discussion, getting more exact than that isn’t necessary; you get the drift.  The point is that if one is rich in any country, one has a moral, ethical, spiritual, and civic obligation as a citizen of that country to help the government provide the poor, those less fortunate, with the basic needs of life … food, shelter, subsistence, and health care.  I should be clear … everyone has a duty to participate and help according to their means.  That’s what taxes are all about.  But the rich, because their wealth is abundant, should pay more, and the very wealthy should pay even more.

Why?  First, let’s dispose of one canard.  No one chooses to be poor.  It is not their fault.  It’s not because they’re lazy, as Republicans are fond of saying of late.  Yes, it is true that many do rise out of poverty, but not just through their sheer determination.  Whether a Rick Perry or a Clarence Thomas or a less extravagant example, they made it out because of the often happenstance assistance and guidance of people and often government programs, like affirmative action.  In third world countries, the intervening factor is often nepotism.  One should always remember the saying, “There but for good fortune go I.”

In most cases, someone is poor because of the way our society and economy are structured.  Whether someone is born into poverty and receives the poor education that the poor receive, live in a nightmarish environment, and have been told by society that they are worthless and bums.  Whether someone formerly middle class becomes poor because medical expenses force them into bankruptcy or the loss of a job makes them homeless almost from one day to the next.  Whether try though they may, over and over and over again, they can find no work.  These are all examples of how societal and economic structural issues cause and prolong poverty.

In none of these cases can the poor be blamed for their situation.  It is instead society that has failed them.  No child should be denied a good education.   No one should be denied safe and decent housing.  No one should be denied adequate food to keep them from being hungry.  No one who desires to work should be unemployed.  No one should be branded by society as worthless.  No one should be without a safety net when the circumstances of life turn against them through a major illness or the loss of a job.

If this is the result of a capitalist economy, then capitalism cannot be the sole economic force in a civilized society.  In such a society, there needs to be an adjunct social economy to provide for those that the capitalist economy would throw on the trash heap.  Even if we ever reach the point where there is true equal opportunity for all, some safety net would still be required for the elderly, the infirm, the intellectually-challenged, and those who face a catastrophe in their lives.

Which brings me to the other part of the response to the question, “Why?” … the moral, ethical, spiritual, and civil obligation.  Let me first speak to the civil obligation.

In the United States … and I will only speak to that as my knowledge is limited to the U.S. … this obligation is founded in our historical development.  In my book, We Still Hold These Truths, I devoted a chapter to the evolution of a social contract in the United States.  Let me quote from those pages:

“As the nature of the body politic and its political views changed during the course of the nineteenth century, there was a shift from the philosophy that each man was his own master and whether he succeeded or failed in the new egalitarian society it was to his credit or fault. The new philosophy instead recognized that many individuals were impacted by society-driven factors over which they had no control and which had a

significantly negative effect on their ability to make the most of their lives.

Especially after 1890, the reform movement gained strength, fueled by the extremes of poverty and wealth found in the country, as well as the general population’s dislike of

what it saw as the absolute power of big business, corruption scandals in government, and the violent suppression of strikes. The result over the next few decades was an American social contract with increasing emphasis on a balance of rights and individual obligations, and the role of government in leveling the playing field, with each person contributing to the government’s support according to his ability.”

Clearly, this was thought to be a civic obligation.  That’s a major reason why in this country virtually everyone pays their taxes.  Yes, they take advantage of every loophole that the law provides, but they do pay their taxes.  

But the idea of taxes being spent to help the less fortunate has grown out of favor among a large segment of the American populace, at the same time as the shift in political power has reversed itself and returned to the powerful, to the large corporations.  Social security is still supported because that is felt to be earned, but other programs … whether food stamps or health care or almost every program that supports the poor … are regularly attacked by the new Right.  Part of this new attitude is simple greed; the other part is the popularized myth that the poor are poor because it’s their own fault and thus are not deserving of government support.

The development of this civic obligation, while it was as noted above partly the result of a shift in political power during the 19th century, was based largely on moral, ethical, and spiritual teachings that go back to ancient times.  Every religion, every spiritual belief system, regardless of the cultural context and time has at its core a teaching of humanity, of concern for your fellow man.  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and helping others through charity and other ways are universal teachings.

Why is this so?  It’s a combination of the spiritual and the practical.  As I’ve written before in these pages, we are all one, we are all children of the same God or the same life force.  What divides us is man made, not nature.  And so we should treat our fellow man with humanity and compassion.  Not just for the benefit of others, but for ourselves, as in the teaching, “Give and you shall receive [spiritually].”  

The practical is that every society, from the smallest primitive to the largest industrial is dependent on people working together, each in their role, to make the society function smoothly.  And so community leaders and belief systems have always fostered a sense of community, that we were all in this together, that when one had the good fortune to have more he gave much away to those who had less, understanding that “there but for good fortune go I.”  

Even after the advent of the industrial revolution and capitalism, people understood that the poor were not just deserving of being cared for and helped, but needed to be for the good of all.  And so most developed countries, including the U.S., embraced some degree of socialism to counter the loss of community brought about by the move into cities, fragmentation, and capitalism.

The current state of affairs, where the rich care only for themselves and no one cares what happens to the poor, is a recipe for cultural disaster and collapse.  Just viewed coldly from an economic standpoint, the reason why our economy has been pretty stagnant is that the broad mass of people, as opposed to the rich or well-off, don’t have the ability to purchase like they used to, and so the engine of our consumer economy has partially dried up.  

Over time, if this continues we will get weaker and weaker economically.  And as inequality grows, the nation will become morally and spiritually weaker as well.  All of this is on top of the degradation of our environment, of the eco-system that is our life support, which degradation is related to this issue of responsibility and yet separate.  I certainly have no ability to predict the future, but I’m glad that I won’t be alive 50 years from now.

I have written over and over on these pages that the current state of affairs, in almost all particulars, cannot continue without disaster for our children and future generations.  What it will take to wake us up, I don’t know.  Whether we have the capacity to change our perspective and habits, to in many ways go back to the future, I don’t know.  But these are issues that need to be discussed in all parts of the body politic … in schools, churches, and government.