The Case for Compulsory Language Education for Immigrants

The functioning of a healthy democracy and society requires that all members of that society feel a part of it.  They can have complaints, arguments, but they need to still feel part of it.

There are several things that indicate I believe that we don’t have a healthy democracy at this point in our history.  The one is the percentage of people who don’t vote.  Typically 40-45% of the eligible voters don’t vote, even in a presidential election which gets the highest voter turnout.  Why?  People often say they don’t feel their vote makes a difference; in various ways they indicate they are politically estranged.

But when you look at who doesn’t vote … 20-somethings, Hispanics, and those making less than $30,000/yr are much less likely to register and vote than others … the more fundamental reason is likely that they don’t feel part of the system, part of society.  Why?  Because they don’t see themselves as benefiting from it.  That has to change.  But that’s a topic for another post.

Another, which has reached I believe a true danger point in the 2016 election, is that half of the population feels that it has no commonality with the other half.  I do not believe this is an overstatement.  I do not know if there has been any point in time, with the exception of the Civil War era, when the country has been so deeply divided.  It’s not that we haven’t often been divided 50/50, but the division has never been so sharp, the passions so visceral.

But in this post, I want to address another problem area … the percentage of Americans who can barely speak English, if at all.  America has always been a nation of immigrants.  In all the waves of immigration in the 19th and first half of the 20th century, immigrants settled in areas of a city or the country where other immigrants from their country lived and their native language was freely spoken.

But whether it was because they wanted to be proud Americans or whether they felt it was necessary if they were to get ahead in life, they made it their business to learn English.  The older generation might only learn to speak English haltingly and with a heavy accent, but the younger people always became fluent English speakers.

For most immigrants, this pattern of assimilation still holds true.  But it is not true for many Hispanics.  Why?  The main reason I believe is that there is so many of them that they comprise a culture unto themselves.  To the point that if they don’t get more than a high school education and work in the jobs available to that cohort, they don’t need English, or barely, to meet the requirements of their jobs.

According to the 2011 Census, sixty-two percent of Hispanics (not just recent immigrants; they have no published data on recent immigrants) spoke Spanish at home; the next highest were Chinese at 5%.  The other percentages are miniscule.  While the data make clear that the vast majority of Hispanics in this country, even those who speak Spanish at home, are fluent in English, a large percentage (25%) of those Hispanics who spoke Spanish at home did not speak English well or not at all, 

The actual number of Limited English Proficiency Hispanics is large enough that this weakens the health of our democracy because if you don’t speak the common, native language, then you do not feel part of the larger society.  You only feel part of a separate society.  

For that reason, while I am as liberal and progressive as one can be, I have always supported the proposition that immigrants must learn English to become citizens and that English should be the only language officially used … for example, on signage of all types, instruction on ATMs, elections materials, etc.  Obviously one can’t implement this “English only” standard at the current time because we have not had this education requirement.

One of the things I’ve done as a volunteer is tutor adult immigrants in English.  I’ve seen how hard it is for them to learn English.  First, it’s not an easy language.  But more importantly, they typically live in a household where English is not spoken and they associate with friends who don’t speak English, at least amongst themselves.  Many have not worked or were in menial jobs with other same-language immigrants.  

So they have lessons for an hour or two a week, but then they are immersed not in an English-speaking environment but in their native language environment, and so they make very slow progress.  (Interestingly, I haven't personally seen Hispanics in the programs I’ve been part of.)

To break this pattern, I suggest the United States needs to introduce compulsory language education for all new or recent immigrants under the age of, say, 60 who have not yet obtained U.S. citizenship.  And it needs to be sufficiently robust that it works.  It needs to be for several hours, several days a week, so that the new language can begin to take hold.  And it needs to be available at enough times so that it does not interfere with an immigrant’s attempts to find employment.

Luckily, we have an infrastructure of schools in every neighborhood in every city.  These public buildings typically go unused after the regular school day is over.  They can and should be put to use in the new compulsory language education program.

Yes, this will mean an added expense for government budgets, but it is I feel a critically important expense if we are to maintain both the health of our democracy and the character of this country.  We are not, like Canada, an historically bi-lingual country.  However, we have in many respects already become a bi-lingual country, not by virtue of the number of Hispanics who have immigrated here, but because we have not had in place systems and requirements regarding their learning English.

This must change.  And while I would not make it a requirement for those who have already become U.S. citizens, the government should make English courses readily available so that if a citizen wants to learn English, there are as few barriers as possible.

During this transition period, how should the existence of English/Spanish signage, etc., be handled?  I would suggest that after a one or two year “warning” period, all signage should revert to English only.  That is an important way of making this new requirement work.

It is important to note that this program would be targeted at and aid all immigrants in becoming productive members of our society, not just Hispanics.  I have tutored Asian and Arab immigrants.  They have been very motivated, but the obstacles to their learning English, as I indicated above, are substantial.

This proposal is not anti-immigrant and should not discourage immigrants.  It is also not against retaining immigrant culture (as a child of immigrants, I value that culture very much).  Instead, it shows immigrants clearly that we welcome you and want you to become a valued part of our country.  But that means learning the language so you can prosper and partake fully of what the country offers.

What Drives Policy Decisions? - The Theory v The Reality

Since the establishment of representative democracies, the role of government has been to promote and secure the safety and well-being of their people.  As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the first official document stating this concept of government, “That to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  That is at least the theory on paper.

From the beginning, a tactical problem was encountered in that the interests of all the people are rarely, if ever, in agreement.  Added to this complexity are the varied interests of organizations and corporations which, while creatures of the law, nevertheless should also be promoted by government since the law provides for their existence because they are thought to contribute to the good of the whole.  

To deal with this multiplicity of interests, the concept arose of government promoting the greater good.  The question is always whether a policy is in the interest of the people as a whole, or at least not contrary to their interest.  

For example, if a policy is good for wealthy individuals but harmful for the rest of society, then it is not in the greater good.  Likewise, policies that favor particular corporations to the detriment of the public are not in the greater good.  The old saying, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country,” was debunked many years ago.

However, corporate and public interests are not always at odds.   A policy that favors particular corporations could be in the interest of the people because, for example, it is directly tied to creating jobs or encourages the development of products at a reasonable cost that are needed for the welfare of the people.  

One used to say that policies that promote robust corporate growth are on their face for the greater good because that means more jobs and better wages.  However, in modern times that is not the case.  Policies have fostered corporate growth and profit, but workers have not benefited and even been harmed, either because jobs were sent overseas or because wages stagnated.

Needs and interests are not just competing but are often in conflict.  In its effort to promote the safety and well-being of all, government’s policies need to be balanced so that at a minimum all have their most critical needs met and have the opportunity to prosper.

But what is the reality of government decision making?  While the people do vote for their representatives, it is the corporations through their lobbyists and campaign donations who have control of government.  It is true that Democrats are more attentive to “the public good” than Republicans, but even they are deeply influenced by corporate interests which, while not wiping out their support of various programs or efforts, does often weaken the programs’ effectiveness by lessening their impact on corporations and the corresponding protection afforded the public.

While the influence of corporations has been a recurring issue during our history, it is only in the post-WWII era … remember President Eisenhower’s admonition to beware the growth and influence of the military-industrial complex … and even more so beginning with the Reagan years that corporate influence has become so predominant as to render our representative democracy to a large extent illusion.

To understand the terrible human cost of this development, let’s look at some examples of both domestic and foreign policy.  (Although the Declaration of Independence only deals with the relationship between the American government and its people, these same principles should govern foreign policy decisions by government because ultimately the people are affected.  And also because this is what we say we stand for.)

The most horrendous example in recent foreign policy was of course the Iraq war.  Although the talk was to save U.S. citizens from Saddam’s missiles and the Iraqi people from his tyranny, the reality was that the invasion of Iraq was to enhance corporate interests by gaining control of Iraqi oil and establish a friendly base in that economically and militarily strategic part of the Middle East.  But when we left Iraq, not only had we not gained our corporate and geopolitical goals, but we left a people who were worse off in almost every aspect than they were under Saddam.  

Perhaps worst of all was the impact on our own people.  The war created another generation of severely damaged, both physically and psychologically, young American men and women.  And it had placed such a burden on this country’s finances that it made future needed investment in our people and in our infrastructure almost impossible.

A more recent example where the welfare of a foreign people was not the concern is Syria.  The U.S. has long wanted to be rid of Assad in Syria.  Not for any concern for the welfare of the Syrian people, but because during the cold war and its aftermath, Syria under Assad was in the Russian sphere of influence and not friendly disposed to American interests, both corporate and geopolitical.  So when the rebellion started, we gladly lent some aid, even though the fight was again not so much to better life for the Syrian people but to change who or what group was in power and control.  Certainly, the Syrian people have done nothing but suffer during this rebellion because no one on either of the various sides really has had any concern for their welfare.  

True, as regards the American people, the Syrian conflict has not had much impact because the U.S. does not have boots on the ground and the cost of our “aid” has been relatively modest.  It appears the government has at least temporarily learned the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan.  And, we have accepted almost no Syrian immigrants, which is a matter I will not go into here.  That burden has been left to Europe.  But the policy approach to the extended Syrian conflict has nevertheless been an unmitigated human disaster.

Domestically, while the impact of a decision-making process concerned more with corporate geopolitical interests than with the welfare of the people has had effects arguably not as dramatic or violent as these foreign policy examples, the effects have been in other ways even more devastating for the American people.

The two domestic examples I will site are the background and aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the politics of transportation policy/energy policy/global warming.  Since the Reagan years, when government was declared to be the problem not the solution, there had been a steady increase in the deregulation of business, which regulation had been put in place to begin with to protect the people.  But regulation interfered with business and their profits, and so it almost became un-American.  

One of the hallmarks of deregulation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prevented banks from having both banking and investment operations.  Glass-Steagall was passed during the Depression in an effort to prevent banks from diverting bank assets into speculative operations, to keep them free of the manipulative methods and volatility of the investment market … for the good of the people.  Banks had long chafed under these restrictions, and under the leadership of Republican Senator Phil Gramm the act was repealed and the legislation was signed into law by President Clinton, who had many Wall Street advisors surrounding him, in addition to having received massive amount of campaign donations from Wall Street.

The result was the development by the biggest banks of a whole host of unscrupulous and manipulative investment strategies that benefited their bottom line and amassed huge wealth but screwed the public, even including at times their own customers.  When the bubble inevitably burst, several banks and the economy came crashing down and would have entered a severe depression, were it not for the government bail-outs.

Now one might have hoped that in the aftermath of such clear unethical behavior the government would reimpose strict rules on investment banks.  But even with a Democratic-controlled Congress in the Obama’s administration’s first 2 years, it was a fight to get the Dodd-Frank Act passed, and in the end it was not as strong as it could or should have been because of Democrats’ desire to not “unduly” harm banking interests.  The Act has been further weaken by prolonged fights over implementing regulations which have also turned out often to be far less strict than they should have been.

As for the interrelated policies regarding transportation, energy, and global warming, corporations have again been in control.  Transportation policy has always been a function of what is best for those being regulated (auto manufacturers, railroads, airlines), not the people.  The result is a terrible transportation system which is outdated, environmentally inefficient and provides bad service to the public.  Energy policy likewise has been a creature of corporate wishes, for the most part.  Under Bush II, Vice President Cheney even took the unbelievably bold public move of convening a meeting of energy execs to devise the administration’s energy policy.  No one representing the public was present.  The result not surprisingly was a policy which did not protect the interests of the public nor did it even give a nod towards the issue of global warming.

With regard to global warming itself, I will only say that while there has been to-date a confluence of corporate opposition and, given our addiction to cheap energy, people opposition to necessary measures, there is no doubt in my mind that even had there been a strong and vocal majority in favor of such measures, the corporate world still would have managed to water down almost anything that passed.

As I have said at the conclusion of many prior posts, our system of representative democracy is broken.  The reasons are various, but certainly the outsized influence of money and corporations on policy is a major factor.  The system can only be fixed, and the people’s welfare be protected, with a soft revolution in who has power in Congress.

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.

Rescuing American Democracy

A healthy democracy depends on a large percentage of the electorate voting and on the voting outcome being the result of a debate on issues and policies.  Our democracy is far from healthy on both these fronts. (I know there are other problems, but those are not within the purview of this post.  See, for example, "The Value of Differing Opinions," 1/4/13.)

In the US, voter turnout is notoriously low even in presidential election years compared with other developed countries.  (The US rate was recently 62%, well below the average of 70% and the top country, Australia, with 95%.)  Certainly, some eligible citizens choose not to get registered and vote.  But much of the low voter turnout results not from choice but from obstacles to voting, which belie the principle of “one man, one vote” and dilutes the participatory nature of our democracy.

A major obstacle in the U.S. is the day selected for elections.  In most countries, election day is on a Sunday, making it easier for people to vote.  In those countries that vote on a weekday, many declare election day a national holiday in order to make it easier for people to vote.  

In the US, of course, voting is on a Tuesday; it is not a national holiday; and voter turnout is shamefully low.  There is thus a nascent movement afoot to have federal elections on the first weekend in November.  As stated in a New York Times op ed piece, “Our current system penalizes single parents, people working two jobs, and those who have to choose between getting a paycheck and casting a ballot. Two weekend days of voting means those working families would have a greater chance of making it to the polls.”

But short of making such a change, it has been generally accepted for several decades that voting should be encouraged by making it as easy as possible to both register and vote.  These efforts have recognized that many people need expanded hours and early voting to have effective access to the polls because of their jobs.  

Recent efforts by Republican-controlled state legislatures to restrict early voting and expanded hours thus attack the principle of “one man, one vote.”  The same is true of laws that require photo IDs.  Both of these efforts make voting more difficult, especially for the working poor.  Voting is an essential right of citizenship; no unnecessary obstacle should be placed on that right.  

The primary concept behind the Constitutional right of free speech and its importance to the functioning of our democracy is the concept of a “marketplace of ideas.”  For this marketplace to function properly, the consumer’s choices should be made based on the quality of the competing ideas not on the marketing effect caused by unequal funding of campaigns.

Since we have never had public financing of campaigns, the unequal impact of money on the marketing effect has always been problematic.  But in recent years, the Supreme Court has struck down even the meagre laws we had attempting to restrict the amount of money given to campaigns by an individual and the amount of money corporations can spend on campaign and issue ads on the basis that such laws are an unconstitutional abridgment of the right to free speech.  

These rulings have resulted in exactly what was feared … an avalanche of corporate and big donor (and thus primarily conservative) dollars in an attempt to influence the outcome of elections, not by virtue of the quality of their ideas but the overwhelming volume of marketing.  This makes the marketplace of ideas totally dysfunctional.

It also dilutes the concept of “one man, one vote.”  If one takes the concept seriously, it necessitates not just that no person’s actual vote counts more than another’s, it means that no person’s voice counts more than another’s …  at least not because of the amount of money a person has.  Because if it does, if money talks in elections, then a relatively small body of people and corporations have a much greater voice in the election and thus often the outcome of an election than the general voting populace.  Obviously, money doesn’t always ensure winning.  But it sure helps.  This is contrary to the egalitarian nature of our democratic principles.

For this reason, we should have public financing of elections with all candidates having the same amount of money to spend and with all outside advertising, whether on issues or candidates, prohibited within a certain time period of elections.

But the proper functioning of the marketplace of ideas requires more than equal time (a concept in broadcasting which unfortunately has been discarded).  It requires the absence of lies and deceit.  

I know the theory is that lies will be exposed in the give and take of the marketplace and so will not give the perpetrator an advantage.  However, in our viral instant communication age, the fact is that a falsehood once cleverly spoken attains so much currency that it is virtually impossible for the victim to recover, to effectively counter the lie and render it harmless.

What we therefore need is a “Truth in Political Advertising” law.  See my very first post, “Truth in Politics: De-Frauding American Politics,” 2/1/11.

There is nothing more important to the continued healthy functioning of our democracy than that we have an informed electorate, that a large percentage of the electorate votes, and that no one has a greater voice in the outcome of an election by virtue of the amount of money he (or a corporation) spends.  Laws need to be passed to protect and improve the process.

Schools As the Educator of Citizens

What is the function of a public school system?  Generally people would say that the function of a school is to teach children the practical skills they will need in order to maximize their opportunities in their work lives ... as one used to say, the three “R’s”: reading, riting, and rithmetic.

And while that remains a critically important function, one in which many schools, especially inner city schools, fail terribly, there is another equally important function on which the future of our democracy depends: preparing students to be good citizens.  

What does it mean to be a good citizen?  It means to be committed to the American social contract ... that with the benefits of citizenship comes a shared responsibility for the welfare of the nation and of our fellow citizens, each according to his means.  We meet that responsibility in many ways, one of which is paying taxes to support the government in its work to protect the public good and work towards ensuring equality of opportunity for all, as promised in the Declaration of Independence.  This is not a conservative or liberal statement, it is the essence of the American view of citizenship, democracy, and the role of government.

There have always been differences between Republicans and Democrats on how government should perform this role and how large a part government should take.  But there has never before in modern times been disagreement between the parties in the essence of the American social contract and the role of government.  The social contract is apolitical.  It has been supported by all administrations since President Teddy Roosevelt.

But that changed with the election of Ronald Reagan and the Republicans who have followed him, first by turning the government more into an enabler of the rich rather than a protector of the public good and most recently by an almost complete renunciation of the role of government in ensuring equal opportunity.  As Republicans have said, “If you fail, it’s your own fault.”  Period.

The issues of citizenship and the social contract do not, however, just apply to people with  means. The poor as well have responsibilities.  One responsibility that applies to both the poor and those with means is to obey the law, to not abuse or injure their fellow citizens.  Whether it's the poor drug-addict who steals, even from his family, to support his habit, or the investment banker who acts in conscious disregard of the impact of his actions on his fellow citizens to support his "money habit," both actions are equally unethical and contrary to the social contract.

Schools need to address the issue of citizenship, and obviously in an apolitical way.  Schools should teach courtesy, respect, ethics, and shared responsibility, while pointing out how conservatives and liberals have often disagreed on how these values should be implemented.

If we want the future of America to be strong, then the people, the body politic, and the economy of the United States must be strong.  And it will only remain strong if its citizens are committed to their country and their fellow citizens, and if we have, not just a thriving elite class, but a thriving middle class and a diminishing number of poor.

American Exceptionalism - The Myth Exploded, Part II

In a previous post, I discussed why American exceptionalism is a myth ... that the data show clearly that Americans are not better off than those of other developed countries in the areas of health, education, income equality, social mobility, and equal opportunity.  The promise of the Declaration of Independence has not been realized by large segments of America’s citizenry.

Another way in which American exceptionalism presents itself is in our undying belief that our system of government, democracy, is the best system of governance in the world and that all people should live in a democracy and experience its benefits.  Connected to this is our belief that from a geopolitical perspective, a government will more likely be our ally if it is a democracy than if it is not.

In the cases of Russia and Iraq we see the absolute fallacy of this reasoning.  Russia was a Communist dictatorship.  It was the evil empire, our blood enemy for half a decade.  But for all the failures of the Soviet Union’s Communist system regarding the lack of freedom of its citizens and the weakness of its economy, as well as of course the horrors of Stalinism, it provided important benefits to its citizens ... order, security, jobs, normalcy, a sense of place.  

After the fall of Communism and the overnight transformation of Russia into a democracy, everything fell apart.  There was no more authority and Russia became a gangster state, overrun by criminals, thieving oligarchs, and politicians whose only concept of governance was personal enrichment and absolute control.  Far from becoming an ally of ours, Russia has remained a thorn in our side, although a less powerful one.

Iraq was without question under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein a terrible place ... at least if you happened to be viewed as an enemy of his.  But even more so than in Russia, Iraqis benefitted from order, security, jobs, and a sense of place.  There was no freedom, but people were able to live their lives for the most part in an atmosphere of normalcy.  

After the American invasion and the introduction of democracy, Iraq fell apart as a country.  It became instead a place of warring factions, continual violent conflict, with no security, no order, no normalcy, and not many jobs.  America’s experiment in exporting democracy to Iraq has been a dismal failure.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, and every person on earth should be able to live in an atmosphere of free speech, religion, politics, etc.  But if you talk to people on the street, what is more important than freedom is order, security, normalcy, jobs, and a sense of place.   In some cases, notably in most of the former Eastern bloc Communist countries, the introduction of democracy has been beneficial to its citizens.  But in many others, we have seen the introduction of democracy in a country fail miserably to benefit the people.

The United States government must learn, as it apparently hasn’t, that for a democracy to function as intended and deliver its promised benefits requires a combination of societal background elements.  For example, if, as in Iraq and many other countries, you have a population divided by religion, ethnicity, or tribe with a history of violence in dealing with conflict, the implementation of democracy will be almost impossible.  If you have a country, such as Russia, in which the populace has gotten used to and wants a strong authoritarian government, democracy will produce the same.  If you have a country, such as the Gaza Strip and Egypt, in which Islamic fundamentalist forces have a strong presence, democracy will produce a government of that nature.  Note:  Recently Secretary of State John Kerry said that the military coup in Egypt deposing the lawfully elected president was restoring democracy; is there something I’m missing here?

In many cases, democracy is not the form of government which will best meet the needs of the people for order, security, jobs, normalcy, and a sense of place.  I remember the point made in a Political Science class in college that often countries need a transition government, such as a benevolent authoritarian government, to allow the necessary elements for a functioning democracy to develop.  In other cases, the democracy it championed may turn out to bite the U.S., but that makes it no less legitimate.

So both from a humanitarian standpoint and a geopolitical perspective, the exporting of democracy is of questionable value except in carefully considered circumstances.  The United States should both have other options that it is open to and when democracy produces an undesirable result from a geopolitical perspective, as in Egypt and as in Chile in the 1970s, it needs to respect the legitimate expression of the wishes of the citizens of that country.

The Value of Differing Opinions - A Way Back from the Breach

Our democracy and the right of free speech is based on the value the founding fathers placed on differing opinions.  It is by the airing of differing opinions that people are either  persuaded or not, or a compromise is found which while not giving either side everything it wanted provides a way for each side to feel good about the outcome.  But ultimately, of course, the majority rules, which means that there will in most political matters be a large percentage of people and their elected representatives who are not happy with the result.  Such is life in a democracy.

For such a system to work, for our democracy and representative government to function, it is of critical importance that even though people and their representatives may disagree with others as to a whole raft of issues, that, as lawyers say, “people agree to disagree,” that they understand that “reasonable minds may differ.”  Which is to say that each side respects that the other side came to its opinions honestly and with reason ... they just don’t agree.

When, however, people become so convinced of the rightness of their opinions that they become self-righteous and ideological in their approach to issues ... that is they feel that they are not just right and the other side wrong but that the other side is somehow evil or harmful ... then there can be no compromise, there can be no reasoned discussion, there can be no art of persuasion and the process of our democratic government breaks down.  And that is the state in which we have found ourselves these past few years.

How have we come to this point?  Why has a system that has operated for more than 200 years, with the exception of the Civil War, with widely divergent points of view and often hot tempers reached the current impasse?  Really, what we are seeing now in the posture of the two opposing sides is most akin to that which our country experienced over the issue of slavery and to a certain extent the civil rights movement.  And that’s disturbing.

On the issue of slavery and civil rights, those in the south felt that their whole way of life, their whole world would cease to be if African-Americans were given their freedom and the same rights as white people.  And they were right.  Their world did change.  But life went on, and white southerners changed too; they adapted to the new reality.  And they found once they got over themselves that much about their world did not change.

The same kind of reality check is needed in the current situation in order to progress from the current Congressional gridlock.  Both sides ... which is to say the liberal left and the far right ... need to understand that life will go on, that the country will prosper, that they and their constituents will be ok, even if their view of government does not totally win the day.  This is surely an instance where there is merit on both sides.  

For example, as staunchly liberal as I am, I get livid when I get emails and petitions, or read articles, in which liberal groups refuse to give an inch on entitlement (Social Security and Medicare) spending.  I’m sorry, but the nation’s debt and deficit are real problems and we just do not have sufficient revenue to continue past policies unaltered as our age demographics change.  

There are ways to cut spending without harming those who are truly dependent on these benefits, and that’s what Democrats must make sure of.  As for the starting age of Medicare, that used to be of critical importance because of the cost of medical insurance.  Now with the new Health Care Law, insurance available through the insurance exchanges for those of limited means will probably not be much more than what one currently pays out of Social Security for Plan B.  So it should not be the critical issue it once was.  There’s also a painless opportunity to raise revenues for SS by ending the salary cap regarding the application of the SS tax.

But how do we get both the public and their representatives to get down from these barricades they’ve erected?  How do we get them to go back to the day when each side respected the other side?

As a Buddhist, I find the answer in the teachings of the Buddha.  The Buddha taught that all things are empty of intrinsic existence, that they are of dependent origination.  What that means is that every thought we have, every opinion we hold, all our perspectives are a function of our learned experience, whether within our family, our peer group, or the larger culture.  

As a proposed statement of fact, this statement is unassailable.  And when one truly accepts that fact, there is no way that one can say any more with certitude that I am right and the others are wrong.  Even if one is Born Again, your opinions are based on the teachings of your peer group, your minister, and they in turn were learned from someone else.  They are as dependent as the opinions of a secular humanist atheist.  And if anyone has the hubris to say that God has spoken to them and this is what God says, beware!

There should be only a few universal rules in coming to a compromise on issues.  First, do unto others as you would have them do unto you; love and respect your neighbor as you do yourself.  Second, do no harm to those who are vulnerable and need the protection of the state.  Third, the social contract must be honored by all citizens, part of which entails that those who are better off have a social responsibility as citizens to help those who are not well off ... that’s what progressive taxation is all about.  Fourth, there can be no sacred cows ... neither military spending nor entitlements.

Application of these rules would arrive at numerous ways to cut the deficit and slow the growth of the national debt through a combination of raised revenues and reduced spending without harming either individuals in need, the strength of the economy, or our national security.

A Troubled Republic On This July 4th

As we celebrate this July 4^th, the state of our republic is troubled. Two core principles of American democracy are under attack … the role of government and the democratic process. And the attack is cynically being waged under the banner of protecting our system and our rights from the power of government.

As we all know, the Declaration of Independence’s most famous line is, “All men are created equal,” and that they have “unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Less commonly known are the words that follow … “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” In other words, the role of government is to act in a way so as to secure the rights of the people to equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Both of these thoughts were truly revolutionary in a world where governments were in the hands of and benefited solely those with power and wealth. This new view of the role of government and the equality of all people was the cornerstone of the American republic, despite the fact that it would take almost a century for African-Americans to become legally equal and another 50 years for women.

Over the course of the last century, after suffrage was made universal and all citizens were finally deemed to have the rights embodied in the Declaration, the role of government in securing those unalienable rights for all evolved of necessity to helping the less fortunate through a variety of government programs.  Prominent among them have been universal education, Social Security, labor laws, government welfare, and Medicare/Medicaid.

Without these programs, government recognized that the legal equality of all people was meaningless. People needed to be given real equal opportunity to pursue their rights. Both Republicans and Democrats agreed on this basic principle, but would of course regularly disagree on the particulars of government programs to secure that equality.

With regards to the process of our democracy since universal suffrage, it can best be summarized by the dictum, “One man, one vote.” This means that every citizen of voting age should be able to vote and that each person’s vote should count the same.

Viewed in this light, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United makes a farce of our democratic process by caring only for form, not substance. If those with wealth and power have the ability through television advertising to in effect control an election because of the disproportionate influence of such advertising, then those with wealth and power have achieved their aims through the back door.  Who votes is of little consequence if the real power lies elsewhere.

Only if candidates are on an equal or relatively equal financial footing can there be the fair contest of ideas that is essential to our democracy and to the efficacy of freedom of speech.

The health of our economy and the business community is of vital importance to the health of our country and the welfare of its citizens. But we have long since passed the day when one would say, “What’s good for General Motors, is good for the country.” The same criticism holds true for the radical pro-business, anti-government policies of the Koch brothers, the Tea Party, and their Republican allies. Our democracy depends on a balance between private rights, the public good, and government.

We are as Lincoln said, a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Let us not pervert that heritage by making our system a government “of big business, by big business, and for big business.” Let us learn from the past, not return to it.