American political leaders and average Americans too take great pride in trumpeting the United States as the greatest country in the world. We are the strongest, the richest; we have the best medical system; we have the best educational system; and the list goes on and on.
But are we the greatest country? While it is incontrovertible that we are the strongest country in the world militarily, and that we are the richest country in the world in terms of the size of our economy, when it comes to the health and welfare of the American people we are far from the greatest, as the data below will show. And I believe it is in the ability of all Americans to pursue the American promise of “equality” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that our greatness is best measured.
You might ask, “Why bother exposing this myth?” Because we have many problems in this country which seem to be intractable, largely because people ... both most leaders and the average American ... refuse to acknowledge the facts, let alone view them as presenting a serious problem that must be addressed. Most people are so caught up in how great we are and how good life in this country is that we have come to believe the illusion and cannot see the gritty reality which is quite different.
Only when our leaders and the public are able to see and admit these significant problems that limit our greatness will the political will exist to do what is necessary to fix them. And they can be fixed. We have the riches and the knowledge to do all that needs to be done.
In the data below, the United States is compared with the rest of the developed world, and at times the entire world. The areas I will examine ... health, education, income inequality, violence/security, social mobility, and equal opportunity ... are essential to the ability of our country to live up to the promises made in the Declaration of Independence and truly be the great nation we aspire to.
Health: Despite having by far the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms on most measures of the quality of health care. Looking at quality of care, access to care, efficiency, equity, and living healthy lives, the US ranks last or next-to-last when compared with Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Most troubling is the failure of the US in the area of health outcomes ... people leading healthy lives.
The summary table below says it all:
AUS CAN GER NETH NZ UK US
Overall Ranking (2010) 3 6 4 1 5 2 7
Quality of Care 4 7 5 2 1 3 6
Access 6.5 5 3 1 4 2 6.5
Efficiency 2 6 5 3 4 1 7
Equity 4 5 3 1 6 2 7
Long, Healthy Lives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Health Exp/Capita (2007) $3357 $3895 $3588 $3837 $2454 $2992 $7290
This data, which comes from a report by The Commonwealth Fund, is consistent with the findings of other reports and surveys. For example, a recent report sponsored by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine compared the US with 17 other developed countries, and the US came in last. The report shows a “strikingly consistent and pervasive” pattern of poorer health at all stages of life, from infancy to old age. Further, the report shows that even white, well-off Americans live sicker and die sooner than similarly situated people elsewhere.
Education: The US fares somewhat better in education comparisons, in that it was not dead last. This is the one area regarding which the media will occasionally ring the alarm bell that “we are falling behind.” In data comparing the G-8 countries, American 15-years old come in 3rd in Reading, 6th in Math, and 5th in Science. In looking at high school graduation rates, the US and Canada tie for the lowest rate, 76%. The other 6 G-8 countries range from 85% (Italy) to 97% (Germany). This is a huge failure of our system.
Income Inequality: In a report on income inequality in 17 developed countries based on various studies, the United States had the greatest income inequality. The top 1% of income earners accounted for 17.4% of US income while at the other end, in the Netherlands, the top 1% accounted for only 5.4% of income. In looking at World Bank figures for the entire world, with the exception of China and Hong Kong, only undeveloped or developing countries, mostly in Africa and Central and South America, had greater income inequality than the US.
And income inequality is been increasing steadily in the US over the past 50 years. For example, in 1949, the top 1% accounted for 11% of income, similar to or less than many developed countries at that time. But for 10 of the 17 countries, income inequality has actually decreased in the past 50 years while those that have increased have experienced a much lower percentage increase than the US.
In looking at total net worth, the top 1% in the US accounted for 34% of net worth, the top 10% accounted for 70%, while the bottom 80% accounted for only 15%. According to a UN report on the distribution of household wealth worldwide, only 4 countries in the world had greater inequality in household wealth than the US!
Violence/Security: In 2003, there were 30,000 fire-arm related deaths in the US (homicides and suicides). According to an American Bar Association report, the rate of death from firearms in the US is eight times higher than in other industrialized countries. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the fire-arm related death rate among US children younger than 15 is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The US has the highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations.
In a UN report comparing the intentional homicide rate (i.e. excluding suicide) worldwide, the US at 4.8 per 100,000 people was the highest for a developed country. The next highest was 2.2 for Finland. Germany, Italy, and France were 0.8, 0.9, and 1.1 respectively. The United Kingdom was 1.2.
It would seem that our vaunted right to purchase firearms of all sorts has helped to create a more violent, less secure environment for Americans, rather than a less violent, more secure one as argued by gun proponents. Interestingly, in a recent article regarding the Texas District Attorney and his wife who were murdered in their home, it was reported that he had 60-72 guns of all types planted all over the house and that both he and his wife were expert at using them. But apparently all those guns were to no avail.
Social Mobility: America has always prided itself as being the land of opportunity. Over the years, especially the late 1800s and early 1900s, tens of millions of immigrants came to the US because of the American dream. And indeed, while data for that period is not available, certainly anecdotal stories of the upward mobility of immigrants abound. Surveys show that Americans still think of their country as being a meritocracy; that is, if you have what it takes and you are hardworking, you will succeed.
But the data from two recent studies show that the image is far from true. Yes, there is still social mobility, but the US is hardly the leader in this area. In a study by the PEW Economic Mobility Project of 10 developed countries, the US had a lower generational income mobility than that of the other countries. That means that a child’s income (as an adult) was more a function of his father’s income. Likewise, in a study that compared 6 developed countries regarding the likelihood of children remaining in the same income quintile as their their father, 42% of American children in the poorest quintile remained in that quintile, a rate of poverty persistence far greater than the 30% in the United Kingdom and the 25-28% range found in the Scandinavian countries. Likewise in looking at the percentage who moved from the lowest quintile to the highest quintile, the US rate was 7.9%, while the rate in the other 5 countries was 11 - 14%.
Equal Opportunity: The United States has many laws guaranteeing equal opportunity, meaning freedom from discrimination. But even if those laws worked perfectly and there was no more discrimination in this country, which of course is far from the case, there would still be a significant lack of equal opportunity because your parents’ income usually determines where you live and the quality of education that you receive, which in turn determines the range of your opportunity. Given the high income inequality in the US, that means that true equal opportunity is really a phantom in our country.
While this lack of equal opportunity is not just a function of unequal funding, legal and legislative efforts to alter this dynamic by changing the way in which schools are financed ... equally by the state rather than unequally by school districts ... have not gained traction anywhere because of the opposition of those who fare better under the current system. While there is no comparative data on this specific issue with other countries, the data on social mobility reflect this reality.
In summary, the data show that the United States has the worst health system in the developed world, even if it is by far the most expensive. It has a mediocre educational system compared with other developed countries. It has the highest income inequality in the developed world and almost the highest wealth inequality in the entire world. It has the highest rate by far of people dying from firearms in the developed world. The social upward mobility of Americans from generation to generation is now significantly lower than that in other developed countries. And equal opportunity is not available because lower income Americans receive an inferior education.
This data is cause for our political leaders and the public to stop and consider what has caused these problems to develop and what needs to be done to return America to the path of greatness. It is not just a matter of throwing more money at a problem. Each of these problems reflects structural defects in our system that must be corrected. The American people are hurting. Further, the combined impact of these problems will lead, if not addressed, to a steadily weaker America on the world stage.
Let me start by saying that this is not about taking away your rights to hunt or defend your family. This is not about in any way infringing on your legitimate rights to own guns and use them. What this is solely about is trying to stop the epidemic of gun violence against innocent people that is plaguing our nation, causing untold grief to tens of thousands of families each year.
Gun violence is not limited to the mass shootings that get national attention. While such events are horrific, a far greater problem exists impacting large numbers of innocent Americans. In 2010, for example, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans. Roughly 20,000 of these were suicides; the rest were intentional homicides. Only 5% were accidental shootings. In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
Recently, I learned of a particularly moving example of gun violence. A young man who was severely sight-disabled went outside with his guide dog to try and see a comet that was passing in the night sky. While he was outside, a man leaving a neighboring unit after an argument with his girlfriend shot someone on the stairs. Upon hearing the shot, the young man started to hurry back to his apartment. Before he could get back inside, the distraught gunman shot him in the back and killed him. He died on his kitchen floor, his guide dog howling beside him.
In the face of all of this unnecessary loss of innocent life and family grief, how can you be against reasonable efforts aimed to lessen gun violence while not infringing on your legitimate right to own firearms for hunting and self-defense?
Let’s look at the NRA’s arguments and your fears. The NRA’s main arguments boil down to this: No measure reducing access to guns is acceptable because any such measure is a first step by the government and gun opponents to ultimately removing guns from private possession.
This is patently nonsense. There isn’t a politician alive, nor any but a small fringe of the gun control advocacy community, that wants to do anything more than control access to guns for the reasons I’ve stated without disturbing legitimate ownership and use for hunting and self-defense.
If this is the case, then why, you may ask, does the NRA, an organization you trust, take such a broad position? The answer is that the NRA, which began as an organization of sportsmen, hunters, and gun collectors, has morphed into the prime spokesman and defender of the gun industry.
Why? More than half of the NRA’s funding now comes from the gun industry, rather than from the dues of its members. And because the NRA can say that it speaks for gun owners ... a broad-based group of Americans ... it is the NRA who is front and center after each gun incident and in lobbying Congress, rather than the trade association of the gun industry. And the gun industry is, not surprisingly, against any form of regulations that reduces sales and impacts their profits.
That is why the NRA is against a ban on assault-weapons. These types of rifles and guns are not used by hunters or in self-defense. But they are a major revenue source for the gun industry.
That is why the NRA is against a ban on magazines holding large numbers (100) of bullets. Again, such magazines are not used by hunters or in self-defense.
That is why the NRA is against mandating background checks in all sales and improving the nature of the checks. These would in no way hinder the purchase by hunters or your average home-owner, but it would dampen sales to criminals and mentally ill people who should not have guns, thereby decreasing sales and impacting profits.
That is why the NRA responded to the Newtown, CT massacre by saying that all schools should have armed guards. This would require a huge increase in the sale of firearms to local government and thus benefit the industry’s profits.
Every position the NRA takes is in support of the gun industry, NOT in support of the sportsmen, hunters, and gun collectors who they claim to speak for. But it is you, the NRA members, who have taken the public relations hit for being unreasonable on this subject, not the gun industry.
The time has come for gun owners to realize that they have been used and manipulated by the NRA and the gun industry for its own purposes. You must speak clearly and loudly that you do not support the NRA’s positions and you are in favor of reasonable measures that reduce gun violence while protecting your legitimate right to own and use firearms for hunting, sport, and self-defense.
Gun violence can never be eliminated because, as the NRA is fond of saying, “people do kill people.” People who legitimately own guns will on occasion end up using them in a way other than intended. But the extent of violence can be greatly reduced through reasonable, effective laws.
Please support the modest gun control measures that are before Congress. Call your Congressman today.
In the aftermath of the massacre at Newtown, CT most of the discussion has centered around how to lessen the risk of such events happening through better gun control measures, including improved data bases to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed. While these are important measures that need to be taken, they avoid the real issue ... why is it that so many people are killed in the United States each year by guns.
In addition to the well-publicized random mass shootings, there is a far greater problem out there. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans. Roughly 20,000 of these were suicides; the rest were intentional homicides. Only 5% were accidental shootings. In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
These numbers are huge. They evidence a significant problem in the psychological stability of Americans. I include in this group not just those who perpetrate mass shootings or commit suicide, but also those who commit intentional homicide. One does not kill another person if one is emotionally stable.
But the vastness of America’s psychological problem is far greater than evidenced by gun deaths. If we look at the extent of domestic violence, the U.S. Department of Justice estimates that between 960,000 and 3 million people are physically abused by their spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend per year. Other sources report estimates ranging between 600,000 to 6 million women and 100,000 to 6 million men per year. Even taking the more conservative DOJ figures, the problem is serious.
There are no statistics for those who suffer verbal/mental rather than physical abuse. But as anyone who has observed friends and family, as well as strangers, the numbers if they were available would be frightening.
Whether someone verbally abuses a spouse or child, or physically abuses them, or commits suicide, murder, or a mass shooting is a matter of degree, both as to the severity and nature of their psychological disturbance. But in most cases, whether the disturbance is mild or severe, the root of the disturbance is insecurity.
What has caused this epidemic of insecurity? The cause lies in the simple fact that children, spouses, parents, and siblings are typically not loved unconditionally, or certainly do not feel so loved. To most people reading this, this will sound like rubbish for a variety of reasons. First, people think that it is quite right not to love people unconditionally; the very idea sounds like nonsense. Second, it sounds like the ultimate example of permissiveness, which rightfully would be viewed negatively.
The first reaction arises because most of us have no experience with, no role models for, unconditional love. We have not experienced it ourselves, either from our parents or spouses, nor have we seen that trait in others. A recent cartoon in the New Yorker showed a mother with her arm around her young son, saying, ““Heavens no, sweetie – my love for you has tons of conditions” Take away the hyperbole and that states the basic fact of much child-rearing, at least in America (I can’t speak to other countries), and not just currently but probably for a good century and more.
This is not a judgment of parents. Most parent are good people who would never do anything intentionally to harm their child. But parents are people who are a function of their own upbringing and learned experience. They have their own fears, frustrations, angers, and desires. And they see things through the lens of that experience and those emotions, which in turn impacts how they interact with their children.
And so, as children we have been exposed to conditional love at home and conditional respect among our peers. The result is an epidemic of insecurity. And not just among those who receive negative “reviews” from family and peers. Those who get positive feedback are also insecure because they realize that their approval is based on their status at that point in time; should that change ... whether it’s ones looks, ones grades, ones wealth, ones physical ability, ones talent ... they will lose their position at the top of the social pecking order. They know that their approval is very conditional and the fact that they have so much to lose makes them even more insecure, which they mask with huge egos and bravado. This is what accounts for so many people at the top being imperious and often belittling others ... whether it’s “mean girls” in school or financial titans.
As to the second reaction, it stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of unconditional love. Unconditional love is a Buddhist concept that pretty much means what it seems to ... that one loves someone, whether child or spouse, for who that person is. And so regardless what that person does, they are still loved because it does not change who they are. An example of this are parents who accept a child who turns out to be gay because it doesn’t change who the child is in their eyes and thus doesn’t change their love, as opposed to those parents who ostracize such children because they have committed an abomination or at least unpardonable social behavior.
What it does not mean is that one does not provide direction or criticism to a child. An important factor in the development of a child is receiving direction on a large variety of matters from its parents. To love unconditionally means to provide that direction or criticism within the context of such love and when one gives it, to couch it in such a way, to use such words and tone of voice, so that it is clear to the child that the direction or criticism does not impact the unconditional love that they are given. If one loves a child unconditionally, one never yells at a child or calls them “bad” or other negative labels. That would be an example of not speaking with loving kindness, which is the opposite of unconditional love.
As an aside I should note that unconditional love also does not mean that if one finds oneself in an abusive relationship that one stays in it. One may have unconditional love and compassion for the abusive spouse/partner, but if your mental or physical well-being is threatened, one should put as much physical and legal distance as necessary between yourself and the abuser to protect yourself, and if you have children, your children.
Assuming that to some degree at least you agree with my assessment, you may well ask how this problem can be addressed? If generations of insecure people are raising insecure children in a vicious cycle, how can it be broken? The answer is by making prospective and existing parents aware of this problem and encouraging them to take steps to both raise a happy and secure child and at the same time make their own lives better as well. Bit by bit we must start with individual parents and have the effect spread outward.
To that end I have written a book which has just been published, Raising a Happy Child. While based on Buddhist principles, the lessons it contains are applicable regardless of ones religious affiliation. It is available through www.ThePracticalBuddhist.com. as well as through the major online retailers and your local bookstore by special order. For more information about the book as well as the Table of Contents and sample text, go to the website.
Next, “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War.”
