Making the Titans of Finance and Industry Accept Social Responsibility

Why is our society, our world, ignoring the warnings of climate change, destroying our environment, creating ever-larger inequality even as more people are lifted out of poverty?  Why is it that the U.S. middle class, which used to be such a strong, vibrant element of our society has become weak and stagnant?

The reason for all of this lies not with the mass of people on this Earth, who have no or little control of anything, even in their own lives.   The reason lies with those with ultimate power – the corporate titans of finance and industry.   

It is they who decide what is in their corporation's best interest, which is what will make the most money in the short run, and implement that plan of action without any concern for the plan's impact on the public good or the welfare of their workers.  And it is they who largely determine the regulatory scope of government, regardless which Party is in power, and so they are in most critical areas effectively unregulated.   

This is not an indictment of capitalism, as I made clear in my post, "Is the Problem Capitalism or Our Society?"  Regardless the economic system, it is the holders of capital – whether they be aristocrats, political dictators (Communist, fascist, or otherwise), or corporate titans – that have determined the fate of their economies, their workers, and the general public.   It is thus instead an indictment of man-made society going back millennia. 

Until the dawn of the 20th century, those who controlled capital pretty much had their way.   Whether it was the robber barons of the industrial revolution or the aristocrats of the old social/political order, these people could do what they wanted and treat people, whether their workers or cottagers, as they wanted.  Income inequality was huge with the large mass of people being both poor and illiterate.   Slavery may have been the most egregious example of this system, but it was definitely part of the system. 

It was only with the ascendancy of Teddy Roosevelt, of all people – a wealthy Republican – that finally some people with political power felt the huge damage that those with unregulated power wreaked on the masses, while acquiring astronomical wealth.   And so the progressive era was born.   The trusts were broken up, anti-trust laws were passed, and workers were protected and empowered for the first time, both through protective laws as well as government support for the growth of labor unions.   This movement gained further momentum in the 30s because of people's reaction to capitalism during the Great Depression and the election of F.D.R. with his crusading New Deal. 

As a result, the middle class grew from a small segment at the turn of the 20th century (15 - 20%) to become the largest single bloc in the population (around 70%) and the backbone of the country's economic prosperity at its highpoint in the 1970s.  This increase came about because the lower working class had largely become middle class.   In 1970, 62% of the nation's aggregate income went to middle-class households, compared to 29% for upper-income households. 

Then Ronald Reagan was elected President and things started changing.   Central to that change was the famous Reagan line, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  

From that perspective, the dismantling of government regulations that had protected the public and workers began and gathered steam in the decades that followed.   Culminating perhaps most significantly in the repeal of the Steagall-Glass Act which was passed to regulate banks in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash.   

This repeal happened during an otherwise liberal Democratic administration (Clinton), but with wall street insiders in key cabinet positions and Republicans in control of both the House and Senate.   Efforts to reenact Steagall-Glass after the 2008 market crash and recession failed, as did efforts to regulate derivatives – all of this again under a Democratic administration with full control of Congress. 

The result of this disempowering of workers/empowering of corporations together with the forces of globalization, which began in the 1970s, resulted in the stagnation of worker's salaries.    While wages have risen (26%), their purchasing power has stayed the same during the 50 years between the 1970s and 2020; or said another way, salaries adjusted for inflation have remained the same.   While those in the top 1% rose 160% during the same period, unadjusted for inflation.

As a result of that stagnation together with many formerly middle-class workers falling back into the lower-class income category, the middle class in 2015 accounted for just under 50% of the population – a significant drop since the 70s – and accounted for only 43$ of the nation's aggregate income, down from 62% in 1970. 

The middle class was also the main victim of the finance industry's predatory lending schemes, made possible when Steagall-Glass was repealed, that were a major cause of the 2008 recession.   The recession cost the middle class not only jobs but also resulted in the foreclosure of millions of homes.   (I do not include the upper class as a main victim of the recession because although they lost heavily, they generally regained their wealth when the market rebounded.) 

Another measure of how the middle class have fared during this period is to look at income inequality.   One measure of this is that in 1929, the richest 0.1% of Americans held 25% of the country's wealth.   By the 1970s, that percentage had fallen to below 10%.   Over the past 40 years, it has again risen to around 20%.

We have gone back to the future, with those with the control of capital being largely unregulated.   Yes, we don't have child labor anymore and various other controls remain in place.   But so many have been weakened or repealed that corporations have been empowered to consider almost no interests other than their own greed.   Workers are no longer considered an asset to be nourished and grown but as a cost center to be controlled. 

Clearly, if left to their own devices, corporate leaders will not do what is in the best interest of anyone other than themselves.   They only act as responsible members of society when they are forced to by government laws. 

And so, in one post, "Toward a Reformed Capitalism," I urged the laws of incorporation be changed to force companies to consider their workers' interest as well as the public good.   Let me quote from that post:

"We must reexamine what a corporation is.  What is its function in our economy and society?

Corporations are a creature of the law.  Corporations are allowed the benefits of incorporation because they provide something of value … they are critical to the economic health of the country and of their workers.  They also thus meet a societal need.

So from a governmental/societal perspective, corporations exist to enhance the greater good.  Unfortunately, as we have seen repeatedly ever since the industrial revolution, corporations have been mostly intent on making money and so have done much that harms, that is not in keeping with, the greater good.  And typically with full knowledge of that harm.    And they have been abetted by the government's action or inaction.

The answer to this conundrum is to reform the laws under which corporations are organized by restructuring their governance.  The goal of this effort should be to make consideration of the greater good … the public interest as well as worker interest … an integral part of the corporate decision making process. "  Specific recommendations are made in the post. 

These recommendations are not unrealistic or totally novel.   Most countries in the EU require employee board-level representation.  They also require a number of "independent" directors; but these are not directors who are tasked with representing the public good, they are just tasked with preventing conflict of interest in decision making.   My recommendations go much further.

This will take strong political leadership and lock-step support from Democrats in Congress because this will certainly not be a bi-partisan effort, not in the current political climate. 

This may result in the end of corporations as we have known them, but they will still be strong and financially profitable.  As I noted in the post, this proposal does not in any way eliminate the profit motive in corporate decision making, nor the amount of profit they seek to make.   It just ensures that the public good and workers' interests are considered in the adoption of corporate plans, and so it will most likely impact the amount of profit.   

Republicans will scream, "socialism."  But this is not socialism in any form; government is not taking over the role of the private sector.   This is not even the government hovering over or involving itself in corporate decision making; it is just setting the law which corporations must follow.   

Clearly this is a change in the way things have been done.   But it is a change that is wholly in keeping with the reason why corporations are sanctioned by the government, why government gives corporations the benefits of incorporation.   And it is past due because of the havoc corporations have caused in the economy, the environment, and people's well-being due to the unregulated effect of corporate greed over the past four decades.   

It is important to note that in the period between the passage of Glass-Steagall in 1933 and its repeal in 1999, the U.S. suffered no major financial crisis – there were recessions but they were due to monetary policies or other factors.   Further, during the period of progressive corporate regulation and increasing government measures supporting low income families, income inequality decreased.   

Since the repeal of that act we have had a major financial crisis and economic downturn, major stuck market volatility.   That together with the decrease in regulation and lower-income supports since the 80s (pre-Biden) returned income inequality to its pre-Depression levels.   One measure of this is that in 1929, the richest 0.1% of Americans held 25% of the country's wealth.   By the 1970s, that percentage had fallen to below 10%.   Over the past 40 years, it has again risen to around 20%.

If we want to maintain a sound, stable economy and one that fosters greater income equality, then government must take this step to reform capitalism and our society. 

Making America Great Again? Trump Fails His Own Test

We of course are familiar with the Trump slogan and the red MAGA caps.  Trump certainly claims that he has.  But has anyone in print or otherwise bothered to systematically ask the question, “Has Trump made America great again?”  Not to my knowledge.  And so that is what this post will assess.

In doing so, I am not going to get into the philosophical discussion about what made America great or whether it was no longer great, as Trump claims, under Obama.  That’s another article.  This is just taking the phrase at its most simple, straight-forward Trumpian meaning.

Has America become stronger militarily?  Have we become stronger economically?  Have we become more respected among the world’s nations?  Have we become stronger geopolitically.  Has the average American citizen become better off financially, more secure?  Is the average American citizen closer to obtaining the Rights due him under the Constitution?  Is the average American citizen more physically secure now?

These are all stated components of Trump’s goal of making America great again.  Sadly, both for the country and for his followers, just the opposite has occurred in almost every area.  Trump has failed his own test.

Weaker Militarily:  While Trump has increased the Defense Department budget, military strength is only partly a numbers game.  It has more to do with effectively being able to deploy troops as needed and defeating the enemy.  While troops have been deployed effectively, though no better than before, our record of defeating the enemy has actually gotten worse.  Whether in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, or Iran, our position vis a vis the enemy has either weakened under Trump or stayed pretty much the same.  Trump’s bluster aside, we are not stronger militarily.

Weaker Economically:  Even before the pandemic we were not stronger economically.  The stock market may have been going gang-busters, but the economy was growing at a slow pace and the average American had not felt much of an improvement.  Yes, unemployment was down, but most of the new jobs created were lower paying than the ones that were lost.  And of course because of Trump’s disastrous handling of the coronavirus, his total lack of leadership, the American economy is now, despite the once-again soaring stock market, in a very weakened state.

Certainly on the world scene, we were even before the pandemic not stronger economically;  China is the big bully, and while Trump stood up to China, America lost more than it gained in the trade wars.  Since the pandemic, we are way behind other countries in economic recovery. 

Less Respected:  America has probably never been so little respected among the world’s nations as under Trump.  He is a laughing stock to most of the world, and by association, so is the country.  We are not even respected by our allies.  Trump’s failed response to the pandemic has made matters worse; the greatest nation in the world with its great health system and capacity is at it’s knees, the virus is winning.  It’s probably safe to say that we aren’t even feared by anyone, except in the sense that Trump is so unpredictable that he capable of doing almost anything if his ire is aroused.

Weaker Geopolitically:  Our strength and respect in the world militarily, economically, and politically is has made America strong geopolitically.  Under Trump, there can be no question that America is less strong geopolitically.  In addition to the factors already discussed above, Trump’s “America First” perspective has resulted in a shrinking of our presence and impact around the world, which has in turn made us weaker geopolitically.  We are no longer either in actuality or perception the leader of the “free” world.

Average American Weaker Financially:  Trump in his Inaugural address talked of the forgotten men and women who suffered greater economic inequality.  Yet as mentioned before, despite the lower unemployment rate before the pandemic hit, the average American was not stronger financially, was not more secure financially.  The huge increase in wealth resulting from the stock market boom and the bulk of benefit from Trump’s tax cuts went to the top layer of American society.  And now the pandemic has resulted in a huge downturn in the economy and with it the financial status of millions of unemployed American workers.

Average American’s Physical Security Not Improved:  Trump made a major issue out of what he saw as the crumbling physical security of the average American from crime, especially in our cities, and the threat to our physical security from illegal immigrants.  Again in his Inaugural address, he said that “this American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”  

While he has sent more money to the police, our security is pretty much as it was before Trump.  While Trump has enacted draconian measures against illegal and other immigrants, that has not improved our physical security.   The reason why nothing has really changed is that Trump does not understand and so has not addressed the real factors that continue to make crime a major issue in the inner city.

Average American Not Benefiting More From His Rights:  Despite all the fuss about the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms and the Right to Life, and in general talking about Rights in connection with the pandemic, we are further from our basic Rights now than previously.  The most essential element of our Constitutional rights is to be free from government intrusion, except when necessary to protect the greater good.  

But under Trump, an even greater percentage of our citizenry and many in the halls of government seem to have no concept of the greater good, of the American social contract.  It’s all about me, my rights.  And they’re angry about it.  There is a lack of understanding that no right, even the 1st Amendment, is absolute; the exercise of one’s Right can never damage the greater good and in certain cases cannot negatively impact another’s Rights.  And with regard to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness noted in the Declaration of Independence, we are far from protecting that Right, certainly for people of color and the poor.

So even judged on Trump’s own terms, how he would define what would make America great again, he has failed miserably.  Worse, he has taken a large portion of Americans and Republican politicians down his dark path and so damaged, perhaps irretrievably, our democracy.  Ironically, in his Inaugural, he spoke of “ignorance stifled dreams.”  Truly, ignorance has never had a higher place of honor in our country than at the present moment.

Existential Inequality - To Abide in Peace or Not

There has been much focus on the glaring income inequality in the U.S.  On the immorality of some people having so much, more than they could ever possibly make use of, while so many people have so little, not being able to make ends meet, homeless, even while working, while many others barely keep their heads above water.

Clearly, income inequality has a huge impact on the lives that people are able to live.  The extent of creature comfort and financial security they are able to obtain.  The education their children are able to get.  And the list goes on.

But does income inequality impact whether a person experiences peace and happiness in his or her life?   The answer is no.  Acquiring material things, while they may satisfy ego needs and desires and make you feel good, does not in practice equate with peace and happiness.  Nor does the lack of material security equate with the lack of peace and happiness.  Ask any psychologist or therapist, watch bio-documentaries, and you will find this is true.  

This seems counter-intuitive.  Certainly if you live in poverty, how can you have peace and happiness?

Before going any further, we must first define peace.  Peace is the absence of fear, anxiety, hatred, guilt, shame, doubt and confusion … or better put, it’s not the absence of these emotions but not being controlled by them. It’s also being free of an intense desire for things you don’t have or to be someone other than you are.

Without question, most people who live in poverty do not have such peace.  But then most people of affluence also don’t have such peace.

The answer to this riddle is the following.  The only way to achieve peace and happiness is through a spiritual practice that frees you from the emotions, judgments, cravings, and attachments of the ego-mind.  Whether rich or poor, the only people who experience true peace and happiness are the ones who have rediscovered their true selves and freed themselves from the control of their ego-mind.

“So?” the reader may ask.  Since there is nothing more important to the human soul than experiencing peace and happiness, the greatest inequality in our country, and in the world, is between those people who have achieved a spiritual practice that provides freedom from the control of their ego-mind, or who have made progress in that direction, and those who are bereft of a spiritual life and are subject to the control of their ego-mind and thus to the whims and vagaries of our culture and their immediate surroundings.  It is more damaging to suffer psychically than materially.

What happens when you free yourself from the control of your ego-mind?  

1. When your buttons are pushed, you will have no emotional reaction.  You will be aware, but you will not react.  
2. You will know that you have everything inside you that you need to be at peace and happy and allow nothing to disturb that peace and happiness; you need nothing outside of yourself.  You will undoubtedly desire other things, whether its someone special in your life or material things, but those are all icing on the cake; their absence or presence does not impact your peace and happiness.  You will not attach to them.
3. You will know that all you need to be at peace and happy is to offer yourself and others joy, respect your mind, respect your body, be in touch with nature, and live within your means.  And if you have loved ones and friends, to be in contact with them.
4. You will know that you will be ok, safe, regardless what life throws your way because you have returned home to your true self, free of your ego-mind.
5. You will as a result experience true freedom, the ability to do what is in your true best interest.  What your ego-mind tells you to do, and thus what you want to do, is not in your best interest because it is captive to all your anger, fear, and doubt, to your learned experience, to your conditioning.  (See my post, “Freedom - What Does It Mean,” on www.thepracticalbuddhist.com.)

I know of no surveys that assess who has a spiritual life and who does not.  Certainly, questions commonly asked about religious practice are not a marker for having a spiritual life.    Many people “believe” in God or in Jesus Christ, even feel they have a “personal” relationship with Christ, but nevertheless do not lead their lives as God or Christ would have them do, even if they are orthodox and follow all the prescribed rituals.  For their relationship with themselves and the world around them is controlled by their ego-mind, not by their divine essence.

Just looking around me at what I see happening both in my immediate surroundings and in the broader world, it is safe to say that the number of people who have freed themselves from the control of their ego-mind is relatively small.  And as long as that continues to be the case, we will live in a world primarily characterized by its dysfunction, whether within the family, the workplace, or the broader world.

Those people who follow a spiritual path, and those traditions that support the teaching of our God/Buddha essence and the purity of our natural state, thus need to expose more people to this teaching.  Not by proselytizing but by making their teaching/beliefs on this subject known so that people who are suffering have the opportunity to say, “I think there may be something here,” and take the step to begin their own inquiry into their true self, their soul.

Why Do People Put Up With Our Economic System?

Income inequality in the United States is well documented.  Looking at the top 1% of the population … whether it’s high-flying corporate CEOs or tech billionaires or financial gurus or even the top worker bees … the disparity between their incomes and the average worker in their firms is staggering.  That people live in poverty, not having enough food on the table or living in substandard housing, while the super rich bank their millions and billions is unconscionable.  

You cannot but help ask yourself that if the system is so unequal, if it is so broken, why do people put up with the system.  Why is there no major protest, either on the streets or at the ballot box?  For clarification, the Tea Party or Trump middle-class supporters, are not protesting the economic system, they are protesting the role of government.  And the progressives who are protesting the system have not attained the critical mass to bring about change; they are still a splinter group.

The answer is that while the income inequality is huge, a large proportion of the population is doing ok; the system works for them at least to some extent.  In 2018, the top 15% of households made $150,000 or more; the top 42% made $75,000 or more.  That means that 40% of the population have a decent standard of living unless they’re living in New York City or San Francisco.

The people who are really impacted by income inequality are those for whom the system just doesn’t work - the 50% of households who make less than $50,000.  And it doesn’t work for them not just because they don’t have enough money to afford what most consider essentials, let alone live as they would like. 

But the added indignity is that the system constantly clobbers them psychologically.  Indeed, it clobbers almost everyone who isn’t in that top 1%.  Why?  Because most people in our society are all about ego.  They identify themselves in comparison to what society and the media tells them the good life is, what people who have “it” do, how people who are successful live.

And most people, certainly not those with household incomes under $50,000, but not even those with incomes of $150,000, are not able to live the life that is posited before them as their goal by our media.  They cannot have the housing, the education, the food, the travel, the clothing … none of the accoutrements of those that are held up as models of success. 

Our society cultivates us to always want more.  That’s what keeps the wheels of consumerism spinning and the economy growing.

That results in most people feeling frustrated, disappointed with their lives.  Whether you’re homeless, working poor, middle class, or lower upper class, people want more and are dissatisfied with their current state.  Indeed, the more they have the more they want.

Why isn’t that a cause for revolt?   Ironically, regardless how frustrated people are, even those who have been beaten down by the system, most still believe in the system; they see themselves as somehow being at fault, or perhaps the government, but not the system, and indeed they want to use the system to get ahead.  That is why rather than disdaining people with money, those are their idols.  That’s who they want to be.

And so instead of people either having a choice to fight to change the system or accept their lot in life and be happy, people in our society mostly have no choice.  They are trapped by the golden handcuffs they wish they had, and so they suffer.  How sad.

What Are We Celebrating on July 4th?

July 4th ... Independence Day ... is fraught with symbolism.  It's the beginning of American exceptionalism, the beginning of America taking its place on the world’s stage, the beginning of freedom and prosperity for Americans.  

There is no question that 1776 marked the beginning of America's feeling that it was exceptional and that its moral voice coupled with its growing economic strength gave it a place on the world’s stage.  But what of freedom and prosperity?

We all know the famous lines from the Declaration of Independence, crafted primarily by Thomas Jefferson ... “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”  

These were truly revolutionary words.  They have given America’s elite something to crow about.  And they have given the mass of Americans, especially the disadvantaged, something to hang their hopes on for more than two centuries.  This was the basis of the American dream.  But what were and are the facts on the ground?

Those that benefitted from our independence were primarily those with business interests, who were now free of the yoke of English taxes and control.   Then as now, business interests were the main “client” of government ... indeed, back then you could only vote if you owned land or had enough wealth to be taxed, so those were the constituents ... and they prospered then as they do now.

As of the first census in 1790, 18% of the US population (700,000 out of 4,000,000) were slaves.  Their status certainly did not change with American independence.  That would have to wait another 85 years for the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.  Of the Founding Fathers who were slave holders, only George Washington freed his slaves, upon his death.  Jefferson did not even do that.

The status of women ... the wives of the founders and the mothers of their children ... did not change at all with independence.  They remained chattel with no rights for a century, slowly achieving some rights in the later 1800s, and only won the right to vote in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

Over the last century, there can be no question that both women and, to a lesser extent, blacks have improved their status in all areas of American business and life  But there can also be no question that even today neither have reached anything approaching equality with white males and that broad discrimination persists. 

And then there are the Native Americans.  They had a status lower than slaves because they were of no use to anyone.  They were just a heathen barrier to be gotten rid of when their presence interfered with American interests.   Our genocide of the Native American (and what else can it honestly be called) is breathtakingly chilling.   Manifest Destiny had no room for equality.  

And as for general prosperity, while it is true that we all have more now than we did … more education, more modern conveniences, creature comforts … it is also true that there is greater inequality between the richest Americans (top 5%) and the rest then at any time.  If you look at broader groups ... top 20%, middle 40, and bottom 40 ... the income distribution has remained pretty static since independence.  So we really haven’t achieved much of anything on that point.

So what are we celebrating?  Some moving, aspirational words which we have still not managed ... or if truth be told, even tried very hard ... to implement.  As President Obama said, “We can do better.”

We are celebrating the birth of a nation whose unbridled capitalism was able to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by the natural resources of this vast country and a bottomless pool of cheap immigrant labor to make this the richest nation in the world.  We are celebrating a rapacious America which, while being the leader of the free world, despoiled the environment and took advantage of the mass of its powerless citizens, leaving a damaged people and landscape in the wake of “progress.”

Instead of celebrating so hard and patting ourselves on the back for how great America is, we should use this opportunity to rededicate ourselves and our institutions of government to implementing those words of the Declaration of Independence: “that all men are created equal,” “that they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and that the role of government is to “secure” those rights.  We should never forget that in reality most of our citizens have little cause to celebrate if they stopped to think about it.

The Presidential Election: Where Is Our Country Heading?

The purpose of democratic government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure the rights of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  We may have never pursued this perfectly, certainly not for all the people.  But we have now, unfortunately, reached a point in our history where the best interests of the people, securing their inalienable rights, is no longer the driving force behind government.  

Our government has stopped being “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  Instead, it has become a government which, while elected by the people, primarily serves the interests of corporations and the rich.  

This is true of Congress.  Legislators, both Republican and Democrat, have become so dependent on the financial donations of corporations and the rich to run their election campaigns that they provide a ready and willing ear to corporate lobbyists.  (It should, however, be noted that while Democrats have fallen into the same trap, they do still promote the public interest, just not as unequivocally as they should.)  

It is also true of Federal regulators.  These government employees are supposed to protect the interests of the public but instead, as we’ve learned, often become so close to the corporations they are supposed to regulate that they are more interested in protecting them than the public.

A result of this perversion of government’s purpose can be seen in the increased income inequality that we face today.  There has always been and there will always be income inequality.  It’s in the very nature of things … some people will be rich and others poor.  But from the end of WWII to the early 1970s, incomes grew rapidly across all income groups. 

Beginning in the 1970s, however, income growth for the middle and lower income groups either stagnated or slowed sharply while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly.  For example, average real wages for the bottom 90% of working Americans only rose from $28,500 in 1979 to $33,200 in 2014 (a 16% increase).  By contrast, average real wages of the top 1% of Americans rose from $269,000 in 1979 to $671,000 in 2014 (a 249% increase).  Since the top 1% have substantial income over and above wages, the true inequality is even worse, with average total income for the bottom 90% still being around $33,000 in 2014 while the average total income of the top 1% was $1,200,000.

  

What role did government have in this increase in inequality?  Globalization of the economy, which is a primary cause of the increased inequality, was fostered by government policies together with changes in technology.  

Second, and less discussed, was the loss of power of labor unions.  This resulted partly from the loss of manufacturing jobs due to companies’ moving jobs off-shore (a major detrimental impact of globalizations) and partly from the increase in anti-union “Right to Work” laws in much of the country (an additional 7 states including for the first time, “rust-belt” states).  

In both cases, government policy supported the interests of corporations in obtaining cheaper labor and thus increasing profits.  Other government policies, such as deregulation (pursued by both Republican and Democratic administrations post-Reagan) and significant tax cuts for the rich under Reagan and Bush II, furthered the accumulation of wealth at the top of the wage spectrum.

The impact of this increased income inequality has been anger towards government for what the formerly middle class views as a lack of concern by government regarding their plight.  They blame government, and to a large extent rightly so, for their financial distress.  Government in this case really is the problem, in that it has acted at the behest of big business.  But it is also the potential solution.  However, government has not done anything to date to really improve their lot.  Lots of talk but no action.

And so in this presidential election season, we have seen two phenomenon.  On the Republican side, Donald Trump, campaigning as an anti-establishment avatar, has stoked the fears and angers of this large group of mostly white voters and has reaped the benefit of their vote, and thus the Republican nomination, against a crowded field of far-right but tainted-by-government candidates.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders also campaigned as an anti-establishment avatar,  seeking to upend the influence of corporations and put “the people” back in the forefront of government policy.  His campaign was much more successful than anyone every dreamed, but he had the misfortune of having just one opponent who, although few felt strongly about, was strongly supported by the party establishment and was considered safe by most.  And so he lost.

Of all the candidates, only Bernie Sanders offered the possibility of a truly transformative Presidency.  Because only he had at least the potential of getting the large mass of people who usually don’t vote … because they feel the government has no concern for their problems … to vote and thus win back the House as well as the Senate.  

So regardless whether Trump or Clinton wins, the future does not look good for the American people.  If Trump wins we will have a bully blowhard as President who depends on his instincts, not his thought (or the thought of those around him).  He will try to dismantle most of what President Obama accomplished for the American people.  I could go on and on, but I won’t.  If Clinton wins, government will be mostly business as usual both because of her ties to the business establishment and the fact that at least the House will likely be in the hands of Republicans, which means she will not be able to move her policy agenda with much success.

In either case, the primary direction of government will not have changed.  Although clearly a Trump presidency would be far worse for the American people and the country than a Clinton presidency.

Bernie Sanders was calling for a soft revolution, and that is what this country needs at this point in time.  We need a major shakeup in the direction of government.

Thomas Jefferson famously said that a democracy needs a revolution periodically to keep it alive.  Certainly we have come to the point where that is what our country needs because our democracy has become one in form only, not in substance.  

We must return to a government which is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,”  Corporations should certainly have a place at the table, in recognition of their importance to the economy and the welfare of all, but they should not be in the driver’s seat.   We have long since learned the emptiness of the phrase, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”

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.