With Rights Come Responsibilities

People on the Right are always talking about their rights and how the government is taking away their rights.  Whether it’s the issue of gun ownership or restriction of movement during the pandemic, people on the Right don’t seem to understand what it means to be a citizen of the United States.  Yes, we have rights.  But with rights, come responsibilities.  Not even the vaunted right of free speech, let alone the right to gun ownership is absolute.

Man is by nature concerned solely with his and his family's wellbeing. That is his biological imperative.  Socially, however, man has evolved into being a member, a citizen, of a larger society. And so, from the most primitive communities to contemporary societies, that driving instinct has been reigned in for the greater good of the community.  

In primitive societies and in many Asian societies, a collective culture developed that enforced working for the good of the group largely through strong social pressure; the individual was of lesser importance. In the West, where the concept of individualism took root, societies have instead depended upon laws to control the relationship between man's individual liberties and rights and his part in the larger society.

There are thousands of laws that control the right of an individual to do what he might want to do.  Whether it's the criminal law, traffic laws, building codes and zoning laws, or product liability law, laws have been developed that balance the individual’s rights against the greater public good; they tell the individual what the limits are of his freedom to act.  Without such laws we would have anarchy.

As our society became more civilized and enlightened, the concept of man's pro-active responsibilities to the larger society developed.  Existing along side his rights, are concomitant shared responsibilities for the community that go beyond the responsibility not to harm others.

In the current political context, there is a uproar on the Right regarding this fundamental aspect of the relationship between government, individual rights, and the greater public good that came to define the American social contract in the 20^th century.  This post will look at several examples.  The most topical is the restriction on people’s movement in the pandemic.  The second  is the ongoing issue of the right of gun ownership.  Other less emotional, but equally deep concerns, are the regulation of business, progressive taxation, and the government's responsibilities towards those less fortunate.

1.  The government has wide power to regulate matters that concern public health and safety.  Certainly in this period of pandemic, they have the power to restrict movement and take other measures to control the spread of the virus, to protect individuals from each other.   Yes, this restricts our normal rights in numerous ways, but these restrictions are necessary for the public good.

2.  As for gun ownership, even if one agrees (whjch I don’t) in the Constitutional right to individual gun ownership recently-found in the 2nd Amendment, that right like the right to free speech found in the 1st Amendment is not absolute.  It can be limited when necessary for the greater good.  So whether it’s broader background checks or prohibiting private ownership of assault-type weapons, these are restrictions that meet the constitutional standard.  The NRA’s argument that ultimately pro-gun control advocates want to take away your guns is just fear-mongering.  There is no basis in that claim.

3.  Then there’s the issue of business regulation.  The primary interest of any business is self-interest ... that is its nature as much as it's man's nature.  As we saw during the industrial revolution and the early decades of the 20th century, if business is not regulated, it will show no concern for either its workers or the greater public good.  

Because of this self-interest and the resulting efforts through lobbying and other means to avoid any restrictions, regardless how necessary to protect the public good, I have argued in earlier posts (“What Is the Role of Corporations in Our Society”) that because corporations are a creature of the law and have received many benefits under that law, corporate law should require that part of the decision making process be the impact of corporate action on the public good, whether it be directly or through the environment.

4.  Taxes.  No one likes paying them.  Most taxes, likes sales taxes, are unfortunately regressive … the lower a person’s income, the larger the share of their income that goes to paying taxes.  (With regard to the sales tax, that’s because lower income people spend a larger share of their income on the purchase of necessities and other goods, accounting for the tax taking a larger share of their income.)  

As the United States developed into a more progressive society, it realized that regressive taxes posed an unfair burden on the poor.  A socially fair tax would work in the opposite way … the higher ones income, the greater the share of that income that would be paid in taxes because such people have much more discretionary income and therefore a higher tax would not pose any hardship.  And so when the income tax was instituted, that’s how it was designed … as a progressive tax.

In 1932, the income tax for the top bracket was 63% of income over $1,000,000.  In 1950, it was 91% of income over $400,000.  As recently as 1980, the rate was 70% of income over $212,000.  Today, the rate is 37% of income over $510,000. The rich are paying a smaller portion of their income as taxes to support the greater public good than at any time since the income tax was instituted.

5.  Finally, there is government action to support the poor.  Over the course of the past 100 years, again as society has become more civilized and enlightened, government has taken a greater hand in both directly providing for those in need as well as ensuring in various ways that they have the opportunity to better their position in life. 

This was a fuller implementation of the role of government stated in the Declaration of Independence … “to secure” the right to life, liberty, and happiness.  Programs that were once considered radical or socialist by Republicans, such as Social Security and Medicare, which they fought tooth and nail at the time, are now accepted by most as necessary programs ... not without their problems, but vital to the wellbeing of a large proportion of our citizens and thus the stability of our economy.

In all these areas, the current radical brand of Republicans, egged on by the energy and anger of first the Tea Party and then President Trump, have argued that the government’s role should be reduced or eliminated.  People should be free to do what they think best.  Business should not be regulated.  The wealthy should not pay more taxes.  The poor should have to fend for themselves … if you don’t succeed, it’s your fault.  (Programs like Social Security are distinguished because it’s been earned, and corporate subsidies are necessary because of their importance to the economy.)

Each of these positions is against the balance that our nation has historically struck between private rights, the public good, and the role of government.  These positions violate an enlightened concept of the rights and responsibilities of a citizen.

Republicans wish to take us back to an era where individualism ran rampant and success was limited to the few.  America’s strength in the 20^th century evolved by broadening the base of prosperity among its citizens and creating a more vibrant, intelligent workforce through the intervention of government programs and regulation.

That is where we need to continue heading in the 21^st century to ensure America’s continued strength.  Trump’s policies will not make America great again because they are against the empowerment of people and thus actually weaken America.  Radical Republicans need to be recognized for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people.  They are not responsible citizens of this great republic.

The American Social Contract in Trouble

In my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto, I noted that the Republican right wing had rejected the American social contract that has developed over time and was accepted by both political parties.  Actually, it resulted from the policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations.  

The basic idea is that as citizens, we are all equal participants in the great American experiment.   In exchange for receiving the benefits of citizenship, all Americans are responsible for contributing to the government’s work, which includes helping less fortunate citizens, each according to his ability.  It was indeed Republican President Theodore Roosevelt that initiated the progressive income tax, which is the main tool by which the financial responsibility of citizenship is implemented.

One can find no better expression of the concept than John Donne’s famous words:  “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. … Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.”  A predecessor of the Enlightenment movement that so influenced our Founding Fathers, these words are the essence of the American social contract.

As I’ve stated often before, the soaring aspirations of our founding documents and our Founding Fathers were indeed “just” aspirations.  But they have provided the light that has guided America and Americans forward through difficult domestic times and have enabled it constantly, although often by fits and starts, to grow, to reinvent itself, and become more reflective of its founding aspirations.

But the social contract has been under attack over the last few decades by the increasingly right-wing Republican Party.  Among right-wing Republicans, there is now a disdain for the poor in general, not just people of color.  They are against the “undeserving poor,” which includes whites.  

Mike Mulvaney, Trump’s Budget Director, said in an opinion piece, "For the first time in a long time, we’re putting taxpayers first. Taking money from someone without an intention to pay it back is not debt. It is theft. This budget makes it clear that we will reverse this larceny.”  The poor receiving assistance are viewed as thieves.  Remember when Mitt Romney was exposed referring to those benefitting from government programs as “takers,” which included those on Social Security?

But the threat facing our social contract does not just involve attitudes towards the poor.  In our increasingly polarized society under Trump, any feeling that we are all part of the American community or are responsible in any way for each other's welfare is gone.  Replaced instead with warring camps.

America must return to an embrace of our social contract.  Without that attitude, we will drift further apart.  FDR’s refrain, “My fellow Americans,” will become not just hollow in the contemporary context but a deceit.

The 2020 Election Is about the Survival of American Democracy, of Historic American Values

The title of this piece may strike the reader as over the top, but it really isn’t.  Because it isn’t about whether the form of democracy will survive.  It probably will despite some dark words from Trump at one point about his supporters not accepting a narrow loss.  This post is about whether the concept of democracy that led to the founding of our country and our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution … will survive.

This concept is what ultimately made America great, made us a beacon to the world.  I love Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.”  Unfortunately, he has no idea what made America great.  It wasn’t our power, our military, our economy, or our strong middle class.  Though of course in once sense it was.  But what enabled our country to have that power, to develop in this manner compared to other countries, whether democratic or communist, was the concept of American democracy.

What are the key elements of that concept?  Note: These elements, like equality, are clearly aspirational.  They may not have been or be true on the ground, but they have enabled people to have faith and hope and accomplish what otherwise would have been impossible.

Equality:  We all know that the belief in equality was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence although its practice was significantly restricted in the Constitution.  But the concept was there and it was that light that guided us towards the ending of slavery, the emancipation of women, the civil rights movement, and same-sex marriage.  We still have far to go, but that light is still guiding us.

Indeed, it is this central aspiration of equality that drives the other key elements of American democracy.

        Citizenship:  We are all equal citizens of the United States.  Certainly that wasn’t true at      the start, when voting was limited to males who owned property.  But over the years,          America moved more towards the ideal.  Today all adult citizens, whether you were born here or immigrated, have the right to vote.  The concept of one “man,” one vote is central.

        We are equal citizens also in the sense that we all have equal rights, and we each have the right to pursue these rights.   That is why if exercising your right restricts another person’s right, you cannot due that.  That concept is the basis for all our laws, both criminal and civil.  We do not live in an anarchy; one can’t just do what one wants to do.  Even if you are exercising a constitutional right, you cannot in so doing harm another person or restrict that person in exercising their right.  No right is absolute

        Upward Mobility:  We have no caste system in this country.  From a structural standpoint, there isn’t anything that anybody cannot do.  Someone from the poorest layer of society can rise to be President or head of a powerful corporation.  And this mobility is not just theoretical; it has been seen as a reality countless times in all areas of commerce, the arts, the professions, and politics.  Again, this is true for native born and immigrants. and more recently people of color.

        Unity with Diversity:  The United States has been from its very founding a country of immigrants.  And as with any large groupings of people, people have from the start had disagreements, both within the groups but especially between the groups.  One immigrant group vied against another.  And as immigrants became established, they had problems with the next wave of immigrants.  Often even those from the same country.

       Yet despite the animosity and distrust and at times violence between groups, when the country called, all felt that they were Americans.  They may have been hyphenated Americans, they may have felt that they weren’t getting their fair share, they may have felt discriminated against, but they identified as American and were proud of it.

        This shared sense of citizenship led to what’s called the American social contract.  Under that contract, in exchange for the benefits of citizenship, all citizens agree to obey the laws and to share the burden of government through the paying of taxes, each according to his ability.  And when there was a military draft, all participated (except draft dodgers) and supported America, even at the cost of their lives.  Under this social contract, we are  not just responsible for ourselves; we have a distinct responsibility for the welfare of the whole and thus for all Americans.

         In the first half of the 20th century, workers gained significant rights in their employment.  In the second half, overt forms of discrimination that had been practiced against some groups, like Jews and people of color, became illegal.  And all minority groups benefitted from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce.  This does not mean that some level of us v them didn’t exist anymore; it certainly did.  And people were still discriminated against.  But it was far less.  Political correctness has been given a bad name, but there is much to be said for people feeling that it is not socially acceptable to have or utter certain thoughts, or take certain actions.

         In the halls of Congress, this unity/diversity was reflected in the air of civility that existed between people on opposite sides of issues.  People agreed to disagree.

But several decades ago, things began to change.  Ronald Reagan ushered in the “me” generation and a broad distrust of government … “government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.”  As the years passed, Republicans in Congress became less civil.  They went from having a conservative outlook on what government’s responsibilities were to being antagonistic towards government and the people of color and others that government helps.

Now the Trump presidency has dropped all pretense of being committed to democracy, to governing for all Americans, to being a unifying force.  Instead he has provoked and manufactured grievances that have exacerbated the already existing divisions in our society, to the point where we are polarized as possibly never before.  Where Trump supporters and those on the progressive left truly hate each other.  Where talking and compromise is no longer an option.

The dynamics of American politics and group interaction have deteriorated to such an extent that it raises serious question whether something can return this country and its people back to sanity and respectful coexistence.  But we must try.  The Democratic Party must make returning this country to its true roots the central platform of its 2020 campaign.  It must present a cohesive, positive, vision that speaks to all Americans.  It must drop the strategy of identity politics.

As I’ve suggested in the past, the best way of doing that is to turn America’s focus to the Declaration of Independence and base the Party’s vision on those words which are familiar to every American.  It is those words that are the heart and soul of the concept of American democracy.

I therefore suggest the following mission/vision for the Democratic Party:

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

• each and every American has the best chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence … “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”; 
• government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration … “to secure those rights”, within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and 
• all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.

This statement will speak to all Americans.  Most specifically, it will speak both to those aggrieved Midwestern whites who voted for Trump in 2016 and to those disillusioned blacks who did not turn out to vote for Hillary.  

There is no need for identity politics.  For there is no real conflict between the interests of the various groups in our society, so long as no group is greedy.  The right mix of policies will provide all groups with the opportunity they deserve in our democracy.  What they make of that opportunity is then up to them; that is the American way.

All the policies of the Party must flow from this mission statement.  Whether the issue is health care, immigration, education, jobs, defense, civil rights, or religion … the Democratic position must further the greater opportunity of all.  For a more detailed explication of this concept, see my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto.

Reflecting on 75 Years

Yesterday was my 75th birthday.  Usually I treat my birthdays just like any other day, although a cause for some celebration.  I have always felt good about birthdays, as opposed to the way many people feel.  I’ve never felt myself “growing old.”  

But at 75 years, it does seem to warrant some reflection.  I have lived through 3/4 of a century.  That sounds like a very long time, and yet it doesn’t seem long at all really.  Yes, my childhood, even my 30s seem like a long ways back, but not 3/4 of a century.  That concept is hard to wrap my head around. 

Our concept of time seems to vary depending on whether it is personal experience or whether it's historical.   When it’s personal, we don’t feel like we are part of history, that we are part of the march of time.  And yet we surely are.  If I think of all the periods I’ve lived through … Vietnam, AIDS … to name just a few, I have been witness to a lot of history.   But I don’t feel like I’ve been part of this vast moving scope of humanity and the cosmos, ala watching an American Experience episode.

The other thing is that on reflection, I’m aware that I almost feel distant from this historical period, probably because I don’t or didn’t feel part of its sweeping movement.  And I don’t feel like it’s a period I’m particularly proud to have been part of.  Quite the contrary, it has been a period filled with pestilence of one sort or another, whether war or disease or various forms of inhumanity and dysfunction.  

We tend to look back at past epochs with nostalgia, at the great things, the transformational things that happened.  Even the disasters are remembered with nostalgia, again think of American Experience.  

WWII is always held up as something that people were very proud to be part of, which is great.  But was WWII uplifting?  Not really.  It wasn’t fought to save the Jews … hardly.   African-Americans were segregated and treated shamefully in the armed forces.  It was entered into by the American leadership because they wanted to save Europe, and ultimately save us; so it was largely self-interest.  

But for most people it was an exercise in patriotism, answering the call of the country.  And since almost everyone was involved in one way or another and everyone pulled together, it was something people honestly could feel proud about.  In this sense it was uplifting … people were ready to sacrifice even their lives for a larger cause.  There was a sense of community.  

The cataclysmic events of my historic period had no such upside.  Some would say that within the gay community AIDS had an upside, but that was I feel very limited; there was far more fear and distrust than caring for your fellow man.  

Even the often-cited coming together of the country after 9/11 only lasted perhaps a few days.  The potential was possibly there, but the people were never asked to sacrifice, other than their privacy.  The main drumbeat from the government was one of fear, not duty.  The period’s wars impacted mostly our disadvantaged class who enlisted as a way out of their dead-end lives.  Yes, some enlisted out of a sense of patriotism, but they were isolated in our society.  For the returning troops there was little support at home, not even among those who supported the wars.

When one looks at these cataclysmic events, past and present, one sees clearly how our sense of community, of our all being fellow citizens of our country, has deteriorated if not vanished.  That is not good for America.  And that is the root cause why I feel distant from the period in which I have lived, why I don’t feel part of its sweeping currents.

But aside from these cataclysmic events, life is not really different now than in the past, viewed objectively.  There have always been and will always be bright spots, inspirational things that man has achieved, random acts of kindness, but they always occur in the larger context of overwhelming misfortune, suffering, and pestilence.  

Truly such is life, and all I or anyone can do is to live his life as well as he can by offering himself and others joy … meaning this in a spiritual, not hedonistic, sense.  To the extent that there have been bright spots over the millennia in the midst of so much suffering, it has been because of those individual spots of light.  I have certainly been blessed to have received such light and love from many people throughout my life.  The truth of the old proverb is revealed: better to light a candle than curse the darkness.  That is our purpose in life, our only purpose.

The Responsibility Crisis

There is a crisis in the United States (I cannot speak of other countries) of a failure to take responsibility for the impact of one’s actions on others.  This crisis occurs at all levels … the individual, family, business, government.

What lies at the core of this crisis?  The “me” syndrome.  

Man has, of course, always had a side of him which is self-centered.  Hence the exhortation of all religions and spiritual practices to think of others, not just oneself.  

But during the progressive phase of American politics, starting with Teddy Roosevelt until the Reagan years, there was societal peer pressure to consider the impact of our actions on others.  That was the basis for the government’s regulation of industry which had been rapacious, totally unconcerned with its impact on its workers or the general public.  That was the basis of the institution of the Federal income tax.  These measures did not negate self-interest, but placed on the balance scale the greater good, the interests of the average person.

When JFK was inaugurated, he asked Americans, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”  That was the very embodiment of the progressive perspective of shared social/civic responsibility.  Contrast that to what Reagan said in the 1980 Presidential debate, “Are you better of today than you were four years ago?”  This was all about “me.”  

For the “me” generations that followed Reagan, this became the perspective with which all things were viewed … “Is it good for me?”  Whether it was good for anyone else became irrelevant.  This is how, even on the Democratic side, we got stuck in identity politics.  It’s all about whether something is good for me.

Over the ensuing decades the weight on the balance scale of “me” v “others” has become ever heavier.  Politically it has gotten to the point where our country is beyond being deeply divided, where there is only rage, no compassion, towards the “other.”  And so our very democracy is threatened.  It also threatens the environment and our most basic social institution … the family.

Let me provide some examples, beyond the obvious political ones, of how this crisis pervades all aspects of our life.

1.  The individual level:  The most obvious place to look for examples here are man’s interaction with the environment.  While indigenous people have always been very aware of their interconnected relationship with the environment and have treated it with respect, that is not true of “civilized” mankind.  

In the early stages, it was only those who moved into cities and thus lost contact with the land who thought nothing of the pollution that came with civilized life.   The impact of this thoughtlessness was the Plague, which devastated Europe on and off for centuries.  

Since the industrial revolution, however, the impact has been the steady destruction of the environment … the pollution of the air and water and the cutting down of forests.  The scale of this combined with the huge growth in the world’s population due to advances in hygiene and medicine have resulted in what is being called “global warming” or “climate change” … neither of which phrase is satisfactory … which will drastically change life as we know it within several generations.

One cannot just blame industry for this.  Every individual that consumes what industry produces is an integral part of the problem. We continue to produce mountains of non-recyclable trash that get dumped into land fills.   Gas-guzzling cars, SUVs, and trucks continue to be big sellers.  Indeed, our very continuing to drive is part of the problem.  I live in New York, a city with a usually efficient and vast public transportation network, and yet the number of cars on the roads is incredible.

All of these actions are an example of people thinking only about themselves, their convenience, their comfort.   What makes their immediate life better.  Not what would be in the greater good.  Or even what is in their own and their children’s long term best interest.

2.   The family level:  As I walk around the neighborhood where I live, I pass by day-care centers where the “parking lots” are crammed full of strollers.  I see nannies everywhere (always people of color) tending to other (white) people’s children.  I see dog walkers taking care of other people’s dogs.  

Now the reader could well say, “Where’s the problem?  This shows that parents want to provide their children with good pre-school opportunities for development while they are away at work.  And they want to provide their pets with fresh air and exercise while they are away at work.”

This is no doubt true.   But our system of substitute parenting or substitute dog-walking can never take the place of the real thing.  Day-care for toddlers, or the use of a nannie, cannot take the place of the love and care and teaching of a parent.  A dog being walked with 4 others on a leash does not get the exercise that a dog gets when he’s walked by his owner, let off the leash to run, play fetch, etc.

We tell ourselves, and society fully agrees, that this is an accommodation that allows both parents to work, which is necessary for their financial well-being as well as woman’s feeling of self-worth.  It is also necessary for the constant expansion of our consumer economy and thus the profit of big business.

But all this is nothing but rationalization.  Denial.  Avoidance.  When two people decide to have a child, that should be accompanied by an acceptance of the responsibility to the child entailed by that decision.  

In my book, Raising a Happy Child, there is a chapter entitled, “To Have a Child or Not.”  It deals with the need to make a conscious decision, after deep discussion, that both parents are ready for their responsibility to the child.  In a later chapter, the specific issue of both parents working is raised.  

I put it this way in the book.  “Although the financial imperative is often inescapable, you should stop and think and discuss with your spouse/significant other how critical it really is. … There’s a difference between keeping food on the table and a roof over your head, and being able to afford discretionary niceties or maintain your career.  When you balance the welfare of your child with bringing in more money or maintaining your career trajectory, which is of greater importance?  … Remember that having a child was a choice you made; your child had no say whether to be born or not.”

Most people unfortunately make even a decision such as whether to bring a new child into the world based on what is in their interest, what is their need.  Certainly for lesser decisions, they also take little account of the need of anyone else, whether a spouse, child, or dog.  Obviously the issue of care for your dog is on a different level, but the same principle applies.  

3.  The workplace level:  It will be no surprise to anyone that the workplace is full of “me” attitude given the atmosphere of competition and vanishing job loyalty/security.  That’s not a good state of affairs, but the harm is mostly to the individuals, not the greater good.

But where the self-centered perspective does do great harm to the greater good is the attitude of big business towards their workers, their consumers, the general public, and the environment.  Through a combination of the nature of the corporate beast and the pressure on corporations by investors to constantly increase profit,  corporations today have one concern and one only … how to improve their bottom line.  

The interests of their workers, consumers, the general public, and the environment have no relevance when making corporate decisions, unless those interests can operate to increase corporate profits.   Thus the greater good and the environment are routinely violated for the sake of corporate profit.

4.  The government level:  Need I say anything here about how self-centeredness by politicians and countries, a lack of responsibility for others, damages the greater good?  Whether we look at the current Republican feeding frenzy brought about by their ascendancy to total power or whether we look at our actions in undertaking the Iraq war, these are just two of many examples of the harm done to the greater good by just thinking what is in my interest.

Nothing will turn this habit-energy around unless we as individuals and our leaders see the damage and danger in making decisions based on the “me” perspective.  That ultimately it is in every individual’s and every country’s enlightened self-interest to take responsibility for the impact of our actions on others.  

Why?  Because if we are doing well, but everyone around us is doing poorly or if the environment is degraded, then that makes the world that surrounds us uninviting if not unstable and dangerous, which in turn makes our lives constricted.  That is not the definition of freedom.

What we need is a massive re-education effort.  Basically, a return to the maxim at the core of every religion and spiritual practice:  do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  It is not only important for our spiritual well-being.   It is important for our practical well-being and freedom.

Back to the Future, But Not Too Far!

We are a country that is obsessed with the future, with facilitating the next phase of our “progress.”  In the process, we have lost our collective, our societal mooring to what has made the United States a great social and political experiment.  

As I’ve noted in previous posts, our society is dysfunctional in many respects.  But there are two central problems.  One is that virtually all political power is now in the hands of major corporations and the rich; they call the shots in Washington, not the people.  The other is that these same actors, as well as many average citizens, seem to have no concern for the welfare of their fellow citizens, and in the case of corporations, their workers.

One can place a band-aid here, and another there.  But that will not change any of the basic problems that we are facing and which are pulling the United States down from its great potential.

I have therefore argued for a revolutionary change in attitude and perspective on the part of our political parties and citizens.  This revolutionary change is not to something “new,” some utopia, but rather back to ideals and standards that served this country well and made it strong during the 20th century.  

In the first 125 years of our country’s history, things were pretty much a frontier-style free-for-all.  Each person for himself.  People who needed help generally weren’t helped, and those who were on the make pretty much got away with anything they tried.

But at the turn of the 20th century, the country took a progressive turn in its politics under Republican President Theodore Roosevelt.  The government and people saw that things had gotten out of hand and that there was massive inequality in power and wealth in the country.  Because such inequality did not square with our founding ideals, there was a realization that government needed to become a more active player to insure that the average citizen wasn’t exploited, and that power was more evenly distributed.

Thus, during the first 20 years of the new century, the progressive income tax was introduced, the robber barons were regulated, massive holding companies like Standard Oil were broken up, and workers were given the right to unionize.  And women were finally given the right to vote.  

As I state in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, a social contract developed that gave practical shape to Lincoln’s famous, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  There was an increasing emphasis on a balance between rights and obligations, between business interests and the public good, with each person contributing to support the government’s efforts to level the playing field, each according to his ability.

Following the 1929 stock market crash and the resulting Depression, government saw the need to increase its role both in providing a hand to those in need (for example, the enactment of Social Security) as well as regulating the excesses of big business (for example, the Glass-Steagal Act).  In the mid 1960s, Medicare was enacted together with a host of measures to further improve the balance and fairness of our society. 

Congress also passed major civil rights legislation in the 1960s, although it must be said that while these laws resulted in certain improvements in their lives, the basic standing of most black Americans in our society and the conditions in which they lived and were educated were left virtually unchanged.  And they were still frequently subject to various forms of both institutional and private discrimination.  (See my posts, “The Mirage of Civil Rights,” and “Our Failed Economic/Social/Political System.”)

But I don’t want to overstate my case.  Needless to say, throughout these progressive periods, there were plenty of people, both in Congress and in the populace, primarily Republicans, who were against both measures to regulate business and efforts to increase government spending or other efforts to help those in need.  Even during the Depression and its immediate aftermath, there were people, and not just the rich, who literally hated FDR!  In 1932, the height of the Depression, Roosevelt only got 58% of the popular vote when he ran against Hoover, although he swept the electoral vote.

In this regard, it should be noted that regardless of the huge changes shown in the electoral vote map, indicating landslide years, the popular vote has never been a landslide.  For example, in 1972 when Nixon got 96% of the electoral vote, he received only 61% of the popular vote.  Likewise, when FDR got 98% of the electoral vote in 1936, he got only 62% of the popular vote.  The country has historically been quite divided.  

Then along came Ronald Reagan, the same man who had campaigned vigorously against the enactment of Medicare, who as President famously said that, “Government is not the solution to the problem.  Government is the problem.”  Reagan didn’t invent a new movement.  He just gave voice and a popular face to deep feelings that have always been held by a large percentage of the voting population, legitimizing those perspective.

The fervency and bitterness of these feelings grew and deepened over the following years, culminating in the Tea Party movement and the current crop of Republican radicals (they should not be referred to as “conservatives”) in Congress.  What they, led by the billionaire Koch brothers and others who back them, want is nothing less than a return of this country to its 19th century ethos, when it was each man for himself, without any interference from or help by the government, of course with the exception of Social Security and Medicare from which most of them directly benefit.  Unfortunately, they don’t see the irony in this.

What I am calling for is a return to the 20th century ethos (Reagan excepted) of balance and social responsibility plus a changed attitude towards black Americans.  

This is not a soak the rich movement or class struggle.  It is a movement that seeks a return to the ethos where we are all part of a society, that recognizes that many people are born into situations that place huge obstacles in their attempts at pursuing the American dream of happiness and equality, and that those who have made it, who have benefited from the system, have a responsibility as citizens to help the government in its efforts to assure that all have true equal opportunity.  

In this regard it should be noted that for most of the income tax’ existence, the highest tax bracket ranged from 60 - 94%, dropping down to 50% during the Reagan years.  So the current top rate of 39.6%, and even the various suggested increases, are historically low.  It should also be noted that regardless of the tax rate, the rich have always remained rich.

Nor is this an anti-business movement.  The health of our economy and of the businesses that make it prosper are of critical importance to the well-being of all Americans.  Business interests must always have a significant place at the table.  But we have learned all too often that it is nevertheless not true that what is good for corporate America is good for all Americans.  Thus there must be a balance between the needs of business and the greater public good.  Maximizing profit cannot be the sole goal of a responsible corporation in a democracy.  

For example, the New York Times just reported that corporate lobbyists working with their friends in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) inserted a provision in the omnibus spending bill that just passed that continues a tax loophole that benefits casino and hotel owners as well as major Wall Street investors to the tune of $1 billion.  That is to say that our tax revenues will continue to be reduced by that amount from what they otherwise would be.  That is unconscionable.

Nor is this a big government movement.  I for one feel strongly that government should be as small as it can be while executing the functions that are its responsibility.  There should be no holy cows.  Every aspect of government must be justified by the purpose it serves and its effectiveness.

What I seek is simply government of the people, by the people, and for the people … all the people.  Not government of the people  (they do still elect), but by corporations, and for corporations.  Which sadly, is what our government has to a large extent become.

The citizens of this country deserve better.

Healing Our Nation, Healing Ourselves

In my recent post, “The Problem Isn’t Capitalism, It’s Our Society,” (October 8, 2015), I noted that the social problems in all modern societies (and most ancient ones, for that matter) don’t stem from their particular economic system, whether it’s capitalism or socialism or communism, regardless how much people rant and rave.  History has shown that changing the economic system does not change the basic nature of a society’s problems.  It typically just replaces one class of elite with another class of elite, one unequal structure with another unequal structure.

What then is the root cause of our societal problems?  And how do we make progress in solving these problems?

The root of our problems is that our society is not a community, meaning that it is not a culture in which everyone has a respected and valued role to play.  Instead, we feel that most people are not entitled to respect, that they have little value, that they are certainly not our equal, and that they do not deserve to be treated with dignity and kindness.  It is a culture of me/us v them.  This lack of community affects the family, the workplace, the smallest village, the state, the country, even the community of nations. 

That in a nutshell is the nature of the problem.  All the ills of our society … poverty, homelessness, workplace conflict, family conflict, civil strife, even war … stem from this basic lack of humanity in our interactions with others. 

Before proceeding further, it is important to clarify what I mean by a “lack of humanity.”  Humanity is defined by Webster’s as “being kind to other people and animals.”  Inhumanity, the opposite, is defined as “being cruel to others.”

In common usage, however, we have a much narrower concept of inhumanity.  For most of us, inhumanity implies a horrific act, a barbarous act, like the ISIS beheadings, or even the tortured conduct at Abu Ghraib during the Iraq War.  

But as the definition clearly states, anything that is cruel to others is an example of inhumanity.  And mind you, this is from Webster’s, not some religious or spiritual text.  Combining that definition with the definition of cruel: any behavior that causes physical or mental harm or pain is cruel and thus inhumane.  Before we can make progress in solving society’s problems, we must acknowledge and accept this definition.

Using this definition, acts that man endures at the hands of his fellow man - whether in war, civil conflict, or everyday life situations such as in the workplace or even within the family - that are hurtful and painful, that fail to respect others, their equality, and the right of all to live with freedom and dignity … all of these acts are examples of inhumanity.  Yes, even acts you might view as somewhat innocuous in the workplace or at home, if they cause mental harm, are examples of inhumanity.  Without question, discrimination and bigotry are examples of inhumanity.

Aware of this definition, one begins to realize that inhumanity is almost more the norm of human interaction than humanity.  Thus the efforts of those, there’s even a foundation, to promote “random acts of kindness.”  How sad.

How do we find a solution to this problem?  How do we bring humanity back into human interaction?

We begin by noting that while this is not a new problem peculiar to the modern age, it is not a function of human nature.  If we look at communal societies such as indigenous groups that still exist, or Native American communities before they were devastated and corrupted by the white man, we see communities in which everyone had their place, everyone was valued and respected, everyone felt secure even though, in the case of Native Americans, there was some private ownership.  

But when mankind moved from communal societies to societies based on the individual as the organizing unit, something significant was lost in the transition … a sense of security.  And it has gotten worse over the centuries as civilization/technology has “progressed” and we have become ever-more disconnected from people and more connected to material things.

But I do not believe that all is irretrievably lost.  True, I don’t think from a practical perspective that it’s possible to have a true communal society in a nation as large and complex as most modern nations.  But since I don’t think there is an inherent contradiction between a capitalist economy and a sense of community, the question becomes - how to create the feeling and advantages of community while still having an economy that has the individual unit and private ownership as its basis.

Since our society is based on the individual, not the commune, the answer will also have to be based on the individual.  If the goal is to change our society and the world, it will have to be done one person at a time.   Some leadership from authority figures and the culture would help, but ultimately it comes down to the individual.

As noted above, what was principally lost in the transition to an individual-oriented society was a feeling of security.  When people feel secure, they have the psychological ability to be kind to others and respect others.  To give of themselves for the benefit of others and for the common good.

On the other hand, when people feel insecure the natural psychological tendency is to protect oneself, which devolves into seeing others as a threat, creating a me/us v them dichotomy.  In that situation one is not kind to others and one does not give of oneself for the benefit of others.  But the damage caused by insecurity goes even deeper than that.  When we feel insecure, we do not offer even ourselves kindness and respect because we do not feel worthy.  There is no happiness in our heart.  Thus the current state of affairs.

I have written in previous posts how insecurity is the source of all of our problems.  See “The Root of All Abuse and Violence - Insecurity” (1/7/13) and “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War” (1/10/13).  

For some, or perhaps many, readers this will all sound like “new-age gobbledegook.”  But bear with me.

Since I am positing that the solution to our society’s problems lies with the individual, before going any further, I ask you to ask yourself a question:  “Am I happy?  Am I truly happy?”

If you can look deep inside yourself, past your ego, and answer that question, “yes,” then more power to you and you are ready to start, if you haven’t already, treating all people with kindness and respect.

Unfortunately, most of us cannot answer that question, “yes,”  because we are troubled, we feel conflicted.  We are insecure.  It’s not that we don’t experience moments of happiness, but do we feel deeply happy?  No.

This is true regardless of one’s status in life.  Many people think that once you’ve made it, have money, have power, that you’re home free and experience happiness.  But that is usually not the case.  Regardless how strong our ego, regardless how successful we are, we don’t experience true happiness because we are at bottom insecure beings.  We have never been taught to open our heart and embrace all aspects of ourselves.  

We have never been taught  that we have everything we need within ourselves to be at peace and experience happiness.  Instead we’ve been taught that we need to be what we aren’t or need to have what we don’t have.  And the higher we achieve or the more we obtain, the more it seems we obsess about retaining what we have and obtaining even more

This is what must change.  If one person learns to embrace himself and know that he has what he needs inside himself to be at peace and experience happiness, then he will not only change his own life, but the life of all those he  comes into contact with because he will now relate to those around him very differently … he will offer them joy, kindness, and respect.  The more who change, the greater the impact.

Now, it’s a well known fact that most people will not undertake change for the benefit of others.  No matter how often people swear to do this, it just doesn’t work.  Most people will only undertake change for their own benefit, and even that is very difficult, so strong are our habit-energies.

So here’s the next question I want to ask you.  Would you like to be truly, deeply happy?  Would you like to be free of feelings of insecurity?  Would you like not to obsess about what’s going to happen to you tomorrow?

If your answer is, “yes,” then read on.  Despite years of negative programming by family, peers, and the culture, this is more within your reach than you might think.

The process is quite straightforward.  But it does take a lot of work to achieve as you are changing the habits of a lifetime.  Here are the basic steps:

1.  Become aware that all your feelings about yourself and the world around you are a result of your learned experience.  Now, most people would say this is as it should be because that’s how we learn.  However, learning facts and learning judgmental values are two very different things.  

You may be familiar with the Rodgers and Hammerstein song from South Pacific that says, “you’ve got to be taught before it’s too late, before you are six, or seven. or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate.”  Well, that basically is true for all feelings and perceptions.  Even everything we feel about ourselves is what we’ve been taught.  If you feel bad, or incompetent, or ugly, or the opposite, it’s what your family, your peers, and the culture has taught you.

None of these words describe who you and others really are; these are just labels we have been taught to apply.  They cover up the reality of people yet for most of us these labels are the only “I” and “them” that we know.  How many children are told over and over that they are bad or stupid?  How many are told that others, such as blacks, are dangerous, slow, and lazy?  And so these children come to identify themselves as bad or stupid and they identify others as dangerous, slow, and lazy with the harmful results that follow both for themselves and those around them.  How sad. 

The labels we apply to ourselves and others may just be just a product of the mind; it’s what we’ve been taught.  But they are no less powerful and cause us and them suffering.  It doesn’t matter whether the labels are pejorative or superlative, they cause suffering.

The oft-quoted serenity prayer says, “Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”  Those are truly words to live by.

We can’t change the way the world is.  But we can change how we relate to ourselves and to others … the labels that we automatically apply to everything we experience. That is totally within our control, difficult though it may be to part with habit-energies that have formed over a lifetime. When we stop applying labels and see ourselves and others as they truly are, not caricatures or stereotypes, a new world of possibilities opens up.

This is why Nina Simone wrote “To Be Young, Gifted, and Black.”  She wanted black children to hear that they are not stupid, but in fact gifted.  She wanted them to see their true selves.  Not the image placed on them by white society.

If you accept and acknowledge the truth of these statements, then you have made the first important step to in your own small way changing the world.

2.  Let your heart embrace all aspects of your being.  This is not something we are taught, either by family, peers, or the culture.  Quite the contrary.  We are made very aware of our faults, our failings, all the “negative” aspects of our character.  And so we learn not to love ourselves, not to respect ourselves; we are flawed, not worthy.  We become insecure.  We become very sensitive to perceived slights and wrongs and get angry or hurt, we tend to either withdraw or become an egomaniac.

Embracing all aspects of your being does not mean “indulge” yourself, giving yourself license to do things which may be harmful to yourself or others, but it does allow you to acknowledge these aspects of yourself and have compassion for yourself and for these tendencies, knowing that they are taught.  They are not you.

When we embrace ourselves fully we feel whole and so it removes the struggle, the internal battles, that tie us up and feed our anger, fear, and negativity.  Embracing these aspects of us greatly lessens their power. It may sound counter-intuitive, but when we, for example, fight our anger, try to rid ourselves of it, it actually strengthens our anger.  By embracing ourselves, these emotions instead sort of get smothered by love.  When we feel whole there is no reason to be angry. 

3.  Know that you have everything you need within yourself to experience peace and happiness.  Again, this is not what we’re taught by family, peers, or culture.  Just the opposite.  We are taught that we need all sorts of things … change who we are, how we look, obtain material things … in order to experience happiness.

But as in the first point, this is all stuff we are taught.  It is not a reflection of reality.  It is in fact by depending on things outside of ourselves for happiness that we are fated to experience endless disappointment, frustration, and psychological suffering.

This is not a refutation of John Locke’s famous poem, “No man is an island.”  It is not a call to isolate yourself and remove yourself from the world.  It is instead a call again to change how you relate to yourself and the world around you.

By not needing things, by not obsessing about things, by being able to say, “It’s great if it happens, but if it doesn’t that’s ok too,” the things we desire or want lose the power to frustrate us and cause us suffering.  It’s called non-attachment.

After becoming aware that all our feelings and perceptions are learned experience, a product of our mind, and not a reflection of our true selves … and after we allow our heart to embrace all aspects of ourselves … you will find that you become aware from within yourself, from your heart, that you have everything you need inside yourself to experience peace and happiness.

To summarize:  When you are aware that all your feelings and perceptions are taught, you will realize all the bull in our culture.  When you embrace all aspects of your being, you will find when you meet or even just observe others that you feel their suffering or joy, and you will feel compassion grow within yourself.  

When you know that you have everything you need inside yourself to experience peace and happiness, you will be able to go through your days without anything pushing your buttons.  You will be secure.  You will be aware of all things.  You will note the things that you can in some way change, but regarding those you can’t, you will be aware that things are the way they are because it’s just the way it is, your buttons will not be pushed, you will not obsess, you will not become agitated.

When you have reached this state, or even just begun the process of walking this path which is so different from the one you’ve followed in the past, you will find that you perform more and more random acts of kindness.  That you feel a sense of community with all people and have compassion for their state and suffering.  That you understand the value of all people, of all life, and that you respect all people.  

For you realize that people are the way they are and you are the way you are because it’s the way we’ve been taught to view ourselves and the world around us.  There are no evil people, just people who’ve been taught to do harmful things to others.  There are no failures, just people who have not been able to accomplish something that their learned experience drove them to do.  There are no lazy people, just people who’ve been beaten down all their lives by messages that they will not amount to anything.  There are no worthless people; everyone has something to contribute to society if given the opportunity; sometimes its intellect, sometimes its talent, sometimes it’s just a smile or their presence.  

And when you realize these things, you will support politicians who seek to change the fundamental nature of our culture, to create a sense of community, and to change the way we view government because so much of how people view themselves, respect themselves or don’t, feel they have opportunity or not, is a result of their interaction with government.  This is not an anti-wealth movement.  It is not an anti-business movement.  It is just a movement that says that everyone has their value and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.  

The Declaration of Independence states that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the purpose of government is to secure those rights.  So government action to improve educational opportunity, health care opportunity, job opportunity, and housing opportunity is necessary in order for all people to be able to truly experience life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to experience dignity and respect.   

Lincoln stated that we are a democracy “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  This implies both rights and responsibilities of citizenship.  Those who have been able to benefit from the system and gain wealth need to give their fair share to support the government’s efforts to provide all citizens with a meaningful equal opportunity to make more of their lives.  The wealthy will still be wealthy, but part of that wealth will now serve a meaningful function in the betterment of the common good.