The health of our democracy depends on three components, among others. The first is an informed electorate which has the responsibility of electing those who will both represent it and help lead the country. The second is leaders who both represent their constituencies and act for the greater good of the country. The third is an electorate and leaders that respect that all are working in the best interest of the country and accept the inevitable loss, whether of a legislative bill or an election, that is part of the democratic process.
On the first point, we have always been weak. From the very beginning of our country, the electorate base was not well-informed about the issues, in the sense of being able to think rationally about the choices. Not that they weren’t or aren’t capable of it. But politicians (even the august Thomas Jefferson, through surrogates of course) have often played more to the electorate’s emotions than its mind and have often used inflammatory words, making reckless, deceitful charges, in order to rouse the populace in their favor and against others.
As to the second point, while American politics, especially elections, have always involved a good amount of mud-slinging, historically politicians on the national level once elected have generally speaking comported themselves appropriately and have, while representing their constituents, acted in what they saw as the national interest. Except on the issue of racism (or in the pre-Civil War years, slavery), ideology was not a controlling factor in actions of Congress.
And although there has always been a strong element of conflict between the powerful central government forces v the small/weak central government forces (the parties names have changed over the years), those arguments were, once the Constitution was in place, more on peripheral issues. Even a staunch small central government advocate such as Jefferson, presided over a huge increase in the responsibility of the federal government. Similarly George W. Bush presided over a huge increase in the federal deficit as a result of his policies.
But the art of compromise in Congress had been weakening and the nastiness of interchange increasing since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992. Since the election of Barack Obama and the 2010 midterms, the functioning of Congress has basically come to a halt.
The Republican Right has taken control of the party and the Republican Congressional agenda. With their extreme ideological rigidity, the Republican majority in the House and the Republican minority in the Senate (which can stop any legislation or appointment through the filibuster, even when a majority of the Senate is in favor) have been able to halt any legislation that addresses the national interest from other than their narrow perspective.
The most egregious example of this was in the recent debate on expanding background checks for gun purchases. 90% of Americans surveyed, and 85% of NRA members, supported expanded background checks. A bi-partisan compromise measure was introduced lead by arch gun rights advocates, one Republican, one Democrat. And still the measure was defeated through the filibuster process by Republicans joined by a few Democrats.
That this measure, which would not have kept a single gun of any type out of the hands of anyone who was legally entitled to own one and thus, as the Republican co-sponsor said, was really not a gun control measure, was defeated despite overwhelming popular support and desperate need shows the total failure of our system. It also shows clearly another aspect of the system’s failure ... the preponderant influence of corporate America. The only powerful interests against the Senate measure were firearm manufacturers and their de facto voice, the NRA.
Corporations have for more than a century had a strong voice in Congress through their lobbyists and political donations. And this has impacted both parties. Both are in thrall to and support the power of the big corporations, although the Republicans more so than the Democrats because they have been the greater beneficiary of corporate dollars.
The old saying, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," was discredited years ago, and yet that still is often the marching tune for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. What happened to the concept that, while being supportive of a strong and healthy business sector, an important role of government, and therefore Congress, is to protect the general public from the excesses of corporate activity and power?
This can especially be seen in the federal response to the recent financial crisis ... nothing has really changed; the same financial practices that led to the collapse are ongoing; regulation has not really improved; no one in the big investment firms has been brought to justice for their shady practices; it's business as usual on Wall Street. It can also sadly be seen in the team that President Obama put together after his inauguration to advise him on such matters ... all seasoned Wall Street types who were prime actors in the period leading up to the collapse.
But since the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that corporations can spend unlimited sums supporting someone’s candidacy through PACs, the power of corporations not just over the actions of Congressmen, but on who gets elected, has been increased manyfold. Through huge purchases of advertising air time to support candidates favorable to them, they have been able or tried to influence the electorate and change the outcome of close elections. If ever there was an argument for Federally-financed elections, this is it.
The third point, which has always been the most solid aspect of our democracy, is under threat. The basic premise, that each side respects the other’s bone fides in working for the national interest, has been gravely weakened if not destroyed. Neither side trusts the other nor will it give the other credit for acting in the national interest. Instead, each side accuses the other of special interest politics and being a threat to the nation’s well-being.
There have even been some who have voiced the possibility of violence if their position does not win the day. And there has been a substantial rise in the number of right-wing militias around the country since the election of Barack Obama. While there is no danger of the constitutional transfer of power being interrupted, there is certainly a danger that the peacefulness of that transfer or the peacefulness of legislative losses may become a thing of the past.
This situation cannot continue unabated without seriously damaging our democratic system. Several actions are necessary. At a minimum, all federal elections should be publicly financed. That would have the benefit of putting all candidates on an equal footing ... winning an election should not depend on how much money you can raise ... and would greatly decrease the prevalence of advertising, which is almost never informative. Second, all broadcasters, who use federally-licensed air waves, should be required to provide a certain amount of free advertising and speaking time to all candidates. This should help increase the exchange of ideas rather than sound bites. Third, no other organizations should be allowed to take out advertising to influence elections or pressure their employees to vote a certain way; contrary to the recent Supreme Court opinion, corporations are not people ... they don’t have a vote and likewise they shouldn’t have a voice. Fourth, religious organizations who are granted tax-exempt non-profit status should be held to the regulations regarding that status, which prohibit supporting candidates for political office. Finally, there should be a truth in campaigning measure passed which disciplines candidates who not just stretch the truth but lie and sets up a nonpartisan group to monitor all campaign statements and literature,
The factor of money must be removed from elections and politics. And the electorate must be communicated with in a way that engages their mind on competing ideas rather than on competing emotions.
American political leaders and average Americans too take great pride in trumpeting the United States as the greatest country in the world. We are the strongest, the richest; we have the best medical system; we have the best educational system; and the list goes on and on.
But are we the greatest country? While it is incontrovertible that we are the strongest country in the world militarily, and that we are the richest country in the world in terms of the size of our economy, when it comes to the health and welfare of the American people we are far from the greatest, as the data below will show. And I believe it is in the ability of all Americans to pursue the American promise of “equality” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that our greatness is best measured.
You might ask, “Why bother exposing this myth?” Because we have many problems in this country which seem to be intractable, largely because people ... both most leaders and the average American ... refuse to acknowledge the facts, let alone view them as presenting a serious problem that must be addressed. Most people are so caught up in how great we are and how good life in this country is that we have come to believe the illusion and cannot see the gritty reality which is quite different.
Only when our leaders and the public are able to see and admit these significant problems that limit our greatness will the political will exist to do what is necessary to fix them. And they can be fixed. We have the riches and the knowledge to do all that needs to be done.
In the data below, the United States is compared with the rest of the developed world, and at times the entire world. The areas I will examine ... health, education, income inequality, violence/security, social mobility, and equal opportunity ... are essential to the ability of our country to live up to the promises made in the Declaration of Independence and truly be the great nation we aspire to.
Health: Despite having by far the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms on most measures of the quality of health care. Looking at quality of care, access to care, efficiency, equity, and living healthy lives, the US ranks last or next-to-last when compared with Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Most troubling is the failure of the US in the area of health outcomes ... people leading healthy lives.
The summary table below says it all:
AUS CAN GER NETH NZ UK US
Overall Ranking (2010) 3 6 4 1 5 2 7
Quality of Care 4 7 5 2 1 3 6
Access 6.5 5 3 1 4 2 6.5
Efficiency 2 6 5 3 4 1 7
Equity 4 5 3 1 6 2 7
Long, Healthy Lives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Health Exp/Capita (2007) $3357 $3895 $3588 $3837 $2454 $2992 $7290
This data, which comes from a report by The Commonwealth Fund, is consistent with the findings of other reports and surveys. For example, a recent report sponsored by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine compared the US with 17 other developed countries, and the US came in last. The report shows a “strikingly consistent and pervasive” pattern of poorer health at all stages of life, from infancy to old age. Further, the report shows that even white, well-off Americans live sicker and die sooner than similarly situated people elsewhere.
Education: The US fares somewhat better in education comparisons, in that it was not dead last. This is the one area regarding which the media will occasionally ring the alarm bell that “we are falling behind.” In data comparing the G-8 countries, American 15-years old come in 3rd in Reading, 6th in Math, and 5th in Science. In looking at high school graduation rates, the US and Canada tie for the lowest rate, 76%. The other 6 G-8 countries range from 85% (Italy) to 97% (Germany). This is a huge failure of our system.
Income Inequality: In a report on income inequality in 17 developed countries based on various studies, the United States had the greatest income inequality. The top 1% of income earners accounted for 17.4% of US income while at the other end, in the Netherlands, the top 1% accounted for only 5.4% of income. In looking at World Bank figures for the entire world, with the exception of China and Hong Kong, only undeveloped or developing countries, mostly in Africa and Central and South America, had greater income inequality than the US.
And income inequality is been increasing steadily in the US over the past 50 years. For example, in 1949, the top 1% accounted for 11% of income, similar to or less than many developed countries at that time. But for 10 of the 17 countries, income inequality has actually decreased in the past 50 years while those that have increased have experienced a much lower percentage increase than the US.
In looking at total net worth, the top 1% in the US accounted for 34% of net worth, the top 10% accounted for 70%, while the bottom 80% accounted for only 15%. According to a UN report on the distribution of household wealth worldwide, only 4 countries in the world had greater inequality in household wealth than the US!
Violence/Security: In 2003, there were 30,000 fire-arm related deaths in the US (homicides and suicides). According to an American Bar Association report, the rate of death from firearms in the US is eight times higher than in other industrialized countries. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the fire-arm related death rate among US children younger than 15 is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The US has the highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations.
In a UN report comparing the intentional homicide rate (i.e. excluding suicide) worldwide, the US at 4.8 per 100,000 people was the highest for a developed country. The next highest was 2.2 for Finland. Germany, Italy, and France were 0.8, 0.9, and 1.1 respectively. The United Kingdom was 1.2.
It would seem that our vaunted right to purchase firearms of all sorts has helped to create a more violent, less secure environment for Americans, rather than a less violent, more secure one as argued by gun proponents. Interestingly, in a recent article regarding the Texas District Attorney and his wife who were murdered in their home, it was reported that he had 60-72 guns of all types planted all over the house and that both he and his wife were expert at using them. But apparently all those guns were to no avail.
Social Mobility: America has always prided itself as being the land of opportunity. Over the years, especially the late 1800s and early 1900s, tens of millions of immigrants came to the US because of the American dream. And indeed, while data for that period is not available, certainly anecdotal stories of the upward mobility of immigrants abound. Surveys show that Americans still think of their country as being a meritocracy; that is, if you have what it takes and you are hardworking, you will succeed.
But the data from two recent studies show that the image is far from true. Yes, there is still social mobility, but the US is hardly the leader in this area. In a study by the PEW Economic Mobility Project of 10 developed countries, the US had a lower generational income mobility than that of the other countries. That means that a child’s income (as an adult) was more a function of his father’s income. Likewise, in a study that compared 6 developed countries regarding the likelihood of children remaining in the same income quintile as their their father, 42% of American children in the poorest quintile remained in that quintile, a rate of poverty persistence far greater than the 30% in the United Kingdom and the 25-28% range found in the Scandinavian countries. Likewise in looking at the percentage who moved from the lowest quintile to the highest quintile, the US rate was 7.9%, while the rate in the other 5 countries was 11 - 14%.
Equal Opportunity: The United States has many laws guaranteeing equal opportunity, meaning freedom from discrimination. But even if those laws worked perfectly and there was no more discrimination in this country, which of course is far from the case, there would still be a significant lack of equal opportunity because your parents’ income usually determines where you live and the quality of education that you receive, which in turn determines the range of your opportunity. Given the high income inequality in the US, that means that true equal opportunity is really a phantom in our country.
While this lack of equal opportunity is not just a function of unequal funding, legal and legislative efforts to alter this dynamic by changing the way in which schools are financed ... equally by the state rather than unequally by school districts ... have not gained traction anywhere because of the opposition of those who fare better under the current system. While there is no comparative data on this specific issue with other countries, the data on social mobility reflect this reality.
In summary, the data show that the United States has the worst health system in the developed world, even if it is by far the most expensive. It has a mediocre educational system compared with other developed countries. It has the highest income inequality in the developed world and almost the highest wealth inequality in the entire world. It has the highest rate by far of people dying from firearms in the developed world. The social upward mobility of Americans from generation to generation is now significantly lower than that in other developed countries. And equal opportunity is not available because lower income Americans receive an inferior education.
This data is cause for our political leaders and the public to stop and consider what has caused these problems to develop and what needs to be done to return America to the path of greatness. It is not just a matter of throwing more money at a problem. Each of these problems reflects structural defects in our system that must be corrected. The American people are hurting. Further, the combined impact of these problems will lead, if not addressed, to a steadily weaker America on the world stage.
The newest scheme that the financial industry has devised to avoid transparency is something called a “deep pool.” Apparently these trading pools have popped up all over the place. According to the New York Times, on some recent days as much as 40% of trades occurred in such pools, which are totally unregulated and secret. This has given pause to many. In Canada and Australia, rules have been passed to limit such off-exchange trading. But the SEC has shown no inclination to do so.
There appears to be no end to the ingenuity of the industry to come up with products and devise trading mechanisms that will be to its advantage. But as we have seen all too well, those products and mechanisms can pose grave risks to the economy and the welfare of millions of Americans.
Because the impact and size of the financial industry has grown exponentially from what it was decades ago, and because the risk of its actions are broad-based, the time has come for government to change the way in which the industry is regulated. The current system pretty much gives the industry freedom to do as it wishes with some after-the-fact regulation. Instead, the system should be changed to one where a new product or a new mechanism must be first approved by the government before it is put to use.
We do this for the pharmaceutical industry because of the damage that drugs can have on people. It is done in other industries where environmental impact statements are required before a project can go forward. The damage from the financial industry’s risky products and destabilizing mechanisms can be, as we have recently seen, even more toxic. Yes, this would be a pain in the neck for the industry and pose a considerable restraint on its activities ... but that’s just the point. Such restraint is needed. And we have seen that it cannot effectively be applied after the fact.
The financial industry has proven that it cannot be trusted to regulate itself. There are far too many people at positions both high and low who are not ethical and will do anything to make a buck, regardless of its potential risk to the nation’s economy.
In addition, Glass-Steagall must be re-enacted. This law, which was passed in the 30s to separate commercial and investment banking activities, served us well for 60 years. But the industry and the Republicans didn’t like it, and so it was repealed in the late 90s and unfortunately signed into law by President Clinton.
It is the repeal of this law which allowed the monster firms ... those too big to fail ... like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase to develop and pose the risks that caused the 2008 financial near-collapse. And those same risks continue to be posed today, as the various efforts to rein in the industry’s actions have been ineffectual at best. Despite the rhetoric of the Obama administration, not much has changed in this area since pre-2008 days.
Our country is at grave risk. Congress must act to protect the people from future financial catastrophe.
Let me start by saying that this is not about taking away your rights to hunt or defend your family. This is not about in any way infringing on your legitimate rights to own guns and use them. What this is solely about is trying to stop the epidemic of gun violence against innocent people that is plaguing our nation, causing untold grief to tens of thousands of families each year.
Gun violence is not limited to the mass shootings that get national attention. While such events are horrific, a far greater problem exists impacting large numbers of innocent Americans. In 2010, for example, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans. Roughly 20,000 of these were suicides; the rest were intentional homicides. Only 5% were accidental shootings. In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
Recently, I learned of a particularly moving example of gun violence. A young man who was severely sight-disabled went outside with his guide dog to try and see a comet that was passing in the night sky. While he was outside, a man leaving a neighboring unit after an argument with his girlfriend shot someone on the stairs. Upon hearing the shot, the young man started to hurry back to his apartment. Before he could get back inside, the distraught gunman shot him in the back and killed him. He died on his kitchen floor, his guide dog howling beside him.
In the face of all of this unnecessary loss of innocent life and family grief, how can you be against reasonable efforts aimed to lessen gun violence while not infringing on your legitimate right to own firearms for hunting and self-defense?
Let’s look at the NRA’s arguments and your fears. The NRA’s main arguments boil down to this: No measure reducing access to guns is acceptable because any such measure is a first step by the government and gun opponents to ultimately removing guns from private possession.
This is patently nonsense. There isn’t a politician alive, nor any but a small fringe of the gun control advocacy community, that wants to do anything more than control access to guns for the reasons I’ve stated without disturbing legitimate ownership and use for hunting and self-defense.
If this is the case, then why, you may ask, does the NRA, an organization you trust, take such a broad position? The answer is that the NRA, which began as an organization of sportsmen, hunters, and gun collectors, has morphed into the prime spokesman and defender of the gun industry.
Why? More than half of the NRA’s funding now comes from the gun industry, rather than from the dues of its members. And because the NRA can say that it speaks for gun owners ... a broad-based group of Americans ... it is the NRA who is front and center after each gun incident and in lobbying Congress, rather than the trade association of the gun industry. And the gun industry is, not surprisingly, against any form of regulations that reduces sales and impacts their profits.
That is why the NRA is against a ban on assault-weapons. These types of rifles and guns are not used by hunters or in self-defense. But they are a major revenue source for the gun industry.
That is why the NRA is against a ban on magazines holding large numbers (100) of bullets. Again, such magazines are not used by hunters or in self-defense.
That is why the NRA is against mandating background checks in all sales and improving the nature of the checks. These would in no way hinder the purchase by hunters or your average home-owner, but it would dampen sales to criminals and mentally ill people who should not have guns, thereby decreasing sales and impacting profits.
That is why the NRA responded to the Newtown, CT massacre by saying that all schools should have armed guards. This would require a huge increase in the sale of firearms to local government and thus benefit the industry’s profits.
Every position the NRA takes is in support of the gun industry, NOT in support of the sportsmen, hunters, and gun collectors who they claim to speak for. But it is you, the NRA members, who have taken the public relations hit for being unreasonable on this subject, not the gun industry.
The time has come for gun owners to realize that they have been used and manipulated by the NRA and the gun industry for its own purposes. You must speak clearly and loudly that you do not support the NRA’s positions and you are in favor of reasonable measures that reduce gun violence while protecting your legitimate right to own and use firearms for hunting, sport, and self-defense.
Gun violence can never be eliminated because, as the NRA is fond of saying, “people do kill people.” People who legitimately own guns will on occasion end up using them in a way other than intended. But the extent of violence can be greatly reduced through reasonable, effective laws.
Please support the modest gun control measures that are before Congress. Call your Congressman today.
Over the past 30 years, we have been witnessing the slow demise of the American Republic. I don’t mean that the United States will cease to exist, or that we will be conquered by some external power. What I mean is that the principles on which this nation was founded and the philosophy that fostered the continued betterment of life for its citizens ... those things that made this country great and a beacon to the world ... have been and are now being weakened at an accelerating pace, to the detriment of our democratic principles and the common good.
The fundamental underpinning of the great American experiment is found in the Declaration of Independence. It exists in two parts. The first is the well-known phrase that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The second equally essential part of the experiment is the statement “That to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
These were radical, indeed revolutionary, concepts and they sparked not just the American revolution, but revolutions first in Europe, and ultimately throughout the world. Even though America did not always live up to its founding credos, it was these credos and the strength and prosperity that flowed from them that made the United States the envy of the world.
When our nation was founded and for much of its history, it goes without saying that all men and women were not equal, under the law or otherwise. Slavery existed as a legal enterprise until 1863 when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Lincoln. But as then Vice-President Lyndon Johnson stated in 1963, “Emancipation was a Proclamation but not a fact.” It would take another 90 years till the Supreme Court finally declared that segregated education was unconstitutional and a further 10 years before Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provided a statutory basis for blacks being treated equally under the law.
Women ... the wives of the founders and the mothers of their children ... were legally chattel at the time. Women had no rights at all, and whatever property they had prior to marriage (as the result of inheritance or otherwise) became the property of their husbands. Though the legal rights of women were expanded during the 19th century, it was not until 1920 that women were finally given the right to vote.
These are the two most prominently cited examples of historic inequality in this country. The other obvious, though less spoken of historically, inequality is one of wealth. There have always been masses of poor among the few rich, and that is indeed a fact of life in every society, regardless the nature of its government. But over the decades, and especially since the beginning of the 20th century, government has passed laws which have both protected the common man from the power of the mighty (e.g. the Taft-Hartley labor law) and sought to at least partially ameliorate the economic inequality and its impact through programs that support the financially vulnerable. The funds for such programs were made available by our system of progressive taxation, under which those who are more able contribute more to the betterment of the common good.
In each of these examples, while we are still a long way from a nation where “all men are created equal” or have equality of opportunity, government has over the years increasingly met its obligation as stated in the Declaration to “secure these rights” and to insure that every adult has the right to vote so that government does draw its powers justly “from the consent of the governed.”
But on all of these fronts, government and the nation as a whole has begun to disassemble these credos. President Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution, government is the problem.” Over the next 30 years and continuing at an accelerated pace in the present, the Republican Party’s concept of government has been less government, less regulation (don’t interfere with business), smaller government, let people fend for themselves. Their attitude is that if people don’t succeed, it’s their own fault.
This is a major shift in attitude from that contained in the Declaration and in the way our modern progressive government, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, developed during most of the 20th century. And since the Republican Party has been the majority party in Congress for most of the past 30+ years, that has resulted in a major shift in government itself. The result, together with the huge influence of big business in policy-making through lobbying, fundraising, and PACs, is that corporations pretty much rule our government and set policy. It is no longer there to secure everyone’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This has affected policy in all areas of government ... from clean air to mining on federal lands to social security to elections.
At the same time, Reagan’s introduction of the “me” generation has resulted in a major shift in cultural attitudes. Everyone is now out for him- or herself. The idea behind the American social contract that we all share a responsibility for the common good, and that those with more ability have a responsibility to contribute more to insure the common good is fast becoming out of date. This is especially prevalent among the elite rich. Indeed, not only have they little concern for the welfare of their fellow Americans; they have little concern for the welfare of the country because as citizens with a global range of business activity, they see no place as their “home.” For the first time in our history, the rich are not committed to the United States.
The combined change in the attitude of government and the public has resulted in a retrenchment on the advances in equality that had been achieved over the previous century. Over the past 30-40 years, the income of the working class or middle class has remained stagnant in real dollar terms while the top 5% have just gotten richer and richer. The result is that income inequality is greater now than it has been since before the depression.
While people of color (primarily blacks and hispanics) have not become less equal during this period, they have made no progress in the march to equality. They still lack equal opportunity because inner city schools remain subpar (and there are enough success stories now that we know that this failure is not a function of the students’ background) and because subtle discrimination is still rampant despite its having been illegal for decades. There has been no push, except marginally, to do anything to change this situation.
Finally, there is the issue of ethics. While ethics has never been part of America’s credo or ethos, based as it is on capitalism, during the middle of the 20th century ethics in government and business came to be expected and certainly was the culturally correct position. But as the importance of money and business together with egocentrism has increased again, so too has the attitude that the end justifies the means. If doing something unethical provides an opportunity to make more money, then corporations and financial titans as well as workers in the cogs of those organizations will do so without barely a second thought or care for who might get hurt, whether the general public or even customers. It’s back to the future.
That was the primary cause for the recent financial debacle that we are still recovering from. Yes, many point to the repeal of Glass-Steagall (the depression era law that separated commercial and investment banking) as well as deregulation as having caused the crisis. And while that is true, it is only true because people in business cannot be counted on to act in an ethical, professional manner. They must be monitored to enforce an ethical code that respects the common good.
One could go on and on about the ways in which the government’s protection of the common good, thereby securing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, has dramatically decreased over the past 30 years. That there is less equality now than 30 or 40 years ago cannot be disputed (yes, women and gays/lesbians have more equality now than then, but that is mostly an upper class phenomenon).
If this trend continues over the coming decades, the promise of the American Republic will have failed. The concept of equality will be nothing but an illusion. And government will not be there to secure rights for all and protect the common good. Historically, our system struck a balance between private rights, the public good, and government. That balance is on the tipping edge, if not already past it.
Recently I viewed a DVD about the struggles of West Bank Palestinian villagers against the encroachment on their land and olive groves by both the nearby Israeli settlement ... a city, really ... as well as the “wall.” It's a depressing reminder of what Israel has become mired in as a result of its decades-long occupation of the West Bank. The Israel Defense Forces came off, not surprisingly, as cold and heartless, and the Palestinian villagers as only wanting peace and their land.
I should say at the start of this post that I have always been of a different mind about Israel than my family and most Jews that I know. While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and its right to exist, I have always been critical of actions taken by the Israeli government almost from the beginning that made and continue to make 2nd class citizens of Israeli Arabs (those Arabs who chose to stay in Israel at the time of independence were granted citizenship but lived under martial law until 1966 and continue to be discriminated against in areas such as village infrastructure, education, and social funding). By its own actions, the State of Israel is not an example of how these two people can live in peace and harmony to their mutual benefit.
But things here are never so black and white. The Palestinians are not the equivalent of the American Indians or blacks during Apartheid nor are the Israelis the land-grabbing fascists that many have come to believe they are in more recent decades. There is ample blame to be placed on both sides for the ongoing conflict. To understand the dynamics and make any effort at being a helpful broker one must understand the history of the conflict.
Prior to WWI, the land that is now Israel and the West Bank, as well as most of the modern states in the Mideast, were part of the Caliphate of Turkey. There was no Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or Palestine. These countries were created by the Allied powers after winning WWI (Turkey was allied with Germany and so was on the losing side). They basically drew lines on a map and created these countries and then proceeded to install monarchies in most.
This was not the case with Palestine, however. Here a British Mandate was created, meaning that the British were responsible for governing this territory. It was not a colony in the normal sense of the word, but in effect it was.
Around this same time a movement was growing among European Jews called Zionism. It’s aim was to create a Jewish homeland in what had been biblical Israel and was now part of the Palestine mandate. If one asks why Jews wanted this, one only has to look at the centuries of persecution that Jews have suffered in almost every country they lived in at the hand of the Christian, and especially the Catholic, rulers and people of those countries. And I’m not talking about mere discrimination. There are ample examples, from the Spanish Inquisition to the progroms of Czarist Russia, where the persecution took on a very violent, bloody, government-instigated form as well as the normal day to day beatings that Jews were often subjected to at the hands of Christian thugs.
During the interwar period, Zionists began immigrating to the Palestine mandate and buying land. As their numbers increased, periodic violence erupted between the Jews and the Palestinians, the longest such incident lasting from 1936-1939.
Then of course came WWII and the Holocaust. And the dynamics of the Zionist’s search changed. In November 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended the partition of the Palestine mandate into two separate states ... one for the Jews and one for the Arabs. The Zionists accepted the proposed partition but all the surrounding Arab states rejected the partition plan, as did the Palestinians. Note: the Palestinians could have had their own state right then, but because their Arab sponsors would not agree to a Jewish state and the Palestinians rejected partition for a variety of reasons but basically an inability to compromise, they lost it.
When Zionist leaders proclaimed the independent state of Israel in 1948, all the surrounding Arab countries attacked the new state of Israel, a war which they quickly lost. At the same time, some 700,000 Palestinians left, fled or were driven from their homes and took refuge in surrounding Arab countries where they remain today, still refugees, not citizens of the host country. Jordan took control over the West Bank, Egypt over Gaza. Control of Jerusalem was split between Israel and Jordan. The Palestinians were a people left with nothing.
Later that year, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution stating that those Palestinians who wished to return to their homes should be permitted to do so and those who do not should be compensated by Israel. That resolution has never been implemented.
The Palestinians became an official entity in 1964 for the first time when leaders gathered with the support of the Arab League and created the Palestine Liberation Organization. It’s charter clearly states that the creation of the State of Israel is null and void.
In 1967, aware that the Arab countries were again preparing to attack it, Israel conducted a pre-emptive war against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. At the end Israel gained control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, as well as the Golan Heights from Syria, and the entire Sinai Peninsula and Gaza from Egypt. That was the beginning of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.,
In response to the war, the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied conquered lands and the acknowledgment of the sovereignty of all states in the region and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders. This resolution, with its land for peace strategy, would form the basis for all future negotiations.
In 1973, Egypt and Syria mounted a surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. After 3 weeks, Israel had rebuffed those forces and regained control of the Sinai and the Golan Heights.
The first major movement towards peace in the area came with the Camp David accords between Israel’s Menachem Begin and Eqypt’s Anwar Sadat. Israel agreed to hand back the Sinai to Egypt in return for peace and normalization. As a result of making peace, Egypt was expelled from the Arab League and Sadat was assassinated.
At the same time, Begin began a policy of greatly expanding the number and size of Israeli “settlements” on the West Bank in order to frustrate any future attempts to hand the West Bank back to the Palestinians. Note: No country other than Israel considers the settlements legal, since they are built on occupied territory and violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In 1993, the PLO and Israel signed the Oslo agreements in which Israel recognized the PLO and gave them limited autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for peace. The PLO in turn gave up its claim to the territory of Israel as defined by its borders before the 1967 war and agreed to end the Intifada. Both sides agreed that they would make gradual steps towards a final settlement and that they would do nothing to change the status of West Bank and Gaza pending the outcome of negotiations.
Note that while the PLO (as its leader Yasser Arafat had previously done) tacitly recognized Israel’s right to exist, it did not and has not changed the language in its charter calling the State of Israel “null and void.” A public vote was finally taken in 1998 which supposedly nullified the pertinent clauses, but a new amended charter has never been produced, raising the inevitable questions.
Fast forward to July 2000. At Camp David, President Clinton shuttled back and forth between Ehud Barak of Israel and Yasser Arafat. Barak agreed to most of what the Palestinians had wanted. The major holdback was the right of return. The other problem was that because of the number of Jewish “settlements” on the West Bank that Israel wanted to keep control of for a variety of reasons, the proposed Palestinian state would have been divided into disconnected regions and the Israel army would have been in their face constantly. The talked ended without agreement.
In the Israeli election that followed, the right wing of Israeli politics took the helm once again. In the intervening years, the parties have never come as close to peace again. The peace process is moribund. Israel has drifted into an increasingly insular and right wing perspective, continuing the process of building new and expanding old “settlements” and erecting the “wall” separating Palestinian towns from the Jewish settlements and Israel proper. Hamas, the more militant Palestinian group in control of Gaza, has been resurgent. The PLO has been weakened.
At this point, it is hard even for the most positive and peace-seeking individuals to imagine what the shape of a two-state solution would look like on the ground or how the two sides with a history of decades of hate and distrust could find the trust necessary to make compromises and feel secure in peace. The goal of Menachem Begin of increasing and expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank in order to make it impossible for a future Israeli government to arrive at a viable peace agreement with the Palestinians succeeded.
There are no winners here, only losers. There is no real security for Israel without peace, but peace in and of itself does not bring about security for Israel. And so long as the Palestinians do not view Israel as a legitimate state, they will never reach their dream of having their own country at last.
So you see why I say that neither party, Israel nor the Palestinians, come to this matter with “clean hands.” Both parties, as well as the larger Arab community, have their share of blame. Pointing one's finger at one or the other party thus is not realistic nor does it move the matter forward. Peace, and a two-state solution, will only come to be when both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership really want peace and are willing to make the hard compromises that will be necessary and sell them to their people.
We live in an era of unprecedented freedom ... of speech, of travel, of work, of intellectual and creative endeavor, of where we live, to name just a few. And we live in a nation that has experienced great upward mobility over the past century.
And yet, whether rich or poor, professional or working class, we are enslaved. To be more exact, the habit-energies of our minds are enslaved. We have become little more than programmed unthinking robots that do what our masters ... the lords of capitalism ... want us to do. And this affects virtually all areas of our lives. (You may well find this proposition ludicrous, but please read on.)
The lords of capitalism (by this I mean all those who hold the reins of power in our capitalist system) have achieved their desired control over our lives by preying on the weaknesses of man ... on our intense desire or craving to be loved, to be desired, to be admired, to be part of a group. Now, wanting to be loved or part of a group is not inherently either a weakness or something bad for us. But because of the insecurity that affects most of us in this culture, those wants have been manipulated by the lords of capitalism into cravings which rule our lives and cause us endless frustration and pain, leading us further from the feelings of peace and happiness that are our birthright.
Let me site this enslavement’s most prevailing form. In our contemporary culture, status is confirmed almost exclusively by one thing ... money. Because the more money one has the more, and more expensive, things one can acquire, and ones acquisitions ... what used to be called, derogatorily, conspicuous consumption ... is at the core of one's status.
Whether rich or poor, what you are able to acquire ... whether it’s fancy Nike sneakers for a ghetto dweller or a 20,000 sq. ft. mansion for the top 1% ... gives you status among your peers. It’s not talent, brains, or looks ... it’s how you’ve been able to parlay those attributes into money. And so we find that individuals are making life decisions, to the extent they have control, based primarily on the prospect of making more money rather than the factors that used to be of equal or greater importance.
The reader might say, “so what’s wrong with that?” What’s wrong is that it traps one in a cycle of endless frustration, even if one is successful, because one always is left wanting MORE. What’s wrong is that it distorts decisions that are important for the larger society ... like how many people choose to become teachers, or engineers, or primary care doctors rather than financial industry brokers or high paid medical specialists. What’s wrong is that ethics and professionalism are routinely sacrificed on the altar of money. Whether you look at almost any aspect of the recent financial debacle or in general at the actions of industry, including the health care industry, if making more money means disregarding ethics or cutting corners on professionalism the latter concerns are hardly given a second thought.
Mind you, I’m fully aware that the enslavement of man’s habit-energies is not something exclusive to the capitalist system. In almost any system that has a power hierarchy, those in power will take measures to ensure that the masses do what they want them to do. The most extreme examples were found in totalitarian societies, like Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.
But while the political propaganda in those cases was far more reprehensible and sinister, there is little practical difference between the marketing that we are subjected to on a constant basis and that political propaganda. It all falls under the category of the big lie. And the aim in both is the control of people.
“Oh, come on!” you may say. But think about it. The success of our capitalist consumer-based economy depends on making people believe they need something, regardless whether they really do. The more successful marketing has become, the more addicted people have become to consuming, and the more money has become the essential means to obtain the desired end ... to the point that people will do almost anything to obtain money.
There is no shortage of examples of this among rich or poor. It is this craving that resulted in affluent people in the financial industry not caring what the impact of their reckless actions were on others in the recent mortgage securities debacle. It is this craving that results in many of the poor turning to the world of crime (10% of black males in their 30s are in prison or jail on any given day. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one third of all black men can expect to be in prison at some point during their lifetime) or people with meager means agreeing to the removal of mountaintops for coal mining and hydro-fracking if they see money in it for themselves, regardless if the risk is high or virtually assured that it will ultimately despoil the environment and contaminate their very drinking water, the source of life.
“Ah,” you may say, “but people here have free will. It’s their choice whether to buy something or not. Whether to work in one industry or not. Whether to be ethical or not.”
But that’s just the point. People don’t really have free will. They have been programmed by our culture and its pervasive marketing and consumerist values to crave the acquisition of things and to acquire the money needed to satisfy that craving. And when one craves something, when one becomes addicted to something, one has no free will. That is how we have become enslaved. And this includes those at the top who are exploiting the rest of us. One has no real choice not to do what your addiction tells you to do ... barring of course becoming aware that one is an addict and going through a 12-step program to recover your peace and contentment.
A big lie central to the success of this marketing is the concept of progress. Certainly since the industrial revolution, and perhaps before, progress has been touted as being the end all and be all for civilization. And so we have come to accept and to crave everything that bespeaks of progress. Acquiring such items, such as the iPhone, becomes the latest and most ephemeral of status symbols.
Should progress, however, be so uncritically regarded? Without question, when it comes to material matters, we have progressed to an amazing degree, and the speed of that progress just increases with the advancement of technology.
But has that progress brought us increased happiness or security? No. Has it brought us the increased leisure time that was much touted at the dawn of the technology age? Hardly! People are working longer hours and are more stressed, often being on the job almost 24/7 because of smart phones and the computer. Has it brought us improved health? No. We live longer because of advances in medicine and improved hygiene, but we are not healthier. In fact we are less healthy. We are living longer despite our physical condition, not because of it. Has it made our homes and schools and the world at large less violent? No
Clearly there are many things that are better now then they were 50 or 100 years ago, but that is due primarily to a change in laws and attitudes. Such things ... the status of women, people of color, and gays and lesbians, for example ... are social matters. The things that are marketed as progress and which we purchase have not changed our interior, our spiritual, lives for the better. Yes, women as well as men toil less arduously than they used to, but are their lives better now? No.
The importance of marketing to make people want and purchase things they don’t really need extends from the highest luxury items down to the most plebian. Let me give you several examples of the latter.
Many years ago, because I was living someplace with no hot water, I started shaving using regular bar soap and cold water. To my surprise, I discovered that I got a wonderful shave, even though I have a rough beard and shaving had always been difficult for me. Some time later I happened to meet a dermatologist and told her about my experience, to which she replied that that made perfect sense as the cold water closes your skin pores, resulting in an easier shave. I have not used shaving cream or hot water in more than 40 years!
More recently, we discovered a far less expensive form of clothes washing detergent than purchasing the commercial brands. Just combine baking soda wash powder and borax powder with water and you have a very effective, inexpensive detergent that does just as good a job on washables (I can’t speak to delicate washables as I have none) as any commercial detergent.
These are but two small examples. But if everyone followed my example, the manufacturers of these products would be out of business. And this list could be expanded to much that we purchase. Most of it just isn’t “necessary.”
The last example is not small. We have a recognized and bemoaned epidemic of obesity in our nation, especially among our children and younger adults. Why? Because their diet habits have changed and their exercise habits have changed. And why is that? Because they have succumbed to the marketing wiles of McDonalds and makers of soft drinks and all the other unhealthy, fattening junk food that they eat. They could easily have a healthier diet (note I didn’t say “healthy”) like kids used to. And because their days are now spent in front of a variety of electronic gadgets ... TV, video games, and computers ... which they have been sold as being “cool.” The exercise that children used to get outdoors is mostly a thing of the past.
The reader will in all likelihood now understandably say that what I’m advocating would cause the downfall of our economy and bring about much human misery. Ah, but not if we turn from a consumer-driven economy to an infrastructure-driven economy as I suggested in an earlier post (“Strengthening America by Changing from a Consumer Economy to a Nation-Building Economy,” November 4, 2011). In such an economy there would be ample work but money would be redirected and spent not on unnecessary fluff but on things that were critical to the ongoing health and strength of our country and indirectly our standard of living.
If we want to be truly free to do what is best for us ... not for corporate America, if we want to be strong and healthy, we must first recognize that we have become enslaved to the powers of corporate America and we must then demand a change in the status quo. Just as Gandhi led the people of India to not cooperate with their British overlords, just as Martin Luther King led African-Americans to not cooperate in their own oppression by white America, so too Americans of all walks of life must gather and protest against the oppressive power that corporations have gained over all aspects of American life, including politics.
The future is ours to determine ... this is a democracy ... but only if we take our rights and our role seriously and demand change.
