The Mirage of Civil Rights

It is not uncommon for white people, especially Republicans, to ask what black people and other people of color are complaining about.  “They have all the civil rights of white people, and even had advantages vis a vis whites when affirmative action was a major component.  If they’re still living in less than desirable conditions or don’t have good jobs, it’s their fault.  They’re lazy.”

Talk about the inability to see past your own hand.  Talk about ignorance.  Any objective observer looking at the social/economic/political scene in the United States in 2015 would come to the conclusion that while there indeed are laws on the books that protect the civil rights of people with color, and many have made advances in the past 50 years because of those laws and the change in some people’s attitudes, the vast majority of people of color still suffer from daily discrimination in almost every sphere of their lives.

The fact is that civil rights, or equal opportunity, for people of color is a mirage.  Regardless what area of life one looks at … education, housing, health, employment … people of color, and especially blacks, continue to suffer from substantial discrimination and an almost total lack of meaningful equal opportunity.

In my post, “Our Failed Economic/Social/Political System,”  October 2, 2015, I discussed this lack of meaningful equal opportunity, the causes for its continuing presence, and the proper role of government in changing the status quo.  And so I will not enter into a detailed discussion here.

There is little one can do to stop de facto discrimination in the short run, because people’s attitudes are hard to change.  It is, however, the responsibility of government, civic, and religious leaders to speed up the process by raising the visibility of this issue by speaking the truth about equal opportunity and forcefully denouncing discrimination as unacceptable… not just once or twice, but on a regular basis.

But as I made clear in that post, the problem is not just discrimination “on the ground” by white people against people of color.  The problem is in large part institutionalized discrimination that is the result of unequal funding of education for people of color and a health care system that remains unequal despite the improvements of Obamacare.  

With regard to institutionalized government discrimination, I quote the closing of that post:

“If we are to reclaim government of the people, by the people, and for the people. then we must find a way to get big money if not totally then mostly out of politics.  Public financing of election is one obvious way.   There may be others, but that is not the topic for this post.

This will require an aroused electorate, because this will be the first test of the power of the people v the power of corporations.  (See my post, “How the Koch Brothers Hijacked the Middle Class Revolt and How To Take It Back.”)  Only if there is a popular movement so strong that members of Congress know that if they do not implement the will of the people they will be turned out of office does this have a chance of getting passed into law.”

People of color must join forces with poor whites and the diminished middle class to fight for this common cause … the return of government to the people by getting big money out of politics and the political process.  There is no more important immediate goal for those interested in creating a more just America.  Until that is achieved, little or no meaningful progress will be made on the various individual substantive goals.

The Problem Isn't Capitalism, It's Our Society

People often rant against the evils of capitalism … exploitation of workers, people in general, and the environment.  But the problem is not so much capitalism as the social structure in which capitalism has operated. 

In the United States. the structure has been one which exalted individualism and correspondingly had a laissez faire attitude towards business.  It was a conservative social context in which each person was pretty much out on their own.

It was only after the turn of the 20th century, when the excesses of the industrial robber barons became egregious to society, and during the Depression, when capitalism clearly failed to provide for the people, that the government stepped in.  It regulated private enterprise, became an employer of last resort through efforts such as the CCC and WPA that produced lasting accomplishments, and provided various forms of assistance to those in need.  

Those actions indicated a partial change in the social context … what’s been termed the progressive movement … into one where it was felt that government had to play a role to stop the excesses of private enterprise, to level the playing field between employer and worker as well as between producer and consumer, and to help those in need.  All for the common good, in keeping with the Declaration of Independence's dictum that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We still had a capitalist system.  But now there was an overlay of government regulation and action because it was realized that the profit motivation that lies behind all actions in a capitalist system would frequently not operate to protect the common good, meaning the wellbeing of all in society.   It is worth noting that corporations are a creature of the law and are granted their license because of the benefit that society as a whole should derive from their operation, not just for the accumulation of wealth by their owners.

In the years since the Reagan administration, however, the progressive movement has receded and the individualistic, laissez faire society has come to the fore again.  Most recently we have seen the Radical Right push to dismantle most of what the bipartisan progressive movement built to improve our society over the previous 100 years.

But even at its broadest expanse, the progressive movement was not all-inclusive.  We were never a community, except perhaps for a brief period during the Depression.  The difference between a communal society and an individualistic society is that in the former, every person has a role to play and every person is valued.  No matter how simple or mindless their role.  And if someone cannot play a role due to physical or mental infirmity, they are still valued as human beings who are part of the community.

Conservatives used to point almost with glee to the failure of Communist systems, not just economically, but especially as relates to the abuse of their own citizens.  But this is just further confirmation of the point made initially in this post, that it is not the economic system but the social structure that determines whether people and the environment are valued.

The experience of both the Soviet Union and China show, for example, that although ownership and the political/social structure changed dramatically, one elite just replaced another.  While the Soviet Union did in a limited sense live up to its Communist underpinning and provided for all the people, in both countries the political/social structure valued neither people nor the environment; both were exploited, just for a different end … not profit but state power.  Not surprisingly, the introduction of socialist capitalism in China hasn’t changed that.

In our society, and in every country around the world - for there are no communal countries - there are millions of people who are not valued.  Who do not have a place at the table.  And even most of those who are at the table, who help produce the product and are paid for their work, are not valued in any humane sense of the word.  They are just viewed as expendable cogs in the machine.

In short, we live in a society in which, while people may rant about the value of life in certain contexts … abortion, death with dignity, when human action collides with God-given directives …  they really place no value on life.  They have no concern or feelings of responsibility for the welfare, the quality of life, of their fellow citizen.   There is no sense of community.  The social contract is in tatters.

The problem of poverty and homelessness in the US is not due to a lack of resources.  The problem of racism and other discrimination is not one that is inherent in man.  The social problems we face are a direct result of the social system we have built.  And thus the answer to our social problems lies in rebuilding or redirecting our social system and reinforcing the role of government in advancing the common good.

I’m not talking about a utopia.  I’m just talking about a society that is humane, that values the life of everyone who is a member of the society … at a minimum everyone who is a citizen, but ideally everyone who lives here regardless of their status.  And finds a way to implement that humaneness by making everyone feel valued rather than feel like refuse, whether it’s through the educational system, housing, social services, whatever.  

Capitalism and a humane society can coexist and support each other.  They are not mutually exclusive.  But it implies capitalism with a social conscience, not unbridled capitalism such as was evidenced recently by several in-name-only pharmaceutical companies that bought existing low cost name drugs and then raised the price dramatically to an exorbitant amount, endangering people's lives.  It implies capitalism where maximizing profit is not the sole operating goal.

Bottom line, everyone … child and adult … deserves to feel like they are a human being and are valued and respected by others, whether it’s immediate family, peers, or the broader society.  So many people are broken because they have had life experiences that do not make them feel valued and respected.   And so they come not to respect or value themselves.  That not only harms them, it harms society; it is a drag on society.

This is a failure of society.  And only society can fix it.

The Bible - God’s Word or Man’s?

“What,” the reader may well ask, “is a post on this topic doing in this blog?”  Many of the problems that the world experiences, both today and over the millennia, are a direct result of religious teaching, or the cynical use of religious teaching.  Why does religion continue to hold such sway when in many ways the power of religion is weaker now than ever?  (See my post, “How Faith in Consumerism/Technology Replaced Faith in God.)  

Orthodox believers of Christianity and Judaism believe that the Bible, the Old Testament, is God’s revealed word.  Their certainty in their perspective of right and wrong, their self-righteousness, and their disapproval of all who do not follow God’s word/law as revealed in the Bible is based on that belief.  For Muslim’s, the same is true for the Koran, but this post deals solely with the Bible.  (I am not in this post going to discuss how these very same people/groups typically pick and choose those sections of the Bible they choose to follow and those they choose to ignore, which if it’s all God’s word I don’t understand, but that is another matter.)

Until the 20th century, this was actually the generally held belief …because all believers were orthodox.  And it still is the position of most Christian denominations and Orthodox Judaism.  While many Christian believers nevertheless adopted a more modern view of the Bible during the 20th century which did not interpret it literally or see it as God’s word, in recent decades those that adhere to orthodoxy in Bible interpretation have been increasing in numbers, voice, and power.

But is the Bible God’s word?  Recently, I came across a passage from Genesis that to me proves that the Bible, or at least parts of it, is not God’s word revealed to man but is man’s word.  The passage is Genesis 1:28.  “And God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish in the sea, and over the foul in the air, and over every living thing that moveth on the earth.”  [emphasis added]

There in a nutshell is the spiritual basis for what has become man’s relationship with himself and the rest of planet Earth.  Man is the controlling force on Earth.  Everything else that God placed on Earth is there for man’s benefit and use.  End of story.

Later in Genesis, after having seen the wickedness of man and sending the flood to destroy all living beings save those in the ark, God repeats this message with an even stronger statement.  “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.”  Genesis 9:1-3

How convenient for man that God gave him such license.  Could the contemporary despoilers of the Earth come up with any more powerful and unquestionable language to spiritually legitimize their actions?

If one believes this is God’s word, well, there’s probably no arguing the point.  It either is or it isn’t.  You either believe or you don’t.

But even if you believe in God, it should be legitimate to ask whether the Bible is indeed God’s word as revealed to man, or whether it is just man’s word.  Thus the question arises … if God created the world and all that is in it, whether in 7 days or over millennia, would God have had such little regard for all the life and beauty that He created, for the miracle of life, that He would essentially say to man, do with it what you will, subdue it, rule it?  Especially having just had experience of what wickedness man is capable of.

I think not.  I would argue that if the Bible were indeed God’s word revealed to man, it would say something more like, “Be fruitful and multiply but always be mindful of your duty to your fellow man, your fellow creatures, and the bounty of the earth that I have created.  Every living thing must be honored and respected; no life shall be taken by you except when in need.  Use the bounty of the earth for your benefit but in so doing you must honor and respect it; any action by you should leave the earth whole and pure.”

Now that sounds like something God would say.  But the Bible doesn’t say that because it would be inconvenient for man.  It would not give him free reign over the creatures of the earth and its riches.

A believer would probably counter that because God created man in His image and is the highest life form, the language in Genesis is consistent.  Even assuming that, however, I still would argue that God would not be so cavalier with the life and bounty that He created.  But in fact this is just another example of the Bible being man’s word.  What conceit and brilliance to make the creator of the universe and man one in physical form.  And not just a man but a white man!

I would thus argue that, assuming there is a God, the Bible is not God’s word revealed to man but man’s word, at least in part.  That as such, the Bible is not sacrosanct or infallible.  Important parts of it are instead an exercise of man’s duplicity in his desire to use the power of faith to uplift himself and control all else.

The Bible has in fact been so used.  It has been a powerful weapon of control over the ages, and not just of God’s other creations but of men as well.  It has been interpreted and used to sanction man’s perspective … no, better put, the perspective of the male establishment … everything from the divine right of kings to slavery, the secondary status of women, and the pariah status of gays.  Such interpretations and misuse of the Bible have caused millennia of suffering for mankind.

But if you subscribe to my reasoning, that time is past.  People may choose to follow certain customs because it pleases them to do so.  But they cannot say that it is God’s word.  People may, for example, hate gays, but they cannot say that it is God’s word.

Instead, if one is a true believer, you will find in your heart a respect and compassion for all of God’s creatures and creations.  I must note that as a Buddhist I am not a believer, but I do have respect and compassion for all creatures and all elements of the universe.

None of what I have written here is to gainsay that there is without question much spiritual teaching in the Bible that mankind would be wise to follow.  Whether these lessons are the product of holy men or the revealed word of God should not matter.  The West, however, has always needed their spiritual guides to have a private line to God, either as His prophet or as His son or, these days, just being reborn.  It is that connection that legitimizes their teaching.  In the East, the Buddha did not claim divinity or that he was a vessel for God’s word.  It is not the source but the wisdom of the teaching that should be of paramount importance.

The Bible should be used as a tool to lift man from his earthly ego and open his eyes and heart to his true spiritual nature, his goodness.  The essence of the Bible is the Golden Rule … do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  

Indeed, Christian believers could do no better than follow the popular slogan of the 90s, “What would Jesus do?”  Regardless whether dealing with personal matters, or larger issues of domestic or foreign policy, the Bible’s central lesson of not doing harm to others but rather help them would result in a far more just and humane world.  The Bible should not be misused, in decidedly unspiritual ways, to subjugate human beings or the environment.

Shell Withdrawal Not a Victory

After Shell recently announced that they were ceasing all exploratory work in the Arctic, I received a flood of emails declaring “victory” from the various organizations who had been trying to pressure the Obama administration to not let Shell drill.  This was as deceptive as Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” fiasco in the early days of the Iraq war.

While I am relieved that Shell has left the Arctic … for now … it is not a victory in any sense of the word because the efforts of those organizations to convince the government to not allow any drilling were unseccessful.  

Shell made its decision for two reasons.  First, after spending a reported $7 billion over several years trying to find oil in the Arctic, it had come up dry.  Second, given the current downturn in the oil market and the assessment by many that the market will not recover for some time, it was not economically prudent to continue drilling.

So this “victory” is a false one.  Shell just made a pragmatic economic decision.  It was not the result of a government resolve to not endorse further oil exploration, at least in environmentally sensitive areas, and certainly not a decision on the part of Shell that public opinion was so against the project that they best withdraw.

The power of big oil in governmental energy policy decision-making remains as before … great.  Nothing has changed other than the economics.  And one can be assured that within a few years the price of oil will be sky high again, leading the companies to dust off their plans for exploration of more expensive extraction locations.

So what to do now?  One thing is clear.  The American public will not support any effort to either cut production or decrease use of oil.  They are totally addicted to it.  They will not wean themselves from oil until they are forced to by ever-increasing prices caused by the diminished supply after peak oil.  

Although we were at or almost at that point, the fracking venture has turned the tables so that now there is a glut of oil and it will be some time till we are there again.  In the meantime, climate change will continue on its deadly path.

Obama has been able to move against coal through executive orders only because nobody really cares about coal anymore outside of those states that produce coal.  The power companies don’t need coal because they now have cheap natural gas thanks to fracking.  And the public will feel no pinch from the reduced use of coal.

One should not take heart from polls showing that more people now believe in climate change, even a majority of Republican voters.  It is one thing to believe in climate change, that what man is doing is causing this change.  It is another to believe that the possible future consequences are so dire that it warrants a major change in energy policy and in how we live.  It’s far more likely that these voters will support various efforts to adapt to future climate change, which efforts are already underway in many cities and countries.

So even assuming the public “revolution” that I have argued for in several recent posts occurred and the political power of major corporations and the wealthy was thus greatly reduced, on this  particular issue, where the public attitude and corporate interest are one, it is hard to see how any real progress would be made, absent a catastrophe of truly epic proportion.  And by then it would be too late.

I can see only one practical opportunity.  If fracking were banned, the oil glut would disappear and the price of oil would rise quickly and substantially, even with the global economy in its current state.  That sharp and quick increase in price, at least to the point where it was previously, would bring about renewed pressures both to develop alternative sources of energy and transport as well as to conserve.  Of course big oil would see it as an opportunity to explore more expensive extraction and return to the Arctic.

But how to achieve that aim?  For some reason, which I don’t understand, the evidence that fracking is an environmental disaster has not come together in a compelling way.  Some organization needs to gather all the facts about the actual environmental damage caused by fracking and put it together in a compelling way and convey that information to the public

Also, Congress must be pressured to reverse its position, pushed through by then Vice-President Cheney, that oil companies are exempt from the Clean Water Act requirement of disclosing what chemicals they are putting into the ground when they frack.  That that exemption still stands is a disgrace to our political system, and makes it harder to arouse the public.

With both those pieces of information in hand, the public would need to be mightily aroused and hopefully would then strongly support a ban on fracking.  That is the only hope of countering both the corporate and local business forces that gain from this dreadful practice.

This would not be an answer to the problem, but it would be a major step forward.

Reflections on Yom Kippur and Mideast Peace

As Jews around the world observed Yom Kippur, at levels of ritual observance ranging from the Haridim at the Wailing Wall to a reform temple in the U.S. Midwest to those who do not go to synagogue but in some way observe the Day of Atonement, it is important for each individual, for Israel, and for the world that the observance go deeper than even the most fervent practice of ritual and belief.  

For Yom Kippur to have its intended impact. each person must understand and experience the spiritual lessons and meaning of Yom Kippur.  What are those lessons?

First it is necessary that we are aware of all the ways in which we have sinned, which is to say the ways in which we have harmed others and ourselves.  On Yom Kippur, we stand and go through a seemingly never-ending list of our sins, of the ways in which we have failed, and we beat our hearts in a mea culpa.

But if this confessional practice is a non-reflective exercise, a recitation by rote, then there is no awareness and Yom Kippur can have no spiritual meaning for the individual.  It is not then a day of Teshuva, of returning to our original self nature which is goodness, a day of transformation through freedom from our ego-controlled actions.

So the first essential for a true observance of Yom Kippur is a reflection on all the ways in which one has, whether as an individual or as part of a larger group, harmed others or harmed oneself; the ways in which one has strayed from essential goodness.  If Israel looked at itself in this way, if West Bank settlers looked at themselves in this way, by going inside oneself deeply, they would discover many ways in which they have harmed Palestinians individually and as a group, as well as harmed the prospects for peace and thus ultimately harmed Israel and themselves.  

It is not a defense in this exercise of awareness and atonement to say, “But my actions were justified.”  In the spiritual world of Yom Kippur, there is no justification for harming another except immediate self-defense … that is to say that right then, at that moment, you or your loved ones were threatened with imminent physical harm.  So with regard to the bulk of actions taken by Israel and settlers against Palestinians there is no spiritual justification.

Second, Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement.  Atonement means to make reparation for a wrong or injury.  How do we each atone for the wrongs that we have committed against ourselves and others?

The breast-beating, “forgive me for I have sinned,” mea culpa of the Yom Kippur service is a good start, so long as it is truly heart-felt.  But making reparation or amends requires more than asking for forgiveness.  

At a minimum it requires a commitment not to engage in the same type of action in the future.  Teshuva is not like Catholic confession where you ask to be forgiven and are absolved of your sins regardless how often the same scenario is presented.  Teshuva means committing to return to your God-given essence of goodness.

Atonement also requires making an effort to right the wrong that one has committed.  And again, it is not a defense that one was wronged.  This is not a pissing match as to who wronged whom first or more often.  As the saying goes, “Two wrongs do not make a right.”  How does Israel right the wrongs committed against the Palestinians?  That is for them to reflect on.

And I must hasten to note that this spiritual obligation of Jews, as part of the Yom Kippur observance, is not limited to them.  Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have a similar spiritual obligation according to the Koran of repenting  and making amends.  And not committing similar wrongdoings in the future.

Why is it that human beings, regardless of their race or religion or nationality, habitually act in ways that are contrary to the precepts of their religions.  Why is the Golden Rule … do unto others as you would have them do unto you … which is at the core of every major religion so rarely put into practice?  Even those who profess orthodoxy are often more in touch with ritual observance than spiritual.  

The reason is that man’s ego-mind, obsessed with his inner feelings of inferiority and threat, does not accept the spiritual teaching common to most religions that one should become free of the conceit, “I am,” and instead have as his purpose feeling compassion and loving-kindness towards others, returning to his original goodness.  For the ego-mind, the protection of oneself against the harmful actions of others is what’s primal.  It’s all about us v them.  In Hebrew, the ego is called “Yetzer Hara” (destructive force) … how appropriate.

This is why the world  … individuals, families, societies, nations … now, and for most of history, have been in a state of conflict rather than harmony.  This is why understanding and observing the spiritual basis of one’s religion is so important for one’s own peace and for that of the world.  Yom Kippur provides Jews with the opportunity for such transformation. 

Liberals - A Crisis of Faith

Have you noticed how Republicans constantly base their positions on the Constitution?   When was the last time you heard a Liberal/Democrat base his positions on the Constitution or other founding document like the Declaration of Independence?  

One major exception was the 2004 Democratic nominating convention when Barack Obama based his entire speech on the Declaration, and most speakers that followed mentioned the Declaration as well.  (Coincidentally, I had sent my then-new book, We Still Hold These Truths, to Terry McAuliffe, the DNC Chair at the time, several weeks before and he had responded with interest and said he would forward the book to his program people.)  But that was a flash in the pan, even for that election season.

Liberals seem to have given up on the Declaration and the Constitution in arguing their case, giving those precious documents up to the Radical Right.  Perhaps it’s because they can’t get around the fact that slavery was embedded in the Constitution and that women didn’t even get the vote till 1919.  (They should read my post, “All Men Are Created Equal?”  September 30, 2014.)  They seem to think they can sway their audience just by talking about what’s right, what’s needed.  But that doesn’t provide them with ammunition against the Constitution-based arguments of the Republicans.

As I argued when I originally wrote the book, Democrats need to inspire and arouse the American people, not just the Democratic faithful, by developing a cohesive vision of what we think a better America would look like and how we propose to get there.  And we must communicate that vision effectively and passionately in a way that the average voter gets. It can’t just be a grab-bag of policies.  

We must create a counter-movement to the Radical Right.  Certainly, given the fear, anger, and distrust that is out there now, plus the fact that the Koch brothers have hijacked the middle class revolt, this is even more critical.

Luckily, there is at hand an overarching perspective at once so familiar yet profound that the American people will immediately get it … the words of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, … Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ...”

These words are the core morality, the heart, the soul of American democracy.   This is America’s common faith.  And an integral part of that faith is government’s responsibility for creating a context in which each American has an equal opportunity to pursue those rights.  

It’s about the people … as Lincoln put it, government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  But it’s not just about rights, there’s also an implied shared responsibility, where all citizens have a duty to support the government’s efforts to promote the public good, each according to his ability. 

All the domestic policies of the Party naturally flow from these core American concepts.  And it is those policies that make the Democratic Party “life-affirming” and “pro-family”.  It is those policies, which respect the value of all human life and the environment, that make the Democratic Party a party of faith – not Christian, not Jewish, not Muslim, not Buddhist … but deep faith.   And while rooted in our past, this perspective compels policies that meet the needs of our economy and society now and in the future, in a world where many of the assumptions of the past are no longer valid.

This is a call to arms for all Liberals.   Return to your roots.  Return to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and reclaim those documents for yourself and for the American people as profoundly liberal documents, not the narrow conservative ones as depicted by the Republicans.  And, they must label the Republicans for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people. 

Watch the YouTube video: What Do Democrats Stand For?

Growing a Stronger America - More Self-sufficient, a Stronger Citizenry, a World-Class Infrastructure

America is a great country.  But we are slipping.  If we want to remain great, we need to grow a stronger America.  America must become more self-sufficient.  It must do everything it can to create a better educated, healthier, more engaged citizenry and rebuild a strong middle class.  And it must either replace or repair an aging, often archaic, infrastructure with one that will both meet the needs of the citizenry as well as support our economy’s competitiveness into the next century.

More Self-Sufficient:  The impact of globalizations has been a disaster for America’s well-being.  Instead of the advertised promise of globalization, it has become a curse for all but the multi-national corporations engaged in it.  Yes, most of us do like spending less money for all sorts of merchandise, and it has kept the inflation rate down, but we have paid a heavy price for that benefit.

First there is the well-publicized loss of good-paying, middle class jobs.  This has resulted in millions of previously well-employed men either being unemployed, employed in a new field at a fraction of their previous wage, or at the same job but at a wage that has stagnated for decades.  This has decimated the middle class.

That impact may have gotten the most publicity, but there is much more.  The loss of earning power by a large segment of the population has resulted in a weaker domestic economy.  You can’t buy as much when you’re not earning as much.  It’s as simple as that.  And the influx of less-expensive goods from abroad together with our dependence on imported oil has worsened our balance of trade deficit, thus weakening our economic independence.  Foreign countries own 34% of US debt, and China alone owns over 7% or $1.2 trillion.

Beyond weakening the domestic economy by reducing spending, globalization together with tax policy has increased income inequality.  From 1980 to 2014, the US per capita GDP increased from $28,133 (adjusted for inflation) to $50,211.  That’s an increase of 78%.  (The figures vary considerably, so I used the ones showing the least growth.)  By comparison, the increase in the US median personal income (not the average, but the center point) rose from $20,919 to $28,829, an increase of only 37%.  By contrast, looking at the increase in average personal income, which is skewed by the increase of those in the top income categories, the increase is 104%.  

The economy has grown, multi-national corporations have profited, the rich have gotten richer, but the average worker has not.  Without question, the middle class has been left behind and adversely impacted by these forces.  This is not healthy for our economy or our society.

Further, we have now become more dependent on the health of other, specifically Asian, economies.  The fortunes of our corporations and thus the stock market are subject to the vagaries of these economies, as we’ve often seen.  The stock market has been more volatile since globalization than before.  And surprisingly it doesn’t matter how strong or unconnected with global trade a company is … markets are so interconnected that when there’s a rumble in Asia’s economy, all U.S. stocks go down.

Lastly, but significantly, because what is happening in distant corners of the world has become even more important to American corporations and our economy, it has given more credence to the argument that we need a huge military able to go to any spot in the world to defend our national security.  We are witnessing an increased blurring between what is in our national security interest and what is in the interest of our multi-national corporations.  But they are not the same.  

That’s really what happened in Iraq, as our national security was never at stake, not even had there been WMDs in Iraq. We should never be in a position of going to war to protect corporate supply lines.  We should never expend the lives of our youth and our material wealth for such a purpose.

For all these reasons, we must do everything we can to make America more self-sufficient.  We must bring manufacturing back through tax and other policies.  And we must engage in a serious effort both to conserve energy use as well as wean ourselves from our addiction to oil by developing alternative energy sources and alternative energy transport.

A Stronger Citizenry.  The United States, when compared with the rest of the industrialized world, ranks nowhere near the top, more often near the bottom, on various markers that measure the strength of its citizenry:  education, health, and political engagement.

Education.  Whether we look at the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) math and science scores which show the US ranking  25th and 24th, respectively, among 30 OECD countries, or data that places us 18th out of 23 comparing high school graduation rates, or 15th in college completion, or 10th in the percentage of 25-34 year-olds holding an associate degree or higher, the status of US education is definitely not world class.  (Note: the number of OECD countries used for comparison varies because of the number that have available data.)

Health.  Looking at health status compared with the other OECD countries, the US again does not fare well.  The US ranks 26th in life expectancy, has the 7th highest rate of infant mortality, ranks dead last (first) by far in the percentage of overweight and obese children and adults, has the 6th highest rate of diabetes, ranks 18th in 5-year survival for cervical cancer though it does rank 1st in breast cancer survival, and ranks dead last in access to health care (2013, so before Obamacare fully kicked in) … oddly the US ranks 1st in people self-reporting that they were in good health … all this despite the US spending 2 1/2 times the OECD average on health care per capita.

Political Engagement.  The US ranks 31st out of the 34 OECD countries in the percentage of voting age population who actually vote.  The result is that a rather small minority typically decides who governs us.  For example, in 2000, the voter turnout was 

51.2%.  Since Bush won with 47.9% of the popular vote (actually less than Gore got), only 24.5% or less the 1/4 of the voting age population elected Bush.  In 2008, the voter turnout rate was higher, 58.2%.  And Barack Obama won with 52.9% of the vote.  But that still meant that 30.8%, less than 1/3, of the voting age population elected him.  

It should be a point of extreme concern and embarrassment, if not shame, that the US … the founder of the modern democratic state and the wealthiest and economically strongest country in the world … has its elections decided by such a small minority of its voting-age population.  That election results express the will of the majority is even more important now that the two major parties have such extremely divergent positions on most issues.

Regardless what the cause is … voter apathy, voting barriers (for example, our elections occur on a weekday whereas most occur on the weekend or a declared holiday), poor campaigns, lack of education … something is not right and it must be addressed.  For starters, just changing the day that our elections are held, or declaring at least Presidential elections a national holiday, would most likely make a significant difference.  

But Republicans seem intent on doing everything they can to create more barriers to voting, not less.  Could this be because studies consistently show that non-voters are disproportionately poor or less well-off, younger, and tend to favor higher taxes and more government spending?  For example, 46% of nonvoters have household incomes below $30,000, while the percentage among voters is 19%.  43% of nonvoters are people of color, while only 22% of voters are.  And 34% of nonvoters are under 30, while only 10% of voters are.

Our democracy is based on the philosophy of majority rule.  But the reality is far from that.

How can we be a great country, let alone the leader of the world, with a citizenry that is relatively poorly educated, less healthy, and not politically engaged when compared with other developed countries?  A country’s strength and competitiveness are not based on the strength of the top 20% of its citizens, but on the strength of all its citizens.  

In addition to these factors on which there is comparative data, I noted in a recent post, “Our Failed Economic/Social/Political System,” that America has not lived up to its promise or its potential to provide true equal opportunity regarding “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and that this was critical to our country’s future well-being.  I noted there that in addition to various factors, including equal access to health care and a quality education, rebuilding a strong middle class was critical.

Improving education, health care, and political engagement, providing meaningful equal opportunity, and rebuilding a strong middle class will require more than a band-aid approach.  We must find the strength to rethink these issues at the most fundamental level and devise a strategy for each that will lift America’s citizenry up to an appropriate level for a country that proclaims itself to be the best in the world.

A Healthy Infrastructure.  In another recent post, “Our Archaic Transportation System,” I lamented how our transportation system is not up to meeting our needs now, let alone in the coming decades.  The same has been reported elsewhere on everything ranging from our electric grid to the state of our water and sewer systems.  

We pride ourselves on being a great and powerful country, on the cutting edge of technology, and yet in many important areas of our nation’s infrastructure, not only is it outdated but it is often crumbling and undependable.  This situation must be corrected if we are to continue being a strong nation and a world leader.  

Addressing most of the issues I’ve noted will necessitate a shift in our national priorities, as I’ve noted in various posts.  If we are serious about growing a stronger America, improving our nation’s health, it will require us to reexamine what is important and how best to use our resources to provide what is needed.  This will require a nation and a Congress who first and foremost ask, “What is in the best interest of the nation,” because they understand that what is in the nation’s best interest is ultimately also in our own individual best interest.