We Can't Change People, But We Can Control Access to Guns

Why is gun control essential?  Because people are people; many suffer and lash out, some become violent. We can't control people's psychology and what they do or say.  But we can control the availability of weapons that enable them to kill and injure.

The tragedy in Orlando raises many questions, the most basic being whether there is any end or limit to man’s inhumanity to man.  And with this term, I’m not just referring to horrific acts of mass violence such as the Orlando shootings but also the violence that occurs every day, whether randomly inflicted on strangers or directed at someone the perpetrator has a grudge against.  Based on the evidence we see or hear on almost a daily basis, one has to say, no.

Although in posts I have set forth a way to end this epidemic of inhumanity … to make people humane again … it is not a very practical expectation (see “Creating a Safer World for Our Children.”).  No, we must take it as fact that there really is no end or limit to man’s inhumanity to man.

If we can’t stop people from being inhumane, then our only option if we want to end the suffering caused by these acts of inhumanity is to control the tools they use to inflict harm.  (For the purpose of this post, I’m going to limit the discussion to acts of inhumanity that involve physical violence.  The cruel psychological violence that people inflict on each other on a daily basis is also inhumane - see the above referenced post - but that's another matter.)

When we look at the statistics, we see that in the United States guns are the weapon of choice in physically violent acts:  67.7 percent of all murders, 41.3 percent of robberies and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults were conducted with guns.  Each year more than 30,000 people are killed by firearms in the US (about 1/3 are murders, the rest suicides), compared to less than 200 in Canada and the countries of Europe.

Without any question, if we want to end the suffering caused by all this violence we must get rid of the guns that are so readily available.  But what to do about the opposing claim of gun rights and the newly-Supreme-Court-declared 2nd Amendment individual right to bear arms?

People definitely have the right to guns used for hunting and self-defense.  Until recent times that meant a traditional rifle for hunting and some type of pistol for self-defense.  People were able to hunt very successfully with their rifles … if anything it was more of a pure sport … and people were able to defend themselves.

The newer type of automatic guns and assault weapons that are available, with large capacity clips, have added absolutely nothing to the ability to hunt or to defend oneself.  It may give a hunter a bigger charge to be handling these newer guns, but that’s no reason to make them available given the harm that they can inflict.  And automatic pistols have not been shown to be more effective for self-defense that a regular pistol.  It just gives the person a psychological feeling of greater safety.

So, I would argue that given that we cannot change man’s inhumanity to man, all automatic weapons, whether guns or rifles, should be taken off the general market.  They should only be available to the military, police, and others who need such high-powered weapons in the performance of their responsibilities.

Regular guns and rifles should continue to be available to the general public as they are now, with of course appropriate background checks, etc.  All loopholes should be closed.  No one should be able to by a firearm without the required background check.

I know that one cannot expect to stop gun violence by taking all but regular rifles and pistols off the general market, even with effective background checks.  People can still turn violent and those firearms can still be used to great effect in ways other than hunting and self-defense.  But given the place of guns in American culture … the United States is not England or other countries where gun ownership is rare and traditionally strictly controlled … that’s the most that we can expect our government and people to accommodate for the greater good.

But the fact that gun control measures will not eliminate firearm violence is no argument against taking those steps.  Fewer deaths and injuries, especially from these mass shootings, is better than things continuing unchanged.

The NRA says that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  And while that’s undeniably true … the core problem is the inhumanity of man … it is also true that without automatic weapons fewer people would be killed or suffer grievous injury.

White Working Class - The Republican Base?

While reading a recent New Yorker, I came upon a sentence that made me stop in disbelief.  “The base of the [Republican] Party, the middle-aged white working class, …”

I was aware that many working class whites had become Reagan Democrats and that many were at the heart of the Tea Party’s strength.  But that things had gone so far that this part of the traditional Democratic base had now become the Republican base stopped me in my tracks.  Was this true?  What in the world had happened?  

As I thought through my answer to this question, I sadly realized that it was true and how it came to be.  The factors:  economic woes, race, class/elitism/intelligence.

The Democratic Party has been the party of the “common” person for most of its history in that it has championed the rights of the worker, immigrants, and the poor, but not Blacks.  Whereas the Republican Party has been the party of the moneyed establishment and was (and still is) steadfastly against any advancement in the rights of the lower classes, including workers.  Not surprisingly, the Democrats were rewarded with the loyal votes of white working-class America.

The first break in this alliance came with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the leadership of President Johnson and the Democrat-controlled Congress.  Working class whites in the South, together with many white collar whites, left the Democratic Party in droves and became the key to the solid Republican South.  The percentage of working class whites voting Democratic in 1960 and 1964 was 55%; in 1968 and 1972, 35%

While this situation improved during the 70s because of Watergate and a sharp recession, the defection returned with the presidential candidacy of Ronald Reagan.  White northern and midwestern working class men had begun feeling the pinch of stagnating wages and the loss of jobs.  They were attracted to the “can do it” energy of Reagan, his patriotism, and just him as a person.  He was not an intellectual; he was someone they could relate to.  The Democratic candidates during the period, by comparison, did not have charisma, nor exude energy, nor were they flag-waving patriotic … and they were definitely intellectual and spoke like it.

The economic problems of the white working class also increased their resentment over Democratic support for things like affirmative action, welfare, and women’s rights.  They saw the Party as going to bat for everyone but them.   And so again in 1980 and 1984, working class whites voted Democratic only 35%.

While Bill Clinton (who was more down-to-earth and not so intellectual) did somewhat better, the numbers again went down with Al Gore and John Kerry.  And that has continued in 2008 and 2012 with Obama.

Pre-Civil Rights Act, the issues binding the white working class and the Democratic Party were economic.  In that period, Democratic progressivism was mostly about economic prosperity.  Post-Civil Rights Act, the issues driving them away were their worsening economic situation and the Democratic’s new emphasis on social liberalism, including most recently the advancement of gay rights.

The white working class has always been conservative on social issues.  During the past 40 years they have also come to feel that the Republicans will do a better job with the economy.  And so even though the Republican Party has never shown any real interest or caring for the plight of the working class and instead has done the bidding of corporate America, whose interests are usually diametrically opposed to that of the working class, we see this continued phenomenon of working people voting against their economic interests.

There is evidence that with the Trump candidacy this trend will only increase.   Through his outrageous statements regarding Latino immigration as well as his support for protectionist policies to protect American jobs, he may be attracting even greater white working class support.  

For example. it was reported that in one depressed county in Pennsylvania, working class white Democrats are “flocking to Trump.”  Before the primary, 4,647 Democrats and independents in Luzerne County switched their registration to Republican, nearly four times the number of Republicans and independents who changed their registration to Democrats.  One caveat about this example, since Luzerne County is in the coal region, Hillary Clinton’s ill-advised and much publicized comment about putting a lot of coal miners out of work may have more to do with this switch than Trumps comments.  Nevertheless it is troubling.

In the forward to the 2011 edition of We Still Hold These Truths, I noted the following about the plight of the working class.  (Many today may be surprised to hear blue collar workers referred to as part of the middle class, but for decades they were because their unions provided them with very-well-paying jobs.)

“The middle class is made up mostly of nonprofessionals … people with only a high school degree. As manufacturing and other middle class jobs have disappeared, their standard of living and the quality of their lives has been drifting downward. The recent recession only exacerbated the trend. In March 2011, 12 percent of those with only a high-school diploma were unemployed compared to 4.5 percept of those with college degrees and 2 percent for those with professional degrees. The greatest impact has been on men … in 1967, 97 percent of men 30-50 years old in this cohort were employed; in 2010, just 76 percent were. Not only has this resulted in economic problems for these men and their families, these pressures have brought about greater interpersonal stress, with a resulting increase in divorce rates and other examples of social dysfunction. The greater income inequality that developed during this period has also resulted in heightened actual and felt lifestyle differences between the middle class and those with more income and education.”

I wrote then that the world the working class knew since WWII has been turned upon down resulting in them being scared, angry, and alienated.  I chided Democrats for not highlighting this important shift in the American social fabric.  They talked about the need to protect the middle class (everyone always does), but the evisceration that had already occurred was not mentioned … Democrats had and have not shown that they feel the pain of the working class …  and practical measures to reverse the trend are not much of anything.

This year, Hillary (assuming she is the nominee) must show that she feels the pain of the working class.  She must distance herself from her Wall Street backers and show that she is willing to fight for measures to protect workers and bring back jobs, even if those measures are against corporate interests.  Although at this point it may well already be too late.  Hillary has been around long enough that people already have a very fixed opinion of her which new-sounding words from her can probably not effectively overcome.

Also, as I have been urging for years, Democrats must expose Republicans for the hypocrites they are.  They never have and they never will do anything to support the American working class.  Trump may make noises that appeal to the working class, but his policies are not Republican Party policies and they will never be enacted.

Even if Hillary can win without these votes because of the changing electoral demographic, the American worker cannot be left in the dust. They are in pain.  They are a natural part of the Democratic Party’s constituency.  Their well-being is important to the economic stability and health of our society.  Republicans will in the end do nothing to help ease their pain.  Democrats must step up to the plate.

What Drives Policy Decisions? - The Theory v The Reality

Since the establishment of representative democracies, the role of government has been to promote and secure the safety and well-being of their people.  As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the first official document stating this concept of government, “That to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  That is at least the theory on paper.

From the beginning, a tactical problem was encountered in that the interests of all the people are rarely, if ever, in agreement.  Added to this complexity are the varied interests of organizations and corporations which, while creatures of the law, nevertheless should also be promoted by government since the law provides for their existence because they are thought to contribute to the good of the whole.  

To deal with this multiplicity of interests, the concept arose of government promoting the greater good.  The question is always whether a policy is in the interest of the people as a whole, or at least not contrary to their interest.  

For example, if a policy is good for wealthy individuals but harmful for the rest of society, then it is not in the greater good.  Likewise, policies that favor particular corporations to the detriment of the public are not in the greater good.  The old saying, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country,” was debunked many years ago.

However, corporate and public interests are not always at odds.   A policy that favors particular corporations could be in the interest of the people because, for example, it is directly tied to creating jobs or encourages the development of products at a reasonable cost that are needed for the welfare of the people.  

One used to say that policies that promote robust corporate growth are on their face for the greater good because that means more jobs and better wages.  However, in modern times that is not the case.  Policies have fostered corporate growth and profit, but workers have not benefited and even been harmed, either because jobs were sent overseas or because wages stagnated.

Needs and interests are not just competing but are often in conflict.  In its effort to promote the safety and well-being of all, government’s policies need to be balanced so that at a minimum all have their most critical needs met and have the opportunity to prosper.

But what is the reality of government decision making?  While the people do vote for their representatives, it is the corporations through their lobbyists and campaign donations who have control of government.  It is true that Democrats are more attentive to “the public good” than Republicans, but even they are deeply influenced by corporate interests which, while not wiping out their support of various programs or efforts, does often weaken the programs’ effectiveness by lessening their impact on corporations and the corresponding protection afforded the public.

While the influence of corporations has been a recurring issue during our history, it is only in the post-WWII era … remember President Eisenhower’s admonition to beware the growth and influence of the military-industrial complex … and even more so beginning with the Reagan years that corporate influence has become so predominant as to render our representative democracy to a large extent illusion.

To understand the terrible human cost of this development, let’s look at some examples of both domestic and foreign policy.  (Although the Declaration of Independence only deals with the relationship between the American government and its people, these same principles should govern foreign policy decisions by government because ultimately the people are affected.  And also because this is what we say we stand for.)

The most horrendous example in recent foreign policy was of course the Iraq war.  Although the talk was to save U.S. citizens from Saddam’s missiles and the Iraqi people from his tyranny, the reality was that the invasion of Iraq was to enhance corporate interests by gaining control of Iraqi oil and establish a friendly base in that economically and militarily strategic part of the Middle East.  But when we left Iraq, not only had we not gained our corporate and geopolitical goals, but we left a people who were worse off in almost every aspect than they were under Saddam.  

Perhaps worst of all was the impact on our own people.  The war created another generation of severely damaged, both physically and psychologically, young American men and women.  And it had placed such a burden on this country’s finances that it made future needed investment in our people and in our infrastructure almost impossible.

A more recent example where the welfare of a foreign people was not the concern is Syria.  The U.S. has long wanted to be rid of Assad in Syria.  Not for any concern for the welfare of the Syrian people, but because during the cold war and its aftermath, Syria under Assad was in the Russian sphere of influence and not friendly disposed to American interests, both corporate and geopolitical.  So when the rebellion started, we gladly lent some aid, even though the fight was again not so much to better life for the Syrian people but to change who or what group was in power and control.  Certainly, the Syrian people have done nothing but suffer during this rebellion because no one on either of the various sides really has had any concern for their welfare.  

True, as regards the American people, the Syrian conflict has not had much impact because the U.S. does not have boots on the ground and the cost of our “aid” has been relatively modest.  It appears the government has at least temporarily learned the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan.  And, we have accepted almost no Syrian immigrants, which is a matter I will not go into here.  That burden has been left to Europe.  But the policy approach to the extended Syrian conflict has nevertheless been an unmitigated human disaster.

Domestically, while the impact of a decision-making process concerned more with corporate geopolitical interests than with the welfare of the people has had effects arguably not as dramatic or violent as these foreign policy examples, the effects have been in other ways even more devastating for the American people.

The two domestic examples I will site are the background and aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the politics of transportation policy/energy policy/global warming.  Since the Reagan years, when government was declared to be the problem not the solution, there had been a steady increase in the deregulation of business, which regulation had been put in place to begin with to protect the people.  But regulation interfered with business and their profits, and so it almost became un-American.  

One of the hallmarks of deregulation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prevented banks from having both banking and investment operations.  Glass-Steagall was passed during the Depression in an effort to prevent banks from diverting bank assets into speculative operations, to keep them free of the manipulative methods and volatility of the investment market … for the good of the people.  Banks had long chafed under these restrictions, and under the leadership of Republican Senator Phil Gramm the act was repealed and the legislation was signed into law by President Clinton, who had many Wall Street advisors surrounding him, in addition to having received massive amount of campaign donations from Wall Street.

The result was the development by the biggest banks of a whole host of unscrupulous and manipulative investment strategies that benefited their bottom line and amassed huge wealth but screwed the public, even including at times their own customers.  When the bubble inevitably burst, several banks and the economy came crashing down and would have entered a severe depression, were it not for the government bail-outs.

Now one might have hoped that in the aftermath of such clear unethical behavior the government would reimpose strict rules on investment banks.  But even with a Democratic-controlled Congress in the Obama’s administration’s first 2 years, it was a fight to get the Dodd-Frank Act passed, and in the end it was not as strong as it could or should have been because of Democrats’ desire to not “unduly” harm banking interests.  The Act has been further weaken by prolonged fights over implementing regulations which have also turned out often to be far less strict than they should have been.

As for the interrelated policies regarding transportation, energy, and global warming, corporations have again been in control.  Transportation policy has always been a function of what is best for those being regulated (auto manufacturers, railroads, airlines), not the people.  The result is a terrible transportation system which is outdated, environmentally inefficient and provides bad service to the public.  Energy policy likewise has been a creature of corporate wishes, for the most part.  Under Bush II, Vice President Cheney even took the unbelievably bold public move of convening a meeting of energy execs to devise the administration’s energy policy.  No one representing the public was present.  The result not surprisingly was a policy which did not protect the interests of the public nor did it even give a nod towards the issue of global warming.

With regard to global warming itself, I will only say that while there has been to-date a confluence of corporate opposition and, given our addiction to cheap energy, people opposition to necessary measures, there is no doubt in my mind that even had there been a strong and vocal majority in favor of such measures, the corporate world still would have managed to water down almost anything that passed.

As I have said at the conclusion of many prior posts, our system of representative democracy is broken.  The reasons are various, but certainly the outsized influence of money and corporations on policy is a major factor.  The system can only be fixed, and the people’s welfare be protected, with a soft revolution in who has power in Congress.

God Is Not Dead, We Just Look for God in the Wrong Places

There have been many pronouncements that God is dead.  The most famous perhaps is that of Friedrich Nietzsche, although it is widely misunderstood.  If you look beyond the quoted phrase, Nietzsche was saying that we have killed God.  That we have taken away everything that was magical in God’s creation and are left with nothing to moor us.  

“But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?”

This is not the statement of a Godless man, but one who realizes that our modern knowledge makes it impossible to believe in the God of the Old Testament and that we must find something else to believe in, to moor us.  

Darwin’s theory of evolution as well as the many discoveries of modern science regarding the history of the world just are not compatible with the Bible.  In a word, one cannot believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that man is several million years old .. even modern man is about 50,000 years old … and believe in the God of Genesis.

But others have argued a more fundamental point, as do I.  The history of life on Earth has proven that the concept of a God to whom one prays and who is said to answer prayers and control life on earth is an illusion, purely a creature of belief.  So even if one looks at the Bible with a grain of salt and says that God guided the creation of the Earth and all that is upon it over this expanse of time, the God that we’ve been taught to believe in just doesn’t exist.

What kind of God would have allowed slavery?  What kind of God would have allowed the holocaust and all the other gross and minor inhumanities of man.  What kind of God would for some reason make a child suffer and die?  The questions go on and on.

In the old days, and even today, many people answer these questions, not willing to see the facts as evidence that such a God doesn’t exist, with the classic, “The Lord works in mysterious ways.”  Because if they did not believe in God, what would they believe in?  As Nietzsche said, God is their mooring. 

The answer is not so much a “new” conception of God, but one that has existed almost as long as the world’s major religions … that God, that the Devine, is to be found in each of us.  It’s just not a concept that has received much exposure. 

The mystical traditions of all three Abrahamic faiths ... Christianity (Gnosticism), Judaism (Kabbalah), and Islam (Sufism) ... as well as Buddhism and Hinduism contain the teaching that what we think of as being ourselves, our ego, is not our true self.  That instead our true self is variously defined as our heart, our true Buddha nature, our Divine essence.  Our suffering results from our true self having been buried under years of learned experience at the hands of our family, peers, and culture, of our thus identifying with and being under the control of our ego.  Unfortunately, these truths are not stated in the Old Testament or Koran nor are the flocks of these religions taught this truth.  How sad.

Although Christ did not speak to this issue, some in the early church, such as Paul, and later Augustine, and then the Reformation, put forth the concept of original sin … that we are all born sinners because of Adam’s not heeding God’s word in the Garden of Eden and being cast out.  And that only God, or Christ, can bring salvation.  This concept became central to the teaching of the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations.

But as I noted in my post, “Our Culture Is the Serpent in the Garden of Eden,” I believe that this take on the story is wrong.  What then is the real lesson of the Garden of Eden?  

As told in Genesis, in the paradise that God created, man and woman were naked, but they were not embarrassed by their nakedness and they were one with all things.  The only thing forbidden to them was to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.   They lived in a world where there was no “knowledge” of right or wrong, good or bad, no cravings, fear, or strife.  Interestingly, the paradise of Genesis is virtually identical with the Buddhist Nirvana.

But they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The point is not so much that God’s commandment was broken and that they thus sinned and were cast out, but that because it was broken in this specific way, they lost their innocence and the world would never be the same.  

The story does relate dramatically, metaphorically, that man would be separated from the Tree of Life, from the knowledge of his true self, his God-essence, having gained knowledge of good and evil.  But not that man for all eternity will be burdened with original sin and be born a sinner.  That is the spin that Christianity put on the story.  And as a result, millions of people in each generation have believed, because they were so taught, that they were born sinners.  Not a healthy self-concept.

The teaching of the opposing universal truth … that our ego is not our true self but that the God/Buddha essence is … is found in the teachings of the Buddha, in Sufi literature such as, The Art of Being and Becoming, in the Kabbalah, in the teachings of Gnosticism, and in the Bhagavad Gita.  Contrary to the fear of Nietzsche and many others that man will be left rudderless without their belief in the old God, contrary to the proof they see in our modern culture of the death of the old God and the resulting waywardness of people, God has always been alive and well inside each and every one of us.  

But it is for us to rediscover it, to uncover it, and allow it to embrace us and transform us.  For example, according to Kabbalah, “every soul is pure in essence and the only salvation is to become enlightened (i.e. to remember the truth of who and what we really are). … Salvation is the process of clearing out whatever obstructs our manifestation of the concealed divine image. … Kabbalah leads to the conclusion that ultimately we must rely on ourselves - for we alone have the power to save ourselves.”  It is to our heart we must look for guidance, not our ego-mind.

If one were to ask why most of organized Christianity adopted the doctrine of original sin, and why in Judaism and Islam the teaching that the God-essence is in each of us is mostly confined to their mystical branches, the answer might be found in that statement of Kabbalah just quoted … “we must rely on ourselves, for we alone have the power to save ourselves.”  Organized religion could well have felt that that teaching would reduce its power and influence.   Or it could be that organized religion didn’t have faith that we, ordinary people, can save ourselves and thus felt we needed something external to believe in.

Having found Buddhism in my middle age and walked the path for more than 20 years now, I can attest that freeing ourselves from our ego-mind is not an easy matter.  It involves changing the habit-energies of a lifetime; changing everything we have come to believe about who we are.  But it is possible, with discipline and good teaching, to find the Buddha nature, the God essence, inside each of us.  First comes belief in the teaching, then meditation and practice, and ultimately self-realization.

God is alive and well.  The God-spirit is in each of us, no matter how high or low, no matter how pure or consumed with evil thoughts and acts.  We have all been led astray by the serpent of learned insecurity and the culture of “want.”  We have been programmed by our life experiences to act and think as we do.  But that is our ego, not our true self.  There is no such thing as a bad person; just persons who do bad things.

If we all sought to find the Divine in each of us, the world would be a very different place.

The Cause of Urban Ghetto Violence Cannot Be Placed on a Failure of the Black Community

There are many, especially Republicans, who criticize Blacks for the violence in the urban ghetto community, which mostly falls on themselves.  The point is either made or implied that it has something to do with Black culture, that it is a failing of Black mothers to raise their children properly, or that there are too few two-parent households.

While there can be no arguing against the facts of ghetto violence, the causal connections often made have only superficial merit.  If one looks at urban slums/ghettos around the world, one finds gangs, drugs, and violence.  It makes no difference if one is in Asia, Africa, Europe, Los Angeles or New York City.  

Regardless what the race, color, or ethnicity of the urban ghetto dweller is … the incidence of violence in the urban ghetto is a universal fact.  It is instead the crushing, de-humanizing impact of urban ghetto poverty that creates a seedbed for violence.

In most global urban ghettos, the poor are also predominantly immigrants or migrants.  One could even argue that Black Americans are still to a large extent immigrants (forced) because they have not been successfully assimilated into important aspects of the larger culture.  This aggravates the crushing impact of the urban ghetto because people also feel, with good reason, that they are not welcomed, that they have no place in the larger society.

That the combination of poverty and urbanization should produce such an outcome should not be surprising.  And the impact of globalization has actually made it worse.  

Maya Angelou, in her book Wouldn’t Take Nothing for My Journey Now, says that the children of the ghetto are the way they are because they do not experience caring, self-respect, and courtesy in the home.  That has much validity, but that experience itself is in turn the product of poverty and the soul-crushing life of the urban ghetto.

I’m not going to go into the sociological reasons why the combination of poverty and urban ghetto produce violence.  Untold books and articles have been written on the subject.  The reasons are well known and the facts inescapable.  Yet we as a society, and all societies around the world, choose to point the finger at the people themselves and/or their cultures rather than the situations the poor find themselves in because that is what is convenient for us.  

If it wasn’t the fault of the poor, if the problem wasn’t self-inflicted, then the larger society would have both a social and a moral obligation to correct the situation, to remove or at least ameliorate the causal factors.  But we do not want to drastically change the way our societies are structured, the way resources are distributed by government, the deeply embedded racism against the ethnic poor, and the pervasive discrimination directed towards all poor.  And so life for the poor continues more or less as it always has, even while receiving meager assistance in the U.S. and other countries from the government.

This is just one more example of the impact of the lack of humanity in our society  (see my post, “Healing Our Nation, Healing Ourselves”).  And our nation, as well as the rest of the world, will not move forward unless the essence of humanity is rediscovered by us humans, individually and collectively.

When Is a Socialist Not a Socialist?

When Barack Obama was running for President, the Republican Right branded him a “Socialist.”  They have also branded Obamacare as “socialized medicine.”  These claims were so ridiculous that neither Obama nor anyone else ever took the time to set the American people straight on the meaning of these words and the lie they spoke as applied.  Thus for many, the terms stuck.

Now, because of Bernie Sander’s run for the nomination, and his self-identification as a Socialist or what he sometimes refers to as a Democratic Socialist, it is critically important for the American people (and Sanders!) to understand what these words mean before even starting to think about which candidate they prefer.

First, the meaning of Socialism:  “A system of society in which the major means of production are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.”  This definition is from Webster’s and is basically identical with other sources.  

Why government ownership?  The theory is that government is the desired owner because it represents all of the people rather than just a few and so decisions about production and distribution will be made in a way which better meets the needs of the broader society.  Capitalism, on the other hand, where the means of production are owned and controlled by private companies or individuals, makes its decisions on what is produced and how it is distributed based solely on what is in the best interests of the company and its owners/shareholders.

Neither Barack Obama nor Bernie Sanders has ever called for industries, for the means of production, to be owned by or controlled by the government.  Therefore, neither of them are Socialists nor do they advocate Socialism.  

Yes, I know that Sanders identifies himself as a Socialist at times, but he’s not.  I have the feeling he just likes the sound of the word, that it confirms he’s for the people and against big money, and it sets him apart.

The term “Democratic Socialism” is still Socialism as defined above, but the system of government is democratic, that is, representative.  So again, neither Obama or Sanders are or advocate Democratic Socialism.

Well what is Sanders then?  Sanders, like the European countries he often refers to, is a Social Democrat.  I know the semantics may seem confusing, but the differences are important.  

“Social Democracy” refers to a political democracy in which a capitalist system of ownership and production is regulated by the state to make it more reflect the public good and the state helps those who need help with various forms of aid, such as public aid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.  Webster’s also defines it as a state that combines both capitalist and socialist practices. 

So guess what?  The United States is a social democracy, certainly since the Depression.  Only the most radical right-wing Republicans want a purely capitalist state where there is no government regulation (and also no government aid to industry) and no government help for those in need.

The difference between today’s mainstream Republicans (radical has become mainstream for them), Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders are really differences of degree, albeit great, along a continuum from little government social involvement … that is action to promote the public rather than private good … to significant government action to promote the public good.

Hillary wants more government action to help those in need, but does not want to disturb the capitalist model.  Sanders is willing to disturb the capitalist model where necessary to provide for the public good, for example, universal health insurance.  Likewise, Hillary is less willing to closely regulate the financial industry while Sanders wants rather strict regulation of that industry.  

The example of health insurance is perhaps the easiest way of clarifying the distinctions.  In the strictly capitalist model, health insurance is provided by private for-profit insurance companies and is bought by individuals or companies on behalf of employees.  The government is not involved at all.  There would be no such thing as Medicare or Medicaid.  

Even Radical Republicans don’t dare go that far.  They would prefer to remove the government from any programmatic involvement and rely on private insurers, but still provide funding through some type of voucher or income tax credit program.  Which would provide more profits for private insurers.

Bernie Sanders wants universal health care with the government being the single payer, easiest to understand as expanded Medicare for everyone.  This is the system that is in place in most European countries and Canada.  This could fairly be called socialized medical insurance, but the medical delivery system otherwise remains as is.  People can in most cases opt out of this system and choose private care if they so choose.

What Hillary wants is Obamacare.  This is a system that still uses private insurers and so it cannot be called socialized medical insurance because the insurance is not provided by the government.  But the government both regulates and provides subsidies so that those who cannot afford the insurance can still obtain it.  It’s better than what we had before, but it’s a clunky system and there are lots of shortcomings just from my own personal experience.

Bottom line.  The whole “Socialist” or “Democratic Socialist” harangue is a red herring.  

It would be helpful if Sanders started getting his terminology correct and made the point expressed in this post that most everyone regardless of political party is on the same continuum, just at different points of the spectrum.  We are a social democracy, even if not a very progressive one.

This does not lessen the differences between the parties or candidates.  But it does remove scare terminology from the debate and instead places the question clearly where it should be … how much help should the government provide its citizens, directly or indirectly?  Is health care a basic right that everyone should have?

Understanding Why America Is No Longer, and Perhaps Can Never Be, As Great As It Was

People either go on about how great America is, or they lament that America is not as great as it used to be.  In the first case, people typically ignore reality.  In the second case, they often ignore fundamental factors. 

When people say that America is great, they are either referring to the strength of our military (which is a fact), the size of our economy (which is a fact), or the things America stands for (which is also a fact, at least in theory).  

However, while we unquestionably have a strong military it does not serve its purpose of protecting American interests because our enemies are not cowed by our might nor do we have the political willingness or financial ability to send our military everywhere it is needed to protect our interests.  Thus we are not really as strong as our size and might would make it appear.  American strength is somewhat of a facade.

Our economy is also the largest in the world, even though the Chinese have been rapidly catching up with us.   We also have the most stable and strongest domestic economy in the world.  But our corporations, and as a result our financial well-being, have become so interconnected with the stability of the rest of the world economy that our economy is not as strong/stable as it was.  

Further, because of stagnant wages and loss of middle-class jobs, financial inequality in America has soared and become damaging and our middle class, which was the bedrock of our consumer economy, has been eviscerated.  The American people are hurting even as its corporations are prospering.  Then there’s the fact that the rest of the world, in particular China, holds most of the debt that we have incurred spending more than we take in, especially as a result of the disastrous Bush II tax cuts and the Iraq war.

As to American exceptionalism being a function of our ideals, as I’ve noted in prior posts, this exceptionalism is mostly a myth (see “American Exceptionalism - A Myth Exposed”).  America has never lived up to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence or the 14th Amendment.

On the other hand, when people speak of America not being as great as it was, they often speak of America not being respected because our military needs to be stronger.  But the lack of respect has little to do with the strength of our military.  It is more because America has not for many years had the moral authority that it once had, even if it was based on an illusion.  Also, as noted above, our guerrilla enemies are not scared of our military prowess.

When they speak of our economy being weaker, they do focus on the issues I raised above, but the underlying context is not addressed.  The economy is not as great as it was because the world has changed and America has changed.  

The world has changed because 3rd world countries are no longer just producers of raw material (with the glaring exception of most of Africa).  And so they produce products that would pose competitive problems for U.S. production even without the free market trade agreements that have proliferated at the behest of both economists and corporations.  Unless the U.S. would enact high protective trade barriers to keep many foreign products out of the U.S.  But that would create a different problem … the combination of not having inexpensive foreign-produced items to purchase and a reasonable growth in U.S. workers’ wages would lead to high inflation rates that would damage our economy.  (Also, the inevitable trade war fight that would ensue would harm our exports.)

But America has changed in significant ways as well.  During the first stage of explosive growth in our economy, much of the country was still unsettled frontier leaving room for  a huge expansion of economic activity accompanied by huge increases in population through immigration from all parts of the world.  During the second stage, from the turn of the 20th century into the initial post-WWII period, America was unequaled because the rest of the world’s developed economies were minuscule by comparison and China and most of the non-European world were undeveloped, not even developing.

None of that is true today.  And so, because of all of these factors, the way often cited for the American economy to regain its strength is through American creativity or innovation.  And many think we’ve done just that.  

But while we have seen lots of American technological innovation in the last few decades, it has only fueled American corporate profits, not worker wealth, since the products are all produced overseas, and so the economy has not really been strengthened.  Only if those jobs were brought back would it make a real difference.  

As for creativity, since the creation of the computer chip, there really hasn’t been much creativity, just innovation.  Even nanotechnology is innovation, not creativity.  But regardless, unless creativity resulted in good, middle-class jobs for U.S. workers, it would not help strengthen our economy.

But this discussion begs the question, “Does America have to be great?”  Economically, given the size of our population and the standard of living that we were used to 40 years ago and would like to reacquire, that answer is unfortunately, yes.

Thus, bottom line, figuring out how to bring American jobs back or create new ones without creating other major economic disruptions such as high inflation is a task that corporations and workers/unions need to sit down at the table to discuss, probably at the behest of government.  One point seems clear.  To significantly increase the number of American middle-class jobs, wages will have to be lower than they once were, but that would still result in a benefit for both workers and the economy.

The only other way that America will either be or viewed as the great nation it once was economically is if much of the rest of the world implodes and the U.S. finds a way of disconnecting itself from that calamity.  I think recent history shows that it would be prudent to prepare for that eventuality.

Militarily, America certainly needs to be strong.  But what that means in the context of current or projected international conflicts has been a subject of some debate.  Many argue that we need a leaner and more flexible military rather than an updated version of the current dinosaur.

As for being great from a moral authority perspective, while there is no need to be great, it certainly would be very beneficial from many perspectives for the U.S. to regain its moral authority.  President Obama certainly tried to move in that direction in the beginning of his first term.    But to regain that authority, much would have to change both within this country as well as how it engages the rest of the world. 

If the advice I have given in many of my posts on this site were followed, it would go a long way to regaining our moral authority.  But that, unfortunately, is highly unlikely because to bring about that change means changing who holds power in Washington … ending the control that corporate America and the wealthy have over our policies.  Although Bernie Sanders talks of such a revolution, achieving it is another matter … and he is the only candidate talking about it.

As has been the case in many of my posts, the final analysis is that we survive in an outdated, broken system and cannot be what we need to be in the future without major changes in our political, social, and economic structure.