A for-profit business has to figure its costs of production in establishing a price and maintaining a sufficient profit margin to warrant being in business. This includes all inputs into the production process. However, for many if not most American businesses, this does not include the costs of rendering all byproduct outputs from the production process harmless to the environment.
There are certainly measures that are required by regulation, but they are minimal relatively speaking. When any efforts are made to require more stringent measures, the common outcry from industry is that the measures are too expensive. And so government typically relents and the pollution or other damage continues, with the environment being damaged, sometimes irrevocably, sometimes to be cleaned up at the taxpayer’s expense.
Before any product is allowed to be processed or manufactured, why isn’t it required that a business provide an environmental impact statement indicating the measures it will take to insure that any potential impact is mitigated to the point that the process is harmless to the environment. If a business cannot with a sufficient degree of certainty make such a statement, it should not be allowed to proceed. (The former phrase is in italics because industry routinely makes such bold statements without there being any rigorous research or data backing up the statements.)
The obvious case in point is hydraulic fracking, but the same principle applies to coal mining, electric generating plants, chemical plants, and many other industries where one wouldn’t necessarily think that toxic discharges would be a problem. No industry should be allowed to despoil the environment. And the public should not have to pay for mitigation measures that should be considered costs of production.
If such a system is not put in place and the government/taxpayer ends up paying, then isn’t that a form of socialism that big business and conservatives so abhor? Why is it only socialism to these people when the government helps those who are in need, but not when government either directly or indirectly subsidizes the cost of doing business?
This is but one more example where corporate interests usually trump all others because of the power they have through the money they donate to politicians and the money they spend lobbying for their point of view. Those who speak on the public’s behalf are drowned out by the shear magnitude of corporate power over the process.
In my previous post, I addressed the problems caused by widespread insecurity ... abuse and violence in personal relationships and in social interactions, as well as much unhappiness and stress even without those particular outcomes. But insecurity also plays a major role in the larger issues of social conflict and international war.
For hundreds if not thousands of years, there has been a divide in most societies between the haves and the have-nots. Whether we look at the English nobility, or the WASP establishment in the United States prior to 1960, Southern whites, or the caste system in India, the haves put in place a system which protected their interests and kept “others” or the masses from having the power to be a threat.
The reader might look at these leaders of society and say that they were immensely secure; that this is not an example of insecurity causing conflict. But I would argue that they were only secure because they had put in place these systems, which they did out of insecurity and fear. They were at some level afraid of “others” or the masses gaining power.
The English nobility put in place a system where there was little upward mobility, and then only to a certain point. The English class system ... which was the gate into good schools and good jobs ... was firmly in place until after WWII; many would say it still is. Politically, even after election reforms in the 1800s which gave a political voice to men who either owned or rented property worth a certain amount, the House of Lords, which was the province of the nobility, had the power to veto what they didn’t like until 1911.
In the United States, the WASP establishment until around 1960 had a pretty exclusive grip on all handles of power. Whether someone was Jewish or Catholic, let alone black, all “others” were excluded from the seats of real power, for example, WASP law firms, country clubs, and private clubs. Representative politics provided a path to elected status for many of the “others,” but real power was reserved for members of the WASP establishment until well after WWII.
In the South, whites from the highest to the lowest socio-economic groups put in place and violently supported a system in which blacks had no rights, or what rights they had were systematically denied them. The language may have been one of superiority and security, but here more than in the other instances I discuss, the fear of losing control was always close to the surface and apparent.
Today in the United States, while we live in a very egalitarian society in many respects and there are many laws protecting the equality of people, discrimination based on fear and insecurity is still a major issue. Much has been written, for example, about the vehemence of the Tea Party’s and Far Right’s attitude towards President Obama as being in large part based on their fear of blacks’, and other people of color, gaining more social and political power as the majority status of whites in this country begins to fade away, an opinion with which I agree.
And this is not just a Western phenomenon. For example, the caste system in India, which until relatively recently was very rigid and still causes many problems, especially for those formerly labeled “untouchables,” was an ancient system devised to keep everyone in their place and protect those with power from those below them.
As to the issue of international war, the issue of insecurity is more visible. Virtually all alliances and wars have been an effort to make countries feel secure against the threat of enemies, real or imagined. Even the strong have constantly been worried about attacks on their hegemony. And understandably so.
Obviously, in the larger social context and international relationships, the problem is not directly that children, spouses, and others are not loved unconditionally. However, the basic dynamic resulting from this which impacts interpersonal relationships ... a feeling of insecurity, of not feeling safe, of needing to project strength to counter such feelings ... directly impacts actions in the larger social and world arenas. If those in positions of power felt love towards and from all, then there would be no need for both the national and international systems that have ultimately caused much suffering in the world.
If everyone were raised with unconditional love, listened to deeply, and spoken to with loving kindness, then man would not grow up to be the way man is now and has been for millenia, at least in so-called “advanced” societies.
So far I have discussed the impact of man’s insecurity vis a vis others and its impact on his relationship with other individuals or groups. Another major aspect of man’s insecurity that has affected the course of human development has been his insecurity vis a vis nature, read broadly. It is this insecurity that resulted in the development of religion, from the earliest to the current leading religions.
Man formed religions to answer questions of why nature and other aspects of life are the way they are, and most importantly to provide a way for man to impact their course, whether through sacrifice in ancient times or through modern prayer. And since religion was formed in answer to man’s insecurity, it is not surprising that it was made to serve his other insecurities, whether it was providing a respectable foundation for the continued practice of slavery or lending its authority to a country’s going to war against enemies. Far from being the bringer of peace and understanding, religion has thus been the hand-maiden of war and untold human suffering.
And so, the book I’ve written which has just been published, Raising a Happy Child, is relevant regarding these larger issues as well. It is available through www.ThePracticalBuddhist.com. as well as through the major online retailers and your local bookstore by special order. While based on Buddhist principles, the lessons it contains are applicable regardless of ones religious affiliation. For more information about the book as well as the Table of Contents and sample text, go to the website.
In the aftermath of the massacre at Newtown, CT most of the discussion has centered around how to lessen the risk of such events happening through better gun control measures, including improved data bases to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed. While these are important measures that need to be taken, they avoid the real issue ... why is it that so many people are killed in the United States each year by guns.
In addition to the well-publicized random mass shootings, there is a far greater problem out there. In 2010, 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.
These numbers are huge. They evidence a significant problem in the psychological stability of Americans. I include in this group not just those who perpetrate mass shootings or commit suicide, but also those who commit intentional homicide. One does not kill another person if one is emotionally stable.
But the vastness of America’s psychological problem is far greater than evidenced by gun deaths. If we look at the extent of domestic violence, the U.S. Department of Justice estimates that between 960,000 and 3 million people are physically abused by their spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend per year. Other sources report estimates ranging between 600,000 to 6 million women and 100,000 to 6 million men per year. Even taking the more conservative DOJ figures, the problem is serious.
There are no statistics for those who suffer verbal/mental rather than physical abuse. But as anyone who has observed friends and family, as well as strangers, the numbers if they were available would be frightening.
Whether someone verbally abuses a spouse or child, or physically abuses them, or commits suicide, murder, or a mass shooting is a matter of degree, both as to the severity and nature of their psychological disturbance. But in most cases, whether the disturbance is mild or severe, the root of the disturbance is insecurity.
What has caused this epidemic of insecurity? The cause lies in the simple fact that children, spouses, parents, and siblings are typically not loved unconditionally, or certainly do not feel so loved. To most people reading this, this will sound like rubbish for a variety of reasons. First, people think that it is quite right not to love people unconditionally; the very idea sounds like nonsense. Second, it sounds like the ultimate example of permissiveness, which rightfully would be viewed negatively.
The first reaction arises because most of us have no experience with, no role models for, unconditional love. We have not experienced it ourselves, either from our parents or spouses, nor have we seen that trait in others. A recent cartoon in the New Yorker showed a mother with her arm around her young son, saying, ““Heavens no, sweetie – my love for you has tons of conditions” Take away the hyperbole and that states the basic fact of much child-rearing, at least in America (I can’t speak to other countries), and not just currently but probably for a good century and more.
This is not a judgment of parents. Most parent are good people who would never do anything intentionally to harm their child. But parents are people who are a function of their own upbringing and learned experience. They have their own fears, frustrations, angers, and desires. And they see things through the lens of that experience and those emotions, which in turn impacts how they interact with their children.
And so, as children we have been exposed to conditional love at home and conditional respect among our peers. The result is an epidemic of insecurity. And not just among those who receive negative “reviews” from family and peers. Those who get positive feedback are also insecure because they realize that their approval is based on their status at that point in time; should that change ... whether it’s ones looks, ones grades, ones wealth, ones physical ability, ones talent ... they will lose their position at the top of the social pecking order. They know that their approval is very conditional and the fact that they have so much to lose makes them even more insecure, which they mask with huge egos and bravado. This is what accounts for so many people at the top being imperious and often belittling others ... whether it’s “mean girls” in school or financial titans.
As to the second reaction, it stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of unconditional love. Unconditional love is a Buddhist concept that pretty much means what it seems to ... that one loves someone, whether child or spouse, for who that person is. And so regardless what that person does, they are still loved because it does not change who they are. An example of this are parents who accept a child who turns out to be gay because it doesn’t change who the child is in their eyes and thus doesn’t change their love, as opposed to those parents who ostracize such children because they have committed an abomination or at least unpardonable social behavior.
What it does not mean is that one does not provide direction or criticism to a child. An important factor in the development of a child is receiving direction on a large variety of matters from its parents. To love unconditionally means to provide that direction or criticism within the context of such love and when one gives it, to couch it in such a way, to use such words and tone of voice, so that it is clear to the child that the direction or criticism does not impact the unconditional love that they are given. If one loves a child unconditionally, one never yells at a child or calls them “bad” or other negative labels. That would be an example of not speaking with loving kindness, which is the opposite of unconditional love.
As an aside I should note that unconditional love also does not mean that if one finds oneself in an abusive relationship that one stays in it. One may have unconditional love and compassion for the abusive spouse/partner, but if your mental or physical well-being is threatened, one should put as much physical and legal distance as necessary between yourself and the abuser to protect yourself, and if you have children, your children.
Assuming that to some degree at least you agree with my assessment, you may well ask how this problem can be addressed? If generations of insecure people are raising insecure children in a vicious cycle, how can it be broken? The answer is by making prospective and existing parents aware of this problem and encouraging them to take steps to both raise a happy and secure child and at the same time make their own lives better as well. Bit by bit we must start with individual parents and have the effect spread outward.
To that end I have written a book which has just been published, Raising a Happy Child. While based on Buddhist principles, the lessons it contains are applicable regardless of ones religious affiliation. It is available through www.ThePracticalBuddhist.com. as well as through the major online retailers and your local bookstore by special order. For more information about the book as well as the Table of Contents and sample text, go to the website.
Next, “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War.”
Our democracy and the right of free speech is based on the value the founding fathers placed on differing opinions. It is by the airing of differing opinions that people are either persuaded or not, or a compromise is found which while not giving either side everything it wanted provides a way for each side to feel good about the outcome. But ultimately, of course, the majority rules, which means that there will in most political matters be a large percentage of people and their elected representatives who are not happy with the result. Such is life in a democracy.
For such a system to work, for our democracy and representative government to function, it is of critical importance that even though people and their representatives may disagree with others as to a whole raft of issues, that, as lawyers say, “people agree to disagree,” that they understand that “reasonable minds may differ.” Which is to say that each side respects that the other side came to its opinions honestly and with reason ... they just don’t agree.
When, however, people become so convinced of the rightness of their opinions that they become self-righteous and ideological in their approach to issues ... that is they feel that they are not just right and the other side wrong but that the other side is somehow evil or harmful ... then there can be no compromise, there can be no reasoned discussion, there can be no art of persuasion and the process of our democratic government breaks down. And that is the state in which we have found ourselves these past few years.
How have we come to this point? Why has a system that has operated for more than 200 years, with the exception of the Civil War, with widely divergent points of view and often hot tempers reached the current impasse? Really, what we are seeing now in the posture of the two opposing sides is most akin to that which our country experienced over the issue of slavery and to a certain extent the civil rights movement. And that’s disturbing.
On the issue of slavery and civil rights, those in the south felt that their whole way of life, their whole world would cease to be if African-Americans were given their freedom and the same rights as white people. And they were right. Their world did change. But life went on, and white southerners changed too; they adapted to the new reality. And they found once they got over themselves that much about their world did not change.
The same kind of reality check is needed in the current situation in order to progress from the current Congressional gridlock. Both sides ... which is to say the liberal left and the far right ... need to understand that life will go on, that the country will prosper, that they and their constituents will be ok, even if their view of government does not totally win the day. This is surely an instance where there is merit on both sides.
For example, as staunchly liberal as I am, I get livid when I get emails and petitions, or read articles, in which liberal groups refuse to give an inch on entitlement (Social Security and Medicare) spending. I’m sorry, but the nation’s debt and deficit are real problems and we just do not have sufficient revenue to continue past policies unaltered as our age demographics change.
There are ways to cut spending without harming those who are truly dependent on these benefits, and that’s what Democrats must make sure of. As for the starting age of Medicare, that used to be of critical importance because of the cost of medical insurance. Now with the new Health Care Law, insurance available through the insurance exchanges for those of limited means will probably not be much more than what one currently pays out of Social Security for Plan B. So it should not be the critical issue it once was. There’s also a painless opportunity to raise revenues for SS by ending the salary cap regarding the application of the SS tax.
But how do we get both the public and their representatives to get down from these barricades they’ve erected? How do we get them to go back to the day when each side respected the other side?
As a Buddhist, I find the answer in the teachings of the Buddha. The Buddha taught that all things are empty of intrinsic existence, that they are of dependent origination. What that means is that every thought we have, every opinion we hold, all our perspectives are a function of our learned experience, whether within our family, our peer group, or the larger culture.
As a proposed statement of fact, this statement is unassailable. And when one truly accepts that fact, there is no way that one can say any more with certitude that I am right and the others are wrong. Even if one is Born Again, your opinions are based on the teachings of your peer group, your minister, and they in turn were learned from someone else. They are as dependent as the opinions of a secular humanist atheist. And if anyone has the hubris to say that God has spoken to them and this is what God says, beware!
There should be only a few universal rules in coming to a compromise on issues. First, do unto others as you would have them do unto you; love and respect your neighbor as you do yourself. Second, do no harm to those who are vulnerable and need the protection of the state. Third, the social contract must be honored by all citizens, part of which entails that those who are better off have a social responsibility as citizens to help those who are not well off ... that’s what progressive taxation is all about. Fourth, there can be no sacred cows ... neither military spending nor entitlements.
Application of these rules would arrive at numerous ways to cut the deficit and slow the growth of the national debt through a combination of raised revenues and reduced spending without harming either individuals in need, the strength of the economy, or our national security.
The cornerstone of our democracy, of our constitution and its Bill of Rights, is the principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms, stems from this combination of the right to life and liberty and the government’s responsibility to create a system where that is reasonably possible.
If you asked most people what is one of the most important ingredients in leading a happy life, they would say being secure ... whether it’s secure in ones job, ones financial situation, or ones relationships, or being able to go to the theater or send your children to school without worrying whether you/they will be massacred. The government can’t do much about job security or your financial situation and nothing regarding your relationships. But physical security is one area where the government has a clear responsibility and ability. Whether it’s the local police force or the national defense, an acknowledged primary role of government is to insure that people can go about their lives without worrying for their physical safety.
What happens when one right, here the right to physical security, bumps into another right, here the right to bear arms? The courts have been clear that none of the Bill of Rights is absolute ... not even the right of free speech. If the government has a compelling reason, such as protecting large numbers of people from harm, it can regulate these rights so long as it does so in the least restrictive manner.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the latest Supreme Court decision that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals a constitutional right to bear arms is indeed the correct interpretation. (I say let’s assume because that decision was the first time in the court’s history that it interpreted the amendment in that way.} As already stated, that does not mean that the government cannot restrict that right if it has a compelling interest and the opinion explicitly acknowledges this, giving several examples of existing or possible regulatory restrictions. The implication is that even the current conservative majority on the Court would find that protecting the safety of the general populace is a compelling interest.
What are the statistics on gun deaths? In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents. Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period. In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
Clearly, guns deaths and injury are a very serious national safety and health problem. While the massacres that have occurred in schools, shopping centers, or movie theaters grab the headlines, the volume of deaths caused by individual shootings is far greater. Given that the option of eliminating guns from the marketplace is not a realistic option, how can the government proceed in the least restrictive way, meeting its responsibility regarding public and individual safety while respecting the rights of people to own guns?
I would ask two questions. What types of guns are not needed for either hunting or self-defense? How best keep guns out of the hands of those who should not own them ... criminals and the mentally ill? If the government were able to address these two issues successfully, the problem of gun violence in the United States would be greatly reduced.
The first question is easy to answer. AK-47s and other assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols and rifles are not tools needed for hunting or self-defense. These are weapons for murdering large numbers of people. Yes, rifles like the AR-15 that was used in the recent Connecticut school massacre are rifles favored by many hunters and gun enthusiasts, but a semi-automatic rifle just isn’t necessary for hunting. Sales to the public should be banned. Sales to authorized agencies, such as the police, should be direct purchase from the manufacturer, rather than through a wholesaler, to eliminate a potential source of illegal sales.
The second question is more difficult to answer, but there is a logical series of actions. The first is that no firearm or ammunition sale, regardless whether at a store or at a gun show should be made without a thorough background check. Second the data base accessed in searches needs to be improved. Third, the penalties for the sale of guns and ammunition illegally, that is without following mandated procedures, should be severe. The combination of these actions would not stop the flow of guns into the wrong hands, but it should greatly restrict it and sharply reduce the number of such incidents. And they would do so without impacting the legitimate rights of citizens to own a gun or rifle for hunting or self-defense.
There is no rational reason why gun control and gun rights should be at cross-purposes. No one who wants a firearm for a legitimate reason has anything to fear from the types of regulations I’ve suggested. It is only the hysteria fostered by the National Rifle Association which is heavily funded by firearms manufacturers that has caused this seemingly loosing battle in Congress over gun control. It is firearms manufacturers who fear the impact of gun control on their lucrative sales, so much so that Remington has threatened to move from its birthplace in New York State if the state proceeds to enact gun control legislation.
The time is past due for the President and Senators and Congressmen from both parties to come together to enact reasonable legislation that protects the right of average American citizens to live a life free of the fear of them or their children being gunned down in a massacre. Protect the legitimate rights of citizens to own guns for self-defense and hunting, but control the rest. Let not the 20 children in Newtown, CT die in vain.
We can rant all we want about the insufferable and destructive attitude and policies of the Tea Party and its fellow travelers, but truth be told, virtually all politicians are sorely lacking.
A politician should be first and foremost a public servant ... there should be no greater interest than to serve the interests of his or her constituents and the greater public good. And where the greater public good conflicts with the interests of constituents, politicians should back the greater public good because the welfare of the nation should always take precedence over the narrow interests of a locality.
Why is it that there are no, or at best a handful, of politicians today, and for that matter in the past, who encompass this ideal? The short answer is that all politicians, and indeed all people, are driven primarily by their ego ... which is to say the sum of their learned experience that forms how they view themselves and the world around them. All people and all politicians are programmed by their upbringing and societal environment to look at things a certain way. They cannot really do otherwise.
And what is the primary lesson that our culture teaches? Is it that we must work for and if necessary sacrifice for the good of the community, or is it that we should insure first and foremost that #1, ourselves, is taken care of first. During much of our history there was a balance between these two messages. But over the past 30-40 years, it has become increasingly the latter. Everything else is secondary, at best.
When one combines the self-centeredness of politicians with their programmed view of the world, the result is often disaster for the nation they are supposed to be serving. In the past, while politicians and people have always been driven by ego, most people were exposed to a strong centrist tradition ... for example the news broadcasts of the three networks and most major newspapers ... and that formed the core of their political learned experience. Thus they were able to see it in their interest to come together, not on all issues but with sufficient frequency, to serve the public good.
But as the power of corporations has increased in politics and as the attitude of the people has become more extreme, especially on the right due to the emergence of right-wing cable news and right-wing radio talk shows, there remains virtually no issue on which the two Parties can come together in the nation’s interest. The result is the total dysfunction that we’ve been seeing in Congress. The result is a growing fissure in our society. The public good and the interests of those most vulnerable suffer.
Our political system is a mess. The electoral system is a mess. Our society is a mess. Is there any hope out of this morass? There is no hope so long as even well-meaning politicians and people seek to find answers within the system as it exists because within those constraints there can be no real change. There is no hope without being willing to examine the concepts that lie at the very core of our culture. For it is these concepts that make people what they are and make our system of government what it is.
What in the world am I talking about, you might ask. It means going back to basics. The core moral ethic behind all the world’s great religions is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Yet there are few people, even among those who profess themselves to be ultra-religious, who practice this core ethic.
Why is that? The bottom line reason is that most people are insecure, both individually and as groups. If you are insecure, you only think of yourself, not others. Yes, many people, groups, and nations may appear to have strong egos and are full of bluster and bravado, but deep within, people whether low or high are insecure. That’s why those on top are typically so imperious. It’s a mask.
And why are people so insecure, even those who have “made it” in our society and have so much? The answer is that most people were not brought up with unconditional love and compassion.
I know this sounds very new age, but don’t laugh. We are all cursed with the learned experience that we have to be someone other than we are, we have to be better than we are, in order to be loved and respected. We learn this in childhood from our parents and later from our peers and the broader culture that bombards us with messages that we need to be or do more.
If on the other hand, we were all brought up with the constancy of unconditional love and compassion ... and mind, this does not mean no criticism; it means that criticism is done with loving kindness; children need direction, but there’s a way to do it and a way not to do it ... then we would not be insecure as children and we would not grow up to be insecure adults.
This atmosphere of unconditional love and compassion would not be limited to the family, but would extend to all people in the community, in the country, indeed to all mankind because we would be taught that all of humanity is one. We are all children of the same God (if there is one), we all suffer in the same way, we all are programmed by our learned experiences to act the way we do. No one is innately bad or evil, but history has shown that it is surprisingly easy to teach people to be bad or evil. With that knowledge we can have compassion and love for all, even those who seek to harm us.
This new attitude does not mean that we would not defend ourselves, as a nation or individually. But with this new attitude we would have a chance to break the cycle of hate with love. To show those who are insecure that they have nothing to fear from us; that there is no need to be aggressive. And with time, this new force of love would gain in strength, encompassing ever more people and nations. Slowly but surely the aggressive traits that we have assumed are part of the human condition would be replaced by a more spiritual perspective based on unconditional love and compassion for ourselves and for all others.
Martin Luther King said, "Someone must have sense enough and religion enough to cut off the chain of hate and evil, and this can only be done through love." To that I say, "Amen."
We have become so accustomed to the extreme polarization of our country that began in earnest during Clinton’s second term and has gone off the deep end during the past few years with the creation and ascendency of the Republican Tea Party movement, that it’s hard to remember that there was a time not that long ago when things were very different. But they were,
After Lyndon Johnson fought for and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the deep south turned Republican, the red states were (with the exception of the 1964 Goldwater debacle) pretty reliably the deep south, the plains states, the Rocky Mountain states, and the west coast. The Republicans expanded their take of states in Nixon’s elections, Reagan’s, and Bush I’s. In 1988 they did lose Washington and Oregon, and in 1992 they lost California, which have since been permanently in the Democratic camp. But after Clinton, they seem to have permanently gained the lower Midwest (Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana). Likewise the blue states have been pretty consistent, with the exceptions noted above.
So we have existed for the past 48 years at least with a large number of states reliably red, a large number reliably blue, a few changing from one to the other, and a few being the swing states, which is to say they have no established pattern. But despite that fact, there were circumstances or candidates ... like Goldwater in 1964, McGovern in 1972, the Iran Hostage crisis in 1980, and Reagan in 1984 that turned the presidential map almost totally blue or totally red.
We were in other words a country with a distinctive political map which nevertheless responded to events or personalities in a way contrary to that pattern. People were far more flexible.
This flexibility could also be clearly seen in the workings of the party’s representatives in Congress. Although Republicans and Democrats have always disagreed on many things, acrimony was not common. More common was a tone of civility and frequently “crossing the aisle” to work together in the country’s best interest. The vast majority of legislators were centrists, as was the electorate.
So what happened to turn our country from a nation of partisans who nevertheless could be bipartisan in the interest of the country and who could, as lawyers say, “agree to disagree,” to a country where one party ... the Republican ... has become a hotbed of rabid, radical, ideological partisans who will brook no compromise? The answer I think is to be found in the evolution of media in the United States.
Prior to 1980, people got their news from the three major TV networks, all of which were mainstream and centrist, and newspapers which were for the most part also mainstream and centrist. Whether it was Huntley-Brinkley or Water Cronkite, these were the men who formed public opinion about current events. Whether you lived in a major urban area or in an isolated rural one, they were your eyes to the rest of the world. And the respect with which they were held impacted how people, whether Republican or Democrat, saw the major issues of the day. Even after 1980 when CNN was founded and programmed news 24 hours a day, the basic pattern of centrist news organizations continued. The result was that people were in general more centrist in their outlook.
Radio was also pretty much a centrist medium prior to 1987, when the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, which had required controversial viewpoints to be balanced by opposing opinion on air. One year after that, Rush Limbaugh started his nationally syndicated show on ABC. Many other right-wing personalities followed suit.
Then in 1996 Fox News started its cable broadcast. Now you had right-wing news interpretation available 24 hours a day. That together with the large panoply of right-wing radio talk shows available nationally ... they’re called “conservative talk” but they hardly fit the classic definition of “conservative” ... means that Republicans throughout the country, whether living in small rural towns or in urban areas, now can choose to get their news and their opinions from Republican [sic radical] conservatives, rather than from mainstream broadcasters in the mold of Concrete and Huntley-Brinkley or Brokaw.
This shift in the nature or function of media is, I believe, the single most important factor in the rise of extreme partisanship on the right and our nation’s current polarized state, even more than the rise of the Religious Right during this same period. People who may have had such opinions before didn’t have them validated by national media. Now they are emboldened and feel they are in the vanguard. And those who didn’t have such thoughts have now been brainwashed by the constant barrage of right-wing commentary and have become right-wing radicals.
Add another notch to the belt of the deregulators.
