The American Social Contract in Trouble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correcting the Perception of Poverty

Studies show consistently that most people, liberals as well as conservatives, think that most people living in poverty are Black.  More recently Hispanics have been included.  

Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is thus non-existent among the new right-wing Republican conservatives (the past attitude of noblesse oblige has disappeared along with moderate conservatives).  Liberals of course support such programs, although often one feels somewhat begrudgingly.  I must note, however, the cause of economic justice is rising among younger progressives who have grown up in a different era and are more free of any racist taint.

But this perception of poverty is fundamentally wrong.  While Blacks and Hispanics do have much higher poverty rates, there were more white people living in poverty (17 million) in 2017 than either Blacks (9 million) or Hispanics (10.8 million).  Combined they accounted for just 51% of people living in poverty.  Minorities have also historically accounted for no more of the welfare caseload than White families.

So in fact, anti-poverty programs help Whites as much as they help Blacks and Hispanics.  Why does this misperception of poverty continue?  The fault lies mainly with the media.  When it presents images of poverty, they are almost always that of Blacks or Hispanics.  The images from the depression, think the photographs of Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange, showing white Americans living in poverty, have very few equivalents in contemporary media.

Both government and the media must address this misconception.  Especially in this polarized age, having the correct facts is very important.

But it is also important that poor white Americans became more vocal in arguing for government help in bettering their lives and the futures of their children.  That should indeed be the goal of existing anti-poverty organizations, they should advocate for both people of color and Whites, that would only make their case more compelling.  When I googled to find organizations advocating for poor Whites I found nothing.

This is actually what is fueling part of the Trump base.  They are supporting Trump because no one else listens to them and no one else advocates for them.  Even though he really doesn’t.  And they have the same perception as most that anti-poverty programs are geared to help people of color, not them, even though they in fact do benefit.  And so they are against such programs, even though such action is against their own self-interest.  

Poverty should never been seen as primarily a Black issue.  Hispanics and Whites may feel more shame in accepting government help, but their poverty must be brought visibly and audibly into the public consciousness in a positive way.  If poor Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics aligned themselves in this common cause, they would present a very potent political force.

Whether the Issue is Gun Control or Inequality, It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism

I was trying to define wherein lies the fervor of the supporters of the NRA and the gun lobby.  It isn’t their love of guns.  It isn’t even that they’re right wing.  It’s that they fear being attacked, or more broadly, being overwhelmed by Black men and more recently Hispanics.

It always comes back to race and racism.  They say they need arms for self-defense.  Who do they see as potentially attacking them?  

Other whites, even white robbers?  Hardly.  They fear being attacked by Black men.  Nowadays they also fear the Hispanic “invasion.”   The fear of the black boogyman is alive and well in the United States.  And their fear of losing their special status as white Americans is increasing each year as we approach the day when whites will be in the minority.  Hence their hatred of Hispanics.

Right wing militias may say that they fear government oppression.  But what is that oppression?  Its essence is being placed on an equal footing with people of color.  You’ll never find a Black man or other person of color in a right-wing militia.  It’s not that there aren’t right-wing people of color; it’s that militias are nativist, white supremacist, anti-semitic.

America does not want to admit that racism has a presence in virtually all sectors of our society.  But it does.  Some strains may be more subtle, some more violent.  But racism, in all its forms, infects the national discussion of many issues.  

And it is racism that continues the propagation of inequality in our democratic nation.  For example, whether the issue is education, health care, or welfare, it is racism that causes the antagonism of conservatives to efforts to create more equal opportunity for the poor, which they view as being primarily Blacks and Hispanics  

(Note, however, that this is in fact just barely true.  While Blacks and Hispanics do have a much higher poverty rate, there were more white people living in poverty (17 million) in 2017 than either Blacks (9 million) or Hispanics (10.8 million).  Combined they accounted for just 51% of people living in poverty.  Also, minorities have historically accounted for no more of the welfare caseload than Whites.)

This racial antagonism explains why conservatives who were so deficit conscious when Obama was president and fought against programs to help the poor became so un-deficit conscious when they took control and spent money on the things that they considered important … like tax breaks for the rich and defense.  Their deficit talk during the Obama years was just a smoke screen for their racism.

Until we get over racism (see my post, “We Need a National Discussion on Race and Racism”) our country will be divided and hobbled.  We will never be truly great in the sense our country was meant to be great by our Founders.  We are far from meeting their aspirations.

In fact, we are less great now under Trump than we have been since the ratification of the 19th Amendment giving women the vote and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Seen in this light, Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is highly ironic.  For it is Trump himself who has denigrated not just the office of President but America’s inner strength and standing in the world.

Trump/Xi - When Weak Men Lead Great Countries

The reader can be excused for wondering at the title of this article.  Donald Trump and Xi-Jinping weak men?  But that is what they are.  Let me explain.

Certainly to watch their actions one sees men projecting great strength and power.  Trump has gone from a laughed-at outsider not given a chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency, to being a commander of this country as few presidents have been before him.  His will is the law.  Others shake in their shoes in fear of his wrath and do his bidding, if not fawn on him.  He has set this country on a perilous course that it will take years if not decades to right.

Then there is Xi-Jinping, the man who has gathered more power unto himself than any Chinese communist leader since Mao.  I don’t know much about the inner workings of the Chinese communist party or the government, but it is said that to the extent that anyone can call the shots in that huge, sprawling, diverse country, Xi is calling the shots.

Both men want a trade deal; they do not want a trade war that weakens them and their country.  And yet both men cannot make a deal because they dare not lose face.  They feel that their power is dependent on the continued support of their respective bases.  

They have each let a monster out of its cage and there is no containing it.  And that monster is nationalism/nativism.  Every time they appear to stray from the hard line path and move to strike a deal, their right wing raises its head in fury and the leader backs down.  And so the trade war continues to escalate.  Each blow must be dealt with by striking back.  There is no other way for a weak leader.  There is no space for compromise.

I can’t speak about Xi in other contexts since I am not familiar with Chinese politics, but I can speak about Trump.  The same pattern happens every time Trump makes an effort to compromise, to reach out to the other side, perhaps even go where he truly would want to go.  The right wing pundits and activists rise up and badger him into backing off his move towards moderation.  Whether it was his early support for an immigration deal with the Democrats or whether it’s his recent back and forth on the issue of improved background checks for gun purchases or a host of other issues, Trump has always backed down after being cowed by the vehemence of his right wing supporters.

These are not the actions or reactions of strong leaders.  These are the actions of men who have built a facade of being strong and imperious, and yet they are so insecure that they cannot proceed with any plan that angers their base of support and threatens their position of power.

They are both poster children for the psychological truth that the stronger the display of ego, the more insecure the person is.  They both have a Napoleonic complex, although their inferiority obviously does not derive from their being short.  Instead, it derives from some trauma in their childhood.  And given the size of their egos, the trauma must have been very great indeed.  They weren’t born the way they are, they developed that way because of their life experiences.

One can thus have compassion for their inner suffering, for suffer they inescapably do.  But they both must be dethroned so that the world can return to some semblance of sanity.  As leaders of the two greatest countries, their power to destroy our well-being is very real.

Making Trade and the Global Economy Work for the American Worker

The global economy is a fact and there is no avoiding it.  Trade is also a necessary fact of economic life.

The question is, how to make the global economy and trade work for America.  And by work I mean work for the American worker, not allowing corporations to prosper and investors to get rich at the expense of workers.  In today’s multi-national corporate world, we must remember that the interests of the corporation are often if not mostly not in line with the interests of their workers because of off-shoring and out-sourcing; we are increasingly not producing here to send abroad, but producing abroad to import here.

As I’ve stated previously, corporate interests have been the true driving force behind most government decisions in this as in all areas for the last 3-4 decades.  While that should continue to be part of our strategy, for the health of both corporations and investors are  very important to our economy, those interests should not be the driving force.  Instead, our most important goal must be to make the global economy work for the American worker.

As I stated in my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths, the American worker is the backbone of the American economy.  “Whether blue collar or white collar, whether skilled or unskilled, whether managing a major corporation or a local fast-food operation … each individual American worker contributes to and sustains the American economy.  He/she is both producer and consumer.”    I would note as an aside that American independent farmers, as opposed to big farm corporations, are self-employed American workers and so very much part of the backbone of our economy.

It is the American worker as consumer, together with constructive government action, that has enabled our economy to sustain itself and recover from hard times.   Not corporate America.

How would this revised decision-making perspective impact government policy in the areas of  trade, industrial development, infrastructure investment, worker education, and Third World development?  I am not an expert on economics, and so I will not pretend to have solutions or opinions on how best to implement such a strategy.  

We will need to develop new economic models that show how the American economy and its workers can prosper in this changed environment.  We must ask questions, like, are even “smart” free-trade deals that harm American workers while enriching corporations better for the economy and the worker than having no free-trade deals?  What is the role of government-funded infrastructure projects, so badly needed for our future economic health, to providing un- or under-employed ex-factory workers with good-paying jobs?  How do we encourage corporate investment in manufacturing jobs in the United States?  Is the best way of restoring the economic strength of the middle-class worker to bring development and rising wages to the Third World?

Let me just say a few words on this last point.  It is to the American worker’s benefit for our government to aid Third World development.  Why?  As the standard of living rises in the Third World, wages will rise and the benefit of off-shoring or out-sourcing work will decrease for American business.  That has already happened to some extent with China where companies have transferred production to lower cost countries in Southeast Asia.  When their wages rise, as they inevitably will, jobs will start returning to the U.S.  This is admittedly not a short-term solution, but it must be part of the strategy.

The Democratic Party must make this an important part of its 2020 campaign platform.  It fits seamlessly with the Democratic vision statement I proposed in my post, “The 2020 Election Is about the Survival of American Democracy, Our Historic Values.”  

And it provides an important differentiation between Democratic policy and Trump policy.  Despite his rhetoric, Trump has approached nothing, including the revision of NAFTA, with the interests of the American worker as the driving force.  It’s been business as usual, what’s best for corporate interests.  Democrats must make this startlingly clear.

The Epstein Suicide - Smells Like Foul Play

Here are the facts:  Jeffrey Epstein was found unconscious on the floor of his jail cell with bruises on his neck.  Jail officials tentatively considered it an attempted suicide and placed him on suicide watch.  Six days later he was taken off suicide watch; there has been no explanation why.  

Then prison officials told the Justice Department that security would be looking in on Epstein every 30 minutes and that he would have a cell-mate.   All efforts to reduce the likelihood of suicide, although not as stringent as being on suicide watch.  

The night that he hanged himself, the guards did not check on him every 30 minutes; apparently not at all.  And, his cell-mate was moved to a different cell and he was alone.

Now let me relate a scene from The Godfather.  Don Corleone was recuperating in a hospital under police guard.  When his son visits, he finds that no police are guarding his father.  He suspects that they have been removed on purpose to set things up for another assassination attempt.  So the mob calls in its own security.  When the hit men arrive, watched over by a crooked cop, they find they were outfoxed and are forced to drive away.

When I read the facts related above, I thought immediately of the scene from The Godfather.  I am not a conspiracy theorist, but these facts are so odd, beyond odd for something as regimented and professional as a Federal prison, that they naturally make one suspect foul play.

I do not think, as many conspiracy theorists on the right or left have written, that Epstein was left alone so that he could be murdered.  I think he was left alone so that he could commit suicide.  A very smart move.

As to who was behind this.  Those on the right with their Clinton theories are going down the same road they have often gone before.  “Lock her up!”  Trump on Saturday not surprisingly retweeted Epstein conspiracy theories involving Clinton.  But while Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane several times, I have read nothing about any personal interaction that could be considered dirt.  

Trump on the other hand has been identified as being seen with models going to Epstein’s Manhattan town house.  He and Epstein have been identified as being the only males at a private party at Mar-a-Lago with multiple women. He has also been quoted in New York Magazine as making this comment about Epstein, “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”  

Trump would appear to have much more to be worried about from an Epstein investigation/trial than Bill Clinton.  No sex accusation so far has knocked him down; but this had the potential of doing him real harm, both regarding his supporters and the threat of impeachment.  

Further, Trump’s White House has been described as being a mob-like world with Trump being the mob boss.  He is known to ask himself, “What would Roy Cohn advise?  What would John Gotti do?”  The parallel is chilling.

I’m not saying that Trump ordered this.  But as an example, Henry II of England is said to have said, “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest,” which led to the murder of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1170.  One could imagine Trump saying something similar and one of his henchmen arranging Epstein to be left alone.

Oscar Wilde said that life imitates art.  This may be one of those instances.  May the investigation proceed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

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

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

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

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