American Exceptionalism - The Myth Exploded, Part II

In a previous post, I discussed why American exceptionalism is a myth ... that the data show clearly that Americans are not better off than those of other developed countries in the areas of health, education, income equality, social mobility, and equal opportunity.  The promise of the Declaration of Independence has not been realized by large segments of America’s citizenry.

Another way in which American exceptionalism presents itself is in our undying belief that our system of government, democracy, is the best system of governance in the world and that all people should live in a democracy and experience its benefits.  Connected to this is our belief that from a geopolitical perspective, a government will more likely be our ally if it is a democracy than if it is not.

In the cases of Russia and Iraq we see the absolute fallacy of this reasoning.  Russia was a Communist dictatorship.  It was the evil empire, our blood enemy for half a decade.  But for all the failures of the Soviet Union’s Communist system regarding the lack of freedom of its citizens and the weakness of its economy, as well as of course the horrors of Stalinism, it provided important benefits to its citizens ... order, security, jobs, normalcy, a sense of place.  

After the fall of Communism and the overnight transformation of Russia into a democracy, everything fell apart.  There was no more authority and Russia became a gangster state, overrun by criminals, thieving oligarchs, and politicians whose only concept of governance was personal enrichment and absolute control.  Far from becoming an ally of ours, Russia has remained a thorn in our side, although a less powerful one.

Iraq was without question under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein a terrible place ... at least if you happened to be viewed as an enemy of his.  But even more so than in Russia, Iraqis benefitted from order, security, jobs, and a sense of place.  There was no freedom, but people were able to live their lives for the most part in an atmosphere of normalcy.  

After the American invasion and the introduction of democracy, Iraq fell apart as a country.  It became instead a place of warring factions, continual violent conflict, with no security, no order, no normalcy, and not many jobs.  America’s experiment in exporting democracy to Iraq has been a dismal failure.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, and every person on earth should be able to live in an atmosphere of free speech, religion, politics, etc.  But if you talk to people on the street, what is more important than freedom is order, security, normalcy, jobs, and a sense of place.   In some cases, notably in most of the former Eastern bloc Communist countries, the introduction of democracy has been beneficial to its citizens.  But in many others, we have seen the introduction of democracy in a country fail miserably to benefit the people.

The United States government must learn, as it apparently hasn’t, that for a democracy to function as intended and deliver its promised benefits requires a combination of societal background elements.  For example, if, as in Iraq and many other countries, you have a population divided by religion, ethnicity, or tribe with a history of violence in dealing with conflict, the implementation of democracy will be almost impossible.  If you have a country, such as Russia, in which the populace has gotten used to and wants a strong authoritarian government, democracy will produce the same.  If you have a country, such as the Gaza Strip and Egypt, in which Islamic fundamentalist forces have a strong presence, democracy will produce a government of that nature.  Note:  Recently Secretary of State John Kerry said that the military coup in Egypt deposing the lawfully elected president was restoring democracy; is there something I’m missing here?

In many cases, democracy is not the form of government which will best meet the needs of the people for order, security, jobs, normalcy, and a sense of place.  I remember the point made in a Political Science class in college that often countries need a transition government, such as a benevolent authoritarian government, to allow the necessary elements for a functioning democracy to develop.  In other cases, the democracy it championed may turn out to bite the U.S., but that makes it no less legitimate.

So both from a humanitarian standpoint and a geopolitical perspective, the exporting of democracy is of questionable value except in carefully considered circumstances.  The United States should both have other options that it is open to and when democracy produces an undesirable result from a geopolitical perspective, as in Egypt and as in Chile in the 1970s, it needs to respect the legitimate expression of the wishes of the citizens of that country.

The Fallacy of the War on Drugs - Getting to the Root of the Problem

There is no question but that the drug abuse epidemic that has swept across our nation is a catastrophe.  It is a catastrophe for those who are addicted and are subject to its cravings.  It is a catastrophe for their loved ones, who suffer in innumerable ways.  It is a catastrophe for our economy because of the lost productive value of those who are addicted and the cost of dealing with the drug problem.  Estimates of the total overall costs of substance abuse in the United States, including productivity and health- and crime-related costs, exceed $600 billion annually.  

Recognizing the importance of getting people off drugs, the government has engaged in a policy aptly named, “The War on Drugs.”  Its concept is one of prohibition ... whether by criminalizing the use and sale of drugs and thus deterring such activity, or Nancy Reagan’s campaign of, “Just say no.”  

What simple-minded approaches to a deep-seated problem!  First of all, we know from our experience with alcohol prohibition that it not only doesn’t achieve the goal of reducing consumption, it has an actual negative impact by creating a whole illegal subculture around the manufacture and distribution of the substance.  And that has been our experience with the war on drugs as well.

Then they decided that the deterrent aspect needed to be strengthened by making prison sentences mandatory, even for relatively minor possession charges.  Well, our prisons have filled to overflowing, and yet it has made absolutely no impact on the demand for drugs.  

The criminalization approach to drug control and Nancy Reagan’s appeal to people to just say no have failed for the same reason.  As Time said in a report, “Americans tend to think of drug addiction as a failure of character.”  Such approaches assume that one has the ability to make a rational choice whether to do something or not.  Yet that is clearly not the case when it comes to drug abuse.

Others who recognize that it is not a failure of character, view drug addiction as primarily a biological problem relating to the chemical process of addiction.  But that is also looking at the wrong place.  That certainly describes why addiction is so hard to break out of, and why treatment rather than incarceration is often more appropriate, but it does not begin to help understand why people choose drugs to alter their mental state, which is where addiction and abuse begins.

Drug abuse is at root a societal problem.  People want to alter their mental state because they feel painfully insecure and thus unhappy.  It is an indictment of the failure of our society to raise children who feel secure, psychologically, and grow up be secure adults.  There is an abundance of academic research stretching back decades that finds that, to quote from an NIH report, “factors such as peer pressure, physical and sexual abuse, stress, and quality of parenting can greatly influence the occurrence of drug abuse and the escalation to addiction in a person’s life.”  These are all factors that induce feelings of insecurity in children.  The same can be said for almost every type of addictive behavior.

No one chooses to become a drug addict, or an alcoholic for that matter.  The problem is not that addicts have less moral fiber or character flaws.  The problem is that people who choose drugs or alcohol to alter/escape their mental state are typically people who are in agony.  They are suffering from feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem that are so intense, even if they are outwardly successful, that they feel that their only escape is through drugs or alcohol.  Yes, there are those who fall into drug addiction accidentally because of peer pressure, but the vast majority are trying to escape a world in which they can find no peace and security.

Indeed, one can argue that almost all of our social problems flow from a failure to raise secure children who go on to become secure adults.  Assuming that our government or a local community understood this and wanted to address the root cause, how would it go about it?  How could it change the pattern of insecure parents raising insecure children, with the situation repeating itself without end?

In my book, Raising a Happy Child, I note that it is a myth that childhood is a happy, carefree time. Typically it is neither carefree nor happy; it is instead fraught with insecurity. Raising a Happy Child seeks to change this fact of human development.

Why do children suffer this fate? What becomes of our lives is overwhelmingly a function of learned experience ... from our family, our peers, and the larger culture ... but first and foremost from our parents. The vast majority of parents are good people and would not 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. 

The result is children who do not feel loved unconditionally, are as a consequence insecure, and grow up to become insecure adults who do not love themselves unconditionally.  This is the primal basis of our fears and neuroses.

But this does not mean that parents should simply lavish praise on their children, give them what they want, or be uncritical of their children.  Direction and criticism are important parental functions; the question is how they are given, in what context. Raising a Happy Child seeks to provide parents with the means to step outside themselves, to be able to experience their child, themselves, and the world around them mostly free of their learned experience and emotions, thus enabling them to provide their children at all times with the nurturing and unconditional love they need to be happy and secure. 

The book then guides parents through the critical development stages of a child's life, providing advice on how to address the significant issues that arise at each stage within the context of unconditional love.  Raising a Happy Child  seeks nothing less than to fundamentally alter the quality of the relationship between parents and children, and thus change the way children relate to themselves and the world around them.  For more on the book and sample text, click the book's cover in the sidebar.  

What government, civic leaders, religious leaders ... anyone who is in a position of influence should do is read this book and encourage all parents to read the book and follow its advice.  Beyond that, government must take action to reduce social problems that exacerbate these issues, especially the failure of our schools.

Raising a Happy Child assumes that there is nothing fundamental that we can change about the competitive, consumption-driven society we live in.  I think that is beyond hope.  But governments and parents can take steps to improve the quality of life (and I don’t mean the number of possessions one has) that the average person experiences, insuring that everyone feels part of the larger community, equal in opportunity, and that everyone is nourished by their immediate family.

What Are We Celebrating on July 4th?

July 4th ... Independence Day ... is fraught with symbolism.  It is the beginning of American exceptionalism, the beginning of America taking its place on the world’s stage, the beginning of freedom and prosperity for Americans.  

There is no question that 1776 marked the beginning of America's feeling that it was exceptional and that it’s moral voice coupled with an unleashed mercantilist strength gave it a place on the world’s stage.  But what of freedom and prosperity?

We all know the famous lines from the Declaration of Independence, crafted primarily by Thomas Jefferson ... “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are the right the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”  These were truly revolutionary words.  They have given America’s elite something to crow about.  And they have given America’s disadvantaged something to hang their hopes on for more than two centuries.  But what were and are the facts on the ground?

Those that benefitted from our independence were primarily those with business interests, who were now free of the yoke of English taxes and control.   Then as now, business interests were the main “client” of government ... indeed, back then you could only vote if you owned land or had enough wealth to be taxed, so those were the constituents ... and they prospered then as they do now.

As of the first census in 1790, 18% of the US population (700,000 out of 4,000,000) were slaves.  Their status certainly did not change with American independence.  That would have to wait another 85 years for the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.  Of the Founding Fathers who were slave holders, George Washington did free his slaves upon his death.  Jefferson did not even do that.

The status of women ... the wives of the founders and the mothers of their children ... did not change at all with independence.  They remained chattel with no rights for a century, slowly achieving some rights in the later 1800s, and only won the right to vote in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

Over the last century, there can be no question that both women and blacks have improved their status in all areas of American business and life  But there can also be no question that even today neither have reached anything approaching equality with white males and that discrimination persists. 

And then there are the Native Americans.  They had a status even lower than slaves because they were of no use to anyone.  They were just a heathen barrier to be gotten rid of when their presence interfered with American interests.   Our genocide of Native Americans (and what else can it honestly be called) is breathtakingly chilling.   It's justification is closely related to Hitler's "Lebensraum" ... Germany's need for more room to grow.  Manifest destiny has no room for equality.  

And as for general prosperity, while it is true that we all have more now than we did, it is also true that there is greater inequality between the richest Americans (top 5%) and the rest then at any time.  If you look at broader groups ... top 20%, middle 40, and bottom 40 ... the income distribution has remained pretty static since independence.  So we really haven’t achieved much of anything on that point.

So what are we celebrating?  Some very wonderful-sounding words which we have still not managed ... or if truth be told, even tried very hard ... to implement.  We are celebrating the birth of a nation with unbridled mercantilism/captitalism that was able to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by the natural resources of this vast country.  We are celebrating American progress, which has left many damaged lives and souls in its wake.

Is this really cause to celebrate?  Can't we do better in fulfilling America's promise to its people?

A Meaningful Right to Die

There is a worldwide movement, with organizations in most developed countries, to foster the right of individuals to choose to die with dignity.  

Those efforts are limited to directives in the eventuality that the individual is either terminally ill or suffers from irreversible physical illness, intractable physical pain, or a combination of progressive physical disabilities.  Even in the Netherlands, which is one of the few countries to have enacted voluntary euthanasia, it is limited to those suffering from “hopeless and unbearable suffering,” which has been interpreted as meaning serious medical conditions combined with considerable pain.  These directives are to be made when one is of sound mind when making this contemporaneous choice.  

The mission of the organizations working towards the acceptance of a right to die with dignity are thus too narrow in my view.  As a human being, one should have the right while still of sound mind to determine the timing of ones death if at some future point one is no longer left with anything resembling “quality of life,” and that should not be limited to the physical indicators typically espoused.  One should be allowed the right to choose to die with dignity regardless whether the problems are physical or mental.

Case in point ... my mother.  When she was younger, which is to say in her 60s and 70s, she used to notice people who were suffering from dementia, looking blankly at the world, and say, “If I ever get like that, give me the black pill.”  Meaning that she wanted to be helped to die.

My mother is now 103 years old.  For the past year she has resided in the nursing home of a life care facility where she has lived for the past 13 years, starting with an independent living apartment and “progressing” to assisted living and then the dementia unit before being transferred to the nursing home.  She lost her memory, both short term and long term, years ago.  She sleeps or dozes most of the time, has no energy, has little awareness of what’s happening around her, although she does recognize my brother and me, sometimes, and takes joy in our presence and when we take her out in the sun on a nice day.  I should note that my mother takes no medication and is definitely not alive due to any specific miracle of modern science.

At the facility where my mother lives, there are many people who look blankly into space, who are not “terminally ill” or suffer from an irreversible physical illness or progressive physical disability, unless the dementia of growing old would fall under that category, which is not the case.  Suffering the results of a stroke would probably also not qualify under these narrow definitions.  The very old are not considered “disabled” nor are they considered to be suffering from an irreversible illness.  Odd, because both is often definitely the case.  

From every perspective, not allowing such people, indeed all people, to have a directive to die when they reach such a state or one of the physical states noted above is wrong; it is inhumane.  From the person’s own perspective, there is no question that most of them had they been asked while they were still of sound mind whether they would want to live under such conditions would have said, “no,” just as my mother did.  Who in their right mind, no pun intended, would want to continue living in such a state?  And it is the wishes of the individual that should be controlling in a matter such as this.

From the perspective of the person’s loved ones ... spouse or children ... witnessing the mental and physical prison in which their loved one is living without any chance of change is brutal.  Even when there is still a spark of life, of who they used to be, left, as in the case of my mother, the overwhelming numbness of their existence is  the predominant fact of life.

Finally, from the perspective of society ... and many will howl loudest at this consideration ... the expenditure of vital resources to sustain life at this stage is not a viable use of those resources.  If the choice must be made, and unfortunately it must in a world of limited resources, between providing adequate schooling and other resources to children, for example, or spending huge sums of public money for end-of-life care, only one choice is rational.

Before going further, let me make absolutely clear again that what I am advocating is the ability of an individual, while still of sound mind, to make a directive that if or when at some point in the future he or she should reach a certain defined state of hopelessness and unbearableness ... be it mental or physical ... he or she directs that they be helped to die.

The first question to be asked is, why are living wills ...  the direction to withhold life-prolonging actions in certain situations ... broadly accepted whereas the right to be helped to die is broadly not accepted, except in very limited circumstances and in very few jurisdictions.  The usual explanation given is that it is one thing to ask that medical efforts be withheld, which fact will hasten death; it is another to ask that medical efforts be made proactively to hasten death.  

I would say that this is a distinction without a difference.  Are not both actions a decision to commit suicide?  Why is asking to withhold efforts morally or legally different from asking that efforts be taken?  The one answer is that the medical profession’s holy grail is to prolong life.  Withholding life-prolonging efforts, even at the very end, is scandalous enough for many physicians and physician ethicists.  Actively bringing on death would be unspeakable, besides raising lots of medical malpractice questions. 

Were I more cynical, I would have to raise the fact that the medical profession and health industry makes a huge amount of money from the cost of end-of-life care as it currently exists.  There was an article in The Atlantic recently about a doctor who is trying to change the profession’s end-of-life culture and practices so that the patient’s welfare is predominant.  But I fear that it isn’t just a matter of ethical or Hippocratic Oath culture, it is one of money.  It’s no secret that doctors order many unnecessary tests because of the billings they can then charge insurers.  I fear the same motive plays a definite role,  even if subconscious, in their decisions on prolonging life at all costs, no pun intended again.

The next answer is the religious one.  Most religions have found a way to parse living wills as not being suicide, but consider voluntary choice of death suicide and thus against God’s law.  It is only God who decides when one dies.  But this distinction is patently without rational merit.  Without a living will, there is no question that such people would live longer, whether a few days or many months.  Yes, it would be due to the miracles of modern medicine, but that is what is available today.  It is, if one is of such mind, what God has provided to modern man.  

For those religions that do not even support the concept of a directive to withhold life-prolonging care, all I can say is that I find that position shows no respect for the human being who is suffering.  If one truly believes that God chooses the time of our death ... and this naturally must include all deaths, whether car accidents, illness, or gun massacres or the holocaust ... then one is beyond rational thought on this subject.

There is no master puppeteer that controls our lives.  When I and others say that things are the way they because it's just the way it is; it's meant to be and it's all ok – it is in the sense that things happen because of the universe's laws of nature or the laws of developed man's nature, not that some force chooses it to happen.  It you say "Your will, not my mind's" to the universe or the divinity within you, you are humble and at peace with the way things are.  And at peace, you are able to seek aid in dying in certain situations.

This is an important point:  in general, people do not make directives out of fear (other than fear of the medical establishment).  They make directives with a state of peace about their death; it is a spiritual state.

The final answer is the fear of people being “murdered” against their will.  People posit all sorts of horror stories of the mentally infirm elderly being taken advantage of by unscrupulous relatives who want their money, etc.  But if someone is of sound mind and makes such a directive, then the only thing necessary to prevent such manipulation is that the event or state that brings the directive into play be clearly defined and that two medical doctors must stipulate that such event or state has indeed been arrived at.  

Indeed, in looking at the long and broad experience with living wills, there has been no evidence that I am aware of of manipulation by others.  On the contrary, what one does hear of frequently is loved ones not wanting the directive to be honored; they don’t want the individual to die, they cannot give up hope that by some miracle the medical situation will improve.

But the locus for the decision to continue life must reside with the individual.  It is their life.  To not allow a human being the right to die with dignity is just one more example of the man’s inhumanity to and lack of compassion for man.  The right to die movement needs to expand its scope to include directives regarding hopeless and unbearable states that are mental as well as non-progressive disabilities such as those that result from stroke.

Peak OIl or No, The Answer is Back to the Future

I have been a firm believer in the peak oil theory.  A recent article in the Atlantic, however, “What If We Never Run Out of Oil?” provided updated facts and changed my perspective.  If one believes in peak oil, then one believes in an oncoming economic disaster since the world’s economy is based on oil.  But the proponents of peak oil provide no answer to that scenario.  If one believes that there is no end to obtainable oil reserves, and we keep on living as we have been, perhaps even more so, then the disaster comes from climate change which will also reek economic disaster.  And we have no answer for that either.

In addressing these issues, people either seem focused on how to keep living as we have been, or they throw up their hands in despair.  Even climate change proponents don’t argue for a radical change in lifestyle but base their proposals on the smarter use of fossils fuels together with alternative energy sources because of the economic implications of doing otherwise.  No one is really moving us closer to an answer to the riddle.

This is one of those moments that screams for thinking outside the box.  Whether peak oil  is or comes to be, or whether we have an endless supply of it, the bottom line is the same ... we must find a way to wean the world off of oil so that we avoid economic and social disaster, whether it comes from the lack of oil or climate change.

The answer I propose is in one sense surprisingly simple.  We go back to the future.  We for the most part go back to a system and structure that is not dependent on oil or other fossil fuels.  We don’t have to make up a new world, we just have to look back at the world we came from to see how it would work.  

That at least is the basic rule, though in some areas of life the use of fossil fuels will continue to be necessary.  Why?  Because our population has grown so much and is more concentrated in cities.  Because, for example, the cold-water flats of the past are no longer acceptable in a modern-day scenario and heating with wood is not a viable option.

There are various ways to look at the implications of what I am proposing.

Replacing oil as an energy source.  As the industrial revolution advanced, one of the main changes was the replacement of human labor by machines.  And that has increased exponentially in the digital and robotic age of manufacturing.  Modern methods of manufacturing and farming are highly energy intensive.  We will have to go back to a form of operation that is more labor intensive.  That will have the double advantage of not only freeing us from oil, but once again finding appropriate employment for masses of workers in industry and farming, thus ending the unemployment problem.  To the extent that an energy source is needed, it will have to come from cleaner sources.

This will without question make products more expensive, which will mean a drop in the standard of living for many, but that will be offset by the increased standard of living of all the millions of people who now once again have gainful employment.  We have been living too long with the illusion of cheap goods fostered by the exploitation of the poor in far away lands and the availability of cheap transport made possible by cheap oil.

Where goods are manufactured.  In a back to the future world, the modern global economy will cease to be.  Instead, the economy will be as it was before ... primarily national, and in many cases regional or local.  While again this means an increase in the cost of many items, and a corresponding lowering of the standard of living many are used to, it will mean the repatriation of millions of jobs which will, together with the increased employment of human labor noted above, result in far less income inequality than has existed in recent times as well as an increased standard of living for many.  Plus whole towns and cities will be reborn.

The products we use.  Almost everything we use today is derived at least partially from oil.  That will end.  Instead, we will go back to natural products ... whether it’s glass bottles, or cotton shirts, or wood siding for homes, and of course all food products.  Again, this will mean an increase in cost but it will have the benefit of reviving rural economies, both nationally and world-wide, that have been devastated by the modern industrial economy. 

There is at least one area, though, where limited use of oil will be required, and that is in the production of modern pharmaceuticals.  Unless a way can be found to produce them without the organic compounds that come from oil, that will remain a necessary ingredient.

Transportation.  While we won’t have to go back to the horse and buggy, major changes will be necessary.  First, all cars will have to be electric, and the electric generating plants that produce the electricity to charge them must be operated on natural gas, hydro-electric, nuclear, or alternative energy, otherwise there is no energy saving.  All public transportation must be electric or alternate energy, and there must be more public transport.  The nation’s regional train system needs to be revitalized with efficient, modern high-speed trains.  Air travel would be limited to national (i.e. not regional) and international travel.

While all of this will involve a massive restructuring, given the entrepreneurial prowess of American business, there is no question in my mind that all of this can be accomplished.  If we start planning now rather than waiting for disaster to strike, our economy and people will prosper as perhaps never before and with greater equality.  

But American business and politics has operated for a long time on a short-term planning basis.  The question is whether our corporate and political leaders can face the facts and engage in the type of long-range planning that this massive restructuring of our system and lives will require.

A Grace to Change the World

Saying grace before or after meals is something that is routinely done by millions if not billions of people all over the world.  Regardless of the religion, saying grace is part of one’s religious practice.

What is grace?  From every grace that I had ever heard, whether it was in movies, in people’s homes, or in the company of my family, grace was about thanking God for his bounty.  Praising God.  Sometimes additional thoughts would be added asking for God’s grace with regards to something ... like a child’s taking an important exam, or an upcoming marriage or operation, etc.

Then one day I went to a Vietnamese Buddhist temple in rural Michigan.  (I was born and raised Jewish, but I had become interested in Buddhism.)  After meditation and conversation about the Buddha’s teachings, we sat down to lunch.  Before we began, the two nuns who ran the temple rang a bell for silence and one of the temple members said the following grace:

This food is the gift of the whole universe -- the earth, the  sky, and much hard work.

May we live in a way that makes us worthy to receive it.

May we transform our unskillful states of mind.

May we take only foods that nourish us and prevent illness.

We accept this food so that we may realize the path of practice.

The first four mouthfuls

With the first taste, I promise to offer joy.

With the second taste, I promise to help relieve the suffering of others.

With the third taste, I promise to see others’ joy as my own.

With the fourth taste, I promise to learn the way of non-attachment and equanimity.

Eighteen years later, I still carry these words with me every day in my wallet, and recite this grace every morning before eating breakfast and starting my day.  Why?

The words of this grace are not so much about thanks, although that element is there.  It is about how we as human beings should live our lives so as to be worthy of the gift of life  and food that has been bestowed upon us.  If everyone, regardless of their religion, spoke and took to heart the words of this nondenominational grace, the world would be on its way to solving all the intractable problems that we face.

“This food is the gift of the whole universe -- the earth, the sky, and much hard work.”  This reminds us not to take the food that we eat for granted.  It is the result of much hard work, whether it be peasants in some faraway land or a worker in a food processing plant where we live.  People labored, and if we eat meat animals died, so that we may live.

“May we live in a way that makes us worthy to receive it.”  Having food to eat is not some absolute or unconditional right we have.  With food, as with life, come responsibilities ... to ourselves and to others.  We may have the power to nourish or destroy, whether it’s ourselves, those close to us, or strangers.  But it is our responsibility as human beings to nourish ourselves, our fellow human beings and all sentient creatures, as well as the environment, not to destroy.  All religions have at their core morality the saying, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  That is our highest moral responsibility.

“May we transform our unskillful states of mind.”  What are these states of mind?  They are greed, lust, envy, anger, pride.  These cravings destroy our ability to exercise good judgment and do what is right for us, our loved ones, and for others.  And despite our tendency to almost revel in these states of mind, they cause us nothing but suffering for they always ultimately result in frustration.  Because when we feed these states of mind, our mind just wants more.  There is good reason why these emotions form the core of the Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity, as well as being admonished in other religions.  

“May we take only foods that nourish us and prevent illness.”  There are two aspects to this thought.  One is that to eat foods that do not nourish us or prevent illness is not good for our body ... witness the epidemic of obesity in this country.  It is not so much a question of eating too much, but of what we eat.  Although gluttony (another one of the Seven Deadly Sins) is also not good for our health.  Second, food is a precious commodity; it is limited.  There are many people in this world who go hungry, even in the United States.  The problem is not that there isn’t enough food; it’s that there isn’t an equitable distribution of it because obtaining food is a function of having money.  If we all just ate what was necessary to nourish us and prevent illness, there would be plenty of food to go around; just look at all the food Americans waste.

“We accept this food so that we may realize the path of practice.”  The word, “practice,” here refers to Buddhist practice, but it applies equally to the practice of any religion.  Again, with life and food come responsibilities.  And what are they?

“With the first taste, I promise to offer joy.”  Just as we want other people to offer us joy, we should offer others joy.  And if we aren’t offered it, that makes no difference.  The point is to do other others as you would have them do under you.  And this is not just to be a goody-two-shoes.  As in all aspects of the teachings of this grace, what we do is not just to benefit others but to benefit ourselves as well.   When we offer others joy ... for the pure reason of wanting to offer joy, not for an expectation of receiving anything in return (and that’s a major catch for many people), we experience joy just in the giving.  Regardless where you are, if you interact with people in a friendly, joyful way, you will experience joy yourself, regardless of their reaction.  Likewise if you go through life interacting with others in a perfunctory fashion, you will experience no joy.

“With the second taste, I promise to help relieve the suffering of others.”  There is so much suffering in the world ... and I don’t just mean the obvious suffering of malnutrition or illness or extreme poverty, but the daily suffering of people caused by their insecurities and the neuroses that stem from that feeling.  One of our main responsibilities as human beings is to help others, and in so doing we bring joy into our lives.  Not because we feel sanctimonious and superior because of our good deeds, but for the pure pleasure of trying to help another suffering person.  Whether it be random acts of kindness or donations to charity or hands-on volunteer work, you will experience joy when you help relieve the suffering of others.

“With the third taste, I promise to see others’ joy as my own.”  In our culture, we are so ego obsessed, that the common reaction to much of this teaching is, “What about me!”  If our focus in life is in finding ways to make ourselves happy, we will not find happiness because wanting something that we don’t have just leads to frustration.  One may achieve what one wants initially, but then one always wants more.  The fact is that if we stop being so ego obsessed, if we see our oneness with others, and see others’ joy as our own, we are much more likely to experience joy and happiness.  That being said, I must advise that if one truly sees others’ joy as your own, you will also see their pain as your own.  The two go hand in hand.  But that’s an essential part of what being human and understanding your oneness with others is about ... whether you think of it as we’re all in this boat together or we are all children of the same God.

“With the fourth taste, I promise to learn the way of non-attachment and equanimity.”  This is the real kicker, the real challenge, for most of us.  We can do all sorts of things that are on the surface good or worthwhile, but if we attach to them (obsess about them) or if we do these things because we are unhappy or dissatisfied with our life as it is, if we feel insecure, while we may still be productive and help others, we will be frustrated and unhappy.  We will feel anger, greed, envy, and lust regarding the things that we or others do.  We will suffer and we will make all those close to us suffer.

People sometimes react to the teachings of the Buddha with, “Why should I always be thinking of others; what about me!”  What people often fail to understand, and their teachers don’t make the point clearly, is that the Buddha developed his teaching as a way to end suffering, starting with the individual.  The Buddha understood that to free the world of suffering, one must start with the individual who causes suffering in himself and others.  The teaching thus is all about how to free ourselves from our suffering, which is mainly caused by our learned experience, our past.  A significant part of that process is learning to find joy in giving joy to others, helping others, and seeing others’ joy as your own. This is one way we free ourselves from our ego.

If everyone acted according to the words of this grace, there would in time be no more suffering in the world.  Everyone would feel secure and loved.  No one would try to gain control over others, to exploit others, to oppress others, to take advantage of others.  The world’s wealth and resources would be distributed more equitably.  It would be a very different world indeed.

Our Political System Has Failed Us

The health of our democracy depends on three components, among others.  The first is an informed electorate which has the responsibility of electing those who will both represent  it and help lead the country.  The second is leaders who both represent their constituencies and act for the greater good of the country.  The third is an electorate and leaders that respect that all are working in the best interest of the country and accept the inevitable loss, whether of a legislative bill or an election, that is part of the democratic process.

On the first point, we have always been weak.  From the very beginning of our country, the electorate base was not well-informed about the issues, in the sense of being able to think rationally about the choices.  Not that they weren’t or aren’t capable of it.  But politicians (even the august Thomas Jefferson, through surrogates of course) have often played more to the electorate’s emotions than its mind and have often used inflammatory words, making reckless, deceitful charges, in order to rouse the populace in their favor and against others.

As to the second point, while American politics, especially elections, have always involved a good amount of mud-slinging, historically politicians on the national level once elected have generally speaking comported themselves appropriately and have, while representing their constituents, acted in what they saw as the national interest.  Except on the issue of racism (or in the pre-Civil War years, slavery), ideology was not a controlling factor in actions of Congress.  

And although there has always been a strong element of conflict between the powerful central government forces v the small/weak central government forces (the parties names have changed over the years), those arguments were, once the Constitution was in place, more on peripheral issues.  Even a staunch small central government advocate such as Jefferson, presided over a huge increase in the responsibility of the federal government.  Similarly George W. Bush presided over a huge increase in the federal deficit as a result of his policies.

But the art of compromise in Congress had been weakening and the nastiness of interchange increasing since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.  Since the election of Barack Obama and the 2010 midterms, the functioning of Congress has basically come to a halt.  

The Republican Right has taken control of the party and the Republican Congressional agenda.  With their extreme ideological rigidity, the Republican majority in the House and the Republican minority in the Senate (which can stop any legislation or appointment through the filibuster, even when a majority of the Senate is in favor) have been able to halt any legislation that addresses the national interest from other than their narrow perspective. 

The most egregious example of this was in the recent debate on expanding background checks for gun purchases.  90% of Americans surveyed, and 85% of NRA members, supported expanded background checks.  A bi-partisan compromise measure was introduced lead by arch gun rights advocates, one Republican, one Democrat.  And still the measure was defeated through the filibuster process by Republicans joined by a few Democrats.  

That this measure, which would not have kept a single gun of any type out of the hands of anyone who was legally entitled to own one and thus, as the Republican co-sponsor said, was really not a gun control measure, was defeated despite overwhelming popular support and desperate need shows the total failure of our system.  It also shows clearly another aspect of the system’s failure ... the preponderant influence of corporate America.  The only powerful interests against the Senate measure were firearm manufacturers and their de facto voice, the NRA.

Corporations have for more than a century had a strong voice in Congress through their lobbyists and political donations.  And this has impacted both parties.  Both are in thrall to and support the power of the big corporations, although the Republicans more so than the Democrats because they have been the greater beneficiary of corporate dollars.  

The old saying, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," was discredited years ago, and yet that still is often the marching tune for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  What happened to the concept that, while being supportive of a strong and healthy business sector, an important role of government, and therefore Congress, is to protect the general public from the excesses of corporate activity and power? 

This can especially be seen in the federal response to the recent financial crisis ... nothing has really changed; the same financial practices that led to the collapse are ongoing; regulation has not really improved; no one in the big investment firms has been brought to justice for their shady practices; it's business as usual on Wall Street.  It can also sadly be seen in the team that President Obama put together after his inauguration to advise him on such matters ... all seasoned Wall Street types who were prime actors in the period leading up to the collapse.  

But since the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that corporations can spend unlimited sums supporting someone’s candidacy through PACs, the power of corporations not just over the actions of Congressmen, but on who gets elected, has been increased manyfold.  Through huge purchases of advertising air time to support candidates favorable to them, they have been able or tried to influence the electorate and change the outcome of close elections.  If ever there was an argument for Federally-financed elections, this is it.

The third point, which has always been the most solid aspect of our democracy, is under threat.  The basic premise, that each side respects the other’s bone fides in working for the national interest, has been gravely weakened if not destroyed.  Neither side trusts the other nor will it give the other credit for acting in the national interest.  Instead, each side accuses the other of special interest politics and being a threat to the nation’s well-being.  

There have even been some who have voiced the possibility of violence if their position does not win the day.  And there has been a substantial rise in the number of right-wing militias around the country since the election of Barack Obama.  While there is no danger of the constitutional transfer of power being interrupted, there is certainly a danger that the peacefulness of that transfer or the peacefulness of legislative losses may become a thing of the past.

This situation cannot continue unabated without seriously damaging our democratic system.  Several actions are necessary.  At a minimum, all federal elections should be publicly financed.  That would have the benefit of putting all candidates on an equal footing ... winning an election should not depend on how much money you can raise ... and would greatly decrease the prevalence of advertising, which is almost never informative.  Second, all broadcasters, who use federally-licensed air waves, should be required to provide a certain amount of free advertising and speaking time to all candidates.  This should help increase the exchange of ideas rather than sound bites.  Third, no other organizations should be allowed to take out advertising to influence elections or pressure their employees to vote a certain way; contrary to the recent Supreme Court opinion, corporations are not people ... they don’t have a vote and likewise they shouldn’t have a voice.  Fourth, religious organizations who are granted tax-exempt non-profit status should be held to the regulations regarding that status, which prohibit supporting candidates for political office.  Finally, there should be a truth in campaigning measure passed which disciplines candidates who not just stretch the truth but lie and sets up a nonpartisan group to monitor all campaign statements and literature,

The factor of money must be removed from elections and politics.  And the electorate must be communicated with in a way that engages their mind on competing ideas rather than on competing emotions.