Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
This Is It
I'm sending this one in. It's still 731 words, but so was the one in today's paper (more or less).
Is there a 'social contract' in America?
We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.
As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life would be better with some rules. The rise of agriculture led to a need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop, then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a society.
Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. Protecting the food supply was a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.
Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons'; a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street; followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).
For decades America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by smart investing. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because along with progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates came down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. With lower tax rates on capital gains capital would become more liquid, flowing around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.
Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we have income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. Congress is in thrall to very well heeled special interests.
NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.
Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!
Is there a 'social contract' in America?
We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.
As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life would be better with some rules. The rise of agriculture led to a need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop, then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a society.
Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. Protecting the food supply was a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.
Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons'; a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street; followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).
For decades America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by smart investing. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because along with progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates came down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. With lower tax rates on capital gains capital would become more liquid, flowing around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.
Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we have income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. Congress is in thrall to very well heeled special interests.
NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.
Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!
The Latest
Down to 734. Probably just read this one. ;
Is there a 'social contract' in America?
We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.
As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life would be better with some rules. The rise of agriculture led to a need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop, then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a society.
Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. Protecting the food supply was a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.
Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons'; a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street; followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).
For decades America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by smart investing. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because along with progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.
Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we have income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. Congress is in thrall to very well heeled special interests.
NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.
Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!
Is there a 'social contract' in America?
We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.
As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life would be better with some rules. The rise of agriculture led to a need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop, then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a society.
Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. Protecting the food supply was a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.
Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons'; a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street; followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).
For decades America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by smart investing. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because along with progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.
Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we have income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. Congress is in thrall to very well heeled special interests.
NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.
Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!
Shorter Yet
Don't feel compelled to read all of these. ; ) Down to 757.
Is there a 'social contract' in America?
We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.
As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life could be better if some rules were put into place. The rise of agriculture led to the need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop and then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a sense of society.
Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. The need to protect the food supply is a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.
Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons'; a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street; followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).
For decades America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by m smart investing. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because along with progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As 'impediments' on business were removed capital would be 'free.' As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.
Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we have income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. We have a Congress in thrall to very well heeled special interests.
NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.
Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!
Is there a 'social contract' in America?
We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.
As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life could be better if some rules were put into place. The rise of agriculture led to the need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop and then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a sense of society.
Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. The need to protect the food supply is a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.
Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons'; a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street; followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).
For decades America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by m smart investing. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because along with progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As 'impediments' on business were removed capital would be 'free.' As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.
Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we have income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. We have a Congress in thrall to very well heeled special interests.
NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.
Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!
Editing
I'm trying to get this down to 500 words. Harder than I thought. About 325 to go.
Is there a 'social contract' in America?
We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.
As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life could be better if some rules were put into place. The rise of agriculture led to the need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop and then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a sense of society.
Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. The need to protect the food supply is a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.
Alexander Hamilton foresaw that America would eventually face an old European problem: not enough land to support an ever-growing agrarian society. The solution would be an industrial, capitalist society, which he believed would best serve the needs of a free people. Still with the foundation that all are created equal. So whether a man was a landowner or not he would be an equal partner in this experiment in democracy.
Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons,' a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street, followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal once again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).
For nearly fifty years America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by making smart investments. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because in addition to progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As 'impediments' on business were removed capital would be 'free.' As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing all around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.
Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we see income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. We have a Congress completely in thrall to very well heeled special interests. NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.
Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!
Is there a 'social contract' in America?
We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.
As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life could be better if some rules were put into place. The rise of agriculture led to the need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop and then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a sense of society.
Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. The need to protect the food supply is a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.
Alexander Hamilton foresaw that America would eventually face an old European problem: not enough land to support an ever-growing agrarian society. The solution would be an industrial, capitalist society, which he believed would best serve the needs of a free people. Still with the foundation that all are created equal. So whether a man was a landowner or not he would be an equal partner in this experiment in democracy.
Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons,' a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street, followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal once again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).
For nearly fifty years America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by making smart investments. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because in addition to progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As 'impediments' on business were removed capital would be 'free.' As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing all around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.
Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we see income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. We have a Congress completely in thrall to very well heeled special interests. NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.
Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The Social Contract
Is there a 'social contract' in America? If yes, could I see a copy?
In many ways we live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration, they don't negotiate with each other (not verbally anyway) and they don't call the cops or their lawyers. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes maybe both die. Nature.
At some point, as homo sapiens evolved, something called society emerged. Life could be better, people realized, if certain rules were put into place. The rise of agriculture led to the need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop and then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a sense of society.
Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. The need to protect the food supply is a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. So let's fast forward to the 17th Century. By this time people had been living in societies for centuries. But some people perceived that society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by a Monarch, with a tripartite government charged with putting the will of the people into law and then enforcing those laws. This is where a social contract comes in. We all agree to give up any idea of having absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.
Alexander Hamilton foresaw that America would eventually come up against an old European problem: not enough land to support a simple, and growing, agrarian society. The solution would be an industrial, capitalist society, which he believed would best serve the needs of a free people. But we would still have as our foundation that all are created equal. So whether a man was a landowner or not he would be an equal partner in this experiment in democracy.
As time went by 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons,' a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street, followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal once again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).
For nearly fifty years America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by making smart investments. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because in addition to progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we began once again to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to be eroded. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As 'impediments' on business were removed capital would be 'free.' As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing all around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.
It is now thirty years later. Prosperity for everyone has not followed. Rather we are looking at income inequality approaching the highest levels ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. We have a Congress completely in thrall to very well-heeled special interests. (And that 'special interest' is keeping the 80% of the wealth in the hands of the top ten per cent right where it is. And adding to it.) NO!, we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all; all they can do is hoard it. No!, we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No!, we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No!, we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.
Alexander Hamilton foresaw that America would eventually come up against an old European problem: not enough land to support a simple, and growing, agrarian society. The solution would be an industrial, capitalist society, which he believed would best serve the needs of a free people. But we would still have as our foundation that all are created equal. So whether a man was a landowner or not he would be an equal partner in this experiment in democracy.
As time went by 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons,' a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street, followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal once again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).
For nearly fifty years America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by making smart investments. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because in addition to progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we began once again to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to be eroded. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As 'impediments' on business were removed capital would be 'free.' As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing all around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.
It is now thirty years later. Prosperity for everyone has not followed. Rather we are looking at income inequality approaching the highest levels ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. We have a Congress completely in thrall to very well-heeled special interests. (And that 'special interest' is keeping the 80% of the wealth in the hands of the top ten per cent right where it is. And adding to it.) NO!, we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all; all they can do is hoard it. No!, we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No!, we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No!, we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
The Unmaking of the American Consensus
So, what does Perlstein mean by 'the American consensus.'
He never explicitly says but the sense that I get from the book, which also ties in with what I know about 20th century American history, was that after the Great Depression and with the coming of the New Deal there was a new agreement between the government and the people. The new part, of course, was that there would now be a social safety net, including, but not limited to, Social Security.
American electoral politics for about 30 years, then, featured the two parties jockeying over what should and what should not be included. It also featured near total dominance of national electoral politics by the Democrats. From 1932 to 1968 the Democrats won seven out of nine presidential elections (the only two losses being to the most middle of the road Republican in history) and dominated in both the House and the Senate, often with super-majorities.
During this time the Republican 'brain trust' strategized that the only way to win any offices was to offer 'tweaks' to Democratic policies. This was also the period during which the armed forces were desegregated by executive order, the Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education and the Freedom Rides' and first sit-ins took place.
For reasons having to do with racism and possibly other resentments (but definitely racism) the old 'states rights' b.s. began to be heard again. Some movers and shakers (guys with money) began to sound each other out and plot a 'new course' for the Republican party. These were guys who were not 'professional' Republicans; rather they were businessmen who always voted Republican and wanted to take the party to the right. Little by little they discovered that they were not alone in feeling resentment toward the federal government and the New Deal.
Perlstein begins his book by putting us in the room with some of these early planners, e.g. Clarence Manion, who resented 'big labor' far more than anything else. To win more converts they realized that they needed to exploit white resentment of the (actually very slow) growth of the Civil Rights Movement.
As the story unfolds we see a rather disparate group of actors, each with an agenda that, while different from many of the other actors, coalesced around the idea of 'Conservatism.' Clearly, then as now, Conservatism meant different things to different people, but they all agreed that step one was running more conservative candidates for national office. They saw no value in running candidates who they viewed as Democrats by another name. Barry Goldwater was the man in whom most of these movers saw themselves reflected.
The story is fairly convoluted; Goldwater insisted for three years that he had no interest in running for President. Once he finally came aboard there was much competition as to who would run the campaign. Goldwater was often not consulted or listened to regarding his platform. Several times during the campaign he gave speeches which contradicted earlier pronouncements, especially regarding 'southern issues.'
In the end Goldwater was on the wrong end of one of the most lopsided Presidential elections in U.S. history. Through it all the campaign, and Goldwater, never took a backward, or even a sideways, step. A new ideology had entered American politics (or possibly reentered) and despite the predictions of the pundits of the time (the Republican party would take decades to recover) the way was opened for Nixon to win in '68 (southern strategy) and for the rise of Reagan in 1980. And for the end of the 'American Consensus.' Will we ever get it back?
He never explicitly says but the sense that I get from the book, which also ties in with what I know about 20th century American history, was that after the Great Depression and with the coming of the New Deal there was a new agreement between the government and the people. The new part, of course, was that there would now be a social safety net, including, but not limited to, Social Security.
American electoral politics for about 30 years, then, featured the two parties jockeying over what should and what should not be included. It also featured near total dominance of national electoral politics by the Democrats. From 1932 to 1968 the Democrats won seven out of nine presidential elections (the only two losses being to the most middle of the road Republican in history) and dominated in both the House and the Senate, often with super-majorities.
During this time the Republican 'brain trust' strategized that the only way to win any offices was to offer 'tweaks' to Democratic policies. This was also the period during which the armed forces were desegregated by executive order, the Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education and the Freedom Rides' and first sit-ins took place.
For reasons having to do with racism and possibly other resentments (but definitely racism) the old 'states rights' b.s. began to be heard again. Some movers and shakers (guys with money) began to sound each other out and plot a 'new course' for the Republican party. These were guys who were not 'professional' Republicans; rather they were businessmen who always voted Republican and wanted to take the party to the right. Little by little they discovered that they were not alone in feeling resentment toward the federal government and the New Deal.
Perlstein begins his book by putting us in the room with some of these early planners, e.g. Clarence Manion, who resented 'big labor' far more than anything else. To win more converts they realized that they needed to exploit white resentment of the (actually very slow) growth of the Civil Rights Movement.
As the story unfolds we see a rather disparate group of actors, each with an agenda that, while different from many of the other actors, coalesced around the idea of 'Conservatism.' Clearly, then as now, Conservatism meant different things to different people, but they all agreed that step one was running more conservative candidates for national office. They saw no value in running candidates who they viewed as Democrats by another name. Barry Goldwater was the man in whom most of these movers saw themselves reflected.
The story is fairly convoluted; Goldwater insisted for three years that he had no interest in running for President. Once he finally came aboard there was much competition as to who would run the campaign. Goldwater was often not consulted or listened to regarding his platform. Several times during the campaign he gave speeches which contradicted earlier pronouncements, especially regarding 'southern issues.'
In the end Goldwater was on the wrong end of one of the most lopsided Presidential elections in U.S. history. Through it all the campaign, and Goldwater, never took a backward, or even a sideways, step. A new ideology had entered American politics (or possibly reentered) and despite the predictions of the pundits of the time (the Republican party would take decades to recover) the way was opened for Nixon to win in '68 (southern strategy) and for the rise of Reagan in 1980. And for the end of the 'American Consensus.' Will we ever get it back?
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Finished It!
After The Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus is in the outbox. I will write one more post about it. For tonight I will just say that they (the 'experts' of the time) sure were wrong about what the election meant for 'the cause.'
Also, I will examine what Perlstein meant by his subtitle. But right now I am going to bed. ; )
Also, I will examine what Perlstein meant by his subtitle. But right now I am going to bed. ; )
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Goldwater!
I'm still plugging away on the Goldwater book. I think, finally, I have 'turned the corner' and I can now 'see the light at the end of the tunnel.' (Vietnam is actually playing a very small role in the book.)
The biggest thing I'm noticing right now (I'm past the conventions and into the general election campaign) is how inept the Goldwater campaign was. Part of that we can credit to Goldwater who insisted that he would not compromise his principles to pander to a wider base. But we can also blame his staff for greatly overestimating the candidate's potential. They mistook rabid enthusiasm from the hard core base for wide-spread appeal. There was also a strong distrust of 'political insiders' so the campaign was run by novices.
Add to all of that Goldwater's apparent tone-deafness to his audiences and to the shifting perceptions of the various issues. He consistently displayed impeccably poor timing with his campaign speeches. For example railing against the Evil of the TVA and announcing his plan to 'privatize' it. In eastern Tennessee. Went over like a lead balloon. Which illustrates the inherent problem with 'conservative' politics: people love it in theory (some people) but when it comes down to it they want their Social Security, Medicare, etc.
I'll give a final report in about a week. I hope. I'm ready for something new. ; )
The biggest thing I'm noticing right now (I'm past the conventions and into the general election campaign) is how inept the Goldwater campaign was. Part of that we can credit to Goldwater who insisted that he would not compromise his principles to pander to a wider base. But we can also blame his staff for greatly overestimating the candidate's potential. They mistook rabid enthusiasm from the hard core base for wide-spread appeal. There was also a strong distrust of 'political insiders' so the campaign was run by novices.
Add to all of that Goldwater's apparent tone-deafness to his audiences and to the shifting perceptions of the various issues. He consistently displayed impeccably poor timing with his campaign speeches. For example railing against the Evil of the TVA and announcing his plan to 'privatize' it. In eastern Tennessee. Went over like a lead balloon. Which illustrates the inherent problem with 'conservative' politics: people love it in theory (some people) but when it comes down to it they want their Social Security, Medicare, etc.
I'll give a final report in about a week. I hope. I'm ready for something new. ; )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)