Family and friends have encouraged me to establish this "Blog." I suspect the principal reason behind this encouragement is to avoid lengthy telephone conversations. Nevertheless, I will try herein to fullfill their wishes.
My primary topic will be American Politics, although I shall not feel constrained to stay on topic.
With the exception of the lunatic fringes of the far right and left, I have traveled virtually the entire spectrum of the American politics. My first foray into this system was in college, at which time I served as a liberal Democratic Party Precinct Chairperson. I left the Democratic Party, following the George McGovern campaign, dissolutioned by the treatment of Thomas Eagleton. Following college (and a Master's degree in Political Science), I joined the Corporate World and described myself as a "moderate Republican." Most of my business career was spent as the representative of a Fortune 500 company in Western Europe.
In 1995, I was downsized, indirectly due to the frenzied corporate rush to Globalization and the resulting Merger Mania. At that time, I was in charge of Strategic Planning and New Business Development, for the largest division of the same Fortune 500 company. In retrospect, I asked for and received this position at approximately the same time the powers-that-be had decided to sell the division. Timing is everything. As such, strategic planning and new business development in a division to be sold was not high on the Corporate Office agenda.
Following my departure from the Corporate World, I began my climb down the ladder of economic success. I tried self employment as a consultant with a group of other downsized colleagues. Failing in that, I went to work for the U.S. Government. I am presently "semi-retired." After voting twice for Bush Senior, I left the Republican Party with the coming of Bush Junior. As with many of us, both departures were based on my belief that "I didn't leave the Party inasmuch as the Party left me."
Through my academic studies, I have a fair understanding of our political system and our history. Given this, I can happily note that "things have been worse." They were worse between the Revolution and the Consitutional Convention of 1789, under the Articles of Confederation. They were worse during the Civil War and its aftermath. They were worse during the Great Depression. They were worse during the early dark days of World War II. They were worse during the race riots following the Civil Rights Movement and during the painful process of extracting ourselves from a nonsense war in Vietnam.
But, simply saying this does not mean there is not room for considerable improvement in our political system today. Our success or failure must be judged within the context of our own times. Considering today's pressures for globalization, the threats of terrorism in an age of weapons of mass destruction, global environmental problems and our necessary transition to non-fossil fuel based energy sources, the increasing stratification of wealth and power, etc., my humble conclusion is that we are currently in, pardon the expression, very deep doo-doo.
The fundamental purpose of the State is to ensure the social contract each of us enters into within our respective communities. By agreeing to the rule of law, we give up our individual freedom to act however, whenever and whereever we may desire. Instead, we act within the bounds agreed to by the community-at-large, in return for safety, social stability and security. In this society, a critical component of that safety and security lies in the protections afforded us through our Bill of Rights, i.e. our individual freedom within the context of the community.
An underlying assumption in the arguments to follow will be that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement of the second half of the twentieth century, a key American social failure was the constant stressing of individual rights, without a corresponding emphasis on individual responsibility. This has had, in my opinion, two negative effects. The first is the belief that our individual "rights" are divinely given. To a significant extent over-emphasizing this concept, whether true or false, tends to negate the rectitude and position of the State. And, it expresses itself in much of our political thinking, from Christian fundamentalism, to libertarianism, to our President's pursuit of a global foreign policy based, not on national self-interest, but on God's desire to bring freedom to everyone on the planet.
The second negative effect lies in the inevitable greed that follows this over-emphasis on individual rights as opposed to a perspective which balances those rights against the needs of the community. This greed frees us morally, as individuals in pursuit of God-given individual freedom, to manipulate both the State and the community toward our own personal ends.
In sum, for this initial "blog," it is my belief that we have largely ignored one-half of the social contract for the last fifty years. Subsequent blogs will attempt to address this neglect; its causes and effects, within the context of the events of the day. Comments, of course, are welcome.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Random comment on random topics regarding a random selection of articles within randomly chosen newspapers. Published randomly.
10 comments:
First of all, congrats! I am excited to read the posts. I agree with everything except half of your thesis, though I agree that people do need to be more community-oriented. After all, how could I disagree with your personal history? I don't think the idea that individual rights were god-given is a recent phenomenon. After all, didn't the Declaration of Independence say that we "are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."?
I view individual rights as basically a limit on the People's or State's will, but ultimately in the State's best interest. Many of the rights protected in the BIll of Rights I think are essential to generate an efficient and competitive marketplace of ideas, which was seen as a bedrock of a flourishing democracy. Bush has launched a wholesale attack on some of these rights (such as the right to be secure in your papers and effects). At any rate, I think there is no meaning whatsoever behind the term "freedom" or "liberty" when Bush utters it. Bush doesn't have in mind the technicalities of liberty contained in the Bill of Rights, he's just using words that evoke emotion in people in the hope they will support his military and political campaigns.
I think the definition of "community" is currently in flux and undergoing very rapid change. Whether new forms of community will emerge remains to be seen, but I suspect they will. However, without a bedrock of community people cling to individualism and their smaller communities (immediate family, etc).
On another note, we have been watching many Asian films lately, particularly from Japan and China and interestingly a common theme in many of them is sacrifice of the individual for the community.
tommythestone...thanks for the comment...will reply shortly.
tommythestone...I don't think we are far apart on this. Regarding the Declaration of Independence, which I believe was authored pretty much by Jefferson, what other authority could they have appealed to? They were launching a revolution...but I agree with your point. Appeal to "higher authority" goes back as far as recorded human history. I also agree that the effect of the Bill of Rights is to limit the will of both "the people" and "the State," but the Bill of Rights doesn't fall into the same league as the "Ten Commandments" and my point was that it would be dangerous if we thought so. THe Bill of Rights is the product of democracy and a "compromise" of sorts added in order to obtain the ratification of the Constitution. I believe that there was some initial objection to adding them...i.e. the Constitution outlines the mechanics of democracy and shouldn't go beyond that...but then it became sort of, "well why not?"
The point I was trying to make is an over-emphasis on "individuality" can be counter-productive, when coupled to the concept that "my rights come from God, not the State." God cannot change the Bill of Rights. A new Constitutional Convention could.
In regard to Bush, I believe the common thought is that he and Cheney are trying to restore the power of the Executive Branch although, granted, this generally comes across in word and deed as the restoration of the divine right of kings.
It has become popular today to discuss our branches of government as co-equal. It is clear to me that in a democracy, the Congress will always be the preemminient body. Each branch has separate powers, but this is not the same as co-equality.
Bush has attempted to confuse this point in an effort to strengthen the powers of the Executive Branch...i.e. the "war" on terror...followed by "my war powers" justifying an attack on civil liberties. Perhaps the most telling sign that sensible people are not buying into this was the recent Supreme Court decision overruling the Administration on military tribunals.
Constitutionally, I suppose the fact that the Executive Branch has zero oversight of Congress, whereas Congress has oversight of vitually every Presidential power AND the purse strings...tells me the founding fathers would have thought "co-equal branches" to be an absurd notion.
I define "the community" today as the nation-state. True, globalization is changing this. And, in some relatively narrow fields, sovereignty has yielded to international organizations. However, I think there is sufficient sovereignty left to still frame the "community" in terms of the nation-state. But, you may have struck a chord...and the "flux" may be a contributor, along with greed and religious revival to, IMO, excessive individualism.
But let me be clear that I completely agree with the concept of individualism, if it is coupled with community responsibility. And, you make a good point that, indirectly, the individual rights ensured in the Bill of Rights, promote the State itself, over the long-run.
Finally, I was interested by your last comment regarding the sacrifice of self for the community. I don't think that that is a concept unique to Eastern cultures. I think generally it is a concept put forth by the leaders of ALL communities...other than perhaps communities of libertarians, which is sort of an oxymoran.
Indeed, the survival of any community usually, at some time or another, depends upon the willingness of its members to do just this. I think it is particularly important in a democracy in time of war. And, by war, I mean a threat immenient and direct. 9/11 was, IMO, such a threat. But more on that next time...
Okay, then we agree. I agree on the 10 Commandments vs. the Bill of Rights...the commandments don't hold a candle to them. :) On the Asian films, I do think there is a unique emphasis in those cultures on community. Most of the films and modern epics in American pop culture emphasize an individual's struggle against the community at large, rather than individual sacrifice. Take the Jet Li film "Hero" for example. Every heroic figure in that movie makes a sacrifice of himself for the community. Ironically, all of Christianity is based on a martyrdom myth, yet it continually fails to translate into people's everyday mores.
Sorry...."Hero" was an example of an Asian film...an American one that springs to mind is the "Fugitive."
A brief test on my user name and password...comment to follow.
I would like to move today from the blog's initial broad observation to Iraq.
I've just completed Woodward's latest book, "State of Denial." Coincidentaly, I listened this morning to an hour long interview by Diane Ream, on NPR, with James Baker.
The latter may, in some ways, destroy the thesis of Woodward's book. In fact, had Woodward read his own book carefully, he may have chosen a different title or, perhaps, state of denial applies to the denial of the White House given Woodward regarding future interviews.
I am an admirer of Woodward and the book was interesting and informative (more of the former than the latter). He is a good journalist, but avoids drawing any judgements or conclusions other than the manner in which he "paints his picture."
I've thought all along that the decision to invade Iraq was wrong. Had we had more definitive proof of a "clear and immenient danger" directly toward the United States, I would have supported the invasion. I agree with the premise that given technology today, we cannot afford to wait for the first strike...in regard to terrorists. However, the "evidence" that Hussein posssessed WMD, of the sort that would constitute such a direct threat never appeared to me as being that definitive. I would have let the UN inspectors continue their work and would have insisted on Iraqi cooperation. Failing to gain that cooperation, I would have acted much as Bush did act. IOW, my personal position, at the time, was similar to that of France, China, Russia, et al.
I am now coming around to the point of view that Bush, at the time, was simply not as "critical" as I was. This was understandable given 9/11 and those who surrounded him and ill served him in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
Foremost among them would now appear to be Dick Cheney. Cheney was/is an apparent "convert" to neo-con thinking and their radical thinking regarding America's place in the world, preemptive war, etc. required only small adjustments to "fit" the type of response Bush was looking for in the post 9/11 period. While Cheney may have well been a "closet" neo-con prior to 9/11, I give some credit to those who worked with him under Bush Senior and their recent comments suggesting: "this is not the Cheney I knew."
Bush's own "conversion" apparently took place on 9/11. I suspect this conversion was BOTH genuine and politically expedient and that he did not fully realize the importance of a major shift in U.S. foreign policy, which departed so radically from the bi-partisan "containment" policies that had worked reasonably well since WWII and ultimately led to the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War.
I do not expect the President to now say "I was wrong." At least, not publically. But there have been some indications that this admission has been acknowledged with the second term departure of most of the neo-cons who dominated policy during the first term (Wolfwitz, Feith, Pearle, and others). One could argue against this thesis by pointing to Bush's failure to replace Rumsfeld, but Rumsfeld has always struck me as a "mechanic" more than an ideolouge. Although he was indeed a signer of the Neo-Con Manifesto (can't recall the name of the paper), others who signed have also subsequently bailed out.
Rumsfeld may deserve removal for other reasons, but I doubt it is on the basis of ideology. His principal goals are to "fix" DoD and make it more responsive to 21st century threats and to "win" in Iraq, to the extent that we can bring troops home "with honor."
Another sign that major policy change may be in the works is in the entry of Baker to the policy-making process. The Commission he now heads, which is reappraising Iraq policy, is bi-partisan and staffed with "grey beards" in foreign policy from both parties (5 Democrats; 5 Republicans), none of whom I believe represent the neo-con perspective. One suspects Bush Senior was instrumental in convincing Bush Junior to appoint this "independent re-evaluation" and that it is both a disavowal of neo-con thinking and the beginning of a genuine exit strategy, seeking a solution somewhere between "stay the course" and "cut and run."
Democrats would probably be wise not to make TOO MUCH of the failed Iraq policy on a partisan basis. They have accomplished informing the public of their dissatisfaction, had a major influence on changing public opinion and might be wise to now sit back, call for a return to a bi-partisan foreign policy, and let the news headlines do the rest.
One aspect I would like to learn more of is the Israeli role in the pre-Iraq invasion intelligence? It occurs to me, for reasons to be subsequently discussed, that Hussein was a direct and immenient threat to Israel has long as it was even "perceived" that Iraq had WMD...true or not, becasue it would have negated the Israel trump card of their own nuclear weapons.
I have only a general understanding of the "micro-loan" program. However, an NYT article indicates that the program has helped raise over 100 million people out of poverty, primarily in SE Asia and Africa.
Sounds worthy enough of a Nobel Prize to me (otherwise, seems like a reasonably poor year for potential Prize Prize candidates).
Perhaps, we need to institute some similar program here?
On Representative Ney: Ney has apparently pleaded guilty regarding Abramoff bribes, lying to the FBI, etc. Suppose this officially makes him a "felon." Yet, he remains in Congress and says he'll resign "in a few weeks." Will Hasert step up to the plate on this one? Ney should be out ASAP...today or tomorrow at the latest. If Hasert does nothing to encourage/assure this, it's strike two on the former coach. Will Republicans wait for the election and strike three? Hmmm? Probably.
Sunday Morning News Programs - This morning's programs all led with the sanctions on North Korea. Condi seems to have done this one right. Whether the sanctions have any chance of working is almost irrelevant to the manner in which they were obtained, via the 15-0 vote within the UN.
I am very skeptical regarding the North Korean reaction, but I'd have to give Condi an "A." The regional key is China...not the United States. A giant admission and another indication of a policy shift. And, no more talk of regim change, military options, etc. (not that we have any practical military resources to talk about).
Second general topic was Iraq and, again, more signs of policy shifts. Warner and Nunn were interviewed and it was almost like the good old days of bi-partisanship on foreign policy. The "grey beards" are speaking. Question is: Is all of this for real or an Administration staged ploy for the November elections?
Ahh, you should start a new topic rather than posting to your "Opening Comments" topics...took me a while to realize that there was new conversation. I learned about micro loans in my Development Economics course. My professor seemed to think it was one of the few bright spots on helping developing nations' economies...as opposed to flat-out charity, which floods the markets with food and drives local farmers out of business, thus creating continued dependence on foreign charity...or the "export processing zone", which keeps the poor factory workers poor by preventing them from exercising rights such as collective bargaining that would lead to natural wage increases, and continues exporting the fruits of capital overseas while giving local would-be entrepreneurs and capitalists a distinct uphill climb on the "playing field." Microloans actually do what is needed most, which is create capital locally. Exporting is great for a developing economy, but not if the local economy can't reap the rewards.
Post a Comment