The Lost Art of Serious

(This is a draft essay. It will likely be revised later so please do not reproduce it. Gracias. - JR)

The Lost Art of Serious


On the radio the other morning, a retired newspaper reporter talked about covering the tragic 1967 Detroit riots. After recounting all that he went through during those days, he said that the experience changed him. "After that," he said " I was a very serious person."

You don't here many people describe themselves that way anymore. Serious is pretty much considered synonymous with boring, or worse, heavy handed and sanctimonious. Serious has gone the way of double knits. Very unhip. A throwback, but not in a good way. A lot of people seem to make a small hobby of avoiding serious. How many times have your friends said they wanted to go see a movie, "something light," as though they had just returned from touring Dachau? How many times have you seen conversations quickly diverted the minute someone says something that sounds serious? Sampling the conversations of today's educated/professional middle class (of which I am a non dues paying member), you get the impression that what passes as good conversation is just really a Seinfeldian exchange of … bullshit. A complex dance where everyone walks up to the edge of serious and jumps back, as though the deprivations of the American professional class leave little room for anything but escapist diversions. Very odd for a group of people who have, by and large, benefited from rigorous educations and have access to an unprecedented amount of information, much of it cut and sliced to meet their particular niche interests.

Look at the news. Health news. Consumer news. More commercials. More "Lifestyle" pieces. Less and less serious news. Paradoxically, the most effective news delivery program out there, "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart is a mix of repartee, double entendres, stoner humor, and knowing cynicism. People like it, because Jon Stewart is not trying to be serious.

Keep it light. Keep it ironic. But keep it away from serious.

Two questions come to mind. What is driving our retreat from serious particularly during such serious times? What, if any, loss of have we suffered with the loss of serious.

First, I think the retreat from serious is driven in part by our (well founded) suspicions about sincerity. We have grown accustomed to a world in which we expect our business leaders, political leaders and religious leaders to lie about things big and small. We accept lying – or at least misleading -- as almost the natural human default position a self defense reflex, like dunking a punch. As a consequence, we mistrust anybody who appears to be attempting sincerity. In fact, the more they attempt sincerity, say by raising their hand and taking an oath, or locking eye contact and using a grave tone – the more we mistrust them. Face it. American newsmagazines have spent three decades now reproducing photographs of serious looking guys in suits and short haircuts, arms cocked at the familiar ninety degree angle above stories that report that the photo was taken only moments before they either a) let go a whopper, b) admitted that they previously let go a whopper or c) ratted out someone who told a whopper. These days, if you want anyone to believe you, if you want to convince anyone of anything, the worst thing you can do is tell them you are serious.

The other enemy of seriousness is the cult of "I'm not saying I'm just sayin.'" Words to this effect are used often as code for, " I may hold an opinion on this issue unless of course it will produce some friction between us. I don't want my convictions to get in the way of getting along ." This is strange because our radiowaves and TV screens are filled with talking heads whose sole purpose is to infuriate. Our President is one of the most partisan in history and we are constantly shown maps of red and blue America Yet, most Americans still shirk from any confrontation. Odd for a country born of one heck of a confrontation.

But maybe not so odd for a country that places a high premium on charisma and the ability get along. You don't have to look too far into our political or commercial culture to realize the benefits bestowed upon the charismatic. Political figures as discordant as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had great success because people liked their optimism. Bob Dole and Hillary Clinton get (and got) pummeled as too serious, to shrill, too earnest. Like they want to run a country or something. Even the current President rode to his first victory by assuring us he was not very serious, certainly not serious enough to learn the leaders of other countries. Not so serious as to take serious problems seriously. Not serious like his dour know it all opponent. His campaign was one big back slap, while his opponent's was a traveling science fair. Similarly, movements who have made very significant contributions to American life often get derided for being too serious or confrontational. Think organized labor. Think the environmental movement. No one likes a wrench in the works. Going along to get along is a prized virtue or as one writer observed:

The fact is that under the pretext of goodness, people neglect conscience. They place acceptance, the avoidance of problems, the comfortable pursuit of their existence, the good opinion of others and good-naturedness above truth in the scale of values.

The last enemy of serious is our own toxic political culture. More precisely, the 60s mantra that the "personal is political" has been transformed from a call to live your beliefs to an execuse to attack the person for political advantage. Again, examples abound. Al Gore wins a Nobel Prize only to have people carp about the size of his home and his high school grades. How much more can we speculate on the state of the Clinton Union? How many pundits' (like Maureen Dowd) make their bones on pseudo psychological explanations and dissections of our leaders psyches? This dynamic – attacking the message by gutting the messenger -- creates a problem for serious because no one wants to be a target. Few will venture into the realm of serious if it means they open themselves up to personal attack.

What have we lost?

Too much. By abstaining from the serious we end up talking to each other from behind masks of indifference, well crafted cynicism, or dark humor. We are never quite being honest. We never quite put our irons in the fire, never make our commitments public. This degrades us all a little bit. It robs our civil society of any conviction. It robs each of us, slowly, of the ability to make hard choices and live with the consequences. In a sense we remain children, waiting for the grown ups to tell us what to do.

Perhaps equally as pernicious, is the unfortunate fact that when we cede the serious, there are plenty of opportunists who will jump into the breach. Often they are transparently self interested. Often they are zealots. More often they are just not very bright. But they are always willing to occupy the space we have retreated from. And so the serious remains an unexplored territory, hopelessly rugged and generally occupied by people we find distasteful.

We can do better. Seriously.

Someone Call the Hall Monitor

Rudy Giuliani has announced that he does not think waterboarding is all that bad, even though the US has been condemning the practice since roughly 1904. John McCain told workers at Thompson Arms that he would chase Osama Bin Laden to the "gates of hell and kill him with one of your weapons."

Look out. The Republican primaries have been hijacked by the 7th Grade He Man Super Hero Club. McCain's comment is just silly, but Giuliani's is stupid and morally repugnant. Both of them need to turn in their Action Jackson Pen Knives and report to detention.

This Week in The News

This week, the White House made it official. In a quiet ceremony in on the West Lawn, President Bush announced that he is dropping the moniker "compassionate conservative." In short prepared remarks, the President commented, "I have examined the issue sobrietly and with the a great deal of objectivyism and concluded that it is best to move forward with the understanding that I am not -- and never have been -- very compassionate. I have led a sheltered life marked by cronyism and greed. Compassion just does not fit the bill. I mean, I really don't give a sh-it about people who are not like me. While I attempted to soldier on with the designation, a preemptive war, indifference to Hurricane Katrina, and a battle to keep insurance out of the hands of children has driven home the message that I am really a self absorbed manchild." The President did reserve his right to "talk all goddy" whenever he needed to stir up the Republican base.

This week, Richard Mellon Scaife, a billionaire heir to a retailing fortune filed for divorce. Scaife has given over $300 million to pro family conservative causes and spent millions on his so called "Arkansas Project" aimed at finding proof of then President Clinton's past infidelities. According to papers filed in a Pittsburgh court, Scaife's wife accuses him of having an ongoing affair with a former prostitute that included twice weekly meetings at an hourly rate motel. (Scaife always brought flowers.) She also accuses him of dog napping. Asked if his client's laser like focus on the conduct of others does not seem hypocritical in light of his own behavior, Scaife's lawyer declined to comment.

This week, the Administration announced that it plans to pump $500 million into Mexico to asisst the Mexican government with its war on drug cartels. Declaring that it was fed up with the cartels brazenly selling products that Americans wish to buy in great quantity, Administration officials brushed aside criticism that similar aid programs in Columbia had done little to stop the drug flow as well as comments that the Mexican government and military is riddled with corruption. Speaking on the initiative, Mary Jane Paulson, Under Secretary for Dangerous Meddling commented, "With any luck we will shortly become full partners in guiding Mexico's internal political decisions, policing Mexican streets, and dropping chemicals from the sky in a bid to stamp out one of the few sources of income for many Mexicans. All to stop a problem that originates with us. Their gonna loves us in Sonora."

This week, the Educational Testing Service unveiled a report demonstrating that up to 15% of the incoming class at American universities consists of white students whose academic qualifications are below the minimum required by their university. These students outnumber Black and Hispanic students who were given racial preferences by a 2-1 margin. According to the report these students were admitted because of family connections or connections to wealthy donors. The study demonstrates that the most pervasive form of affirmative action on American campuses benefits connected white kids and not racial minorities. Speaking on behalf of Duke University, (one of the schools whose admission data was examined) Kiley Winston Dumnut noted, "What we have here is really a misnomer. When we admit a poor minority with substandard qualifications, we chalk that up to affirmative action. When we admit the dullard child of a wealthy alum, we categorize that as Development and Endowment."

Asked if the study would have any effect on his own anti affirmative action views, Justice Clarence Thomas would only mumble angrily about his grandfather.

Asked if the study would alter his views, Rush Limbuagh replied that he is sure white people are being victimized somehow.

More on Univesalized Experience

You really couldn't ask for a better follow up on my post regarding Fred Thompson than the President's comments yesterday:

We're at war with coldblooded killers who despise freedom, reject tolerance, and kill the innocent in pursuit of their political vision ... And one of the real challenges we face is, will we have confidence in the liberty to be transformative? Will we lose faith in the universality of liberty? Will we ignore history and not realize that liberty has got the capacity to yield the peace we want? So this administration, along with many in our military, will continue to spread the hope of liberty, in order to defeat the ideology of darkness, the ideology of the terrorists -- and work to secure a future of peace for generations to come. That's our call."

Why would we ever think liberty is "universal?" Liberty, after all, is a very unique concept that grew up in the West, nurtured by the Enlightenment, fostered by the democratic wars of the 17th century, fed by the French revolution and American revolutions. It is not a universal value or experience. It is a unique product of a certain set of historical, cultural and intellectual experiences all of which occurred in the West. It may be nice to talk about it like it is a value shared by all, but I think it is safe to say that the term liberty just does not have the same place in the political cultures of say the Middle East or parts of Asia as it does here or in Western Europe. (Perhaps, some day it may.) Once again, we have a very dangerous policy premised on the conceit that really, everyone thinks like us, holds our values or at least aspires to think like us and hold our values.

To put it a little more simply, before you buy the world a Coke, find out if they drink Pepsi.

Quote of the Day

Americans too often teach their children to despise those who hold unpopular opinions. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of place - the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else's keeping. This is patriotism on the Russian plan. - Mark Twain (from the Campaign for America's Future's blog)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservatives and Universalized Experience

This weekend, while speaking to a Values Voters convention, Sen. Fred Thompson noted that he changed his position on abortion from pro choice to pro life when he saw the sonnagram of his first daughter.

I fully respect the Senator's conversionary experience. We have all witnessed or experienced things that have caused us to reconsider our assumptions or positions; that have cast issues personal and political in a new light. That is what makes us human, it is what animates our reason and allows for the possibility of progress.

However, what separates conservatives like Senator Thompson from the rest of us, is that the rest of us realize these personal epiphanies are just that - personal. They belong to us and help make sense of the world for us and us alone. They cannot be universalized and applied to everyone else. While they can be shared and discussed, they cannot be imposed.

Just because someone realizes alcohol is ruining his life, we need no enforce prohibition. Similarly, just because a sonogram moved Fred Thompson's soul, does not mean that abortion should be illegal for everyone. What is it about the (modern) conservative mind that transforms every personal insight into a new and enforceable moral law for the rest of us?

This Week in the News

This week, the Vatican suspended Msgr Tomasso Stenico, a high ranking Vatican official, after he was filmed by Italian TV soliciting sex from a young man. While Italian TV blurred the faces of those involved, Vatican security was able to identify the Monsignor from his office and from his distinctive vestments, which have "BOY TOY" emblazoned on the chest in Latin. Asked if the Monsignor's suspension might lead the Vatican to tone down its strident anti homosexual rhetoric, a Vatican spokesman maintained that " We are confident in our ability to maintain moral authority while saying one thing and doing another."

This week, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, the frontrunners in the presidential race from their respective parties, both waxed hawkish on Iran, each seizing every opportunity to proclaim their red blooded willingness to use force and their white hot disdain for any "talks" with the country. For his part, Rudy said that if Iran did not fall into line, he would "chew them up and spit them out like I did the gristle at Sparks Steakhouse." Meanwhile, Clinton reaffirmed her desire to "bitch slap the clerics into line and do the same with any mary who tries to talk about diplomacy if Iran tries to obtain the same types of weapons we have." Asked if her bullish talk was really wise in the wake of one unsuccessful Mid East invasion, Clinton responded, "Listen. For too long Democrats have been the party of peace and everybody gets a cookie. That may save lives, but it doesn't win votes. You should see it, out on the stump when you start talking aggressive, the voters eyes just sort of glaze over and their bodies relax. Their inhibitions about me flow out of them like rain from a gutter. Sort of like when you look at those nasty websites."

This week, the group Catholics United launched a series of radio ads criticizing pro life Republicans for standing in the way of SCHIP funding. According to Catholics United,"Building a true culture of life requires public policies that promote the welfare of the most vulnerable ...At the heart of the Christian faith is a deep and abiding concern for the need of others. Pro-life Christians who serve in Congress should honor this commitment by supporting health care for poor children.” (real quote) One of the group's targets, Thaddeus McCotter (R. Mich) took exception to the ad and in the pages of the National review online, called it "sinful" and the product of a "Leftist political front group." (real quotes) Elaborating on his views, McCotter stated. "The foundation of catholic teaching has always been the Three Fs -- fags (bad), fetuses(good) and fornication (not until we say so). We have had a bold time with those, but once we start letting our faith interefre with the free market -- well then the magic is lost. I mean, c'mon, what are we supposed to do? Tell people to pay higher taxes so kids can get medicine? Where the fun in that? All this "opposing injustice" stuff will only get us in trouble. "

This week, Congress continues to try to amass the votes necessary to overcome the President's veto of the SCHIP children's health insurance bill. Among the goodies House Democrats have laid out to entice the GOP: another $38 million for abstinence education, a program that has proved effective exactly nowhere and tells teenages that a behaviour inwhich 93% of Americans engage is physically and psychologically devastating as well as sinful. According to one House Democratic leader, Harlan "Bud" McCloskey (D Mt) "It is all about the bait. Any hunter will tell you that. Deer season, you get your sugar beats. Bass like the short and shiny. Marlin, gots to have your carp and some innards. For House Republicans, you gotta have something faithy soundin'. Even if it doesn't work , they are attracted to it because it looks all righteous and they can tell church people about it and sound like they are just swell godfearin' fellas'. That gets 'em close and then they lose all their minds, bite on it and run your line... Next thing you know we got some kids insured and the Republicans think they stopped someone somewhere from knockin boots. Happy happy all 'round."

Today, Mark Hemingway of the conservative National Review wrote an aricle on a family that is petitioning for the expansion of the S-Chip program. Here is his analysis of the Wilkersons:

On the conference call, Dara [mom] admitted to me that she and Brian [dad] had been talking about having children since before they were married. She further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was “unmanageable.” From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway, presuming that others would pay for it and certainly long before they knew their daughter would have a heart defect that probably cost the gross national product of Burkina Faso to fix. But not knowing about future health problems is the reason we have insurance in the first place.

For Dara and Brian Wilkerson, the fact that they don’t have health insurance is less about falling through the cracks than the decisions they’ve made. We know that Dara is at least capable of getting a job with insurance — so why does she not have one now?

Notice that Dara "admits" she wanted to have children and "admits" that she quit one job to take another. Like those are some types of crimes. But then Dara commits the biggest crime of all, "she went on to have a baby anyway" and then it had the nerve to have a congenital heart defect.

Aren't these the same folks who take on a condesceding tone when addressing anyone who doesn't have children? Don't conservatives believe that family is the backbone of the whole universe? Apparently, now you should only have one if you can pay $1200 a month for their insurance. But Mark's comments do not only betray a little bit of hypocrisy, they also sound like a judgment from the past.

I guess the fundamental divide is this. Conservatives believe that health insurance is something you should have to pay for either with work or cash. And if you cannot, you better be able to show how dirt poor you are. This is the exact same position they held in the 19th century. Progressives believe that in the year 2007 a country with our wealth can give everyone health insurance and that the floor is higher than it was in the 19th century. In other words, as time passes, we should be able to make life better for everyone and we should not have to accept the Darwinian conditions of the past. Its called advancing civilization.

That's It... That's the Ticket.....

Rudy Giuliani was adressing the Jewish Victory Coalition the other day. They are a pretty conservative group of Jewish Hawks, who generally speaking have little regard for Arabs of any nationality. One of his big applause lines:

You know, Israel’s not perfect, and America’s not perfect, but we’re not terrorist states...

I guess that is our story and we are sticking to it.

"Terrorist" is a very loaded word and I suppose if you define it to folks who conduct hijackings and wear ski masks, Rudi is probably right. If you expand the definition a few inches farther though, say to encompass folks who threaten the well being of civilian population by threat of arms, or hire and support people who threaten the safety and security of the civilian population, things do not look so cut and dry. It does not surprise me that, outside our own borders, there are many folks who look at the contras, our mainipulation of aid,napalm, the bombing of Cambodia, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and do not find any meaningful distinction between us and those we oppose.

Additionally is not being a "terrorist nation" something to be all that proud of? Doesn't that set the bar kind of low? Isn't it kind of like saying, "yeah I cheated on my wife but I didn't get the clap." Shouldn't we endeavour to be a bit more than a dues paying member of the Non Terrorist Club?

And So It Goes....

According to the news, there are are now over 2 million Iraqi refugees spread out over the Middle East, many in Syria and Jordan. About 500,000 of these are children. According to UNICEF, many of these children have now missed years of school and have been psychologically traumatized by the war and refugee life. This often displays itself in over aggression and a lack of trust.

And so the cycle of violence will continue. Another generation of angry and dispossessed people. People without a stake in any community. People who will always be on the margins,a target audience for extremists. People who will tell their children and children's children how the US pushed them from their homeland.

I'm thinking that cannot be a good thing.....

Sliming 101

As most of you know, the Democrats last week used a child named Graeme Frost to demonstrate the need for the SCHIP health insurance program for middle class children. Immediately, right wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin as well as Sen. Mitch McConnell jumped all over the Frost family trying to prove they were frauds and welfare cheats. By the time the truth came out (the Frost's are not rich, their children attend school on scholarship, they only paid $50k for their house, and live at less than 200% of the poverty level) some damage had been done. As Paul Krugman points out, this is all part of pattern:

All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they’re “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he’s faking his Parkinson’s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he’s a fraud.

Of course the GOP is smart. They know most people focus on particulars and not abstract concepts. They know most people like gossipy little details rather than the big picture. They are more interested in the size of Al Gore's house than whether he is right about global warming. And they know that once a little dirt is thrown out there, most folks will lose interset in the issue and focus on the details of someone's alleged wrongdoing. In short, they realize most people have a prediliction for the low road.

This Week in the News

This week, the Republican candidates for President gathered for a debate in Dearborn, Michigan. While the candidates could not agree on whether the economy is in danger of a recession (Thompson says no, Romney says maybe and Paul says it already is) and The Suit that Would B President, Mitt Romney forget that the line item veto was unconstitutional (oops) all could agree on one thing: their undying love for former president Ronald Reagan. While each of the candidates' peans accurately reflected the gauzy nostalgia with which most Americans view Reagan, Sen. Fred Thompson stunned the crowd with the strength of his ardor: "To say I loved the man is an understatement. Let's just say if I were in National Airport's mens room and Ronald Reagan was in the stall next door, I might take a wide stance. hell I might even signal him with my fat old man fingers."

This week, Sen. John McCain continued his unrequited leg hump of the Christian Right. In an interview with belief.net, McCain stated that he believed the Constitution created a Christian nation and that he could not support a Muslim for President of the United States. McCain's show of religious fervor ( he recently announced he was converting to become a Baptist) seemed to do little to impress the Christian Right as they continued laying plans for a third party candidacy. A spurned McCain was found crying in the bathroom of the Straight Talk Express, " I wore my best suit and everything. I gave myself to them and told them they could do anything - anything -- they wanted and they still rejected me. I feel so dirty. Its because I'm fat isn't it? A fat ugly slut. ... but I could be thin. Would they like me if I am thin? Ask them. And tell them I will never say or do anything to make them angry again."

This week, Sen Carl Levin (D. Mich) introduced a bill that would require the executive branch to obtain a warrant from a Foreign Intelligence court each time it sought to wiretap communications initiated abroad or wiretaps on American citizens. The bill would be a revision to the Protect America Act which expires in February and allows the government wider latitude to wiretap without any court approval. While the United States has always required a court to issue a warrant before private communications are invaded, the bill was attacked by the White House and the GOP as soft on terrorism. As one Senate Republican noted, "Our goal is to preserve America and I do not see why we should let civil liberties, due process or the separation of powers get in the way of that."

This week, the GOP held yet another presidential debate while the Democrats fanned out over Iowa in advance of the Iowa Caucuses. Meanwhile, Michigan announced it was moving its primary to January in an effort to raise the state's profile with candidates. While many voters have either not yet thought about the context or are overwhelmed by the choices, TWN says don't worry. You see, the Great American Candidate Mediocrizer, a product of the Federal Election Commission will be at work. The Mediocrizer has two chambers that produce two grade A final candidates from a few pounds of raw ambition. The first chambers uses early primaries and a media focus on fund-raising to chop and dice any candidate that cannot raise millions of dollars in a short time. This eliminates any candidate who cannot woo major corporate donors or the handful of super fundraisers in each party. The second chamber slathers the candidates with media analysis about their "presidential qualities." This chamber weeds out any candidate who strays too far from the conventional wisdom, or is too ethnic, short, female, or who has a funny haircut. It then slathers the rest in a buttery sauce of mainstream respectability. The result, two luscious candidates, barely distinguishable from each other. One in a medium pro corporate sauce and the other in a spicy hot pro corporate sauce (ole!). Guaranteed not to offend the palate of any guest.

Putting the Lie to Mass Prosperity

George Will writes an interesting piece this morning on how the proliferation of luxury brands has robbed them of their ability to impress. That is, a generation ago, possessing certain brands was an accepted proxy for having money. Now, through credit and discounting virtually anyone can own anything. Thus a Gucci, Rolex and Lexus are robbed of some some of their appeal. They no longer signify social status. They just signify that you like owning designed brands.

Will's column reminds me of another dynamic at work in America: the repetition of the fantasy that we somehow live in a country of mass prosperity. You see this all the time in the mainstream financial press, from pundits like Ben Stein, and most recently the vast majority of Republican candidates were gushing about what a great economy we have. Trouble is, this just does not square with the facts. Right now, the top ten percent of the country controls more wealth than the other 90%. We are in the midst of a boom in housing foreclosures, credit card default rates are at an all time high, the middle bands of the income distribution have seen their incomes drop in the last twenty years and (depending on what stats you use) between 10 -15% of the nation lives in poverty. Forty seven million people lack health insurance and social mobility -- the meausure of people moving upward in the economic hierarchy -- is back at Gilded Age levels. So why all the applause for the economy?

The answer is twofold. First, there are a small group of people living incredibly well. By an measure, thanks to years of tax cuts, the rich are richer than they ever were in comparison to anyone else. They can live fabulously. More fabulously than even their rich predecessors. The lifestyles and exploits of these folks take up a disproportionate amount of media space and attention. So, watching prime time TV, it is very easy to think that a lot of people live like Frasier Crane.

Second, we often substitute the ability to buy consumer goods with wealth. We live in an age inwhich many consumer goods, particularly things like electronics, designer clothes, fancy cars and cable tv are available to many. This is due to deep discounting, low overseas labor costs and the seemingly infinite amount if credit available to Americans. Want a big house? There is a "interest only" mortgage for you. Need a Benz? Leasing makes it affordable to people who could never actually buy the car. Rolex? Gucci? Luxury vacation? Visa is there. Looking at this cornucopia of riches, it is easy to conclude that large swaths of the population are doing quite well.

Buy buying things -- particularly buying things on credit -- is not the same as wealth. Real wealth, an individuals assets minus their liabilities, is actually in decline across the economic spectrum. As Will notes, even the uber rich have negative balance sheets. Moreover, the prices of things that are actually important to most Americans such as education, healthcare and housing, have skyrocketed.

Unfortunatley, the illusion of wealth prevents us from having a real discussion of income inequality and social justice in America. When we look down out street at a row of newly leased cars and satellite dishes, it is all too easy to fall for the big lie. Trouble is, there are a significant number of powerful people who are not interested in having you believe anything else.

Freddie at the Bat

According to the WSJ, Freddie Thompson is soon going to go public with a plan to lower the corporate income tax rate (the second highest in the world he shudders) and dramatically lower the payouts of Medicare and Social security. I suppose this is the modern version of traditional conservatism: those with high earning potential get a tax break and those with little earning potential get a benefit cut. It make sense in a sort of Lord of the Flies way.

The corporate income tax thing will probably get him some attention as we have been carefully taught that taxes should never be high. I wonder if he will mention that up to 60% of large corporations do not pay taxes at all and that, with a few exceptions, corporate taxes as a percentage of government revenue have been falling since 2000. Probably not. The Republican Party is beholden to its supply siders and that theory remains the gold standard among the party's elite even though it has about as much basis in fact as creationism. (Then again, at least three of the Republican candidates for President believe in that as well.)

We have had our own little budget battle here in Michigan and as one might expect the anti tax crowd was out in force, threatening to recall anyone who supported a .4% raise in the state income tax and a tax on some discretionary services such as manicures and tanning sessions. The anti tax debate whether local or national shines some light on how far this country has moved from a communitarian ethos to one of selfish individualism. Ever since Ayn Rand first suggested that selfishness was somehow a virtue, we have had a bevy of politicians offer various excuses as to why every American should pitch less into the common pot, whether it was the Laughter Curve (intentional mispelling) in the Reagan years or Goldwater's paranoid libretarianism.

The impulse to selfishness is easily understood, however it should be avoided... even if for very selfish reasons. If you take a look around, the world is getting smaller not larger. More and more our ability to compete and our quality of life is dependent upon the quality of the infrastructure around us. Whether it is parks, bridges, state universities, healthcare airports, or secure ports we are now more reliant upon goods and services that individuals cannot provide and cannot be provided efficiently or fairly by the private sector.

Relatedly, it seems like the economies that are on the move, the EU, Latin America and the Pacific Rim are in countries with a high degree of public investment. More and more it appears that the economic moment is had by those countries that take advantages of economies of scale and invest in themselves.

Even more obvious, the problems we are dealing with, global warming, trade imbalances, drought, energy independence, lackluster public education are not going to be solved by the private sector or even state governments. They are going to be solved by -- pause, take a deep breath -- governmental action on a massive scale. Whether it is in setting incentives, funding research, or just plain building things, we are going to need a government that both knows how to do things and has the resources to do them. The idea of a government "small enough to drown in a bath tub" is no longer realistic or desirable. (Except of course to those few Americans at the top of the earnings curve whose income was bolstered by the latest round of tax cutting.)

I suppose there is very little we can do to combat the mantra that has been drummed into us by our political elite: "Greed is good." I remember when the slick Gordon Gekko uttered those words. I kind of assumed everyone realized Oliver Stone was being ironic. We may exist as individuals, but we only thrive in connection with our communities, or put another way (by the DKM), "together we can be what we can't be alone."

More Liberal media

An excerpt from a new book on the media, quoting Katie Couric:


"If you weren't rah rah rah for the Bush administration, and the war, you were considered unpatriotic, even treasonous..."

Contest

Two weeks ago, various leaders of the religious right, including James Dobson and Richard Vigurie gathered in Salt Lake City to hash out whether the should stay with the GOP, (which may well nominate a gay loving, thrice married, pro choice candidate), or start their own party. Ever interested in moving the political process forward, TWN is running a contest to name the new party. Some of the early contenders:

The Fourth Reich
The Know Nothings
God's Party (or Party of God)
Something in German
Rapture Party

This Week In the News

This week the House held hearings on the record of the mercenary firm Blackwater, which recieves over $1billion from the government to fight the Iraq war. Among the nuggets burried in House's investigative report: Blackwater charges the US over $400,000 per merecenary per year (about 6 times the cost of a soldier), twenty five Blackwater mercenaries have been terminated for drug or alcohol problems, one drunken mercenary mistakenly shot the bodyguard of Iraq's vice president, Blackwater has been involved in over 200 civilan deaths, and 300 "pre emptive" shootings most from moving vehicles. Asked if the hearings had at all swayed the President's view on fighting a war with soldiers for hire, the White House responded, "Not really. I mean this makes war so much simpler and more discrete. Before if you wanted to invade someone you had to raise an army, build political support and maybe even draft people and those people would have family and friends who would be sad if they died. Now all that is condensed into just signing a few purchase orders and a bunch of people nobody knows can do what they need to do without the constraints of a code of conduct. Plus, we don't have to pay these guys any benefits or send those uncomfortable letters when they die. I mean, winners all around."

This week -- On Children's Health Day No Less -- the President remained locked in the biggest domestic political battle of his career -- the battle to keep health insurance away from our children. The President vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have expanded the federal SCHIP program bu raising the tax on cigarettes. While the White House hoped for a "quiet veto" the President's actions have drawn broad criticism. The President, however, remained undeterred, "They will come at me from all sides. I am in a death struggle. Children with measles. Children with the flu. Chidren with broken arms and urchins with all manner of maladies, many of them involvinf unseemply discharges. But I remain resolute. You have to draw a line in the sand. Today it is health insurance through the SCHIT program, the next thing you know the brats will come back with their hands out for a publically financed education, publicly financed roads and other stuff my friends could do at a profit. "

This week, the House voted down a bill that would increase taxes to pay for the War In Iraq, a conflict now largely funded through borrowing. Opponents of the measure were put off by the sheer size of the graduated tax, the fact that it is open ended, and the fact that it may make the War in Iraq more unpopular. Noted Congresswoman Helen Barnes who voted against the measure, " Let's face it, right now the war is like a new pair of Jimmy Choos you will only wear once. Put them on the Visa and forget about it...You start paying cash money,and people start looking at the bill. Considering the money we spent in Iraq could have funded the entirety of the UN' Millenium Goals on poverty, or funded universal healthcare for thirty years, we don't need that happening."

This week, more "secret memos" were uncovered. It appears that despite its own public pronouncements, Congressional bills and Supreme Court rulings, the Administration continued to support the torture of foreign detainees. A secret 2005 Department of Justice memo gives explicit legal authorization to head slaps, fake drownings, extreme temperatures and starvation among other undisclosed methods. The memo was authorized in the wake of the Adminitration's own promise not to utilize torture, a Supreme Court opinion stating that the Geneva Conventions applied to US detainees and congressional anti torture measures by Sen. John McCain. Defending the White House's secret stance, C. Noevul, Spokesman for Secret Memos and Ugly Goingson (SMUG) tried to give some perspective, "This stuff is nothing compared to the actions authorized if Cheney's eggs are runny or someone leaves one of his man sized safes unlocked. I mean, at that point, you wish you were in Gitmo, strapped to a chair with a load of laxatives in your belly and hood over your head."

Nice Quote

Hats off to a fine turn of phrase:

These people [pro life activists] constitute an entire universe of loner white guys with pinched faces and extremist interpretations of a few passages in ancient Hebrew religious works, perversely devoted to controlling female reproduction but totally unconcerned about the health and welfare of already-existing women and children. As interviewee Noam Chomsky puts it the pro-lifers might have a valid moral point to make, if there was any seriousness or consistency or concern about poverty and human welfare in their position.

While it is easy to poke fun at the fringes of the Pro Life movement, one cannot help but notice that even when you talk to Pro life moderates, they will proudly say they vote for Pro Life Republicans without any thought to the horrible human toll wrought by Republican policies. These folks will march all day long outside a clinic, but nary lift a finger to stop the war in Iraq, universalize healthcare, stop the death penalty or raise anyone out of poverty. In fact they vote for folks who consistently put the "market" above human needs. It is like a hall of mirrors and I don't think the inconsistency does the movement any favors. Why can't you favor all life? Why just proto life? Do Iraqis killed by our mercenaries not merit your attention? Puzzling.

Blackwater

Looking at the transcripts from today's House hearings on the Blackwater mercenary firm we employe to do the dirty work in Iraq, a theme emerges: MoveOn.Org. The Republicans opened the hearing by condemning the liberal group for its Petraeus/Betray Us" ad that ran like two weeks ago. According to Republican reps Issa and Livingston, the House in only holding hearings in an effort to discredit the war effort and its Republican supporters. Whew. For a minute I thought it was becuase Blackwater seems to kill a lot of civilians, employ a lot of guys with drug problems, cost a lot of money (over $400,000 per merecenary a year) and because some think it might not be a good idea for the US to employe mercenary armies to fight its wars.

I was worried for a minute that something might actually be amiss. Move along people. Nothing here to see.

Magic

I sampled a few cuts off the new Springsteen album, "Magic" that goes on sale today. Seems like the m.o. is to have heavy, lush, almost upbeat hooks cover some pretty dark lyrics. I particularly liked "Long Walk Home," a nice metaphor for returning our country to the place it was before we all went crazy.

My only fear at this point is that the pop production quality of this album will make it another "Born in the USA." Forgive me, but I still like my artists untouched by the glow of popular acclaim. Of course, that train left a while ago.

Update: I read one review of this disk that poked a little fun at Springsteen's walking through a "misty rain" to catch a "mystery train" on the second track. The critic thought this retread from the Springsteen cornucopia of sullen and wistful phrases was a little like Bruce sampling Bruce. I disagree. I think the song is purposely self referential -- drawing back to earlier works like the album ponders earlier days. That's just me though. (If I could have used the phrase "purposely self referential" with any facility fifteen years ago, I probably would have gone to grad school...)