THIS WAS WRITTEN A LONG TIME AGO, OCTOBER of 2005
Let me apply my analysis skills to a momentous problem, the structure of this list of things that people from Massachusetts will "get".
"You know your from massachussetts when..."
I suppose that knowing how to spell the name of the commonwealth isn't that common anywhere, but it would seem it's more common around here.
I propose dividing the propositions into classes:
Class A:
1.You think crosswalks are for wimps
3. You know how to cross four lanes of traffic in five seconds
5. You think it's not actually tailgating unless you're touching the bumper of the car in front of you
6. You know that a yellow light means that at least five more people can get through and a red one means two more can
12. You believe using your turn signals gives away your plan to the enemy
14. Someone has honked at you because you didn't peel out the second the light turned green
15. You have honked at someone because they didn't peel out the second the light turned green
16. All the potholes just add to the excitement of driving.
17. Stop signs mean slow down a little, but only if you want to.
23. The person in front of you is going 70 MPH and you're cursing them for going too slow
27. You've slammed on your brakes to deter a tailgater.
32. You've pulled out of a side street and used your car to block oncoming traffic so you can make a left
38. You feel the rest of the world needs to drive more like you
49. You almost feel disappointed when someone doesn't flip you off when you cut them off or steal their parking space
Class A might apply (figuratively, mostly) in any large urban area where traffic is intense. It's not really that much worse in Boston, is it? Maybe traffic difficulties are the product of chaotic patterns (Boston is high) and overall population (Boston is just an average urban area).
Class B
2. You think if someone is nice to you that they either want something, or they are from out of town and lost
4. You're amazed when traveling out of town that people at McDonalds actually speak english
8. You could own a small town in Iowa for the cost of your house
10. There are 24 Dunkin Donuts shops within 15 minutes of your house
30. You know at least three Tony's, one Vinnie, and a Frank
31. Paranoia sets in when you can't see an ATM or CVS
Class B could apply to just about any city as viewed from the rural or small-town perspective.
Class C
9. Subway is a fast food place
22. You can go from one side of town to the other in less than fifteen minutes and see at least fifteen losers you went to high school with doing the same thing they were doing when you saw them last
Class C would apply to a smaller city as viewed from (9) New York, or a very few other cities, or (22) any city or area with fewer neighborhood roots.
Class D:
18. Six inches of snow is considered a dusting.
19. Three days of 90 degree heat is definitely a "heat wave" and 63 degrees is "a little on the warm side"
29. You keep an ice scraper in your car all year round
Class D are true in a large variety of northern parts of the US as viewed from places farther south.
Class E
7. The transportation system is known as the "T"
11. When people talk about "The Curse Of The Bambino", you know what they're talking about, and believe it, too (well, at least you USED to)
13. If you stay on the same road long enough, it eventually has three different names.
20. You cringe everytime you hear some actor or actress imitate the "Boston Accent" on TV or in a movie...if you don't have it, then you're never going to get it, even if you were born here
24. You know how to pronounce towns like Worcester, Haverhill, and Cotuit
25. You know what they sell at a "packie"
26. You have never been to the Cheers bar
33. You've bragged about saving money at The Christmas Tree Shop
35. You can navigate a rotary without a problem
36. You have been to Fenway Park
37. You refer to the New York Yankees as the 'evil empire'
40. You use the words "wicked" and "good" in the same sentence
41. You know what a frappe is
42. Saint Patrticks Day is your second favorite holiday
43. You are proud to drink Sam Adams and think that the rest of the country owes Bostonians a thank you
44. You never say "Cape Cod"; you say "the cape"
45. You went to Old Sturbridge Village and Plymouth Plantation in elementary school
46. You can drive to the mountains and the ocean all in one day
48. You know the Mass Pike is some strange weather dividing line
Class E, really do arguably have something to do with being from Massachusetts -- but sometimes only Boston, and sometimes New England more broadly.
Class F
21. At the ice cream shop, you call chocolate sprinkles "jimmies".
28. You still try to order curly fries from Burger King
34. You know what a "regular coffee" is
39. When someone calls you a "masshole", you take it as a compliment
47. You have a special place in your heart for the Worcester Firefighters
Class F may resonate with people from Massachusetts, but they're news to me. My family has been hanging out around these parts since 1630 or 1640, though I myself grew up in southern New Hampshire.
Class G
50. You actually get all of these jokes, AND pass them on!
I suspect it *is* more likely someone will forward this list if they not only get them, but think all of them really do have to do with being from Massachusetts, which might often happen if they are not very well informed about how things are elsewhere.
There, didn't I do a good job of seeming ridiculously serious about something lighthearted?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Another way to engage believers
THIS WAS WRITTEN A LONG TIME AGO, IN DECEMBER OF 2004
After November's electoral defeats, during liberal soul-searching, one common suggestion was the need for us liberals to be more comfortable talking about God, to reach across the divide to embrace "believers".
With this in mind, I was intrigued by a book review in the November issue of Harper's, written by David A. Hollinger. One book he reviews favorably is "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism", by Susan Jacoby. I wonder what lessons it may have for us. A few passages from the review:
=============
Jacoby offers a lively account of those Americans who espoused a"concept of public good based on human reason and human rights rather than divine authority," a group that includes not only atheists and agnostics but also deists and those who maintained other liberal religious affiliations. Her subjects may have been skeptical in varying degrees about the specific doctrines espoused by their contemporaries, but, as Jacoby notes at the beginning of her book, what united them against the "religiously correct" was their "insistence on the distinction between private faith and the conduct of public affairs." They accepted Christianity as a formidable challenlge to a healthy civic life, and they went after it with determination and a critical vigor.
Jacoby thus calls to our attention a tradition of analytical engagement with religious ideas that languished as twentieth-century secularists became complacently aloof and arrogantly dismissive. After all, if religion is in inevitable decline, one can largely ignore it; if it is only for the weak-minded, strong minds should not be wasted in its critique; and if religion is ephiphenomenal, its ideas need not be refuted intellectually, nor subjected to the same degree of critical scrutiny commonly applied to economic and political ideas. Prior to the spread of these secularist conceits, freethinkers tried to get believers to think through the basis for their faith
....
Candid discussions of religious ideas are rare in the UnitedStates today. Believers argue among themselves and occasionally attack the academic and media elites for their godless ways, and secularists usually let the believers alone, treating their ideas as private matters to be respected or tolerated but not challenged. Only when confronted with something immediately threatening and scientifically obscurantist -- such as the banning of evolution lessons by some willfully ignorant schoolboard -- do secularists actually bestir themselves to refute what is being said in God's name. When Al Gore claims to resolve life's tough questions by asking himself, "What Would Jesus Do?" he can count on the respectful silence of those who privately doubt the guidance promised by this pious principle of applied ethics.
Religious ideas have become oddly privileged. Since most secularists consider religion a strictly private matter, they generally deem it impolite to express about a believer's religious ideas the kind of skepticism they might reveal in response to someone's notions about the economy or race or gender. Of course, there is no excuse for rudeness, yet the more impact on public affairs religious ideas are understood to have, the more troublesome this deference becomes. Jacoby's freethinkers understood that the society in which they lived depended in part on the basic view of the world accepted by their fellow citizens ... For the last sixty or seventy years, however, secularists have more often supposed that the ideas of religious believers did not matter; that the ideas could be scorned when out of the earshot of the faithful or, in mixed company, could be patronizingly indulged the way one might listen to the words of a child or an aged relative before tactfully changing the subject. One result of this secularist complacency is that the religious ideas of the population have been shielded from a pointed, critical scrutiny they might otherwise have received.
After November's electoral defeats, during liberal soul-searching, one common suggestion was the need for us liberals to be more comfortable talking about God, to reach across the divide to embrace "believers".
With this in mind, I was intrigued by a book review in the November issue of Harper's, written by David A. Hollinger. One book he reviews favorably is "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism", by Susan Jacoby. I wonder what lessons it may have for us. A few passages from the review:
=============
Jacoby offers a lively account of those Americans who espoused a"concept of public good based on human reason and human rights rather than divine authority," a group that includes not only atheists and agnostics but also deists and those who maintained other liberal religious affiliations. Her subjects may have been skeptical in varying degrees about the specific doctrines espoused by their contemporaries, but, as Jacoby notes at the beginning of her book, what united them against the "religiously correct" was their "insistence on the distinction between private faith and the conduct of public affairs." They accepted Christianity as a formidable challenlge to a healthy civic life, and they went after it with determination and a critical vigor.
Jacoby thus calls to our attention a tradition of analytical engagement with religious ideas that languished as twentieth-century secularists became complacently aloof and arrogantly dismissive. After all, if religion is in inevitable decline, one can largely ignore it; if it is only for the weak-minded, strong minds should not be wasted in its critique; and if religion is ephiphenomenal, its ideas need not be refuted intellectually, nor subjected to the same degree of critical scrutiny commonly applied to economic and political ideas. Prior to the spread of these secularist conceits, freethinkers tried to get believers to think through the basis for their faith
....
Candid discussions of religious ideas are rare in the UnitedStates today. Believers argue among themselves and occasionally attack the academic and media elites for their godless ways, and secularists usually let the believers alone, treating their ideas as private matters to be respected or tolerated but not challenged. Only when confronted with something immediately threatening and scientifically obscurantist -- such as the banning of evolution lessons by some willfully ignorant schoolboard -- do secularists actually bestir themselves to refute what is being said in God's name. When Al Gore claims to resolve life's tough questions by asking himself, "What Would Jesus Do?" he can count on the respectful silence of those who privately doubt the guidance promised by this pious principle of applied ethics.
Religious ideas have become oddly privileged. Since most secularists consider religion a strictly private matter, they generally deem it impolite to express about a believer's religious ideas the kind of skepticism they might reveal in response to someone's notions about the economy or race or gender. Of course, there is no excuse for rudeness, yet the more impact on public affairs religious ideas are understood to have, the more troublesome this deference becomes. Jacoby's freethinkers understood that the society in which they lived depended in part on the basic view of the world accepted by their fellow citizens ... For the last sixty or seventy years, however, secularists have more often supposed that the ideas of religious believers did not matter; that the ideas could be scorned when out of the earshot of the faithful or, in mixed company, could be patronizingly indulged the way one might listen to the words of a child or an aged relative before tactfully changing the subject. One result of this secularist complacency is that the religious ideas of the population have been shielded from a pointed, critical scrutiny they might otherwise have received.
Thoughts on Bush voters (November of 2004)
THIS WAS WRITTEN A LONG TIME AGO, AFTER ELECTION DAY IN NOVEMBER OF 2004.
Like most of us [in the FUSN community], I was discouraged when I learned of the election results. Personally, I tend to immediately look for ways of accepting what I cannot change. Maybe others who feel the anger for a while are taking a healthier path. The need to switch from early-evening good news -- enough to lead to celebration -- to the bad news of the darker hours made the feelings more intense. But we could remember that before the election started, Bush was leading by a little in most polls. That portion of the anger arising from the need to change course should pass without needing much explanation.
First, the big picture. We would have continued to be mortal in either case. Acts of hatred and selfishness are all about us. People everywhere love their children, and acts of kindness abound. There is unspeakable beauty and unspeakable horror throughout the world. A Kerry victory would not have changed those things.
Third-world poverty and environmental destruction continue unabated. War follows war, wreaking destruction in so many corners of the globe. Oppressed groups remain oppressed. A Kerry victory would have changed these things only, perhaps, as the first step with which a journey of a thousand miles begins.
If Kerry had beaten Bush by a margin of 51% to 48%, instead of losing by 48% to 51%, few of us would be searching our souls -- the Bush supporters would be. Maybe it's better to think of our soul-searching as something that should have happened anyway, with the election result only the nudge we needed. Zooming in some from the wide-angle view, a large question for many of us is: Who are the Bush voters, and how can we relate to them? There are always Republicans, but rarely are the differences as apparent as they were in this election. What voter could come to a different conclusion when we ourselves had no end of reasons to feel that Bush was so clearly the worse choice?
We can distinguish our feelings towards the leadership of the Bush campaign and ordinary voters. Whatever vile thoughts we can have about the Republican leadership, it's a less profound issue. Leaders are rarely virtuous in any simple way, and the Kerry campaign was run with its own share of less than complete candor and misleading statements.Those who gave Bush their vote did so out of a mix of two things: being misinformed, and having different values.
We can fault people for not taking the initiative to find out how the world actually works, for instance that the Iraq invasion made the US less safe from terrorism. But I doubt we can say that Kerry voters are much better informed. Many voters in both camps don't thoroughly investigate the factual situation or think too deeply about issues. They largely just vote the way their friends do. We can also rail against corporate (and mostly right-wing) control of the media and the resulting biased news. This is a grave and justified concern, but it's hard to blame the Bush voters for not understanding that. We could also lay at its feet why the Democratic positions are as conservative as they are.
It's also wrong to think of all 51% of Bush voters as being ardent supporters. Most disagree with him on some issue or other. I suspect a fair number disagree on a great many issues, and maybe some they feel strongly about. Their choice may have been an agonizing one, requiring them to hold their noses. Those of us who voted for Weld over Silber for governor in 1990 might remember how that felt.
But having tried my best to peel this onion, I'm getting down to the hard part, the values. How do we make sense of the conservative Christian mindset? I don't think it's so hard. We UUs speak a lot about the positive aspects of our exploration and uncertainty, as well we should, but I think for most of us there is at times a fair measure of profound unease and loneliness that comes with our freedom. Wouldn't it be nice to just know our place on this earth and what it all means? The Bible has the answers. The theory of evolution denies the need for a God, so it must be wrong. Atheists must be devoid of human decency, which comes only from belief in God. More broadly, the Bible aside, tolerance undercuts a sense of certainty about one's own life. If other views and choices are OK, how do I know mine are right? Homosexuality is seen as bad because it is different, but it has good company with other forms of deviance, including social drinking and sex before marriage.
So finally we come to the issue of gay marriage. I have an image of many thousands of people who feel the world at large is not their concern, that others know best, that some things are going OK, and others are going poorly but nothing can be done about it. But such people hear about gay marriage and say simply "This is wrong". They become voters, at least this once. They may well not be conservative Christians, but just have this gut sense of how the world should work.
Many people who may have anti-gay feelings could be motivated to vote on this issue because the vote actually does something concrete. The nonvoters may understand there isn't so much they can do about homosexuality for the most part. In a reasonably free society people can act pretty much as they want, and even if they favor a restriction, say, on gays teaching in schools, it may not do much, since as they know many gays are in the closet. But in the one instance of gay marriage, they are dealing with something legal. Civil marriage is a privilege bestowed by the state, and law can prevent it.
Hatred need not accompany such a position (though it surely could). A person could oppose gay marriag ebut also have a general sense of tolerance, and "not want to bother them if they don't bother me".
Most (all?) of us grew up with substantial homophobia. Overcoming it can be a long process, with many layers. Maybe you think you've got it settled but then yet another situation comes along you hadn't thought of before. Not so many years ago, FUSN members wrestled with their own feelings before voting to become a Welcoming Congregation. When I was young, same sex marriage was not only impossible, the concept never occurred to me, and no one else mentioned it.
When we in the liberal circles of which FUSN is a part embrace a new form of liberation, we tend to do so whole-heartedly, and then readily think of the laggarts, let alone the dissenters, as morally suspect. I think it is all too easy to forget where we were not so long ago. It is even easier not to account for the fact that others, for instance in the Bible Belt, haven't had the same exposure.
So it is on this basis of all the considerations above that I feel we can understand and engage the humanity of the Bush voters.
Like most of us [in the FUSN community], I was discouraged when I learned of the election results. Personally, I tend to immediately look for ways of accepting what I cannot change. Maybe others who feel the anger for a while are taking a healthier path. The need to switch from early-evening good news -- enough to lead to celebration -- to the bad news of the darker hours made the feelings more intense. But we could remember that before the election started, Bush was leading by a little in most polls. That portion of the anger arising from the need to change course should pass without needing much explanation.
First, the big picture. We would have continued to be mortal in either case. Acts of hatred and selfishness are all about us. People everywhere love their children, and acts of kindness abound. There is unspeakable beauty and unspeakable horror throughout the world. A Kerry victory would not have changed those things.
Third-world poverty and environmental destruction continue unabated. War follows war, wreaking destruction in so many corners of the globe. Oppressed groups remain oppressed. A Kerry victory would have changed these things only, perhaps, as the first step with which a journey of a thousand miles begins.
If Kerry had beaten Bush by a margin of 51% to 48%, instead of losing by 48% to 51%, few of us would be searching our souls -- the Bush supporters would be. Maybe it's better to think of our soul-searching as something that should have happened anyway, with the election result only the nudge we needed. Zooming in some from the wide-angle view, a large question for many of us is: Who are the Bush voters, and how can we relate to them? There are always Republicans, but rarely are the differences as apparent as they were in this election. What voter could come to a different conclusion when we ourselves had no end of reasons to feel that Bush was so clearly the worse choice?
We can distinguish our feelings towards the leadership of the Bush campaign and ordinary voters. Whatever vile thoughts we can have about the Republican leadership, it's a less profound issue. Leaders are rarely virtuous in any simple way, and the Kerry campaign was run with its own share of less than complete candor and misleading statements.Those who gave Bush their vote did so out of a mix of two things: being misinformed, and having different values.
We can fault people for not taking the initiative to find out how the world actually works, for instance that the Iraq invasion made the US less safe from terrorism. But I doubt we can say that Kerry voters are much better informed. Many voters in both camps don't thoroughly investigate the factual situation or think too deeply about issues. They largely just vote the way their friends do. We can also rail against corporate (and mostly right-wing) control of the media and the resulting biased news. This is a grave and justified concern, but it's hard to blame the Bush voters for not understanding that. We could also lay at its feet why the Democratic positions are as conservative as they are.
It's also wrong to think of all 51% of Bush voters as being ardent supporters. Most disagree with him on some issue or other. I suspect a fair number disagree on a great many issues, and maybe some they feel strongly about. Their choice may have been an agonizing one, requiring them to hold their noses. Those of us who voted for Weld over Silber for governor in 1990 might remember how that felt.
But having tried my best to peel this onion, I'm getting down to the hard part, the values. How do we make sense of the conservative Christian mindset? I don't think it's so hard. We UUs speak a lot about the positive aspects of our exploration and uncertainty, as well we should, but I think for most of us there is at times a fair measure of profound unease and loneliness that comes with our freedom. Wouldn't it be nice to just know our place on this earth and what it all means? The Bible has the answers. The theory of evolution denies the need for a God, so it must be wrong. Atheists must be devoid of human decency, which comes only from belief in God. More broadly, the Bible aside, tolerance undercuts a sense of certainty about one's own life. If other views and choices are OK, how do I know mine are right? Homosexuality is seen as bad because it is different, but it has good company with other forms of deviance, including social drinking and sex before marriage.
So finally we come to the issue of gay marriage. I have an image of many thousands of people who feel the world at large is not their concern, that others know best, that some things are going OK, and others are going poorly but nothing can be done about it. But such people hear about gay marriage and say simply "This is wrong". They become voters, at least this once. They may well not be conservative Christians, but just have this gut sense of how the world should work.
Many people who may have anti-gay feelings could be motivated to vote on this issue because the vote actually does something concrete. The nonvoters may understand there isn't so much they can do about homosexuality for the most part. In a reasonably free society people can act pretty much as they want, and even if they favor a restriction, say, on gays teaching in schools, it may not do much, since as they know many gays are in the closet. But in the one instance of gay marriage, they are dealing with something legal. Civil marriage is a privilege bestowed by the state, and law can prevent it.
Hatred need not accompany such a position (though it surely could). A person could oppose gay marriag ebut also have a general sense of tolerance, and "not want to bother them if they don't bother me".
Most (all?) of us grew up with substantial homophobia. Overcoming it can be a long process, with many layers. Maybe you think you've got it settled but then yet another situation comes along you hadn't thought of before. Not so many years ago, FUSN members wrestled with their own feelings before voting to become a Welcoming Congregation. When I was young, same sex marriage was not only impossible, the concept never occurred to me, and no one else mentioned it.
When we in the liberal circles of which FUSN is a part embrace a new form of liberation, we tend to do so whole-heartedly, and then readily think of the laggarts, let alone the dissenters, as morally suspect. I think it is all too easy to forget where we were not so long ago. It is even easier not to account for the fact that others, for instance in the Bible Belt, haven't had the same exposure.
So it is on this basis of all the considerations above that I feel we can understand and engage the humanity of the Bush voters.
Taxes considered
THIS WAS WRITTEN A LONG TIME AGO, IN OCTOBER OF 2003.
I've been thinking about tax policy for a while, so [an email to the church listserv] nudged me to first reply specifically, then share some more general thoughts on taxes
[A long list of taxes..., followed by commentary]: "Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and Mom could stay home to raise the kids. What the hell happened?"
So, things were great 100 years ago and things have gone to hell since. It's probably not meant to be taken completely seriously, a bit of an exaggeration most would agree (?), but the basic assumptions are still there. Taxes are too high, they're ridiculous, and government can't do anything right. So, playing the straight man:
Life for an average urban dweller was incomparably more miserable a hundred years ago than today. If mom stayed home with the kids, she never stopped working all day, her husband was out at the factory 12 hours a day six days a week -- and half of their kids died from disease. Whatever policies you don't like today, arguing that day-to-day life was better for ordinary working people 100 years ago won't get you anywhere. (Farm life is a complex case, but people didn't leave farms because of tax policies). The actual assertion here is that there are too many different kinds of taxes. That's true. It would be fairer and simpler to get rid of many of these taxes. But many are based on the politically popular idea that people who use a service should pay for it; I think it's the people and not the inept politicians who have led us there. Gasoline taxes pay for roads, for instance. Others exist not primarily to raise revenue but to encourage certain behaviors. There is a heavy tax on liquor and cigarettes because society wants to discourage people from using them. (Maybe bridge tolls discourage people from cruising back and forth over the George Washington bridge all day looking at the view? :-)) Others simply enforce rules. You may hate that ticket you got for the expired meter, but if you think one little step ahead, does anyone want to place odds on finding parking in a retail district if commuters or residents hog the spots all day? As for court fines, they enforce laws (I am sure there were court fines 100 years ago). If you don't like the concept, it seems you must prefer anarchy -- or whippings or amputations. Even imprisonment for parking violations or, say, failure to carry implements to remove dog feces would be unpopular.
But what about the more common complaint that taxes are too high? I think taxes are great. They're wonderful. We need taxes. Nowadays, we need more tax revenue, not less. Everybody with me so far? :-) Of course everybody hates taxes. Why not keep the money for yourself?Thinking one tiny step ahead, taxes pay for things. They pay for government services. Sure, there's corruption and inefficiency in government, but compared to other places and other times in history, it is very low. It is certainly comparable to corruption and inefficiency levels in large corporations. This is not rocket science, but somehow it doesn't make the evening news much. If you want the latest health care available to everyone in society, someone has to pay for it. If you want a huge military whose best use is to allow us to get into quagmires like Iraq (I certainly don't), someone has to pay for it. But government can work pretty well.
Taxes need to be progressive -- much more progressive than they are today. I don't understand how anyone can swallow Bush's offhand "argument" that we don't want class warfare, implying that taxing the rich (more heavily) is somehow class warfare.
I found this article on the web. It certainly explores tax issues in depth and appears to be taking a balanced view. http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Basics/Tax/History.html
What I really like in this article is Figure 6. I knew there had to be a Figure 6 in the world somewhere, and I'm glad to have found it. What Figure 6 tells you is that there is a big difference between how income taxes were divided up in the period from 1944 through 1980 on the one hand, and the period since 1986 on the other. In the 1944-80 period -- a period which was generally marked by great prosperity in this country -- taxes were very progressive. The more you earned, the greater percentage of what you earned was owed in taxes. Today, as then, if you earn $25,000 and get a $1000 bonus, you pay something like 33% of that in tax. Today, if you earn $1,000,000 and get a $1000 bonus, you pay the same 33%, but back then youpaid at least 70%. Whether that's fair or not (I will argue its fairness below), our society was prosperous. The idea that raising taxes on the rich will somehow ruin the economy is just a self-serving lie by the rich. Returning to the tax structure of 1980 would raise a great deal of revenue which could be used for various good purposes: reducing taxes on low-income earners, providing that prescription drug benefit for the elderly, and reducing the deficit, to restrict myself to current mainstream ideas. (There are countless complications and details, but I think that change in the 1980s is the really big news.)
Moving back from the current political picture, I argue that progressive taxation is a good idea.
Pure free-market capitalism, if left completely unfettered, is all about dollars being the basic unit of power. Through investment, dollars make more dollars, and if you own those dollars, you can become fabulously wealthy and wield enormous power. If you can do useful work, and trade your work for dollars, you can live. If you have no dollars and cannot earn any, you have no place in the system, which is perfectly content to let you die. (The Irish potato famine of 1847 was close to this, since throughout the period of mass starvation, the landowners of Ireland were exporting grain for a profit). Moving away from pure capitalism, there is always a need for order, as in an army and a court system. The army serves to keep starving poor people from upsetting the system. Family loyalty and charities can also help avoid starvation. Moving another step away, taxes may be used to provide services people want, but also including for example poorhouses. At the other extreme is the idea that all wealth and income should be divided equally among everyone, regardless of how much they work. Most of us think this is not fair, since hard work deserves to be rewarded. It has most certainly proven to be a disaster in practical terms, since societies that come anywhere near this system fail because there is not enough incentive to work (the USSR comes to mind).
What seems evident to me is that each person is a mixture of things they can control, such as their willingness to work hard; and traits they cannot control, such as genetic endowment, family structure and early experiences, education, prejudice, accidents and illness, which can dramatically influence one's ability to work in a way that society values. Since we cannot tell for each individual how to separate these controllable and uncontrollable factors, the best society can do is to let people have things/money/care partly based on how much they contribute effectively to our economy to make money -- what they earn. But it also must be based partly on their status as human beings -- which is roughly that part of tax revenue that goes to support those who cannot (or do not) earn. This includes not only the dreaded "welfare" but social security, medicaid and medicare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance.
The rule in life in general is that people pay for the services they receive. The same carries over to government programs like social security and unemployment insurance, at least in terms of how people think about it. But when we are dealing with those struggling to get by, they can't afford to pay for what they receive. As people go up the scale in income, they need less and less of it to get by. This is the idea behind the progressive income tax. The rich are always allowed to keep a significant proportion of their excess income ("excess" in the sense of being more than other people earn). I don't think fair-minded people feel rich people have done something wrong and deserve high taxes --it's just that the money has to come from somewhere, and the richer you are, the more you can afford to part with.
A basic argument of the anti-tax position is "I earned the money, therefore I deserve it and it's mine." The assumption is that whatever you were able to trade your labor for in the marketplace is in some fundamental God-given sense what you deserve. Aside from ignoring the significant factors in earning potential that people have no control over, and ignoring luck (did you pick the right stock?), and ignoring unethical practices (did your grandfather swindle someone?), it assumes the present system is the only way things could be (or should be). You may be successful because you were born with the skills tha tare valued in today's economy. Intellectual gifts and the power of persuasion are good examples. In other times and places, an ability to do strenuous manual agricultural labor in cold conditions may have been what brought you success. (In most times, no skill is required at all for great success if you are born into a powerful family with connections.) Is intellectual prowess inherently worth more than physical endurance? I say it's not; it's a function of the society and economy of which you are a part. Rich people are not islands unto themselves; they benefit from and are part of an entire system. So it is fair if they pay more to keep that system running.
There is a natural tendency for people to take a position which benefits them. Rich people are likely to find rationalizations for why they should pay as little as possible in taxes. What I find more perplexing and sad is how many poorer people and working people also accept that their income reflects a divine decree on what they deserve. Of course, in balance to this side of the argument, it is just as important that people who through whatever means (work, skill, luck) can make money should be richly rewarded for it and allowed to keep large portions of it -- just not all of it.
I've been thinking about tax policy for a while, so [an email to the church listserv] nudged me to first reply specifically, then share some more general thoughts on taxes
[A long list of taxes..., followed by commentary]: "Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and Mom could stay home to raise the kids. What the hell happened?"
So, things were great 100 years ago and things have gone to hell since. It's probably not meant to be taken completely seriously, a bit of an exaggeration most would agree (?), but the basic assumptions are still there. Taxes are too high, they're ridiculous, and government can't do anything right. So, playing the straight man:
Life for an average urban dweller was incomparably more miserable a hundred years ago than today. If mom stayed home with the kids, she never stopped working all day, her husband was out at the factory 12 hours a day six days a week -- and half of their kids died from disease. Whatever policies you don't like today, arguing that day-to-day life was better for ordinary working people 100 years ago won't get you anywhere. (Farm life is a complex case, but people didn't leave farms because of tax policies). The actual assertion here is that there are too many different kinds of taxes. That's true. It would be fairer and simpler to get rid of many of these taxes. But many are based on the politically popular idea that people who use a service should pay for it; I think it's the people and not the inept politicians who have led us there. Gasoline taxes pay for roads, for instance. Others exist not primarily to raise revenue but to encourage certain behaviors. There is a heavy tax on liquor and cigarettes because society wants to discourage people from using them. (Maybe bridge tolls discourage people from cruising back and forth over the George Washington bridge all day looking at the view? :-)) Others simply enforce rules. You may hate that ticket you got for the expired meter, but if you think one little step ahead, does anyone want to place odds on finding parking in a retail district if commuters or residents hog the spots all day? As for court fines, they enforce laws (I am sure there were court fines 100 years ago). If you don't like the concept, it seems you must prefer anarchy -- or whippings or amputations. Even imprisonment for parking violations or, say, failure to carry implements to remove dog feces would be unpopular.
But what about the more common complaint that taxes are too high? I think taxes are great. They're wonderful. We need taxes. Nowadays, we need more tax revenue, not less. Everybody with me so far? :-) Of course everybody hates taxes. Why not keep the money for yourself?Thinking one tiny step ahead, taxes pay for things. They pay for government services. Sure, there's corruption and inefficiency in government, but compared to other places and other times in history, it is very low. It is certainly comparable to corruption and inefficiency levels in large corporations. This is not rocket science, but somehow it doesn't make the evening news much. If you want the latest health care available to everyone in society, someone has to pay for it. If you want a huge military whose best use is to allow us to get into quagmires like Iraq (I certainly don't), someone has to pay for it. But government can work pretty well.
Taxes need to be progressive -- much more progressive than they are today. I don't understand how anyone can swallow Bush's offhand "argument" that we don't want class warfare, implying that taxing the rich (more heavily) is somehow class warfare.
I found this article on the web. It certainly explores tax issues in depth and appears to be taking a balanced view. http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Basics/Tax/History.html
What I really like in this article is Figure 6. I knew there had to be a Figure 6 in the world somewhere, and I'm glad to have found it. What Figure 6 tells you is that there is a big difference between how income taxes were divided up in the period from 1944 through 1980 on the one hand, and the period since 1986 on the other. In the 1944-80 period -- a period which was generally marked by great prosperity in this country -- taxes were very progressive. The more you earned, the greater percentage of what you earned was owed in taxes. Today, as then, if you earn $25,000 and get a $1000 bonus, you pay something like 33% of that in tax. Today, if you earn $1,000,000 and get a $1000 bonus, you pay the same 33%, but back then youpaid at least 70%. Whether that's fair or not (I will argue its fairness below), our society was prosperous. The idea that raising taxes on the rich will somehow ruin the economy is just a self-serving lie by the rich. Returning to the tax structure of 1980 would raise a great deal of revenue which could be used for various good purposes: reducing taxes on low-income earners, providing that prescription drug benefit for the elderly, and reducing the deficit, to restrict myself to current mainstream ideas. (There are countless complications and details, but I think that change in the 1980s is the really big news.)
Moving back from the current political picture, I argue that progressive taxation is a good idea.
Pure free-market capitalism, if left completely unfettered, is all about dollars being the basic unit of power. Through investment, dollars make more dollars, and if you own those dollars, you can become fabulously wealthy and wield enormous power. If you can do useful work, and trade your work for dollars, you can live. If you have no dollars and cannot earn any, you have no place in the system, which is perfectly content to let you die. (The Irish potato famine of 1847 was close to this, since throughout the period of mass starvation, the landowners of Ireland were exporting grain for a profit). Moving away from pure capitalism, there is always a need for order, as in an army and a court system. The army serves to keep starving poor people from upsetting the system. Family loyalty and charities can also help avoid starvation. Moving another step away, taxes may be used to provide services people want, but also including for example poorhouses. At the other extreme is the idea that all wealth and income should be divided equally among everyone, regardless of how much they work. Most of us think this is not fair, since hard work deserves to be rewarded. It has most certainly proven to be a disaster in practical terms, since societies that come anywhere near this system fail because there is not enough incentive to work (the USSR comes to mind).
What seems evident to me is that each person is a mixture of things they can control, such as their willingness to work hard; and traits they cannot control, such as genetic endowment, family structure and early experiences, education, prejudice, accidents and illness, which can dramatically influence one's ability to work in a way that society values. Since we cannot tell for each individual how to separate these controllable and uncontrollable factors, the best society can do is to let people have things/money/care partly based on how much they contribute effectively to our economy to make money -- what they earn. But it also must be based partly on their status as human beings -- which is roughly that part of tax revenue that goes to support those who cannot (or do not) earn. This includes not only the dreaded "welfare" but social security, medicaid and medicare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance.
The rule in life in general is that people pay for the services they receive. The same carries over to government programs like social security and unemployment insurance, at least in terms of how people think about it. But when we are dealing with those struggling to get by, they can't afford to pay for what they receive. As people go up the scale in income, they need less and less of it to get by. This is the idea behind the progressive income tax. The rich are always allowed to keep a significant proportion of their excess income ("excess" in the sense of being more than other people earn). I don't think fair-minded people feel rich people have done something wrong and deserve high taxes --it's just that the money has to come from somewhere, and the richer you are, the more you can afford to part with.
A basic argument of the anti-tax position is "I earned the money, therefore I deserve it and it's mine." The assumption is that whatever you were able to trade your labor for in the marketplace is in some fundamental God-given sense what you deserve. Aside from ignoring the significant factors in earning potential that people have no control over, and ignoring luck (did you pick the right stock?), and ignoring unethical practices (did your grandfather swindle someone?), it assumes the present system is the only way things could be (or should be). You may be successful because you were born with the skills tha tare valued in today's economy. Intellectual gifts and the power of persuasion are good examples. In other times and places, an ability to do strenuous manual agricultural labor in cold conditions may have been what brought you success. (In most times, no skill is required at all for great success if you are born into a powerful family with connections.) Is intellectual prowess inherently worth more than physical endurance? I say it's not; it's a function of the society and economy of which you are a part. Rich people are not islands unto themselves; they benefit from and are part of an entire system. So it is fair if they pay more to keep that system running.
There is a natural tendency for people to take a position which benefits them. Rich people are likely to find rationalizations for why they should pay as little as possible in taxes. What I find more perplexing and sad is how many poorer people and working people also accept that their income reflects a divine decree on what they deserve. Of course, in balance to this side of the argument, it is just as important that people who through whatever means (work, skill, luck) can make money should be richly rewarded for it and allowed to keep large portions of it -- just not all of it.
Seemly humor to lift one's spirits
THIS WAS WRITTEN A LONG TIME AGO, IN JUNE OF 2003.
It seems to me that for progressives, there's been mostly bad news these past couple years. Anyone else get that impression? (The new province we have added to our glorious US empire doesn't seem to take the yoke so easily.) There are hopeful signs, but mostly peeking through cracks. So I figure it's time to pull out one of my favorite writings and hope you too can find some solace in it (those who think the world is great are also permitted to enjoy it).
"How I Met My Wife", by Jack Winter, The New Yorker, 25 July 1994
It had been a rough day, so when I walked into the party I was very chalant, despite my efforts to appear gruntled and consolate.
I was furling my wieldy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way.
I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I'd have to make bones about it since I was traveling cognito. Beknownst to me, the hostess, whom I could see both hide and hair of, was very proper, so it would be skin off my nose if anything bad happened. And even though I had only swerving loyalty to her, my manners couldn't be peccable. Only toward and heard-of behavior would do.
Fortunately, the embarrassment that my maculate appearance might cause was evitable. There were two ways about it, but the chances that someone as flappable as I would be ept enough to become persona grata or a sung hero were slim. I was, after all, something to sneeze at, someone you could easily hold a candle to, someone who usually aroused bridled passion.
So I decided not to risk it. But then, all at once, for some apparent reason, she looked in my direction and smiled in a way that I could make heads or tails of.
I was plussed. It was concerting to see that she was communicado,and it nerved me that she was interested in a pareil like me, sight seen. Normally, I had a domitable spirit, but, being corrigible, I felt capacitated--as if this were something I was great shakes at--and forgot that I had succeeded in situations like this only a told number of times. So, after a terminable delay, I acted with mitigated gall and made my way through the ruly crowd with strong givings.
Nevertheless, since this was all new hat to me and I had no time to prepare a promptu speech, I was petuous. Wanting to make only called-for remarks, I started talking about the hors d'oeuvres, trying to abuse her of the notion that I was sipid, and perhaps even bunk a few myths about myself.
She responded well, and I was mayed that she considered me a savory character who was up to some good. She told me who she was. "What a perfect nomer," I said, advertently. The conversation become more and more choate, and we spoke at length to much avail. But I was defatigable, so I had to leave at a godly hour. I asked if she wanted to come with me. To my delight, she was committal. We left the party together and have been together ever since. I have given her my love, and she has requited it.
It seems to me that for progressives, there's been mostly bad news these past couple years. Anyone else get that impression? (The new province we have added to our glorious US empire doesn't seem to take the yoke so easily.) There are hopeful signs, but mostly peeking through cracks. So I figure it's time to pull out one of my favorite writings and hope you too can find some solace in it (those who think the world is great are also permitted to enjoy it).
"How I Met My Wife", by Jack Winter, The New Yorker, 25 July 1994
It had been a rough day, so when I walked into the party I was very chalant, despite my efforts to appear gruntled and consolate.
I was furling my wieldy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way.
I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I'd have to make bones about it since I was traveling cognito. Beknownst to me, the hostess, whom I could see both hide and hair of, was very proper, so it would be skin off my nose if anything bad happened. And even though I had only swerving loyalty to her, my manners couldn't be peccable. Only toward and heard-of behavior would do.
Fortunately, the embarrassment that my maculate appearance might cause was evitable. There were two ways about it, but the chances that someone as flappable as I would be ept enough to become persona grata or a sung hero were slim. I was, after all, something to sneeze at, someone you could easily hold a candle to, someone who usually aroused bridled passion.
So I decided not to risk it. But then, all at once, for some apparent reason, she looked in my direction and smiled in a way that I could make heads or tails of.
I was plussed. It was concerting to see that she was communicado,and it nerved me that she was interested in a pareil like me, sight seen. Normally, I had a domitable spirit, but, being corrigible, I felt capacitated--as if this were something I was great shakes at--and forgot that I had succeeded in situations like this only a told number of times. So, after a terminable delay, I acted with mitigated gall and made my way through the ruly crowd with strong givings.
Nevertheless, since this was all new hat to me and I had no time to prepare a promptu speech, I was petuous. Wanting to make only called-for remarks, I started talking about the hors d'oeuvres, trying to abuse her of the notion that I was sipid, and perhaps even bunk a few myths about myself.
She responded well, and I was mayed that she considered me a savory character who was up to some good. She told me who she was. "What a perfect nomer," I said, advertently. The conversation become more and more choate, and we spoke at length to much avail. But I was defatigable, so I had to leave at a godly hour. I asked if she wanted to come with me. To my delight, she was committal. We left the party together and have been together ever since. I have given her my love, and she has requited it.
The merits of discretion: containment vs war
THIS WAS WRITTEN A LONG TIME AGO, FEBRUARY of 2003. I THINK I DID A DECENT JOB OF PREDICTING THE IRAQ DEBACLE.
It is my response to an email from another FUSN member "Pete". It is not a dialog, it is rather my commenting on parts of what he had written earlier.
Pete: I've noticed in the press and elsewhere articles promoting containment of Iraq as a viable and preferable alternative to war. In these articles I notice what seems to be the assumption that somehow containment will be inexpensive (relative to war) in terms of cash and lives. I think the assumption is false.
Bart: And your evidence for that is what follows in your email? The summary of my rebuttal is that you have looked at examples of containment that had costs (without adequately considering the alternatives in those cases), and that you have not looked at examples where war was chosen instead of containment to show that those cases turned out better. What you have successfully supported, I believe, is the unremarkable conclusion that containment is not free in cash or in risk. OK, on to the specifics.
Pete: The so-called "Cold" War is often presented as a successful containment ofthe USSR and China.
Bart: I wonder what theory you have as to the alternatives we had to containment of the USSR and China. You mentioned in an earlier email appeasement of Stalin at the end of WWII. Without the massive use of nuclear weapons (which we didn't have in quantity in 1946-47), I don't see how the western Allies could have liberated eastern Europe from the USSR. The USSR at the end of WWII had a huge battle-hardened army with more battlefield experience than the west did. The eastern front of WWII was the main show, with some 80% of Germany's army committed there for most of the war. The US/UK invasion and liberation of France was small potatoes in comparison. As for China, I don't think there was any remotely feasible military plan to invade and occupy that huge nation in 1949 when the Communists took over. Once again, nuclear weapons might have worked, but would you really say that communist China was so bad that we needed to engage in nuclear annihilation to prevent it? I hope not!
Pete: Perhaps we went about it wrong, but 100,000 Americans died in the "Cold"War (Vietnam and Korea), and millions of non-Americans died in proxy wars which took place mostly in the Third World (including Vietnam & Korea). The"Cold" War should really be called World War III.
Bart: You have the wrong yardstick here. You shouldn't be evaluating the deaths in the cold war relative to an ideal value of zero, but against deaths in other recent periods of history of similar length. And by that measure the Cold War was pretty good -- exceptionally good for the industrialized countries. Most of those proxy wars were bound to happen anyway, as they were local conflicts that the superpowers got involved with (though admittedly made more deadly as a result). Sometimes Third World nations could get some good things as the US and USSR competed to woo their allegiance. With no counterbalancing power to the US, such deals are not available today.
Pete: The Vietnam War was settled by our defeat, but the Korean war has never been settled and the Gulf War has not been settled. Both are cease-fires and both remain dangerous flash-points. North Korea has been a dangerous flash-point for 50 years.
Bart: Well, a dangerous flash point that flashes is called a war. If it doesn't flash (as it hasn't yet) it's not a war. How is an actual war better than a potential war? How do you think we should have solved theNorth Korea situation? A huge conventional effort, or nuclear weapons against the Chinese army? If it worked, we would have been left with a non-communist united Korea facing China across a border farther north, resulting in a different flash point. Or perhaps nuclear conquest/annihilation of China?
Pete: Iraq and North Korea, while currently contained, are active in the support of terrorism, something which certainly reduces the effectiveness of their containment.
Bart: I hate to offend anyone's sensibilities, but terrorism (as practiced so far, i.e. without nuclear explosions) is trivial compared to war. That we consider 9/11 such a big deal is due to the luxury of an America that has known no war on its soil for 130-odd years, and seems to think the lives of swarthy foreigners are worth virtually nothing. Terrorism is a battle fought more in hearts and minds than anywhere else, and while the conquest of Iraq may remove one small and tentative means of support for terrorism, the effect on hearts and minds of the world's Muslims will be far worse. If we want to keep nuclear bombs out of the hands of terrorists, we could do that directly (offer a million dollars for every ounce of fissile material we can buy covertly? :-)) much more effectively than by conquering a nation that doesn't have nuclear material but is trying to get some and (conceivably) might give it to terrorists.
Pete: Our containment of the USSR, and the way in which we outspent them and drove them to collapse, has had one of those unintended side effects: knowledge and materiel for the world's worst weapons showed up almost immediately on, so to speak, e-Bay.
Bart: I know conservatives argue that the US outspending of the USSR led to its collapse, but I believe the much stronger argument is that the collapse was inevitable and already in motion before the Reagan buildup, which served no useful purpose whatsoever and made our national debt soar. Aside from incredibly flimsy theories of nuclear "escalation dominance", there was no additional military threat that the Reagan buildup posed to the USSR.
Pete: Our support for Afghanistan in its fight against the USSR invasion culminated in the Taliban and Osama. That's an unintended consequence if Iever saw one.
Bart: Well, which side are you arguing? You generally seem to be saying that military action to resolve a situation is better than containment. So in the case of Aghanistan, we used military action (through proxies) to drive the Soviets out. And we got a very bad result. That's an argument that containment would have been better.
Pete: Based on the modern history of containment, containment of Iraq won't be cheap in lives or cash. In some of the Middle East newspapers that I read, it has been pointed out that the constant presence in the Middle East of those who have contained Iraq up to now is used as a rallying point by the same Arab regimes who sponsor terrorism and preach (from their state supported Islamic pulpits) death to America and death to Israel.
Bart: The alternative is the US occupation of all of Iraq, followed by what will be widely perceived as a puppet regime of the US. That sounds like a far more dangerous rallying point than forces limited to bases who have been invited there by the local governments. What sort of consequences do we foresee when the US army is given the task of suppressing fundamentalist Islamic movements that spring up across conquered Iraq?
Pete: Containment is not only not a silver bullet, it could be a death warrant for millions.
Bart: Could be, could be, could be. Odds favor the opposite conclusion. I'm trying to imagine the world you would like to create with our military intervention. It sounds like one where countries that oppose the US (perhaps by allowing terrorists to operate from their soil) must be conquered by military force. That sounds like a world-wide American empire to me. Such an empire engenders hostility and resentment, leading to large expenditures for suppression of rebellion, and ultimately the impoverishment of the empire. Most of us on moral grounds also prefer self-determination to conquest.
It is my response to an email from another FUSN member "Pete". It is not a dialog, it is rather my commenting on parts of what he had written earlier.
Pete: I've noticed in the press and elsewhere articles promoting containment of Iraq as a viable and preferable alternative to war. In these articles I notice what seems to be the assumption that somehow containment will be inexpensive (relative to war) in terms of cash and lives. I think the assumption is false.
Bart: And your evidence for that is what follows in your email? The summary of my rebuttal is that you have looked at examples of containment that had costs (without adequately considering the alternatives in those cases), and that you have not looked at examples where war was chosen instead of containment to show that those cases turned out better. What you have successfully supported, I believe, is the unremarkable conclusion that containment is not free in cash or in risk. OK, on to the specifics.
Pete: The so-called "Cold" War is often presented as a successful containment ofthe USSR and China.
Bart: I wonder what theory you have as to the alternatives we had to containment of the USSR and China. You mentioned in an earlier email appeasement of Stalin at the end of WWII. Without the massive use of nuclear weapons (which we didn't have in quantity in 1946-47), I don't see how the western Allies could have liberated eastern Europe from the USSR. The USSR at the end of WWII had a huge battle-hardened army with more battlefield experience than the west did. The eastern front of WWII was the main show, with some 80% of Germany's army committed there for most of the war. The US/UK invasion and liberation of France was small potatoes in comparison. As for China, I don't think there was any remotely feasible military plan to invade and occupy that huge nation in 1949 when the Communists took over. Once again, nuclear weapons might have worked, but would you really say that communist China was so bad that we needed to engage in nuclear annihilation to prevent it? I hope not!
Pete: Perhaps we went about it wrong, but 100,000 Americans died in the "Cold"War (Vietnam and Korea), and millions of non-Americans died in proxy wars which took place mostly in the Third World (including Vietnam & Korea). The"Cold" War should really be called World War III.
Bart: You have the wrong yardstick here. You shouldn't be evaluating the deaths in the cold war relative to an ideal value of zero, but against deaths in other recent periods of history of similar length. And by that measure the Cold War was pretty good -- exceptionally good for the industrialized countries. Most of those proxy wars were bound to happen anyway, as they were local conflicts that the superpowers got involved with (though admittedly made more deadly as a result). Sometimes Third World nations could get some good things as the US and USSR competed to woo their allegiance. With no counterbalancing power to the US, such deals are not available today.
Pete: The Vietnam War was settled by our defeat, but the Korean war has never been settled and the Gulf War has not been settled. Both are cease-fires and both remain dangerous flash-points. North Korea has been a dangerous flash-point for 50 years.
Bart: Well, a dangerous flash point that flashes is called a war. If it doesn't flash (as it hasn't yet) it's not a war. How is an actual war better than a potential war? How do you think we should have solved theNorth Korea situation? A huge conventional effort, or nuclear weapons against the Chinese army? If it worked, we would have been left with a non-communist united Korea facing China across a border farther north, resulting in a different flash point. Or perhaps nuclear conquest/annihilation of China?
Pete: Iraq and North Korea, while currently contained, are active in the support of terrorism, something which certainly reduces the effectiveness of their containment.
Bart: I hate to offend anyone's sensibilities, but terrorism (as practiced so far, i.e. without nuclear explosions) is trivial compared to war. That we consider 9/11 such a big deal is due to the luxury of an America that has known no war on its soil for 130-odd years, and seems to think the lives of swarthy foreigners are worth virtually nothing. Terrorism is a battle fought more in hearts and minds than anywhere else, and while the conquest of Iraq may remove one small and tentative means of support for terrorism, the effect on hearts and minds of the world's Muslims will be far worse. If we want to keep nuclear bombs out of the hands of terrorists, we could do that directly (offer a million dollars for every ounce of fissile material we can buy covertly? :-)) much more effectively than by conquering a nation that doesn't have nuclear material but is trying to get some and (conceivably) might give it to terrorists.
Pete: Our containment of the USSR, and the way in which we outspent them and drove them to collapse, has had one of those unintended side effects: knowledge and materiel for the world's worst weapons showed up almost immediately on, so to speak, e-Bay.
Bart: I know conservatives argue that the US outspending of the USSR led to its collapse, but I believe the much stronger argument is that the collapse was inevitable and already in motion before the Reagan buildup, which served no useful purpose whatsoever and made our national debt soar. Aside from incredibly flimsy theories of nuclear "escalation dominance", there was no additional military threat that the Reagan buildup posed to the USSR.
Pete: Our support for Afghanistan in its fight against the USSR invasion culminated in the Taliban and Osama. That's an unintended consequence if Iever saw one.
Bart: Well, which side are you arguing? You generally seem to be saying that military action to resolve a situation is better than containment. So in the case of Aghanistan, we used military action (through proxies) to drive the Soviets out. And we got a very bad result. That's an argument that containment would have been better.
Pete: Based on the modern history of containment, containment of Iraq won't be cheap in lives or cash. In some of the Middle East newspapers that I read, it has been pointed out that the constant presence in the Middle East of those who have contained Iraq up to now is used as a rallying point by the same Arab regimes who sponsor terrorism and preach (from their state supported Islamic pulpits) death to America and death to Israel.
Bart: The alternative is the US occupation of all of Iraq, followed by what will be widely perceived as a puppet regime of the US. That sounds like a far more dangerous rallying point than forces limited to bases who have been invited there by the local governments. What sort of consequences do we foresee when the US army is given the task of suppressing fundamentalist Islamic movements that spring up across conquered Iraq?
Pete: Containment is not only not a silver bullet, it could be a death warrant for millions.
Bart: Could be, could be, could be. Odds favor the opposite conclusion. I'm trying to imagine the world you would like to create with our military intervention. It sounds like one where countries that oppose the US (perhaps by allowing terrorists to operate from their soil) must be conquered by military force. That sounds like a world-wide American empire to me. Such an empire engenders hostility and resentment, leading to large expenditures for suppression of rebellion, and ultimately the impoverishment of the empire. Most of us on moral grounds also prefer self-determination to conquest.
Listen to the world before waging war
THIS WAS WRITTEN A LONG TIME AGO, SHORTLY BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR IN 1993
I was surprised at the [discussion after church service] yesterday to hear views on the Iraq situation that were mostly so conservative. By what standards, you may ask? The standard of Truth, I will say with tongue in cheek -- a little. By the standards of US political discourse today, they weren't so conservative ofcourse.
Lasting social change comes about one mind at a time, and I will try to stir up a little extra unrest in some minds. I will not reiterate arguments heard in the press for and against military action -- the most liberal position of which seems to be that we should disarm Iraq (a euphemism for "invade, conquer, and occupy Iraq") if we have convincing proof of weaponsof mass destruction or a program to build them.
Most of us liberals are opposed, often with some vehemence, to the policies of the current administration under George W. Bush. "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" said Lord Acton. We might be willing to apply this with scorn to Bush, another in a long list of complaints against the man. But I suggest that the corruption of power has spread silently, without reflection, to most Americans and many of us in FUSN as well.
Most of us live pretty well, even with the current economic downturn. We might prefer Democrats to Republicans, or liberal Democrats to conservative ones, but the system does pretty well by us. If not always proud, we're at least content to be Americans. In response to conservative allegations that we are not patriotic, we are generally happy to say that our wish for peace is patriotic. But in accepting that word "patriotic" I think we are silently assenting to the broad outlines of US foreign policy, if not the recent changes towards hawkishness.
The BBC this morning reports that US military spending exceeds that of the next 20 nations combined, a statistic that surprised me. How many of us, if we look deep within, cannot find a little bit of glee that our nation can whup any other nation on earth? I can. This is followed immediately by a little embarrassment, and a hurried affirmation that of course that doesn't affect my thinking about a just foreign policy at all. Sound familiar to anyone?
With this power, we have the ability to affect the outcome of various conflicts throughout the world. Terrible things are happening; might we not use our power to make them right?; do we not have a solemn obligation to do so? The US is very powerful (if not all-powerful), we as individuals are mostly good (if not all-good), so doesn't it also make sense that we're very knowledgeable (if not all-knowing) -- knowledgeable enough to decide for ourselves when force should be used? Here's a subtle hint as to my opinion: NO. If our intentions are truly good, we need to listen to the wisdom of the whole world. If we don't think world opinion matters, then we are becoming just another in history's list of empires, destined (by the corruption of power) to be hated by its subject peoples. If we cannot convince the United Nations that use of force overseas is justified, it's not justified. Even United Nations approval is suspect, given the concentration of power in the hands of powerful nations, and given the US ability to bribe or threaten others to vote our way. How many of us, joining in the debate on the use of American power, think beyond what America decides is best to an insistence on including a decision by theworld?
In insisting on a preponderance of international support for any overseas military adventure, I am assuming that military force is truly a last resort. It is tempting to see a regime doing bad things, and figure that replacing that regime will make the bad things stop. But war itself is a source of great suffering, new regimes usually do some bad things too, and the long-term goal of peoples exercising self-determination is undercut if outside force is seen as threat or savior.
A few thoughts on the specific situation at hand:
Nuclear weapons are known to be in the hands of the US, Britain, France, China, India, Israel, Russia, and Pakistan, and we live uneasily with this situation despite instability in the latter nations. The military threat of the USSR that dominated my youth, and to which no end was visible, ended not by military intervention but by a largely peaceful transformation inside the country. While Saddam Hussein threatened and invaded his neighbors before 1991, he has not done so since and will not do so again, with the US airpower lurking nearby that so thoroughly routed his forces. His pursuit of nuclear and chemical weapons since 1991 was probably intended to deter just the sort of attack he now faces. Hussein will not live forever, and eventually forces within Iraq will lead to a transformation of that society.
The example of intervening to stop the rearming of Nazi Germany in the 1930s is often brought to bear on the side of activist intervention. Such intervention would have fallen primarily to Britain and France, the two nearby powers, and could have been done with a coalition of nearby states and perhaps the US. However, no one knew in the 1930s that Nazi Germany would be so spectacularly effective on the battlefield, so the problem did not warrant sufficient attention in the politics of the time. I have heard that in the interwar years, nations wanting to improve their militaries looked to France, not Germany, as the source of wisdom. If we seek to overthrow every government that speaks of conquest outside its borders or social policies we find offensive, our guns will be very busy indeed.
I was surprised at the [discussion after church service] yesterday to hear views on the Iraq situation that were mostly so conservative. By what standards, you may ask? The standard of Truth, I will say with tongue in cheek -- a little. By the standards of US political discourse today, they weren't so conservative ofcourse.
Lasting social change comes about one mind at a time, and I will try to stir up a little extra unrest in some minds. I will not reiterate arguments heard in the press for and against military action -- the most liberal position of which seems to be that we should disarm Iraq (a euphemism for "invade, conquer, and occupy Iraq") if we have convincing proof of weaponsof mass destruction or a program to build them.
Most of us liberals are opposed, often with some vehemence, to the policies of the current administration under George W. Bush. "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" said Lord Acton. We might be willing to apply this with scorn to Bush, another in a long list of complaints against the man. But I suggest that the corruption of power has spread silently, without reflection, to most Americans and many of us in FUSN as well.
Most of us live pretty well, even with the current economic downturn. We might prefer Democrats to Republicans, or liberal Democrats to conservative ones, but the system does pretty well by us. If not always proud, we're at least content to be Americans. In response to conservative allegations that we are not patriotic, we are generally happy to say that our wish for peace is patriotic. But in accepting that word "patriotic" I think we are silently assenting to the broad outlines of US foreign policy, if not the recent changes towards hawkishness.
The BBC this morning reports that US military spending exceeds that of the next 20 nations combined, a statistic that surprised me. How many of us, if we look deep within, cannot find a little bit of glee that our nation can whup any other nation on earth? I can. This is followed immediately by a little embarrassment, and a hurried affirmation that of course that doesn't affect my thinking about a just foreign policy at all. Sound familiar to anyone?
With this power, we have the ability to affect the outcome of various conflicts throughout the world. Terrible things are happening; might we not use our power to make them right?; do we not have a solemn obligation to do so? The US is very powerful (if not all-powerful), we as individuals are mostly good (if not all-good), so doesn't it also make sense that we're very knowledgeable (if not all-knowing) -- knowledgeable enough to decide for ourselves when force should be used? Here's a subtle hint as to my opinion: NO. If our intentions are truly good, we need to listen to the wisdom of the whole world. If we don't think world opinion matters, then we are becoming just another in history's list of empires, destined (by the corruption of power) to be hated by its subject peoples. If we cannot convince the United Nations that use of force overseas is justified, it's not justified. Even United Nations approval is suspect, given the concentration of power in the hands of powerful nations, and given the US ability to bribe or threaten others to vote our way. How many of us, joining in the debate on the use of American power, think beyond what America decides is best to an insistence on including a decision by theworld?
In insisting on a preponderance of international support for any overseas military adventure, I am assuming that military force is truly a last resort. It is tempting to see a regime doing bad things, and figure that replacing that regime will make the bad things stop. But war itself is a source of great suffering, new regimes usually do some bad things too, and the long-term goal of peoples exercising self-determination is undercut if outside force is seen as threat or savior.
A few thoughts on the specific situation at hand:
Nuclear weapons are known to be in the hands of the US, Britain, France, China, India, Israel, Russia, and Pakistan, and we live uneasily with this situation despite instability in the latter nations. The military threat of the USSR that dominated my youth, and to which no end was visible, ended not by military intervention but by a largely peaceful transformation inside the country. While Saddam Hussein threatened and invaded his neighbors before 1991, he has not done so since and will not do so again, with the US airpower lurking nearby that so thoroughly routed his forces. His pursuit of nuclear and chemical weapons since 1991 was probably intended to deter just the sort of attack he now faces. Hussein will not live forever, and eventually forces within Iraq will lead to a transformation of that society.
The example of intervening to stop the rearming of Nazi Germany in the 1930s is often brought to bear on the side of activist intervention. Such intervention would have fallen primarily to Britain and France, the two nearby powers, and could have been done with a coalition of nearby states and perhaps the US. However, no one knew in the 1930s that Nazi Germany would be so spectacularly effective on the battlefield, so the problem did not warrant sufficient attention in the politics of the time. I have heard that in the interwar years, nations wanting to improve their militaries looked to France, not Germany, as the source of wisdom. If we seek to overthrow every government that speaks of conquest outside its borders or social policies we find offensive, our guns will be very busy indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)