This: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577183092873042610.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth (written by Daniel Henninger, who is about as conservative as they come).
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Lights out, this (political) party (might possibly) be over.
Here's the punchline: I boldly predict that in the 2016 presidential cycle there will be 2 viable political parties running candidates against the Democrats. That is, the Republican party, in it's current form, will no longer exist.
The rest of this post is going to essentially be a somewhat lengthy fine print footnote to that basic premise complete with reasons I think this is the case, and reasons why it might not come to fruition.
Let's start with a few assumptions for my prediction:
1. Obama gets re-elected. Who doesn't deep down believe that this is the case? Even the Wall Street Journal is conceding: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577178594236642420.html
2. The economy continues along at it's current pace. That is, unemployment stays high and housing prices stay flat all the way to 2016 and the federal debt stays a big burden.
3. Obama doesn't do anything that allows Republicans an easy way to blame the Democrats for the economic conditions (like taxing the middle class, or enacting significant anti-business legislation)
4. Gingrich stays competitive for most of the primary race.
5. There isn't any big national security issue that boils over between now and 2016.
What all of these predictions boils down to is this: as long as the central issue in a campaign centers on the economy, the Republicans are in trouble.
Three of the four remaining candidates have significant differences with regards to how to fix our current economic system. On one hand, Romney is refreshingly honest about his Gordon Gekko-esque desire to protect corporations and the affluent from additional taxation. For most of his policies, he is the near perfect personification of the 1% and shows no qualms in expressing his belief that we ought to do what we can to protect their (the affluent and corporations) interests.
On another, we have Ron Paul, who is probably the most pragmatic of the bunch in that his belief is that we must significantly reduce the federal budget in all areas (including defense) if we want to balance the budget.
Then we have Gingrich, who is somewhere between these two poles but couches his message in a very populist tone that implies that much of what Romney stands for is not in the best interest of middle class America. By the way, Santorum seems to couch most of what he says in a populist veneer, yet seems to stay close to Romney in actual policy.
In the end, Republicans simply can't agree on economic policy anymore and they are going to completely demolish each other in the primary until no one is even near strong enough to effectively campaign against Obama.
Of course it didn't used to be this way. For most candidates, if they recited the two commandments of conservative moral values (I am pro-life and I believe marriage is between a man and a woman) and they recited the two commandments of conservative economic values (no new taxes, laissez-faire capitalism), then they were a viable candidate. Furthermore, most Republican primaries weren't about candidates questioning if these commandments were true, but rather about which candidate can better enact and protect policies that would preserve these truths.
The problem now for the Republican party is that the economic issues are now severe enough that they must provide concrete solutions. When Romney provides these concrete solutions, they are right out of the Republican conservative manifesto of trickle down economics, yet sound out-of-touch and out-of-sync with the hurting American working class. On the other hand, Gingrich continues to tack away from Republican dogma as he rises in the polls, providing him with a populist message that better resonates with the middle class, but further separates him from the preferred candidate of the Republican establishment.
On November 7th, 2012, I think a lot of Republicans, both moderate and conservative, are going to wake up to another four years of an Obama presidency and recognize that they were their own worst enemy. The "big tent" of Republicanism is too big and staying together brings more problems than separating. They can no longer agree on policy and their very public feud (in the form of the primaries) made every candidate weaker.
Between now and the next presidential election, the populist wing of middle class socially conservative voters and the devout laissiz-faire capitalists will go their separate ways. One will retain the name of the Republican party (probably the capitalists) and will run a economic issues that benefit corporations while a new political party that embraces much of the Tea party ideals will run against them.
They only viable way for the Republican party to stay together is if we have a very large national security issue that forces the party to close ranks, or if we have neither a security issue nor economic troubles and conservative moral issues come to the fore to again to bridge the party's divergent populations. As long as economic issues remain important to the American voter, it will highlight the very visible divide within the Republican party and keep the party vulnerable in every election.
Let's start with a few assumptions for my prediction:
1. Obama gets re-elected. Who doesn't deep down believe that this is the case? Even the Wall Street Journal is conceding: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577178594236642420.html
2. The economy continues along at it's current pace. That is, unemployment stays high and housing prices stay flat all the way to 2016 and the federal debt stays a big burden.
3. Obama doesn't do anything that allows Republicans an easy way to blame the Democrats for the economic conditions (like taxing the middle class, or enacting significant anti-business legislation)
4. Gingrich stays competitive for most of the primary race.
5. There isn't any big national security issue that boils over between now and 2016.
What all of these predictions boils down to is this: as long as the central issue in a campaign centers on the economy, the Republicans are in trouble.
Three of the four remaining candidates have significant differences with regards to how to fix our current economic system. On one hand, Romney is refreshingly honest about his Gordon Gekko-esque desire to protect corporations and the affluent from additional taxation. For most of his policies, he is the near perfect personification of the 1% and shows no qualms in expressing his belief that we ought to do what we can to protect their (the affluent and corporations) interests.
On another, we have Ron Paul, who is probably the most pragmatic of the bunch in that his belief is that we must significantly reduce the federal budget in all areas (including defense) if we want to balance the budget.
Then we have Gingrich, who is somewhere between these two poles but couches his message in a very populist tone that implies that much of what Romney stands for is not in the best interest of middle class America. By the way, Santorum seems to couch most of what he says in a populist veneer, yet seems to stay close to Romney in actual policy.
In the end, Republicans simply can't agree on economic policy anymore and they are going to completely demolish each other in the primary until no one is even near strong enough to effectively campaign against Obama.
Of course it didn't used to be this way. For most candidates, if they recited the two commandments of conservative moral values (I am pro-life and I believe marriage is between a man and a woman) and they recited the two commandments of conservative economic values (no new taxes, laissez-faire capitalism), then they were a viable candidate. Furthermore, most Republican primaries weren't about candidates questioning if these commandments were true, but rather about which candidate can better enact and protect policies that would preserve these truths.
The problem now for the Republican party is that the economic issues are now severe enough that they must provide concrete solutions. When Romney provides these concrete solutions, they are right out of the Republican conservative manifesto of trickle down economics, yet sound out-of-touch and out-of-sync with the hurting American working class. On the other hand, Gingrich continues to tack away from Republican dogma as he rises in the polls, providing him with a populist message that better resonates with the middle class, but further separates him from the preferred candidate of the Republican establishment.
On November 7th, 2012, I think a lot of Republicans, both moderate and conservative, are going to wake up to another four years of an Obama presidency and recognize that they were their own worst enemy. The "big tent" of Republicanism is too big and staying together brings more problems than separating. They can no longer agree on policy and their very public feud (in the form of the primaries) made every candidate weaker.
Between now and the next presidential election, the populist wing of middle class socially conservative voters and the devout laissiz-faire capitalists will go their separate ways. One will retain the name of the Republican party (probably the capitalists) and will run a economic issues that benefit corporations while a new political party that embraces much of the Tea party ideals will run against them.
They only viable way for the Republican party to stay together is if we have a very large national security issue that forces the party to close ranks, or if we have neither a security issue nor economic troubles and conservative moral issues come to the fore to again to bridge the party's divergent populations. As long as economic issues remain important to the American voter, it will highlight the very visible divide within the Republican party and keep the party vulnerable in every election.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Everything is Possible
This is a bit of a companion piece to another, perhaps more depressing post, entitled “A million gods.” That post focused more on the confusion present in our post-modern existentialist society. This post will look a bit more at both the positive and negative impacts of existential belief. These two posts in some ways may appear to be irreconcilable. I don’t believe that to be the case, but I’m not yet certain that I want to spend a exhaustive amount of time discussing how these can be reconciled to each other.
Soren Kierkegaard was the first to coin the first “Existential Angst.” In his mind, angst was the fear of failing God and recognized that animals, driven by their instincts, never suffered such insecurities. Later existential philosophers would expand this idea to encompass that problem of living in a world where God provides no purpose (or does not exist) and we were free to chose our way without any constraints at all, while constantly fearing that our decisions would betray those around us or ourselves. The problem, in the mind of existentialists, is that we have a choice. With that choice comes the fear that we will choose poorly.
When Kierkegaard gave us a whole new way to worry, it was in the first half of the 1800’s. There was no internet, no international travel to speak of, fewer career options and fewer opportunities to change them. In short, angst came to Kierkegaard at a time in history where modern readers would believe that there wouldn’t be many decisions to worry about. When faced with any particular decision, our options with regards to what we “could” do in this modern world has expanded exponentially. our options as to what we “should” do remains just one.
Viktor Frankl and his contemporaries provide another expanded version of this existential freedom. Frankl was a existential psychologist who practiced in the mid 20th century. His ideas put a more positive spin on existential freedom in that he believed that existentialism provided us with the freedom to always be able to change our situation. As beings who can shape our own existence and create our own meaning, existentialism tells us that we always have a way to change our current state. Frankl would go so far to argue that even if we can not change our physical state and even if our physical lives are defined for us, we still have the freedom to change how we mentally respond to the situation before us. Lest one think that Frankl’s philosophy is awash in useless positivism, note that he came upon his belief honestly and through tragic experience as he was a jew living in Germany in the 1940’s and subject to the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps including the deaths of his wife and parents.
In the end, existentialism tells us that as humans, have incredible freedom. No matter how you choose to define how “free” we are, we have an incredible ability to shape our existence. This belief in exceptional free will leads to two important points:
First, we are for the most part, paralyzed by freedom. With great freedom comes great responsibility and this is responsibility that we would rather avoid. In our modern minds it is generally better to do nothing, than to choose to do something and fail. I believe that the near whole of the late 20th and early 21st century is a chronicle of how we are studiously avoiding making decisions and are decisively becoming indecisive so that we can avoid existential angst altoghether. We have crafted for ourselves boring lives because boredom demands nothing from us. From this boredom springs the need for entertainment, and with entertainment we can avoid the thorny questions of why we are avoiding decisions in the first place. In modern society we fill every moment with noise. As an adult living in America in the 21st century everything is available to us, but the one thing that we do not avail ourselves of is silence, why is that?
Soren Kierkegaard was the first to coin the first “Existential Angst.” In his mind, angst was the fear of failing God and recognized that animals, driven by their instincts, never suffered such insecurities. Later existential philosophers would expand this idea to encompass that problem of living in a world where God provides no purpose (or does not exist) and we were free to chose our way without any constraints at all, while constantly fearing that our decisions would betray those around us or ourselves. The problem, in the mind of existentialists, is that we have a choice. With that choice comes the fear that we will choose poorly.
When Kierkegaard gave us a whole new way to worry, it was in the first half of the 1800’s. There was no internet, no international travel to speak of, fewer career options and fewer opportunities to change them. In short, angst came to Kierkegaard at a time in history where modern readers would believe that there wouldn’t be many decisions to worry about. When faced with any particular decision, our options with regards to what we “could” do in this modern world has expanded exponentially. our options as to what we “should” do remains just one.
Viktor Frankl and his contemporaries provide another expanded version of this existential freedom. Frankl was a existential psychologist who practiced in the mid 20th century. His ideas put a more positive spin on existential freedom in that he believed that existentialism provided us with the freedom to always be able to change our situation. As beings who can shape our own existence and create our own meaning, existentialism tells us that we always have a way to change our current state. Frankl would go so far to argue that even if we can not change our physical state and even if our physical lives are defined for us, we still have the freedom to change how we mentally respond to the situation before us. Lest one think that Frankl’s philosophy is awash in useless positivism, note that he came upon his belief honestly and through tragic experience as he was a jew living in Germany in the 1940’s and subject to the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps including the deaths of his wife and parents.
In the end, existentialism tells us that as humans, have incredible freedom. No matter how you choose to define how “free” we are, we have an incredible ability to shape our existence. This belief in exceptional free will leads to two important points:
First, we are for the most part, paralyzed by freedom. With great freedom comes great responsibility and this is responsibility that we would rather avoid. In our modern minds it is generally better to do nothing, than to choose to do something and fail. I believe that the near whole of the late 20th and early 21st century is a chronicle of how we are studiously avoiding making decisions and are decisively becoming indecisive so that we can avoid existential angst altoghether. We have crafted for ourselves boring lives because boredom demands nothing from us. From this boredom springs the need for entertainment, and with entertainment we can avoid the thorny questions of why we are avoiding decisions in the first place. In modern society we fill every moment with noise. As an adult living in America in the 21st century everything is available to us, but the one thing that we do not avail ourselves of is silence, why is that?
Addressing this same issue with a different Socratic question leads me to ask: If we, as American citizens, have more more money, more free time, more mobility and more freedom of thought than any other citizenry in the history of the world; then why do we use this power to watch TV, watch movies and surf the internet?
The second concept that existentialism provides us is the idea that everything is possible. Perhaps it is better to say this is that in every situation that we find ourselves in, change is possible. In situations such as Frankl’s, it may not be a physical change, but as thinking, contemplative beings, we will always have the ability to change how we respond to the situation that we are in.
Take these two things together and we find that it is perfectly normal and understandable that we find ourselves paralyzed by fear and encounter exceptional anxiety when confronted with choice. At the same time, the ability to change is always available to us and we can make good use of the opportunity.
As one who generally embraces existentialism, I believe that I have very little right to complain about my situation or believe myself to be a victim. My situation may be caused by forces outside of my control but I, at all times in all situations, have the ability to change the situation, or at the very least, my internal response to it. Complaining about my life will always point the finger back at myself. Moping about my situation tells me that I am too timid, scared or afraid to choose a different path and accept the consequences of my actions.
In modern society, I believe that we have “solved” the problem of existential angst by purposefully and intentionally avoiding situations that require choice. This might not be the wisest way in which to order our lives as not choosing is still a choice, but perhaps one that isn't quite so uncomfortable as choosing to embrace the freedom that we as humans are afforded in every situation. Perhaps all of existentialism boils down to this: change is hard, but possible.
The second concept that existentialism provides us is the idea that everything is possible. Perhaps it is better to say this is that in every situation that we find ourselves in, change is possible. In situations such as Frankl’s, it may not be a physical change, but as thinking, contemplative beings, we will always have the ability to change how we respond to the situation that we are in.
Take these two things together and we find that it is perfectly normal and understandable that we find ourselves paralyzed by fear and encounter exceptional anxiety when confronted with choice. At the same time, the ability to change is always available to us and we can make good use of the opportunity.
As one who generally embraces existentialism, I believe that I have very little right to complain about my situation or believe myself to be a victim. My situation may be caused by forces outside of my control but I, at all times in all situations, have the ability to change the situation, or at the very least, my internal response to it. Complaining about my life will always point the finger back at myself. Moping about my situation tells me that I am too timid, scared or afraid to choose a different path and accept the consequences of my actions.
In modern society, I believe that we have “solved” the problem of existential angst by purposefully and intentionally avoiding situations that require choice. This might not be the wisest way in which to order our lives as not choosing is still a choice, but perhaps one that isn't quite so uncomfortable as choosing to embrace the freedom that we as humans are afforded in every situation. Perhaps all of existentialism boils down to this: change is hard, but possible.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
A Million Gods
Our postmodern society is slowly becoming detached from the the Judeo-Christian ethic that has driven western society for it's entire existence. This common culture, this common ethic, was useful for us in that we had an agreed upon ethical language that we could appeal to in creating our laws and resolving personal disputes.
We have an innate belief that we ought to treat others as we would like to be treated and this belief (and many others) came to us through our Judeo-Christian heritage. If we reject the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then we have taken away the anchor for the laws and mores of our western society. We are in a society that is beginning to discard the idea that there are any universal truths, but we act as if it is not so in our day-to-day lives. We state in the vein of being politically correct or being multicultural that "what is true for me, might not be necessarily true for you," yet we will most certainly balk if someone steals our car or hurts those that we love.
Thinking about these things reminds me of a boat that loses it's mooring. When the mooring is first lost, the boat will still hang around the same point for a while, acting as if it were still fixed in place. It will float for a time as if it were still connected to a fixed point, until the waves finally carry it away into the unknown and you realize, after the fact, that the connectedness was lost.
It seems to me that western society is that recently unmoored boat. We are no longer connected to a common ethic but we haven't quite acted upon this, nor have we realized all of the repercussions of this freedom. We are still hanging around the mooring even though we have, as Sartre states, "terrible freedom" to choose our path outside of the constraints of western morality.
If society, as a whole, rejects the idea that morality has been passed down to us by God or some other supernatural force, then we are obligated to create our own path. This makes me wonder what happens to society when every person in it is trying to create their own path, with no universal beliefs to guide the way? There is no "right" that we can point to and no "ought." In short, there is not "higher, better self" to appeal to, because that "higher, better self" is undefined. Or rather, it is defined by how each of us want to define it, with no common code to go by.
This is, or will be, a problem for society. I believe that most obey the laws of their country because they believe that that law is founded within a greater, universal truth. But, if we take away that universal truth, then we are stuck with obeying that law merely for the fact that it is the law that governs our place, not that the law has any higher authority to appeal to. In this instance, it becomes prudent to obey the law when it is beneficial to self, and disobey it when it is not. It is for this reason that so many are currently upset with Wall Street as they have only obeyed a moral code when it was expedient and profitable.
If a law that is not anchored to a common morality is disobeyed, who are we to call the trespasser out on it? We cannot shame them, for what is shame when they are following their passions, which may not be in any way similar to our own? If they tell me that they will follow the rules of the land, and then disobey these same laws when it is convenient, who am I to judge them? This stating that they will obey and then not obeying in action may be their personal ethic. I might not like it, but I have no higher judge to appeal to.
I have not idea how our post-modern world will work itself out in the face of this vacuum. Everything is open to each of us, but a shared ethic is open to none of us. In addition, the freedom that I create for myself will almost certainly conflict with the freedom that you create for you and I have no idea how we can find common ground to resolve our disputes as that common ground (the Judeo-Christian ethic) is what we destroyed to arrive at this point in the first place. When there is no God, but in it's place millions upon millions of gods, which god gets to be the decider, the deliverer of universal constraints? Who upon equals has that authority?
I don't know where society goes in the face of all of this. I don't know how we function. I don't know how this will work itself out, but I am deeply curious as to how we will try and resolve it. These days I find myself fascinated by modern literature and film in that I know that existential philosophy tells me what the individual should do, but they've had a tougher time in providing a meaningful remedy for how a society should function in light of this newly created freedom. I'm hoping that writers of fiction might have a better idea.
I do believe that what we face going forward is unlike anything that we have seen in history. For many societies have replaced a common religion, god or ethos for another and continued to function. We however are moving from a common ethos to a society that will try and function with each person in that society having a individually defined ethos. It will be unlike anything in history. In practical terms, we are used to having arguments where each person would try and take the moral high ground. Now we are moving to a point in history where that entire conversation will be moot as there is no common ground upon which we can agree upon in the first place. There is no point in arguing who is right when the answer to the question is a subjective individual truth that is oblivious and unconcerned with the truth offered by someone else.
We have an innate belief that we ought to treat others as we would like to be treated and this belief (and many others) came to us through our Judeo-Christian heritage. If we reject the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then we have taken away the anchor for the laws and mores of our western society. We are in a society that is beginning to discard the idea that there are any universal truths, but we act as if it is not so in our day-to-day lives. We state in the vein of being politically correct or being multicultural that "what is true for me, might not be necessarily true for you," yet we will most certainly balk if someone steals our car or hurts those that we love.
Thinking about these things reminds me of a boat that loses it's mooring. When the mooring is first lost, the boat will still hang around the same point for a while, acting as if it were still fixed in place. It will float for a time as if it were still connected to a fixed point, until the waves finally carry it away into the unknown and you realize, after the fact, that the connectedness was lost.
It seems to me that western society is that recently unmoored boat. We are no longer connected to a common ethic but we haven't quite acted upon this, nor have we realized all of the repercussions of this freedom. We are still hanging around the mooring even though we have, as Sartre states, "terrible freedom" to choose our path outside of the constraints of western morality.
If society, as a whole, rejects the idea that morality has been passed down to us by God or some other supernatural force, then we are obligated to create our own path. This makes me wonder what happens to society when every person in it is trying to create their own path, with no universal beliefs to guide the way? There is no "right" that we can point to and no "ought." In short, there is not "higher, better self" to appeal to, because that "higher, better self" is undefined. Or rather, it is defined by how each of us want to define it, with no common code to go by.
This is, or will be, a problem for society. I believe that most obey the laws of their country because they believe that that law is founded within a greater, universal truth. But, if we take away that universal truth, then we are stuck with obeying that law merely for the fact that it is the law that governs our place, not that the law has any higher authority to appeal to. In this instance, it becomes prudent to obey the law when it is beneficial to self, and disobey it when it is not. It is for this reason that so many are currently upset with Wall Street as they have only obeyed a moral code when it was expedient and profitable.
If a law that is not anchored to a common morality is disobeyed, who are we to call the trespasser out on it? We cannot shame them, for what is shame when they are following their passions, which may not be in any way similar to our own? If they tell me that they will follow the rules of the land, and then disobey these same laws when it is convenient, who am I to judge them? This stating that they will obey and then not obeying in action may be their personal ethic. I might not like it, but I have no higher judge to appeal to.
I have not idea how our post-modern world will work itself out in the face of this vacuum. Everything is open to each of us, but a shared ethic is open to none of us. In addition, the freedom that I create for myself will almost certainly conflict with the freedom that you create for you and I have no idea how we can find common ground to resolve our disputes as that common ground (the Judeo-Christian ethic) is what we destroyed to arrive at this point in the first place. When there is no God, but in it's place millions upon millions of gods, which god gets to be the decider, the deliverer of universal constraints? Who upon equals has that authority?
I don't know where society goes in the face of all of this. I don't know how we function. I don't know how this will work itself out, but I am deeply curious as to how we will try and resolve it. These days I find myself fascinated by modern literature and film in that I know that existential philosophy tells me what the individual should do, but they've had a tougher time in providing a meaningful remedy for how a society should function in light of this newly created freedom. I'm hoping that writers of fiction might have a better idea.
I do believe that what we face going forward is unlike anything that we have seen in history. For many societies have replaced a common religion, god or ethos for another and continued to function. We however are moving from a common ethos to a society that will try and function with each person in that society having a individually defined ethos. It will be unlike anything in history. In practical terms, we are used to having arguments where each person would try and take the moral high ground. Now we are moving to a point in history where that entire conversation will be moot as there is no common ground upon which we can agree upon in the first place. There is no point in arguing who is right when the answer to the question is a subjective individual truth that is oblivious and unconcerned with the truth offered by someone else.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The 51%
First off, I'm not nearly as curmudgeonly as this blog is making me out to be these days. The state of affairs in our country has me thinking, but for the most part, my surly thoughts are generally disguised as bemused interest in my day to day life.
Second, I give "Occupy Wall Street" way too much press. I like the basic idea, but am highly skeptical as to how this all will pan out. That tension has me often pondering the fate of their movement.
Take for instance their slogan that "We represent the 99%." Catchy, no? That's the type of thing that I can buy into. That said, it's not very truthful. Tonight the Occupy Wall Street group will vote to determine if they will issue their first demand:
Then again, maybe "representing the 99%" is a bit to much to chew. To represent the 99% means that the movement would be representing that guy in the BMW five series with the golf club membership and the nice polo shirt as well as representing that women in Arkansas that drives the SUV and goes to Walmart on a weekly basis who didn't vote for Obama because "he's a Muslim." Trying to get those folks to agree with those on the ground of Occupy Wall Street would be quite the challenge.
Perhaps they should shoot for representing the simple majority. Although making the random demands of ending all overseas occupations or forgiving all student loan debt isn't even going to resonate with 51% of the population.
If you read the whole Guardian UK article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/19/occupy-wall-street-protesters-divided?newsfeed=true) you'll see that the big debate right now for Occupy Wall Street is whether they should issue any demands at all. The general opposition to issuing demands is that many in the group believe that all decisions should be reached by consensus. That's...charming. More than a little naive, but charming. Right now, the message of Occupy Wall Street is being co-opted. It's co-opted by those in the group who desire something more radical and it's co-opted by those outside of it who desire to defuse the situation by painting the movement as something far outside the mainstream consensus.
Occupy Wall Street has some great fundamental ideas. However on a tactical level they seem more than a bit misguided and are losing a public opinion battle that they are not apparently aware they should be fighting. They are losing the middle of the American electorate and that unfortunately will completely shut them out of the public discourse. To change the conversation in America, you have to engage in it. You must state what you believe, why you believe it and the demands that you must make in light of it. You have to lead by vision and continually attempting to reach complete consensus will never get you there. Leaders with vision are vital. Without vision and leadership and a voice to convey that visions, you have no message to convey at all.
Second, I give "Occupy Wall Street" way too much press. I like the basic idea, but am highly skeptical as to how this all will pan out. That tension has me often pondering the fate of their movement.
Take for instance their slogan that "We represent the 99%." Catchy, no? That's the type of thing that I can buy into. That said, it's not very truthful. Tonight the Occupy Wall Street group will vote to determine if they will issue their first demand:
The general assembly discusses whether the movement should officially call for a massive public works programme with government employment, paid for by ending all of America's overseas military operations. -The Guardian UKFirst, let me state that I love the way that the British spell "programme." Just tack on a few extra letters and things take such a distinguished aura. Second, (and more to the point) It doesn't really matter how they vote on this issue as the whole concept is prima facie nowhere close to representing the majority of Americans. The fact that something like this is up for debate shows that the "big tent" concept of Occupy Wall Street is already crumbling.
Perhaps they should shoot for representing the simple majority. Although making the random demands of ending all overseas occupations or forgiving all student loan debt isn't even going to resonate with 51% of the population.
If you read the whole Guardian UK article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/19/occupy-wall-street-protesters-divided?newsfeed=true) you'll see that the big debate right now for Occupy Wall Street is whether they should issue any demands at all. The general opposition to issuing demands is that many in the group believe that all decisions should be reached by consensus. That's...charming. More than a little naive, but charming. Right now, the message of Occupy Wall Street is being co-opted. It's co-opted by those in the group who desire something more radical and it's co-opted by those outside of it who desire to defuse the situation by painting the movement as something far outside the mainstream consensus.
Occupy Wall Street has some great fundamental ideas. However on a tactical level they seem more than a bit misguided and are losing a public opinion battle that they are not apparently aware they should be fighting. They are losing the middle of the American electorate and that unfortunately will completely shut them out of the public discourse. To change the conversation in America, you have to engage in it. You must state what you believe, why you believe it and the demands that you must make in light of it. You have to lead by vision and continually attempting to reach complete consensus will never get you there. Leaders with vision are vital. Without vision and leadership and a voice to convey that visions, you have no message to convey at all.
Monday, October 17, 2011
It's the Boomers Fault
Well, sure, your parents might like you, and my parents might like me, but the collective us (anyone 20-40ish) and them (mostly the baby boomer generation), haven't really been getting along. Well, us getting along, isn't it either. They don't really like us, and we haven't really done much about that.
There are a few ways that this bears out, mostly in public policy. The short and long of it, is that the boomers are in power and they are leaving us with really massive amounts of debt. This isn't the sort of tragic story where dad gets two jobs and mom starts doing bake sales to get you through college "we are sacrificing for you" sort of debt, it's the "I'm going on a bender for 25 years or so and I'm going to live a plush life and I'm leaving you with the bill," sort of debt.
There are two issues that us Gen Y and Gen Xers should be worried about. Social Security and government debt.
As to the first, Social Security is a "pay as you go system," meaning that if you are working and paying social security taxes, that money is being used to pay for the benefits of the retirees who came before you. That idea in of itself isn't bad. We pay for our parents and our kids pay for us and it keeps going that way on down the line. However the problem arrives in 2037, when Social Security becomes insolvent, For those of you who are counting, anyone below the age of 39, who want to retire at age 65, are just plain out of luck. I don't agree with Rick Perry on much, but he is right about this, social security, as it is currently funded, is a giant ponzi scheme.
Now the fact that we have this problem isn't really the boomers fault. There's just too many of them who need benefits compared to us who can pay for them. Plus, they are living quite a bit longer than LBJ had in mind when he set the whole thing up. However, what is the problem is that they aren't really doing anything to correct it.
A few months ago, we had the drag down, knock out fight about the debt ceiling. Democrats hated the Republicans and called them obstructions. Republicans hated the Democrats and called them reckless spenders. It seems as though they couldn't agree on anything...except for preserving social security. Well, to be fair, there was slight disagreement there. The democrats didn't want it touched, the Republicans, lead by John Boehner, didn't want the benefits touched for anyone within 20 years of retirement. For those of your keeping count, that would give all baby boomers full benefits, while everyone else would be entitled to something less...maybe. Also, for those of who who are keeping count, John Boehner is 61. The longer we keep benefits exactly the way they are, the greater the benefit to the baby boomer generation and the greater the debt for future generations.
The debt issue is something we've long been aware of and as a country we've spent lots of money when we had fat years and we spend even more in the lean ones. Furthermore, it's not a Republican or Democrat issue. Republicans used to brand Democrats "tax and spend," whereas the Republican strategy for a while now has become "spend without tax." From Reagan on down, we haven't seen a truly fiscally conservative president for three decades now.
The problem with the deficit is that it isn't something that should necessarily be fixed now. Keynesian economics dictates that if we want to get out of this recession, the government should spend, a lot. Once we are out of the recession and truly growing, we should start taxing to recoup our costs. In past recessions, we got that spending part down, without the taxing part. Furthermore, the best time for the government to spend a lot of money is right now. For the government, money is cheap. They can borrow at nearly 0% these days. Now is the time to fund for new schools, new infrastructure and new backbone to the country to get things moving again. By the way, infrastructure and education are things that could benefit us, generation X and Y. However, these are clearly areas that over the past decades we have drastically under-spent on.
Things do need to be improved soon. We must raise taxes to cover our shortfall and we should do it while the boomers still have incomes that can contribute to the cause. We also need to cut our expenses. Modifying social security in an age equitable way would be a fantastic place to start.
The Lazy Youth
"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault if they failed" -Herman Cain, age 65Herman Cain's comment was directed to the youthful "Occupy Wall Street" protesters and the quote drives me crazy. It's classic fundamental attribution error. His successes is because of his hard work, yet his generation has left things in such a state that it will be much more difficult for future generations to repeat that success. Everyone's successes and failures are part internal, part external. When the unemployment rate for 17 to 24 year olds is 17.6%, the young generations might need more than "gumption" to get a living wage. Consider the following:
As things currently stand, generation X or Y will probably be the first generation in the U.S. who will be worse off then their parents before them. They will be the recipients of massive structural debt, will have a high amount of school debt (due in part to increasing tuition, as U.S. educations subsidies are reduced), and in large part will be without any corporate sponsored pension plans or social security, unless massive changes are made. Furthermore, if trends continue, they will not be able to rely on incomes that are greater (but probably less) than their parents who came before them. Add on top of that the pollution of the air, land and sea and we see that we inherit not only a fiscally bankrupt country, but a physically bankrupt one as well.
- About 37% of 18- to 29-year-olds have been underemployed or out of work during the recession, the highest share among the age group in more than three decades
- Only 61% say they were covered by some form of a health plan.
- 60% of workers 20 to 29 years of age cashed out their 401(k) retirement plans
- Millennials are graduating from college with an average of $23,200 in student debt, according to the most recent data from the Project on Student Debt. That is a 24% increase from 2004. (USA Today April 23rd, 2010)
This government debt was rung up by out parents and is our inheritance. It's really our issue now. We should be upset about it. I'm not saying that the boomers were intentional about this, but at the same time, it's the boomers who are in power and they are promoting policies that benefit their cohort at the expense of ours. More needs to be done to secure our future. We can no longer afford to be apathetic. We have to counterbalance the ideas of the boomers with the needs of our generation.
If I was more careful in the construction of this post, I would be more cautious of the "us vs. them" dynamic. I can't call out a collective "them" any better than I can call out a collective "us." In the end, things haven't seemed too fair recently and I hope that more people get upset at the current state of affairs and do something.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)