In part one I basically presented an unimpeachable argument for why democracy is the best form of governance and why the United States Constitution is out of date. I argued that democracy ought to be the value that is most enshrined in the United States. Not only is democracy the best form of organizing people, it's also a reflection of how we view people in general. In general, people who don't like democracy tend to not like people. If all people are to be valued, then all interests of these same people ought to be equally valued. Some people dislike democracy because they suspect that there are a lot of uninformed people out there who are negatively impacting the outcome of a particular vote. Thus, people are secondary to "correct information." It's not enough to be a person, you must labor to uncover the "truth."
As anybody who has studied history can tell you, the "truth" can be unstable, and subject to revision. To some, the flatness of the world was true, or the idea that the sun revolved around the Earth. Many a philosopher has come to the conclusion that stable truths are few and far between. We must all accept that we've been wrong before and we'll be wrong again. For some of us, that's not too hard to accept, but there are those among us who have found their holy grail of truth, and they simply cannot accept that it is not true for all.
So, let's say you're someone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong. Well, this is going to be a problem for you, because you're in the minority. You can be a good loser, and decide that the burden of change is upon you. You must change hearts and minds in order to create a majority (you might also want to consider the possibility that you're wrong, but you don't have to). You could also be a bad loser, and decide that the majority decision reveals that there are a lot of dumb people out there, and you shouldn't be beholden to the rules created by these dumb people.
At this point, you will have become a renegade. We tend to think of renegades as being cool, but those are usually just the ones they make movies about. I mean, how pointless would it be to show a movie where the renegade bucks the moors of society only to be proven that he was wrong all along? And even in the movies the path of the renegade is hard, and it should be. How can a democracy function if everyone thinks it's okay to bend the rules and that they are the ones who can truly see the truth? And getting back to the movies, the ones that truly inspire us are about renegades who go to great lengths to show people the truth, rather than imposing their truth on others.
Another reason people don't like democracy is because they think that there are a lot of "bad" people out there. This problem is similar to the correct information problem. It's not enough to be a person, you have to be a "good" person. Well, good can be just as ephemeral as truth, so there's that. But it gets a little thornier. We have courts, and they do pass judgement on people, and while most would argue that the courts do not deem people "bad," but that certain behaviors are bad, they also sentence people to death and life without parole. But I'm going to table that discussion for another time, and focus on the notion of people being "basically bad."
When you say people are "basically bad," you're saying that they don't need to have demonstrated any bad behavior, they are certain to be as bad as their choices allow them. This flies in the face of the notion of "innocent until proven guilty," but a lot of people don't actually subscribe to that notion. They truly believe that people are one step removed from wild animals and that the role of society is to keep them in metaphorical cages so they don't go out raping and killing. Of course, this isn't a loudly trumpeted viewpoint. While there are people who hold this view, they tend to not come out of the closet with it. Clearly, if you were to hold this view, the idea of allowing "the people" access to the levers of governance, would seem like a terrible idea, but I've often wondered: do people holding these views also see themselves as basically bad? That would seem likely, because what other insight would allow them to know the hearts of "the people" so well? And if not, how did they escape their basically bad status?
While I would argue that both the "people are basically ignorant" view and the "people are basically bad view" have a significant impact on our democracy, the most dangerous view is the one that simply takes little notice of the nature of others. It is difficult to articulate this view into an ideology of any kind, because the disregard for humanity is incidental to whatever it is these people truly believe in. For example, if the most important thing to a person is acquiring money, then it isn't necessary to formulate a view on humanity. You have no reason to give much thought to whether people are basically good or bad or whatever, unless it has some direct connection to your bottom line. And this ideology doesn't have to be money. It could be a narrow religious interpretation, it could be a quest for fame.
The point is, that these people don't care about people. They don't hate them or love them except on an individual level. This shouldn't really matter in a free country. As long as people aren't harming others, they can disregard them entirely. What makes them so dangerous is that to these people democracy is irrelevant. Rather than changing hearts and minds so that they align with their own particular beliefs, they would rather game the system. If they're going to lose at the ballot box, then maybe they'll need to find a way to disenfranchise certain voters by making a big deal over "voter fraud." If they can't win a majority in the Senate, they'll simply resort to the filibuster. They will over-ride and democratic process as long as they can get their way.
Let's be clear here: if you don't trust the democratic process, then you don't trust people, and why should people trust you? I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy is the most American value there is, and anyone who would try to finagle the system and thwart the democratic process, because whatever outcome they are trying to achieve is so important is un-American. That's right, I said it. If you don't like democracy you're not a patriot and you shouldn't call yourself an American. Whatever idea you've been exalting as the most important thing in the world (God, money, Springsteen) must bow down before the altar of democracy.
Showing posts with label aristocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aristocracy. Show all posts
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Suck It Up
Are you tough enough? Have you been asked recently to suck it up? Is America full of wimps who just don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with reality? Have I asked enough questions to begin with the actual analysis? There are clearly times when we as people would probably benefit from thickening our skins, but there are also times when being asked to toughen up is really code for something else: accepting less than what we want.
Imagine you had ordered a steak at the restaurant, and it was overcooked. If you bring this to the attention of your waiter and they respond, "Deal" I think we can all agree that you would rightfully be pissed off. If you pick up your car from the mechanic and instead of fixing the AC, it's blowing hot air, and the mechanic says, "Toughen up," you would probably go ballistic. Why would we blow a gasket? Because in both instances what the purveyors of service are really telling us is: take less.
Now as much I strenuously try to avoid commercials, I see enough to know that maxims like, "You deserve less" and "Lower your expectations" will never be catch-phrases in the world of advertising. Nobody will ever buy what a company that says something like that is selling. That's because in order for any transaction to be successful, both parties should leave satisfied. A little bit of deception might be involved. Maybe that new phone isn't really all that awesome, but businesses have to deliver at least partially on their promise in order to succeed.
Of course, these transactions assume that both parties are on more or less equal footing. Growing up, you probably were told at various times to accept less, because your expectations really were unrealistic. No, you can't have a pony for your birthday. No, you can't go to Disney World for every vacation. As you got older, you probably heard this refrain more and more from your teachers. No, your lame excuse does not excuse you from not turning in your paper. You get a zero, now deal. And then you might hear that same argument from your boss. This all makes sense. Your parents, your teachers and your bosses might not have always been right, but they were in the position of power, and therefore you had to either accept their verdict or go through the effort of rebelling.
But what about when politicians act like American voters need to toughen up? Is that kind of the same thing? I happen to think it isn't. See, in a Democracy, their job is contingent on our vote. It's a transaction, and both sides need to walk away from the transaction with a feeling of satisfaction in order for the relationship to continue. So, why are Republicans talking down to the American people? Why is it okay to tell people to expect less from their government?
This might make sense in an aristocracy. Aristocratic government is not designed to meet the needs of all its inhabitants. Sure, you don't want the peasants revolting, so you might make the kingdom more livable, but you can never let the peasants think that they have power. You need to be the boss, the parent who has every right to tell the people who depend on you that they should only expect to get the scraps that you give them.
Aristocracies don't need unions interfering with their iron-fisted rule. They don't have time to listen to your jibber-jabber about how you require medical attention, and how you should be able to support yourself on a living wage. They are too busy planning their next war.
Of course, even in a democracy you need people to tell you when you are being unrealistic. So I've developed this handy-dandy method to determine if a politician asking you to tighten your belt has a legitimate argument: check and see what his plans are for the people in his income bracket. If his plan is to lower their taxes significantly, then they are not serious about balancing the books. If they can't "toughen up" themselves and do without their valet, their chauffeur and their Summer homes, then they are not being honest with you. They are in effect asking you to do the heavy lifting, while their constituents (many in the same class) get to count the money.
Here's the thing: you're already taking less, while they take more. Check out this handy dandy graphic:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/22/377470959/how-much-more-or-less-would-you-make-if-we-rolled-back-inequality
In it, you can see how much money you would be making if we had the same level of inequality as they did in 1979. At first glance, you might notice that you would only be making a couple of thousand dollars more. That's not so bad, right? But then multiply that by every year that you have been working. That's between $60,000 and $300,000 if you (like me) are in your early 40s. Imagine you had that money, instead of having it funneled into the back accounts of the already wealthy. You probably wouldn't have the debt that you have. You would probably not be stressing out over medical bills, and whether college is a viable option for your children.
That's money that wealthy people acquired by shifting the tax burden from them to you. That's money they made by taking all the profits from innovations regardless of whether they were responsible for them. 99.9% of the companies are not responsible for the increased worker-productivity created by the personal computing and the Internet. FedEx had nothing to do with it. Coke had nothing to do with it. Did they pass their ability to accrue higher profits on their workers? No. Straight to their shareholders and increased CEO pay.
When there is a group of people responsible for robbing the American people blind, their only way to prevent their inevitable day of reckoning is to take the authoritarian high road. We are the masters and you must toughen up and take the scraps we give you. Just remember: This country is still a democracy in name, if not in fact. Use what voting power you have to make things right.
Imagine you had ordered a steak at the restaurant, and it was overcooked. If you bring this to the attention of your waiter and they respond, "Deal" I think we can all agree that you would rightfully be pissed off. If you pick up your car from the mechanic and instead of fixing the AC, it's blowing hot air, and the mechanic says, "Toughen up," you would probably go ballistic. Why would we blow a gasket? Because in both instances what the purveyors of service are really telling us is: take less.
Now as much I strenuously try to avoid commercials, I see enough to know that maxims like, "You deserve less" and "Lower your expectations" will never be catch-phrases in the world of advertising. Nobody will ever buy what a company that says something like that is selling. That's because in order for any transaction to be successful, both parties should leave satisfied. A little bit of deception might be involved. Maybe that new phone isn't really all that awesome, but businesses have to deliver at least partially on their promise in order to succeed.
Of course, these transactions assume that both parties are on more or less equal footing. Growing up, you probably were told at various times to accept less, because your expectations really were unrealistic. No, you can't have a pony for your birthday. No, you can't go to Disney World for every vacation. As you got older, you probably heard this refrain more and more from your teachers. No, your lame excuse does not excuse you from not turning in your paper. You get a zero, now deal. And then you might hear that same argument from your boss. This all makes sense. Your parents, your teachers and your bosses might not have always been right, but they were in the position of power, and therefore you had to either accept their verdict or go through the effort of rebelling.
But what about when politicians act like American voters need to toughen up? Is that kind of the same thing? I happen to think it isn't. See, in a Democracy, their job is contingent on our vote. It's a transaction, and both sides need to walk away from the transaction with a feeling of satisfaction in order for the relationship to continue. So, why are Republicans talking down to the American people? Why is it okay to tell people to expect less from their government?
This might make sense in an aristocracy. Aristocratic government is not designed to meet the needs of all its inhabitants. Sure, you don't want the peasants revolting, so you might make the kingdom more livable, but you can never let the peasants think that they have power. You need to be the boss, the parent who has every right to tell the people who depend on you that they should only expect to get the scraps that you give them.
Aristocracies don't need unions interfering with their iron-fisted rule. They don't have time to listen to your jibber-jabber about how you require medical attention, and how you should be able to support yourself on a living wage. They are too busy planning their next war.
Of course, even in a democracy you need people to tell you when you are being unrealistic. So I've developed this handy-dandy method to determine if a politician asking you to tighten your belt has a legitimate argument: check and see what his plans are for the people in his income bracket. If his plan is to lower their taxes significantly, then they are not serious about balancing the books. If they can't "toughen up" themselves and do without their valet, their chauffeur and their Summer homes, then they are not being honest with you. They are in effect asking you to do the heavy lifting, while their constituents (many in the same class) get to count the money.
Here's the thing: you're already taking less, while they take more. Check out this handy dandy graphic:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/22/377470959/how-much-more-or-less-would-you-make-if-we-rolled-back-inequality
In it, you can see how much money you would be making if we had the same level of inequality as they did in 1979. At first glance, you might notice that you would only be making a couple of thousand dollars more. That's not so bad, right? But then multiply that by every year that you have been working. That's between $60,000 and $300,000 if you (like me) are in your early 40s. Imagine you had that money, instead of having it funneled into the back accounts of the already wealthy. You probably wouldn't have the debt that you have. You would probably not be stressing out over medical bills, and whether college is a viable option for your children.
That's money that wealthy people acquired by shifting the tax burden from them to you. That's money they made by taking all the profits from innovations regardless of whether they were responsible for them. 99.9% of the companies are not responsible for the increased worker-productivity created by the personal computing and the Internet. FedEx had nothing to do with it. Coke had nothing to do with it. Did they pass their ability to accrue higher profits on their workers? No. Straight to their shareholders and increased CEO pay.
When there is a group of people responsible for robbing the American people blind, their only way to prevent their inevitable day of reckoning is to take the authoritarian high road. We are the masters and you must toughen up and take the scraps we give you. Just remember: This country is still a democracy in name, if not in fact. Use what voting power you have to make things right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)