U.S. culture

Sometimes it seems to me that the culture of the U.S. is driven by Ignorance, Greed, Fear and Hate.

When I was a kid, I would watch Superman on TV and it was always introduced with the narrator speaking of Superman's fight for "truth, justice and the American way."

When I was a kid, I thought that meant that truth and justice were the American way, or at least part of the American way, and the rest of what the American way was was basically being good to people and fighting evil.

Now, the cynical part of me wonders whether the American way has anything to do with goodness or truth or justice. What I see in the common discourse is at best a rearguard action for truth, justice and goodness.

The part of this that saddens me the most, perhaps, is that the good people of America are being driven unknowing into this culture of hate and greed. And, in their ignorance, they don't even see it.

Recently a friend of a friend--a Republican--was telling me why the Democratic plan for health care is no good. He is, I believe, a well-intentioned, kind-hearted person but the reasons he cited were just a shallow repetition of what the media presents as the Republican position.

And that position, basically, is one intended to generate fear: "death panels", "rationing of health care", "growth of large government bureaucracies", "extravagant costs". And behind that fear, there are the excuses: "The US is too big; the US is too diverse; we need to preserve the free market; etc." Fear and excuses why we're not even going to try to do care for people in need. And this from people who claim to be Christian--a religion that speaks at great length of charity to the poor being one primary tenet.

The fear is fueled by ignorance. When's the last time the news gave any real coverage to any of the many different systems by which other industrialized societies provide health care for all their people at lower per capita costs, and with a better recent history of medical innovation? Do the majority of the people who are following the Republican agenda have any real idea about how medical care is delivered in other countries? Do they have any idea of where the money is going in this country?

On a deeper level, do they have any real idea of what they're talking about when they invoke the "free market"? Given my extensive studies of economic theory and market theory (not at the Ph.D. level, perhaps, but well beyond an undergraduate degree in economics), not to mention my more general philosophical interests that have a distinct bearing on any theory (epistemology, philosophy of mind, cognitive science), I feel pretty safe in saying that if the people of the US understood what they were supporting, they would not support it.

The free-market agenda is one of Greed. Greed is what fuels the "free market" according to theory--each man acting in his own self-interest, said Adam Smith; "foul is useful and fair is not; avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods" said John Maynard Keynes.

And hate. This is the one that frightens me the most. The bombast that fills the discourse of the U.S.--especially the right-wing commentators--is a discourse of broad hate and demonization. "I hope he fails," said Limbaugh of Obama, despite the fact that Obama's failure would cause millions suffering. The debate about health care is filled with cautions about how illegal immigrants will overload the system--fear and hate. Where is the debate about how one should love thy enemy (Matthew 5:44) or do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matthew 7:12)? What about the debate about how we want to be a merciful nation because, according to Christian doctrine, "blessed are the merciful" (Matthew 5:7)? How about "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink" (Romans 12:20)?

Wouldn't it be great if our discourse in the U.S. was actually interested in how we could help each other? A discourse that suggests that the people who aren't like us (and who may not agree with us) are actually people we should try to meet with understanding, mercy and forgiveness (as Jesus suggested)? Wouldn't it be great if the gods that guided us were truth, justice and the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)?

And wouldn't it be great if people saw through the greed, fear and hate, so that they understood how their decisions are adversely affecting all of us?

sacrifice

You can't always get what you want.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

OK, yeah, it would be great if these weren't true, but they are.

What really amazes me is how my peers--highly educated, apparently intelligent--seem to make so little change in their lives with respect to environmental issues.

They drive all the time; they're always jetting here or there on business or pleasure. It surprises me how rarely I hear them say in any of their deliberations, "wow, maybe we should limit that because of environmental considerations."

And the ones with children seem to be the ones least concerned, as if the world will always be beautiful and wonderful for their children, despite what the scientists say about global warming.

And these are not fundamentalist Christians, these are people who are mostly agnostic or atheist, who would say they believe in science, who would ridicule a creationist. I mean, it just boggles my mind: at least a creationist is intellectually consistent in believing that climate changes is not a problem. How one can actively believe in evolution and science generally, and then basically ignore a scientific conclusion supported by a vast amount of research, and a conclusion that will really matter in their lives...

I don't get it.

Voting for Obama will not solve the climate change problem if all the people who voted for Obama continue to drive all the time. Yeah, sure, a Prius is much better than a Hummer, but just switching to a Prius ain't gonna solve the problems.

People--especially the gluttonous Americans--my peers--need to stop consuming so freakin' much!

Well, I ain't got not kids, so I'm not leaving my kids a mess. But still, I have nephews; I have friends with kids, and wouldn't it be great if we left them a world as beautiful as the one we were raised in? Wouldn't it be great if the children of today could still go out and enjoy a beautiful sunny day when they're adults? Wouldn't it be great if their children, too, could grow up enjoying the same beauty of the world that we knew?

I think the saddest irony of all is that the sacrifices that we really need to make probably aren't more than a sacrifice of luxury. We could still have plenty, if we were willing to give up (sacrifice!) the gluttony.

Health Care

Lately Republicans are arguing that a government health care plan would lead to "rationing of health care." Never mind that the current system is largely based on companies whose profit depends on withholding health care.

Wouldn't it be great if those in government were interested in providing health care for their constituents instead of profits for their corporate donors?

"I hope he fails."

I know I'm a couple of months out of date on this, but I try to ignore Republican political rhetoric as much as possible. I hear that Rush Limbaugh has been saying "I hope he fails" about Obama. It's a nice insight into how Republicans think. Limbaugh apparently would rather have the US economy fail, have the US make major strategic military mistakes and generally have its government's plans fail than to give credit for a plan that works.

We can't defend Limbaugh by saying "well, he just doesn't believe Obama's policies could work." This is clearly not a question of whether Limbaugh doubts the efficacy of Obama's plans. It cannot be a question of Limbaugh believing that Obama's plans will be bad for America in the long run. "I hope he fails," Limbaugh said. This is not about Obama creating new problems.

The California Republicans who refused, for many months, to make any concessions on their points while California had no budget and was going to shut down many public projects (at a great cost to the state), are of the same ilk. It is not about cooperation; it is about them getting what they want at any cost.

I suppose they might argue it's about principle. But these are the same people who would vilify Democrats for not working on bipartisan efforts, and who would vilify the same Democrats for being wishy-washy and not having principles.

Although they are closely connected to the Christian religion, a religion that preaches love, I see little love in the Republicans.

Wouldn't it be great if the Republicans actually cared about people? Wouldn't it be great if they were actually interested in helping needy people? Wouldn't it be great if they actually wanted America and Americans to do well, instead of just their political cronies?

What would really be great is for a someone to actually convince me that the Republican voices--the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters--really do believe in charity, in loving one's neighbors and one's enemies--you know, some of the basic tenets of the Christian religion, on which they so often call. I'm open to being convinced, but there's a lot of explaining to be done to explain how Rush Limbaugh's "I hope [the president of the United States] fails," is actually a patriotic sentiment, and not a petty, selfish one.

Standard of Living and Quality of Living

The other day I read some article about how Americans have to get used to a lower standard of living, because basically we're not as rich as we used to be (for many reasons, including having run up such a massive debt that paying interest on it is now a major portion of our income).

That's kind of a frightening idea, I guess. Until you think about the difference between quality of life and standard of living.

I don't think that the American standard of living, as high as it is, is anywhere close to maximizing the possibilities for quality of life. The wealth that we have is misused and abused. I'm not saying that wealth doesn't contribute to quality of life, but the two are definitely not locked hand in hand.

What would happen if Americans suddenly had much less money to spend? What would go first? Well, we know that people are going to eat, regardless, and they still need clothes and shelter and warmth. People will still need to be creative--so they will still need tools that they can use. What's left? Luxury toys and expenses. If there's less gas/electrical power available, what gets turned off first: the heat, the stove, the computer or the plasma TV? (Side note: the plasma TV is an energy-sucking beast: from http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/tv-energy-star-47020520: "The Wall Street Journal recently published this amazing fact: 'A 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator – even when that TV is used only a few hours a day.' For those keeping score at home, the refrigerator is (or was) the appliance that demands the most electricity.")

And, back to appliances to turn on or off: which of them would improve our quality of life by being turned off (or at least turned off more)? TV, surely.

A lower standard of living would mean that people would not look to answer all their problems by buying something new. I don't even know how many times I've heard someone say "my life would be complete if I could just buy X, or visit Y, but I don't have the money." When I hear that kind of logic, I think, first, of Social Distortion's line in "Ball and Chain:" "Wherever I have gone, I was sure to find myself there; You can run all your life and never go anywhere." And then I think that it's not about the life being "complete" anyway: it's about living well, about a process that engages one and helps one grow and be healthy and happy.

Anyway, it seems to me that there is an opportunity present to us, even in times of scarcity (or, really, scarcity relative to the incredible wealth to which we are accustomed): we have an opportunity to think about what is really important and focus on that.

For the most part, Americans are unfamiliar with living in real scarcity--where there is real difficulty feeding yourself or your children. And I pray that the reduction in the American standard of living will not be so severe that there is not enough food to feed the people. But as we know, there's plenty of food grown--and much of it gets thrown away in the name of profit.

Wouldn't it be great if Americans learned that there was something more important than our standard of living and how much money we have made? If you don't know how to appreciate what you have, then there is little value in wealth; it will just make you fat and unhappy instead of thin and unhappy.

Are these people crazy?

I just saw a headline about oil prices falling "on nagging energy demand worries."
Are they kidding me? Maybe if your vision of the future includes about the next three months, because I have a lot of trouble imagining how the ten billion people on this planet aren't going to want a bunch of energy over the coming years. There's plenty of demand for energy.

As far as I'm concerned, a slight reduction in the sense of entitlement to luxury would serve the American public well.

Wouldn't it be great if people were able to learn to live with a bit less luxury, and the corresponding reduction in environment-changing waste?

Peace

Wouldn't it be great if we could find other ways to solve problems than to kill each other?

Of course many who are motivated to kill, do so precisely because they feel there is no other choice. But wouldn't it be great if we could find other options?

Israel is invading Gaza and warning of escalation. Hamas retaliates the only way they know how. And in the middle are people dying. Wouldn't it be great if there were another way?

I am not debating the practical efficacy of violence--but there are many who do. There are many who would say that violence does solve problems; there are also many, though fewer, I imagine, who would say that violence breeds problems.

We can view problems in many different ways. Is the problem the immediate threat of one individual or one nation? Or is the problem the pattern that creates a new problem in the course of resolving the old pattern?

There is no abstract logical foundation for either choice of framing--to some extent both framings have validity and one chooses between them on the basis of assessments of probability. Such decisions are tied into the most fundamental ways we see the world.

If we can see that, then we can also see that we have to make a choice: what values do we wish to espouse? What outcomes would we most like?

The choice to focus on paths to peace is centered on the desire for an alternative to violence--only by believing beforehand that violence is not an acceptable or efficacious solution--does it make sense to seek alternatives. We have to believe that peace is really important to provide the foundation for actions that will promote peace.