Jobs and Education

If we look to the future, when we talk about outsourcing jobs, when we talk about global competitiveness and our efficiency, none of that matters very much unless we have appropriate training and education for our young people today who are the workforce of tomorrow. It is an economic reality, and we are failing.
- Bill Frist

In the United States, we hold that the classes are not fixed.  We are not bound by titles of nobility, wealth or heredity.  “All men are created equal.”  Class mobility is a hallmark of our national psyche, our ethos.  We bask in the shared glory of those who have risen above their “station in life” and occupy the height of wealth and society.  Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and a college dropout, is one such person, and when we want to demonstrate that we have a mobile class structure, we can enlist his success to show others that we are a society where anything is possible.  There are, indeed, many, many such stories.

The stories are the exceptions, of course, and not the rule, and everyone knows this deep down, but we always hold out the possibility of success – without considering that there may be both some fundamental and inalterable reasons for class immobility and some factors that may favor mobility that are inherent in the individual. 

My sister-in-law, who is now deceased, argued fervently with me that there are no individual limits to success.  She believed that every person, regardless of any mental or physical limitation, could achieve the same level of success if they were given equal opportunity.  I challenged her belief with what I thought would be an example that was irrefutable; a mentally retarded child could not become a physician.  She was adamant that this should prove to no more than an obstacle to be overcome.  I argued that mental retardation is not only a limitation that would prevent them from retaining the information a physician needs to understand complex medical problems but it would prevent them from deriving a method of evaluating the problems, analyzing the information and prescribing a remedy.  Again, she opined that given opportunities for education appropriate for their level of understanding that the mentally challenged could, in fact, eventually absorb the information and use that information to be effective physicians.

Given my medical training and life experiences, I left that discussion thinking that her reasoning was incredibly naïve.  The mentally challenged could indeed function in society – but at a job and performing tasks appropriate to their abilities.  (I will talk more about this later.)

It occurred to me that, despite a significant number of exceptions, there are people who are poor because they have jobs that do not provide a living wage, but they may be unable to perform tasks that would allow them to take jobs in complex fields such as finance or technology.  There are also, however, people doing simple tasks that make a good wage.  This difference might indeed come from opportunity and training rather than ability alone, but the job must be available to provide that living wage.  The (rare?) exceptions are those that possess incredible intelligence or ability that lack the opportunity to improve their lot.  They can’t afford college; their upbringing did not include incentives to excel.  And so they languish in menial jobs.  A rare few break out of this mold, and that is why they are the rarest of exceptions.  The difference might be parents, scholarships, grants, or possibly even an idea that is marketable. 

My sister-in-law’s attitude was very generous towards the less fortunate, and so she viewed opportunity as the limiting factor in their success of everyone, but I heard another approach towards the less fortunate that was miserly, or at least unsympathetic.  Embracing the same idea that all individuals are equally capable of success, Herman Cain, who is currently a candidate for the Republican nominee for the Presidency, said,

"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 a person's fault because they succeeded, it is a person's fault if they failed.”

Without considering lack of opportunity, mental or physical limitations, Cain has put the blame for poverty squarely on the poor.  My sister-in-law would be very upset with Mr. Cain, but they both share the belief that the poor should be able to succeed regardless of their limitations.

Cain’s attitude, I believe, would remove opportunities, not create them.  Even the best idea requires some investment of capital to be successful.  Who would grant a loan to a proven “failure”?  Who would want to provide a loan for college to a “failure”?  If the poor are to blame for their own failure and resulting poverty, then they may as well be “Dalits”, the untouchables of the Indian caste system.  Cain seems to be implying that if they are poor, it is the fate they deserve.

Regardless whether Mr. Cain meant his remarks to be inspiring to the poor to “work harder” or “make your own opportunities”, the implication remains that the poor have the same abilities as the successful, but they are failures because of other failings:  a failure of will perhaps.

In any event, I have started thinking about the structure of society and the social and economic strata that we have currently.  Ideally, we should have a system that provides opportunity to all to achieve the best possible result, but the aim of that result should also be consistent with ability.  We should not, despite my sister-in-law’s insistence, expect those of limited ability to achieve as much as those of great ability.  We should reward ability, but not punish limitations.

Our task is to provide an education for the kind of kids we have... Not the kind of kids we used to have... Or want to have... Or the kids that exist in our dreams.
- Mary Kay Utecht

In the book, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, social and economic status was fixed by synthetically augmenting or limiting intelligence.  These strata (alpha, beta, gamma, delta and epsilon) were rigidly enforced by law and science.  The exact percentages of each of the categories of intelligence were precisely created in test tubes so that there would be enough of each “class” to perform the necessary tasks, but not so many that there would be competition and a waste of intelligence or ability, or a burden on society with unneeded numbers of those with deliberately limited or augmented ability or intelligence.  Everyone was supposed to be content with his or her job.  No one was given tasks they were unable to perform, and no one was capable of performing tasks above the degree of difficulty of their assigned jobs.  There were none so disabled that they couldn’t perform some needed task.

Let me be clear that I am not advocating rigid social structure based anything like Brave New World.

If I were to design a Utopian society starting with humanity as it is, instead of humanity as it could be artificially constructed, I would aim for a society where everyone has work that they can do, that they enjoy, and for which they are perfectly suited.  This work, regardless of the type, would provide a means of living that allows for enjoyment of life outside of work.

The challenges of such a Utopian vision are many.  How could we ensure that those of great ability and high intelligence are not trapped in circumstances that fail to take advantage of those qualities?  How can we know that people who are elevated to positions requiring certain qualities actually have those qualities and can function in the jobs they have?

On paper, our capitalistic society has the solution to these problems.  We reward accomplishments, and we provide equal opportunity while not expecting or demanding equal results.  We compensate effort and accomplishment so that everyone receives what they merit, and although we reward different skills differently, there is an ideal that everyone working deserves at least a “living wage.”  We incentivize success and define success in several ways: monetary success, fame or reputation, comfort and health.

On paper, equal opportunity comes from public education where skills are refined and abilities defined.  We have a minimum wage that is supposed to provide for a living wage for even menial jobs, and we have a “social safety net” to prevent those with the least ability, or with significant physical or mental limitations, from starving or dying of preventable and/or treatable diseases.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that reality does not match the vision.  All of the tools are in place to create a Utopian society, but the goal escapes our grasp.  The system has flaws, and without addressing these flaws, the United States will degenerate into an aristocracy and the poor will be neglected.

There are so many variables in the equations that determine how the economy functions that it is not possible to consider them all in a single paper, but the single issue that I wish to address is unemployment.  This issue, however, is in turn affected by many other factors, but rather than considering the working force as a homogenous group of equals, I think it might be helpful to consider the workforce as a Bell-shaped curve where there are broad categories of people who have different potentials.

When we compare the IQ of college graduates to the population, we see that the mean IQ is about 1 standard deviation above average.  This tells us that 1) there are a lot of people who would probably do well in college that have not gone to college and 2) as a measure of accomplishment, college education tends to correlate with higher intelligence. 

I do not mean to suggest that opportunities for college education should be limited to those who meet some arbitrary intelligence criteria, but I do suggest that college is not the only means of enhancing ones ability to work, and we should not be so narrow-minded that we overlook other types of education or training that may be better suited to people that are unlikely to excel in college.

The first condition of education is being able to put someone to wholesome and meaningful work.
- John Ruskin

I would agree with Laurence Lessig that “a safe and prosperous nation requires a well educated youth.”  I would also agree that there are many people who would do well in college that may never have the opportunity, but I disagree that “we can educate our children, including the poorest among us, to achieve college-bound competency” if, by “our children” we mean all of our children.

Almost everyone is capable of performing tasks that can translate into a job.  Almost all tasks require training.  It is my belief that our youth should be prepared for jobs with training that can take place either in high school, on-the-job or in trade schools if they are unable or unwilling to meet the standards set for colleges and universities.

In the last century, jobs were usually plentiful.  Many jobs consisted of relatively routine tasks in manufacturing or agriculture that would not require a college degree.  Our current unemployment crisis has affected these jobs disproportionately more than those that require a college degree, and unemployment among college graduates is approximately 4.1% while unemployment in general is approximately 9.1%.

My sister-in-law would probably argue, along with many educators, that the answer to high unemployment should be for everyone to have a college degree regardless of ability.  A college degree that does not enable the person to perform at a job is nothing but a piece of paper.  The Scarecrow notwithstanding, one does not become more capable or smarter because of a degree.  College does not necessarily provide specific job-ready skills, but instead can be a measure of flexibility, adaptability and aptitude.  There are jobs that are best suited for college graduates, but let’s not presume that all jobs require college education, or that having a college degree makes people more employable in the general workplace.

A realistic plan to promote employment of the population that is not college educated needs to address the fact that jobs for that segment of the population are disappearing.  Task oriented jobs have gone to overseas companies with lower wages (that we would not consider a “living wage”) or to automation.  There is no reversing the trend towards automation, but we can bridge the gap between training and the demand for jobs that require specific training. 

“Economic shifts — some potentially temporary, some permanent — have stranded an increasing number of unemployed workers in job limbo because their skills don't match up with employer demand.”

What I have suggested here may be considered a temporary fix for what may prove to be a permanent problem.  Thinking far, far ahead, what would happen if every routine job, from check-out clerk to truck driver to bank teller, could be replaced with a computer or a robot?  It may seem far-fetched, but look around and you will see it happening. 

Whether we can successfully negotiate the replacement of humans with technology may depend on market forces.  More unemployment might lead to less demand and less reason to consider automation.  Or the reverse:  More unemployment might decrease demand thus driving the trend towards automation in an effort to reduce operating costs.  Whether it augurs a nightmare future or a future of opportunity, it will remain true that “a safe and prosperous nation requires a well educated youth.”

Our challenge is to match education to the needs of society and with the abilities and desires of the individual.  We either meet the challenge or fail as a society.

Double Talk and Persuasion

I saw it tonight with my very own eyes, heard it with my ears.  A cause promoted in the interests of the people was stolen, twisted and regurgitated in a form that would take the steam out of a movement and turn it against itself.

That is exactly what is happening in this country, and it is slicker than slight-of-hand.  In just a few sentences, a politician magically transformed ire against wealth disparity into a call to decrease taxes on the wealthy.

Huh?  I still can’t believe it, but it is becoming almost routine.  It may not work with the Occupy Wall Street crowd, but it has worked in other ways for millions of Americans who saw their anger at Wall Street’s disastrous gamble being bailed out by the taxpayers transformed into a call for deregulation of Wall Street.

Huh?

Hard to believe?  Let me start with tonight.  Eric Cantor, who not long ago expressed his concern about the “mobs” occupying Wall Street and other cities around the country, said that he understands their concerns about wealth disparity.  The Republicans are all about upward mobility fairness, he said.  And to help those whose incomes have been stagnant, he, Eric Cantor, has a plan.  The plan will increase jobs and salaries by encouraging the 1% to create jobs by – wait for it – decreasing taxes on the wealthy by 10%.

Huh?

At a time when the wealthiest 1% saw their income increase by over $1,000,000.00 a year, with the lowest tax rates in half a century and special tax breaks only for the wealthy, Eric Cantor wants to give the wealthy more tax breaks so that they will have more money to invest in jobs. 

One imagines the wealthy sleeping on mattresses stuffed with hundred dollar bills and having problems finding places to store more cash.  What in the world will they do with more money?  And what makes Representative Cantor think giving them more will help the average American?  Certainly not history.

With politics so highly polarized, the TEA party’s transformation from a populist movement to a highly conservative, maybe even regressive, movement almost escaped my notice.  Their messages were sometimes mixed with foolishness and racism, and their obvious dislike of Obama invited Democrats to see them as “the enemy.”  Most Democrats see the elections of 2010 and the obstructionism after that as vindication of the “us versus them” polarity, and polls that show the majority of the TEA party are, in fact, Republicans substantiate that.

Something happened that changed my mind a bit; not about the TEA party’s influence or the way that their voters have affected elections, but about what the movement was really about in the first place.  I noticed that the actual complaints from the Occupy Wall Street were almost identical to those of the TEA party at the very start of the movement.

To wit: 

The TEA party objected to “bailouts” of Wall Street and other businesses.  Taxpayer money was being funneled into financial institutions with virtually no accountability right after Wall Street had blown trillions on high stakes gambling with “derivatives” and other practices that were permitted by the deregulation of Wall Street.

Why would this group support further deregulation of Wall Street?  Why would this group support tax subsidies for corporations making billions of dollars in profits?  Why would this group insist that the wealthiest of the wealthy need more tax breaks?

The TEA party was upset when they thought the Democrats might make cuts in Medicare.  The screamed “Death Panels” when they thought the cost cutting measures of Medicare might lead to the need for Medicare to approve some charges and not others that might allow hopeless cases to die rather than receive treatment.  The most mixed up message was, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!”

Why would this group support the repeal of Medicare as we know it?

Democrats have been perplexed at how people could vote against their best interests and vote in favor of those who we can call the 1%, and rightly so, but the more perplexing thing is how they seem to be voting against the very things that inflamed the movement to begin with.

The extremely conservative Republicans whose support comes primarily from the extremely wealthy have (almost) perfected the art of getting people to support the exact opposite of what they want and even what they need.  The mental manipulation could have been taken from a book on “How to make a cult.”

There may be several steps, but they follow a pattern.

1.     Sympathize with the interests of the group.

2.     Equate these interests with some aspect of their own agenda.

3.     Change the nature of the complaint (misdirect)

4.     Voice their agenda as the goal of the group.

A group or cause that has had their message thus transformed may have buyer’s remorse and so may regret endorsing this agenda, but they also have cognitive dissonance, bolstered by a loyalty and trust (that was misused).  If the misdirection is at least superficially logical and fits with their other values, they will find a way to support the substituted agenda.  Both the group and the conservative cheerleaders (emphasis on “leaders”) may use confirmation bias and selective ignorance to avoid further cognitive dissonance.

In steps two and three, simplification to the point of oversimplification can take a complicated issue and effectively make the issue itself disappear. 

When I reviewed the speeches, I found specific rhetorical cues that identify when the message is being changed.  I’ll present some later, but first let me give examples of how specific messages were changed.  Hijacked would be a better word perhaps…

1.     Wall Street Bailouts

Republicans said they too were against bailouts and blamed them on the Democrats even though the TARP program was devised and initiated by President Bush.  They said that Government was to blame.  Governments are bad because they do things like bailouts and over regulation.  “We need to fight government regulation!”

2.     Medicare

Republicans said they supported Medicare and were horrified by the prospect of cutting these programs.  Excessive government spending will mean that programs like Medicare will become insolvent.  Government giveaways and “entitlement programs” like welfare caused this country to near bankruptcy.  We need to cut or eliminate entitlement programs – like Medicare.

I have been focusing on these two items, but there are many other similar examples.  Elimination of the EPA, for example, was seemingly out of left field, but by equating this with government spending and regulation (which they consistently aligned with government “on their backs”) they made the EPA a target of the TEA party.

The TEA party wasn’t persuaded to support a radical approach to government that would leave businesses to squeeze customers, cheat customers and pollute their customers; they were tricked into supporting these causes.

Cognitive dissonance leaves them unable to back away from these caustic and harmful positions because they are told that they supported them from the beginning.

Quite a trick, isn’t it?

Changing the emphasis from rebuilding roads and bridges, hiring policemen, firefighters and teachers to government spending and taxes taken from the working people can make people who complain about the lack of good roads, disintegrating bridges, lack of law enforcement, inadequate response of fire departments and the poor quality of education support letting the roads and bridges fall apart and firing public workers.

I have a friend who had decided that Medicare should be eliminated.  He was on dialysis from diabetic kidney disease when he voiced this complaint and he subsequently received a kidney transplant – both funded entirely by Medicare through the Medicare Special Needs Plan.  Without this support, he would have died.  He had become convinced that his own health was subordinate to the evil that is “government spending and taxation.”

Consider that a Republican congressman or congresswoman that belittles public sector employees and their “overgenerous health and retirement plans”:

1.  Is a public sector employee

2.  Makes more than almost all other public sector employees

3.  Has one of the best health care plans in the world

4.  Has one of the best retirement plans in the world

The rhetorical tricks I mentioned parallel the steps I mentioned that are used to change a group’s message into their own agenda.

“We can all agree that…”

And the game is on.  They sympathize with the concerns expressed.

“The cause of [your concern] is something we’ve known for a long time…”

Their cause is your cause?  Really?

“We know that…”

Taxes hurt business?  The wealthy invest when they have money to invest?  Poor people are lazy?  This is where misdirection becomes an art, and oversimplification makes complicated problems easy to define in terms that are both misleading and enticing at the same time.  The twisted logic plays on the patriotism, prejudices and preconceptions of the people and ignores facts and history.

“The only solution to this problem is…”

Beware of the word “only”.  Their solutions address their misdirection instead of the original concern, but since they have tied the original concern to their agenda the solution will seem to follow, even if the solution will exacerbate their concerns.

I didn’t pay much attention to this when it was happening at first.  I just marveled that people could be led to believe that their interests were being addressed by actions counter to their interests.

Now that I understand, I can explain that vague feeling of nausea I get when I hear Eric Cantor speak.

“Job Creators”…. 

Excuse me for a moment-

Even understanding this cannot explain why Eric Cantor and his colleagues push an agenda that benefits the wealthiest while harming the rest of the country.  In order to understand that, it is necessary to examine the influence of Money in Politics.

That, too, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Getting Started

I have only barely begun reading Republic, Lost:  How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It by Laurence Lessig, and I am astonished at how the author’s understanding of the current political and economic problems is so much like my own.  I know I should finish the book before commenting, but I can’t wait.  Just from the Preface and Introduction (the only two parts I have read), I find echoes of what I have written in this blog and elsewhere. 

The first thing Lessig mentions in the Preface is the need for campaign finance and how crucial that is to the problems we face.  I couldn’t agree more.  In fact, I bought this book hoping that campaign finance reform would be a central issue.

In the Introduction, he begins by describing the national sense of despair and hopelessness.  I had taken note of that as well, and while I think his writing is clearer and more focused than my ramblings, the sentiment is the same.  His focus is on the Republic and governance, but there was a sentence that reminded me of a Photoshop image I made.  The quote is “We inherited an extraordinary estate.  On our watch, we have let it fall to ruin.”  My artwork, intended to metaphorically show what is happening to our government, entitled “Capitol Ruins”, looks like this:

He describes the gridlock and futility of attempting compromise, also a favorite subject of mine, one that is upsetting to a large number of Americans if we can judge by the recent polls on the approval rating of Congress at 11%, the lowest it has been since such measurements have been taken.  Lessig is much more sympathetic towards the people that are creating or perpetuating this gridlock, but I did at least express some understanding of how a person can be influenced without understanding that he or she has been influenced.

The influence of money, which lies at the heart of our discontent, and how that has come about and why it is non-partisan are subjects that I’m sure he will discuss in great detail in the subsequent chapters judging by the following quote:

“We have created an engine of influence that seeks not some particular strand of political or economic ideology, whether Marx or Hayek.  We have created instead an engine of influence that seeks simply to make those most connected rich.”

I have spent a great deal of effort on a subject that Lessig touches upon towards the end of the Preface, the lack of response of our government to the will of the people.  My solution, a National Poll, is probably impractical, perhaps even impossible, but the problem remains central to the issue of a lack of trust in government.  Measuring this Will has never been a priority, and our will has been replaced with the will of special interests.  Lessig presents this problem as one of two elements of corruption.

“This corruption has two elements, each of which feeds the other.  The first element is bad governance, which means simply that our government doesn’t track the expressed will of the people, whether on the Left or the Right.  Instead, the government tracks a different interest, one not directly affected by votes or voters.  Democracy, on this account, seems a show or a ruse; power rests elsewhere.”

Finally, at the very end of the Introduction, he uses a metaphor dear to my heart as a physician.  This is the metaphor that guided my choice of URL for my blog, prognosisforus.blogspot.com.

“The prognosis is not good.  The disease we face is not one that nations cure, or, at least, cure easily.”

The more that is written about the issues we face and proposals for resolving our problems, the better.  Despite my enthusiasm, I am still ignorant about much of the underlying history and the solutions being proposed, but I plan to educate myself.  Starting with this book, Republic, Lost.

Common Cause, Common Goal

The plethora of concerns of the people protesting around the United States and the world seems to confuse some commentators.  “What do they want?”  “They’re disorganized!”  As one blogger put it, “If you are still scratching your head trying to figure out Occupy Wall Street’s aim, you are not alone; the three-week-old movement has remained stubbornly resistant to stating clear demands.”

A closer look at the problems that concern them shows that, at some level, they all stem from a single source:  Money influence in politics.  That single realization also provides a pathway to solving the problems as well.

It would be natural to be skeptical of such a broad generalization, but I think that, for many, if not most, of their complaints, the comingling of money and politics is a major underlying factor if not the single factor that must be addressed in order to address the concerns of the 99%.

Consider a few of the issues mentioned on signs that you might see at one of the rallies.  I’ll start with some of the less obvious concerns.

1.    War protests

The burden for fighting the wars fall on the soldiers, and the benefits accrue to the corporations.  Government contractors, manufacturing interests and energy companies have a cozy relationship with politicians, and the Military-Industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about and the perpetual wars that Orwell warned us about have come to pass.  Our representatives take contributions from “the complex” and support their corporate boondoggles in return.  When John Boehner supported an engine program that the Pentagon wanted to have scrapped, the scheme was revealed in all of its ugliness, but the United States War Machine is vast and, well, complex.  Many think that resources spent on endless wars could be better spent helping Americans.

2.    Unemployment and wage stagnation

The factors driving wage stagnation and unemployment come from measures taken by corporations to enhance their profits.  These measures are encouraged by current policies of the government which acts favorably on behalf of their corporate sponsors.  With corporate and high end earnings skyrocketing and everyone else struggling to keep their job or find one, there is a sense that the money saved by reducing wages, reducing employment and employing overseas is being taken from the workers and given to the corporations who don’t need it.  They aren’t even using it.  It’s sitting in banks when it could have been used to improve the lives of their employees.  The attacks on unions by governors and representatives allow companies to unilaterally demand decreases in salaries and benefits, and the politicians are amply rewarded for their efforts.  If efforts to eliminate the minimum wage are successful, corporate domination of the political system will achieve a new low in government “for the people.”

3.     “Corporations are not people”

Mitt Romney famously stated that “Corporations are people too!” on the campaign trail.  The Supreme Court, with the support of the justices that have attended the luxurious affairs sponsored by the Koch brothers and others has given corporations unfettered ability to donate unlimited amounts of money to politicians who invariably return the “favor” with positions supportive of corporations and antagonistic to workers.  Special tax breaks for corporations effectively shovel money into the corporations while simultaneously leaving a deficit in the budgets that is made up by cutting programs that benefit real people.  Politicians give money to corporations that donate to politicians who then give more money to corporations – and that money comes from the workers.

4.     “Tax the Rich”

Tax breaks on capital gains and deductions for things that pertain only to the wealthiest 1%, combined with soaring incomes for the wealthiest Americans, leave the average citizen feeling that they are subsidizing the wealthy – and they are.  No one expects that the wealthiest should pay so much of their income that they would be poor or middle class, but with disposable incomes exceeding 6 figures there seems to be little reason to grant special tax breaks when they could easily afford to pay at least as much as the middle class.  Previous generations of wealthy have, in fact, paid a higher percentage of their income than the middle class.  The progressive income tax with its “tax brackets” has served us well for more than a generation, and the current system is essentially regressive.  Combined with a realization that giving money to the wealthy does not generate more jobs, the middle class is calling for a return of what has always been considered a fair tax schedule.  The politicians are resisting this because they get donations from those who benefit from a regressive tax.

There are many other causes that can be traced to a system that favors the wealthy over the rest of the country.  Foreclosures despite bailouts, the expectation that the debt accrued from the easy credit of the past will be paid while banks get a pass, and the privatization of the benefits of risky investments with socialization of the downside of risk all burden the “rest” of the country while freeing the wealthiest of responsibility are all possible because of the political system that takes money from those that are benefiting the most from these measures.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see signs about pollution or global warming since the companies that pollute are donating large amounts of money expecting, hoping for or demanding relaxation of pollution standards.  The EPA is under attack, and the citizens are in danger of losing protection against polluting industries.  The oil industry is fighting against “green” technologies and in many respects they appear to be winning, and that strikes many as shortsighted and ultimately self-defeating.

Even the “fringes” are expressing a basic feeling that runs across the political spectrum:  distrust of government.  A government that is unresponsive to the people and catering to the extremely wealthy is not worthy of trust.

There is one more thing. 

The genesis of the TEA party, and many of their concerns, have similarities to those of “Occupy Wall Street” despite the perversion of their message and the misdirection of their cause by the wealthy who have usurped their energy for their own benefit.  The bailouts in particular “tea-ed off” a lot of people who saw the government take their taxes and give them to the extremely wealthy – banks, corporations and individuals.

The ire was expressed against government, perhaps appropriately.  The solution that seemed to make sense was to take power from the government.  The wealthy took this movement and focused attention on government power through regulation.  Regulations that limit pollution, protect consumers from fraud and prevent risky investments with customers assets have nothing to do with bailouts.  Such regulations protect people from corporations and removing them allows corporations to circumvent safeguards and screw the citizens.  Unemployment insurance, Social Security and Medicare keep the jobless and elderly from being destitute.  The TEA party protesters message became confused with the interests of corporations, and the result is that the TEA party has been supporting measures that will, in the long run, harm them while increasing the bottom line for the corporations.  The TEA party congressmen have supported measures that would even eliminate minimum wage laws despite many in the TEA party that live on low wages.

How can one tell that the TEA party has been misdirected?  Just look at the donations for members of Congress that the TEA party supported.  Examine the measures supported by the Republicans and see how they affect people (real people) and how they affect corporations.  The final nail in the coffin for the grassroots members of the TEA party was to convince them that “what’s good for corporations is good for everyone.”  It is 180 degrees from “Keep your government hands off my Medicare” to a bill that effectively eliminates Medicare.

No one wants to see corporations disappear or even become unprofitable.  Neither should anyone (other than the extremely wealthy) want to see Congress and state government acting only in the interests of the corporations and against the interests of the citizens. 

Absent hyperpartisanship, there is common ground between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the TEA party.  Money in politics is something that both sides should agree is anathema to American democracy.  It is time to pull together instead of pulling apart. 

Fairness is an American value.  The current system isn’t fair.  The solution will need to address the unfair nature of the influence of big money in politics.

Now that we have cleared that up, let’s get to work.

Losing My Republic

I am going to buy a book.  The book is Republic, Lost by Laurence Lessig.  I am buying this book because it addresses an issue that I think is the most important problem threatening American democracy now and for the foreseeable future.

It may not be a threat, but a fait accompli.

Money and Politics should not be mingled to the extent that money becomes more influential than votes.  As it stands now, money is necessary to win elections, and only a few people (or corporations) have enough money to finance the increasingly expensive campaigns on every level of politics.  This is a reflection of the disparity of wealth in the United States, and it is at the heart of the protests ongoing called “Occupy Wall Street.”

I have looked long and hard for a key, some essential factor, in political finances that has both caused the problems we see and that would provide a path towards resolving the problems.  This key has proven elusive, but there may still be a way forward that will preserve our system of government.

Before considering solutions, I would like to discuss the nature and extent of the problem because it affects and infects everything in government.  Money has become a contagion that threatens the health of our country.

The consequences of dealing with a political system that is dependent on donations are not hard to recognize.  If a few people can make or break a politician’s career, then those few people will need to be catered to.  Their wishes will take precedence over any other concerns.  The stronger the politician’s advocacy of the issues of his donors and the more effective the legislative efforts to fulfill the desires of their donors, the more likely they are to receive donations for their reelection campaigns and the more likely they are to be able to raise money for other politicians (or their party).  Rigid political posturing is one result.  Gridlock.  Strategies to defeat their opponents take on a new intensity and compromise is tantamount to treason.  The Constitution and the rules in our legislatures have held the tools for obstruction from the beginning.  They are being used in novel ways now for purposes that were never envisioned by the people that crafted the documents and rules.

Our government is not made to withstand self-destructive or even suicidal legislative maneuvers, but filibuster rules, exclusionary rules, and even government shutdown threats are now almost commonplace.  Rigid adherence to dogmatic positions demanded by financiers have introduced a new rhetoric of inflexibility and resolve that makes compromise impossible and gridlock almost inevitable.

Many of the policies proposed and laws that have been contemplated are clearly intended to benefit the donors who are all, by definition, wealthy.  These policies have been divorced from the Will of the People and even from what would be best for the country by verbal contortionism.   Rich people have been redefined as “Job Creators” in order to entice those who are job seekers to vote for their interests while the majority of these wealthy people and corporations have no wish to create jobs.  Many don’t even have the ability to create jobs for anyone but their maids, butlers and gardeners. 

One might think that the vote would quickly quell any tendencies of politicians to enact legislation exclusively tailored to the wealthy, but the vote itself has been coopted by money – not by purchasing votes directly, but by the use of money to purchase advertising.  This advertising plays on our desires and fears, our prejudices and preconceptions, to present a narrative that is false but persuasive.

A lot of people are, by nature, conservative in the United States.  With a few rhetorical twists, these conservative people, who are not themselves wealthy or mean, cannot see anything wrong with increasing the taxes for the poor and elderly, keeping the “rabble” from voting, eliminating social safety nets for the jobless, poor, mentally disabled, elderly, homeless or hungry.  The money saved, they believe, could be better spent on tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations who would then, they believe, spend this windfall creating jobs.

The fact that this was tried with the tax cuts during the last decade with negligible job creation or business expansion does not seem to persuade them of the futility of this approach.  The plight of the less fortunate does not seem to matter to them since they are not homeless, poor or elderly and can not see the possibility that they may need such help themselves some day.

The reason this strategy has been effective despite the naked self-interest of the wealthy and the detriment of the average American, and indeed the country, is targeted advertising and biased political punditry.  If advertising were not so effective, people of average means would not vote for those who would take more from them to give to people and corporations that are overflowing with cash. 

But advertising is very effective, and advertisements are a commodity that can be purchased, which takes money, which drives the politicians to get more and more money, and so the monetary donations from the extremely wealthy open the door to politicians. There is a mutual attraction between politicians and donors, each seeking something from the other, each willing to give up something in exchange for their needs.

Corporations and the wealthy see their expenditures as investments.  Even small changes in their favor from a bill or tax incentive can mean a “profit” several times the amount of their donation. 

Politicians, on the other hand, have only their votes, their principles, their dignity and honor to offer in exchange for money.

In a way, I can understand how a politician might not even realize that his or her political views have been influenced by money.  I would think that it would be hard to live with the knowledge that one is harming the country and its people for personal gain otherwise.  Sinclair Lewis wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

There is another relatively unsavory aspect to this.  Politicians don’t have very large salaries.  Even with the perquisites of office, from travel to fame to health insurance and retirement, the salaries are, at best, “modest” with respect to the donors.  And yet most politicians, and particularly those with connections to those of great wealth, manage to leave office with their finances greatly improved.  The methods are not always obvious, and even when there are obvious methods of reimbursement (like hiring by a company), there is never any contract that delineated the specific actions the politician was to have performed to receive the reward.  That would be illegal.

Many would like to blame the Supreme Court for their ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  While this is a big part of the problem and helps to augment and perpetuate it, it is not the source of the problem.  Still, by allowing unlimited donations from people and corporations, the ruling enables the wealthy to “buy” influence.  Money talks.  Even to Supreme Court justices.  And that is sad.

Many would blame the Wall Street brokers that wreaked havoc on finances and then “socialized” their debts by taking money from the Federal Government, but that is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.  We do need a financial system that functions.  Their influence doesn’t stop with “bailouts” though.  They seek complete deregulation in order to continue to take unprecedented risks or charge extraordinary fees or even defraud consumers with impunity.  Still, this isn’t the source of the problem.

Digging deep into the stinking pile of sewage and refuse, we can start to make out the key to the problem.  It is a simple thing, but crucial to the influence of money in politics.  It is the success of advertising and orchestrated punditry that can make people vote against their own interests and for the interests of those that have only their self-interest at “heart.”  The advertisers and pundits are just “doing their jobs” when they sell their talents at influence.  If their speech were not influential, their services would not be in demand, but in large part it is their talents that transform money into votes.  That is the engine behind the influence of money in politics.  The only other possibility would be transfer of wealth to the candidates themselves.  But that would be illegal…

Unfortunately, knowing that does not suggest a solution.  It isn’t possible to make advertising less influential in changing the opinion of the public.  A solution must be fair and democratic.  It must eliminate the undue influence of moneyed interests and favor the broad interests of the constituents. 

One solution is campaign finance reform.

The cynic in me can see that the extremely wealthy and corporations will fight tooth and nail to prevent meaningful campaign finance reform with every trick in the book, and every legislator that is bought and paid for by these interests will try to jam the works to prevent this, even if it means that the country ceases to exist.  Previous efforts at campaign finance have been rendered ineffective.  Future efforts will be blocked. 

If there is no way to change the way our government works, then our republic is indeed lost.

But I’ll buy the book, and I will read it, and I will continue to hope that the solution will find a way, but I can say that the American People will need to see through the advertising that distorts the truth, but that may only happen when it’s too late.

The extent to which people can be led to vote against their interests, or even to accept a bad solution to a problem, by advertising creating a false vision of reality reminds me of the movie “The Matrix.”  There is a truth; there is a reality.  Seeing it will require a vision that can recognize when one is being manipulated, and that is hard when we have convinced ourselves that we are not, and cannot be, manipulated.

We need a Red Pill.

There are modern historical precedents that illustrate the use of effective advertising, also known as propaganda, to persuade people that the desires of the few will satisfy the needs of the many.  These examples illustrate propaganda playing on the patriotism, prejudices and preconceptions of the people while simultaneously crushing their hopes and dreams.  Knowledge of these precedents is not helpful however because the very words that describe such political movements have been corrupted, and each side will accuse the other of using the same methods.  Both sides can cry “Extremism!” “Fascist!” “Racist!” or “Fooled!” and in the moment it may be impossible to recognize the truth. 

George Orwell saw the dangers of propaganda and the corruption of words by authoritarians, and he expressed those dangers (as well as many other concerns) in his book 1984.  What we see today isn’t what he described, but rather the prequel, the forward, the preface. 

To borrow from T.S. Elliot, this is how the Republic ends, not with a bang of drums or guns, but with a whimper of surrender to the power of money.