July 19, 2004
Romancing the negative
This week’s radio address helps us understand how the White House generates the president’s aura of optimism. By a process of natural selection, the negative is suppressed and simply falls out of his analysis.
Introducing his remarks on the results of the feds' annual "America's Children in Brief" report, Bush states, "The good news is that we have made significant progress during the past decade." This could lead one to presume that the speaker would go on to elaborate the "bad news" and then indicate how he or she were working to improve the situation. But that is mere prejudice.
The "bad news" is clear enough. In the introduction to the report, we read that, "the prevalence of overweight [sic] among U.S. children has increased sharply, and the percentage of children living in poverty rose slightly." Focusing on the latter, Bush spins the negative findings into a positive: "children raised in a household with married parents are far less likely to live in poverty . . . Fortunately, after a decades-long downward trend, the percentage of children living with married parents has remained steady since 1995." Surely, however, it is not good news that even though the percentage of children living with married parents is steady, more children are living in poverty. Not to fear, the president is ready at hand with his "Healthy Marriages Initiative": "And through our proposed Healthy Marriages Initiative, my Administration is committed to ensuring that more of our children grow up in a stable home with a married mother and father." However, as the mission statement of the Healthy Marriage Initiative itself makes clear: "Helping couples form and sustain healthy marriages is not, in itself, an anti-poverty program." It even goes so far as to declare that that the Healthy Marriage Initiative is not "an immediate solution to lifting all families out of poverty." Bush's solution for the reduction of poverty among children is a non sequitur.
It is not surprising that the Bush administration intends to alleviate child-poverty by handing out federal subsidies to the marriage counseling racket. After all, it is not for no reason that the president is mockingly referred to as "George Delano Bush" in some right wing circles. And, no doubt, the cynics are wondering whether this is this just one more way of funneling tax-payer money into religious organizations. But few ask: if marriage is in such a sorry state that its maintenance as an institution requires federal funding, is it not already beyond repair?
Posted by charles sanson at July 19, 2004 05:58 PMCharles, ignoring bad news, negative data, and negative feedback are hallmarks of this administration. And the voters are waking up.
Posted by: David R Remer at July 19, 2004 07:22 PMMeanwhile, dwelling on, obsessing over, focusing on, and stewing in, all things negative, has been the raison d’etre of the current left.
It’s a far cry from Shakti Gawain’s Creative Visualization for you Earth Muffins out there.
I will disagree with the current administration without plunging into the sewer of the worst corners of the mind, in the forms of some of the screeching voices given a forum by a desperate George Soros.
George Soros is a student of philosophy. As such, he has studied the philosophy of economics as well as political systems. Any student of philosophy seeks to extend values into outcomes. If one holds to a hedonistic value system, what is the outcome of such a life led. And more importantly, what is the outcome of whole societies adhere to certain values? George Soros looks at the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and asks, if the trend continues, what happens to consumerism which is the cornerstone of a healthy economy?
This is the gist of most of his writings on economics and why he is a supply side opponent. But, he is also not even close to being a socialist. Most of those who criticize Soros do so under false pretenses, having never read his works nor studied his biography and what shapes his ideas and actions.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 19, 2004 11:42 PMGeorge Soros looks at the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and asks, if the trend continues, what happens to consumerism which is the cornerstone of a healthy economy?
That’s kind of an ironic thought for a billionaire to be having. Sort of like a pro-lifer whacking an abortion doctor. Or a PETA fanatic with leather shoes.
I think Socialism would be a step up for Soros. A BIG step up in fact. A limousine pseudoleftist screaming that Capitalism is the bane of all existence, to me is worse than a pedophile priest threatening a 16 year-old boy with hellfire if he uses a condom and has sex with his 16 year-old girlfriend.
Posted by: Ciggy at July 20, 2004 12:02 AMCiggy, your ignorance of both Soros’ writings and his philanthropy are definitely showing or, you are simply withholding such knowledge and experience from us. Which is it?
Capitalism is fine with Soros, just not to the exclusion of regulatory oversight and not without the people of the nation demonstrating their compassion for the far less fortunate in such a wealthy land through the ballot box and taxes which assist poverty stricken children and aged, the mentally and physically handicapped, and those thrown out of work by economic dislocations, not to mention education which fuels corporate growth, inventiveness, and entrepreneurial drive.
Really, you should quit reading GOP crib notes from others who also haven’t read Soros, and check out his reasonings. I don’t agree with all of his premises, nor all of his conclusions, but, an awful lot of what he has to say and has reflected upon rings both true and wise.
It amazes me sometimes the inventiveness of folks to respect self-made GOP philosophy while trashing such a self-made, compassionate, giving, and thoughtful person like G. Soros who is a prime example of what their philosophy epitomizes.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2004 05:51 AMAs much as the right beats up on the left for being pessimists, it shure seems like they spend a lot of time… well, beating up on the left.
Republican optimism abounds, albeit at the expense of ignoring the “bad news”, but you never see any plans for making things better. Is the right under the impression that with a GOP majority in Congress and a Republican in the White House, this country no longer has any major domestic issues that need to be addressed? It’s as if, after tax cuts for the rich, the GOP has no other agenda.
David, you’re focusing on “talk” while I’m focusing on “walk”. I could say that I’m against child abuse and write fifty thousand books on the subject, but if I’m standing here taking a leather belt to a two year-old, it’s going to reveal me for what I am, isn’t it?
It would be very easy for Soros to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor by writing out a check. But he won’t. Yet he’ll talk all day long about how that needs to happen. So this is the guy who should be the Grey Emminence of America? Why?
compassion for the far less fortunate
I think compassion should be used very discerningly and discriminately, because it’s very easy to use that buzzword as an excuse for waste and perverse incentives.
Corporate welfare to Halliburton would be no less wasteful if it comprised 50 million people on a couch doing nothing, rather than 50,000 people driving trucks for $1,000/day. Waste is waste. Bad incentive is bad incentive, be it the corporate type or the individual type.
With that being said, “working poor” does indeed need to be an oxymoron. And I’m willing to give the elderly, handicapped, and full-time students a pass for the work requirement. I’m wrangling and self-debating with the idea of single mothers wanting to be full-time single mothers and get public assistance, but I’m leaning against it on the idea that “full time mother” fits the paradigm of “bread-winning partner”, which is an option for them, otherwise, get job and “quitcha whining”.
My approach to public assistance is 90% behavior modification and only 10% “compassion”. (Remember when I was saying that I’m not in the inner circle of the left?)
Education is definitely a hot-button of mine, partly because I’ve seen it revitalize and transform India into a future economic world power. I’d almost go so far as to call it an economic “wonder drug”. I don’t necessarily think fancy computers are a basic necessity for it, but I do think that the French model of highly-compensated and highly-empowered teachers puts that position in enough prominence in their society that it tends to attract their best and brightest, making the quality of what’s offered to the students more solid. That, and a solid curriculum that doesn’t dabble in fuzzy-thinking experiments with pop-psychology. If you want group hugs, go live with Dr. Phil.
Really, you should quit reading GOP crib notes
This is a knee-jerk reaction I get from a lot of hardcore partisan Democrats who see Karl Rove behind every curtain and think that anyone who calls them on their b.s. is a part of the big Halliburton Conspiracy. I hate to burst your bubble, but I’m not. I “calls ‘em as I sees ‘em” and I will just as happily lay into Bush with both barrels when I see him screwing up, which is often for the Jethro Bodine President.
You could say I am as independant in my thinking as …France.
such a self-made, compassionate, giving, and thoughtful person like G. Soros who is a prime example of what their philosophy epitomizes.
So thoughtful that he funds moronic tripe like MoveOn.org which is in the Michael Moore class of unthinking hyperbole. The American left is ready to fellate this man for having pared off maybe 1/2 of 1% of his fortune in lip-service to redistributing wealth to the “less fortunate”, and donations to a party whose METHODS for redistributing wealth are economy-KILLING, not economy-REVITALIZING. Taxing from the middle class and giving 12% of it to the non-working poor is a formula for disaster, which has been tried in the past and has failed. I’ve seen no indication from Democrats that public assistance programs would be any different under their wing in the future.
SHOW me where Soros supports a flat tax with NO SHELTERS. Any other gab about “taxing the rich” is going to be two-faced because the rich DO have SHELTERS. No matter what the nominal rate, they stay rich, unless you take away the shelters. No more creator/donor trusts. No more tax-free “foundations”. Income is income and the tax is the tax. Until you support that, any talk of “taxing the rich” is urinating into the wind.
SHOW me where Soros supports witholding assistance from those who refuse to take jobs when they are able. To economically revitalize, people have to get back to work, and they won’t if they’re incentivized not to.
Compassion, compassion, compassion, and the billionaire still has his billions. How cheaply the poor sell their souls.
Ciggy, thanks for your lengthy and reasoned reply. Soros is by no means a perfect human being. He is however a student and continues to seek responsible answers to seemingly intractable problems. The fact that his is a billionaire should not be an indictment. How he acquired those billions and how he uses that money is a basis for assessing whether he walks his own talk.
There are three kinds of wealthy folk in my view. Those who view wealth as a personal score card and validation of their existence in some superior manner to others. Lots of those.
Then there are the pragmatic philantrhopists, whose philanthropy is designed around increasing their wealth, power, or status. These are what I call normal philanthropists.
Then there are what I call true philanthropists, who view money as a tool, and who use that tool to aid and assist the people and the society that provided them the opportunity to become wealthy, in return for a sense of satisfaction and validation that they are a good person. Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter are in this category.
I don’t yet know whether Soros falls in the normal or true philanthropist category. On the one hand he is still accumulating wealth. On the other hand, he is giving large sums to non-tax deductible and wealth preserving causes which he believes will help the nation as a whole. Soros has a progressive bent, but, it is forged from a belief in a debt he owes back to the society that gave him refuge and opportunity.
If Soros is managing the growth of his wealth as a means of transferring a greater power to elevate the good in society upon his passing via a will or foundation that seeks societal benefits, I will put him in the true philanthropist category. He is showing signs of going in that direction.
I recognize and commend your independence in assessing and aligning your position on political issues. We don’t agree on the degree which self-determination plays in financial success, I suspect, and we don’t agree on the degree of freedom which capitalism should retain from government oversight. That’s fine. But, these are issues at the heart of political policy debate today. These are philosophical issues, ultimately, and George Soros is struggling to understand a formula which could lead to a policy that would create the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens in this land. That is clear in his writings and inquiries.
I wonder, though, if greatest good for the greatest number of citizens is a yardstick used in your assessment of political policy and their consequences. I see you use it implicitly at times, but, it appears to be selective useage. Where do you stand on the viability of such yardstick?
I have a few additional categories of billionaires to add:
1) The old-money scion who feels guilty for his or her wealth, and to assuage that guilt, goes on a crusade to raise funds from OTHER people for distribution to the poor (while preserving their own shelters). That would be a majority of the “limousine left” these days, although indeed they’re really only immitating the limousine RIGHT without understanding the depth to which they do so.
2) The other old-money playboy who doesn’t think much about “validation” or philosophical implications of wealth, and just plain dissipates his father’s wealth at warp speed until it either breaks the fortune or kills him. Raphael Rothschild falls into this category, or did, until they found him in a back alley in New York City with a heroin needle in his arm. Not quite alive.
3) The successful businessman who encourages the success of others and invests in other people’s dreams but doesn’t offer any free rides or throw good money after bad. I think a government should behave like this type of a billionaire.
George Soros is struggling to understand a formula which could lead to a policy that would create the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens in this land.
Then he should read my posts. Then maybe I’ll be a political party of TWO instead of just one, and people won’t be looking at me funny as I give a campaign speech to an empty gymnasium. ;)
I wonder, though, if greatest good for the greatest number of citizens is a yardstick used in your assessment of political policy and their consequences. I see you use it implicitly at times, but, it appears to be selective useage. Where do you stand on the viability of such yardstick?
I would say the greatest good for the elevation of the civilization is a more accurate description of my yardstick. If one must always pander to the masses no matter what the masses do or say or demand, you have mob rule in slow motion, or the L.A. Riots where the looters are assisted by federal agencies.
Money power and people power have to remain in balance—a natural form of “checks and balances” which acts as a substrate for the “checks and balances” in our three-headed government. At a basic level, it’s the greatest good for the collective balanced against the greatest good for the individual.
Ciggy, OK, I will add enjoyment and satisfaction to the first category, then your examples will still fall into my schema.
Whoa! My friend. The greatest good for civilization? That assumes civilization is inherently good. That is a very debateable contention. For example, I have a friend, an environmental anarchist, who makes a very convincing and rational argument that civilization is what will end the human race, and sows the seeds of its own demise. There is certainly a huge body of evidence in both history and the natural environment to support his case.
I will stick to greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. The Constitution is based on the concept of Commonwealth which is the aggregate of citizens, and stresses heavily the importance of the individual as weighed opposite the commonwealth guaranteeing certain rights which may not be confiscated by the commonwealth (civilization). If this is what you refer to by civilization, we can debate whether the Constitution places greater value on the Commonwealth or upon individual rights and freedoms ( I would argue for the latter ).
Also, your cynicism is showing. The Constitution recognizes the corruption of power, but, also, holds out the hope and prayer, and even assumption that human beings are basically good, not bad, and it trusts the people to act in thier own self interest (which makes no sense if one assumes the nature of humans is evil). I still believe in that wisdom that humans are basically good en masse and trust that if enlightened by a sound education, will perpetuate good by acting politically out of self-interest.
Which is why a poll a few years ago showed a majority of the wealthy would have elected to turn down a tax break if it would help the economy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 21, 2004 02:34 AMa very convincing and rational argument that civilization is what will end the human race, and sows the seeds of its own demise. There is certainly a huge body of evidence in both history and the natural environment to support his case.
Civilization is just tribal evolution, is all. The “DNA” of some civilizations (in the form of their culture) gets measured and is found lacking, and so it goes back onto the compost heap. Some of them reach staggering heights before they tumble, which is good because it makes some begin to wonder if they can achieve the same achievements without falling into some of the same pitfalls.
It’s easy to rail against the evils of civilizational advances, until you’re in the woods without any food and starting to get eaten by mosquitoes. Then civilization doesn’t seem so evil anymore.
I will stick to greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. The Constitution is based on the concept of Commonwealth which is the aggregate of citizens, and stresses heavily the importance of the individual as weighed opposite the commonwealth guaranteeing certain rights which may not be confiscated by the commonwealth (civilization).
As you can see, the U.S. Constitution is at cross purposes against your notion of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It seems it presents you with a decision to make, which if you follow yourself down that path, may put us at opposite ends of a civil war. Cheerio. ;)
it trusts the people to act in thier own self interest (which makes no sense if one assumes the nature of humans is evil).
The nature of people is self-interested, to various degrees of enlightenment therein. One of the beautiful things about Capitalism (in areas of commodity and mercantile commerce) is that two people can make a trade, each in their own interest, and each come out a “winner”. “Win-win” as you hear in the corporate world. It is this productive trade transaction which allows peaceful, rather than warlike, ways of succeeding in an interpersonal competition for resources. That is, of course, when humans are on the “enlightened” side of enlightened self-interest. When they get more toward the selfish side, they’ll tend toward dictatorships, or social experiments which promise them “something for nothing” like a political perpetual motion machine. “Tax yourself into prosperity, and somebody else will pay for your dream.”
(Still think I sound like a leftist? Hehehehe…)
Which is why a poll a few years ago showed a majority of the wealthy would have elected to turn down a tax break if it would help the economy.
Saying that a higher tax would automagically equate to a prosperous economy is like saying that launching a war will automagically equate to victory. Sometimes the victory is in NOT waging the war. In this particular case, at this particular point in time, we do have a national debt to take care of, which doesn’t allow for free-wheeling adventures around the globe fighting every turbaned dictator who looks at us funny, OR funding insanely expensive social programs in order to buy some key inner city votes. The austerity of spending in all areas, with the possible exception of education, will have to come, and THAT will be the key factor in American prosperity or lack thereof, in our future. If we get into the paradigm of thinking that we can simply tax our way into it, we become like the man with $60K of credit card debt and continues to spend like there’s no tomorrow, on the promise to himself that if only he makes more money everything will be alright.
Do you see, at all?
Posted by: Ciggy at July 21, 2004 10:03 PMCiggy, it is also easy to deceive oneself by rationalizing that gadgets and technology somehow enhance the basic enjoyment of life’s worthy experiences. In a preindustrialized hunter gatherer societies such as tribes in the Rain Forest of S. America, parents enjoy the nuances and fulfillment that comes with parenting. In a society such as ours, we get what, maybe 4.5 hours a day with our children of which perhaps 1 to 2 of those are actually spent paying attention and enjoyment time with the children on any given work day?
What value does one place on spending time with one’s offspring, teaching them, playing with them, watching them in their daily exursions into self discovery and development? Is it worth an dish washer, a car, or status at work apart from the family?
In the fundamental activities of life, eating, sleeping, playing, working, enjoying, suffering, and sharing, I would suggest there is a heavy price and sacrifice payed by huge numbers in “civilized” societies in terms of quality of life enjoyed by hunter-gatherers. On the other hand, medicine, longer life, and diversity and variety of experience are enhanced by civilized societies over primitive ones.
There is no question anymore as doctors and social scientists have written extensively of late about the costs of our lifestyle in peace of mind, stressless periods, and integrated loving relationships. One will not find 50% divorce rates in the rain forest, nor the high incidence of child molestation, rape, and violence among members of ones tribe. Nor homelessness, rejection of the aged, and emotionally or mentally handicapped. There are major trade offs to civilization, so much so, that all things considered, the only advantage civilization has over hunter-gatherer societies is that of being able to eradicate the support system for hunter gatherer societies, namely, their environments.
Technology leaves nothing natural unaffected, nor in the end, natural I suspect. And that is the rub. We are natural beings whose technology and economics will leave no natural thing unaltered, unspent, or sacred, not even ourselves!
David, if living in the rainforest is “the good life” to you, then I’m certain nothing is to stop you from going there and pursuing it. Do you not have the courage of your minimalist convictions there? And when you’re there, how long before you run out of mosquito repellant? And after that, how long will you “enjoy” it?
If one’s premium is on intensively raising children such that no minute of their day will go unnoticed by us, there are still work-at-home options available to the modern civilized worker, to at least the same degree as “enjoyed” by the hunter-gatherer.
I’m not sure how rigorously scientific your study of divorce, child molestation, rape, and so forth, are in the Amazon rainforest. In a paradigm of lower technology, it’s also easier for the darker nuances of life to go unreported.
I myself have lived among Tahitians who, while not exactly as primitive as Amazon hunter-gatherers, are also not to the modernized technological level of New Yorkers either. They are simple fishermen whose modern conveniences consist mainly of outboard motors for their boats, and beer brewed in modern breweries. Much of the rest of their lifestyle is as it was in the “matamua”, or the time before contact with European explorers.
On balance and at the end of the day I would say that going to an extreme in either direction is asking for trouble. If you reject all modern things and take the Amish idea to its ultimate conclusion, you beg for a shorter lifespan, more disease, and a lifestyle that is unnecessarily harsh and tedious. At the same time, if you chase after certain modern dreams at the pace sometimes demanded by the referees of the modern game, then indeed the sacrifices you mention come into play. You can lose your mind at a spirit-crushing corporate job working 60 hours a week just to be able to afford a boat that you’ll only have the time to operate two days a year.
Common sense must play a key role in all of this, and it’s in the area of common sense that I found the Tahitians to be highly advanced. They enjoyed a laid-back pace of life, sacrificing some hallmarks of wealth in the process but not necessarily worrying that if they bought an outboard motor or a small motorbike to ride into town, that it would be “cheapening the primitive purity of their existence”.
In the Amazon rainforest, the most effective way white anthropologists found to get on the good side of the tribal cultures was to leave gifts of modern tools like pots, pans, machetes, etc. The rainforest people didn’t think it a “sacrifice of their lifestyle” to accept such gifts. And yet it takes a certain amount of civilization to create them.
Posted by: Ciggy at July 24, 2004 04:29 PM
