- If we had rid ourselves of our addiction to foreign oil, this crisis would seem a lot simpler to us. While Egypt itself does not export much oil to the US, approximately 3.8 billion barrels of oil per day pass through Egypt, either through the Suez Canal or pipelines. In addition, if this pro-democracy movement spreads further in the Middle East, it could eventually affect major oil producers, too. It is easy to imagine oil traders/speculators driving the price of oil up in the coming days and weeks, with gasoline prices in the US reaching $4 or even approaching $5 per gallon this year.
- Egypt's greatest importance for the US in recent years has been as a key partner in protecting Israel's security. Egypt has been a key mediator between Israel and the Palestinians. It has tried to constrain Hamas. While some have argued that Egypt has not been as effective as a mediator because it benefits from an endlessly drawn-out process, it is unclear how the US could replace Egypt. Moreover, the instability in Egypt has raised concerned that Mubarak could be replaced by a regime more hostile to US and Israeli interests, possibly even a regime that would nullify the historic peace treaty with Israel.
- For Israel, things look worse than they did a month ago. Hezbollah is gaining more control over Lebanon to the north. Now, it's most reliable and long-term partner in the Arab world, Egypt, is in the midst of a political crisis that could lead to a new regime less friendly to Israel. Other countries in the region, in order to appease their own populations, may take on a more anti-Israeli - and anti-American - stance in the coming weeks.
- Does the instability in Egypt cause Israel's government to become more open to a peace deal with the Palestinians, or to hunker down and take an even more defensive stance, putting the peace process in a deep freeze for the foreseeable future? While, logically, Israel should seek to stabilize its relations with the Palestinians as it faces more uncertainties and threats from its neighbors and potentially loses Egypt's contraints on Hamas, the current government in Israel will probably do the opposite.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Some Thoughts on Egypt
As I sit here watching coverage of the protests in Egypt, I am struck by a couple of things:
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tackling the Big Oil Subsidies: The Numbers
Some numbers to ponder as we wait to see if President Obama's call to end big oil subsidies by the federal government (borrowed from our kids' future earnings/taxes) has any chance of becoming reality:
- The oil and gas industry spent $111,839,931 on lobbying in 2010, paying for 744 lobbyists (or 1.7 oil and gas industry lobbyists for every member of the House). That followed a record year of $175 million in 2009.
- The oil and gas industry gave almost $18 million in contributions to congressional campaigns in 2010 and almost $23 million in 2008!
- Speaker Boehner received over $100,000 in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies in 2009-10.
- President Obama received almost $900,000 in contributions from oil and gas companies for the 2008 campaign, out of $5,637,348 total industry donations to presidential candidates (28% to Democrats, 71.9% to Republicans; McCain got well over double what Obama received.)
- Exxon Mobil gave over $1.4 million to federal campaigns in 2008.
So what do all these donations get the oil and gas industry?
- The US government spends (well, borrows...) $36.5 billion each year to subsidize the oil and gas industries.
- According to the New York Times, the oil industry alone gets about $4 billion in tax breaks each year.
Not a bad return on their investment, is it?
Obama: The best we can hope for... and that's not good enough!
President Obama's State of the Union speech the other night was symbolic of how I feel about his presidency in general. Overall, I liked the speech. I thought he delivered it well, it hit some broad, positive themes I agree with and care about (infrastructure, education, new energy, etc.). He even mentioned wanting to end subsidies for oil companies! [Did you notice how dour Boehner looked as he refused to clap for that line?]
But I also felt like the speech was a good example of how Obama falls short of expectations and the hopes of many of his supporters, including me. He did not mention campaign finance reform, climate change, or gun control. His specific goals - a million electric cars by 2015, 80 percent of the country living near high-speed rail within 35 years - are good and important, but not worthy of a "Sputnik" moment. [By the way, what percentage of Americans could tell you what Sputnik was? For those who could, to what extent does it still resonate with them?] How about eliminating our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years? Increasing the high school graduation rate to 90 percent in 10 years? [According to one report, it was 75% in 2008, up from 72% in 2001.] Let's have some audacious goals that, if we really bust our butts and put our best and brightest to work on them, we just might achieve.
Like many people who voted for him in 2008, I have been both proud of and frustrated by President Obama during his first two years in office. I have come to realize, however, that he is merely the best president we can hope for, given the current realities of our political system. Given those realities, what he has accomplished is nothing short of miraculous. But, because of those realities, we can neither expect nor hope for much more, and that is unacceptable.
In two years, Obama has managed to prevent a second Great Depression, seemingly saved a large part of the US auto industry, passed a stimulus bill that saved or created millions of jobs, passed health care reform and the most significant financial reform bill in decades, won ratification of a new arms control treaty with Russia, and secured passage of a bill ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's the most impressive list of achievements of any president during his first two years in office since LBJ.
Still, he he couldn't get a major energy or climate change bill passed, both health care and financial reform fell short of important goals (reducing health care costs and eliminating the threats presented by moral hazard and "too big to fail" banks in the financial industry). A second stimulus, which many economists deemed necessary and current unemployment and state budget numbers would seem to demand, was a non-starter.
We are not likely to see Obama tackle some of the greatest and most urgent challenges facing our country today because of the biggest threat to our democracy: campaign financing. Let's face it: Obama
ran for president promising "change we can believe in," but the reality is that he has achieved all that he has by making back-room deals with the big players in health care, on Wall St., and in the GOP. Cap and trade is off the table. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended. Lobbyists still rule DC. His Administration seems like it has a revolving door of employment with Wall St. Moreover, according to the number two Democrat in the Senate, Wall St. "owns" Capitol Hill. So what hope do we have that Obama - or anyone else - will successfully tackle the growing income inequality in this country? Or climate change? Or military spending and the privatization of the military and intelligence services? Or government subsidies for big oil and the corn industry?
In the end, I like President Obama. I am proud of my vote for him in 2008. I will, in all likelihood, vote for him again in 2012. But I have lowered my expectations for him.
I keep coming back to one thing: campaign finance reform. Without it, Obama will do the best he can - better than most. But that's no longer good enough.
But I also felt like the speech was a good example of how Obama falls short of expectations and the hopes of many of his supporters, including me. He did not mention campaign finance reform, climate change, or gun control. His specific goals - a million electric cars by 2015, 80 percent of the country living near high-speed rail within 35 years - are good and important, but not worthy of a "Sputnik" moment. [By the way, what percentage of Americans could tell you what Sputnik was? For those who could, to what extent does it still resonate with them?] How about eliminating our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years? Increasing the high school graduation rate to 90 percent in 10 years? [According to one report, it was 75% in 2008, up from 72% in 2001.] Let's have some audacious goals that, if we really bust our butts and put our best and brightest to work on them, we just might achieve.
Like many people who voted for him in 2008, I have been both proud of and frustrated by President Obama during his first two years in office. I have come to realize, however, that he is merely the best president we can hope for, given the current realities of our political system. Given those realities, what he has accomplished is nothing short of miraculous. But, because of those realities, we can neither expect nor hope for much more, and that is unacceptable.
In two years, Obama has managed to prevent a second Great Depression, seemingly saved a large part of the US auto industry, passed a stimulus bill that saved or created millions of jobs, passed health care reform and the most significant financial reform bill in decades, won ratification of a new arms control treaty with Russia, and secured passage of a bill ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's the most impressive list of achievements of any president during his first two years in office since LBJ.
Still, he he couldn't get a major energy or climate change bill passed, both health care and financial reform fell short of important goals (reducing health care costs and eliminating the threats presented by moral hazard and "too big to fail" banks in the financial industry). A second stimulus, which many economists deemed necessary and current unemployment and state budget numbers would seem to demand, was a non-starter.
We are not likely to see Obama tackle some of the greatest and most urgent challenges facing our country today because of the biggest threat to our democracy: campaign financing. Let's face it: Obama
ran for president promising "change we can believe in," but the reality is that he has achieved all that he has by making back-room deals with the big players in health care, on Wall St., and in the GOP. Cap and trade is off the table. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended. Lobbyists still rule DC. His Administration seems like it has a revolving door of employment with Wall St. Moreover, according to the number two Democrat in the Senate, Wall St. "owns" Capitol Hill. So what hope do we have that Obama - or anyone else - will successfully tackle the growing income inequality in this country? Or climate change? Or military spending and the privatization of the military and intelligence services? Or government subsidies for big oil and the corn industry?
In the end, I like President Obama. I am proud of my vote for him in 2008. I will, in all likelihood, vote for him again in 2012. But I have lowered my expectations for him.
I keep coming back to one thing: campaign finance reform. Without it, Obama will do the best he can - better than most. But that's no longer good enough.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Suburban American's Dilemma
Tell me if this rings true or not...
You feel lucky. You won the birth lottery: you were born in America. You live the American dream. [Cue John Boehner crying...] You live better than your parents did: nicer car, bigger house, much bigger TV, you've traveled more, etc. Sure, you work long hours to afford that lifestyle. You have a tiring commute and, unlike your parents' or, at least, your grandparents' generation, you and your spouse both have to work just to make ends meet. You worry about how to pay for daycare, how to save for your kids' college and your retirement, and still make your mortgage payments. You spend your weekends feeling like a taxi driver, ferrying your kids to soccer practices and play dates, coaching the little league team, buying the groceries and doing the laundry. It's an exhausting lifestyle. But, still, you are living proof that we live in a great country - the greatest country - in the world, with the best type of government available.
Sure, the system is flawed and doesn't always work great, but it works. And, in spite of your exhausting life, you do your civic duty and vote. Well, maybe not in every election, but in most of the presidential ones and even some of the others. And in 2008, you even stepped it up a notch: you donated a little money to a candidate, signed up for his mailing list online, maybe even made a few calls to help get out the vote. Mission accomplished, right?
Um... no. Sorry. Because we didn't actually get "change we can believe in." We got a really smart, earnest president who has accomplished an amazing amount in just two years, not the least of which was saving us from a possible Great Depression Part 2. But it seemed like everything he did was done in a way that reminded us just how little Washington has changed, just how dirty the political process seems, and just how beholden to big business our elected representatives - including our president - really are these days. Because they depend on campaign donations from the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America to get elected and reelected, that's who they really work for. Not us. They spend so much time raising money for the next campaign, they have less and less time for actually governing and legislating.
So as much as we'd like to think that we can continue to limit our involvement in our political system to a vote here or there, every two or four or six years, we can't. Not anymore. Somehow, in the midst of our busy lives, we need to find a way to do more. We desperately need to tackle the urgent challenges of our day - education reform, our dependence on oil, climate change, exploding health care costs, potentially crippling federal and state budget deficits, a crumbling and antiquated infrastructure - and we can't do it unless and until we free our government from the grip of big money and free our elected representatives from the need to perpetually fund raise.
For starters, we need to change the way we finance political campaigns, and we need to do it now. But it won't happen until people like you and me demand that change. No, we won't have to quit our day jobs. We won't have to chain ourselves to the White House fence. But we need to do more than just vote every so often, choosing between two candidates who represent a status quo we can't accept anymore. For some, it might mean writing letters, sending emails, or attending rallies; for others it might mean making some phone calls or meeting with congressional staffers. But if we all do something, it will all add up. If we don't, then we will cede control of our political system to the extremists in both parties and those who use their wealth to buy access, influence and control in Washington. This isn't just a liberal or conservative issue. And while I titled this post "The Suburban American's Dilemma," this is truly the dilemma for the working class American living in the city and for the small business owner trying to stay afloat in rural America. This affects all of us. We all lose if we don't fix this.
Now, as I write this, I'm beat. I get up at 5 am every day, and it seems like there's little, if any, downtime most days. But I've got to find a way to make a difference here and now. This blog is one small step. It's my humble call to see if there are kindred spirits who will raise their voices with mine. What comes next? I'm not sure, yet. But as busy and tired as I am, I now have to admit that I have to do something.
This is our country. It has given many of us wonderful opportunities and great freedoms. But, as my parents and teachers taught me when I was a kid, those privileges come with responsibilities. It's time to turn those words into action.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Tipping Points
I found the comment on my last post to be quite thought-provoking. It is shocking, at times, that we have not reached a tipping point. But I think most Americans are either too busy struggling to get by or too busy and tired.
So what will it take for the middle and working classes in America to reach a tipping point and demand action? Rising oil/gas prices might. The growing state and local government debt crisis might. So might a national debt crisis, if and when it comes. But you would have thought the housing/financial crisis and accompanying Great Recession would have done it. And there was a backlash, though much of it was ill-informed or misdirected. Most of the outrage got directed at the government, and the Democrats paid the biggest price. People seemed more pissed off at the government for "bailing out" Wall Street than for Wall Street screwing over millions of Americans and walking away, in general, richer for it. People were more pissed off at Obama "bailing out" the auto companies than they were at the auto companies for decades of bad decisions and mismanagement. And lots of people were pissed off at the stimulus bill - which saved millions of jobs - because they thought it was the part of the bank bailout. And lots of people did not understand that the bank bailout, the auto bailout and the stimulus bill were necessary to keep us from the Great Depression II, or worse. Lots of people don't understand that the government will get back much of the money from the bailouts, and may even turn a profit. Tea partiers and others complain about taxes being too high, but they are taxed less under Obama.
Part of the problem is that the media ain't what it used to be. People have too many options now for getting their "news," and a lot of it sucks. TV news is all about ratings and image - and in some cases, about furthering a specific political ideology or agenda. And people are more distracted - fewer read newspapers, more watch reality TV, surf the web, play Farmville on Facebook, etc.
But part of the problem is that so many Americans have lost faith in their government, especially in Congress. So what if I think income inequality is a problem? So what if my standard of living os stagnating or declining? So what if the earth is warming and the climate is changing? So what if big business - especially the banking industry - think they own Congress? All too many Americans don't believe the government can or will fix the problems.
More and more, I think the wedge issue is campaign finance reform. People across the political spectrum agree that we need to get big money out of politics. If we did, then that might be an important first step in restoring some faith and confidence in government. And, in all likelihood, we'd see some politicians courting voters with as much enthusiasm and energy as they currently do their campaign donors. We might start to see some real legislation passed that would address the core needs and desires of the majority of voters.
This is a tough question. I'm no longer willing to give in to my cynicism. There will be a tipping point. I'd like it to come sooner rather than later. But I want it to be a catalyst for action that will put us on a healthier, positive path to the future, not a spark for violence or political extremism in American politics and government. That means that good, smart people who "get it" now need to start working together.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that may mean some kind of serious campaign on campaign finance reform - maybe for a constitutional amendment - or a third party.
So what will it take for the middle and working classes in America to reach a tipping point and demand action? Rising oil/gas prices might. The growing state and local government debt crisis might. So might a national debt crisis, if and when it comes. But you would have thought the housing/financial crisis and accompanying Great Recession would have done it. And there was a backlash, though much of it was ill-informed or misdirected. Most of the outrage got directed at the government, and the Democrats paid the biggest price. People seemed more pissed off at the government for "bailing out" Wall Street than for Wall Street screwing over millions of Americans and walking away, in general, richer for it. People were more pissed off at Obama "bailing out" the auto companies than they were at the auto companies for decades of bad decisions and mismanagement. And lots of people were pissed off at the stimulus bill - which saved millions of jobs - because they thought it was the part of the bank bailout. And lots of people did not understand that the bank bailout, the auto bailout and the stimulus bill were necessary to keep us from the Great Depression II, or worse. Lots of people don't understand that the government will get back much of the money from the bailouts, and may even turn a profit. Tea partiers and others complain about taxes being too high, but they are taxed less under Obama.
Part of the problem is that the media ain't what it used to be. People have too many options now for getting their "news," and a lot of it sucks. TV news is all about ratings and image - and in some cases, about furthering a specific political ideology or agenda. And people are more distracted - fewer read newspapers, more watch reality TV, surf the web, play Farmville on Facebook, etc.
But part of the problem is that so many Americans have lost faith in their government, especially in Congress. So what if I think income inequality is a problem? So what if my standard of living os stagnating or declining? So what if the earth is warming and the climate is changing? So what if big business - especially the banking industry - think they own Congress? All too many Americans don't believe the government can or will fix the problems.
More and more, I think the wedge issue is campaign finance reform. People across the political spectrum agree that we need to get big money out of politics. If we did, then that might be an important first step in restoring some faith and confidence in government. And, in all likelihood, we'd see some politicians courting voters with as much enthusiasm and energy as they currently do their campaign donors. We might start to see some real legislation passed that would address the core needs and desires of the majority of voters.
This is a tough question. I'm no longer willing to give in to my cynicism. There will be a tipping point. I'd like it to come sooner rather than later. But I want it to be a catalyst for action that will put us on a healthier, positive path to the future, not a spark for violence or political extremism in American politics and government. That means that good, smart people who "get it" now need to start working together.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that may mean some kind of serious campaign on campaign finance reform - maybe for a constitutional amendment - or a third party.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
A "Do No Harm" Foreign Policy - a response
I loved the comment to the original post, asking if it was too idealistic to think that we could actually ween our political system off the big money. Is it idealistic? Yes. Guilty, as charged. But so have been a lot of other reforms in our country's history, until they became necessary or the people demanded them. Women's suffrage. Direct election of senators. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Brown v. Board. Trust-busting. Social Security. Medicare. The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Heck, even the US intervention in Bosnia (sorry, couldn't resist...).
If we don't fix campaign financing, we're screwed.
But I think it's the kind of issue that real Americans from both sides of the aisle could eventually support. Everyone's hurt by the status quo, except those funding the campaigns and buying the influence.
I guess my theme lately has been to reject my own jaded, dark view of things and to, once again, believe that anything is possible. There are lots of people out there who want real change, who thought they were voting for it in 2008.
I also think the addiction to oil is another issue that should appeal to the left and right. What middle class, conservative American wants his or her gas money funding bin Laden & Co.?
The more I hear something is impossible, the more it makes me want to try!
If we don't fix campaign financing, we're screwed.
But I think it's the kind of issue that real Americans from both sides of the aisle could eventually support. Everyone's hurt by the status quo, except those funding the campaigns and buying the influence.
I guess my theme lately has been to reject my own jaded, dark view of things and to, once again, believe that anything is possible. There are lots of people out there who want real change, who thought they were voting for it in 2008.
I also think the addiction to oil is another issue that should appeal to the left and right. What middle class, conservative American wants his or her gas money funding bin Laden & Co.?
The more I hear something is impossible, the more it makes me want to try!
A "Do No Harm" Foreign Policy
As a former US diplomat and someone who advocated for the US to help stop the genocide in Bosnia, I've been a strong internationalist my whole life. I have believed that the US should use its role as a superpower to help others, to support human rights and make the world a safer, better place whenever possible. That didn't mean I thought we should intervene in every conflict or genocide around the world, or that supporting human rights in, say, China, was more important than every other US national interest. But I thought we should be actively engaged and helping out whenever possible. We did a lot of good during the Cold War promoting human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and those efforts helped support and encourage the people who eventually toppled those regimes two decades ago.
But I am starting to wonder. Yes, we should care about others. But I think we pay a lot of lip service these days to "human rights" while ignoring the considerable harm we do, intentionally or not, every day. And I think we over-promise and overextend ourselves, and we can no longer afford to do so.
So my new foreign policy paradigm is that we should "do no harm" while getting our own house in order.
Getting Our House in Order
First off, we should make sure we complete our military withdrawal from Iraq this year, while fully funding the State Department's expanding operations intended to build on our success to date. Second, we should withdraw from Afghanistan. I fear that we will be there forever, but I don't think the investment of blood and treasure is paying off or will pay off. In terms of long-term, vital US interests, there are better ways to invest our money and use our military than battling the Taliban and trying to turn the Karzai government into a stable government for that country.
I am sick and tired of the Middle East being the most important region in the world, just because we're addicted to oil and have refused for decades to do anything serious about it. While President Obama has significantly increased government investments in new energy technology, it's not enough. Let's be audacious and invoke a little bit of JFK's magic: let's rid ourselves of our oil addiction by 2020. Don't tell me it's impossible. We went to the moon in less than a decade - over 40 years ago! Don't tell me it's not important - how many Americans have died, and how much money has been wasted, just because of this addiction? How can we go to the pump and pay for gasoline that came from Saudi Arabia, when some of that money will end up financing terrorists trying to kill Americans and other innocent civilians around the world? Yes, the Middle East will always matter because Israel's security will always matter to us, but let's remove oil as the primary reason.
We also should examine ways to make more cuts in our defense budget. I've always been a defense hawk, but we can't afford the military budget we have right now, and we're clearly not willing to pay for it. We are willing to borrow from our kids and grandkids, but if we don't fix the budget deficit soon, our fiscal calamity will force even more draconian cuts later on. Now, we still need a military that can project power around the world and protect our vital interests, but right now the military-industrial complex is running wild. We have real and potential threats we need to defend against - North Korea and Iran come to mind - and we need to make sure that every defense dollar is spent actually making us safer. Sometimes, I think we just look at the hundreds of billions going toward defense each year and assume we must be really safe because we spend so much. That's a dangerous assumption.
In addition, drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan hopefully will allow us to drastically reduce our dependence on military contractors, which has cost us untold billions. We need to make sure that we restructure our military so that contractors like Blackwater are no longer hired as mercenaries to take the place of our professional soldiers. You want contractors to handle building and staffing the mess hall - fine. But we should not be using contractors to fight our wars. We should not be using US tax dollars to finance the creation of private armies. Period.
Fixing the budget deficit isn't rocket science. It just requires us to act like responsible adults. It means agreeing that, except in recessions or extraordinary economic crises (like the last two years), we will all agree to pay for our government and to expect only the government we are willing to pay for. I have addressed - and will again - this challenge elsewhere on this blog, but suffice it to say that some relatively minor tweaks will fix Social Security, while additional healthcare reforms will be needed to slow the growth of Medicare. And we will need to raise taxes - primarily on the wealthy and, probably, on consumption, through a value added tax of some kind.
We also need to shift our spending priorities. Say goodbye to oil and corn subsidies, hello to rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, we need even more investments in new energy. We need to change how we fund our schools as we try to make them more effective. We need to rebuild America as we reinvent it for the 21st Century and beyond.
Do No Harm
We talk a lot about other people's human rights. During the current state visit by China's president, the Obama administration is struggling to defend its record on human rights in China. Now, I do want people in China to have more freedoms, and I want the people of Tibet to have their rights and autonomy restored. But while we talk a lot about those issues and accomplish relatively little (other than ticking off the Chinese government), we do a lot of harm collectively and individually every day.
We buy mutual funds that invest in companies doing business in Sudan, effectively funding the genocide in Darfur. We buy cell phones and computers that use materials mined in eastern Congo, effectively funding the worst crimes against humanity on the planet. We do little to stem the use of illicit drugs bought in the US by our kids, which buys the guns used by Mexican drug gangs to kill thousands each year in a war that is turning Mexico into a failed state and is threatening our own national security. We buy clothes manufactured in sweat shops employing children and underpaid laborers, often working in dangerous conditions around the world. Largely because of our oil addiction, though partly to protect Israel, we spend billions propping up corrupt regimes in the Middle East that deny their own citizens fundamental human rights. We avoid serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions that are warming the planet and changing the climate to the point that people are dying and millions more are threatened.
If we just decided to do no harm, not expecting to be perfect but striving to be better, every day, we would do more good than all the lip service to human rights seems to be doing. Sure, if there seems to be a diplomatic solution or path to helping out (like Obama's efforts in southern Sudan of late), that's great. But, overall, let's focus first on not being part of the problem. Let's divest from companies doing business in Sudan and anywhere else where the money funds genocide. Let's insist that electronics be certified "conflict-free." Let's buy fair trade products whenever possible (that may also help protect US jobs against unfair competition from abroad to some extent). Let's figure out how to drastically reduce the use of illicit drugs that come from or through Mexico while using a combination of tighter gun control measures and border control checks to reduce the number of guns going from the US to Mexico. Let's adopt a cap and trade system - or if there's a better way to reduce emissions, let's do that. And let's make our oil addiction a mistake of the last century, not this one.
These shifts could potentially save thousands or even millions of lives. That's a much better return on our investment than Afghanistan or Iraq got us.
So my bottom line is that we should focus on rebuilding and reinventing America for the new century while trying to reduce the harm we do elsewhere. If we could show our kids that these changes are possible, think about the kind of America - and the kind of world - they could help shape during their lifetimes?
I welcome your thoughts and comments - this is a significant shift for me. If you've got some hard evidence or persuasive arguments that I'm way off course, I'd love to see them.
But I am starting to wonder. Yes, we should care about others. But I think we pay a lot of lip service these days to "human rights" while ignoring the considerable harm we do, intentionally or not, every day. And I think we over-promise and overextend ourselves, and we can no longer afford to do so.
So my new foreign policy paradigm is that we should "do no harm" while getting our own house in order.
Getting Our House in Order
First off, we should make sure we complete our military withdrawal from Iraq this year, while fully funding the State Department's expanding operations intended to build on our success to date. Second, we should withdraw from Afghanistan. I fear that we will be there forever, but I don't think the investment of blood and treasure is paying off or will pay off. In terms of long-term, vital US interests, there are better ways to invest our money and use our military than battling the Taliban and trying to turn the Karzai government into a stable government for that country.
I am sick and tired of the Middle East being the most important region in the world, just because we're addicted to oil and have refused for decades to do anything serious about it. While President Obama has significantly increased government investments in new energy technology, it's not enough. Let's be audacious and invoke a little bit of JFK's magic: let's rid ourselves of our oil addiction by 2020. Don't tell me it's impossible. We went to the moon in less than a decade - over 40 years ago! Don't tell me it's not important - how many Americans have died, and how much money has been wasted, just because of this addiction? How can we go to the pump and pay for gasoline that came from Saudi Arabia, when some of that money will end up financing terrorists trying to kill Americans and other innocent civilians around the world? Yes, the Middle East will always matter because Israel's security will always matter to us, but let's remove oil as the primary reason.
We also should examine ways to make more cuts in our defense budget. I've always been a defense hawk, but we can't afford the military budget we have right now, and we're clearly not willing to pay for it. We are willing to borrow from our kids and grandkids, but if we don't fix the budget deficit soon, our fiscal calamity will force even more draconian cuts later on. Now, we still need a military that can project power around the world and protect our vital interests, but right now the military-industrial complex is running wild. We have real and potential threats we need to defend against - North Korea and Iran come to mind - and we need to make sure that every defense dollar is spent actually making us safer. Sometimes, I think we just look at the hundreds of billions going toward defense each year and assume we must be really safe because we spend so much. That's a dangerous assumption.
In addition, drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan hopefully will allow us to drastically reduce our dependence on military contractors, which has cost us untold billions. We need to make sure that we restructure our military so that contractors like Blackwater are no longer hired as mercenaries to take the place of our professional soldiers. You want contractors to handle building and staffing the mess hall - fine. But we should not be using contractors to fight our wars. We should not be using US tax dollars to finance the creation of private armies. Period.
Fixing the budget deficit isn't rocket science. It just requires us to act like responsible adults. It means agreeing that, except in recessions or extraordinary economic crises (like the last two years), we will all agree to pay for our government and to expect only the government we are willing to pay for. I have addressed - and will again - this challenge elsewhere on this blog, but suffice it to say that some relatively minor tweaks will fix Social Security, while additional healthcare reforms will be needed to slow the growth of Medicare. And we will need to raise taxes - primarily on the wealthy and, probably, on consumption, through a value added tax of some kind.
We also need to shift our spending priorities. Say goodbye to oil and corn subsidies, hello to rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, we need even more investments in new energy. We need to change how we fund our schools as we try to make them more effective. We need to rebuild America as we reinvent it for the 21st Century and beyond.
Do No Harm
We talk a lot about other people's human rights. During the current state visit by China's president, the Obama administration is struggling to defend its record on human rights in China. Now, I do want people in China to have more freedoms, and I want the people of Tibet to have their rights and autonomy restored. But while we talk a lot about those issues and accomplish relatively little (other than ticking off the Chinese government), we do a lot of harm collectively and individually every day.
We buy mutual funds that invest in companies doing business in Sudan, effectively funding the genocide in Darfur. We buy cell phones and computers that use materials mined in eastern Congo, effectively funding the worst crimes against humanity on the planet. We do little to stem the use of illicit drugs bought in the US by our kids, which buys the guns used by Mexican drug gangs to kill thousands each year in a war that is turning Mexico into a failed state and is threatening our own national security. We buy clothes manufactured in sweat shops employing children and underpaid laborers, often working in dangerous conditions around the world. Largely because of our oil addiction, though partly to protect Israel, we spend billions propping up corrupt regimes in the Middle East that deny their own citizens fundamental human rights. We avoid serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions that are warming the planet and changing the climate to the point that people are dying and millions more are threatened.
If we just decided to do no harm, not expecting to be perfect but striving to be better, every day, we would do more good than all the lip service to human rights seems to be doing. Sure, if there seems to be a diplomatic solution or path to helping out (like Obama's efforts in southern Sudan of late), that's great. But, overall, let's focus first on not being part of the problem. Let's divest from companies doing business in Sudan and anywhere else where the money funds genocide. Let's insist that electronics be certified "conflict-free." Let's buy fair trade products whenever possible (that may also help protect US jobs against unfair competition from abroad to some extent). Let's figure out how to drastically reduce the use of illicit drugs that come from or through Mexico while using a combination of tighter gun control measures and border control checks to reduce the number of guns going from the US to Mexico. Let's adopt a cap and trade system - or if there's a better way to reduce emissions, let's do that. And let's make our oil addiction a mistake of the last century, not this one.
These shifts could potentially save thousands or even millions of lives. That's a much better return on our investment than Afghanistan or Iraq got us.
So my bottom line is that we should focus on rebuilding and reinventing America for the new century while trying to reduce the harm we do elsewhere. If we could show our kids that these changes are possible, think about the kind of America - and the kind of world - they could help shape during their lifetimes?
I welcome your thoughts and comments - this is a significant shift for me. If you've got some hard evidence or persuasive arguments that I'm way off course, I'd love to see them.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Join me in becoming less distraught and more empowered
Most of my life, I've been a pretty positive guy. In fact, in college, friends said I viewed the world through rose-colored glasses. I have tended to believe that anything is possible. I tended to get along with everyone, didn't speak badly about other people behind their backs, and saw the good in others.
Recently, however, I feel like I'm stuck in some bad Star Wars remake, being drawn over to the Dark Side. Now, some of it may just be that I'm a middle-aged guy, with less patience who is more easily frustrated by ignorance, thoughtlessness, and selfishness. I'm more aware of my own short-comings and feeling more guilty about my lack of involvement in fixing our nation's problems. Moreover, like many people, I can get caught up in the day-to-day frustrations and disappointments of my life, the petty conflicts, the slights - real and perceived.
And, yet, I am a high school social studies teacher and love my job more than ever. I am having more fun, find my students more interesting, and enjoy the journey of learning with them more than ever. That would seem to require plenty of patience and a sense of wonderment. And, I'd like to think I'm making a difference, at least with some people, some of the time.
While there are, in all likelihood, a multitude of reasons for my darker mood, every day I come back to the same realization: that a major reason for this shift in attitude is the state of our nation, the direction in which we're headed, and the seemingly intractable problem of having a political system dominated by two political parties addicted to, dependent on, and beholden to big money. This problem is compounded by the alarmingly rapid growth of inequality in this country, where the top one percent, or less, are amassing wealth at a blistering pace while the middle class shrinks and stagnates.
It is easy to become like Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time, whose cynicism often is well-founded and defended. There are many, many enormous challenges facing our country, and there is plenty of evidence that the political system is broken. As a teacher, I have felt is was my duty to help my students see the looming threats to their future. I have felt even more justified, of late, since many of my warnings have become reality in the last few years.
The result, however, has been that all-too-many days my students left class feeling depressed or worried, while I wanted them to feel empowered. I have become ever more angry and frustrated with our politics and politicians and the lack of real progress in addressing our more urgent problems. But giving in to the cynicism, frustration, and anger solves nothing. If there's anything I've learned from my students this semester, and from the discussions since the shooting in Arizona, it's that we need to feel more empowered and less cynical. We need a positive vision of the future to rally behind, not an endless things to complain about and feel victimized by.
We all can see where things are headed if more and more of us feel like powerless victims. And there are plenty of people in politics and on radio and TV who stand to make more money and gain more power and influence by leading us down that path. But that path does not lead us to a future I want for me or my kids.
One of the things that has made America great over the centuries is that, when times got really tough and the challenges seemed enormous and virtually insurmountable, people rallied behind those who sought solutions and had a vision for a better future. The progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. FDR and the New Deal. Martin Luther King, Jr., and LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement and the Great Society. They reminded us of our strengths and the many things to feel grateful for while challenging us to become even better and to insure that more Americans had a shot at the American dream.
So my challenge for myself is to look for ways to better appreciate what I have in my life and the many wonderful things our country has achieved while finding ways to become a better citizen in a better country. To feel less angry and more hopeful. To find ways to empower myself, my students, and other Americans who want a better future.
That doesn't mean ignoring those who would bring us over to the Dark Side. Rather, it means holding them accountable for their lies and personal agendas while having real answers to the questions they pretend to answer. It means insisting on a fact-based, reality-based, forward-looking debate and modeling what that looks like every day.
If we all take on this challenge, if we all do our best every day to forge that positive vision and move us one step along in that direction, we will get there.
For me, the positive vision has to start with a major political reform of some kind to break the stranglehold of big money on our political system. I'm not sure if that means a third party or a constitutional amendment on campaign financing, but something has to shift. It also means young Americans - people in their teens and twenties - who have the most to lose if things don't turn around, standing up for their futures and being the agents of change people like them have been in the past (civil rights, Vietnam, the anti-apartheid movement, etc.).
Then, it's about creating the kind of America we will be proud to leave our children and grandchildren. I've written before in this space about what that vision might look like, and I will doubtlessly write about it more. And I want to hear from others what they want that vision to look like. It can't end with a conversation on the internet, but it can start here.
How am I doing so far? How about you?
Recently, however, I feel like I'm stuck in some bad Star Wars remake, being drawn over to the Dark Side. Now, some of it may just be that I'm a middle-aged guy, with less patience who is more easily frustrated by ignorance, thoughtlessness, and selfishness. I'm more aware of my own short-comings and feeling more guilty about my lack of involvement in fixing our nation's problems. Moreover, like many people, I can get caught up in the day-to-day frustrations and disappointments of my life, the petty conflicts, the slights - real and perceived.
And, yet, I am a high school social studies teacher and love my job more than ever. I am having more fun, find my students more interesting, and enjoy the journey of learning with them more than ever. That would seem to require plenty of patience and a sense of wonderment. And, I'd like to think I'm making a difference, at least with some people, some of the time.
While there are, in all likelihood, a multitude of reasons for my darker mood, every day I come back to the same realization: that a major reason for this shift in attitude is the state of our nation, the direction in which we're headed, and the seemingly intractable problem of having a political system dominated by two political parties addicted to, dependent on, and beholden to big money. This problem is compounded by the alarmingly rapid growth of inequality in this country, where the top one percent, or less, are amassing wealth at a blistering pace while the middle class shrinks and stagnates.
It is easy to become like Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time, whose cynicism often is well-founded and defended. There are many, many enormous challenges facing our country, and there is plenty of evidence that the political system is broken. As a teacher, I have felt is was my duty to help my students see the looming threats to their future. I have felt even more justified, of late, since many of my warnings have become reality in the last few years.
The result, however, has been that all-too-many days my students left class feeling depressed or worried, while I wanted them to feel empowered. I have become ever more angry and frustrated with our politics and politicians and the lack of real progress in addressing our more urgent problems. But giving in to the cynicism, frustration, and anger solves nothing. If there's anything I've learned from my students this semester, and from the discussions since the shooting in Arizona, it's that we need to feel more empowered and less cynical. We need a positive vision of the future to rally behind, not an endless things to complain about and feel victimized by.
We all can see where things are headed if more and more of us feel like powerless victims. And there are plenty of people in politics and on radio and TV who stand to make more money and gain more power and influence by leading us down that path. But that path does not lead us to a future I want for me or my kids.
One of the things that has made America great over the centuries is that, when times got really tough and the challenges seemed enormous and virtually insurmountable, people rallied behind those who sought solutions and had a vision for a better future. The progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. FDR and the New Deal. Martin Luther King, Jr., and LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement and the Great Society. They reminded us of our strengths and the many things to feel grateful for while challenging us to become even better and to insure that more Americans had a shot at the American dream.
So my challenge for myself is to look for ways to better appreciate what I have in my life and the many wonderful things our country has achieved while finding ways to become a better citizen in a better country. To feel less angry and more hopeful. To find ways to empower myself, my students, and other Americans who want a better future.
That doesn't mean ignoring those who would bring us over to the Dark Side. Rather, it means holding them accountable for their lies and personal agendas while having real answers to the questions they pretend to answer. It means insisting on a fact-based, reality-based, forward-looking debate and modeling what that looks like every day.
If we all take on this challenge, if we all do our best every day to forge that positive vision and move us one step along in that direction, we will get there.
For me, the positive vision has to start with a major political reform of some kind to break the stranglehold of big money on our political system. I'm not sure if that means a third party or a constitutional amendment on campaign financing, but something has to shift. It also means young Americans - people in their teens and twenties - who have the most to lose if things don't turn around, standing up for their futures and being the agents of change people like them have been in the past (civil rights, Vietnam, the anti-apartheid movement, etc.).
Then, it's about creating the kind of America we will be proud to leave our children and grandchildren. I've written before in this space about what that vision might look like, and I will doubtlessly write about it more. And I want to hear from others what they want that vision to look like. It can't end with a conversation on the internet, but it can start here.
How am I doing so far? How about you?
Monday, January 10, 2011
Conversation with a young patriot
I've been emailing back and forth with a former student this past week, and I thought I would share some of my end of the conversation in case it is of interest to anyone else:
[in response to an email about the shooting in Arizona...]
[in response to an email about the shooting in Arizona...]
I totally understand how you are feeling. It is a horrific incident and these kinds of things - violence in politics - naturally cause many caring people to question if there is any hope. Coupled with the multitude of challenges our country faces, and the nature of political discourse these days (to say nothing of the campaign finance fiasco), it's all too easy to become disheartened.
I've felt it, too. I've been in a funk for over a week, and part of it is feeling so frustrated and even angry about all this stuff - and that was before the shooting! But, ultimately, we both have a simple choice:
Tune out, stop paying attention, and stop caring. Live our lives in a bubble and pretend this stuff does not matter and that we can't make a difference. OR,...
Do something! Figure out what really matters and find a way to get involved. Make a difference. Or, at least, try to fight the good fight.
You are smart, you get it, and you care. You have some important skills. If not you, then who? There are lots of other good people out there who care. Find them. The power truly lies in the fact that we are still a democracy, and if people raise their voices, they can make a difference. Even the Tea Party has made a difference (not necessarily for the better, but a difference nonetheless).
[my reply to questions about how to decide where and how to get involved...]
Ultimately, I think it comes down to trusting your gut - which issue(s) really move you? You also could look at it in terms of which issue gives you the most leverage to make progress on others.
Focus on clarifying the big picture for you, then just take a step a day in that direction. Don't worry about the "how" or whether it seems doable or not. Find people on campus who share your interest/passion. Put up flyers and organize a meeting. Form a club/organization. Then figure out who else beyond your campus cares and network with them. That's a start....
So what next? Here's where my thinking is headed, for what it's worth:
It seems to me that the system is broken. Neither party is really capable/willing to what's necessary because big money has a stranglehold on the campaign process. So it's either create a third party (Robert Reich and others are starting to talk about it...) or push for a constitutional amendment to fix campaign financing, since the Supreme Court really screwed that up.
It's either that or... use the deficit/budget debate, which is getting into high gear now, as a wedge to force a debate on short- and long-term priorities.
Thoughts? I think you need to do some networking on campus to find some like-minded patriots...
Why can't I be a "supporter of the 2nd amendment," too?
Listening to some of the discussions in the media in the aftermath of the shooting in Arizona this weekend, it is striking how the language of the gun control debate seems to favor the anti-gun control side.
Language matters. The words we choose often convey bias or judgement - good or bad, right or wrong. The NRA and its anti-gun control allies seem to have won the battle over language. Time and time again, I have heard those in who oppose gun control (often of any kind) as "supporters of the 2nd amendment" or "supporters of 2nd amendment rights." Now, I favor some forms of gun control. I favor a ban on assault weapons, I favor waiting periods and more serious background checks. I favor mandatory training and licenses, like you need to drive a car (another potentially deadly weapon). But I also believe in the Constitution and the 2nd amendment. I just don't interpret it as broadly as the NRA and most anti-gun control people do.
So why does the media tend to use language that makes me seem like I am against part of the Constitution and against the 2nd amendment?
Here's what the 2nd amendment actually says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Seems pretty clear to me that this protects people's right to own weapons because we need a citizen milita to defend the freedom of the country. Now, we live in an era where the US military and National Guard protect the freedom of the country, so the intent of the amendment would seem moot. But I am willing to acknowledge a long-standing tradition of gun ownership in this country under a broad interpretation of this amendment. But it would seem prudent and constitutional for the government to pass laws limiting or regulating access to weapons if it is in the interest of protecting the general population.
But that does not make me "anti-2nd amendment," as the current language used in the media would suggest. By suggesting that those against gun control "support" the amendment (and, therefor, the Constitution), it is implied that those for gun control are against the amendment (and the Constitution). that pretty much stifles the debate.
Language matters. The words we choose often convey bias or judgement - good or bad, right or wrong. The NRA and its anti-gun control allies seem to have won the battle over language. Time and time again, I have heard those in who oppose gun control (often of any kind) as "supporters of the 2nd amendment" or "supporters of 2nd amendment rights." Now, I favor some forms of gun control. I favor a ban on assault weapons, I favor waiting periods and more serious background checks. I favor mandatory training and licenses, like you need to drive a car (another potentially deadly weapon). But I also believe in the Constitution and the 2nd amendment. I just don't interpret it as broadly as the NRA and most anti-gun control people do.
So why does the media tend to use language that makes me seem like I am against part of the Constitution and against the 2nd amendment?
Here's what the 2nd amendment actually says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Seems pretty clear to me that this protects people's right to own weapons because we need a citizen milita to defend the freedom of the country. Now, we live in an era where the US military and National Guard protect the freedom of the country, so the intent of the amendment would seem moot. But I am willing to acknowledge a long-standing tradition of gun ownership in this country under a broad interpretation of this amendment. But it would seem prudent and constitutional for the government to pass laws limiting or regulating access to weapons if it is in the interest of protecting the general population.
But that does not make me "anti-2nd amendment," as the current language used in the media would suggest. By suggesting that those against gun control "support" the amendment (and, therefor, the Constitution), it is implied that those for gun control are against the amendment (and the Constitution). that pretty much stifles the debate.
Friday, January 07, 2011
One more thing on the corn subsidies...
Obviously we're addicted to cheap corn, so we can't just cut the subsidies today. We need to wean ourselves off of them. We need a sensible approach toward a more sustainable food policy and system. Pig factories are dangerous to the local environment and to our society in general. And we don't want kids and poor people drinking soft drinks and eating cheeseburgers and fries so much. We want and need less processed foods that are more affordable.
But because of the influence of the farming industry, we can't even begin the conversation politically. Even Michelle Obama's relatively modest initiatives around healthy eating have come under attack!
We need some real strategic thinking in DC. On energy, education, food/health, infrastructure. Concrete, achievable and observable goals for the next 10 years and clear policies for achieving them. If the current political parties can't do that, then our nation needs another party...
But because of the influence of the farming industry, we can't even begin the conversation politically. Even Michelle Obama's relatively modest initiatives around healthy eating have come under attack!
We need some real strategic thinking in DC. On energy, education, food/health, infrastructure. Concrete, achievable and observable goals for the next 10 years and clear policies for achieving them. If the current political parties can't do that, then our nation needs another party...
Our insane corn policy
Since the Nixon Administration, we've had a crazy policy of subsidizing corn production. It's a bonanza for the big agricultural companies like ADM and has become a bit of a political sacred cow - big shock. Between ADM and other companies exercising their lobbying clout and the Iowa caucuses being so important in the presidential election process, it's become as American as apple pie and baseball.
The consequences are tragic. Cheap corn made corn syrup a staple in processed foods, making the least healthy food the least expensive. Corn became the feed of choice for cattle and pigs, enabling the creation of mega cattle and pig factories and the necessity for using antibiotics to keep those cows and pigs "healthy." Fast food and soft drink sales exploded. So did childhood and adult obesity. So did drug-resistant diseases.
In recent years, ethanol became a more popular alternative to or additive to gasoline, as mandated by the government. That, in term, increased demand for corn and drove the prices up, making food that depends on corn (beef, pork, etc.) more expensive.
NPR has a series on ethanol, and one installment discusses this crazy aspect of our corn subsidies - which need to end. Decades or centuries from now, historians may well look back on American corn subsidies as one of the stupidest and dangerous government policies of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Like so many other policies that need to change, this one is tough because the status quo serves the interest of big business. But it's killing us.
The consequences are tragic. Cheap corn made corn syrup a staple in processed foods, making the least healthy food the least expensive. Corn became the feed of choice for cattle and pigs, enabling the creation of mega cattle and pig factories and the necessity for using antibiotics to keep those cows and pigs "healthy." Fast food and soft drink sales exploded. So did childhood and adult obesity. So did drug-resistant diseases.
In recent years, ethanol became a more popular alternative to or additive to gasoline, as mandated by the government. That, in term, increased demand for corn and drove the prices up, making food that depends on corn (beef, pork, etc.) more expensive.
NPR has a series on ethanol, and one installment discusses this crazy aspect of our corn subsidies - which need to end. Decades or centuries from now, historians may well look back on American corn subsidies as one of the stupidest and dangerous government policies of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Like so many other policies that need to change, this one is tough because the status quo serves the interest of big business. But it's killing us.
Acting like Soviets
When I lived in the Soviet Union during its last years, one of the things that struck me as a critical difference between Soviets and Americans was the attitude when your neighbor had something you did not.
In America, if your neighbor bought a nice, shiny new car, you wanted one. You tried to figure out how you could get a car just like it - or better. We called it, "Keeping up with the Joneses." This mentality helped fuel economic expansion in the 20th century by increasing demand for consumer products and rewarding innovation. Your neighbor got the new color tv? Well, you had to get one, too. Sometimes that meant trying to get a promotion or bonus, or maybe even switch companies so you could earn more money. When it got out of control, it meant over-borrowing by running up our credit card bills or by borrowing against the equity in our houses.
In the Soviet Union, if your neighbor got that nice, shiny new car (ok, they weren't that nice or shiny...), you thought, "How did they get that? Must have paid someone off. I should report them to the authorities so they will take it away! I can't afford one, and even if I could, I'd have to wait 5-10 years on a waiting list in order to get one. Ivan shouldn't be able to buy one now!" People resented any evidence of success or wealth or improvement in the standard of living of their neighbors.
Now I am not a big fan of America's consumption mentality. I think it is a source of unhappiness and stress and waste. But it also is a source of innovation and ambition and progress. It is part of what unites us in the pursuit of the American dream - that we will live better than our parents and that our kids will live better than we do.
The current attacks on public employees and their unions smacks of a Soviet-style attitude of resentment: "Why should government workers have cheap health insurance or a decent pension when private sector employees increasingly do not?" Rather than denying public workers affordable health care and a pension, why don't we have a national conversation about how to really make health care affordable for all - beyond what Obamacare might or might not do? Why not discuss how everyone will live comfortably in old age, especially as life expectancy increases? Will 401k's and Social Security be enough? Can Social Security and Medicare be made solvent for the long term without making them ineffective as safety nets? If most people do have to save for their own retirement now, how can we better educate and empower them to do it wisely and successfully? After all, most high school students never learn about financial planning and investing, yet most will be responsible for managing their finances, saving for their kids' college educations, and building a pretty big nest egg for retirement.
Let's not make public employees the villains here and try to tear everyone down to a poor lowest common denominator. Let's figure out what or new vision of the American dream is and then figure out the best way to make it happen!
In America, if your neighbor bought a nice, shiny new car, you wanted one. You tried to figure out how you could get a car just like it - or better. We called it, "Keeping up with the Joneses." This mentality helped fuel economic expansion in the 20th century by increasing demand for consumer products and rewarding innovation. Your neighbor got the new color tv? Well, you had to get one, too. Sometimes that meant trying to get a promotion or bonus, or maybe even switch companies so you could earn more money. When it got out of control, it meant over-borrowing by running up our credit card bills or by borrowing against the equity in our houses.
In the Soviet Union, if your neighbor got that nice, shiny new car (ok, they weren't that nice or shiny...), you thought, "How did they get that? Must have paid someone off. I should report them to the authorities so they will take it away! I can't afford one, and even if I could, I'd have to wait 5-10 years on a waiting list in order to get one. Ivan shouldn't be able to buy one now!" People resented any evidence of success or wealth or improvement in the standard of living of their neighbors.
Now I am not a big fan of America's consumption mentality. I think it is a source of unhappiness and stress and waste. But it also is a source of innovation and ambition and progress. It is part of what unites us in the pursuit of the American dream - that we will live better than our parents and that our kids will live better than we do.
The current attacks on public employees and their unions smacks of a Soviet-style attitude of resentment: "Why should government workers have cheap health insurance or a decent pension when private sector employees increasingly do not?" Rather than denying public workers affordable health care and a pension, why don't we have a national conversation about how to really make health care affordable for all - beyond what Obamacare might or might not do? Why not discuss how everyone will live comfortably in old age, especially as life expectancy increases? Will 401k's and Social Security be enough? Can Social Security and Medicare be made solvent for the long term without making them ineffective as safety nets? If most people do have to save for their own retirement now, how can we better educate and empower them to do it wisely and successfully? After all, most high school students never learn about financial planning and investing, yet most will be responsible for managing their finances, saving for their kids' college educations, and building a pretty big nest egg for retirement.
Let's not make public employees the villains here and try to tear everyone down to a poor lowest common denominator. Let's figure out what or new vision of the American dream is and then figure out the best way to make it happen!
Fixing education in America - are we on the wrong path?
The Economist has a hopeful article about education reform in the US. While I am glad that we seem to be in the early stages of a more serious debate about the future of America's schools, I am very concerned that the debate is merely accelerating a move in the wrong direction. Seemingly every day, I hear or read about someone pointing the finger at teachers and teacher unions as the problem. We need more accountability for teachers! Let's test kids more so we can use those tests to determine how well teachers teach, then fire the ones whose students do poorly on the tests and increase the pay for the ones whose kids improve the most. Yet while some talk about needing to recruit better-qualified teachers and pay them more if they are effective, governors across the country this week are targeting public employees, their unions, and their benefits (health care and pensions) in order to address dire fiscal crises. So we're going to cut teacher pensions and health care, and cut teaching positions and/or slow the growth in salaries?
I've been teaching for over a decade now. I love it. It's harder than I ever thought, and I hate grading. But it's incredibly rewarding, challenging, and interesting every day. I learn so much from my students and about myself. I get up at 5am every day and I can't wait to get to school!
I'm also incredibly fortunate to teach in an affluent school district with supportive parents and more resources than many districts in the country. I've had supportive administrators, too, including my first principal who was a mentor to me and encouraged me to take risks and develop my own philosophy toward teaching.
So while I acknowledge that my perspective is somewhat limited, I'd like to weigh in on the growing debate in the US about how to improve our sub-par educational system.
I think we've been moving in the wrong direction in terms of national policy for a decade. No Child Left Behind created underfunded mandates for states and put us firmly on the track of relying on standardized tests to judge effectiveness. That's extremely flawed and, overall, harmful to education. The Obama/Duncan approach toward education reform similarly emphasizes testing, but now to evaluate teachers, not just schools.
Standardized tests have their place. Designed well, they can be one way of measuring minimal standards of proficiency for certain skills. But, in the end, they merely measure how each student can do on one given day on a limited range of tasks. They often test how well kids memorize material that, two weeks later, they forget. They really test how well you take a test. When is the last time you took a multiple-choice test where you work?
The reliance on standardized tests, I believe, has helped dumb-down America's schools in all too many cases. Rather than raising standards, they have often lowered them. Many teachers now "teach to the test," relying on lecture-based instruction to "cover" material that might be on a test and assessing students' learning by giving them tests that mimic the standardized ones at the end of the year.
The purpose of America's schools shouldn't be to raise test scores. I believe the purpose of America's schools should be to prepare our kids for 21st century careers and to teach them how to participate successfully in our society. Kids need to learn how to innovate, problem-solve, and collaborate with peers. They need to learn how to research, analyze, and communicate effectively, in writing and verbally. They need to understand how the economy works, how to budget and manage their money, and how to invest for the future. They need to know how to take care of their bodies through exercise and good nutrition. They need to know how to evaluate a doctor's advice and how to understand news about medical and scientific studies. They need to know how to be effective citizens in a democracy - how to follow and understand the news, how to discuss political and economic issues with their relatives, friends and co-workers, and how to participate in a democracy. Kids need to know how to figure out for whom to vote, how to vote, how to lobby their elected representatives, and how to share their opinions with their fellow citizens (letters to the editor, Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc.).
For the most part, standardized tests do not assess how well we are meeting those needs. We will not have the best chance of meeting those needs by teaching to the test by lecturing kids and having them memorize facts they can look up online in 30 seconds. If we lower our expectations to the standards of the tests, teachers and kids will lower their expectations and those needs will not be met. Basing teachers' salaries and job security on how well their students do on standardized tests is the path to mediocrity, not innovation and excellence.
We need better and higher standards. We need better ways of evaluating what we do in the classroom. We need better ways of preparing kids in poor inner city and rural districts for elementary school, so they can read and write and focus the rest of their academic careers on rising to high expectations. We need to train our teachers to be more innovative and creative, to take risks in the classroom in order to best address the needs and aspirations of the students they work with each year.
What do you think our goals should be? What's the best way to achieve them? How do we do it in this fiscal climate?
I've been teaching for over a decade now. I love it. It's harder than I ever thought, and I hate grading. But it's incredibly rewarding, challenging, and interesting every day. I learn so much from my students and about myself. I get up at 5am every day and I can't wait to get to school!
I'm also incredibly fortunate to teach in an affluent school district with supportive parents and more resources than many districts in the country. I've had supportive administrators, too, including my first principal who was a mentor to me and encouraged me to take risks and develop my own philosophy toward teaching.
So while I acknowledge that my perspective is somewhat limited, I'd like to weigh in on the growing debate in the US about how to improve our sub-par educational system.
I think we've been moving in the wrong direction in terms of national policy for a decade. No Child Left Behind created underfunded mandates for states and put us firmly on the track of relying on standardized tests to judge effectiveness. That's extremely flawed and, overall, harmful to education. The Obama/Duncan approach toward education reform similarly emphasizes testing, but now to evaluate teachers, not just schools.
Standardized tests have their place. Designed well, they can be one way of measuring minimal standards of proficiency for certain skills. But, in the end, they merely measure how each student can do on one given day on a limited range of tasks. They often test how well kids memorize material that, two weeks later, they forget. They really test how well you take a test. When is the last time you took a multiple-choice test where you work?
The reliance on standardized tests, I believe, has helped dumb-down America's schools in all too many cases. Rather than raising standards, they have often lowered them. Many teachers now "teach to the test," relying on lecture-based instruction to "cover" material that might be on a test and assessing students' learning by giving them tests that mimic the standardized ones at the end of the year.
The purpose of America's schools shouldn't be to raise test scores. I believe the purpose of America's schools should be to prepare our kids for 21st century careers and to teach them how to participate successfully in our society. Kids need to learn how to innovate, problem-solve, and collaborate with peers. They need to learn how to research, analyze, and communicate effectively, in writing and verbally. They need to understand how the economy works, how to budget and manage their money, and how to invest for the future. They need to know how to take care of their bodies through exercise and good nutrition. They need to know how to evaluate a doctor's advice and how to understand news about medical and scientific studies. They need to know how to be effective citizens in a democracy - how to follow and understand the news, how to discuss political and economic issues with their relatives, friends and co-workers, and how to participate in a democracy. Kids need to know how to figure out for whom to vote, how to vote, how to lobby their elected representatives, and how to share their opinions with their fellow citizens (letters to the editor, Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc.).
For the most part, standardized tests do not assess how well we are meeting those needs. We will not have the best chance of meeting those needs by teaching to the test by lecturing kids and having them memorize facts they can look up online in 30 seconds. If we lower our expectations to the standards of the tests, teachers and kids will lower their expectations and those needs will not be met. Basing teachers' salaries and job security on how well their students do on standardized tests is the path to mediocrity, not innovation and excellence.
We need better and higher standards. We need better ways of evaluating what we do in the classroom. We need better ways of preparing kids in poor inner city and rural districts for elementary school, so they can read and write and focus the rest of their academic careers on rising to high expectations. We need to train our teachers to be more innovative and creative, to take risks in the classroom in order to best address the needs and aspirations of the students they work with each year.
What do you think our goals should be? What's the best way to achieve them? How do we do it in this fiscal climate?
Thursday, January 06, 2011
I've had it!
I am increasingly frustrated and angry with the direction of our country and the tragically flawed nature of our political system. I'm looking for people who share my concern so we can figure out what to do - how we can raise our voices and join together to make sure that we and our kids have a brighter future.
The root of all evil seems to be the infection of the political system with corporate money. How can we expect the government - no matter which party is in charge - to do what is best for the common good when corporations and other wealthy donors have bought access and influence that is unchallenged? Just this week, we learned that hedge funds bankrolled the GOP toward the end of the midterm elections, providing $10 million in campaign financing.
Why should it surprise us when Obama appoints a top JP Morgan Chase executive to be his chief of staff? Why should we be surprised when his budget director leaves to go work for Citigroup?
Why should we be surprised when the first step in health care reform was to cut a private deal with the major companies involved in health care?
Why should we be surprised that the GOP had as its top priority to extend tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%? Why should we be surprised that the most likely solution to fixing Social Security's solvency is to make middle and working class people pay more in payroll taxes and postpone retirement, rather than reducing future benefits for the wealthy or taxing more of their current income?
Why should we be surprised when eight presidents - from Nixon to Obama - fail to provide a serious energy policy to get us off our addiction to Middle East oil? Why should we be surprised that oil companies are among the most heavily subsidized by the government?
Why should we be surprised when some of our leaders ignore science and deny climate change? Why should we be surprised when even those who believe in science do nothing to address the need to reduce carbon emissions?
Why should we be surprised when the US government spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing agriculture in ways that make our citizens - and especially our kids - obese?
Americans need jobs, we need to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, we need major investments in new energy technology, and we need to fix and better fund our educational system. But who is lobbying Congress to make sure that gets done? And who is lobbying Congress to make sure it gets done not by borrowing from our children's future income but by asking those who benefit the most from our country's wealth to pay more according to their means and by ending subsidies that keep us addicted to oil and unhealthy food?
We're a great country, capable of solving our problems and giving our kids - and the world - a brighter, healthier, safer future. Our challenges might be great, but so is our capacity for innovation and hard work. But unless and until our government stops serving the needs of the few and puts the needs of the average American first, much of that capacity will go to waste.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, the only way to remove the stranglehold big money has on our political system may be to amend the Constitution. So do we need to rally together to make that happen? Is it even possible? Will politicians in DC and state legislatures choose to cut off the hand that feeds them? Or do we need a third party that will counter the Tea Party and raise support for a platform that will fix our fiscal mess while investing in our future? Is there another way, one that is more unconventional that takes advantage of social networking and the technology of the 21st century to truly transform grassroots activism?
I would love to hear from others who share my frustration and anger. I especially would love to hear from younger Americans - those in their teens and 20s - who have the most to gain and lose. You have the power - and the time and energy - to make a real difference. Time to stand up and be heard!
The root of all evil seems to be the infection of the political system with corporate money. How can we expect the government - no matter which party is in charge - to do what is best for the common good when corporations and other wealthy donors have bought access and influence that is unchallenged? Just this week, we learned that hedge funds bankrolled the GOP toward the end of the midterm elections, providing $10 million in campaign financing.
Why should it surprise us when Obama appoints a top JP Morgan Chase executive to be his chief of staff? Why should we be surprised when his budget director leaves to go work for Citigroup?
Why should we be surprised when the first step in health care reform was to cut a private deal with the major companies involved in health care?
Why should we be surprised that the GOP had as its top priority to extend tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%? Why should we be surprised that the most likely solution to fixing Social Security's solvency is to make middle and working class people pay more in payroll taxes and postpone retirement, rather than reducing future benefits for the wealthy or taxing more of their current income?
Why should we be surprised when eight presidents - from Nixon to Obama - fail to provide a serious energy policy to get us off our addiction to Middle East oil? Why should we be surprised that oil companies are among the most heavily subsidized by the government?
Why should we be surprised when some of our leaders ignore science and deny climate change? Why should we be surprised when even those who believe in science do nothing to address the need to reduce carbon emissions?
Why should we be surprised when the US government spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing agriculture in ways that make our citizens - and especially our kids - obese?
Americans need jobs, we need to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, we need major investments in new energy technology, and we need to fix and better fund our educational system. But who is lobbying Congress to make sure that gets done? And who is lobbying Congress to make sure it gets done not by borrowing from our children's future income but by asking those who benefit the most from our country's wealth to pay more according to their means and by ending subsidies that keep us addicted to oil and unhealthy food?
We're a great country, capable of solving our problems and giving our kids - and the world - a brighter, healthier, safer future. Our challenges might be great, but so is our capacity for innovation and hard work. But unless and until our government stops serving the needs of the few and puts the needs of the average American first, much of that capacity will go to waste.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, the only way to remove the stranglehold big money has on our political system may be to amend the Constitution. So do we need to rally together to make that happen? Is it even possible? Will politicians in DC and state legislatures choose to cut off the hand that feeds them? Or do we need a third party that will counter the Tea Party and raise support for a platform that will fix our fiscal mess while investing in our future? Is there another way, one that is more unconventional that takes advantage of social networking and the technology of the 21st century to truly transform grassroots activism?
I would love to hear from others who share my frustration and anger. I especially would love to hear from younger Americans - those in their teens and 20s - who have the most to gain and lose. You have the power - and the time and energy - to make a real difference. Time to stand up and be heard!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)