The contentious and ultimately lethal demonstration in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend of Aug. 11 highlighted a conglomeration of groups which no longer seem to feel the need to operate under the cloak of obscurity. Marchers carrying Tiki torches, swastikas, confederate flags, banners reading "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil," while yelling Nazi slogans left little to the imagination.
In the aftermath of President Trump's botched and highly controversial pronouncements about the violence surrounding this event, every observer and columnist analyzed the repercussions about what happened from all angles and in great detail, leaving little to dissect. Some questions are still left unanswered, however. Who are these people? How many are there? What inspires them? What is their support structure? Do they have First Amendment rights to spout the venom that appears to unite them?
The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, an activist group focused specifically on the development and existence of "hate groups," defines such collectives as organizations with "beliefs or practices that attract or malign an ethnic class of people typically for their immutable characteristics." Since the turn of the century the number of hate groups have seen explosive growth, driven in part by anger over Latino immigration and demographic projections showing that whites will no longer hold majority status in the country by 2040. The increase in numbers accelerated in 2009 when President Obama took office, declined somewhat after that, and picked up speed again during the last two years because of a presidential campaign that flirted heavily with extremist ideas. (Southern Poverty Law Center, Hate Map, Aug. 17, 2017).
The groups most prominently identified during the discussion following the Charlottesville events include: Neo-Nazis, white supremacists or white nationalists, Ku Klux Klan, and Alt-Right. Although organizationally distinct, ideology and leadership of these groups often overlap. The neo-Nazis grew out of the National Socialist Movement, which was founded in1974 as the "National Socialist American Workers Freedom Party." This group seeks to revive the far-right tenets of Nazism. It borrows elements of Nazi doctrine, including ultra-nationalism, racism, ableism (discrimination in favor of able-bodied people), xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Neo-Nazi literature frequently highlights "14 words," referencing the white supremacist slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children," or alternatively: "Because the beauty of the white Aryan woman must not perish from this earth" ("Hate on Display: 14 words," Anti-Defamation League, June 1, 2007). The current national leader of the Nazi movement is Jeff Schoep, who has been a "true believer" since age 10, and who took over in 1994, propelling the NSM into the most active neo-Nazi organization in the country.
"White supremacy" refers to the conviction that white people are in many ways superior to people of other races, and, because of that, white people should dominate other races. This belief is rooted in scientific racism, which claims to establish a connection between race and intelligence, and distinguishes between superior and inferior races. "White nationalism," by extension, is the ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity, suggesting that national citizenship should be reserved for white people only. Leading promoters of white nationalism are Matthew Heimbach and Richard Spencer. Heimbach, in an article entitled: "I Hate Freedom," wrote: This is our home and our kith and kin. Borders matter, identity matters, blood matters, libertarians and their capitalism can move to Somalia if they want to live without rules" (Traditionalist Youth Network, July7, 2013).
The Ku Klux Klan, better known, was founded in 1866 as a vehicle to oppose Reconstruction policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for African-Americans. David Duke, a white-nationalist politician, anti-Semite, conspiracy theorist, holocaust denier, convicted felon, and former Imperial Wizard, remains influential. He made a point of thanking the president for having the courage "to tell the truth" following the Charlottesville events.
The "Alt-Right," a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies, makes a point of influencing these demonstrations wherever they take place. The group was initially identified as "Alternative-Right" by Paul Gottfried, and American paleo-conservative philosopher. Richard Spencer changed the name in 2010 to disguise overt racism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism. Lindy West, a New York Times opinion writer referred to this designation as an "unacceptable euphemism legitimizing an ideology that would be unacceptable if it were simply called white nationalism."
All of these far-right groups find editorial support and encouragement on websites like "Daily Stormer," a neo-Nazi news and commentary site, and Breitbart News, which expresses similar views, and takes the lead attacking all opinions not in line with its own. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's Chief Strategist until just a few week ago, has retaken his previous position as Breitbart's Executive Chairman. These ideologies are substantially supported by individuals who occupy influential positions. Among them are people like Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump's Senior Advisor for Policy, and Sebastian Gorka, the president's deputy assistant. Both of these have well-established connections to the white supremacist movement and neo-Nazi extremism. And they have the president's ear.
Enough said. To quote Heather Heyer, the 32-year old paralegal, a counter-demonstrator, killed on Aug. 12 by Nazi sympathizer James Field: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
Friday, September 8, 2017
Saturday, August 12, 2017
OUR HEALTH CARE DISCUSSION IS MISSING THE POINT
Our health care discussion, for all its political content an social consequences, has essentially been about managing the expense of providing insurance, rather than about investing in the appropriate elements of a health care safety net and affecting the outcomes of a comprehensive strategy. John Maurice Clark, a prominent social economists during the mid 20th century, agreed that our national health should be considered a paramount resource. Well before these issues surfaced during our current debate, he wrote: "It is clear that health is a national asset, and it is worth conserving, more or less regardless of whether it can be done on purely commercial principles." ("Economic means - to what ends?," American Economic Review, 1950). Many of us know that, as a country, we spend much more on health care than any other country in the world. Few of us realize that the health of Americans, by many different measures, is actually worse than the health of citizens in other wealthy countries.
Our health care system is expensive. In 1960 we spent 5.2% of GDP on health care. In 2009 this number had shot up to 17.6%. (Kaiser Foundation, "National Health Expenditures, 1960-2009," published April 6, 2012). While the increase in expenditure did help us improve our overall life expectancy, as well as our "healthy" life expectancy, our improvement has been considerably slower than what most other wealthy countries experienced. The Journal of the American Medical Association, in "The State of U.S. Health, 1990-2010," documented trends in mortality and morbidity (the rate of disease in a population) across 34 OECD countries. It concluded that life expectancy in the U.S. dropped from #20 to #27 , while our healthy life expectancy ranking dropped from #14 to #26. Another study, conducted by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, produced a report by a panel of experts examining health indicators in 17 high-income countries. It discovered that American men ranked dead last, while women did only slightly better, ranking second lowest.
The World Health Organization produced a chart showing life expectancy by country across the globe. The U.S. ranked # 31. A list produced by our own C.I.A. ranked us even lower, #43. This is well below countries like Japan, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia or Spain. The contrast between our significant health care expenditure and our disappointingly low healthy outcomes result, especially when compared to much of the developed world, seems paradoxical, and begs for an explanation. Fortunately, studies explaining why we rank as we do are readily available. Unfortunately, our representatives appear less interested in digging below the surface of complex challenges when they are not easily translated into simplistic sound bites.
Kristen Beckman, a senior editor on LifeHealthPro.com, serving the insurance industry, compiled a list of nine factors affecting longevity. A number of these suggest answers that could help us solve our paradox. "Gender," "genetics" and "marital status" are considered important factors. However, they won't help explain the discrepancy. "Pre-natal and childhood conditions" is significant, however. The U.S. has the highest rate of infant mortality among high-income countries. Children born in the U.S. have a lower chance of surviving to the age of five than children born in any other wealthy nation. "Socio-economic status" contributes to life expectancy as well. Poverty has an adverse affect on access to medical care and participation in healthier lifestyle habits. In the U.S. 17% of the population lives in poverty. The median for OECD countries is almost half that, 9%. (Steven Schroeder, past president of Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). "Education" also contributes. According to the Center for Disease Control, a 25 year old man without a high school diploma has a life expectancy 9.3 years less than a man with a bachelor's or higher degree. (A study published in the Washington Post in 2008 concluded that life expectancy in the U.S. was on the increase, but only among people with more than 12 years of education.} Ms. Beckman completes her list with "ethnicity," "lifestyle," and "medical technology." Not all of these explain why our outcomes are lower than those in other countries. Other researchers observed that we invest less than other wealthy countries in social programs like parental leave and early-childhood education. While we rank 1st among OECD countries in heath care expenditures, we are 25th in spending on social services. And, perhaps consequentially, among 17 wealthy democracies included in another report, the U.S. has the highest rate of adolescent pregnancy and sexual disease.
The research suggests that pouring money into health care is not the only answer. Experts estimate that, during the last century, modern medical care treatment delivered to individual patients, thru physician and hospital treatment covered by health insurance, has only been responsible for 10-25% of the improvements in life expectancy. The remainder came from changes in the social determinants of health, especially in early childhood. While other countries use governments to improve health, including, but not limited to, the development of universal health insurance, the U.S. has consistently invested less than other wealthy countries in social programs. Medical care can prolong survival and improve prognosis after some serious diseases. However, the social and economic conditions that make people ill and in need of medical care in the first place appear more important. Perhaps we should re-focus our health care discussion on the overall objective and rethink where our investments will do the most good. There are healthy outcomes in many countries that can serve as examples of how to do this.
Our health care system is expensive. In 1960 we spent 5.2% of GDP on health care. In 2009 this number had shot up to 17.6%. (Kaiser Foundation, "National Health Expenditures, 1960-2009," published April 6, 2012). While the increase in expenditure did help us improve our overall life expectancy, as well as our "healthy" life expectancy, our improvement has been considerably slower than what most other wealthy countries experienced. The Journal of the American Medical Association, in "The State of U.S. Health, 1990-2010," documented trends in mortality and morbidity (the rate of disease in a population) across 34 OECD countries. It concluded that life expectancy in the U.S. dropped from #20 to #27 , while our healthy life expectancy ranking dropped from #14 to #26. Another study, conducted by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, produced a report by a panel of experts examining health indicators in 17 high-income countries. It discovered that American men ranked dead last, while women did only slightly better, ranking second lowest.
The World Health Organization produced a chart showing life expectancy by country across the globe. The U.S. ranked # 31. A list produced by our own C.I.A. ranked us even lower, #43. This is well below countries like Japan, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia or Spain. The contrast between our significant health care expenditure and our disappointingly low healthy outcomes result, especially when compared to much of the developed world, seems paradoxical, and begs for an explanation. Fortunately, studies explaining why we rank as we do are readily available. Unfortunately, our representatives appear less interested in digging below the surface of complex challenges when they are not easily translated into simplistic sound bites.
Kristen Beckman, a senior editor on LifeHealthPro.com, serving the insurance industry, compiled a list of nine factors affecting longevity. A number of these suggest answers that could help us solve our paradox. "Gender," "genetics" and "marital status" are considered important factors. However, they won't help explain the discrepancy. "Pre-natal and childhood conditions" is significant, however. The U.S. has the highest rate of infant mortality among high-income countries. Children born in the U.S. have a lower chance of surviving to the age of five than children born in any other wealthy nation. "Socio-economic status" contributes to life expectancy as well. Poverty has an adverse affect on access to medical care and participation in healthier lifestyle habits. In the U.S. 17% of the population lives in poverty. The median for OECD countries is almost half that, 9%. (Steven Schroeder, past president of Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). "Education" also contributes. According to the Center for Disease Control, a 25 year old man without a high school diploma has a life expectancy 9.3 years less than a man with a bachelor's or higher degree. (A study published in the Washington Post in 2008 concluded that life expectancy in the U.S. was on the increase, but only among people with more than 12 years of education.} Ms. Beckman completes her list with "ethnicity," "lifestyle," and "medical technology." Not all of these explain why our outcomes are lower than those in other countries. Other researchers observed that we invest less than other wealthy countries in social programs like parental leave and early-childhood education. While we rank 1st among OECD countries in heath care expenditures, we are 25th in spending on social services. And, perhaps consequentially, among 17 wealthy democracies included in another report, the U.S. has the highest rate of adolescent pregnancy and sexual disease.
The research suggests that pouring money into health care is not the only answer. Experts estimate that, during the last century, modern medical care treatment delivered to individual patients, thru physician and hospital treatment covered by health insurance, has only been responsible for 10-25% of the improvements in life expectancy. The remainder came from changes in the social determinants of health, especially in early childhood. While other countries use governments to improve health, including, but not limited to, the development of universal health insurance, the U.S. has consistently invested less than other wealthy countries in social programs. Medical care can prolong survival and improve prognosis after some serious diseases. However, the social and economic conditions that make people ill and in need of medical care in the first place appear more important. Perhaps we should re-focus our health care discussion on the overall objective and rethink where our investments will do the most good. There are healthy outcomes in many countries that can serve as examples of how to do this.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
CONSEQUENCES OF REPEALING OBAMACARE
Ever since last year's election results became known, the congressional majority has labored to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, President Obama's signature legislation which went into effect in January of 2010. Aside from attempting to fulfill a political promise seven years in the making, the most significant reasons behind the desire to repeal the law have been "government overreach," budget impact, and the additional taxes levied on high income earners. Moreover, legislators want to use the potential savings realized from repeal to fund another policy objective, tax reform.
Obamacare's major accomplishment was that it pushed the nation's health insurance uninsured rate to a record low 8.6 percent, composed of about 27.3 million people. Those numbers were 16 percent and 48.6 million in 2010. The law helped provide insurance for an additional 21.3 million people. This result was achieved by mandating that nearly all Americans have some form of health insurance or pay a tax penalty, barring insurance companies from declining coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and authorizing an expansion of Medicaid to nearly all poor adults. (Thirty-one states expanded Medicaid programs with the federal government picking up most of the costs of providing coverage to the newly eligible.)
The most recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which focused on the current proposal considered by the Senate, to "repeal without replacement," estimates that, when enacted, this legislation would increase the number of uninsured by 17 million in 2018, and 32 million by 2026. The CBO estimate also projected that insurance premiums in the individual market would double, and it suggested that by 2026 most of the country would no longer have an insurer selling individual plans. Its projections assumed that a total repeal would include the end of mandatory insurance requirements, an end to subsidies to help low- and middle-income people purchase individual plans, and, by 2020, the end of federal funding for the expansion of Medicaid to poor adults. It would decrease federal deficits. Most of the savings would be generated by repealing the Medicaid expansion. ("H.R. 1628, Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017," CBO, July 19, 2017.)
While many of the proposed policy nuances may appear convoluted and unnecessarily complex, the elements affecting our personal lives are simple: 1. How will policy changes affect our premiums? 2. How many more of us will end up uninsured? 3. What effect will this condition have on our lives, individually, cumulatively, and on the viability of our support network?
Simply put, the uninsured have very limited access to healthcare Their care will generally come too late. They will be sicker and die sooner One in five uninsured adults will go entirely without medical care due to cost. They won't receive preventive care and services for major health conditions and chronic diseases. ("Key Facts about the Uninsured Population," Kaiser Foundation.)
A 2003 study published by the National Academic Press, entitled "Social and Economic Costs of Uninsurance in Context," provides even greater detail. Its findings show that 18,000 will die prematurely, 8 million uninsured with chronic illnesses will receive fewer services and have increased morbidity, 41 million adults and children will be less likely to receive preventive and screening services, and people living in communities with higher than average uninsured rates will be at risk for reduced availability of health service and overtaxed resources.
Other analyses of Obamacare repeal suggest that repeal of tax credits and Medicaid expansion could lead to a loss of 2.6 million jobs in 2019, and cuts in federal spending for health reform would likely cause serious economic distress for states. "If replacement policies are not in place, there will be a cumulative $1.5 trillion loss in gross state products, and $2.6 trillion reduction in business output from 2019 thru 2023. ("Repealing Federal Health Reform: Economic and Employment Consequences for States." This study was financed by the Commonwealth Fund.)
We should also consider the plight of hospitals. The "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act," passed in 1985, requires that hospitals treat all individuals in need of emergency care regardless of their insurance status. When people are uninsured hospitals effectively serve as insurers of last resort by providing care to uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay for their medical bills. The estimate is that each additional uninsured person costs local hospitals $900 per year. In 2013 alone the cost of uncompensated care was $84 billion. ("Who bears the cost of the uninsured? Non-profit hospitals." Kellog Insight, North-Western University, June 22, 2015.)
This all boils down to a question of priorities. How important is it to us, as a society, to protect those who can least afford it? Do we really think that politically flaunting "access" to health care equates with actually making care available and affordable for all? Shouldn't we consider the consequences simplistic political calculations impose on our personal lives and on the deteriorating health care support structures surrounding us? Do we really want our representatives to ignore these consequences because they promised they would repeal a law that has been on the books for seven-plus years, or because they need to realize a savings so they can squander it on tax reductions for some who don't need it?
The answer appears obvious. This can't just be about economics and politics, this is a moral issue as well.
Obamacare's major accomplishment was that it pushed the nation's health insurance uninsured rate to a record low 8.6 percent, composed of about 27.3 million people. Those numbers were 16 percent and 48.6 million in 2010. The law helped provide insurance for an additional 21.3 million people. This result was achieved by mandating that nearly all Americans have some form of health insurance or pay a tax penalty, barring insurance companies from declining coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and authorizing an expansion of Medicaid to nearly all poor adults. (Thirty-one states expanded Medicaid programs with the federal government picking up most of the costs of providing coverage to the newly eligible.)
The most recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which focused on the current proposal considered by the Senate, to "repeal without replacement," estimates that, when enacted, this legislation would increase the number of uninsured by 17 million in 2018, and 32 million by 2026. The CBO estimate also projected that insurance premiums in the individual market would double, and it suggested that by 2026 most of the country would no longer have an insurer selling individual plans. Its projections assumed that a total repeal would include the end of mandatory insurance requirements, an end to subsidies to help low- and middle-income people purchase individual plans, and, by 2020, the end of federal funding for the expansion of Medicaid to poor adults. It would decrease federal deficits. Most of the savings would be generated by repealing the Medicaid expansion. ("H.R. 1628, Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017," CBO, July 19, 2017.)
While many of the proposed policy nuances may appear convoluted and unnecessarily complex, the elements affecting our personal lives are simple: 1. How will policy changes affect our premiums? 2. How many more of us will end up uninsured? 3. What effect will this condition have on our lives, individually, cumulatively, and on the viability of our support network?
Simply put, the uninsured have very limited access to healthcare Their care will generally come too late. They will be sicker and die sooner One in five uninsured adults will go entirely without medical care due to cost. They won't receive preventive care and services for major health conditions and chronic diseases. ("Key Facts about the Uninsured Population," Kaiser Foundation.)
A 2003 study published by the National Academic Press, entitled "Social and Economic Costs of Uninsurance in Context," provides even greater detail. Its findings show that 18,000 will die prematurely, 8 million uninsured with chronic illnesses will receive fewer services and have increased morbidity, 41 million adults and children will be less likely to receive preventive and screening services, and people living in communities with higher than average uninsured rates will be at risk for reduced availability of health service and overtaxed resources.
Other analyses of Obamacare repeal suggest that repeal of tax credits and Medicaid expansion could lead to a loss of 2.6 million jobs in 2019, and cuts in federal spending for health reform would likely cause serious economic distress for states. "If replacement policies are not in place, there will be a cumulative $1.5 trillion loss in gross state products, and $2.6 trillion reduction in business output from 2019 thru 2023. ("Repealing Federal Health Reform: Economic and Employment Consequences for States." This study was financed by the Commonwealth Fund.)
We should also consider the plight of hospitals. The "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act," passed in 1985, requires that hospitals treat all individuals in need of emergency care regardless of their insurance status. When people are uninsured hospitals effectively serve as insurers of last resort by providing care to uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay for their medical bills. The estimate is that each additional uninsured person costs local hospitals $900 per year. In 2013 alone the cost of uncompensated care was $84 billion. ("Who bears the cost of the uninsured? Non-profit hospitals." Kellog Insight, North-Western University, June 22, 2015.)
This all boils down to a question of priorities. How important is it to us, as a society, to protect those who can least afford it? Do we really think that politically flaunting "access" to health care equates with actually making care available and affordable for all? Shouldn't we consider the consequences simplistic political calculations impose on our personal lives and on the deteriorating health care support structures surrounding us? Do we really want our representatives to ignore these consequences because they promised they would repeal a law that has been on the books for seven-plus years, or because they need to realize a savings so they can squander it on tax reductions for some who don't need it?
The answer appears obvious. This can't just be about economics and politics, this is a moral issue as well.
Monday, July 17, 2017
"OUR COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG!" - IS PATRIOTISM STILL ALIVE?
This quote, attributed to a toast offered by Stephen Decatur, a U.S. naval officer during the early 19th century, has been repeated over and over by those who want to either demonstrate their sense of patriotism, or censure an extreme form of it. Years after these words were absorbed into our culture, English writer Gilbert Chesterton rebutted that "no patriot would ever think of using these words, except when desperate." He continued by comparing that statement to saying: "My mother, drunk or sober."
Given the extremely contentious political climate our country is currently experiencing, believers on both sides of the fence routinely accuse the opposing contingent of being un-patriotic. With aggressive attitudes dominating the discussion, we might easily be convinced that patriotism, as a cultural characteristic, has become an endangered species. However, in a report which analyzed the results of a research project, Christian Rovsek, after traveling 12,500 miles through 44 states, and interviewing thousands of people, concluded that patriotism is still alive and flourishing. ("Is Patriotism Dead in America?," The Huffington Post, December 21, 2011.)
With the exception of some observers who straddle the fringes of the political spectrum, many who write about this subject seem to agree. Their conclusions ought to be comforting for most of us. However, we need to point out that not everyone agrees on how to define patriotism. Depending on our perspective, many of us may disagree on how to express our love of country. James Grossman, Executive Director of the American Historical Association, coined the question appropriately: "What constitutes patriotism in a nation founded on dissent and notable for its deep and vibrant traditions of activism and debate from every corner of the country and the political spectrum?" ("On Patriotism," May, 2015)
Throughout our history we have encountered many periods dominated by significant dispute, sometimes expressed violently, during which all sides question the patriotism of those they disagree with. Our Civil War stands out as a prime example. And those who lived through the Vietnam War era may well remember the mantra: "America , love it or leave it." When our country is at war, expressions of patriotism tend to veer towards the extreme, approaching a form of "nationalism." George Orwell distinguished between the two, defining patriotism as "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world, but has no wish to force upon other people." He considered nationalism to be inseparable from the desire for power, and the drive to secure greater prestige for the nation.
Having said this, it is significant to acknowledge that patriotism is not just some concept we can discard at will. We ought to recognize that if it were no longer alive, the continued homogeneity or national cohesion of our country would be in jeopardy. During war times patriotism instills "esprit de corps" among our soldiers. It clarifies their objectives, and drives them to give the extra effort in battle. Domestically patriotism in all its forms is used to arouse the popular support for the war effort in other ways.
Over time countries created symbols intended to unite people through visual, verbal or iconic representations of the national psyche, values, goals or history. Examples of these are flags, anthems, monuments, myths, national colors, and others. Historical events represented by our Independence Day celebration or France's Bastille Day are symbolic representations of important occurrences in history, designed to regenerate a feeling of national pride or remembrance. These symbols help us maintain our identity as a people. One of the major challenges supranational organizations like the European Union has is the relative lack of these unifying symbols. The current reincarnation of nativist attitudes in some of its member states appear to be a reflection of heightened patriotism at home, feeding an identity crisis many of their citizens have begun to experience as a result of increased immigration and a weakening of national unity. The resulting increase in euroscepticism and anti-globalization sentiments are largely a result of this growing exhibition of domestic patriotism.
While patriotism tends to be a positive force for the viability of a state, be it in a supportive or critical capacity, we need to recognize that there will always be some who subscribe to a flexible form of patriotism, while others may adopt the concept as an article of faith in manner reminiscent of adhering to a fundamentalist religion. Uncritical love of country can become pathological. People whose belief system is that extreme will invoke patriotism in defense of principles that they can't logically defend in any other way. The propaganda machines that operate in Nazi-Germany and those that are state controlled in present-day Russia feed this extreme form of what would otherwise be a good thing.
When patriotism bleeds into nationalism, chauvinism or jingoism, we need to be vigilant, and resist these impulses before hey take hold and become dangerous. "Our Country, right or wrong" is an attitude politicians will attempt to take advantage of, to the detriment of us all.
Given the extremely contentious political climate our country is currently experiencing, believers on both sides of the fence routinely accuse the opposing contingent of being un-patriotic. With aggressive attitudes dominating the discussion, we might easily be convinced that patriotism, as a cultural characteristic, has become an endangered species. However, in a report which analyzed the results of a research project, Christian Rovsek, after traveling 12,500 miles through 44 states, and interviewing thousands of people, concluded that patriotism is still alive and flourishing. ("Is Patriotism Dead in America?," The Huffington Post, December 21, 2011.)
With the exception of some observers who straddle the fringes of the political spectrum, many who write about this subject seem to agree. Their conclusions ought to be comforting for most of us. However, we need to point out that not everyone agrees on how to define patriotism. Depending on our perspective, many of us may disagree on how to express our love of country. James Grossman, Executive Director of the American Historical Association, coined the question appropriately: "What constitutes patriotism in a nation founded on dissent and notable for its deep and vibrant traditions of activism and debate from every corner of the country and the political spectrum?" ("On Patriotism," May, 2015)
Throughout our history we have encountered many periods dominated by significant dispute, sometimes expressed violently, during which all sides question the patriotism of those they disagree with. Our Civil War stands out as a prime example. And those who lived through the Vietnam War era may well remember the mantra: "America , love it or leave it." When our country is at war, expressions of patriotism tend to veer towards the extreme, approaching a form of "nationalism." George Orwell distinguished between the two, defining patriotism as "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world, but has no wish to force upon other people." He considered nationalism to be inseparable from the desire for power, and the drive to secure greater prestige for the nation.
Having said this, it is significant to acknowledge that patriotism is not just some concept we can discard at will. We ought to recognize that if it were no longer alive, the continued homogeneity or national cohesion of our country would be in jeopardy. During war times patriotism instills "esprit de corps" among our soldiers. It clarifies their objectives, and drives them to give the extra effort in battle. Domestically patriotism in all its forms is used to arouse the popular support for the war effort in other ways.
Over time countries created symbols intended to unite people through visual, verbal or iconic representations of the national psyche, values, goals or history. Examples of these are flags, anthems, monuments, myths, national colors, and others. Historical events represented by our Independence Day celebration or France's Bastille Day are symbolic representations of important occurrences in history, designed to regenerate a feeling of national pride or remembrance. These symbols help us maintain our identity as a people. One of the major challenges supranational organizations like the European Union has is the relative lack of these unifying symbols. The current reincarnation of nativist attitudes in some of its member states appear to be a reflection of heightened patriotism at home, feeding an identity crisis many of their citizens have begun to experience as a result of increased immigration and a weakening of national unity. The resulting increase in euroscepticism and anti-globalization sentiments are largely a result of this growing exhibition of domestic patriotism.
While patriotism tends to be a positive force for the viability of a state, be it in a supportive or critical capacity, we need to recognize that there will always be some who subscribe to a flexible form of patriotism, while others may adopt the concept as an article of faith in manner reminiscent of adhering to a fundamentalist religion. Uncritical love of country can become pathological. People whose belief system is that extreme will invoke patriotism in defense of principles that they can't logically defend in any other way. The propaganda machines that operate in Nazi-Germany and those that are state controlled in present-day Russia feed this extreme form of what would otherwise be a good thing.
When patriotism bleeds into nationalism, chauvinism or jingoism, we need to be vigilant, and resist these impulses before hey take hold and become dangerous. "Our Country, right or wrong" is an attitude politicians will attempt to take advantage of, to the detriment of us all.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALS ARE EMBLEMATIC OF LARGER PROBLEMS
On June 1 President Donald Trump announced to the world that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. During an hour-long, 2,000 word, speech in which the president never made mention of "climate change," he made the unsubstantiated assertion that the agreement would cost the U.S. as many as 2.7 million jobs by the year 2025. This move placed our country in opposition to 194 treaty participants and alongside Syria and Nicaragua, the only two countries that did not sign on.
International and national condemnation was fierce and predictable, dividing Mr. Trump's inner circle as well. While the expressed rationale for terminating our participation in the accord appeared designed to appease his political base, the thought process behind the decision seems grounded in Mr. Trump's distrust of the science behind climate change - something he referred to as a "hoax" during the campaign.
Many of Mr. Trump's core supporters reject the expertise of the vast majority of scientists who believe that global warming is linked to human activity. Politicians like Texas Senator Ted Cruz even deny that any warming has been recorded during the past 15 years. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, does not believe that human activity causes climate change. Michele Bachmann believes that nature itself is to blame. And Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is famous for stating categorically: "My point is, God is still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
While this may seem like an isolated issue, the attitude of many people, politicians most prominently, is emblematic of what appears to be an expression of a pervasive anti-intellectual attitude lodged in our culture. The literature supporting this line of argument is quite substantial. In 1963 Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter published a study entitled "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," for which he received the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction the following year. For a case study Hofstadter analyzed the 1952 presidential election battle between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. He argued that the contest ultimately came down to a campaign contrasting relative ignorance and superior intellect. Intellect lost. Hofstadter ultimately concluded that, perhaps as a consequence of the "democratization of knowledge," the acquisition and spread of knowledge among the "common people," anti-intellectualism had become embedded in our national fabric.
Our intellectual history has long been grounded in what political scientists refer to as the "protestant ethic," which dictates that a person's duty is to achieve success through hard work and thrift. Success reflects a sign that we are "saved." Combined with "utilitarianism," an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, these ideas became the underpinning of capitalism, a dominant building block for U.S. success. (See Max Weber, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"). Over time intellectual pursuit for its own sake began to be looked at as an impediment to economic development. Enter politicians of various stripes, and analysts observing what they see, and worrying about what we are in for.
For decades politicians have realized that scientific expertise did not sell well. Simplistic bombast, usually confused with ego-infused "common sense" did. Elected officials frequently attacked intellectuals by identifying them in terms such as an "effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as individuals," (Spiro Agnew), or publishing statements like: "I would sooner live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory, than in a society governed by the 2,000 faculty members of Harvard University." (William F. Buckley). When Donald Trump mentions that he wants to "drain the swamp," he really means getting rid of arrogant technocrats, bookish intellectuals and politically correct elites.
The transition from intellectual pursuit to a dominantly utilitarian focus also infiltrated our educational institutions. U.C. Irvine professor Catherine Liu recently remarked that "We don't educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs." Our students used to rank at the top of the world in math and science. In a recent PEW Research Center test for 15-year-olds from 35 participating OECD countries, we now only placed 30th in math and 19th in science. Hardly surprising, since our educational emphasis has shifted, and since many of our supposed role-models pride themselves on their ignorance.
Decades ago Isaac Asimov warned us of "a culture of ignorance in the United States, nurtured by the fake notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good a your knowledge." In April of this year EPA administrator Scott Pruitt eliminated all climate change references from its website, and instructed his staff to eliminate them from their lexicon. The administration apparently does not want to talk about this.
The question is: "Do we still accept that 'E=MC squared,' or do we want to vote on this?" Ignorance may be comforting to some of our leaders, it is a curse for the future of our country.
International and national condemnation was fierce and predictable, dividing Mr. Trump's inner circle as well. While the expressed rationale for terminating our participation in the accord appeared designed to appease his political base, the thought process behind the decision seems grounded in Mr. Trump's distrust of the science behind climate change - something he referred to as a "hoax" during the campaign.
Many of Mr. Trump's core supporters reject the expertise of the vast majority of scientists who believe that global warming is linked to human activity. Politicians like Texas Senator Ted Cruz even deny that any warming has been recorded during the past 15 years. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, does not believe that human activity causes climate change. Michele Bachmann believes that nature itself is to blame. And Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is famous for stating categorically: "My point is, God is still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
While this may seem like an isolated issue, the attitude of many people, politicians most prominently, is emblematic of what appears to be an expression of a pervasive anti-intellectual attitude lodged in our culture. The literature supporting this line of argument is quite substantial. In 1963 Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter published a study entitled "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," for which he received the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction the following year. For a case study Hofstadter analyzed the 1952 presidential election battle between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. He argued that the contest ultimately came down to a campaign contrasting relative ignorance and superior intellect. Intellect lost. Hofstadter ultimately concluded that, perhaps as a consequence of the "democratization of knowledge," the acquisition and spread of knowledge among the "common people," anti-intellectualism had become embedded in our national fabric.
Our intellectual history has long been grounded in what political scientists refer to as the "protestant ethic," which dictates that a person's duty is to achieve success through hard work and thrift. Success reflects a sign that we are "saved." Combined with "utilitarianism," an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, these ideas became the underpinning of capitalism, a dominant building block for U.S. success. (See Max Weber, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"). Over time intellectual pursuit for its own sake began to be looked at as an impediment to economic development. Enter politicians of various stripes, and analysts observing what they see, and worrying about what we are in for.
For decades politicians have realized that scientific expertise did not sell well. Simplistic bombast, usually confused with ego-infused "common sense" did. Elected officials frequently attacked intellectuals by identifying them in terms such as an "effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as individuals," (Spiro Agnew), or publishing statements like: "I would sooner live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory, than in a society governed by the 2,000 faculty members of Harvard University." (William F. Buckley). When Donald Trump mentions that he wants to "drain the swamp," he really means getting rid of arrogant technocrats, bookish intellectuals and politically correct elites.
The transition from intellectual pursuit to a dominantly utilitarian focus also infiltrated our educational institutions. U.C. Irvine professor Catherine Liu recently remarked that "We don't educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs." Our students used to rank at the top of the world in math and science. In a recent PEW Research Center test for 15-year-olds from 35 participating OECD countries, we now only placed 30th in math and 19th in science. Hardly surprising, since our educational emphasis has shifted, and since many of our supposed role-models pride themselves on their ignorance.
Decades ago Isaac Asimov warned us of "a culture of ignorance in the United States, nurtured by the fake notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good a your knowledge." In April of this year EPA administrator Scott Pruitt eliminated all climate change references from its website, and instructed his staff to eliminate them from their lexicon. The administration apparently does not want to talk about this.
The question is: "Do we still accept that 'E=MC squared,' or do we want to vote on this?" Ignorance may be comforting to some of our leaders, it is a curse for the future of our country.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
ARE WE GETTING READY TO PROVIDE A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME FOR EVERYONE?
Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg's commencement address to Harvard's class of 2017 on May 25 included a suggestion that appears to be gaining increasing support among contemporary business leaders. In his address Mr. Zuckerberg proposed that: "we should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas." For us, on the west coast, this came on the heels of a similar recommendation made by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Y-Combinator president Sam Altman, which was quoted in an article written by Marisa Kendall for the Bay Area News Group, and published on May 21st. Initial responses to these suggestions indicate that the concept is not well understood by the public at large, and, for many, appears to be something entirely new and coming out of left field.
A substantially similar proposal was first published in 1797 when Thomas Paine, in a pamphlet titled "Agrarian Justice," advocated for what he called "asset based egalitarianism," a social insurance system for young and old financed by a 10% tax on inherited property. During the 1960s and 1970s other proposals emerged. Economist Milton Friedman, in his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962), proposed a "negative income tax," while Austrian Nobel Laureate economist Friedrich Hayek in "Law, Legislation and Liberty" (1973) made the case for a Universal Basic Income as well. President Nixon once even contemplated a policy that would have provided "unconditional income for all poor families." (Rutger Bregman, "Nixon's Basic Income Plan," Jacobin, May 5, 2016.)
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) refers to a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money in addition to any income received from elsewhere. With technology and automation changing the labor market at an increasing pace, and as new technologies replace working conditions, in many minds the question for the future becomes how to best provide economic security for all. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich produced a column entitled: "The "iEverything and the Redistributional Imperative" (March 16, 2015). In it Reich postulates a little gadget called "iEverything"," which will give us anything we need, and which will be here before we know it. He suggests, however, that once it arrives we won't be able to buy it, because there won't be any paying jobs left. Researchers estimate that almost half of all U.S.jobs are at risk of being automated in the next two decades. Reich and others conclude that because of the speed of technological change a universal basic income will eventually be inevitable.
It is tempting to compare today's technological revolution with the industrial revolution that started in the mid 18th century. Both of these significantly transformed society. At a superficial level, however, we should recognize two important differences. The industrial revolution matured over a period of a hundred years or so. The pace of change was relatively slow, giving workers more time to adjust. Although many workers were shifted from being highly skilled and valued specialists into a fairly cheap, easily replaceable unskilled labor force, they did not typically lose their ability to make a living. The revolution we are experiencing today is much more rapid, giving many workers not enough time or resources to shift into new marketable skills. Elon Musk and others foresee an impending robot revolution expected to leave a trail of unemployment in its wake. "Futurism," a newsletter designed to "cover breakthrough technologies and scientific discoveries that will shape humanity's future," report that robot to worker ratios are rapidly increasing, currently running from 1.64 per 100 workers in the U.S. to 4.78 per 100 workers in South Korea. It projects that occupations like insurance underwriters, farm laborers construction workers, fast food cooks, truck drivers and mail carriers are among the many that are at risk.
Proponents of the UBI approach argue that it will free welfare recipients from the paternalistic oversight of conditional welfare-state policies. They suggest that traditional welfare schemes create a disincentive to work, because they cause people to lose benefits at the same rate that their income rises. They project that UBI will be affordable because it serves as a substitute of a wide range of social welfare programs. Since most people are above the median income level, they will, in fact, financially underwrite a basic income for all through their income tax. They look at UBI as a promise of equal opportunity, and a new starting line set above the poverty line. Opponents basically disagree on all counts. Even though they might support the "trickle down" concept, they don't see it here.
Several countries have experimented with some form of UBI. Alaska implemented its own brand in 1982. Its system is called the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), which is derived from earnings on investment of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF), a portfolio of diversified assets. Because of market fluctuations, the amount given to Alaskan residents vary. Canada, Finland, The Netherlands, and numerous developing African countries have also started to experiment with this approach. In June of 2016 Swiss citizens participated in a referendum asking whether a form of UBI should be incorporated into their constitution. The proposal was to provide a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss Francs to each citizen. It failed with 76.9% of voters voting against.
Even though many are still uncomfortable with the idea of giving people money simply for being a citizen, the heightened interest in these kinds of proposals suggest that intelligent people from all walks of life contemplate an impending need to address the negative consequences of a technological revolution that continues to pick up speed. Current conditional welfare-state policies may well be obsolete, and need rethinking.
A substantially similar proposal was first published in 1797 when Thomas Paine, in a pamphlet titled "Agrarian Justice," advocated for what he called "asset based egalitarianism," a social insurance system for young and old financed by a 10% tax on inherited property. During the 1960s and 1970s other proposals emerged. Economist Milton Friedman, in his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962), proposed a "negative income tax," while Austrian Nobel Laureate economist Friedrich Hayek in "Law, Legislation and Liberty" (1973) made the case for a Universal Basic Income as well. President Nixon once even contemplated a policy that would have provided "unconditional income for all poor families." (Rutger Bregman, "Nixon's Basic Income Plan," Jacobin, May 5, 2016.)
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) refers to a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money in addition to any income received from elsewhere. With technology and automation changing the labor market at an increasing pace, and as new technologies replace working conditions, in many minds the question for the future becomes how to best provide economic security for all. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich produced a column entitled: "The "iEverything and the Redistributional Imperative" (March 16, 2015). In it Reich postulates a little gadget called "iEverything"," which will give us anything we need, and which will be here before we know it. He suggests, however, that once it arrives we won't be able to buy it, because there won't be any paying jobs left. Researchers estimate that almost half of all U.S.jobs are at risk of being automated in the next two decades. Reich and others conclude that because of the speed of technological change a universal basic income will eventually be inevitable.
It is tempting to compare today's technological revolution with the industrial revolution that started in the mid 18th century. Both of these significantly transformed society. At a superficial level, however, we should recognize two important differences. The industrial revolution matured over a period of a hundred years or so. The pace of change was relatively slow, giving workers more time to adjust. Although many workers were shifted from being highly skilled and valued specialists into a fairly cheap, easily replaceable unskilled labor force, they did not typically lose their ability to make a living. The revolution we are experiencing today is much more rapid, giving many workers not enough time or resources to shift into new marketable skills. Elon Musk and others foresee an impending robot revolution expected to leave a trail of unemployment in its wake. "Futurism," a newsletter designed to "cover breakthrough technologies and scientific discoveries that will shape humanity's future," report that robot to worker ratios are rapidly increasing, currently running from 1.64 per 100 workers in the U.S. to 4.78 per 100 workers in South Korea. It projects that occupations like insurance underwriters, farm laborers construction workers, fast food cooks, truck drivers and mail carriers are among the many that are at risk.
Proponents of the UBI approach argue that it will free welfare recipients from the paternalistic oversight of conditional welfare-state policies. They suggest that traditional welfare schemes create a disincentive to work, because they cause people to lose benefits at the same rate that their income rises. They project that UBI will be affordable because it serves as a substitute of a wide range of social welfare programs. Since most people are above the median income level, they will, in fact, financially underwrite a basic income for all through their income tax. They look at UBI as a promise of equal opportunity, and a new starting line set above the poverty line. Opponents basically disagree on all counts. Even though they might support the "trickle down" concept, they don't see it here.
Several countries have experimented with some form of UBI. Alaska implemented its own brand in 1982. Its system is called the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), which is derived from earnings on investment of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF), a portfolio of diversified assets. Because of market fluctuations, the amount given to Alaskan residents vary. Canada, Finland, The Netherlands, and numerous developing African countries have also started to experiment with this approach. In June of 2016 Swiss citizens participated in a referendum asking whether a form of UBI should be incorporated into their constitution. The proposal was to provide a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss Francs to each citizen. It failed with 76.9% of voters voting against.
Even though many are still uncomfortable with the idea of giving people money simply for being a citizen, the heightened interest in these kinds of proposals suggest that intelligent people from all walks of life contemplate an impending need to address the negative consequences of a technological revolution that continues to pick up speed. Current conditional welfare-state policies may well be obsolete, and need rethinking.
Friday, May 19, 2017
HAVE CHILDREN BECOME TARGETS IN TODAY'S WARS?
I APOLOGIZE UP FRONT THAT THIS ENTRY SEEMS CHRONOLOGICALLY OUT OF ORDER.
The optics triggered by Bashar al-Assad's chemical strike against civilians in Khan Sheikhoun, resulting in close to 90 casualties, including women, children and babies, prompted a response which is still reverberating in several national capitals. President Trump's decision to send 59 missiles into the airfield from which the Syrian government's planes took off for the attack has been revered by many, regretted by some, and condemned by a number of governments involved in the Syrian civil war which is now in its sixth year.
Mr.Trump proclaimed that the sarin gas attack was an "affront to humanity," which affected him profoundly and transformed his thinking about the Syrian president, and led him to order the missile attack. Skeptics believe that Barack Obama's failure to enforce a "red line" over Assad's use of chemical weapons provided a powerful impetus to show that there was "a new sheriff in town." But even if, for the sake of argument, we take the comments surrounding this military event at face value, some of the questions we should ask, especially as they relate to the millions of children that have become the victims of warfare, are: Where was the outrage when barrel bombs rained down on hospitals, market places and other civilian targets? And, while in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries roughly half of all deaths in conflict zones were civilian, by the end of the 20th century almost 90 percent have been civilian, many of them children. What changed to make these more vulnerable today?
Warfare has changed, and these changes include the identity of combatants and the relative vulnerability of civilian populations. Most early wars were wars of aggression, generally for conquest or subjugation. The conquests by Alexander the Great and Gaius Julius Ceasar and others were well documented, and mostly military "events." The religious conflicts, from the crusades of the 11th through the 13th centuries, the wars of religion during the 16th and 17th century, the Napoleonic wars, and even World War I, were also essentially dominated by competing military forces, only incidentally affecting civilian populations. World War II produced a shift when the Nazis eventually combined conquest with ethnic cleansing, which, by its nature involved significant numbers of vulnerable children.
As wars evolved from predominantly interstate conflicts - fought between two or more states, - to intra-state armed conflicts, civil conflicts between a government and a non-state group, which largely takes place within the territory of the state in question, the incidence of civilian casualties increased dramatically. These conflict are as likely to be fought in villages and on suburban streets as anywhere else. The enemy camp is all around, and distinctions between combatants and no-combatants melt away in the suspicions and confusions of daily strife. Casualties are often not random. Where civil wars resulted from an ethnic conflict between two or more groups fighting for their ethnic group's position in society, children have often been targeted for "preventative" reasons.
Although the Nazi experience could not be identified as an ethnic conflict per-se, Hitler's enforcers unquestionably practiced ethnic cleansing. They openly, for political purposes, scapegoated various ethnic groups, and advocated killing children of "unwanted" or "dangerous" groups, either as part of the "racial struggle" or as a measure of preventative security. During a five-year period they killed as many as 1.5 million children, including over 1 million Jewish children and tens of thousands gypsy children and children with physical or mental disabilities. (Holocaust Encyclopedia - U.S Holocaust Memorial Museum).
In previous centuries children sometimes ended up in the cross-fire. In contemporary conflicts they have often become targets. Today one billion children are living in countries and territories affected by war or conflict. It is fair to conclude that large numbers suffer violent injuries and death. In Afghanistan, since 1979, at least 35,000 children have been victims of land mines alone (U.N. reports). As of 2015, the estimated civilian death toll in Afghanistan was 26,000. Iraq counted 120,000 since 2003. Well over 50 percent are children. After six years of civil war in Syria, the death count stands at 470,000 - 55,000 of these are children. ("I Am Syria," February, 2017). As early as 1996, UNICEF reported that during the preceding decade 2 million children were killed; 4.5 million disabled; 12 million left homeless; more than 1 million orphaned or separated from their parents; and some 10 million psychologically traumatized. ("The State of the World's Children." UNICEF, 1996). This was well before the Syrian civil war and myriad other conflicts broke out.
Whereas the optics of vulnerable children dying while foaming at their mouths might signify that a "red line" was crossed, justifying an international response, these "red lines" are set way too high. Barrel bombs dropped on civilian targets have produced significantly more carnage. Still, government forces are getting away with these criminal acts by hiding behind the concept of "national sovereignty" and blaming "terrorists."
This should be enough to force the international community to pull its collective head out of the sand, increase the visibility of these atrocities, and begin to hold governments and institutions perpetrating these acts accountable. National sovereignty be damned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)