Jane Addams and the Tea Party

I am re-reading Jane Addams’ wonderful memoir, Twenty Years at Hull-House.  In explaining the spirit with which she founded her settlement house in 1890s Chicago, she wrote that it was driven, in part by “the conviction, in the words of Canon Barnett, that the things which make men alike are finer and better than the things that keep them apart, and that these basic likenesses, if they are properly accentuated, easily transcend the less essential differences of race, language, creed, and tradition.”  Addams, of course, was speaking about the importance of integrating into American life the millions of immigrants who had been attracted to the United States at the height of the Industrial Revolution.  However, her words also set an expectation for us today.

American-style democracy thrives on our ability to find a workable middle—a place where are “basic likenesses” outweigh the things that keep us apart enough for us to fulfill the purpose of our federal government as declared in the opening sentence of the Constitution: “. . . to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .” I would like to think that I could identify some “basic likenesses” with the Tea Party members of Congress.  However, it does not come easily.

The Tea Party, which declared its purpose during the last election as being “to take back our country” (they did not say from whom), can be expected to become even more radical and less prone to compromise now that they have won a big victory.  These rightwing extremists have set themselves so arrogantly apart from the mainstream of our country, that, right now at least, I cannot find common ground with them.  They, in turn, seek no common ground with anyone who does not share their ideology.

I hope that our politicians are able to find a way to build a workable middle ground in this environment.

An Awful Week

It’s been an awful week out there in the world by most measures.  

First, of course, for some of us, there was the heat wave, which begins the list simply because of its striking immediacy.  Like most politics, it was regional in scope, but local in impact.  Few could ignore it; some died because of it. 

In Africa, where eleven million are suffering from famine, Somali militants refused to allow aid to get to the people who need it, demonstrating once again the uselessness of ideology over simple humanity. 

Here in the United States, radical conservatives are just fine with the idea of bringing on a new recession by forcing their fiscal ideology on the rest of the country, with impact on the rest of the world.  Here, too, ideology has replaced simple humanity.  One needs to be reminded that Pragmatism was an American philosophy.  Where is Dewey when you need him?

Then, very sadly, in Norway, one of the most peaceful countries, a conservative zealot—why real Christians allow these people to get away with calling themselves Christians I will never know—goes on a killing spree, murdering other Christians to make what he hoped would be an opening statement against the rising population of Islamists in Norway. 

Finally, for some perspective, on July 23, the “Writer’s Almanac” (http://www.elabs7.com/functions/message_view.html?mid=1296273&mlid=499&siteid=20130&uid=ecd2852d92)  carried this bit of trivia:

On this day in 1929, the Fascist government in Italy banned the use of foreign words. Regional dialects were still so prevalent when Mussolini came into power in 1922 that no more than 12 percent of the population of the unified state spoke straightforward Italian. The regime wanted to promote unity and a strong national identity, so anything that was seen to undermine these things was a cause for concern. French and English words and phrases were particularly popular; where possible, the government required the use of the Italian equivalent, and if one didn't exist, they made the foreign word as Italian as possible. Wine from Bordeaux became known as Barolo; a movie, formerly known as "il film," was now called "la pellicola." 

It reminded me of how short the road is from a self-governing kind of freedom to fascism, especially when one compares the 1929 event with the current discussions about immigration here in the U.S., where some want to build a great wall against our neighbors.  This short road is where American politics is currently being played out.  It is a frightening time for anyone who holds dear the American style of democracy.  We are losing the middle—the place where reasonable people can feel comfortable making a few compromises in order to live with their neighbors in a humane environment in which, even if everyone isn’t in harmony, they at least play to the same beat.  That beat is the heartbeat of our democracy.

One factor in all this may be the increasing global interconnectness that the Information Revolution has created.  Perhaps fear of losing their culture and, in the process, their identity drives people to radical cultural extremes.   The challenge we all face is how to keep our local culture—the culture that defines us to ourselves and our families and friends-- alive while we find our way—and come to feel at home—in a new, global culture.  We need to find a way to be more open about these questions, of course.  But we also need to take great care that, in the process, we do not repeat the cultural suicide that stained the 20^th century.

From the Typewriter to the Cloud: The Impact of Technology on Writing

One of this year’s finds at the annual AAUW book sale at Penn State was “The Writer’s Chapbook,” a collection of reflections about writing by top authors, drawn from their interviews in “The Paris Review.”   Reading it the other day, I stumbled over several authors commenting on the impact of the typewriter on writing. 

The biographer Leon Edel talked about Henry James, who must have been one of the early adopters of this new technology.  Here’s what he said:  “He began dictating directly to the typewriter.  It’s a case of the medium being the message and with dictation he ran into longer sentences, and parenthetical remarks, and when he revised what he had dictated he tended to add further flourishes.  In the old days, when he wrote in longhand he was much briefer and crisper, but now he luxuriated in fine phrases and he was exquisitely baroque.”

Conrad Aiken, noting that he never used a carbon copy “because that made me self-conscious,” wrote, “I can remember discussing the effect of the typewriter on our work with Tom Eliot because he was moving to the typewriter about the time I was.  And I remember our agreeing that it made for a slight change of style in the prose-that you tended to use more periodic sentences, a little shorter, and a rather choppier style—and that one must be careful about that . . . But that was a passing phase only.  We both soon discovered that we were just as free to let the style throw itself into the air as we had been writing manually.”

I suspect it is too bad that Henry James dictated rather than take to the keyboard himself. 

These couple of examples also made me wonder:  how has word processing changed style over the past two decades?  One imagines that the ability for infinite self-correction should free the imagination and allow writers to be more spontaneous, on one hand, and more precise on the other hand.  Then, add the Internet as a publishing environment.  I have to think that the ability to immediately publish one’s thoughts would lead to shorter pieces more focused on the immediacy of insight rather than on long, complexly woven pieces—a tendency reinforced by the limitations on length imposed by Twitter.  However, there is also the inevitable temptation to constantly revisit and revise—to not let good enough alone in this environment.  This suggests the need for a new artistic ethos:  that the writer, having written, must move on.   But it also raises a question about the relationship between writer and reader and how readers engage with the writer in the creative process.   In this new environment, is writing about the finished product or does the reader gain artistic insight in the process itself?

Worth exploring more.  Any thoughts?

Salt march to the Dead Sea: Gandhi's Palestinian reincarnation—By David Dean Shulman (Harper's Magazine)

Salt march to the Dead Sea: Gandhi's Palestinian reincarnation—By David Dean Shulman (Harper's Magazine)

Today, I ran into two interestingly opposing ideas. The first was part of a National Public Radio report on the impact of tobacco on the health of people in developing countries. One of the people interviewed, responding to a comment that pressure should be put on tobacco growers in developing countries, defended those that grow tobacco. I can't quote him directly, but in essence, he said, "If there is no law against it, then why should they not pursue a living by growing tobacco."

It is an interestingly amoral position that I have heard others--including American free marketers--take. I was left wondering why it is that we have abandoned personal morality in today's economy: if I am not breaking a law, then don't tell me not to do something. It left me a bit saddened.

Then, this afternoon, as I was watching supper cook on the grill, I read "Salt March to the Dead Sea," a commentary about the impact of Mahatma Gandhi on today's Palestinians. David Shulman noted that Nehru summarized Gandi's principles as follows: "Fearlessness and truth, and action allied to these," adding:

"'Action' meant deliberately breaking an immoral law, en masse, with an eye to the symbolic effect of disobedience: 'You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees,' said Gandhi. The goal was never merely to undermine the system but also, crucially, to change the hearts and minds of one's opponents--in effect, to humanize them. To this end, one must never meet violence with violence."

That inspired me, but it also left me wondering: What does one do when there is no law to disobey? How do we fight an amoral system that uses the LACK of laws to justify its selfish actions? This, it seems, is a critical issue in a system where deregulation is seen as a public good and where executives and politicians alike see amorality in the face of profit as a private good.

Perhaps the Gandhian thing to do in this situation is simply to shun companies that pursue profit through amoral, if not immoral action. Perhaps, nonviolent action in this case means that we turn our backs on companies that put profit above the public good and encourage others to do the same. In a consumer society, this will take some fearlessness, as well.

Memorial Day Flowers

This morning, we drove to the little village of Burnside, Pennsylvania, to put flowers on the graves of Karen's grandparents and great-grandparents for Memorial Day.  It was a quiet drive on a Sunday morning through the rural Central Pennsylvania countryside, much of it following the West Branch of the Susquehanna River.  This has been a wet spring, and it was threatening to rain later in the day, so we were in a hurry to get the job done.

The cemetery had been mowed earlier in the week, possibly for the first time this spring.  It was a rough mowing, and one of our first tasks was to clear away the clippings.  Another family was there--a local couple whose parents knew Karen's grandmother well.  They came prepared with a grass rake (the husband was on the cutting crew, it turns out) and they lent it to us to clear our graves.  Then, we planted a total of 8 geraniums and a more than a dozen ageratims at four graves.

Heading home, we saw a young couple rafting on the Susquehanna and another man fishing in the middle of the stream.  It was nice to drive through the small towns--Mahaffey, Curwensville, Grampian--and enjoy a Sunday drive.  We got home without any serious rain and in time for Sunday brunch. 

Later this week, I will head to Hermitage to put flowers on my family's graves.  That is a bit less involved, since the cemetery does not allow live flowers.  But I look forward to it every year, nevertheless.

I suspect that this Memorial Day tradition is one that is already fading, but I do enjoy it.  It is nice to feel connected, even briefly,  to family and community this way.

Water wars? Thirsty, energy-short China stirs fear - World news - World environment - msnbc.com

Water wars? Thirsty, energy-short China stirs fear - World news - World environment - msnbc.com

Here is an MSNBC report on a long-term issue that may drive international affairs in the coming decade more than the issues that are in the press these days.

Thoughts on the Federal Budget

This weekend’s short-term budget agreement has made it clear that, despite the radical ideologies that have been on display in Washington in recent months, it is possible to find a middle ground between the extreme right and the extreme left in order to stabilize our economy. This will be absolutely critical in the weeks ahead as we develop a budget for next year and a long-term strategy.

It is good to note that, at root, under all the politics, there is a significant difference in moral vision at work in the budget fight—a fundamental difference in how people view their responsibility to other people.

Democrats tend to believe that, in a democracy, individuals have personal freedoms, but also have a responsibility to their community. That responsibility takes the form of using government to protect people and to give them the opportunity to share in the benefits of democracy. This is what drives us to fund social infrastructure—from highways to social security—and to protect the ability of even the poorest to get an education and health care.

Republicans tend to believe that, in a democracy, individuals have the freedom to achieve whatever they are able to accomplish, but that they are not their “brother’s keeper.” Each person is responsible for himself. This is what drives Republicans to want to limit government and trust the private sector, which is the environment in which individual achievement thrives. While some recently have noted the difference between “small government conservatives” and “big government conservatives” (who want to control behavior), the small government approach is more classic American conservatism.

Interestingly, both positions have evolved to incorporate moral positions that are, at least on the face of it, antithetical to the tenets described above, but that may offer deeper insight into why the two philosophies differ. Democrats, for instance, believe in the individual’s responsibility to the community, but also defend the individual’s right to decide on moral issues—abortion, gay marriage, etc.—even when their decisions are in opposition to community standards. Republicans believe in the individual’s right to be free of government intrusion, but also call for government control over individual actions (again, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) where individual decisions might threaten community moral standards. At issue in both positions is a moral understanding of the limits to community and individual rights and obligations.

The beliefs of both parties have their roots in the 1800s. Republicans—the party of individual freedom—was, of course, the party that advocated for the elimination of slavery. That moral stance also brought to the party Quakers and others who believed in individual responsibility and in the power of small communities to provide moral direction. Democrats, on the other hand, took their modern form as advocates of working people—including immigrants and African Americans—who needed protection from the robber barons of industrialized America’s “gilded age.”

Today, we are facing a very different cultural and economic environment. The two perspectives have become increasingly polarized. It is hard to find a middle ground where rational decisions are made that reflect our best efforts to solve a problem as a society. Yet the middle ground is exactly where we need to be. We need to decide that, ultimately, it is not enough to protect the freedom of individuals to invest in companies that send jobs overseas. And, it is not enough to maintain entitlements that burden our grandchildren with unbearable debt.

Here are some starting points:

1. One cause of big government is our international military commitment. We should close down our longstanding military operations in Germany and Japan. World War II has been over for more than 60 years. The Soviet Union is gone. We simply don’t need to be there. Let’s bring home these troops—or most of them, if we need to maintain a presence at a lower level. However, let’s keep the troops active—it would be wrong to push a lot of unemployed soldiers back into the domestic economy—and put them to work on domestic issues: repairing roads, improving our public parks, supporting public services, etc. Over time, we could transform our standing military into a broad-based community service corps that, ideally, would be a desirable first stop for young men and women after high school graduation. The result would be to reduce the cost of maintaining the troops overseas, bring one pillar of big government under control, and redirect the personnel cost to domestic public service.

2. Social Security is an important safety net for America’s senior citizens. We should not throw it away. Instead, we should confront the outdated assumptions of the system, which was established at a time when life expectancy was 69 years. Today, financial advisors regularly suggest that people take an early pension, since they can expect to recoup the loss through a longer life. This may be good financial planning for the individual, but it undermines the social purpose of Social Security. Rather than take away the safety net, we should strengthen it by making it more reflective of today’s demographics. Keep the general retirement age at 66, but (1) limit early access to Social Security to people who can demonstrate a real need for early (age 62) access to their funds and (2) limit access until age 70 for those who have other sources of retirement income of more than $100,000 annually.

3. Rather than simply cut Medicare and Medicaid, clean them up to eliminate waste and abuse. The TV ads that offer seniors “free” motorized carts paid for by Medicare are an example of just how blatant the mis-use of Medicare and Medicaid have become. Because these services cover the costs, older people who enter the medical system tend to be over-tested and over-medicated. We need to tighten up how people qualify for devices like carts and require doctors and hospitals to better justify the services that they provide, often without the active consent of the patient. Cutting fraud and abuse is the best way to reduce these health-care costs.

4. Reduce or eliminate federal subsidies for oil companies. They are seeing record profits; they do not need any help.

5. Eliminate or reduce tax breaks for wealthiest individuals—those in the top 1 percent of the population. The idea that these breaks on individual income create jobs is nonsense. A fair tax system that properly distributes the burden of providing social services needs to be developed, with fewer loopholes and exceptions.