The 2012 general election was widely expected to be a blowout conservative victory - at least in conservative circles. The right wing blogs, radio talk show hosts and television talking heads were certain that the president was going to lose, ending the brief chapter that interrupted the conservative story of this century. And history was on their side - the president had failed to turn the economy around, and his argument that he'd inherited an economy in shambles and faced non-stop obstruction from the right wing in Congress would not convince the electorate. With massive unemployment and seemingly little good news, at least for the working classes, it seemed impossible that President Obama could win another term, especially after the gridlock, standoffs and stalled economic agenda that marked the two years since the GOP won control of the House, an election that seemed already to indicate a deep distrust of the president's plans for the nation and a marked swing back towards conservative philosophy.
It is needless to add that all those predictions were false and that the president won a surprisingly robust re-election. As an unabashed liberal, I should be delighted, and certainly I am happy that Obama rather than Romney will take the oath of office in January. But that small consolation aside, this election was decidedly disappointing, at the presidential and congressional level. There were a few bright spots in the state referenda, the most significant being the clear victory for marriage equality in four states, marking the first popular vote in favor. The votes in a couple of states to legalize marijuana also portend a heartening move away from the three decade old sham called the "War on Drugs" - if the federal government reacts with wisdom.
But let me explain why the presidential election was such a letdown. In the run-up to voting day, this contest was portrayed as a clear cut choice between liberal and conservative agenda. Strangely enough, the loss of both the electoral college and the popular vote led to an instant revision on the part of some prominent conservative leaders who pointed out that the president had never really laid out a plan for his second term and hence lacked a mandate to undertake any plan during his term. They are partly right, but like the blind men with the elephant, also mostly wrong. First and foremost the president did have an agenda, and it is largely a continuation of his plans from his first term - regulation of the financial markets, extending healthcare coverage to larger numbers, immigration reform, controlling the deficit through a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases. But, and this is the real crux of my problem, the president is no liberal and his agenda is really not at all liberal. He, like many Americans, leans slightly left of center, and is more likely to side with the liberal viewpoint than its opposite, but would be far more likely to be pretty much at the center if left to his own devices. President Obama took several years to embrace marriage equality, and has yet to rein in the Department of Justice from their long, wasteful and pointless war against drugs (targeting the smallest players and users while ensuring huge profits for the violent cartels and various terrorist organizations). He has embraced targeted assassinations of suspected enemies of the nation, with the verdict of death pronounced upon hundreds in secrecy and without trial, and many other questionable policies put in place by the Bush administration remain active or simply suspended (not cancelled or repudiated), with little transparency or scrutiny. The regulation of the financial market was a weak effort, and largely toothless, while the talk about increased marginal rates mostly remains just talk - these may be reflections of political necessity but the President has rarely pushed them vigorously in the halls of the legislature. His signature, and now likely permanent, achievement was the extension of health insurance to millions of previously uninsured workers. But the system lacked a strong government role and represents as much of a boon to the insurance industry as it does to the millions who now qualify for healthcare coverage. Tellingly, the basis of the entire plan was initially proposed by conservatives and first advanced as Bob Dole's alternative to President Clinton's plan, and then embraced by Speaker Newt Gingrich and implemented by Governor Romney in Massachusetts, before they developed a severe dislike of it. In short, the President is no liberal.
If that were the only problem, I would be only half as disappointed. Unfortunately, he was never opposed by any true Conservatives. Of course, to be opposed by a conservative, the movement would first have to decide exactly what form of conservatism they embrace and then pick a standard bearer to explain their position. Conservatism is essentially a wish to either keep things the way they are, or to restore them to the way they were at some point in the past. However from the practical viewpoint there are some things in the past that are considered worth keeping or restoring, while others are universally accepted as best left in the past. This concept is largely subjective obviously and manifest itself as two broad forms of conservatism, viz. social and fiscal, with an inherent dissonance betwixt them. Social conservatism is well defined in America, painfully so, with well defined positions that include support for the traditional family, opposition to birth control and abortion, opposition to gender equality, especially for homosexuals, and opposition to scientific theory that contradicts Christian theology. Perhaps I should be more charitable and describe their positions as support for only natural forms of birth control, strong belief in the sanctity of life, belief in the traditional roles of the "normal" sexes, and above all a deep religious faith in the absolute truth of Christian theology. This group was represented by Michelle Bachman, Mike Huckabee (in previous years) and Rick Santorum, and when the dust settled, they were left in the cold, with mere lip service to their ideology.
The fiscal conservatives have a less defined ideology. There are times when I wonder if they know exactly what they stand for themselves, for they sometimes seem to conflate policy for philosophy. Whether they articulate this or not, in the simplest and most positive terms they believe in the supremacy of the individual over the collective, and thence flows most of their policy. Since the individual is prime, government should be minimal, dealing with only issues like defense and international relations. The individual should be entitled to keep his earned wealth and spend it as he sees fit, rather than be forced to contribute it to a collective fund, which ties in nicely with the concept of a minimalist government. The individual rises or falls on his own merit, not on the support of others, an almost Darwinistic approach, but with space for compassion towards those of lesser merit, with the extent of compassionate assistance decided by each individual. In it's purest form, one can certainly understand this philosophy, even if one does not agree with the basic tenets.
From this philosophy flow the various conservative policies, but it is critical to note that a policy such as low taxation is means to an end, not an end in itself and too many conservative in America mistake one for the other. Low taxes as a policy follow from a philosophy that the individual is the best custodian of his wealth, but higher taxation would be a reasonable conservative policy if another policy took precedence, say national security. True conservatives believe in paying the bills as they go, and increased spending if deemed necessary must be paid for by higher taxes. And true conservatives should also accept the importance of prior commitments by the government to its citizens, even when they don't quite agree with that commitment - that commitment, be it social safety nets or medical coverage, must be met even as they're phased out, and by higher taxes if need be.
Governor Romney attempted to straddle the divide between the two strands of conservatism, but it was never clear exactly what aspects of conservatism he endorsed. It was never clear that he even understood the inherent conflict between social conservatism, which emphasizes the primacy of society over individual, and economic conservatism which takes the exactly opposite view. It is not impossible to reconcile the two worlds, but it required a level of intellectual honesty in assessing priorities that the GOP never indulged, neither in it's standard bearers and certainly not amongst its partisans. Both Governor Romney and to an even larger extent Representative Ryan ignored the dichotomy they were attempting to sell and never sought to define the conservatism they would embrace in their presumptive administration; Governor Romney had an inconsistent commitment to conservative principles to put it mildly, but I am not convinced that Paul Ryan, the supposed intellectual cares about the paradox in his position any better than Romney or even actually understands it.
While I do not share conservative principles, even less do I respect the many self-declared conservatives. And yet I, as bleeding heart a liberal a person whose heart ever bled, lament the failure on the conservative side of the political divide. The liberals did not have a true candidate in this race, but President Obama is indubitably left of center (at least as the center is defined in America) and was accepted by liberals across the country; equally important he was identified as the liberal candidate by his opponents and embraced that label. But the conservatives never came to the fight, not on the intellectual field which is the challenging political battlefield. The GOP hoped to win the White House without winning the battle of ideas, believing that the election was theirs so long as they had a name on the ballot. Despite the ever increasing divergence between the social and economic conservative wings of their coalition, they did not address the issues but tried to pretend that they simply did not exist and nominated a man who sought to avoid every political label. The social conservatives did show up in the primary, and I admit that they are largely consistent in their core beliefs and clear about the kind of society they would like to build, but I am also convinced of the error of their beliefs and history has judged their ideas wanting time and again; in any event even the GOP decided against a full throat-ed endorsement of social conservatism in the presidential election. But the economic conservatives never came out to the lists and critically, have forgotten what their underlying ideology. Normally as a liberal, I would be delighted with a victory by the candidate on the left, but the fact is a healthy polity requires intelligent conservative policy as much as it needs liberals. Unlike some partisans, I respect honest economic conservatism even when I disagree fundamentally with the ideas. Conservatives are as invested in the success of society as liberals and it is foolish to accuse either side of hating themselves or their country; they only differ in the means to the same goal. In an ever changing world, continued success requires a continual examination of policy, and when one ideology gains too great a dominance, it tends to overreach and commit mistakes in policy. Equally dangerous is the stagnation that sets in on the intellectual side and refuses to recognize the changes in the world that make policy from a prior era unsustainable. Both sides of the ideological spectrum are equally susceptible to this failure born of hubris and need each other to balance their demons. If liberalism provides the helping hand and equal opportunity for every member of society, conservatism ensures that individual merit gains the recognition and reward it deserves. Conservatism ensures the generation of wealth while liberalism protects society from the excesses of over-concentrated wealth and indirectly provides the essential conditions that nurture merit and sustain growth in wealth in the first place. The disappearance of true economic conservatives leaves the American polity dangerously imbalanced, and clinging to clueless charlatans masquerading as intellectuals. The policies of Reagan do not work three decades later, but conservatives have not yet figured the difference between policy and ideas and are floundering with no clear vision. Their only silver lining today is that the economic liberals are almost if not quite as intellectually bankrupt.
If the original Mad Hatter had a blog, everything would start with "T". This is what his views might have been.
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Occupying Left Field
Since my last blog, I've been following the Occupy Wall Street movement with a little more interest, fueled in part by segments on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and last week's series with Citizen X in Doonesbury. While I had an instinctive sympathy for the protesters from the start, the cacophony of messages and disparate agenda made it harder to understand their aims. But once I delved a little deeper, and read a little more about them, I realized that these protesters, for all their reported elitist demeanor, are driven by the same angst that animates all of us. they are everyman, in a sense.
I suppose, though I still cannot understand them, that the Tea Party tapped into the same deep anger. Of course, one would have expected that anger at the economic mess that President Obama inherited would have been directed at the architects of the financial system's collapse. Yet strangely enough, the Tea Party galvanized opposition to the president, and in truly unfathomable twist, made the Affordable Healthcare Act the central point of their campaign against Big Government as personified by him, even as they rallied in defense of his perceived attack on Medicare, the epitome of Big Government, one would say. Stranger yet, the men elected with the support of the Tea Party wish to balance the budget by slashing Social Security; surely if Medicare is sacrosanct and not to be shrunk, especially by the government, the same would hold true for the other pillar of the Great Society.
Perhaps, the one lesson the Tea Party has taught us is that logic and rationality in the message are far less important than passion. That should enthuse the Occupy Wall Street movement, since passion is in no shortage amongst them. Their critics may watch the early snow storms and gleefully hope that the protesters will disperse before winter's iron fist, much like the Grand Army. But the fact is, whatever the message, most OWS protesters have a genuine grievance and are less likely to turn and limp away, when they have little to return to. Conservative critics may lampoon them as over-privileged over-indulged kids who don't want to work; the reality is that no matter how willing both spirit and flesh may be, there are precious few jobs on offer, much less to graduates fresh out of college with no work experience or those who have fallen victim to the recession and been out of work for months on end. Franklin Roosevelt could put America to work building the infrastructure that transformed a nation but today there are no comparable programs to absorb those thousands or millions of unemployed. Where then shall they go?
And the common target for that popular anger are the barons of Wall Street. Though many of the worker bees of Wall Street may not quite fall into the 1% category, their general refusal to accept their role in destroying the wealth of a generation marks them for dislike, loathing and even hate. I fully expected that in 2008, as the extent of their malfeasance came to light that we would see, metaphorically, mobs with torches and pitchforks. I misunderstood the power and extent of the control Wall Street exerts over the levers of government. Not only did the President and his advisers do much to avoid demonizing them (and still drew shrill rebuke for any remarks that were less than flattering to those titans of finance) but more importantly, the bailouts were tailored to protect their investments and profits at the expense of the taxpayer. It's instructive that Europe's negotiated bailout over the Greek debt involves a fifty percent write off by the banks. Contrast that with the hundred percent return that Wall Street was guaranteed on their poor investments and one may begin to understand the frustration and anger that's building amongst those who have seen their lives destroyed by clueless wizards waving their monetary wands and causing billions of dollars to vanish in the blink of an eye.
The Tea Party rode their passion to a huge Congressional victory, and today shape the future of the nation as they walk the halls of government. So far the OWS movement shows no interest in turning into a political beast. That is both its strength and ultimate weakness, for the soldiers on the frontline of this struggle will never know when the fight is over, much less will they reap any benefit personally, even when they force change as in the case of Bank of America and its now-aborted attempts to levy debit card fees on their customers. Those of us on the sidelines will win much as the OWS movement shapes the public discussion and hopefully nudges the spectrum back towards the middle and towards sanity. But they, the protesters who took to the streets of the financial world seeking to shine a light on the great disparities and twisted realities of the American Nightmare will fade from view and be forgotten. For them, victory will bring no success - I only wonder if they know it. And how we will look upon them as this saga plays out. With nostalgia, with mild surprise, or sideways at them as we stand beside them in the trenches?
I suppose, though I still cannot understand them, that the Tea Party tapped into the same deep anger. Of course, one would have expected that anger at the economic mess that President Obama inherited would have been directed at the architects of the financial system's collapse. Yet strangely enough, the Tea Party galvanized opposition to the president, and in truly unfathomable twist, made the Affordable Healthcare Act the central point of their campaign against Big Government as personified by him, even as they rallied in defense of his perceived attack on Medicare, the epitome of Big Government, one would say. Stranger yet, the men elected with the support of the Tea Party wish to balance the budget by slashing Social Security; surely if Medicare is sacrosanct and not to be shrunk, especially by the government, the same would hold true for the other pillar of the Great Society.
Perhaps, the one lesson the Tea Party has taught us is that logic and rationality in the message are far less important than passion. That should enthuse the Occupy Wall Street movement, since passion is in no shortage amongst them. Their critics may watch the early snow storms and gleefully hope that the protesters will disperse before winter's iron fist, much like the Grand Army. But the fact is, whatever the message, most OWS protesters have a genuine grievance and are less likely to turn and limp away, when they have little to return to. Conservative critics may lampoon them as over-privileged over-indulged kids who don't want to work; the reality is that no matter how willing both spirit and flesh may be, there are precious few jobs on offer, much less to graduates fresh out of college with no work experience or those who have fallen victim to the recession and been out of work for months on end. Franklin Roosevelt could put America to work building the infrastructure that transformed a nation but today there are no comparable programs to absorb those thousands or millions of unemployed. Where then shall they go?
And the common target for that popular anger are the barons of Wall Street. Though many of the worker bees of Wall Street may not quite fall into the 1% category, their general refusal to accept their role in destroying the wealth of a generation marks them for dislike, loathing and even hate. I fully expected that in 2008, as the extent of their malfeasance came to light that we would see, metaphorically, mobs with torches and pitchforks. I misunderstood the power and extent of the control Wall Street exerts over the levers of government. Not only did the President and his advisers do much to avoid demonizing them (and still drew shrill rebuke for any remarks that were less than flattering to those titans of finance) but more importantly, the bailouts were tailored to protect their investments and profits at the expense of the taxpayer. It's instructive that Europe's negotiated bailout over the Greek debt involves a fifty percent write off by the banks. Contrast that with the hundred percent return that Wall Street was guaranteed on their poor investments and one may begin to understand the frustration and anger that's building amongst those who have seen their lives destroyed by clueless wizards waving their monetary wands and causing billions of dollars to vanish in the blink of an eye.
The Tea Party rode their passion to a huge Congressional victory, and today shape the future of the nation as they walk the halls of government. So far the OWS movement shows no interest in turning into a political beast. That is both its strength and ultimate weakness, for the soldiers on the frontline of this struggle will never know when the fight is over, much less will they reap any benefit personally, even when they force change as in the case of Bank of America and its now-aborted attempts to levy debit card fees on their customers. Those of us on the sidelines will win much as the OWS movement shapes the public discussion and hopefully nudges the spectrum back towards the middle and towards sanity. But they, the protesters who took to the streets of the financial world seeking to shine a light on the great disparities and twisted realities of the American Nightmare will fade from view and be forgotten. For them, victory will bring no success - I only wonder if they know it. And how we will look upon them as this saga plays out. With nostalgia, with mild surprise, or sideways at them as we stand beside them in the trenches?
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Occupy and Change
This weekend, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement went national, even international, with protesters taking to the streets in cities across the world in sympathy with the original activists in New York. I very nearly did go downtown to watch and gauge the movement firsthand after a I met a fellow fay spirit while lunching at my favorite Scandinavian bistro. As it happened, I did not head down to see the activists, so my information about their aims remains dependent on the mixed messages reported in the news media.
One of the interesting things about this mixed bunch is their lack of leaders and unified message. In that sense they are not so very different from the Tea Party activists who seemed to appear out of nowhere in a short period of time to oppose a host of President Obama's policies, starting with the healthcare reform bill and growing into a potent political force that dragged the Republican party strongly to the right and changed the conversation profoundly in the run-up to the mid term elections. The OWS protesters coud not be more different in outward appearance, or tactics, and despite some liberal hopes that this ragtag army will restore equilibrium to the political world, I strongly doubt it. First and foremost, the Democratic party has not really decided what to do about this movement, just as the GOP initially hesitated in their approach to the Tea Parties. It's true that Nancy Pelosi has expressed some support, as has Al Gore, but they are certainly far less on the fringe than their counterparts on the right who rode the Tea Party wave; Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House and currently Minority Leader and Al Gore, former Vice President and ex-Senator are a far cry from Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Critically, the protesters have not targeted any political party, but seem more inclusive in their approach - if they have a common ideal it is the power of rich corporations to control the political process. And that power of corporations is exercised through minions in both political parties and corporate dollars flow into the coffers ot all politicians. This group of economically disenfranchised activists is wary of all politicians; even if they probably dislike the GOP more than the Democrats, it is only a matter of degree.
While the liberals tended to disparage the Tea Party - for one, we could and still cannot understand why they would oppose policies that succored them in favor of the corporations that seem to enjoy the fruits of our labors, or rant against the government being involved in healthcare while vociferously defending their Medicare entitlements - the right wing press has naturally attacked the motives, methods and hygiene of the OWS activists, while also portraying them as losers who wish to deny the titans of Wall Street their honestly won wealth. In this, they are joined by the citizens of Wall Street, one of whom mocked the protesters with a sign in his office window. And yet, that single act might do more to galvanize this protest and turn it into a surging movement - Wall Street and its financial companies haven't just nearly destroyed the world economy, but they do not understand or accept the mistakes they made nor the debt of gratitude they owe the US taxpayer. They have been bailed out from their own mess with billions of tax dollars, yet they have paid not a single cent in return. Instead they have reaped massive profits even as the rest of the economy has sputtered. Their fancy derivatives have protected their profits (when guaranteed by the US Treasury), but not the actual assets, the houses and the people who own them have continued to sink into a sea of debt and the same banks that created this problem have reacted with incredible myopia and insensitivity. And in many cases, with less than legal or at least ethical methods. They have taken our money but given us nothing in return. Now the OWS movement demands that the system be straightened out and the balance between workers and management be restored. In many ways the situation today is not so very different from the days of the robber barons, minus the Pinkertons with rifles. But we have a system where all the profits are kept by a small sliver of the populace, though all of us suffer their losses. Corporate power has grown to ridiculous levels, and controls all aspects of life. Not in a sinister "Big Brother" style, but certainly very completely. We can no longer trust any news outlet without wondering what their motives are - Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, NBC by GE, ABC is part of Disney Corp. These companies are not inherently evil and do not actively censor the news. But they are amoral corporations dedicated only to maximizing their short term profit and the media they own will naturally reflect their preferences.
Human costs simply do not enter into the calculations of corporations, and in the end that recognition is all that OWS needs to achieve in order to be considered successful. But getting their message across to the wider public while opposing the very organizations that own the media is definitely going to be a challenge. In this respect, the diffuse system of leadership, or lack of central leadership to be more honest may actually be an advantage. Speaking with a million different voices, espousing many messages, some that match and some that seem rather diverse, actually makes it impossible to block sans a concerted and illegal operation by many different corporations. And the corporate world while united in profiting on our dime, is no single entity capable of mounting such an exercise. Millions of opinions and messages flowing across the many social media cannot be stopped or controlled, except by heavy handed and ultimately counterproductive actions, a la Egypt's Mubarak. And with the activists standing loosely allied, and beholden to no single political party, the message itself, of equality and fairness, cannot be easily subverted or subsumed into a short term election agenda. This message will endure, no matter the outcome of the US elections, no matter who is president and who controls Congress. And ultimately, one hopes, a more equitable world will emerge, as it did back in the 1930s through the New Deal.
One of the interesting things about this mixed bunch is their lack of leaders and unified message. In that sense they are not so very different from the Tea Party activists who seemed to appear out of nowhere in a short period of time to oppose a host of President Obama's policies, starting with the healthcare reform bill and growing into a potent political force that dragged the Republican party strongly to the right and changed the conversation profoundly in the run-up to the mid term elections. The OWS protesters coud not be more different in outward appearance, or tactics, and despite some liberal hopes that this ragtag army will restore equilibrium to the political world, I strongly doubt it. First and foremost, the Democratic party has not really decided what to do about this movement, just as the GOP initially hesitated in their approach to the Tea Parties. It's true that Nancy Pelosi has expressed some support, as has Al Gore, but they are certainly far less on the fringe than their counterparts on the right who rode the Tea Party wave; Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House and currently Minority Leader and Al Gore, former Vice President and ex-Senator are a far cry from Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Critically, the protesters have not targeted any political party, but seem more inclusive in their approach - if they have a common ideal it is the power of rich corporations to control the political process. And that power of corporations is exercised through minions in both political parties and corporate dollars flow into the coffers ot all politicians. This group of economically disenfranchised activists is wary of all politicians; even if they probably dislike the GOP more than the Democrats, it is only a matter of degree.
While the liberals tended to disparage the Tea Party - for one, we could and still cannot understand why they would oppose policies that succored them in favor of the corporations that seem to enjoy the fruits of our labors, or rant against the government being involved in healthcare while vociferously defending their Medicare entitlements - the right wing press has naturally attacked the motives, methods and hygiene of the OWS activists, while also portraying them as losers who wish to deny the titans of Wall Street their honestly won wealth. In this, they are joined by the citizens of Wall Street, one of whom mocked the protesters with a sign in his office window. And yet, that single act might do more to galvanize this protest and turn it into a surging movement - Wall Street and its financial companies haven't just nearly destroyed the world economy, but they do not understand or accept the mistakes they made nor the debt of gratitude they owe the US taxpayer. They have been bailed out from their own mess with billions of tax dollars, yet they have paid not a single cent in return. Instead they have reaped massive profits even as the rest of the economy has sputtered. Their fancy derivatives have protected their profits (when guaranteed by the US Treasury), but not the actual assets, the houses and the people who own them have continued to sink into a sea of debt and the same banks that created this problem have reacted with incredible myopia and insensitivity. And in many cases, with less than legal or at least ethical methods. They have taken our money but given us nothing in return. Now the OWS movement demands that the system be straightened out and the balance between workers and management be restored. In many ways the situation today is not so very different from the days of the robber barons, minus the Pinkertons with rifles. But we have a system where all the profits are kept by a small sliver of the populace, though all of us suffer their losses. Corporate power has grown to ridiculous levels, and controls all aspects of life. Not in a sinister "Big Brother" style, but certainly very completely. We can no longer trust any news outlet without wondering what their motives are - Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, NBC by GE, ABC is part of Disney Corp. These companies are not inherently evil and do not actively censor the news. But they are amoral corporations dedicated only to maximizing their short term profit and the media they own will naturally reflect their preferences.
Human costs simply do not enter into the calculations of corporations, and in the end that recognition is all that OWS needs to achieve in order to be considered successful. But getting their message across to the wider public while opposing the very organizations that own the media is definitely going to be a challenge. In this respect, the diffuse system of leadership, or lack of central leadership to be more honest may actually be an advantage. Speaking with a million different voices, espousing many messages, some that match and some that seem rather diverse, actually makes it impossible to block sans a concerted and illegal operation by many different corporations. And the corporate world while united in profiting on our dime, is no single entity capable of mounting such an exercise. Millions of opinions and messages flowing across the many social media cannot be stopped or controlled, except by heavy handed and ultimately counterproductive actions, a la Egypt's Mubarak. And with the activists standing loosely allied, and beholden to no single political party, the message itself, of equality and fairness, cannot be easily subverted or subsumed into a short term election agenda. This message will endure, no matter the outcome of the US elections, no matter who is president and who controls Congress. And ultimately, one hopes, a more equitable world will emerge, as it did back in the 1930s through the New Deal.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
A Teaching Moment
One sunny afternoon some weeks ago, as my co-workers and I returned from lunch, one of them remarked that it was high time we got rid of the teacher's unions, which in his opinion was nothing but a means to ensure that lazy good-for-nothings could never be disciplined or removed. He cited their right to tenure as a glaring example of their unfair advantage over the school districts.
This attitude seems to be spreading, fueled in part by a major campaign against all organized labor across the nation, wherein somehow our friends and neighbors become the personification of all is evil socialism the moment they cross into their workplace. Governors Walker and Christie have done more to dismantle the power of organized labor than any leader since President Reagan, I'll warrant. And teachers, as members of one of the most visible public employees' unions, have drawn a disproportionate level of invective. Teachers have been accused of many socialist evils, and at least some of the dislike of the may be rooted in their distressing desire to teach students about such objectionable subjects as Darwin's theory of evolution and equality of humankind, irrespective of race, color, gender, religion or sexual orientation - unacceptable obviously and a clear attempt to corrupt the minds of the youth. It appears that hemlock is not as easy to procure today as in classical times. and so we must find other ways to deal with the malaise of an out of control teaching establishment.
I once met a woman who explained that her hyperactive five-year old son was not really out of control even when he was wrecking his school room, he was just active and full of energy and if the teacher would just hold him gently by firmly for a few minutes he would calm down and stop smashing things. She was in absolute earnest that the teacher, given charge of fifteen or twenty children should adopt this unique maternal approach to handling one child and should not get angry with his destructive behavior. Of course, should a teacher actually attempt such an approach, there would probably be other parents lining up to scream about inappropriate behavior and all but ready to lynch her. This is the world our teachers work in, and they receive scant compensation for the work they put in.
It is popular to talk about how teachers have summer vacations and the school day ends at 3pm compared to the longer hours we work in 'real" jobs. But teachers work far past the end of school day. I had a roommate who was a teacher and she spent evenings grading homework, and preparing for the classes of the next day. I've taught a few classes in my days at graduate school and I know that it can take as much time out of class as in the classroom. Then add in the sheer variety of challenges that teachers deal with in their classes daily. Most of us, service industry excepted, deal with a fairly uniform group of people from day to day; how would we fare if we had to deal with students ranging from near moronic to smart enough to me in MIT, and bored if the class moves at anything slower than their own aptitude. Teachers are hamstrung too, in the level of discipline they are allowed to impose on their charges, and in the attitudes of parents to any shortcomings in their offspring. We expect teachers to turn the children into paragons of virtue and wisdom, but we give them no assistance. On the contrary, parents seem ever more eager to point the finger of accusation at teachers. In which other job are staff expected to put up with lewd comments and get no succor (and we'd be fooling ourselves if we think female teachers in any class above fifth grade do not face it)? In which job do staff face the risk of violence as teachers must? It may not happen all the often, but it's a very real possibility? And what do we offer them in return? A low salary, constant criticism and abuse, little to no appreciation and untenable situations. We have even stripped teachers of the right to a personal life, with some teachers losing their jobs for the wildly inappropriate image of being seen with a glass of wine while hanging out with friends.
All this do we do, and then we ask the teachers to also be willing to lose their jobs at the whim of the market. It's time to realize that good teachers are not created overnight, that experienced teachers are worth their weight in gold. If we dismiss teachers whenever we need to balance a budget we will never have any institutional knowledge, nor will the teachers have any incentive to do anything beyond the absolute minimum. Why would teachers work past the end of day to help students with extra curricular activities? Do we really think those teachers do that for money? As Matt Damon explained, teachers in the vast majority do what they do because they love their work, not for the inadequate money we pay them. Most of them could earn more in other jobs, but choose to work as teachers for love of educating and molding minds. Giving them the security of tenure is a way to encourage them to put forth all their energies into what they love without the fear that their efforts of one year will be swept away the very next, along with their jobs. If we pretend otherwise, we will assuredly get what we pay for, and it won't be a pretty sight.
This attitude seems to be spreading, fueled in part by a major campaign against all organized labor across the nation, wherein somehow our friends and neighbors become the personification of all is evil socialism the moment they cross into their workplace. Governors Walker and Christie have done more to dismantle the power of organized labor than any leader since President Reagan, I'll warrant. And teachers, as members of one of the most visible public employees' unions, have drawn a disproportionate level of invective. Teachers have been accused of many socialist evils, and at least some of the dislike of the may be rooted in their distressing desire to teach students about such objectionable subjects as Darwin's theory of evolution and equality of humankind, irrespective of race, color, gender, religion or sexual orientation - unacceptable obviously and a clear attempt to corrupt the minds of the youth. It appears that hemlock is not as easy to procure today as in classical times. and so we must find other ways to deal with the malaise of an out of control teaching establishment.
I once met a woman who explained that her hyperactive five-year old son was not really out of control even when he was wrecking his school room, he was just active and full of energy and if the teacher would just hold him gently by firmly for a few minutes he would calm down and stop smashing things. She was in absolute earnest that the teacher, given charge of fifteen or twenty children should adopt this unique maternal approach to handling one child and should not get angry with his destructive behavior. Of course, should a teacher actually attempt such an approach, there would probably be other parents lining up to scream about inappropriate behavior and all but ready to lynch her. This is the world our teachers work in, and they receive scant compensation for the work they put in.
It is popular to talk about how teachers have summer vacations and the school day ends at 3pm compared to the longer hours we work in 'real" jobs. But teachers work far past the end of school day. I had a roommate who was a teacher and she spent evenings grading homework, and preparing for the classes of the next day. I've taught a few classes in my days at graduate school and I know that it can take as much time out of class as in the classroom. Then add in the sheer variety of challenges that teachers deal with in their classes daily. Most of us, service industry excepted, deal with a fairly uniform group of people from day to day; how would we fare if we had to deal with students ranging from near moronic to smart enough to me in MIT, and bored if the class moves at anything slower than their own aptitude. Teachers are hamstrung too, in the level of discipline they are allowed to impose on their charges, and in the attitudes of parents to any shortcomings in their offspring. We expect teachers to turn the children into paragons of virtue and wisdom, but we give them no assistance. On the contrary, parents seem ever more eager to point the finger of accusation at teachers. In which other job are staff expected to put up with lewd comments and get no succor (and we'd be fooling ourselves if we think female teachers in any class above fifth grade do not face it)? In which job do staff face the risk of violence as teachers must? It may not happen all the often, but it's a very real possibility? And what do we offer them in return? A low salary, constant criticism and abuse, little to no appreciation and untenable situations. We have even stripped teachers of the right to a personal life, with some teachers losing their jobs for the wildly inappropriate image of being seen with a glass of wine while hanging out with friends.
All this do we do, and then we ask the teachers to also be willing to lose their jobs at the whim of the market. It's time to realize that good teachers are not created overnight, that experienced teachers are worth their weight in gold. If we dismiss teachers whenever we need to balance a budget we will never have any institutional knowledge, nor will the teachers have any incentive to do anything beyond the absolute minimum. Why would teachers work past the end of day to help students with extra curricular activities? Do we really think those teachers do that for money? As Matt Damon explained, teachers in the vast majority do what they do because they love their work, not for the inadequate money we pay them. Most of them could earn more in other jobs, but choose to work as teachers for love of educating and molding minds. Giving them the security of tenure is a way to encourage them to put forth all their energies into what they love without the fear that their efforts of one year will be swept away the very next, along with their jobs. If we pretend otherwise, we will assuredly get what we pay for, and it won't be a pretty sight.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Change of Heart For A Self-Confessed Oil-o-Phobic (Or "Drill, baby Drill")
By most measures, I'm just a typical common or garden-variety environmentalist or at least a person who would rather see environmentally friendly policies than not. I'm a member of the Sierra Club, I recycle religiously, drive a Prius, support a gas tax and more public transportation and would rather sit in front of my TV on a Saturday morning than burn gasoline driving out to some beautiful scenic trail in the middle of nowhere. So, it was with some surprise that I reached the conclusion that it's time to turn right about in our position on exploration for and exploitation of oil resources in continental America.
Naturally, I don't endorse a no-limits "drill, baby, drill" approach where we simply hand the pristine wilderness over to the oil companies. Safeguards, the most rigorous environmental safeguards, would be an indivisible of this new drive to tap our resources. But tap them we must. If the Deepwater Horizon tragedy taught us one thing, it should be that our demand for oil will simply force drilling in ever more challenging regions. And if renowned companies like BP can fail so spectacularly, it would be naive to imagine that something similar or worse will not happen in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Cuba. Cuba is especially dangerous, given their desperation for petrodollars and our continued short-sighted embargo, even to the point of threatening oil companies with sanctions if they work in Cuba; we have simply cleared the more experienced players from the field and left it to companies from India or China, companies with less expertise and technology as best and fewer safeguards or concerns for the environment. Companies in USA and Europe may not have any inherent interest in environmentally responsible practices, but they are forced to follow them nevertheless, while companies from elsewhere may not operate with the same constraints.
Perhaps the greatest issue for me however is not the risk that the beaches of Florida may be threatened by an accident in Cuba. Great as that tragedy would be, the sad fact is that other areas stand at greater risk or are even now suffering the effects of crude methods of oil extraction. Brazil has planned deep sea exploration every bit as dangerous as Deepwater Horizon; the Amazon jungle and especially the Niger delta have been under attack for the past decade, to the point that damage may be past repair.Do we care about environmental degradation only when it happens on our yard? More pertinent, perhaps, should we care? We know well that the ocean currents care not for our maritime boundaries around Hispaniola and hence we fret about Cuban wells, but the damage farther off the horizon may escape our notice while causing as much damage to the world as a whole.
We occupy a crucial, unique position in the world. By virtue of our enormous consumption, approximately a fifth of the total world's output, we enjoy leverage over the producers as much as they enjoy over us. The difference is that OPEC has consciously used that power to further their own interests, while we turn away from our power. The time has come to embrace our power and embrace reality. Environmentalists would like to believe that we can shed our dependence on oil and sustain ourselves on green energy, and perhaps someday we will get there. But that day is not today, nor even tomorrow. And as long as we pursue cheap gas as state policy, there is little incentive to make the switch. But we may change that if we wish. For starters, we must tap our domestic oil producing capacities to the fullest. I know this idea is almost criminal in environmentalist circles, but I prefer a wider worldview; we can force the companies to protect the environment here and work in a responsible manner (assuming a political will to enforce the laws) while we have next to no control over the depredations of the Niger. And while the arctic ecology may be delicate and easily damaged so is nearly any natural ecosystem and we can minimize the damage at home, keep the wells away from the wildlife reserves.
But this is the season of grand bargains, from debt ceilings to professional football, and increasing domestic production is but one leg of my proposal. In addition, we would introduce a higher gas tax, sufficiently large to generate significant revenues and nudge consumer behavior, with the revenue being used partly for mass transit systems and partly for more green energy. But, truth be told, if petroleum based solutions become more expensive, investment will automatically seek out greener solutions. And I am enough of a believer in markets that I think the government should not be betting on a specific technology but should simply signal a general shift away from oil and let the market find the best solution - it may be totally different from anything we've imagined so far.
But the real power of our top consumer status lies in the third leg of my strategy - we need to impose a green tax on all petroleum products imported into the US, based on how the company produces it's oil. If it's destroying the environment in Africa or southeast Asia, we would impose a higher tax on them than if the oil came from the North Sea. Exactly how we would rate the oil sands of Canada or the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico is debatable, but I suspect they would fall somewhere in between. Companies may seek to get around the system by claiming the oil they give us is produced from "good" locations while the bad stuff is sold to other countries; we can combat that trick easily enough by basing the tax on total production of the company, with a company that has more responsible methods attracting a lower tax rate. The other trick would be for a company to sell it's "bad" stuff to a company that produces "good" oil and let the second company sell to us at their low tax rate. Again, a little vigilance would go a long way to negating this trick, with the "good" company getting tainted since a part of it's total production would now include the "bad" stuff it bought and it would still attract the same higher tax rate as the original bad producer.
The other argument to address is the danger that companies facing a "green" tax will place an embargo on us. I would counter that it is precisely there that our power of consumption comes into play - companies simply cannot refuse to sell to us, we are too important to their balance sheets. Unlike the seventies and the oil embargo, we are talking about private companies driven by profit, not states that can live with financial losses in pursuit of a strategic objective. When you control a fifth of the market, no one can ignore your demands. The many leading oil companies that are based in the US or Europe already possess the technology to operate in a responsible manner but see no reason to to so in the less regulated corners of the world. At the risk of being a global cop again, we are going to make it less advantageous to destroy the environment, no matter where. Further I think, with companies vying for the newly available lucrative drilling contracts in the US, objections will be somewhat muted. The net result will be more revenue for mass transit and greener gasoline for everyone. As a bonus, dearer gasoline will also nudge all of us towards more responsible driving choices, be they smaller cars, gas-sippers instead of guzzlers, occasional bicycle rides in place of the SUV and maybe a rediscovery of the advantages of city life over the suburban experience.
Naturally, I don't endorse a no-limits "drill, baby, drill" approach where we simply hand the pristine wilderness over to the oil companies. Safeguards, the most rigorous environmental safeguards, would be an indivisible of this new drive to tap our resources. But tap them we must. If the Deepwater Horizon tragedy taught us one thing, it should be that our demand for oil will simply force drilling in ever more challenging regions. And if renowned companies like BP can fail so spectacularly, it would be naive to imagine that something similar or worse will not happen in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Cuba. Cuba is especially dangerous, given their desperation for petrodollars and our continued short-sighted embargo, even to the point of threatening oil companies with sanctions if they work in Cuba; we have simply cleared the more experienced players from the field and left it to companies from India or China, companies with less expertise and technology as best and fewer safeguards or concerns for the environment. Companies in USA and Europe may not have any inherent interest in environmentally responsible practices, but they are forced to follow them nevertheless, while companies from elsewhere may not operate with the same constraints.
Perhaps the greatest issue for me however is not the risk that the beaches of Florida may be threatened by an accident in Cuba. Great as that tragedy would be, the sad fact is that other areas stand at greater risk or are even now suffering the effects of crude methods of oil extraction. Brazil has planned deep sea exploration every bit as dangerous as Deepwater Horizon; the Amazon jungle and especially the Niger delta have been under attack for the past decade, to the point that damage may be past repair.Do we care about environmental degradation only when it happens on our yard? More pertinent, perhaps, should we care? We know well that the ocean currents care not for our maritime boundaries around Hispaniola and hence we fret about Cuban wells, but the damage farther off the horizon may escape our notice while causing as much damage to the world as a whole.
We occupy a crucial, unique position in the world. By virtue of our enormous consumption, approximately a fifth of the total world's output, we enjoy leverage over the producers as much as they enjoy over us. The difference is that OPEC has consciously used that power to further their own interests, while we turn away from our power. The time has come to embrace our power and embrace reality. Environmentalists would like to believe that we can shed our dependence on oil and sustain ourselves on green energy, and perhaps someday we will get there. But that day is not today, nor even tomorrow. And as long as we pursue cheap gas as state policy, there is little incentive to make the switch. But we may change that if we wish. For starters, we must tap our domestic oil producing capacities to the fullest. I know this idea is almost criminal in environmentalist circles, but I prefer a wider worldview; we can force the companies to protect the environment here and work in a responsible manner (assuming a political will to enforce the laws) while we have next to no control over the depredations of the Niger. And while the arctic ecology may be delicate and easily damaged so is nearly any natural ecosystem and we can minimize the damage at home, keep the wells away from the wildlife reserves.
But this is the season of grand bargains, from debt ceilings to professional football, and increasing domestic production is but one leg of my proposal. In addition, we would introduce a higher gas tax, sufficiently large to generate significant revenues and nudge consumer behavior, with the revenue being used partly for mass transit systems and partly for more green energy. But, truth be told, if petroleum based solutions become more expensive, investment will automatically seek out greener solutions. And I am enough of a believer in markets that I think the government should not be betting on a specific technology but should simply signal a general shift away from oil and let the market find the best solution - it may be totally different from anything we've imagined so far.
But the real power of our top consumer status lies in the third leg of my strategy - we need to impose a green tax on all petroleum products imported into the US, based on how the company produces it's oil. If it's destroying the environment in Africa or southeast Asia, we would impose a higher tax on them than if the oil came from the North Sea. Exactly how we would rate the oil sands of Canada or the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico is debatable, but I suspect they would fall somewhere in between. Companies may seek to get around the system by claiming the oil they give us is produced from "good" locations while the bad stuff is sold to other countries; we can combat that trick easily enough by basing the tax on total production of the company, with a company that has more responsible methods attracting a lower tax rate. The other trick would be for a company to sell it's "bad" stuff to a company that produces "good" oil and let the second company sell to us at their low tax rate. Again, a little vigilance would go a long way to negating this trick, with the "good" company getting tainted since a part of it's total production would now include the "bad" stuff it bought and it would still attract the same higher tax rate as the original bad producer.
The other argument to address is the danger that companies facing a "green" tax will place an embargo on us. I would counter that it is precisely there that our power of consumption comes into play - companies simply cannot refuse to sell to us, we are too important to their balance sheets. Unlike the seventies and the oil embargo, we are talking about private companies driven by profit, not states that can live with financial losses in pursuit of a strategic objective. When you control a fifth of the market, no one can ignore your demands. The many leading oil companies that are based in the US or Europe already possess the technology to operate in a responsible manner but see no reason to to so in the less regulated corners of the world. At the risk of being a global cop again, we are going to make it less advantageous to destroy the environment, no matter where. Further I think, with companies vying for the newly available lucrative drilling contracts in the US, objections will be somewhat muted. The net result will be more revenue for mass transit and greener gasoline for everyone. As a bonus, dearer gasoline will also nudge all of us towards more responsible driving choices, be they smaller cars, gas-sippers instead of guzzlers, occasional bicycle rides in place of the SUV and maybe a rediscovery of the advantages of city life over the suburban experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)