Immature Politics

While I try to remain optimistic about the political landscape and the possibility that Americans are capable of understanding complex issues, something like the "Tea Party" protests come around to shake that optimism. I am a huge fan of populist anger and outpourings of that sentiment, however these recent protests don't meet those standards. The intellectually lazy and misguided protests were organized around an extremely wide range of issues, some more disturbing than others.  Some issues (though the whole thing lacked a coherent message) included socialism (seriously, are you kidding me), communism (where are you people getting this), big government, and the always easy target "high taxes." The protests seemed less like a coherent statement and more like a temper tantrum for an increasingly marginalized and powerless wing of the Republican party.  It is pretty easy to have a protest against such strawmen and pretend that it moves any discussion forward. I am always amazed by the people protesting these issues and how little they understand about the role of public spending in all aspects of their life. Everything from the safety of our food, to our education system, to the roads we drive on are all dependent on government subsidies. Many often pretend that it is the market that allows this to happen, but there is no part of the market that is not dependent on government regulation and subsidies, either directly or indirectly. Taxes are a necessity and the best we can do is ensure the accountability of the spending and push for more transparency. Working to assess the quality of the spending and adjusting public policy accordingly allows for a more coherent and effective system. 

However, as people who actually study these issues will tell you (as opposed to those taping tea bags on a hat), much of the problem of the perceived "high taxes" is a result of the increasingly regressive tax system in the U.S. As a result of tax cuts and increased legal loopholes, the wealthy in the U.S. are paying less in taxes than they did during the Eisenhower administration. By one analysis, reverting to a more progressive tax system would bring a net revenue of $450 billion dollars a YEAR. While raising taxes during a recession is not a good idea, it is something that will have to be addressed at some point, hopefully in the near future. A more progressive taxation system would benefit all Americans. Decreasing the massive inequalities in the U.S. would do a world of good in a variety of areas. Inequality negatively affects things like health, anxiety, social activity, political involvement, and social well-being. A real tax agenda would work to create a tax code that is fair for all but progressive in focus. However, my optimism for such a system is extremely low. Tax issues are complex and I don't hold much hope that the public will come up to speed quickly (or at all), particularly given the media's lack of complexity on the issue (given their barron's are among the wealth elite that benefit from the current system).

More Hoovers than a Vacuum Store

Republicans are once again harping on the deficit like it actually means something in the short term. In their attempt to be the oppositional party, they have taken up the failed notions of Herbert Hoover in trying to balance the budget at the time of a severe economic downturn. Mainstream economists (I am still not sure why we are listening to them given recent events...) acknowledge that the actions of Hoover certainly increased both the depth and length of the Great Depression. Most economists recognize that short term spending to stimulate lending and thus allow capital for projects is a key step for any recovery.

In related news, Bushvilles are springing up across the country. I am still amazed that people don't understand that when you cut social services and depend on private charity you are setting yourself up for disaster. Many private charities and non-profits depend on donations or membership fees which decrease in a downturn, particularly one as severe as this. Combined with a lack of adequate social services, it is not surprising that people are having to turn to tent cities in hopes of weathering this storm.

The most disheartening thing about this recent trend is that once someone becomes homeless it often begins a cycle that is difficult to break. Because they have no permanent address it is extremely hard to get a job; without a job, income is difficult to come by (except through illegal and often dangerous means). This is compounded by the rapidly rising unemployment rate. While no one is a fan of paying higher taxes, clearly the U.S. is failing it citizens in a variety of ways. Demanding these tent cities be removed only pushes these people out of the small amount of safety they had as a group. While some are saying we are reaching the bottom of the downturn, I remain skeptical. For all our sakes, I hope they are right.

You Can't Kill an Idea

As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of the failed uprising in Tibet and the one year anniversary of the crackdown on Buddhist Monk demonstrators, tensions are running high in the region. It is amazing that despite China having one of the largest armies in the world, they are utterly afraid of a relatively small group of monks. The fact that all foreign journalists and international tourists are being kept out of the region at this team speaks to their ongoing concern about what more protests could bring. Though I was extremely disappointed by Hillary Clinton's lack of providing either carrots or sticks for improved Chinese treatment of Tibet, I was sadly not surprised. This unwillingness to press for Tibet's independence (or autonomy, or even well-being) is one (of many) of America's major foreign policy failings. 

Many apologists for the policy argue that due to our need for China to buy up our debt and help stabilize the region, we cannot denounce their policy for fear of backlash. As any student of international relations can tell you, this simple dichotomy of do nothing or incur the full wrath of China is a false one. There are many gradations in policy that could be used to thaw relations and tie Tibet to other issues where there is mutual interest between the U.S. and China. One of China's biggest fears is international perception of the Tibet issue. Having closed door conversations on the matter that lead to an actual softening of China's position could be an advantageous option for all sides. 

One thing is for sure, we must not fall into the same malaise and inertia that has kept our human rights policy so anemic. We have a president that believes in the rule of law and inspires people around the world. America has the obligation to continue to provide hope to those in duress. We must not turn our backs on causes we know are just. We can no longer sustain regimes like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea, and many more to continue on the path they are on. Increased diplomatic efforts must be used to forge consensus on shared goals and to facilitate slow, positive changes to happen in these countries. By sustaining these regimes, we only increase the difficulties we will face when we are forced to deal with them eventually and further the suffering that those oppressed by these regimes experience. 

The Dalai Lama puts it well:

If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them.

Our callous disregard for the consequences of our actions cannot continue. Though change won't happen overnight, we must act in positive ways to increase the well-being of those least capable of doing so themselves. 

Times Are Tough

It is hard to believe how things have crumbled so quickly: The economy, housing, banking, employment, the stock market, consumer confidence, and the list goes on. The fact that the GDP recently sunk 6.2% indicates that this current downturn may be more severe than most were anticipating. In downturns like this it is those individuals at the margins, the poor, the sick, those without adequate job skills or training, that are the most affected. When I hear bankers who receive government help complaining about their salary being capped at $500,000 I can't help but cringle. The people are increasingly being asked to support the poor business practices of these banks and other industries that were paying exhorbitant amounts for sub-par performance. These excesses were cheered by many during better times as proof of America's superiority. When CEOs are making 400 times the amount earned by the lowest paid workers in their company something is extremely wrong. For the last twenty to thirty years both the share of wages and actual wages have become increasingly concentrated at the very top.

This concentration of wages and wealth has led to an increasingly untenable situation. The rise of underemployment and poor quality work laid the groundwork for the current depth and breadth of the current downturn. After peaking at nearly 30% in 1979, the unionization rate of the U.S. has steadily fallen by half to less than 15%. While the U.S. has always had among the lowest unionization rates, the steady decline has been coupled with an increase of part-time and full-time work without benefits or worker protections. Combined with a culture that pushes consumption over conscience, it is not difficult to imagine how so many Americans were in a precarious situation even before the downturn. Even as the downturn was in its earliest stages, many dual-earner families were increasingly having to add additional part-time work to cover the increased costs of gasoline and other consumer goods. Others were taking part-time jobs in fear that their main source of income may not be as reliable as they had believed. 

Americans must come to see that working together in solidarity and demanding adequate treatment as workers only serves to strengthen our position, not weaken it. The pittance that is paid in union dues serves not only to increase your power over your work, but increases the standards across whatever industry you are a part of. The greatest gains of non-unionized workers in the twentieth century have been as a result not of employer benevolence, but as a result of workers organizing in other places, but in the same industry. The employers knew that once these non-unionized workers saw the disparities, they would also begin to organize. This led many companies to improve their conditions if only to delay unionization at their own plants.

While unionization is only one piece of the larger picture, it remains one of the best tools workers have to increase the accountability of companies to workers and to society more broadly. The fact that the car companies are blaming their union contracts for their economic woes only shows how inadequate their business model had become, all while paying their CEOs and other top-level managers ridiculously high wages. Luckily, Obama is much more aware of the value of labor than most presidents in recent memory. Giving American workers a say in their workplaces can only improve the economy, their work, and, most importantly, their lives. 

Wait... So These People Are The Threat?

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Anyone who voted for or supported Proposition 8 should be ashamed. How could the love and cheer expressed by these families be a threat to anything except intolerance and bigotry? I, for one, believe that justice must not be denied. People should have the right to live a life they have reason to value, free from violence and hatred. Like all policies based on hate and ignorance, Prop 8 will eventually be overturned and will fall into memory. Don't believe you have all the answers. Don't be on the wrong side of history. Denying rights to a group based on outdated biases never remains unchallenged. Respect the rights of others to live a life that challenges yours, its the only way the world ever changes for the better.

Coincidence?

With the Republican Party flailing and try to find its way in an evolving political landscape, the election of Michael Steele, the first African-American to lead the party, smacks of the Palinism (picking someone because they bare a superficial resemblance to some popular candidate) that seems to be pervading Republican decisions. While I hope the move is a genuine sign of change, I hesistate to imagine that being likely. With around 95% of African-American voters voting for Obama and, similarly, an overwhelming majority of Latinos (around 66%), Republicans have a lot of work to do in order to appeal more widely. As the U.S. demographically shifts to being a minority majority country, the increasingly white, rural, ultra-conservative, and xenophobic GOP of people like Rush Limbaugh will not suffice. At this point I honestly can't imagine how this change would take place, and it will take a lot of soul-searching on behalf of Republican leaders to bring about such a large change in strategy. 

However, though Democrats clearly came away with a huge victory this year, supporters need to be wary here as well. While many in the Democratic party speak of grassroots change and reference progressive issues, when the time comes to defend those issues, they are often forgotten. The most recent example was a provision in the stimulus package that would have subsidized birth control and family planning services for the poor. This measure was lambasted as shelling out millions of dollars, when in actuality, all real estimates highlighted that it would save the U.S. far more money than it would cost. At the first sign of protest, Democrats dropped this provision from the bill without so much as a fight, only to not even be able to garner ONE Republican vote for the stimulus in the house. This rapid capitulation doesn't bode well for the rest of the session, I hope I am proved wrong.

I guess it doesn't take long for optimism to die...

Fairness vs Injustice

Issues of race, gender, and ethnicity have been a hot issue in recent weeks. Many in the media are writing about whether the election of Barack Obama represents the beginning of a "post-racial" America. This notion, that race no longer defines a person's status and trajectory, is in theory interesting but in reality serves only to further marginalize those who suffer under the yoke of injustice. The very fact that it is such a big deal to elect an African American president speaks to the fact that we have not come as far as many seem to hope. 

Race and ethnicity have always been tricky and taboo subjects not only in the U.S. but around the world. Most people take race as a given category that people fit into, largely ignorant of the fact that races and ethnicities are socially constructed. By socially constructed I am referring to their origin in the historical context in which the categories are created and then changed over time. For example, in many countries in Latin America, race is viewed extremely differently. In some countries there are fifty or more gradations of perceived ethnicity on a spectrum of white, black, and indigenous. In many of these countries, while skin color is taken into account, other factors like wealth, dress, and social status serve to determine a person's "true" ethnicity.

We often lose sight that when we talk about someone being African-American or White, that these categories lack real meaning and are just the most current incarnation of labels. To try to homogenize such diverse groups of peoples into simple categories often leads to spurious assumptions. For example, the issue of hypertension in African Americans is often tied to a variety of things, from genetics to adaptive selection during slavery. However, these simple notions break apart when we understand that genetic differences between any two given African Americans are larger than between any given African American and a person of any other race. We know definitively that the genes that affect skin color have nothing to do with hypertension, particularly on the large scale that is proposed. However, social forces have been found to be the most likely candidate for being the reason for higher rates of hypertension. Feelings of stress/anxiety and perceptions of discrimination have been found to play a major role in creating higher rates of hypertension among almost all populations. This has been found to be particularly true among African Americans. I don't for a moment want to imply that just because these categories are socially created that they do not have power. They have real power in how people are treated, how they are perceived, and even how they perceive themselves. However, their overwhelming power does not mean that knowing they are socially constructed is fruitless. It allows for a better understanding of what can and must be done to bring about a more just and equitable system.  

I don't want any of the above to take away from the overwhelming happiness I feel about Barack Obama being elected President, but we have to keep in mind the vast inequities suffered by African Americans and other marginalized populations. There is much work to be done, and understanding where we stand is a good place to start.