What concerns me

After Yearlykos, watching the AFL-CIO debate, reading numerous diaries, reacting to statements by candidates and their supporters, engaging in dialog on comment threads, and doing reading and reflection on my own, I'm not ready to commit to a presidential candidate.  I have concerns about our nation.  I endorsed Vilsack because of NCLB, which as a teacher is my most immediate concern.  With his withdrawal I am neutral, although until recently I leaned towards Edwards (I'm not going to recapitulate recent discussions). 

I now propose to share some of my concerns about our nation & our society motivating my participation in the political process.  When I decide to support a candidate for any office, County Board through State General Assembly and Governor through Congress and President, it will be with a clear understanding on how that candidate's election moves us forward in addressing these concerns.  The perfect will not be the enemy of the good, and in general I would expect any Democratic to be superior to any Republican because of the necessity of political control. 

I invite you to continue reading this personal reflection.
My political views are shaped by a lifetime of experiences, reading, and reflection.  It is fair to say that my sense of values helps shape political views, at the same time as experience informs me that the political process almost always requires some level of compromise.  One reason I oppose the demonizing of most opponents is that someone our opponent on one issue might be an important ally on another, that there are few permanent allies or opponents in the political process:  I strongly dislike Bob Barr's pushing the impeachment of Clinton and the renaming of my local airport after Reagan, but I welcome his fierce defense of the Bill of Rights against the current administration. 

Still, I start with a set of values and concerns.  In my case, although I did not formally become a Quaker until a few years ago, the principle of answering that of God in each person has been an essential part of my outlook since my late teens, having entered Haverford College in 1963 at age 17 and encountering those who lived by that principle.  Similarly, my Jewish background imbued me with a strong sense of equity and the idea that one does not discriminate against someone because of a group characteristic of race, religion, gender or national origin - after all, those of Jewish background should remember out ethnic experience of the effects of such discrimination.  And the 17 years I spent as a practicing Christian, first in the Episcopal and then the Orthodox churches, gave me an equal sense of justice and concern, especially from Matthew 25 where Jesus informs his followers that whatsoever was done to the least among us was also done to him.  Finally, having grown up in an extended family full of lawyers, I have since my youth had a strong appreciation for the rule of law and the protection of individual rights inherent in our system of government.

So where does that bring me?  What concerns me, as the title of this piece says?

I believe in the inherent worth and potential of every human,  and believe our system of government, of justice, of education, our economy, all should be structure to maximize that worth and allow the greatest possibility for the positive development of that potential.

I do not believe in social Darwinism (and acknowledge a certain bemusement at the number of people willing to simultaneously deny evolution and accept social Darwinism, so long as they and theirs benefit from the latter). 

Recognizing that humans are messy and imperfect and that therefore their systems and organizations will likewise be messy and imperfect, I do not insist on theoretical perfection -  if I did I could not be in politics.  Those who want an absolute adherence to a political philosophy should perhaps consider previous examples of the nations and societies that arise from such an adherence. 

Because we do not live in a purely free market economic system (the Constitution's protection of patents and copyrights and things like the issuance of licenses represent a clear government intervention in the market place) I believe the government has some responsibility for the economic well-being of all people.  It must protect the public health and safety, and ensure reasonable access to markets.  It should in a democratic republic prevent against too narrow a control of any economic sector and excessive influence upon government and policies to the benefit of an industry or a group of people at the expense of the larger portion of the populace.  Because those who accumulate wealth and economic power do so under the protection of the government which represents us all, those - be they persons or corporate entities - have a responsibility to give back through the government (taxes) to the society which has provided them the means to flourish.

And yet, I find far too often our government acts in fashions that benefit only a small portion of the society.  It enacts laws that allow corporations to walk away from responsibilities to workers and communities and sometimes even the majority of shareholders.  It allows entities to poison air and water without paying what it costs to clean them up.  It does not prevent barriers that would enable the ordinary person to appropriately use the legal system for redress of injuries (torts) created by corporations, government agencies, and powerful and wealthy individuals. 

We have sadly been moving in a direction that exacerbates economic inequality by how we treat both income and wealth.  We  have a tax system that punishes the ordinary worker and rewards passive investment.  We subsidize the accumulation of non-productive wealth and sometimes even spending on luxury items (tax-subsidized SUVs anyone?) at costs that the rest of us bear. 

Our government and hence our society display a disdain for those less well off, denying them access to those things that could enable them to create a better life for themselves and their families.  We are reluctant to provide a guarantee of even basic nutritional and medical needs, we oppose  requiring payment of reasonable compensation for the labor from which the society as a whole benefits, and without which those at the top economically and socially could never have their advantages.  We are unwilling to invest the resources into the educational opportunities to which the poorer parts of our society are restricted, thereby further perpetuating the inequities of our society.  And we rationalize all of this by one philosophical statement or another, or by claiming, after giving unnecessary tax breaks to those who don't need them, that we cannot afford to provide the basic services that exist in almost every other industrialized country, from medical to nutritional to affordable housing to education to basic economic security (unemployment insurance and guaranteed defined benefit pensions).

I was born in 1946.  I have lived a lifetime in which I have seen the legal restrictions upon Blacks eliminated, even as some aspects of racism have not gone away.  My mother in 1937 and Sandra Day O'Connor in the 1950's ranked high in their law school classes but as women had trouble getting jobs as lawyers - now we see women on the Supreme Court, heading corporations, in high ranking military positions, and outnumbering men in most law schools.  There are government programs for the poor and the elderly, the Federal government has intervened to try to provide enough resources for education in communities full of poor people which lacked the tax base for better schools. Pell grants and Stafford loans have increased access to higher education.  Things are not as dire as they once were, but we seem to be stepping back from the social commitment embodied in a statement I heard from Hubert Humphrey that

the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

What concerns me is the loss of meaningful opportunity for too many Americans.  What concerns me is that we have allowed economic stratification to increase.  What concerns me is that too many of those in positions of comfort and power are willing to ignore the needs of many of our citizens and - yes - even those in this country illegally because they want a better life for their children.  What concerns me is when those who themselves are well off choose to raise questions about inequity how some in the media will accuse them of being hypocritical, as if somehow one's own success or inherited position of wealth and privilege is supposed to inure you to those less well off.

I am 61.  I did not grow up wealthy as I understood it, but I grew up with privileges not available to most of my generation.  My father, whose own father was an immigrant tailor from Poland, was one of six siblings 5 of whom graduated from Cornell (the 6th graduated from HS at age 15 and chose a path that was less intellectual but which suited him), that led to 2 doctorates, the VP of a major New York Ad agency, and comfortable lives for them and their children.  It was not until I first saw segregation in a trip to Miami in 1956 at age 10 that I was aware of the inequities that existed in our nation:  I never wanted for food or clothing or medical care, I lived in a 2,300 square foot house in an upper middle class suburb with superb schools, my parents could afford music and art lessons for my sister and myself and to send us each summer to music camp in Interlochen.  My parents were politically active and thus politically connected - they could afford to be - and it led to my mother having an appointment as an Assistant Attorney General in NY, one of the first females to hold that position.  Even when my father lost his job because his company was bought out and the purchaser got rid of many of the executives, he had savings to tide him over and enough connections to develop his own consulting business.

I have never been as economically well off as my parents.  In part this has been by choice -  becoming a school teacher in my late 40s has clearly limited my economic well-being and power, and even before that I chose to work as a local civil servant rather than in the more lucrative private sector.  But note:  that was a choice, one I was able to make because of the benefits I had received as a result of my family and my education. 

My wife and I lack children of our own.  Of necessity when I think of the future I think broadly, although our friends and relatives who do have children often also do so, expressed as concern for the world and society which they will leave to their progeny.  I think about the future because it is all I will leave behind.  Will I be part of leaving a better world for succeeding generations, as I had access to a better world as the result of the efforts of my parents and grandparents?  This shapes what concerns me.

I desperately want to see our society move again in the direction of equity and accessibility.  I recognize that the political processes of necessity will require some compromise - again I note that the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good.  I would hope that those seeking to lead us politically would be able to express how they would move us in the direction I seek without demeaning the persons with whom they contend for high office:  somehow if the goal is to lift all of us up, demeaning and denigrating someone whose assistance you will eventually need to move forward on your goals seems to me a contrary message.  Argue over content, to be sure.  Explain your vision.  Demonstrate for us the necessary toughness, of course.  But find a way to do so without demonizing your opponent.  Model for us how to disagree without being disagreeable. 

Tell us your hopes and dreams.  Acknowledge your all too human failures.  Challenge us to the better angels of our nature. 

Remember that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.  That we all depend upon the physical and human infrastructure of our society:  schools, roads, bridges, dams, tunnels, public buildings, police, fire, emergency responders of all kinds . . .  and in your advocacy for position and policy do it in a way the challenges us all to thing more broadly, not just for ourselves and those close to us, not just our economic class, or race, or occupation, or gender, or sexual orientation, or marital status, or any other category into which we can be placed, but for all of us.

Tell us how our liberties can be assured, even increased, and how protection of these is not contrary to our security, either as individuals or as a nation.

Explain how you will strive to assure that the balance intended by our Founders through checks and balances, separation of powers, limited government, opposition to anything smacking of a monarchical  executive will be a part of your leadership.

This is what concerns me.  It requires someone who can on our behalf express and challenge us to a broader vision of ourselves.

There is no single litmus test.  I accept that even with a big vision we at times must take small steps merely to get moving, but as the ancient wisdom from the East reminds us, even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. 

Be willing to acknowledge mistakes, so that we can acknowledge our own - none of us has perfect wisdom or insight, and all can learn from our mistakes if only we are willing to accept them.  I repeat again the wisdom from the early monk who when asked what they did in the monastery said we fall, we pick ourselves up, we fall, we pick ourselves up, we fall, we pick ourselves up.

This is my set of concerns.  I have no idea how it will strike or appeal to others.  It does not, I acknowledge, provide a set of clear guidelines, nor was it intended to do so.  It does express in general terms how I as an individual approach the political process.  You may well disagree.  If you seek to understand some of my words and actions, perhaps this will be of help. If you are wrestling with an overall approach of your own, perhaps this will provide you a starting point.

it is what it is.  I sat down to share it, as part of a larger community, and with full understanding that others may well disagree.  If you wish to do so, please do me this favor - express your disagreement without being disagreeable;  use it as an opportunity for dialog through which we might both learn something, grow in understanding, and thereby perhaps provide a model as well as an opportunity for those who might read what we express.  If you act in that fashion, I will accord you full respect, read with attention and perhaps answer in openness.  If not, I will ignore, because I do not feel in disagreement for its own sake.  It is not my task to persuade you to my point of view.  It is my responsibility to live up to my own ideals.  I may fail, in which case I will pick myself up again.

Peace.

Comments