If we want America to become the “we society” that represents the highest outcome of democratic governance, we must get a large enough progressive majority in Congress to actually pull it off…
The hits just keep on coming! Thanks Thom. Great essay, yet again. The problem is capitalism. I am not opposed to capitalism, AFTER basic needs for everyone are considered - food, housing and health care. But, Capital always....always...aggregates into fewer and few hands. Politics can't stop this because eventually, Capital buys politics. Think of Capital as a hungry beast that constantly feeds, grows and needs ever more. The right-wing SCOTUS has endorsed Capital aggregation and hurried it along. The only thing that can mitigate or slow this process is regulation. However, eventually capital (as we see now) buys off regulation, too. When people are desperate, there comes some type of revolt. MAGA is but a symptom. It's an endless cycle. It really doesn't have much to do with "we" and "me." The "me" hoarding the wealth is only a tiny percent of a tiny percentage of "us." The handful of "me's" force people who otherwise would be more communal, to withdraw from community and focus on saving themselves and their families.
The same mega people who support unlimited greed are the ones who want more babies on the planet for cheap labor. Until there is a maximum wage about 10 times the minimum wage and a flat tax the Earth is not safe for babies and all other living things!
Gaia is taking her revenge it was once thought that mammalian life had until the 22nd Century, now climate scientists admit that they estimate was too conservative, things are accelerating at an unforeseen pace, apparently they were looking at it through arithmetic progression, now it is geometric progression.
For instance Hurricane Hillary, on the west coast of the continent was not predicted, nor was the heat dome.
Aug 10, 23 "the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) updated its predictions for the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season from "near normal" to "above normal," saying we can expect to see 14-21 named storms this year, with six to 11 of those becoming hurricanes.
Mr. S I read Polyani many years ago in grad school. It was not assigned reading. Some grad students just can't stick to the program. Thankfully. Polanyi was great. I think I must pick up his Great Transformation again. Thank you for the reminder.
Your welcome and thanks for that. I got through a lot of it found it to be a challenging but rewarding read. I certainly gained more understanding about the development of industrial society, the enclosure movement and the English laws he covers in depth.
This is very astute. That inevitable process of capitalism is so well-described. This has taken me many more words: "Capital always....always...aggregates into fewer and few hands." But how about now? What to do? Regulation isn't the only possible way to progress and I'm on a track of what we-the-people can do with our power. Not that many people seem to be thinking like we think and I'd love to hear what you'd say about what I put out. Get on my mailing list so we stay touch: https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/about.
I can only claim to have summarized. The book, Capital, by Thomas Piketty, is a great "root source" of information about this process. "In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty analyzes a unique collection of data from 20 countries, ranging as far back as the 18th century, to uncover key economic and social patterns."
Just know that Michael Hudson is a severe critic of Piketty's work, and they've engaged in a debate. Not that Piketty is bad or wrong necessarily, but just pointing this out because Hudson's work is at least as important.
Hudson's work IS important, but I don't see how that clashes with Picket's work. There are a few differences here and there, but mostly both see debt as the method for protecting the Capital of the 1% at the expense of the 99%. This is destroying every communal urging that the country might have. This is not by accident. To my understanding, this actually IS the goal of the Federalist Society, which has a solid belief in oligarchy - keep the masses poor and the oligarch's rich as a way to supposedly push the country forward. People, they believe, must be forced to work - at whatever wages are offered, even if those wages don't support life. The debate (and than you for the link) is them mostly agreeing with one another. Both say that debt is a form of rent. Rather than using land or other resources to claim rents, the finance industry has gone to direct rents in the form of Capital. "Basically, the American philosophy is that the way to prevent an independent middle class from developing is to keep them so deeply indebted that they have to go to work and go into debt or forego a costly education, not be hired and starve."
Here is a personal example. I used to write bids for very large infrastructure projects for the government/military, woking for what was, at the time, the 3rd largest defense contractor in the world. To get to the winning price, I would commission a Price To Win analysis from an outside, independent source. For very large jobs, I would commission up to two more. When reversed engineered, these analyses would be able to get us to competitive price. Only problem was finance had totally taken over the company. What they demanded, they got. They had a number in mind they "needed" and it was always higher than the analyses. Short story: the company ignored the analyses and bid what finance told them to bid, resulting in lost bid after lost bid - 30% higher in some cases then our competition. I finally got tired of losing and putting in 80 hours a week to do so, and left the company.
I was to find that most large companies are essentially run by finance, which will eventually run them into the ground. The company is now somewhere around 9th globally. Yet, nobody has the cajoles to question finance.
I agree. I didn't mean to overstate their differences, although Hudson is emphatic about them. I think the most important part is that hudson focuses much more on the USA and its foreign policy and financial - currency systems whereas piketty is more generic. But it's worth noting Hudson's work just because it didn't get the publicity splash of piketty's book.
You are correct about finance - I have been a senior corporate counsel in a nyse company and worked with hundreds of large financial companies. Most people probably don't even know what CFOs do, I certainly didn't until I worked in house inside companies where every business decision derived from financial analyses and projections, the predictability of revenue, and EBITDA.
A side note on Reagan which, it seems, also applies to Trump. The two both had fatal weaknesses which led to them being owned by he money powers.
Reagan was an empty suit, he had no ideas, no moral center,he was and died a class B actor.
Without a script he was nothing.
"Where is the rest of me?" Reagan cried out to Gorbachev. According to witnesses, this was the bonding moment between the two world leaders. Thanks to a 40-year-old film, the cold war melted and they agreed to a joint statement.
That was followed by a paperback book. "Here is the Rest of Him". I've tried to google that book, and it has disappeared, but I read it in 1983 or 84.
The author, a former aid, said that Reagan would sit at his desk, face drained of color, lifeless, jowls sagging, until someone shoved a script in front of him, then he perked up blood ran to his face, his jowls tightened and he came alive.. He was in fact a fool and a tool for the powers that be.
Then along came Trump, vacuous, dull, unintelligent, narcissistic and motivated by money, and more than anything fame, to make up for his inferiority complex (the stuff of bullies) .
The money powers are smart or think they are. The Republican party is corrupted, as is some Democrats and they will fellate anyone for money.
They financially, and through their control of the corporate media, have taken full control of Trump, by playing to his insatiable need for publicity and acclaim.
He is the vessel by which to satiate their greed., their addiction.
Looking to history Hitler was subsidized and empowered by Germany's own oligarchs, like Thyssen who admitted such, and they did well under Hitler, the recipients of contracts to build machines of war and chemicals of destruction (Bayer and Zyklon B)
Of course it all came crashing down, in May 1945.
After the war some of the industrialists were captured, tried and imprisoned, but were soon paroled and many wound up in government again, elected or appointed by the conquering powers that be.
There were corporate meetings in Switzerland after DD Day, between corporate America and Corporate Germany, to strategize how to save Germany's corporations.
Excellent, well done Mr. Farrar, The Junkers backed Hitler because they thought they could control him and limit his most destructive capacities. Huge companies like I G Farben, IBM, Krupp, Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz, and others made lots of money as a result. How wrong they all were. He brought the whole edifice crashing down on everyone, including the Junkers; a caste that never recovered. IBM survived for obvious reasons Farben, Volkswagen , Benz and a few others made it through also.
Ron DeSantis is just like Hitler in this regard, although fortunately for us, he lacks Hitler's guts.
Trump is simply off the scale.
You are correct, of course, about Reagan. He was a B level actor at most, badly educated and empty-headed. As you say"a suit." Please continue your search for that book about him which you spoke of. When you locate it, let us know where.
To answer the headline question, NO. America has gone too far down the road to self-seeking and wealth-worshiping to have any hope of finding a collective/communal center. Before we make our planet uninhabitable, that is.
As for a "progressive majority in Congress," how can that come about when progressives are demonized by all Republican members and marginalized by Democratic leadership?
While reading this article I had an “aha” moment. Thom’s article points out exactly why so many Americans have devolved into a cult, devoted to a smash and grab “burn it all down “ criminal narcissist terrorist. Swallowing years of hate radio, 24/7 Fox noise propaganda and other “what aboutism “ spewing right wing sites has made many of our electorate indifferent to reality, scientific facts and the outright criminal behavior by elected officials (as long as the corruption represents their world view or their tribal mindset). An example- In my neck of the woods recently a local store owner was shot and killed when confronting a man who tore down a pride flag displayed on her store front. Death is now the answer to situations that these crazies object to? Also a less tragic observation- but I swear people on the highways are becoming more aggressive and indifferent to road curtesy, willing to flout the law in order to express their disdain for everyone else. (I’ve long called these road terrorists trump supporters). These “deplorables” cannot think rationally, believing only the lies their exalted ruler spouts on social media. These people are a lost cause sadly, filled with hate, bigotry and lack of critical thinking ability. HRC was right- the “ basket of deplorables” are willfully willing to hand our democracy over to authoritarian rule in favor of the oligarchs because something something “socialism”, LGBTQ rights, women’s autonomy advances, POC rights, etc. It was a nice democracy while we had it.
I dont necessarily subscribe to his viewpoints, but award-winning author Morris Berman has written extensively on the decline of America, writing books like "Why America Failed" (past tense). Berman traces this all the way back to America's origins and attempts to show that the values of the country were always about "me," and in particular always about hustling by greedy people. His online blog is here: https://morrisberman.blogspot.com/
It seems, as Jan Weir hints at in his comment, the problem is a human one. We like to wag our fingers at the "morbidly rich", blaming them for our ills, but the middle class, which many would like to reaffirm, exhibit the same traits. A simple image comes to mind - the home garage. A generation ago, families, if they were wealthy enough, had a small garage, and they kept their car in it. Today's middle-class homes have two, three, sometimes four garages, and the vehicles, for the most part, must park outside because the garages are filled with "stuff". The middle class accumulate, just as the rich do - much more than they need. If the human race became minimalists, there would be enough to go around for everybody. But the middle class, as well as the rich, are addicted to accumulating more than they need. It's what keeps the Walmart's of N. America humming. We do need a "we" society that consumes only what they need for survival, but that would require revamping everything about this society we live in. To quote Kathy Tankersley from her comment today, "it was a nice democracy while we had it".
Guilty as charged. But note, it is often much more affordable to buy garden tools than rent them. Usually, renting 2-3 times costs the same as simply buying what's needed. At the end of the rental periods, one doesn't have anything to show, except maybe a nice yard (a whole other story of consumerism.) The oligarchs don't want us to share and have created a system where we don't have to do so.
In 1862 much of the land granted under the Morrill Act had not been ceded to the federal government. Thus, many state colleges and universities were built on land stolen from the Native American nations who had lived there for centuries. Colorado State University is just one example.
The best way to create a new society would be to install a maximum wage if possible about 10 times the minimum wage with a flat tax. Anyone found guilty of violating that law would be sent far away for good. Greed is the problem. You can't let psychopaths attain unlimited wealth which is capitalism. Also, no campaign contributions above $100 and no lobbyists or else they get sent to wherever society agrees they belong. Death sounds fair to me. With public flogging for liars and criminals also, we can make a WE society.
Dickensian England, of which Charles Dickens wrote such painful novels, as Oliver Twist, A Christmas Carol, launched the idea of socialism, the name coined by an Anglican priest who pitied the poor.
Was caused by a Maximum wage, that limited the amount of wages a worker could be paid, thos thus inhibiting his ability to be mobile, change jobs and thus improve his condition.
William, if a person cannot live on 15 times the minimum wage that's tough $#@+. Then we will have to raise the minimum wage. What was done way back in England was they had no minimum wage and the elite we're not subject to a maximum wage, totally different!
But they had a maximum wage, therefore Dickensian England. It has nothing to do with living on a 15 times minimum wage, enact a maximum wage and the plutocrats will cause an inflation, that penurizes a maximum wage.Your idea of a maximum wage sounds great, but be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it, but not the way you idealize
The only way to solve our problem, is to elect a truly progressive government, throw out the grifters and amoral bastards, and put progressives in their place.
And I don't see that happening, the fools cut their own throats, by denying global warming, favoring the riich, the racists, the homophobes, the misogynists. If by chance they succeed, they will find themselves in the same situation of Das Grosser Reich, hapless Hitlerites, inducted to the Arbeiterkorps, writing Dear Fuhrer letters, complaining about their treatment, and later being visited by GESTAPO and that is the last time they were seen.
Meanwhile the rest of us will be "cleansed" from the body politic but only the real minority (in numbers and percentages) meanwhile the minorities in large numbers are too large and integral to the economy, so they will be stifled, over policed, stripped of civil rights and jobs, until they have no choice but to revolt, and be killed, or resigned to work as neo slaves.
Nat Turner was tired of the shit and abuse and led a revolt in 1832, quickly put down and all involved promptly dispatched.
That is how the ruling class protects their status and wealth. They have divided us into categories, pit one against the other, and the troubling thing is that some in categories are so aggrieved that they actually feed the elite ammunition, taking their anger and resentment out on everyone is not like them.
This is true in the queer community, Andrew Sullivan hates women and trans and thinks he and his kind are special, and would deny trans, as would J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter) their civil rights.
There are Quislings (for money and security) in every subclass. Which leaves the elite, the upper class in a position of power, as we the people are too busy scrambling for recognition, redemption, and equality
The phrase you can't see the forest for the trees, means that you are too close to, too involved in the problem, to see what is really going on.
At this juncture I repeat an old axiom Problems have solutions, identify a solution and solve the problem. Difficulties have no solution, any attempt to solve it only exacerbates the problem and causes backlash.
The trick is being able to identify one from the other, and then having the will, persistence and methodology to solve the problem.
Some problems have been with us since homo sapiens first encountered another tribe...The problem of the "other". There has always been and always will be an "other", and power hungry demagogues know very well had to use the "other" to keep the people unsettled, on the back foot and exploited.
The only solution is education, and the fascists are well aware, and consider education a threat, so their tactic is to disrupt, deny, divide.
What is needed is for people to give up their myopic view of the world, and band together as one, to attack the real source of the problem. The plutocrats, the amoral corporations, they have rained hell on us and our response is to attack others in the same boat.
Raising the rich robber barons taxes to 98% would still give them enough money to bribe our politicians. Definite small campaign contribution limits and no lobbying allowed, under penalty of death, could work also.
Being altruistic, I never realized how many narcissists there were in a capitalist and religious society all of my life. I knew they were dinging, but I didn't think they were so evil and stupid. Once those globalist free traders get total control, this place is going to look like Somalia. First the idiots voted for Reagan, and finally for any Nazi. I have pretty much lost my desire to save them from themselves. They even turned on FDR. It seems they have no desire to become virtuous as they grow older. Just to get even with those evil liberals, who gave them social security and the minimum wage and welfare and the earned income tax credits and food stamps...
Wait till some Nazi gives them gas when they are old and no longer able to work. If he or she doesn't follow orders, they could be the ones being gassed that same day.
Many good points made and examples given here, but I think you're missing something here, Thom. Something big: there are pockets of "we" within our "me" society, and some of them are large. You mention Native tribes as an example of "we" -- unfortunately, the implication here is that "we" societies are sitting ducks for "me" invaders, especially when racism and me-me-me religion are taken into consideration. Consider also many African American communities, which would not have survived without a strong focus on "we." Daniel effing Patrick Moynihan and many other white observers didn't know what they were seeing when they yammered on about the Black "matriarchy."
Which brings me around to the big one: women. In more patriarchal cultures than this one, it's been women who do the "we" work: raise the children, keep everyone fed, hold communities together, etc. And of course this work is devalued and ridiculed by the me-me-me guys (and the women who think "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"). But it's crucial, and we could learn a lot from it.
Don't forget that Reagan (and Thatcher) neoliberalism was in part a reaction against the women's movement with its emphasis on the community of women. That was profoundly threatening to the patriarchal "me" in ways that many people still don't get.
"Which brings me around to the big one: women. In more patriarchal cultures than this one, it's been women who do the "we" work: raise the children, keep everyone fed, hold communities together, etc."
And when women stopped doing the "we" work, the society started to deteriorate. Because, as you've pointed out, women's work was ridiculed and devalued. My (now ex) husband would watch as I came home from work to another full shift of home and child care, without lifting a finger. When I complained, he said, "I fix things when they are broken and that pays more per hour than child care and house keeping." He had no problem watching me work myself into exhaustion while he played video games, etc. But hey, if I needed an outlet replaced, which took him 15 minutes, he was "the man!." Not difficult to figure out why he's an "ex." But this is playing out all over American. Though there are exceptions, men have been socialized to believe it is not their responsibility to pick up the slack. This is true, especially of boomers (and I am one) because they mostly had mothers at home all day, catering to their every needs and being obedient to their husbands. Boomer men expect what their fathers's got as WELL AS a second paycheck, which is now required just to make ends meet. Again, there are exceptions, but in the main, we haven't made much progress. We were hoodwinked.
Once, women's work benefitted the family, while the male's work brought in the money and benefited the businesses. Women always wanted freedom and rights, so I ask myself, why did the country suddenly roll over and give women's labor to the corporations (starting circa ~1960's. In their greed, they wanted all of it and community be damned.
(1) Women have never stopped doing the "we" work. Haven't you noticed who really is the "backbone of the resistance," doing the "we" work? (2) I sure hope you aren't saying that things were OK when women worked in the home and men worked outside it. Please clarify!
First of all, this was only true for the (overwhelmingly white) middle class and up. And even for the relatively privileged, it often turned out to be a trap, because when the man turned out to be, shall we say, not up to the task, the woman had a hard time getting credit in her own name and finding a job that would enable her to support her children (because unless she was an out lesbian she usually got custody). I'm a boomer also (b. 1951) and I drew an entirely different lesson from watching my mother and the mothers in my suburban Boston neighborhood: we saw frustration, depression, alcoholism, women's talents going to waste. Some of our elders saw it too: Betty Friedan's _The Feminine Mystique_ came out in 1963. When I read it about six years later, I kept thinking "That's my mother she's talking about." IOW, for a literate, reasonably aware boomer woman, ignorance is no excuse. (On the whole I'm not a Friedan fan, but I do give credit where credit is due, and that was a groundbreaking, earth-shaking book.)
The country didn't "suddenly roll over and give women's labor to the corporations." I've never heard this theory before and I hope you can elaborate on it. From my perspective, women fought hard to create more options for ourselves and our communities, as people of color (often led by women) were doing likewise. In the 1970s and well into the '80s, women-led communities flourished. Then with the Reagan administration the backlash intensified, targeting women, people of color, unions . . . If *you* were hoodwinked, take responsibility for it. Plenty of us had our eyes wide open and were working hard (usually on a shoestring) to make things better.
Well, that was a basketful of negative assumptions that are inaccurate. I am deeply feminist; I've worked (formally) since I was 15, only recently retiring. I supported the women's movement my whole life. I saw how my mother and her peers were treated in the '50's and I have no use for it. My mother could not have credit in her name nor birth control without her husband's written permission. I'm not advocating for a return to the '50's.
I'm advocating for taking the work that women did and do in the home seriously and considering it every bit as worthwhile as being someone's administrative assistant or barista - not just a second, non-paying job you have to do after 10-12 hours commuting and day job. Feminism, for a long time, made "housewife" a dirty word, though our world was better for housewives.
"Choice" was supposed to be the outcome of feminism - women could work, have families, and financial independence or choose between these things. We would be paid fairly. Working conditions would improve for us. Now, women have very little choice. Most of us work outside the home, whether we would prefer to take care of families or not. The system has been structured so that both mother and father must now work outside the home to make ends meet. So tell me, what "options" did rank and file women get from it all?
You seem to join in the sentiment of dismissing "women's work" inside the home, as if the only work that matters is so that some stockholder can get a little bit bigger return on investment. How can you not notice that corporations, now, get the labor of both parents, at the expense of women and children, especially children? And when they can by with it, they still pay us less than the men. The famous Tiffany hired almost exclusively women to do their work in the late 1800s. Why? They could pay them less and they were less "troublesome." Yes, women have always worked, but rarely have had a say so in that work.
I have a friend whose wife doesn't work outside the home. She's well-educated and very strong. He told me his philosophy is "I make the living; she makes the living worthwhile." "Making the living worthwhile," is often absent in our culture." My sister has always been a housewife. There have been costs to her autonomy. Well, everything is a choice.
Affluent white women (I was one until I retired) did make spectacular gains in some areas. However, it took me over 25 years before I was paid equivalent to men who did less. Be honest, how many women would rather work, say, at a poultry factory, at a very low wage rather than take care of their families? Go out into the world and see who is doing most of the menial, lower paying jobs out there under the guise of freedom. 6"% of women earn more than $100k per year. 13% of men make more than $100k per year." Let's talk about the other 94% of women, shall we?
I was on the front lines of trying to do it all. Now after three years into retirement, I can see much more clearly. Nothing has really changed; the men can still pass laws against our bodies, the ERA was never ratified and men still run most everything. There is NOT equality in our workplaces or, these days, within the law. But we are certainly welcome to continue working for companies at wages they determine appropriate for women. Whoopee. Instead of serving one man and my children, I got to serve a hierarchy of men with only crumbs remaining for the kids.
Working outside the home, for most women, is no longer a choice. Stop talking to women of privilege and start listening to women who do not have it. It was never "Oh, I can't wait to be a clerk at Wendy's or a shelf-stocker at the grocery store." To say feminism, as IMPLEMENTED here, uniformly made their lives better is a foolish argument. It has made their lives, in many cases, demonstrably worse. That's always been the problem with how a male-dominated structure perceives feminism; women at the top, with all manner of support systems - nannies, housecleaners, gardeners, etc., fail to see the desperate lives of most of today's women. I made a good salary, but still could not afford all these things.
Do the majority of women not count?
The country absolutely DID roll over and let women into the PROFESSIONAL workplace, but did NOT give us the same rights and opportunities as the men. We were always welcome to throw away our lives on meaningless, low paying, full-of-sexism jobs.
I achieved a high position, at a global company. I got good money, sometimes 80 hour weeks, and a daily dose of constant, grinding sexism. Yippee. Good for me, I suppose, but not the women stacking shelves at Walmart (which by the way, has mostly men in managerial positions and women in the lowest slots.) Businesses were never really hospitable to women, nor are they now. If your kid gets sick and you have to leave for couple of hours, you can lose your job and many have. We have no paid parental leave. We have no national healthcare. The social safety net is shredded.
Yes, WE were hoodwinked. It was never about equality. The oligarchs and pastors NEVER intended for THAT to happen. It was always about the money.
Well said Ms. Sturgis, especially the parts about Daniel effing Moynihan and native Americans. It always bothered me that so many uninformed people referred to Moynihan as a Sociologist.
Laughable to say the least. An insult to Sociologists and Black culture to be more accurate.
Yes there is increasingly, evidence turning up which demonstrates that some indigenous people of the Americas lived in various forms of Democracy. You might want to look at the Anthropological work of David Graeber and David Wengrow in their book THE DAWN OF EVERYTHING --Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2023. They turn up evidence that the "Founding fathers" of the US got most of their ideas about democracy from the people most Americans now call "Indians."
Thanks for the Graeber & Wengrow lead. Matilda Joslyn Gage, a seriously under-recognized 19th century U.S. feminist/suffragist activist and writer, wrote with admiration and considerable knowledge about the Haudenosaunee. (She lived most of her life in upstate New York.)
Ironic. Today in an email chat with a neighbor, I reacted to hearing that another neighbor had just boasted her college-grad son was getting rich as a day-trader. "To me, it is sad to hear that anybody's vocation is just amassing money. I recall my dad, just before he died, telling me that he was so proud of me followed with: 'You make more money than I ever did.' It saddened me that money was his criteria for success."
At the time my dad shared his compliment, I was a Navy officer providing direct research support to the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon, the head of a big Federal agency, and the Vice President. That I was contributing to national policy was, apparently, of lesser relevance to judging success than the size of my house and the car I drove. Dad was a "me" Reaganite. But after 12 years of Catholic school, I had been groomed to be a bit more "we"-oriented.
It might be useful to look at how societies outside the U.S. have handled this.
For example, the idea of a social-market economy is the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany and the EU. With that as a founding idea, the governance systems of the FRG and the EU have avoided the mistakes of the 18th Century presidential models.
Countries such as Russia and the Central Asian "republics" exhibit how there is a need to get beyond the idea of elected monarchs, who often turn into dictators.
Dr Doug: I don't understand this sentence: "Countries such as Russia and the Central Asian "republics" exhibit how there is a need to get beyond the idea of elected monarchs, who often turn into dictators."
Could you clarify? For one thing I never head of elected monarchs. Monarchs are hereditary, and monarchies are created by force., and how did Russia and the Central Asian Republics exhibit a need to get beyond the idea of elected monarchs. Russia and the Cental American Republicas are ruled by hereditary dictators. Russia would be if he had sons, and his invasion of Ukraine succeeds.
William--Monarchs certainly have been elected historically. In the Middle East a frequent method of succession was lateral succession where the new monarch was chosen or "elected" within the tribe. Saudia Arabia is perhaps one surviving example.
Many of the Central Asian republics post-USSR moved to what is sometimes called a "Presidential Republic". The process is to get elected once or twice as president and then have what a friend of mine from the region called "mechanical elections" where there is no doubt of the outcome. A president for life is essentially a monarch and often becomes a dictator.
The U.S. Constitution was set up as the first major alternative to lineal monarchies in Europe. France was next. Both use the presidential model as a substitute for a monarch. The world has moved on and so should the U.S.
What you first described are chief, not Monarchs. Native Americans elected Chiefs, the English saw them as Kings. England, until the Norman invasion was ruled by regional chiefs, also called Kings, what you call monarchs., little by little the minor chiefdom"s (kings) were picked off by bigger neighbors, and consolidated until they became Kingdoms, and Kingdom's became baronies.
The so called Presidential Republics are just a name, a public relations name, to disguise a dictatorship.
The US constitution modeled it's government on the British, A house of Commons (Representatives) and a House of Lords (Senate) with the Senate being the superior of the two)
The executive was to be an executive for life, as Alexander Hamilton proposed, but George Washington nixed that scheme, by refusing to run for a second term, thus setting a precedent.
Madison's so-called Virginia plan called for a 7 year term, the same as what was proposed for Senators. This was not adopted at the constitutional convention.
Similarly, whatever Hamilton may have proposed about Presidential tenure, it did not get adopted at the constitutional convention.
The fact that Presidential elections take place every 4 years is not because Washington did not seek a third term, its because that 4 year term was what was adopted at the convention, and is provided in the constitution, of course.
Moreover, from his own writings, it appears to be an overstated case that Washington intended to create any general kind of precedent about a third term; it appears that his reasons for not running again had as much to do with his personal situation and the deteriorating political climate at the time.
It would be interesting to understand more about what was certainly considered the precedent by some people at the time FDR ran for a third term. From a quick look at Dumas Malone's leading work on Thomas Jefferson's presidency, it also appears (as with Washington) that while friends and others may have characterized his reasons differently, he had no desire for it and couldnt wait to get back home.
Thanks. This is a very interesting issue, and one that I never really looked at before - but we know from the fdr era that many would use any reason to try to deny him another term. It seems that others wanted to attribute Washington and Jefferson's decisions to reasons other than their personal aversion to political turmoil and their desire to get out of dc.
I enjoyed reading some of Malone's book on Jefferson - it can be borrowed for free at archive.org. The fifth volume is pretty clear about why Jefferson decided not to run again, and it appeared to have nothing to do with any precedent set by Washington. This amzn link is for the 4th volume...
Another thing touching on a subject that Thom discussed a lot is the issue of president Jefferson's views about the judiciary, John Marshal and the decision in Marbury v. Madison. Malone is very clear about this - he sees much of Jefferson's positions on this during his presidency as "political"and NOT (as Thom might believe) as much historically and factually accurate as far as constitutional theory and interpretation.
But I think of the whole idea behind the 22nd amendment as similar - "we the people cannot and should not be trusted". So we have a system that says that any blabbering drunk (or narcissistic golfer) is better suited to be a candidate for president than someone who has done the job so well to be popular enough to be elected 3 times. This is nuts to me!
Would be interesting to trace through Madison, Monroe etc to see who, if anyone, really decided against a third term based on a precedent they thought had been set by Washington.
That's about as clear an explanation of the goal of a truly democratic society I've ever read. It actually describes the society I grew up in back in the 50s during the "liberal consensus" before the liberal class died off and the neoliberal racketeers pulled off their coup.
To reverse the situation requires quality information disseminated via evidence-based media like this report and many other similar publications that now thrive on Substack. The Hartmann Report, along with Heather Cox Richardson's Letters From An American, The Chris Hedges Report, Tom Cleaver's Thats Another Fine Mess, Robert Hubbell's Today's Edition Newsletter, and many others are purveyors of the essential quality information the late Gregory Bateson defined as "a difference that makes a difference."
A society aligned with the cardinal virtues of mutual aid, compassion for others, a collective burning desire to live in harmony with the diversity of the world's peoples and species, as well as the ecological protocols of the source of everything that lives-- our great Mother Earth, Pacha Mama, is the consequence of government established for the benefit of the common welfare, not just the rich, in a word--Democracy. The educational inspiration ignited by the aforementioned voices of this universal governing ideal is essential in establishing the "We" society that polls show the majority of us yearn for. That's why I subscribe to these and other resources and choose to share this educational adventure with others on the Substack platform. The community of citizens arising here is a vital source of the powerful fertilizer needed for enriching the soil of the new American democracy now being born.
You have a different recall of the 1950's than do I. I remember a reactionary, patriarchal, misogynistic, racist, homophobic America. My mother was a single mom with three kids, she worked in a bank as an analyst, she was damn good, even trained young men, only to watch them get promoted and pay raises. When Mom asked why:? The response was he has a wife and kids. Mom replied I have three kids, her boss responded and said, well then find a husband.
There was a wood and a city park near my house, One day I found a box with a coke bottle, with yarn in it, a knitting needle and coat hanger.
Being about 20 or 11 I asked Mom, what was this all about, she told me it was an abortion kit.
And this is the area that the right wing memorializes and is anxious to reconstitute, the word of Leave it to Beaver, Father knows best, Mayberry
Thom, you lay out a case so well about how we behave. I lay out cases dealing with how we think. This is the beginning of "GET THE STORY STRAIGHT" that I sent last week: "Change who we think we are. Go from wanting the most money to wanting the most good. Every culture has a creation story that clues people into what is expected of them. Adam and Eve is about humanity being born to suffer. Now, even science shows us we are born good, here to flourish. In a lineage from Pierre de Chardin to Thomas Berry to Brian Swimme, my #1 storyteller, we get the Universe Story. If humanity makes it, that story will underlie reality. We’re riding the horse in the direction it’s going. The most important and most basic thing to do is to teach that story to everyone now. It will get people feeling good about being human and wanting the best for everyone. That would get us creating the world we’d like to be in." The rest is here: https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/roadmap-to-the-future-part-one
Problem is Suzanne, that despite your best thoughts and wishes. Human nature has 't changed since we were beating each other over the head with clubs.
I visited the Museum in Ft Sill, Oklahoma. I was horrified to see the skull of a child, that was bashed in by a club.
The child was killed by another tribe, not the US Army. I had seen such savagery in Vietnam, not only My Lai, but committed by Viet Cong against there own people. Intimidation as a tactic.
William, there is a range of human behavior and a lot of literature on the subject without a resolution that would justify your opinion stated as fact. In fact, what you've written is counter to my whole perspective which has us evolving and learning as we move toward our oneness.
I suspect that you are close to my age. I am 84. My life experience has guided and protected me to the point where I now have happiness and financial and personal security. I am not by any stretch a millionaire but live like one, because I have no stress.
Despite my bout with cancer, (I am in remission, but should have been dead long ago, and all of the scheisse I've seen and done. including the horrors I've seen in Vietnam, I don't have and never did have PTSD, or depression, because of my way of looking at life.
I have survived because I have been able to "read the room", meaning I have insight into humans and their motives, including fear, anger, greed, hostility.
Nothing surprises me. I expect the worse, because I am fully aware of humanity. Their motives.
I don't expect anything from people, except that they be driven by the same impulses and motives
My survival has been based on "reading the room", acting pro actively. I am not passive, not am I aggressive, nor even passive-aggressive.
When I find myself in bad company. I simply walk away, and if forced fight my to the door.
I can't remake the species to fit my idea or ideals. I do not have the money, time, resources or charisma, and I take the story of Quixote tilting at windmills, seriously and learned that nothng is gained, but energy lost, beating dead horses.
As I said before I am a realist, I deal with events and the world as it is, not as I wish it to be.
Wishes were horses, and all of those similar cliches.
There you go again, beating dead horses when I think of them as being quite alive. Although we see the same world, we have very different energetics about how to live in it.
Mr. Hartmann, my admiration for you is a matter of record. However, I must inform you, from where I sit that, like most things in the United States, your treatise leads into a constant cacophony of conversations and narratives that exclude me. Because, you see, "I" am not "you". "We" are not "U.S.". And "yours" is not "ours". Never has been and the statistics confirm that it still isn't.
I forgot to mention. I have a case against myopia, tunnel vision, and that is that we wound up with Trump because of said myopia.The myopia of the DNC and it's chapter members in the south.
In 2016 there was a possible choice to choose between a left wing populist, and a right wing populist. The DNC put it's thumb on he scale for a conservative, as did the wise women of South Carolina and the south, and what did we wind up with? DJT.
And the media conflating all populism into the likes of QAnon and the right wing.
Right wing populism has haunted this country, since the KKK and Silver Shirts, and politically in the form of William Jennings Bryan, Father Coughlin, Huey Long and DJT,
Thus the word populist has been sullied by the right. There was another populist, Bernie, who,in contrast to Hillary, was actually involved in and marched for civil rights.
But that's not the story the DNC wanted, they wanted a neo liberal conservative, not a trouble maker who would take on the upper class, elite, who use divide and conquer tactics.
A very good article, but you are still inflicted with tunnel vision, a myopic view of the world, as if yours and only your issue was of any social importance, and you do troll the digital world looking for offense.
There are other people with the same gripe that you have, Asians, Mexicans and Central Americans, LGBT and women.
It is all a subset of the same problem. Classism. It is not only a European legacy, but an African legacy. For example: it raised its head in Rwanda, when the Tutsi, minority ethnic group massacred the Hutu.
And they could identify the Hutu by the shape of their nose and stature. Racism, driven by classism.
Maybe you enjoy being offended, it gives you a feeling of self righteousness, superiority and purpose. There are people like that in other oppressed groups.
If that is a message to me. I get it, and I don't care. I have my gripe and fear, which I will not go into because what is at stake is more than just my or your issue.
The history of this country is built on wrongs, genocide, oppression, slavery, and widespread discrimination against people like you and me.
You are angry, I get it, but so are millions of others for the same and different reasons, making it all about you, might salve your anger and make you feel superior. But I will tell you what I tell the right wing nuts, overblown superiority, simply hides an embedded sense of inferiority, as a coping mechanism.
Sounds to me that you have a lot in common with Timothy McVeigh and the Turner Diary.
Yes Mr. Kenyatta, I felt as tho I were floating as I read your words. Being Negro in Amerika is a unique experience. Negro, of course, is a matter of definition. "One drop of blood?" etc. etc. But I suspect you know exactly what I am saying. Better than I do. I like your writing as well as the ideas they convey. Both King and X were killed because they began to generalize their messages, with more revolutionary thinking. Both men were "tolerable" as long as they stayed in their lane and did not try to win over Whitey. For this they were assassinated. Do not stop writing. Do not stop. Do not!
FDR is known for proposing an economic bill of rights, but the details of that speech should be better known.
Not just FDR or MLK, and not just Bernie - but other Americans have called for an "economic bill of rights" a la FDR's proposal - a second bill of rights that focuses on economic rights.
During Reagan's presidency, I doubt there was any member of Congress (or at least the Senate) that was as forceful about creating a "we" society through womens rights and an economic bill of rights, than Minnesota Republican, Dave Durenberger.
Also, one little "factoid" that's been bandied about in the media - even by lefty media - is that James Hansen was the first scientist to testify about climate change in 1988. This "factoid" (published by the Guardian and other relatively good media) is utterly false.
For fun as well as education, one can go to the CSPAN website and see a wide-ranging climate hearing conducted by Dave Durenberg's Senate committee in 1985. You can see Carl Sagan testify in a way that shows that this was not new to the Committee in 1985 - the issue of climate change is not something Sagan discusses as something brand new. Sagan is joined by Ralph Cippoline and other top climate scientists of the day, and you can see how seriously and professionally Durenburger handled these hearings.
"In preparing for this session I've done a lot of reading... which is itself unusual for a Senator... and a lot of thinking.., an oxymoron - a 'thinking Senator'..."
The hits just keep on coming! Thanks Thom. Great essay, yet again. The problem is capitalism. I am not opposed to capitalism, AFTER basic needs for everyone are considered - food, housing and health care. But, Capital always....always...aggregates into fewer and few hands. Politics can't stop this because eventually, Capital buys politics. Think of Capital as a hungry beast that constantly feeds, grows and needs ever more. The right-wing SCOTUS has endorsed Capital aggregation and hurried it along. The only thing that can mitigate or slow this process is regulation. However, eventually capital (as we see now) buys off regulation, too. When people are desperate, there comes some type of revolt. MAGA is but a symptom. It's an endless cycle. It really doesn't have much to do with "we" and "me." The "me" hoarding the wealth is only a tiny percent of a tiny percentage of "us." The handful of "me's" force people who otherwise would be more communal, to withdraw from community and focus on saving themselves and their families.
The same mega people who support unlimited greed are the ones who want more babies on the planet for cheap labor. Until there is a maximum wage about 10 times the minimum wage and a flat tax the Earth is not safe for babies and all other living things!
Gaia is taking her revenge it was once thought that mammalian life had until the 22nd Century, now climate scientists admit that they estimate was too conservative, things are accelerating at an unforeseen pace, apparently they were looking at it through arithmetic progression, now it is geometric progression.
For instance Hurricane Hillary, on the west coast of the continent was not predicted, nor was the heat dome.
Aug 10, 23 "the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) updated its predictions for the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season from "near normal" to "above normal," saying we can expect to see 14-21 named storms this year, with six to 11 of those becoming hurricanes.
Those high-pressure areas also are helping keep Florida oppressively hot. As it has all week, the National Weather Service has issued excessive heat warnings and watches across the state, warning of "feels like" heat indices of up to 115. Residents are advised to stay indoors in cooled rooms as much as possible, stay hydrated, and if you must go outside, wear sunscreen and protective clothing." https://www.jacksonville.com/story/weather/2023/08/10/florida-hurricane-season-outlook-remains-calm-4-tropical-waves-tracked/70558657007/#:~:text=Don't%20expect%20it%20to,11%20of%20those%20becoming%20hurricanes.
Correct Ms. Coyote, CAPITALISM is the problem. Read the Marxist and Socialist scholars and spread the word. Start with Richard Wolff on line.
There's at least one thing I wouldn't argue with Bob Kuttner about -
Karl Polanyi explains it all.
https://prospect.org/power/karl-polanyi-explains/
Mr. S I read Polyani many years ago in grad school. It was not assigned reading. Some grad students just can't stick to the program. Thankfully. Polanyi was great. I think I must pick up his Great Transformation again. Thank you for the reminder.
GFD
Your welcome and thanks for that. I got through a lot of it found it to be a challenging but rewarding read. I certainly gained more understanding about the development of industrial society, the enclosure movement and the English laws he covers in depth.
This is very astute. That inevitable process of capitalism is so well-described. This has taken me many more words: "Capital always....always...aggregates into fewer and few hands." But how about now? What to do? Regulation isn't the only possible way to progress and I'm on a track of what we-the-people can do with our power. Not that many people seem to be thinking like we think and I'd love to hear what you'd say about what I put out. Get on my mailing list so we stay touch: https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/about.
I can only claim to have summarized. The book, Capital, by Thomas Piketty, is a great "root source" of information about this process. "In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty analyzes a unique collection of data from 20 countries, ranging as far back as the 18th century, to uncover key economic and social patterns."
Just know that Michael Hudson is a severe critic of Piketty's work, and they've engaged in a debate. Not that Piketty is bad or wrong necessarily, but just pointing this out because Hudson's work is at least as important.
https://michael-hudson.com/2021/10/piketty-vs-hudson/
Hudson's work IS important, but I don't see how that clashes with Picket's work. There are a few differences here and there, but mostly both see debt as the method for protecting the Capital of the 1% at the expense of the 99%. This is destroying every communal urging that the country might have. This is not by accident. To my understanding, this actually IS the goal of the Federalist Society, which has a solid belief in oligarchy - keep the masses poor and the oligarch's rich as a way to supposedly push the country forward. People, they believe, must be forced to work - at whatever wages are offered, even if those wages don't support life. The debate (and than you for the link) is them mostly agreeing with one another. Both say that debt is a form of rent. Rather than using land or other resources to claim rents, the finance industry has gone to direct rents in the form of Capital. "Basically, the American philosophy is that the way to prevent an independent middle class from developing is to keep them so deeply indebted that they have to go to work and go into debt or forego a costly education, not be hired and starve."
Here is a personal example. I used to write bids for very large infrastructure projects for the government/military, woking for what was, at the time, the 3rd largest defense contractor in the world. To get to the winning price, I would commission a Price To Win analysis from an outside, independent source. For very large jobs, I would commission up to two more. When reversed engineered, these analyses would be able to get us to competitive price. Only problem was finance had totally taken over the company. What they demanded, they got. They had a number in mind they "needed" and it was always higher than the analyses. Short story: the company ignored the analyses and bid what finance told them to bid, resulting in lost bid after lost bid - 30% higher in some cases then our competition. I finally got tired of losing and putting in 80 hours a week to do so, and left the company.
I was to find that most large companies are essentially run by finance, which will eventually run them into the ground. The company is now somewhere around 9th globally. Yet, nobody has the cajoles to question finance.
I agree. I didn't mean to overstate their differences, although Hudson is emphatic about them. I think the most important part is that hudson focuses much more on the USA and its foreign policy and financial - currency systems whereas piketty is more generic. But it's worth noting Hudson's work just because it didn't get the publicity splash of piketty's book.
You are correct about finance - I have been a senior corporate counsel in a nyse company and worked with hundreds of large financial companies. Most people probably don't even know what CFOs do, I certainly didn't until I worked in house inside companies where every business decision derived from financial analyses and projections, the predictability of revenue, and EBITDA.
A side note on Reagan which, it seems, also applies to Trump. The two both had fatal weaknesses which led to them being owned by he money powers.
Reagan was an empty suit, he had no ideas, no moral center,he was and died a class B actor.
Without a script he was nothing.
"Where is the rest of me?" Reagan cried out to Gorbachev. According to witnesses, this was the bonding moment between the two world leaders. Thanks to a 40-year-old film, the cold war melted and they agreed to a joint statement.
That was followed by a paperback book. "Here is the Rest of Him". I've tried to google that book, and it has disappeared, but I read it in 1983 or 84.
The author, a former aid, said that Reagan would sit at his desk, face drained of color, lifeless, jowls sagging, until someone shoved a script in front of him, then he perked up blood ran to his face, his jowls tightened and he came alive.. He was in fact a fool and a tool for the powers that be.
Then along came Trump, vacuous, dull, unintelligent, narcissistic and motivated by money, and more than anything fame, to make up for his inferiority complex (the stuff of bullies) .
The money powers are smart or think they are. The Republican party is corrupted, as is some Democrats and they will fellate anyone for money.
They financially, and through their control of the corporate media, have taken full control of Trump, by playing to his insatiable need for publicity and acclaim.
He is the vessel by which to satiate their greed., their addiction.
Looking to history Hitler was subsidized and empowered by Germany's own oligarchs, like Thyssen who admitted such, and they did well under Hitler, the recipients of contracts to build machines of war and chemicals of destruction (Bayer and Zyklon B)
Of course it all came crashing down, in May 1945.
After the war some of the industrialists were captured, tried and imprisoned, but were soon paroled and many wound up in government again, elected or appointed by the conquering powers that be.
You can read about it in the pdf https://archive.org/details/crimepunishmento0000bork or buy the book on line.
There were corporate meetings in Switzerland after DD Day, between corporate America and Corporate Germany, to strategize how to save Germany's corporations.
Excellent, well done Mr. Farrar, The Junkers backed Hitler because they thought they could control him and limit his most destructive capacities. Huge companies like I G Farben, IBM, Krupp, Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz, and others made lots of money as a result. How wrong they all were. He brought the whole edifice crashing down on everyone, including the Junkers; a caste that never recovered. IBM survived for obvious reasons Farben, Volkswagen , Benz and a few others made it through also.
Ron DeSantis is just like Hitler in this regard, although fortunately for us, he lacks Hitler's guts.
Trump is simply off the scale.
You are correct, of course, about Reagan. He was a B level actor at most, badly educated and empty-headed. As you say"a suit." Please continue your search for that book about him which you spoke of. When you locate it, let us know where.
To answer the headline question, NO. America has gone too far down the road to self-seeking and wealth-worshiping to have any hope of finding a collective/communal center. Before we make our planet uninhabitable, that is.
As for a "progressive majority in Congress," how can that come about when progressives are demonized by all Republican members and marginalized by Democratic leadership?
Bravo, for pointing out the Emperor is naked.
Not only is the Emperor naked, but he's prancing around wearing a red ribbon wrapped around his.....oh never mind.
While reading this article I had an “aha” moment. Thom’s article points out exactly why so many Americans have devolved into a cult, devoted to a smash and grab “burn it all down “ criminal narcissist terrorist. Swallowing years of hate radio, 24/7 Fox noise propaganda and other “what aboutism “ spewing right wing sites has made many of our electorate indifferent to reality, scientific facts and the outright criminal behavior by elected officials (as long as the corruption represents their world view or their tribal mindset). An example- In my neck of the woods recently a local store owner was shot and killed when confronting a man who tore down a pride flag displayed on her store front. Death is now the answer to situations that these crazies object to? Also a less tragic observation- but I swear people on the highways are becoming more aggressive and indifferent to road curtesy, willing to flout the law in order to express their disdain for everyone else. (I’ve long called these road terrorists trump supporters). These “deplorables” cannot think rationally, believing only the lies their exalted ruler spouts on social media. These people are a lost cause sadly, filled with hate, bigotry and lack of critical thinking ability. HRC was right- the “ basket of deplorables” are willfully willing to hand our democracy over to authoritarian rule in favor of the oligarchs because something something “socialism”, LGBTQ rights, women’s autonomy advances, POC rights, etc. It was a nice democracy while we had it.
I dont necessarily subscribe to his viewpoints, but award-winning author Morris Berman has written extensively on the decline of America, writing books like "Why America Failed" (past tense). Berman traces this all the way back to America's origins and attempts to show that the values of the country were always about "me," and in particular always about hustling by greedy people. His online blog is here: https://morrisberman.blogspot.com/
It seems, as Jan Weir hints at in his comment, the problem is a human one. We like to wag our fingers at the "morbidly rich", blaming them for our ills, but the middle class, which many would like to reaffirm, exhibit the same traits. A simple image comes to mind - the home garage. A generation ago, families, if they were wealthy enough, had a small garage, and they kept their car in it. Today's middle-class homes have two, three, sometimes four garages, and the vehicles, for the most part, must park outside because the garages are filled with "stuff". The middle class accumulate, just as the rich do - much more than they need. If the human race became minimalists, there would be enough to go around for everybody. But the middle class, as well as the rich, are addicted to accumulating more than they need. It's what keeps the Walmart's of N. America humming. We do need a "we" society that consumes only what they need for survival, but that would require revamping everything about this society we live in. To quote Kathy Tankersley from her comment today, "it was a nice democracy while we had it".
Guilty as charged. But note, it is often much more affordable to buy garden tools than rent them. Usually, renting 2-3 times costs the same as simply buying what's needed. At the end of the rental periods, one doesn't have anything to show, except maybe a nice yard (a whole other story of consumerism.) The oligarchs don't want us to share and have created a system where we don't have to do so.
Good point SuZieCoyote. You've given me a vision of a neighborhood that shares garden tools; what a great way to meet neighbors. Thnx.
Too much wealth divorces most people from their humanity.
In 1862 much of the land granted under the Morrill Act had not been ceded to the federal government. Thus, many state colleges and universities were built on land stolen from the Native American nations who had lived there for centuries. Colorado State University is just one example.
The best way to create a new society would be to install a maximum wage if possible about 10 times the minimum wage with a flat tax. Anyone found guilty of violating that law would be sent far away for good. Greed is the problem. You can't let psychopaths attain unlimited wealth which is capitalism. Also, no campaign contributions above $100 and no lobbyists or else they get sent to wherever society agrees they belong. Death sounds fair to me. With public flogging for liars and criminals also, we can make a WE society.
Dickensian England, of which Charles Dickens wrote such painful novels, as Oliver Twist, A Christmas Carol, launched the idea of socialism, the name coined by an Anglican priest who pitied the poor.
Was caused by a Maximum wage, that limited the amount of wages a worker could be paid, thos thus inhibiting his ability to be mobile, change jobs and thus improve his condition.
William, if a person cannot live on 15 times the minimum wage that's tough $#@+. Then we will have to raise the minimum wage. What was done way back in England was they had no minimum wage and the elite we're not subject to a maximum wage, totally different!
But they had a maximum wage, therefore Dickensian England. It has nothing to do with living on a 15 times minimum wage, enact a maximum wage and the plutocrats will cause an inflation, that penurizes a maximum wage.Your idea of a maximum wage sounds great, but be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it, but not the way you idealize
The only way to solve our problem, is to elect a truly progressive government, throw out the grifters and amoral bastards, and put progressives in their place.
And I don't see that happening, the fools cut their own throats, by denying global warming, favoring the riich, the racists, the homophobes, the misogynists. If by chance they succeed, they will find themselves in the same situation of Das Grosser Reich, hapless Hitlerites, inducted to the Arbeiterkorps, writing Dear Fuhrer letters, complaining about their treatment, and later being visited by GESTAPO and that is the last time they were seen.
Meanwhile the rest of us will be "cleansed" from the body politic but only the real minority (in numbers and percentages) meanwhile the minorities in large numbers are too large and integral to the economy, so they will be stifled, over policed, stripped of civil rights and jobs, until they have no choice but to revolt, and be killed, or resigned to work as neo slaves.
Nat Turner was tired of the shit and abuse and led a revolt in 1832, quickly put down and all involved promptly dispatched.
That is how the ruling class protects their status and wealth. They have divided us into categories, pit one against the other, and the troubling thing is that some in categories are so aggrieved that they actually feed the elite ammunition, taking their anger and resentment out on everyone is not like them.
This is true in the queer community, Andrew Sullivan hates women and trans and thinks he and his kind are special, and would deny trans, as would J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter) their civil rights.
There are Quislings (for money and security) in every subclass. Which leaves the elite, the upper class in a position of power, as we the people are too busy scrambling for recognition, redemption, and equality
The phrase you can't see the forest for the trees, means that you are too close to, too involved in the problem, to see what is really going on.
At this juncture I repeat an old axiom Problems have solutions, identify a solution and solve the problem. Difficulties have no solution, any attempt to solve it only exacerbates the problem and causes backlash.
The trick is being able to identify one from the other, and then having the will, persistence and methodology to solve the problem.
Some problems have been with us since homo sapiens first encountered another tribe...The problem of the "other". There has always been and always will be an "other", and power hungry demagogues know very well had to use the "other" to keep the people unsettled, on the back foot and exploited.
The only solution is education, and the fascists are well aware, and consider education a threat, so their tactic is to disrupt, deny, divide.
What is needed is for people to give up their myopic view of the world, and band together as one, to attack the real source of the problem. The plutocrats, the amoral corporations, they have rained hell on us and our response is to attack others in the same boat.
It happened before and can happen again.
Raising the rich robber barons taxes to 98% would still give them enough money to bribe our politicians. Definite small campaign contribution limits and no lobbying allowed, under penalty of death, could work also.
Being altruistic, I never realized how many narcissists there were in a capitalist and religious society all of my life. I knew they were dinging, but I didn't think they were so evil and stupid. Once those globalist free traders get total control, this place is going to look like Somalia. First the idiots voted for Reagan, and finally for any Nazi. I have pretty much lost my desire to save them from themselves. They even turned on FDR. It seems they have no desire to become virtuous as they grow older. Just to get even with those evil liberals, who gave them social security and the minimum wage and welfare and the earned income tax credits and food stamps...
Wait till some Nazi gives them gas when they are old and no longer able to work. If he or she doesn't follow orders, they could be the ones being gassed that same day.
I totally agree
Many good points made and examples given here, but I think you're missing something here, Thom. Something big: there are pockets of "we" within our "me" society, and some of them are large. You mention Native tribes as an example of "we" -- unfortunately, the implication here is that "we" societies are sitting ducks for "me" invaders, especially when racism and me-me-me religion are taken into consideration. Consider also many African American communities, which would not have survived without a strong focus on "we." Daniel effing Patrick Moynihan and many other white observers didn't know what they were seeing when they yammered on about the Black "matriarchy."
Which brings me around to the big one: women. In more patriarchal cultures than this one, it's been women who do the "we" work: raise the children, keep everyone fed, hold communities together, etc. And of course this work is devalued and ridiculed by the me-me-me guys (and the women who think "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"). But it's crucial, and we could learn a lot from it.
Don't forget that Reagan (and Thatcher) neoliberalism was in part a reaction against the women's movement with its emphasis on the community of women. That was profoundly threatening to the patriarchal "me" in ways that many people still don't get.
"Which brings me around to the big one: women. In more patriarchal cultures than this one, it's been women who do the "we" work: raise the children, keep everyone fed, hold communities together, etc."
And when women stopped doing the "we" work, the society started to deteriorate. Because, as you've pointed out, women's work was ridiculed and devalued. My (now ex) husband would watch as I came home from work to another full shift of home and child care, without lifting a finger. When I complained, he said, "I fix things when they are broken and that pays more per hour than child care and house keeping." He had no problem watching me work myself into exhaustion while he played video games, etc. But hey, if I needed an outlet replaced, which took him 15 minutes, he was "the man!." Not difficult to figure out why he's an "ex." But this is playing out all over American. Though there are exceptions, men have been socialized to believe it is not their responsibility to pick up the slack. This is true, especially of boomers (and I am one) because they mostly had mothers at home all day, catering to their every needs and being obedient to their husbands. Boomer men expect what their fathers's got as WELL AS a second paycheck, which is now required just to make ends meet. Again, there are exceptions, but in the main, we haven't made much progress. We were hoodwinked.
Once, women's work benefitted the family, while the male's work brought in the money and benefited the businesses. Women always wanted freedom and rights, so I ask myself, why did the country suddenly roll over and give women's labor to the corporations (starting circa ~1960's. In their greed, they wanted all of it and community be damned.
(1) Women have never stopped doing the "we" work. Haven't you noticed who really is the "backbone of the resistance," doing the "we" work? (2) I sure hope you aren't saying that things were OK when women worked in the home and men worked outside it. Please clarify!
First of all, this was only true for the (overwhelmingly white) middle class and up. And even for the relatively privileged, it often turned out to be a trap, because when the man turned out to be, shall we say, not up to the task, the woman had a hard time getting credit in her own name and finding a job that would enable her to support her children (because unless she was an out lesbian she usually got custody). I'm a boomer also (b. 1951) and I drew an entirely different lesson from watching my mother and the mothers in my suburban Boston neighborhood: we saw frustration, depression, alcoholism, women's talents going to waste. Some of our elders saw it too: Betty Friedan's _The Feminine Mystique_ came out in 1963. When I read it about six years later, I kept thinking "That's my mother she's talking about." IOW, for a literate, reasonably aware boomer woman, ignorance is no excuse. (On the whole I'm not a Friedan fan, but I do give credit where credit is due, and that was a groundbreaking, earth-shaking book.)
The country didn't "suddenly roll over and give women's labor to the corporations." I've never heard this theory before and I hope you can elaborate on it. From my perspective, women fought hard to create more options for ourselves and our communities, as people of color (often led by women) were doing likewise. In the 1970s and well into the '80s, women-led communities flourished. Then with the Reagan administration the backlash intensified, targeting women, people of color, unions . . . If *you* were hoodwinked, take responsibility for it. Plenty of us had our eyes wide open and were working hard (usually on a shoestring) to make things better.
Well, that was a basketful of negative assumptions that are inaccurate. I am deeply feminist; I've worked (formally) since I was 15, only recently retiring. I supported the women's movement my whole life. I saw how my mother and her peers were treated in the '50's and I have no use for it. My mother could not have credit in her name nor birth control without her husband's written permission. I'm not advocating for a return to the '50's.
I'm advocating for taking the work that women did and do in the home seriously and considering it every bit as worthwhile as being someone's administrative assistant or barista - not just a second, non-paying job you have to do after 10-12 hours commuting and day job. Feminism, for a long time, made "housewife" a dirty word, though our world was better for housewives.
"Choice" was supposed to be the outcome of feminism - women could work, have families, and financial independence or choose between these things. We would be paid fairly. Working conditions would improve for us. Now, women have very little choice. Most of us work outside the home, whether we would prefer to take care of families or not. The system has been structured so that both mother and father must now work outside the home to make ends meet. So tell me, what "options" did rank and file women get from it all?
You seem to join in the sentiment of dismissing "women's work" inside the home, as if the only work that matters is so that some stockholder can get a little bit bigger return on investment. How can you not notice that corporations, now, get the labor of both parents, at the expense of women and children, especially children? And when they can by with it, they still pay us less than the men. The famous Tiffany hired almost exclusively women to do their work in the late 1800s. Why? They could pay them less and they were less "troublesome." Yes, women have always worked, but rarely have had a say so in that work.
I have a friend whose wife doesn't work outside the home. She's well-educated and very strong. He told me his philosophy is "I make the living; she makes the living worthwhile." "Making the living worthwhile," is often absent in our culture." My sister has always been a housewife. There have been costs to her autonomy. Well, everything is a choice.
Affluent white women (I was one until I retired) did make spectacular gains in some areas. However, it took me over 25 years before I was paid equivalent to men who did less. Be honest, how many women would rather work, say, at a poultry factory, at a very low wage rather than take care of their families? Go out into the world and see who is doing most of the menial, lower paying jobs out there under the guise of freedom. 6"% of women earn more than $100k per year. 13% of men make more than $100k per year." Let's talk about the other 94% of women, shall we?
I was on the front lines of trying to do it all. Now after three years into retirement, I can see much more clearly. Nothing has really changed; the men can still pass laws against our bodies, the ERA was never ratified and men still run most everything. There is NOT equality in our workplaces or, these days, within the law. But we are certainly welcome to continue working for companies at wages they determine appropriate for women. Whoopee. Instead of serving one man and my children, I got to serve a hierarchy of men with only crumbs remaining for the kids.
Working outside the home, for most women, is no longer a choice. Stop talking to women of privilege and start listening to women who do not have it. It was never "Oh, I can't wait to be a clerk at Wendy's or a shelf-stocker at the grocery store." To say feminism, as IMPLEMENTED here, uniformly made their lives better is a foolish argument. It has made their lives, in many cases, demonstrably worse. That's always been the problem with how a male-dominated structure perceives feminism; women at the top, with all manner of support systems - nannies, housecleaners, gardeners, etc., fail to see the desperate lives of most of today's women. I made a good salary, but still could not afford all these things.
Do the majority of women not count?
The country absolutely DID roll over and let women into the PROFESSIONAL workplace, but did NOT give us the same rights and opportunities as the men. We were always welcome to throw away our lives on meaningless, low paying, full-of-sexism jobs.
I achieved a high position, at a global company. I got good money, sometimes 80 hour weeks, and a daily dose of constant, grinding sexism. Yippee. Good for me, I suppose, but not the women stacking shelves at Walmart (which by the way, has mostly men in managerial positions and women in the lowest slots.) Businesses were never really hospitable to women, nor are they now. If your kid gets sick and you have to leave for couple of hours, you can lose your job and many have. We have no paid parental leave. We have no national healthcare. The social safety net is shredded.
Yes, WE were hoodwinked. It was never about equality. The oligarchs and pastors NEVER intended for THAT to happen. It was always about the money.
Well said Ms. Sturgis, especially the parts about Daniel effing Moynihan and native Americans. It always bothered me that so many uninformed people referred to Moynihan as a Sociologist.
Laughable to say the least. An insult to Sociologists and Black culture to be more accurate.
Yes there is increasingly, evidence turning up which demonstrates that some indigenous people of the Americas lived in various forms of Democracy. You might want to look at the Anthropological work of David Graeber and David Wengrow in their book THE DAWN OF EVERYTHING --Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2023. They turn up evidence that the "Founding fathers" of the US got most of their ideas about democracy from the people most Americans now call "Indians."
Thanks for the Graeber & Wengrow lead. Matilda Joslyn Gage, a seriously under-recognized 19th century U.S. feminist/suffragist activist and writer, wrote with admiration and considerable knowledge about the Haudenosaunee. (She lived most of her life in upstate New York.)
Ironic. Today in an email chat with a neighbor, I reacted to hearing that another neighbor had just boasted her college-grad son was getting rich as a day-trader. "To me, it is sad to hear that anybody's vocation is just amassing money. I recall my dad, just before he died, telling me that he was so proud of me followed with: 'You make more money than I ever did.' It saddened me that money was his criteria for success."
At the time my dad shared his compliment, I was a Navy officer providing direct research support to the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon, the head of a big Federal agency, and the Vice President. That I was contributing to national policy was, apparently, of lesser relevance to judging success than the size of my house and the car I drove. Dad was a "me" Reaganite. But after 12 years of Catholic school, I had been groomed to be a bit more "we"-oriented.
It might be useful to look at how societies outside the U.S. have handled this.
For example, the idea of a social-market economy is the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany and the EU. With that as a founding idea, the governance systems of the FRG and the EU have avoided the mistakes of the 18th Century presidential models.
Countries such as Russia and the Central Asian "republics" exhibit how there is a need to get beyond the idea of elected monarchs, who often turn into dictators.
Dr Doug: I don't understand this sentence: "Countries such as Russia and the Central Asian "republics" exhibit how there is a need to get beyond the idea of elected monarchs, who often turn into dictators."
Could you clarify? For one thing I never head of elected monarchs. Monarchs are hereditary, and monarchies are created by force., and how did Russia and the Central Asian Republics exhibit a need to get beyond the idea of elected monarchs. Russia and the Cental American Republicas are ruled by hereditary dictators. Russia would be if he had sons, and his invasion of Ukraine succeeds.
William--Monarchs certainly have been elected historically. In the Middle East a frequent method of succession was lateral succession where the new monarch was chosen or "elected" within the tribe. Saudia Arabia is perhaps one surviving example.
Many of the Central Asian republics post-USSR moved to what is sometimes called a "Presidential Republic". The process is to get elected once or twice as president and then have what a friend of mine from the region called "mechanical elections" where there is no doubt of the outcome. A president for life is essentially a monarch and often becomes a dictator.
The U.S. Constitution was set up as the first major alternative to lineal monarchies in Europe. France was next. Both use the presidential model as a substitute for a monarch. The world has moved on and so should the U.S.
What you first described are chief, not Monarchs. Native Americans elected Chiefs, the English saw them as Kings. England, until the Norman invasion was ruled by regional chiefs, also called Kings, what you call monarchs., little by little the minor chiefdom"s (kings) were picked off by bigger neighbors, and consolidated until they became Kingdoms, and Kingdom's became baronies.
The so called Presidential Republics are just a name, a public relations name, to disguise a dictatorship.
The US constitution modeled it's government on the British, A house of Commons (Representatives) and a House of Lords (Senate) with the Senate being the superior of the two)
The executive was to be an executive for life, as Alexander Hamilton proposed, but George Washington nixed that scheme, by refusing to run for a second term, thus setting a precedent.
Madison's so-called Virginia plan called for a 7 year term, the same as what was proposed for Senators. This was not adopted at the constitutional convention.
Similarly, whatever Hamilton may have proposed about Presidential tenure, it did not get adopted at the constitutional convention.
The fact that Presidential elections take place every 4 years is not because Washington did not seek a third term, its because that 4 year term was what was adopted at the convention, and is provided in the constitution, of course.
Moreover, from his own writings, it appears to be an overstated case that Washington intended to create any general kind of precedent about a third term; it appears that his reasons for not running again had as much to do with his personal situation and the deteriorating political climate at the time.
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/washington-proposed-third-term-and-political-parties
It would be interesting to understand more about what was certainly considered the precedent by some people at the time FDR ran for a third term. From a quick look at Dumas Malone's leading work on Thomas Jefferson's presidency, it also appears (as with Washington) that while friends and others may have characterized his reasons differently, he had no desire for it and couldnt wait to get back home.
Thanks and that was a great comment and educational as well.
Thanks. This is a very interesting issue, and one that I never really looked at before - but we know from the fdr era that many would use any reason to try to deny him another term. It seems that others wanted to attribute Washington and Jefferson's decisions to reasons other than their personal aversion to political turmoil and their desire to get out of dc.
I enjoyed reading some of Malone's book on Jefferson - it can be borrowed for free at archive.org. The fifth volume is pretty clear about why Jefferson decided not to run again, and it appeared to have nothing to do with any precedent set by Washington. This amzn link is for the 4th volume...
https://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-President-First-Term-1801-1805/dp/0813923646
Another thing touching on a subject that Thom discussed a lot is the issue of president Jefferson's views about the judiciary, John Marshal and the decision in Marbury v. Madison. Malone is very clear about this - he sees much of Jefferson's positions on this during his presidency as "political"and NOT (as Thom might believe) as much historically and factually accurate as far as constitutional theory and interpretation.
But I think of the whole idea behind the 22nd amendment as similar - "we the people cannot and should not be trusted". So we have a system that says that any blabbering drunk (or narcissistic golfer) is better suited to be a candidate for president than someone who has done the job so well to be popular enough to be elected 3 times. This is nuts to me!
Would be interesting to trace through Madison, Monroe etc to see who, if anyone, really decided against a third term based on a precedent they thought had been set by Washington.
That's about as clear an explanation of the goal of a truly democratic society I've ever read. It actually describes the society I grew up in back in the 50s during the "liberal consensus" before the liberal class died off and the neoliberal racketeers pulled off their coup.
To reverse the situation requires quality information disseminated via evidence-based media like this report and many other similar publications that now thrive on Substack. The Hartmann Report, along with Heather Cox Richardson's Letters From An American, The Chris Hedges Report, Tom Cleaver's Thats Another Fine Mess, Robert Hubbell's Today's Edition Newsletter, and many others are purveyors of the essential quality information the late Gregory Bateson defined as "a difference that makes a difference."
A society aligned with the cardinal virtues of mutual aid, compassion for others, a collective burning desire to live in harmony with the diversity of the world's peoples and species, as well as the ecological protocols of the source of everything that lives-- our great Mother Earth, Pacha Mama, is the consequence of government established for the benefit of the common welfare, not just the rich, in a word--Democracy. The educational inspiration ignited by the aforementioned voices of this universal governing ideal is essential in establishing the "We" society that polls show the majority of us yearn for. That's why I subscribe to these and other resources and choose to share this educational adventure with others on the Substack platform. The community of citizens arising here is a vital source of the powerful fertilizer needed for enriching the soil of the new American democracy now being born.
You have a different recall of the 1950's than do I. I remember a reactionary, patriarchal, misogynistic, racist, homophobic America. My mother was a single mom with three kids, she worked in a bank as an analyst, she was damn good, even trained young men, only to watch them get promoted and pay raises. When Mom asked why:? The response was he has a wife and kids. Mom replied I have three kids, her boss responded and said, well then find a husband.
There was a wood and a city park near my house, One day I found a box with a coke bottle, with yarn in it, a knitting needle and coat hanger.
Being about 20 or 11 I asked Mom, what was this all about, she told me it was an abortion kit.
And this is the area that the right wing memorializes and is anxious to reconstitute, the word of Leave it to Beaver, Father knows best, Mayberry
Thom, you lay out a case so well about how we behave. I lay out cases dealing with how we think. This is the beginning of "GET THE STORY STRAIGHT" that I sent last week: "Change who we think we are. Go from wanting the most money to wanting the most good. Every culture has a creation story that clues people into what is expected of them. Adam and Eve is about humanity being born to suffer. Now, even science shows us we are born good, here to flourish. In a lineage from Pierre de Chardin to Thomas Berry to Brian Swimme, my #1 storyteller, we get the Universe Story. If humanity makes it, that story will underlie reality. We’re riding the horse in the direction it’s going. The most important and most basic thing to do is to teach that story to everyone now. It will get people feeling good about being human and wanting the best for everyone. That would get us creating the world we’d like to be in." The rest is here: https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/roadmap-to-the-future-part-one
Problem is Suzanne, that despite your best thoughts and wishes. Human nature has 't changed since we were beating each other over the head with clubs.
I visited the Museum in Ft Sill, Oklahoma. I was horrified to see the skull of a child, that was bashed in by a club.
The child was killed by another tribe, not the US Army. I had seen such savagery in Vietnam, not only My Lai, but committed by Viet Cong against there own people. Intimidation as a tactic.
William, there is a range of human behavior and a lot of literature on the subject without a resolution that would justify your opinion stated as fact. In fact, what you've written is counter to my whole perspective which has us evolving and learning as we move toward our oneness.
I suspect that you are close to my age. I am 84. My life experience has guided and protected me to the point where I now have happiness and financial and personal security. I am not by any stretch a millionaire but live like one, because I have no stress.
Despite my bout with cancer, (I am in remission, but should have been dead long ago, and all of the scheisse I've seen and done. including the horrors I've seen in Vietnam, I don't have and never did have PTSD, or depression, because of my way of looking at life.
I have survived because I have been able to "read the room", meaning I have insight into humans and their motives, including fear, anger, greed, hostility.
Nothing surprises me. I expect the worse, because I am fully aware of humanity. Their motives.
I don't expect anything from people, except that they be driven by the same impulses and motives
My survival has been based on "reading the room", acting pro actively. I am not passive, not am I aggressive, nor even passive-aggressive.
When I find myself in bad company. I simply walk away, and if forced fight my to the door.
I can't remake the species to fit my idea or ideals. I do not have the money, time, resources or charisma, and I take the story of Quixote tilting at windmills, seriously and learned that nothng is gained, but energy lost, beating dead horses.
As I said before I am a realist, I deal with events and the world as it is, not as I wish it to be.
Wishes were horses, and all of those similar cliches.
There you go again, beating dead horses when I think of them as being quite alive. Although we see the same world, we have very different energetics about how to live in it.
And by ding and by damn you are going to get the last word, aren't you.
We will never see the world the same, and that is that. No sense in even trying.
Does that mean I win?
Mr. Hartmann, my admiration for you is a matter of record. However, I must inform you, from where I sit that, like most things in the United States, your treatise leads into a constant cacophony of conversations and narratives that exclude me. Because, you see, "I" am not "you". "We" are not "U.S.". And "yours" is not "ours". Never has been and the statistics confirm that it still isn't.
Give it up Mr Kenyatta. You are blinded by your mypopic view of he world, it isn't all about you or yours.
As I said, you apparently roam the digital landscape looking for offense in your quixotic quest.
https://rohnkenyatta.substack.com/p/montgomery-martin-malcolm-missouri
I forgot to mention. I have a case against myopia, tunnel vision, and that is that we wound up with Trump because of said myopia.The myopia of the DNC and it's chapter members in the south.
In 2016 there was a possible choice to choose between a left wing populist, and a right wing populist. The DNC put it's thumb on he scale for a conservative, as did the wise women of South Carolina and the south, and what did we wind up with? DJT.
And the media conflating all populism into the likes of QAnon and the right wing.
Right wing populism has haunted this country, since the KKK and Silver Shirts, and politically in the form of William Jennings Bryan, Father Coughlin, Huey Long and DJT,
Thus the word populist has been sullied by the right. There was another populist, Bernie, who,in contrast to Hillary, was actually involved in and marched for civil rights.
But that's not the story the DNC wanted, they wanted a neo liberal conservative, not a trouble maker who would take on the upper class, elite, who use divide and conquer tactics.
Givum hell Kenyatta!
Hell is empty because all of the devils are here.
A very good article, but you are still inflicted with tunnel vision, a myopic view of the world, as if yours and only your issue was of any social importance, and you do troll the digital world looking for offense.
There are other people with the same gripe that you have, Asians, Mexicans and Central Americans, LGBT and women.
It is all a subset of the same problem. Classism. It is not only a European legacy, but an African legacy. For example: it raised its head in Rwanda, when the Tutsi, minority ethnic group massacred the Hutu.
And they could identify the Hutu by the shape of their nose and stature. Racism, driven by classism.
Maybe you enjoy being offended, it gives you a feeling of self righteousness, superiority and purpose. There are people like that in other oppressed groups.
The only issue in their world, is their issue.
https://rohnkenyatta.substack.com/p/message-to-the-white-man
If that is a message to me. I get it, and I don't care. I have my gripe and fear, which I will not go into because what is at stake is more than just my or your issue.
The history of this country is built on wrongs, genocide, oppression, slavery, and widespread discrimination against people like you and me.
You are angry, I get it, but so are millions of others for the same and different reasons, making it all about you, might salve your anger and make you feel superior. But I will tell you what I tell the right wing nuts, overblown superiority, simply hides an embedded sense of inferiority, as a coping mechanism.
Sounds to me that you have a lot in common with Timothy McVeigh and the Turner Diary.
nothing will appease you except a race war.
Yes Mr. Kenyatta, I felt as tho I were floating as I read your words. Being Negro in Amerika is a unique experience. Negro, of course, is a matter of definition. "One drop of blood?" etc. etc. But I suspect you know exactly what I am saying. Better than I do. I like your writing as well as the ideas they convey. Both King and X were killed because they began to generalize their messages, with more revolutionary thinking. Both men were "tolerable" as long as they stayed in their lane and did not try to win over Whitey. For this they were assassinated. Do not stop writing. Do not stop. Do not!
GFD
I am so very flattered...and inspired.
Thank you, my Alkebulanian brother.
FDR is known for proposing an economic bill of rights, but the details of that speech should be better known.
Not just FDR or MLK, and not just Bernie - but other Americans have called for an "economic bill of rights" a la FDR's proposal - a second bill of rights that focuses on economic rights.
During Reagan's presidency, I doubt there was any member of Congress (or at least the Senate) that was as forceful about creating a "we" society through womens rights and an economic bill of rights, than Minnesota Republican, Dave Durenberger.
Also, one little "factoid" that's been bandied about in the media - even by lefty media - is that James Hansen was the first scientist to testify about climate change in 1988. This "factoid" (published by the Guardian and other relatively good media) is utterly false.
For fun as well as education, one can go to the CSPAN website and see a wide-ranging climate hearing conducted by Dave Durenberg's Senate committee in 1985. You can see Carl Sagan testify in a way that shows that this was not new to the Committee in 1985 - the issue of climate change is not something Sagan discusses as something brand new. Sagan is joined by Ralph Cippoline and other top climate scientists of the day, and you can see how seriously and professionally Durenburger handled these hearings.
"In preparing for this session I've done a lot of reading... which is itself unusual for a Senator... and a lot of thinking.., an oxymoron - a 'thinking Senator'..."
Watch this incredible piece of history HERE:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?125856-1/greenhouse-effect