First it was mau-mauing The Man. Then it was working for Eugene McCarthy to oust LBJ. Then supporting George McGovern to end The War. Now it was 2012 and I was campaigning to get Richard Nixon re-elected as President.
Yes, I worked on the Eugene McCarthy campaign that convinced LBJ to not to run for a full second term, and LBJ had been responsible for the Great Society social programs. And I worked to get expat Americans in Australia to vote for George McGovern in the failed attempt to defeat Richard Nixon and end the Vietnam War. Now here I was helping Nixon, I mean Barack Obama, win a second term as President.
No, I'm not crazy. America has moved so far to the right since the 1960s that Nixon was in many ways to the political left of Obama. Nixon supported a health insurance mandate for employers that makes Obamacare look mild. He supported a guaranteed minimum income for the poor, and a required minimum tax on the wealthy--none of the 14% tax rate Romney paid. During the Nixon administration, there was no talk of reducing Social Security benefits. They were increased. Under Nixon, the EPA and OSHA were formed, and the Clean Air Act was passed and signed into law. Sure Nixon was an egomaniac, and had Watergate, an enemies list, lied about having a plan to end the Vietnam War, and emphasized Law-and-Order over civil rights. But today we can have a presidential election and not even mention the poor, the Afghanistan War, or climate change. Obama can talk about the possibility of increasing taxes on the wealthy by a few percent, and at the same time agree to discuss cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. For the first time since the World War II internment camps, American citizens can be held for indefinite detention without trial.
Much of the problem isn't Obama's fault. He is a centrist President supported by a center-right Senate, and opposed by a far-right House of Representatives. If the Senate and House had been as progressive as Obama wanted to be, by now we would have single-payer health insurance, a national clean energy program, and have ended all our wars. Well, maybe not that last one.
Perhaps Obama would have been center-left if the legislative bodies would have been, but Congress, especially the House, is never going to let him. The House will be controlled by the right-wing of the Republican party for the next eight years. Yes, eight more years at a minimum. The disaster that was the 2010 election let the right-wingers set the boundaries of the House districts at the state level. It is called gerrymandering.
Named for Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts who, in 1812, approved the geographic boundaries of the state senate election districts to benefit his political party. When one of the districts around Boston resembled a salamander, the local newspaper coined the term gerrymander.
Now, since the Republicans got to draw the federal district maps in many critical states, they drew them to best benefit their party. In the 2012 election, millions more Americans voted for the Democratic candidates for the 435 members of the House of Representatives, yet the Republicans have over 30 more members of the House than the Democrats have. All due to the process of gerrymandering the House districts. The worst example in the country is my own state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the 18 House districts in Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidates received more votes than the Republicans. Yet in the 2012 election, 13 of the districts were won by Republicans and only 5 by Democrats. So having a majority of the votes will get less than 27% of the elected representatives. What happened to American representative democracy?
This is now locked in until the next time the states are permitted to reset the district maps, and that will not occur until the year 2021 after the next federal census in 2020. Until then we are screwed. Our government cannot change for eight more years. The conflicts that we have had to endure for the past few years will continue. Don't expect significant compromises. Expect increased conflict. Face it folks. Change cannot happen from our elected officials. The only possible source of change in our society in the near future can come from the one unelected branch of government--the Supreme Court.
Scary isn't it.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Social What?
In the United States, there is a federal government program called the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. It is the largest governmental program in the world, and in the U.S. it is the single greatest expenditure of tax monies, greater even than federal defense spending. It is also the greatest redistribution of income in the country--from the poor to the rich. Yes, the poor to the rich. It is known as the Social Security program.
Consider another U.S. government program--the federal income tax program. The federal income tax program is described as a progressive tax, i.e., the greater the amount of income, the higher the rate of tax. So higher income wage-earners pay a higher percentage of their income to the federal government than lower income people. Why? The belief is that if a person has a high income, they are likely to be able to pay a higher rate of income tax because it is less of a sacrifice for them. This is often considered tax fairness. But, surprisingly, when it comes to Social Security, people with higher income pay a lower tax rate than do those with lower income.
If one's income is $25,000 per year, one pays 6.2% of it to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax, called FICA on your pay receipt. But for someone who earns a $250,000 salary, they pay only 2.7% of their income to FICA. For a $500k salary, the FICA tax rate drops to 1.4%, and a million dollar salary is required to pay less than 1% to FICA. So lower income wage-earners pay over 6 times the tax rate of millionaires. Those who can least afford it are subsidizing those who can best afford it. Why is this tax regressive instead of progressive as the income tax?
The FICA tax is actually a 12.4% flat tax, half paid by the employee and half by the employer. However, in 2012 it is limited to the first $110,100 earned. Any income above that threshold is FICA tax-free. Compare that to the 2.9% Medicare flat tax for health care insurance for seniors, again half paid by the employee. There is no maximum income threshold for Medicare tax.
If you purchase a car, the sales tax is applied to the price of the car, regardless of the amount of the price. There is no price limit. A low-priced Kia is taxed at the same rate as a high-priced Mercedes Benz.
The fund that holds all the FICA tax is being depleted and, depending on the analysis, could use up all it funds in 20 years or less. So there is much discussion about reducing benefits or raising the retirement age in order to make the funds last longer. Why?
The obvious solution to the continuation of funding Social Security is not to cut benefits. It is to eliminate the income limit on which the tax is applied. Why is this not being considered, or even discussed by our elected U.S. Senators and Representatives whose individual salary is at least $174,000 per year, or in the case of the Speaker of the House over $223,000? Wait--how much?
Why is this not being considered?
Consider another U.S. government program--the federal income tax program. The federal income tax program is described as a progressive tax, i.e., the greater the amount of income, the higher the rate of tax. So higher income wage-earners pay a higher percentage of their income to the federal government than lower income people. Why? The belief is that if a person has a high income, they are likely to be able to pay a higher rate of income tax because it is less of a sacrifice for them. This is often considered tax fairness. But, surprisingly, when it comes to Social Security, people with higher income pay a lower tax rate than do those with lower income.
If one's income is $25,000 per year, one pays 6.2% of it to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax, called FICA on your pay receipt. But for someone who earns a $250,000 salary, they pay only 2.7% of their income to FICA. For a $500k salary, the FICA tax rate drops to 1.4%, and a million dollar salary is required to pay less than 1% to FICA. So lower income wage-earners pay over 6 times the tax rate of millionaires. Those who can least afford it are subsidizing those who can best afford it. Why is this tax regressive instead of progressive as the income tax?
The FICA tax is actually a 12.4% flat tax, half paid by the employee and half by the employer. However, in 2012 it is limited to the first $110,100 earned. Any income above that threshold is FICA tax-free. Compare that to the 2.9% Medicare flat tax for health care insurance for seniors, again half paid by the employee. There is no maximum income threshold for Medicare tax.
If you purchase a car, the sales tax is applied to the price of the car, regardless of the amount of the price. There is no price limit. A low-priced Kia is taxed at the same rate as a high-priced Mercedes Benz.
The fund that holds all the FICA tax is being depleted and, depending on the analysis, could use up all it funds in 20 years or less. So there is much discussion about reducing benefits or raising the retirement age in order to make the funds last longer. Why?
The obvious solution to the continuation of funding Social Security is not to cut benefits. It is to eliminate the income limit on which the tax is applied. Why is this not being considered, or even discussed by our elected U.S. Senators and Representatives whose individual salary is at least $174,000 per year, or in the case of the Speaker of the House over $223,000? Wait--how much?
Why is this not being considered?
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Election
What happened in the U.S. election? That was the question asked when the phone call came through early in the evening on election day from Adelaide, Australia, where it was 15 1/2 hours later than Pittsburgh. Our friends were very concerned about the outcome of the Presidential vote, and the polls hadn't even closed in Pennsylvania.
"Don't worry," I told them. "Obama will win more than 50% of the popular vote for the second time, and at least 313 electoral votes, and all he needs is 270."
They couldn't believe me. How did I know? How could I be so certain? To me it was very simple. The Republican Party had been moving to the right ever since the Tea Party got their first mention in the national media, and the American people had been moving to the left during the same time period. The Democratic Party had recognized the demographic changes that were developing in the population and had emphasized the social and financial issues that were important to that changing populace, and addressed those issues in ways that appealed to them. Racial and ethnic minorities were becoming a larger percentage of the population, and especially the voting population, and would continue for decades in the future. Women would also be a big factor, especially those women who saw Republicans as a threat to freedom of choice and health care. This election was the last chance for the extreme right-wing to take over the government. This would be the last chance for an election controlled by the old rich white guys
African-Americans had been approximately 13% of the population for decades, but even after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had outlawed discriminatory practices, they had not voted anywhere near the rate of whites. This had been changing in recent national elections, and had reached a peak for Obama in 2008. This year, for the first time, Hispanics would be over 10% of U.S. voters. If both groups voted for Obama this year as they had in 2008, along with Asians, women, and young people, it would be difficult if not impossible for the Republicans to win the Presidency and increase their numbers in the Senate. The only arm of the national government that Republicans had a lock on was the House of Representatives. Due to gerrymandering of voting districts by state governments, nearly every Republican in the House was guaranteed to get re-elected.
Health care, education, immigration, income inequality, past tax cuts for the richest 1%, social justice, marriage equality, climate change, wars, corporate welfare--these are the issues the new voter majority wanted to have addressed. And all the Republicans had were birthers, the NRA, more tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in needed social programs, attacks on Planned Parenthood, and demonizing of the poor.
How could you not be certain that Obama and the Democrats would win? Everything was in their favor, except the amount of money that billionaires gave to Republican political action committees. And Romney had the rich, or as George Bush called them "my base". He had a slow economy to blame on Obama, high unemployment, high debt, and Fox News. Obama had the people and the multicultural future.
The extreme right-wing which controls the Republican Party threatens to destroy it as a viable political force for the foreseeable future in a country which will, in the near future, have a majority minority population. Cosmetic changes in how the Republicans approach minorities will not be sufficient to hide the real right-wing agenda. The only chance Republicans have to remain as a force in national politics is to divorce themselves of the extremists and make a serious attempt to re-form the Party around Jon Huntsman Jr and Gary Johnson, and perhaps pull in Chris Christie and some very blue-dog (conservative) Democrats. That probably will not work, because the populace is becoming even more progressive, as is seen by the choice of Senators-Elect Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin who will be the first openly gay U.S. Senator, and the defeat of a number of high-profile Tea Party candidates for both the U.S. House and Senate.
With the House controlled by Republicans, there still may not be much that will be accomplished under Obama. At least we will not see the massive damage that could have been caused if the Senate and Presidency had been lost. And the future is bright.
"Don't worry," I told them. "Obama will win more than 50% of the popular vote for the second time, and at least 313 electoral votes, and all he needs is 270."
They couldn't believe me. How did I know? How could I be so certain? To me it was very simple. The Republican Party had been moving to the right ever since the Tea Party got their first mention in the national media, and the American people had been moving to the left during the same time period. The Democratic Party had recognized the demographic changes that were developing in the population and had emphasized the social and financial issues that were important to that changing populace, and addressed those issues in ways that appealed to them. Racial and ethnic minorities were becoming a larger percentage of the population, and especially the voting population, and would continue for decades in the future. Women would also be a big factor, especially those women who saw Republicans as a threat to freedom of choice and health care. This election was the last chance for the extreme right-wing to take over the government. This would be the last chance for an election controlled by the old rich white guys
African-Americans had been approximately 13% of the population for decades, but even after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had outlawed discriminatory practices, they had not voted anywhere near the rate of whites. This had been changing in recent national elections, and had reached a peak for Obama in 2008. This year, for the first time, Hispanics would be over 10% of U.S. voters. If both groups voted for Obama this year as they had in 2008, along with Asians, women, and young people, it would be difficult if not impossible for the Republicans to win the Presidency and increase their numbers in the Senate. The only arm of the national government that Republicans had a lock on was the House of Representatives. Due to gerrymandering of voting districts by state governments, nearly every Republican in the House was guaranteed to get re-elected.
Health care, education, immigration, income inequality, past tax cuts for the richest 1%, social justice, marriage equality, climate change, wars, corporate welfare--these are the issues the new voter majority wanted to have addressed. And all the Republicans had were birthers, the NRA, more tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in needed social programs, attacks on Planned Parenthood, and demonizing of the poor.
How could you not be certain that Obama and the Democrats would win? Everything was in their favor, except the amount of money that billionaires gave to Republican political action committees. And Romney had the rich, or as George Bush called them "my base". He had a slow economy to blame on Obama, high unemployment, high debt, and Fox News. Obama had the people and the multicultural future.
The extreme right-wing which controls the Republican Party threatens to destroy it as a viable political force for the foreseeable future in a country which will, in the near future, have a majority minority population. Cosmetic changes in how the Republicans approach minorities will not be sufficient to hide the real right-wing agenda. The only chance Republicans have to remain as a force in national politics is to divorce themselves of the extremists and make a serious attempt to re-form the Party around Jon Huntsman Jr and Gary Johnson, and perhaps pull in Chris Christie and some very blue-dog (conservative) Democrats. That probably will not work, because the populace is becoming even more progressive, as is seen by the choice of Senators-Elect Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin who will be the first openly gay U.S. Senator, and the defeat of a number of high-profile Tea Party candidates for both the U.S. House and Senate.
With the House controlled by Republicans, there still may not be much that will be accomplished under Obama. At least we will not see the massive damage that could have been caused if the Senate and Presidency had been lost. And the future is bright.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
American dream or nightmare 2
So no one can get elected to any official office in the USA without stating support for American Exceptionalism by repeatedly referring to America as The Land of Opportunity, to The American Dream, and any of many other trite pseudo-patriotic expressions. Why is this important? Mainly due to the fact that since the Reagan era, America has no longer been The Land of Opportunity, and The American Dream has turned into a myth.
Since Reagan, the percentage of national wealth held by the richest 1% of Americans has doubled, the percentage of wealth of the richest 0.1% has tripled, and the average income for the 99% has barely moved. This is one of the points that the Occupy Movement was trying to emphasize. Compared to the other first world countries, the USA has the lowest equality of opportunity, and this includes "Old Europe". We have low social mobility. The status you were born into largely determines the status you will obtain in your adult life. Much of this has to do with differences in nutrition, education, peers, social pressures--things that are mainly a result of the opportunities that wealth can provide. And the rate of difference in equality has been increasing, especially through the eight Bush years, and not slowed much through the first four Obama years. We are heading toward an America that has two classes--the rich and the poor, and very few in the middle class--if we cannot stop and reverse this trend toward income inequality.
As "Americans", we have to acknowledge that Obamacare is important for the future of our people. We have to acknowledge that true improvement in education (not voucher schools) is important for the future of our people. We have to acknowledge that those richest Americans who create wealth for themselves but not economic growth for the 99% have to pay their fair share and stop filling their pockets with corporate welfare.
This failure of the American system is hurting the 99% by restricting economic growth for the middle class, keeping the poor from having a fair shot at obtaining their potential, and will eventually negatively affect those at the top, who have for the past few decades benefited from tax cuts for themselves and spending cuts for programs that can help improve income equality. This is what the New Deal and the Great Society programs were trying to accomplish, and Reagan, the Bushes, and, yes, even Clinton have created the means to destroy. "We went so well so long...when I think of the road were travelling on, I wonder what's gone wrong."
We have seen the enemy in the mirror. Yes, he is us. We must change, or the loss of The American Dream will be permanent.
Since Reagan, the percentage of national wealth held by the richest 1% of Americans has doubled, the percentage of wealth of the richest 0.1% has tripled, and the average income for the 99% has barely moved. This is one of the points that the Occupy Movement was trying to emphasize. Compared to the other first world countries, the USA has the lowest equality of opportunity, and this includes "Old Europe". We have low social mobility. The status you were born into largely determines the status you will obtain in your adult life. Much of this has to do with differences in nutrition, education, peers, social pressures--things that are mainly a result of the opportunities that wealth can provide. And the rate of difference in equality has been increasing, especially through the eight Bush years, and not slowed much through the first four Obama years. We are heading toward an America that has two classes--the rich and the poor, and very few in the middle class--if we cannot stop and reverse this trend toward income inequality.
As "Americans", we have to acknowledge that Obamacare is important for the future of our people. We have to acknowledge that true improvement in education (not voucher schools) is important for the future of our people. We have to acknowledge that those richest Americans who create wealth for themselves but not economic growth for the 99% have to pay their fair share and stop filling their pockets with corporate welfare.
This failure of the American system is hurting the 99% by restricting economic growth for the middle class, keeping the poor from having a fair shot at obtaining their potential, and will eventually negatively affect those at the top, who have for the past few decades benefited from tax cuts for themselves and spending cuts for programs that can help improve income equality. This is what the New Deal and the Great Society programs were trying to accomplish, and Reagan, the Bushes, and, yes, even Clinton have created the means to destroy. "We went so well so long...when I think of the road were travelling on, I wonder what's gone wrong."
We have seen the enemy in the mirror. Yes, he is us. We must change, or the loss of The American Dream will be permanent.
Monday, October 29, 2012
American dream or nightmare
Every person seeking elected office in this country says that America is the "Land Of Opportunity". It is a requirement. The public must hear those words in every speech, along with "The American Dream", and every speech must now end with "And God Bless The United States Of America". It has become mandatory. What is the meaning and what is the purpose? They are trite phrases without meaning or purpose, but if not said will result in reactionary criticism that includes being un-American and God-less.
Being reactionary used to be an undesirable trait in American politics, but the neo-con right and uber-Christian Tea Party wing-nuts have sadly convinced American low-information voters to believe that it is now desirable. Low-information voters is not a description for people who are unintelligent or do not have the capability to understand issues, but rather they are people who, either intentionally or unintentionally, are poorly informed about the political issues in their country. A large proportion of them are white, working-class people who make voting decisions often based on useless information such as gender or race rather than where a candidate stands on the issues. They often vote against their own interests when purposefully misinformed about a candidate. A classic example of this is the swift-boating attacks on John Kerry.
Before I get too far off track, I want to get back to the "God Bless" point. For over 12 years I was an elected official and for much of that time served with a fellow official who was a couple decades older than I. It is important to note his relative age, because it explains why, at the start of every official meeting, he always said the "Pledge of Allegience to the Flag" differently than most other elected officials with whom I served. He was a very devout Roman Catholic Irishman who did not include the words "under God" in the Pledge. Why not? Because when he went to school, the Pledge did not include those words. They were added in 1954 by a joint resolution of Congress, in reaction to the anti-communist fervor that swept the nation during the Cold War in the late 1940s and early 1950s. If you don't understand this point, refer to Senator Joseph McCarthy and Edward R. Murrow. Check Wikipedia. I'll wait.
So my fellow official learned the Pledge by rote, and seemingly never forgot the original words he memorized. The interesting twist about this story is that the actual original Pledge was created by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, in 1892, and specifically excluded any mention of God. So a religious leader who wanted to encourage Americans to be more patriotic, and to celebrate the 400 anniversary of the Columbus voyage to the New World, saw no need to include "under God" or any reference to religion in the Pledge he wrote. Yet here we are today expecting every political speech to include a trite statement that God should bless our country. And supposedly, no other country. At least not to the extent that God blesses our country. Goes back to American Exceptionalism, doesn't it.
Being reactionary used to be an undesirable trait in American politics, but the neo-con right and uber-Christian Tea Party wing-nuts have sadly convinced American low-information voters to believe that it is now desirable. Low-information voters is not a description for people who are unintelligent or do not have the capability to understand issues, but rather they are people who, either intentionally or unintentionally, are poorly informed about the political issues in their country. A large proportion of them are white, working-class people who make voting decisions often based on useless information such as gender or race rather than where a candidate stands on the issues. They often vote against their own interests when purposefully misinformed about a candidate. A classic example of this is the swift-boating attacks on John Kerry.
Before I get too far off track, I want to get back to the "God Bless" point. For over 12 years I was an elected official and for much of that time served with a fellow official who was a couple decades older than I. It is important to note his relative age, because it explains why, at the start of every official meeting, he always said the "Pledge of Allegience to the Flag" differently than most other elected officials with whom I served. He was a very devout Roman Catholic Irishman who did not include the words "under God" in the Pledge. Why not? Because when he went to school, the Pledge did not include those words. They were added in 1954 by a joint resolution of Congress, in reaction to the anti-communist fervor that swept the nation during the Cold War in the late 1940s and early 1950s. If you don't understand this point, refer to Senator Joseph McCarthy and Edward R. Murrow. Check Wikipedia. I'll wait.
So my fellow official learned the Pledge by rote, and seemingly never forgot the original words he memorized. The interesting twist about this story is that the actual original Pledge was created by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, in 1892, and specifically excluded any mention of God. So a religious leader who wanted to encourage Americans to be more patriotic, and to celebrate the 400 anniversary of the Columbus voyage to the New World, saw no need to include "under God" or any reference to religion in the Pledge he wrote. Yet here we are today expecting every political speech to include a trite statement that God should bless our country. And supposedly, no other country. At least not to the extent that God blesses our country. Goes back to American Exceptionalism, doesn't it.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
An Answer
Previously I was asked why Americans believe that anything their country does is "right". I had only a short time to try to explain to the two Germans sitting opposite me on the Inter-City Express train from Brussels to Frankfurt the concept of "American Exceptionalism".
You could say that de Tocqueville started it in the 1830s in his Democracy in America when he said Americans were "quite exceptional" and that perhaps no people would ever be in the same position again. Individual liberty and equality was supposedly unique in America. According to de Tocqueville, it was the Puritan ethic of the American settlers, the lack of a history of feudalism, and the "virgin" land itself that made America "exceptional". Americans differed from Europeans even though they came from Europe. This was the support Americans used for "Manifest Destiny" or the right to expand throughout the continent without questioning the destruction of the existing Native American civilization that millions of indigenous people had established for thousands of years. America became the Land Of Opportunity.
The phrase "American Exceptionalism" became common in the 1920s when it was used--are you ready for this--by the American Communist Party to explain that America was not subject to the Maxist Laws because it was a classless society. However, to the Soviet Communists, the Depression showed the flaw in that argument.
The most concern should be directed toward the present interpretation of the phrase by the neo-conservatives in America, which use the term to mean America is superior to all other countries, and is not subject to the rules of law which the international community has established. The neo-cons argue for an American Empire, which has a mission to forcibly impose American values of government and culture on any other country it sees fit through military and economic power. The neo-cons argue that President Obama does not believe in "American Exceptionalism", because he believes that while America has a major role in leading the nations of the world toward democracy, morality, and peace, it cannot do it alone but must join in partnerships with other nations.
What is exceptional about a country founded on accepting the principle of slavery, genocide of the indigenous peoples, and voting rights only for male property owners? What is exceptional about a country that has less social mobility than many European countries, and greater income inequality than most European countries? What is exceptional about a country that tries to limit the voting rights of minorities, that has more weapons in private hands than the next 20 countries combined, and that attempts to erase 60 years of gains in civil rights, woman's rights, and gay rights in one election? American cannot be the "shining city on a hill" when it has a very high murder rate, a huge prison population, pockets of extreme poverty, and a terribly inequitable health care system. American is no more exceptional than many other countries, and in many ways less exceptional.
As we pulled into Frankfurt bahnhof, I thanked my fellow riders for letting me rant on. We walked down the platform, and I wished them well, as my journey was continuing on another ICE train to Stuttgart. We will never meet again, but we did communicate. It is possible.
You could say that de Tocqueville started it in the 1830s in his Democracy in America when he said Americans were "quite exceptional" and that perhaps no people would ever be in the same position again. Individual liberty and equality was supposedly unique in America. According to de Tocqueville, it was the Puritan ethic of the American settlers, the lack of a history of feudalism, and the "virgin" land itself that made America "exceptional". Americans differed from Europeans even though they came from Europe. This was the support Americans used for "Manifest Destiny" or the right to expand throughout the continent without questioning the destruction of the existing Native American civilization that millions of indigenous people had established for thousands of years. America became the Land Of Opportunity.
The phrase "American Exceptionalism" became common in the 1920s when it was used--are you ready for this--by the American Communist Party to explain that America was not subject to the Maxist Laws because it was a classless society. However, to the Soviet Communists, the Depression showed the flaw in that argument.
The most concern should be directed toward the present interpretation of the phrase by the neo-conservatives in America, which use the term to mean America is superior to all other countries, and is not subject to the rules of law which the international community has established. The neo-cons argue for an American Empire, which has a mission to forcibly impose American values of government and culture on any other country it sees fit through military and economic power. The neo-cons argue that President Obama does not believe in "American Exceptionalism", because he believes that while America has a major role in leading the nations of the world toward democracy, morality, and peace, it cannot do it alone but must join in partnerships with other nations.
What is exceptional about a country founded on accepting the principle of slavery, genocide of the indigenous peoples, and voting rights only for male property owners? What is exceptional about a country that has less social mobility than many European countries, and greater income inequality than most European countries? What is exceptional about a country that tries to limit the voting rights of minorities, that has more weapons in private hands than the next 20 countries combined, and that attempts to erase 60 years of gains in civil rights, woman's rights, and gay rights in one election? American cannot be the "shining city on a hill" when it has a very high murder rate, a huge prison population, pockets of extreme poverty, and a terribly inequitable health care system. American is no more exceptional than many other countries, and in many ways less exceptional.
As we pulled into Frankfurt bahnhof, I thanked my fellow riders for letting me rant on. We walked down the platform, and I wished them well, as my journey was continuing on another ICE train to Stuttgart. We will never meet again, but we did communicate. It is possible.
And more questions
I was on the ICE train from Brussels to Frankfurt reading the Australian magazine, The Monthly, with the cover article by Peter Conrad titled "Obama: Too Good For America?" When I put the magazine down, the two Germans across from me asked what my opinion was of the U.S President. I answered by asking them what their opinion was.
So they told me. It seems that Europeans really like Obama. None of the EU countries are as multicultural as the U.S. is. None have the percentage of their citizens that are of different races than the U.S.--African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans. None have the number of first and second generation immigrants than the U.S. Yet Americans seem to understand little of the world outside of their own country, and when they do speak of the outside world, it usually is stated in terms of America's control of the course of world events. To Europeans this is heard as the American "might makes right" philosophy. Unlike the second President Bush, Obama has moved America back into the world community of nations
Obama has a more realistic comprehension of the present position of the U.S. in the world, and he also understands that, as Peter Conrad wrote, there is no longer any part of the world that is non-American. While American culture is omnipresent, and America is militarily as powerful as it ever has been, the U.S. does not seem to be as threatening with Obama as its leader. At least that was their opinion. Perhaps Obama is too good for America. But what they could not understand was the number of Americans who, it seemed to them, were greatly un-informed and supportive of the extreme right-wing of the Republican party.
They were amazed that so many Americans could not accept climate change, could have such archaic attitudes concerning the rights of women, minorities, and the poor, and especially be so supportive of the growing income inequality in the country.
It was difficult and took much of the rest of the train ride to try to explain the completely foreign concept of "American Exceptionalism". Foreign to them, and probably to you too. But that is for another time.
So they told me. It seems that Europeans really like Obama. None of the EU countries are as multicultural as the U.S. is. None have the percentage of their citizens that are of different races than the U.S.--African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans. None have the number of first and second generation immigrants than the U.S. Yet Americans seem to understand little of the world outside of their own country, and when they do speak of the outside world, it usually is stated in terms of America's control of the course of world events. To Europeans this is heard as the American "might makes right" philosophy. Unlike the second President Bush, Obama has moved America back into the world community of nations
Obama has a more realistic comprehension of the present position of the U.S. in the world, and he also understands that, as Peter Conrad wrote, there is no longer any part of the world that is non-American. While American culture is omnipresent, and America is militarily as powerful as it ever has been, the U.S. does not seem to be as threatening with Obama as its leader. At least that was their opinion. Perhaps Obama is too good for America. But what they could not understand was the number of Americans who, it seemed to them, were greatly un-informed and supportive of the extreme right-wing of the Republican party.
They were amazed that so many Americans could not accept climate change, could have such archaic attitudes concerning the rights of women, minorities, and the poor, and especially be so supportive of the growing income inequality in the country.
It was difficult and took much of the rest of the train ride to try to explain the completely foreign concept of "American Exceptionalism". Foreign to them, and probably to you too. But that is for another time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)