Musings of the Great Eric

“I felt so sorry for you when Bill had his affair,” the woman said. “I think the best way to overcome it is to become president.”

(source).

I’m fascinated by the “average voter”. It’s kind of like watching a slow motion train wreck… horrific, yet I can’t make myself turn away…

Via Dani Rodrik, this graph:

In a nutshell, under Republican Administrations, the richest see their incomes grow the fastest, and the poorest see it grow the slowest - inequality increases. Under Democrats, every income group gets richer faster, with the poorest seeing their incomes rise the fastest - five times faster than under Republicans. Wow.

The graph comes from Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels’ new book, soon to be released. Now quoting Rodrik:

Bartels shows in his book that this difference is not a statistical artifact or a fluke.  It is not the result of Democrats coming to power during better economic times, or of Republicans reining in the unsustainable excesses of Democratic administrations they replace. (It turns out that the same pattern prevails even when a Republican president is succeeded by another Republican.) These numbers are real and they are the outcome of partisan differences in policy. So if you are one of those who have bought the story that income distribution is the result of pure market forces and technological changes, with politics playing no role–think again.

I haven’t read the book, so for the moment I’m just taking the data at face value, and assuming that Bartels did his homework and controlled for all other variables. But the idea here isn’t new; Paul Krugman has argued often and convincingly that inequality is tied to public policy, especially under the Bush Administration.

The idea that the President has such an influence on policy, which in turn has such an influence on the economy and income distribution is a pretty profound one with some pretty disturbing implications - that’s an insane amount of power vested in one individual. But to be honest, I don’t have the faintest clue what might be done about that and consequently won’t say any more on it.

A more direct and obvious question though (which Rodrik asks) is why the hell do people vote Republican? Like, ever?

There have been a multitude of theories put out there. Thomas Frank put forward the most compelling theory in What’s the Matter with Kansas?, arguing that Republicans use social issues (like abortion and gay marriage) to get people to vote against their own economic interests. Krugman argued in Conscience of a Liberal that it comes down to good old fashioned racism. In my view there’s no silver bullet explanation - politics and voting behavior are complex beasts.

Given that the Republican party isn’t even able to significantly improve the economic outlook for the very wealthy compared to Democrats, it does beg the question of why even that group supports them, given economic history. They’ve got to be fooling themselves before they get around to fooling the lower classes that vote Republican - and that’s damn interesting.

As only Monty Python can explain it:

Remember that infamous 3 AM red phone ad Clinton played right before the Texas primary?

It was wrong on a number of levels, not least of which because the person people want to answer that phone is McCain rather than Clinton. As it turns out, it’s also pretty ironic, because the girl sound asleep at 3 AM in that ad is actually an Obama supporter and precinct captain, and has shot her own ad for Obama:

Thus teaching the Clinton campaign an important lesson about the dangers of using stock footage.

Obama’s speech yesterday, in full.

I didn’t have the chance to post this yesterday, because I’d wanted to say something more substantial than what was already being said about it. But since then I’ve come to the conclusion that I can’t say anything to either add or detract to it. I can only encourage others to listen to it - in its entirety - and show our fellow Americans that we really are as good, as mature, as intelligent as he believes us to be.

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms - greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind, and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you. - Wall Street, 1987

Of course, the Reagan-era economy  that Michael Douglas’ character summed up so well here looked positively sane and egalitarian compared to the Bush economy now imploding around us.

I honestly don’t know enough about financial markets to comment intelligently upon what’s happening today, other than observing that words like “emergency” and “crisis” are being tossed around by many commentators, joining the talk of “recession” that’s been present for the last few weeks. But I thought it would be worth revisiting the fundamental idea that got us into this mess, which obviously has yet to change in the minds of some on Wall Street.

Greed is not good. Maybe this time we’ll actually learn that lesson.

Lyrics are mine, but with a hat tip to the excellent Tom Tomorrow and this classic Onion article for the inspiration, as well as the original Spider-Man theme song.

9/11 man, 9/11 man
Does whatever 9/11 can
Makes bold claims, every size
Just like Bush, they’re all lies
Look out! Here comes 9/11 man.

Is he dumb? Listen man
Now he wants to bomb Iran
Can he be that corrupt?
Take a look, there’s Bernard Kerik
Hey there, there goes 9/11 man!

In the chill of night
On the city’s dime
With the help of NYPD
His mistress is right on time…

9/11 man, 9/11 man
Friendly crossdressing 9/11 man
The FDNY, he’s ignored
9/11 was his reward

To him, life is a big terror attack
Even when it comes to Iraq
You’ll find the 9/11 man!

A prophecy:

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost… All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.’ The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Sun, July 26 1920

Come true:

Q: Mr. President, back to your grade point average on holding the line on taxes –

THE PRESIDENT: Whew, I thought you were going to talk about the actual grade point average. (Laughter.) I remind people that, like when I’m with Condi I say, she’s the Ph.D. and I’m the C-student, and just look at who’s the President and who’s the advisor. (Laughter.) But go ahead.

- George W. Bush, Press Conference, September 20, 2007

It’s interesting to hear Bush sum up exactly what Mencken said in so many words. Look who’s the President, indeed.

And one other quip about his own intelligence from that same press conference:

Q: Do you think there’s a risk of a recession? How do you rate that?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low — (laughter) — and being fiscally responsible with the people’s money. We’ve submitted a plan that will enable this budget to become balanced by 2012, so long as Congress learns to set priorities. And we can balance the budget without raising taxes. - George W. Bush, Press Conference, September 20, 2007

(Actually, he was more correct in the first quote; he was a C student through and through. And the quip about getting an A in fiscal responsibility… I won’t even dignify that comment with further acknowledgment.)

Of all the peculiarities of human nature, anti-intellectualism is the one that confounds me the most. What is it about being a moron that makes you want to be governed by fellow morons, rather than someone who’s more intelligent? Why would one actively and enthusiastically subvert yourself to that? Yet it seems even more true today than when H.L. Mencken penned that first quote 87 years ago.

There’s simply no other way to explain it.

Even the most basic explanations of the fall of the Roman Empire never fail to include “reliance on mercenaries” in the laundry list of reasons. I think about that every time contractors and Blackwater’s name in particular come up in the news.

Link.

Without any reference to their cover story of a few weeks ago that spawned my post Our Idiocratic Education System, there appeared this blurb in the current issue of Time magazine which briefly discusses groups that are trying to change the No Child Left Behind act to track the smart kids as well, and offers some statistics relating “giftedness” to socioeconomic status. It’s short, but it should of interest to anyone interested in the topic.

I can’t claim a deep understanding of what happened with Shinzo Abe that led to his resignation last week as Prime Minister of Japan. There’s unfortunately a language barrier between myself and the kinds of primary sources that I utilize to gain an understanding of English language politics.

What I gather from the international press is thus: He took office a relatively popular guy with high approval ratings, suffered a series of scandals, events, gaffes, and outright screw ups that led to a dramatic reversal of his approval ratings that hurt his party this past July and forced his resignation this last week. I won’t comment upon the precise nature of any of those events because, as I said, I lack the deep understanding necessary to say anything intelligent on the matter. Instead, I’d like to offer what’s to me the most striking thing about his tenure as Prime Minister, from my American perspective: he resigned.

I can’t help but observe that in many respects, the story of Shinzo Abe mirrors the political decline of another world leader, George W. Bush. But whereas Abe is now out of office and Japan has a chance to correct itself under new leadership, the US is stuck with Bush for another 15 months. Unfortunately, Bush lacks the integrity and honor of Shinzo Abe - or Richard Nixon, for that matter - so it seems a deeply unlikely thing that he’ll just do the right thing and resign before the end of his term in 2009. Further, the Democrats in congress lack the integrity and spine to do the right thing and impeach him. The American people, meanwhile, are left with no other option to remove him from office - which means we’re stuck with him.

The world is at a crossroads, and the US is in a critical state. We’re in desperate need of able, competent, and effective leadership, who can see us through this difficult time of military conflict, an imminent energy crunch, global environmental damage and climate change, and shifting economic fortunes. The notion that we have to wait at least another 15 months before any of the critical issues of the day are truly addressed is disturbing. Somehow, some way, the US needs a mechanism that can make what happened in Japan happen here - the removal of a President from office mid-term, when his continued presence becomes so antithetical to the public interest. We could learn a serious lesson from Japan in this regard.

I heard someone mention this other day, and finally remembered to look it up - it’s pretty remarkable. Emphasis is mine, but other than that here’s the platform of the 1872 Republican party reprinted in full:

The Republican party of the United States, assembled in National Convention in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th and 6th days of June, 1872, again declares its faith, appeals to its history, and announces its position upon the questions before the country

First. During eleven years of supremacy it has accepted with grand courage the solemn duties of the time. It suppressed a gigantic rebellion, emancipated four millions of slaves, decreed the equal citizenship of all, and established universal suffrage. Exhibiting unparalleled magnanimity, it criminally punished no man for political offenses, and warmly welcomed all who proved loyalty by obeying the laws and dealing justly with their neighbors. It has steadily decreased with firm hand the resultant disorders of a great war, and initiated a wise and humane policy toward the Indians. The Pacific railroad and similar vast enterprises have been generously aided and successfully conducted, the public lands freely given to actual settlers, immigration protected and encouraged, and a full acknowledgment of the naturalized citizens’ rights secured from European Powers. A uniform national currency has been provided, repudiation frowned down, the national credit sustained under the most extraordinary burdens, and new bonds negotiated at lower rates. The revenues have been carefully collected and honestly applied. Despite large annual reductions of the rates of taxation, the public debt has been reduced during General Grant’s Presidency at the rate of a hundred millions a year, great financial crises have been avoided, and peace and plenty prevail throughout the land. Menacing foreign difficulties have been peacefully and honorably composed, and the honor and power of the nation kept in high respect throughout the world. This glorious record of the past is the party’s best pledge for the future. We believe the people will not intrust the Government to any party or combination of men composed chiefly of those who have resisted every step of this beneficent progress.

Second. The recent amendments to the national Constitution should be cordially sustained because they are right, not merely tolerated because they are law, and should be carried out according to their spirit by appropriate legislation, the enforcement of which can safely be entrusted only to the party that secured those amendments.

Third. Complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil, political, and public rights should be established and effectually maintained throughout the Union, by efficient and appropriate State and Federal legislation. Neither the law nor its administration should admit any discrimination in respect of citizens by reason of race, creed, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Fourth. The National Government should seek to maintain honorable peace with all nations, protecting its citizens everywhere, and sympathizing with all people who strive for greater liberty.

Fifth. Any system of the civil service under which the subordinate positions of the government are considered rewards for mere party zeal is fatally demoralizing, and we therefore favor a reform of the system by laws which shall abolish the evils of patronage, and make honesty, efficiency, and fidelity the essential qualifications for public positions, without practically creating a life-tenure of office.

Sixth. We are opposed to further grants of the public lands to corporations and monopolies, and demand that the national domain be set apart for free homes for the people.

Seventh. The annual revenue, after paying current expenditures, pensions, and the interest on the public debt, should furnish a moderate balance for the reduction of the principal and that revenue, except so much as may be derived from a tax upon tobacco and liquors, should be raised by duties upon importations, the details of which should be so adjusted as to aid in securing remunerative wages to labor, and to promote the industries, prosperity, and growth of the whole country.

Eighth. We hold in undying honor the soldiers and sailors whose valor saved the Union. Their pensions are a sacred debt of the nation, and the widows and orphans of those who died for their country are entitled to the care of a generous and grateful people. We favor such additional legislation as will extend the bounty of the Government to all our soldiers and sailors who were honorably discharged, and who, in the line of duty, became disabled, without regard to the length of service or the cause of such discharge.

Ninth. The doctrine of Great Britain and other European powers concerning allegiance—”Once a subject always a subject”—having at last, through the efforts of the Republican party, been abandoned, and the American idea of the individual’s right to transfer allegiance having been accepted by European nations, it is the duty of our Government to guard with jealous care the rights of adopted citizens against the assumption of unauthorized claims by their former governments; and we urge continued careful encouragement and protection of voluntary immigration.

Tenth. The franking privilege ought to be abolished, and the way prepared for a speedy reduction in the rates of postage.

Eleventh. Among the questions which press for attention is that which concerns the relations of capital and labor, and the Republican party recognizes the duty of so shaping legislation as to secure full protection and the amplest field for capital, and for labor—the creator of capital—the largest opportunities and a just share of the mutual profits of these two great servants of civilization.

Twelfth. We hold that Congress and the President have only fulfilled an imperative duty in their measures for the suppression of violent and treasonable organizations in certain lately rebellious regions, and for the protection of the ballot-box, and therefore they are entitled to the thanks of the nation.

Thirteenth. We denounce repudiation of the public debt, in any form or disguise, as a national crime. We witness with pride the reduction of the principal of the debt, and of the rates of interest upon the balance, and confidently expect that our excellent national currency will be perfected by a speedy resumption of specie payment.

Fourteenth. The Republican party is mindful of its obligations to the loyal women of America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom. Their admission to wider fields of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction, and the honest demand of any class of citizens for additional rights should be treated with respectful consideration.

Fifteenth. We heartily approve the action of Congress in extending amnesty to those lately in rebellion, and rejoice in the growth of peace and fraternal feeling throughout the land.

Sixteenth. The Republican party proposes to respect the rights reserved by the people to themselves as carefully as the powers delegated by them to the State and to the Federal Government. It disapproves of the resort to unconstitutional laws for the purpose of removing evils, by interference with rights not surrendered by the people to either the State or National Government.

Seventeenth. It is the duty of the general Government to adopt such measures as may tend to encourage and restore American commerce and ship-building.

Eighteenth. We believe that the modest patriotism, the earnest purpose, the sound judgment, the practical wisdom, the incorruptible integrity, and the illustrious services of Ulysses S. Grant have commended him to the heart of the American people, and with him at our head we start to-day upon a new march to victory.

Nineteenth. Henry Wilson, nominated for the Vice-Presidency, known to the whole land from the early days of the great struggle for liberty as an indefatigable laborer in all campaigns, an incorruptible legislator and representative man of American institutions, is worthy to associate with our great leader and share the honors which we pledge our best efforts to bestow upon them.

The historical irony is almost painful.

Of course, as a historical note, it should be noted that the Ulysses S. Grant Administration was one of our most corrupt in history, so take this platform with a grain of salt.

It should further be noted that the Republicans had basically become the party of big business by the early 20th century, and the parties basically flipped positions in the 1960’s. The party of Abraham Lincoln would not find themselves welcome in the south until the dixiecrats merged with the Republicans in the latter half of the 20th century.

Still, it’s a pretty amazing transformation. Yes, any student of history knows that the Republicans were once pro-liberty, pro-civil rights, and pro-labor, and that parties evolve and change over time. But here we find that on almost every count the modern Republican stands for the exact opposite of what it stood for at its founding. And this particular document almost reads like the party’s founders reaching through history to smack the Bush Administration - it’s impossible to read some of these points without thinking of “Brownie”, Walter Reed, and the Patriot Act, among other things.

Recently, I read this article in Time Magazine which discusses one my biggest gripes with our education system:

To some extent, complacency is built into the system. American schools spend more than $8 billion a year educating the mentally retarded. Spending on the gifted isn’t even tabulated in some states, but by the most generous calculation, we spend no more than $800 million on gifted programs. But it can’t make sense to spend 10 times as much to try to bring low-achieving students to mere proficiency as we do to nurture those with the greatest potential.We take for granted that those with IQs at least three standard deviations below the mean (those who score 55 or lower on IQ tests) require “special” education. But students with IQs that are at least three standard deviations above the mean (145 or higher) often have just as much trouble interacting with average kids and learning at an average pace. Shouldn’t we do something special for them as well? True, these are IQs at the extremes. Of the 62 million school-age kids in the U.S., only about 62,000 have IQs above 145. (A similar number have IQs below 55.) That’s a small number, but they appear in every demographic, in every community. What to do with them? Squandered potential is always unfortunate, but presumably it is these powerful young minds that, if nourished, could one day cure leukemia or stop global warming or become the next James Joyce–or at least J.K. Rowling.

In a no-child-left-behind conception of public education, lifting everyone up to a minimum level is more important than allowing students to excel to their limit. It has become more important for schools to identify deficiencies than to cultivate gifts. Odd though it seems for a law written and enacted during a Republican Administration, the social impulse behind No Child Left Behind is radically egalitarian. It has forced schools to deeply subsidize the education of the least gifted, and gifted programs have suffered. The year after the President signed the law in 2002, Illinois cut $16 million from gifted education; Michigan cut funding from $5 million to $500,000. Federal spending declined from $11.3 million in 2002 to $7.6 million this year.

It’s astounding to me that we spend $8 Billion dollars educating the mentally retarded. It’s not really surprising to hear that the number is that high, given that the “special education” classes I’ve seen usually enjoy highly trained teachers, small class sizes, and a large degree of individualized attention - so at least it seems to be money well spent. What makes it astounding is that it stands as a very stark contrast to the educational resources everyone else gets.

Typical students are usually thrust into classes whose size often approaches thirty that are hosted by teachers who far too often came to the profession because they couldn’t get any other job. And there’s an even starker contrast to what we provide our very best and brightest students - we usually just throw them in these same classes with the other students, and are forced to learn at a pace consistent with the lowest common denominator. (Here I have to note that classes aren’t even taught to the middle. Rather, they’re taught to the bottom. It’s only when everyone or minimally the vast majority have achieved proficiency that the class ever moves on.)

This state of affairs, what the article refers to as the no-child-left-behind conception of education, is simply ass backwards wrong.

Are the mentally retarded really worth $8 Billion? Well, yes, especially if we can help these people to achieve independence in life. And nothing in this post should be construed as an indictment against them or that spending. Rather, what I find remarkable is that society gives such resources to them but not to others, given the prospective return on investment. Realistically, even in the best case scenario, their contribution to society will be minimal - they’ll never rise above the level of a Wal-Mart greeter or some equivalent position. It sucks, but that’s reality.

Now on the other hand, look at the Very Smart. Unquestionably, society needs Very Smart people. These are the people who advance our understanding of the universe, fuel the economy, solve our problems, produce art, innovate, create new technologies, and handle complex jobs. And as the full article notes, Very Smart people need special education themselves - minimally the freedom to skip grades (as the article seems to advocate), if not their own “special education” programs (which I’d strongly favor)[1].

Yet not only do we fail to provide these things, we hardly do anything extra for them. We expect them to sit quietly while waiting for the rest of the class to “get” trigonometry, despite the fact that the other students will likely never need any form of math more advanced than basic algebra. As a result, we hold them back to the point of boredom (the worst thing you can do to a smart person). Even worse, current popular educational paradigms dictate grouping smart and dumb kids together for “group work” rather than segregating them or letting them work independently in a classroom. The theory is that the smart kids will teach the dumb kids they’re grouped with. The flaws with this idea are so many and so obvious that I won’t dignify it by going into it further.

To me, it seems only natural that any decent educational system would give priority to our best, brightest and most capable, and carve out programs designed to suit their needs first. Imagine if every kid genius could enjoy the same kind of environment as the mentally retarded - classes of no more than a dozen, teachers trained to deal with their specific learning style and educational needs, and the individual attention that’s inherent to that. But I’ve never heard of such a program in any public school.

At a minimum, the curricula and pace should be designed for the smartest kids, not the dumbest. Sorry little Johnny, but if you haven’t gotten long division yet, too bad. Try again next year - we need to move on for the benefit other kids. Realistically, you don’t need it anyway - learn to use a calculator and you’ll be fine. But the smart kids, who will go on to solve the world’s problems and create the next generation of innovative technologies, they need to know things beyond long division in order to compete in a globalized marketplace of talent. We need to stop worrying about passing everyone and instead worry about whether everyone has reached the highest level they can. And unfortunately that probably means leaving some kids behind.

For the record, I’m a strong proponent of equal access to education. I believe that everyone deserves one, and society should make educating everyone a top priority, and have everyone go as far as their abilities will take them. But given that we don’t have infinite resources to devote to it, then we do need to allocate them more intelligently than we’re doing now - which begs the question of why we’re not.

At the root of the problem is the deep anti-intellectualism strain that runs through our culture. Despite our collective dependence on Very Smart people, they’re largely despised by society. Youth culture celebrates jocks and is unforgiving of nerds[2]. We scorn the know-it-all. Politicians freely use the word “elite” and “academic” as an insult. And because of our culture’s ostensible egalitarianism we have a bias towards treating all opinions as equally valid, even though they rarely are (see: creationism vs evolution for the most extreme example). The “average joe” scorns anyone that tells him that his prejudices are wrong and the the things he does have ill effects that aren’t immediately obvious. And most of all, we refuse to believe the notion that someone might, in fact, know better than us or be smarter than us.

Of course, no discussion of education can possibly be complete without pointing the finger at the biggest culprit for pretty much all the problems it faces - parents. Primarily because they largely abstain from their own responsibility and role in the educational process of their children. They’re also quick to blame anyone but themselves or their child for poor performance, and insist that the teacher or the school are at fault for every poor grade. This attitude is at the core of the NCLB act - the onus is on the school that every child should earn a passing grade (by any means necessary).

The result is that it’s the smart kids - by all logic and reason the people we should be devoting the most resources to - who get an unfair shake. Schools and teachers are forced into a position of devoting disproportionate resources to the students at the bottom and neglecting those at the top. Those kids, who could pass the NCLB tests in their sleep, aren’t a threat to the school’s funding, so the school has no incentive to pay them any attention. It’s quite literally the rule of the stupid. Idiocracy indeed.

[1] And no, the hideous travesty of education that is the AP Curriculum doesn’t count. It’s an unholy lovechild of the testing and college industry, and it shows. It manages to offer an even less flexible one-size-fits-all curriculum than what schools normally offer, with instruction that’s dictated by a bureaucratic group rather than student’s own interests, learning styles, and pace. See The Sin of High School English Class for one example, where among other things I discuss how the curriculum manages to kill a love of reading and interest in literature.[2] On the bright side, this seems to have turned around somewhat, ever since nerds became the people that fixed the non-nerds computer.

I don’t recall exactly when he became Attorney General. Nor do I recall anything that happened during his tenure that I can now comment on. In fact, I can’t even recall if I even liked the man. But he’s gone now, so good bye… wait, I’m sorry, I suddenly can’t remember his name.

A couple of weeks ago, I got into a discussion about geopolitics with my dad over dinner. We touched on a number of topics, ranging from the rise of China to the 2008 Presidential candidates and things of that nature.

Now, my dad is a smart guy, and we don’t actually have a lot of disagreements. Further, he actually has a unique perspective on the whole globalization thing - he heads a division with a good number of employees in India (and isn’t too happy about it). But towards the end of the conversation, after I’d expressed the many things I’m pessimistic about*, he basically offered this: “Yes, but there’s just something special about Americans.”

Now, here’s the curious thing about that. Though my dad has seen much of the US, he’s only been outside the country twice. Once almost 15 years ago during a family trip to Japan. And not again until a few years ago, when he took a business trip to India. Which begs the question of what he’s basing that opinion on, exactly. (I asked - mostly he’s comparing “Americans” to the code monkeys he works with in India. Given that, I can hardly blame him, but that’s hardly a representative sample of India’s population, let alone the world population.)

Indeed, most people who espouse views of American exceptionalism seem to have little experience with anything other than America, if any at all. Most who do have experience limited to tourism - but realistically, going up the Eiffel Tower doesn’t really tell you much about what the French are like or how they live. So given that Americans don’t have much of anything to compare themselves to, one might wonder exactly why so many believe that America is so exceptional.

The reasons become evident once you start to think about it though. From our first day of elementary school, we’re taught that “My country t’is of thee a sweet land of liberty” - the “home of the free and land of the brave” that “belongs to you and me”. The founding fathers are practically mythological heroes. America’s greatness is reinforced in ever history lesson, in every movie, by every politician. Almost all the media we consume is made by Americans for Americans It’s not surprising that the message sinks in.

Certainly, none of it really stands up to scrutiny. The “land of the free” actually offers considerably less freedom than many other first world nations, by pretty much any metric you might use (case in point). The “land of opportunity” has less social mobility than Europe, and more of our citizens lack basic necessities. “Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free” has given way to the pronounced xenophobia that currently dominates Republican party politics. And especially given all that, I find the level of jingoism displayed by Americans frankly disturbing, as it should be to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with history. “My country, right or wrong” has paved the way for some horrifically wrong things.

But the more interesting thing to me is an observation I’ve made about how my own opinion was formed, and how I’ve come to such a different conclusion than my dad.

I can’t confess to have done that much more world traveling (yet!) - though I’ve done slightly more of it than he has. Instead, I think the chief difference is the digital generation gap. I’m exposed to the rest of the world, constantly. One of my best friends lives in the UK (depressingly, I don’t get to talk with her that regularly anymore though). I have friends I do still talk with daily though - in Canada, Australia, Norway, and every region of the US. I debate my views in global forums. Granted, the majority of the participants are American and the rest are English speaking, but it’s a far, far more diverse range than fills my immediate circle in the real world. When a major event happens elsewhere - whether flooding in England or elections in France - I get to here descriptions of it from people who live there, in their own words, unfiltered by any media and often in response to direct questions by me. I read international news and international blogs. The internet is truly a global medium. It’s not perfect, but it’s certainly less US-centric than the mainstream media from which my dad’s generation gets most of their perspective from.

For example, take the healthcare question. My opinion on universal healthcare systems vs the train wreck in the US is based on talking directly with people who live under them. I don’t rely on Michael Moore nor Rush Limbaugh nor CNN to tell me what it’s like in those countries, I hear it from people who live there. It exposes right wing propaganda about choice and wait times under these systems exactly for what it is - a myth. In fact, most people who have universal healtchcare seem to be horrified at the idea of American healthcare (and honestly, I can’t blame them). From the earliest days I began learning of the issue, I had the benefit of a global perspective. Many still do not.
In general, here’s the conclusion I’ve drawn: all people are basically the same. Across geography and culture, people have the same drives and motivations. Every culture has its innovators, its ambitious, and its risk takers. We share the same range of attitudes and intelligence, and our problems stem from the same human flaws. The US has risen to a world power not because of some innate difference that separates Americans from everyone else, but rather a set of fortuitous circumstances that Americans were able to exploit. We’re nothing special.

I originally titled this post “The Death of American Exceptionalism” but I think that might be a bit of an overreach. I don’t expect nationalism will ever disappear completely. But, it’s possible that my generation will break out of the bubble that previous generations have lived in, and develop a more global perspective on problems both home and abroad. And that gives me the tiniest bit of hope.

    * Basically, peak oil, and our ability to act with enough foresight to avoid disaster when the shit hits the fan.

And on yet another similar note to what I was driving at in We the People, I just came across an article in Time magazine which asks an important question: Shouldn’t the American Public admit to having been wrong in Iraq?

Americans are unhappy with President George W. Bush right now. In the New York Times/CBS News poll, his approval rating dipped to 29% during July before nosing back up a point. Approval of Bush’s handling of what is delicately called “the situation in Iraq” is only 25%. By 53% to 39%, we disapprove of the way he is handling the war on terrorism. “Looking back,” 51% say that the U. S. “should … have stayed out” of Iraq, while only 42% think the invasion was “the right thing.” Two-thirds of Americans think our “efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq” are going somewhat or very badly, and the same fraction think we should withdraw in part or completely.

[...]

Just after 9/11, Bush’s approval rating was as high as 90%. Only 5% disapproved. In the spring of 2003, when Bush launched the war, deposed Saddam Hussein, occupied Iraq and declared victory, public approval of his conduct of the Iraq “situation” rarely dipped below 70%. As the “situation” went south, so did Bush’s poll numbers, until now he faces snarling or sullen disapproval from two-thirds of the electorate.

[...]

This is not all the fault of the pundits or of “Washington” or of politicians. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq was scandalously unilateral, but it did in fact have the support of most American citizens, which surely egged him on. The ensuing disaster is partly the fault of those Americans who told pollsters back in 2002 and 2003 that they supported Bush’s war and then in 2004 voted to re-elect him, which he took, quite reasonably, as an endorsement of his policies. Millions of Americans now apparently regret those opinions. But unlike the politicians and the pundits, they do not face pressure to recant or apologize. American democracy might be stronger if they did.

In the lead up to the Iraq war, there’s no question that the American people were deliberately lied to by the Bush Administration and the right-wing media machine with regards to the actual level of threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Bush misled the country into making a disastrously wrong decision about Iraq.

But here’s the 800 lb gorilla in this scenario. All the information necessary to make the right decision about Iraq was publicly available in 2003. In fact, there was a sizable minority (myself included) that saw through the deception early on - and I apologize for not speaking loudly enough on it at the time.

Bush can and ought to be blamed for his lies and deceptions in pursuing his predetermined course of action. But the American people allowed themselves to be misled in this way. The people could have challenged him, questioned him, devoted considerable debate to the most serious course of action Bush was proposing. Had they done so, they’d have come to an entirely different conclusion than the one Bush was selling and withdrawn their support for the war before it even began. That makes We the People culpable in the outcome.

Blaming “Bush”, “the government”, ”the media” or even “the Democrats (for not standing up to Bush at the time)” might make us feel better about the situation we find ourselves in. But civic responsibility could have put a stop to this right at the beginning, and the blame for lack thereof lies squarely with the people.

On another note, the author of the article touches on another root cause (the root-root cause, perhaps?) for many of our country’s ails:

Although–or perhaps because–I manufacture opinions for a living, I am always amazed at the things people are willing to express opinions about. Is the “surge” working? Is there likely to be a terrorist attack in the next few months? Are “most of the insurgents in Iraq today … under the command of Osama bin Laden”? These are not matters of opinion. The correct answer may be unknown (e.g., the success of the surge), or it may be known perfectly well (e.g., bin Laden does not control most of the Iraqi insurgents), but one thing the correct answer is not is a matter of opinion.

What is true doesn’t matter nearly so much as what people feel is true - even about totally objective questions. Truthiness in a nutshell.

I just stumbled across this quote from Robert A. Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land, which sort of speaks to what I was attempting to get at with We the People:

“Do you know who is responsible?”
“Why of course, it’s the government!”
“Jill, ‘the government’ is several million people.”

Have I mentioned how much I love Heinlein? I think it’s about time I re-read that book.

There’s something I don’t get about libertarians and conservatives, and pretty much everyone who’s ever expressed antipathy towards the government.

My confusion comes from reading the US Constitution. As it was originally written, that is - there’s something immediately striking about it when you see the version the founding fathers penned rather than a mere transcription of the text. Here, look for yourself:

Do you notice the same thing I do?

Here’s a closer view:

Those first three words are written big. Really big. “We the People”. It’s impressive enough that they started the document with those three words, but they went so far as to make them the biggest, most emphatic words in the whole document. The effect is to make it absolutely, undeniably, and incontrovertibly clear that ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently described it.

According to this document, the people are the highest authority in the land. Our government derives its power only from the people and no one but the people. The US government governs only by the consent of the governed, according to the rule of law, as proscribed in the document above.

Simply, in the United States America, the government indistinguishable and inseparable from We the People.

Now let me offer a few choice quotes from the late of Ronald Reagan, which express the world view that so endeared him to conservatives:

• “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”
• “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
• “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
• “People don’t start wars, governments do.”

Of course, Ronald Reagan didn’t take such a dim view of the government when it came to using it to force school prayer on everyone. And he had no problem quoting “we the people” as I did above - when it suited him anyway. Which makes him somewhat of a hypocrite, but I digress. It’s the attitude above that became emblematic of the (stated) conservative worldview and represents the government-is-my-enemy attitude whose popularity persists to this day. And certainly, there are no shortage of Americans whose attitude is both more extreme and more consistently anti-government than the Gipper’s. For example, this one caught my attention on Reddit recently:

Government is a ravenous, drooling beast. For the protection of all citizens, it must be reigned and caged.

I have to scratch my head when I see statements like this though. Because, as the founding fathers went to such painstaking lengths to make clear, the government is the same as We the People. So everyone who expresses such antipathy towards “the government”, as many of the more vocal libertarians and some factions of the right wing do - aren’t they really expressing hatred of the American people? (And themselves, being Americans as they are?)

We do live in an imperfect society, and I myself am highly critical of many public and elected officials, and the actions taken by my government and my behalf. But blaming “the government” is no more than laying the blame on an imaginary scapegoat in order to shirk responsibility for it. As much as I despise Bush and cringe at his every action - I can’t escape the fact that the ultimate blame lies with the people, including myself. Because We the People are ultimately in charge. We ultimately choose the government. We ultimately choose whether to hold it accountable. We - Americans - are responsible for the Iraq war, and everything else Bush has done. We’re responsible for the cronyism and corruption that’s so endemic in our system. It’s not “the government” that’s failed, “the government” doing evil, or “the government” that’s corrupted by special interests. It’s the people that fail, that do evil, that get corrupted - if not by deliberately pursuing these ends, then by allowing them to happen.

And before you go blaming campaign finance or corporate money or nepotism or anything else along those lines - it’s We the People who have a responsibility to stay informed and be vigilant, and We the People who abdicate that responsibility when we pay credence to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, or campaign commercials. All the media can do is put Paris Hilton in front of us in place of real news - it’s We the People that decide to watch.

We the People are the government. It’s not some separate thing that can be feared or hated or fought against. Because if you do, you’re fearing and hating and tearing down the people themselves.

Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice. At least where Dick Cheney is concerned.