The Peace and Justice Files: WANTED: NEW ISMS

Conservatism… Liberalism… Centrism… Socialism… Communalism… Leninism … Marxism… Maotseism… Communism… Trotskyism… Fidelism… Fascism…

– from “Under Heavy Manners” by David Byrne and Robert Fripp

The Nasty Word of the Day was… “socialism.”

The day before Election Day found me in Honesdale’s Central Park, hanging out with some members of CLEAR, the local “Tea Party” group (clear4teaparty.com).  In keeping with the saying of one of my teachers that “people who make you squirm probably have something to teach you,” I had decided to come to their rally, say a few uncontroversial words, and mostly listen.

It was, as you might imagine, a very interesting experience – and yes, I did learn a few things.  I learned some things about the Tea Party view of the world, about their fears, and about their internal contradictions and paradoxes.

Here’s how the Wayne Independent described one of the other speeches: “Sue Ubertini warned of a perceived slide towards socialism in this country, where the Christian foundation of worth in the individual is replaced with the worth of the collective. A socialist regime, she said, is run by an elite class that decided what is best for you, anathema to our Nation’s Founding Fathers.”

That seemed to be one of the themes of the day – that there were two choices to be had, and only two: “collectivism” (under which the Tea Partiers lump “socialism” “communism,” “fascism,” “atheism,” “liberalism” etc.) and “individualism” (a/k/a “capitalism,” “patriotism,” “Americanism,” “conservatism” etc.).  One was good, one was evil.  You’re with us, or you’re against us.

The only problem being, of course, that both concepts are oversimplified, insufficient – and perhaps even obsolete.

To sociologists, each has two aspects: “horizontal” (emphasizing equality) or “vertical” (emphasizing hierarchy and order).  Under “horizontal collectivism,” which is based on the assumption that each individual is more or less equal, people engage in sharing and cooperation.  “Vertical collectivism” assumes that individuals are fundamentally different from each other, and people are made to submit to authority, even to the point of self-sacrifice.  (It will be immediately clear that anti-collectivists get a lot of mileage out of conflating these two.)

Similarly, “horizontal” individualists might be characterized by the phrase “live and let live,” while “vertical” individualists strive not only to excel – but to dominate.

Individualism and collectivism, in their vertical aspects, can both lead to oppression and tyranny.  Neither really addresses the question of how society should adapt to changing circumstances, or how to balance our rights and our responsibilities as citizens.  Neither is up to the task of maintaining sufficiency, let alone prosperity, in an environmentally and economically interconnected world of growing population and shrinking resources.

But still we seem to be trapped in this old, outdated, 19^th-century argument.  I want some new isms.

I want some new isms
Thoughts that might make some sense
That don’t make the world too simple
That don’t make the world too dense

I want some new isms
Ones that might do some good
That might bring about a better time
Without shedding all that blood

Ones that don’t make me frantic
Wondering who to blame
Ones that give me hope that things won’t always be the same
Always be the same…

– with apologies to Huey Lewis

Beginning Nov. 3: Aikido class at Himalayan Institute Main Street, Honesdale

It’s official – I’ll be teaching a class entitled “Aikido: Self Defense with a Peaceful Spirit” at the Himalayan Institute’s Main Street facility, 630 Main Street in Honesdale PA, beginning on Tuesday November 3.  The class will meet from 4:15-5:15 PM on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Each class is $7 for members, $10 for nonmembers.  Come join us!

Congratulations – on YOUR Nobel

My first reaction upon hearing the news about the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was that it was way too premature. My second thought was that Obama ought to decline the Prize, citing how much work remains yet to be done, and the fact that as Commander-in-chief of a nation still at war in two countries, his hands are too bloodied to accept the Prize at this time.

But then I read a couple of comments on Twitter by folks meaning to pooh-pooh the award. “Oh my Gosh! I just looked under my water bottle cap – I WON THE NOBEL!!” said one. “Just returned from McDonalds – and they’re giving away a Nobel Prize in every Happy Meal!” said another.

Those got me to thinking a bit more.

Some commentators have pointed out the award is not only a “you’re on the right track, keep going” encouragement to Obama – it’s also a challenge to him to live up to the honor through his future actions. But those intended-to-be-snarky comments made me realize that the award actually does involve everyone – it should be under every bottle cap and tucked into every Happy Meal.. It’s not just Obama being simultaneously encouraged and challenged – it’s all of us. He’s just our representative on the world stage, after all.

So think of it this way:

Congratulations, American Citizen, YOU just got awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize – now what’re we gonna do to live up to it?

DEADLINE EXTENDED! The “Not a Plutocracy?” $20 Challenge

Given the way the health care debate has gone, it now seems that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies (a/k/a the “medical-industrial complex”) will once again come out on top, despite the express wishes of a good-sized chunk of the American people for some kind of public/government-funded insurance  option. The corporations and their lackeys have pulled out all the stops to confuse and frighten the American public.  Corporate control of politicians and media seems practically unshakeable.  This leads me to wonder if we oughtn’t just make a few little tweaks to the Constitution and codify what appear to be the facts-on-the-ground: that this is actually a plutocratic country, with decisions being made by the wealthiest folks, for the benefit of the wealthiest folks, all dressed up in a cynical “democratic” shell.

But maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe this really is still a democracy.  Maybe there are times when the wealthy interests lose out (or at least don’t get everything they want) in favor of the general welfare, or in response to the wishes of the people .  Maybe there are even times when wealthy interests VOLUNTARILY take a hit because it would serve the greater good.

So here’s the deal.  I’ve got $20 (not much, I know, but this SHOULD be easy, right?) that I will give to the person who can offer the most convincing evidence refuting the following assertion: “At present, the United States of America is a de facto plutocracy.”

This evidence could be presented in the form of an essay, a video rant, a list of facts, a dramatic dialogue, an interpretive dance, a crayon drawing scrawled on a napkin, a PowerPoint preso, whatever. My decision will be my own, quite possibly arbitrary, and it’ll be final. If I can’t make a final decision among a bunch of similarly-qualified entrants, I’ll commit some random act to determine the winner.  I also reserve the right to declare NO winner at all. All entries remain property of their creators, so you can republish or do whatever you want (that’s only fair), but by sending in your entry you grant me permission to publish it on this blog.  Send your entry (or a URL pointer to it) to smendler[at]yahoo.com; include the word “PLUTOCRACY” in the subject line.  Deadline is 11:59:59 PM ET on DECEMBER 31, 2009.  Good luck!

We Couldn’t Stop The Fire

Twenty years have passed since Billy Joel released “We Didn’t Start the Fire” – and a lot of stuff has happened since then! So I’m trying to create some updated lyrics. I will edit this post as I get more stuff…and please use the comments to make your own suggestions! It’s easy – pick a year, take a couple of events or personalities from that year…

We Couldn’t Stop the Fire

Let’s pick up where we left off
“Tear this wall down Gorbachev”
Cold War crashes to an end
Hey, where’s that peace dividend?

MAD COW MEATBALL SONG

(you know the tune)

On top of spaghetti
All covered with cheese
I found out my meatball
Had Mad Cow Disease

I died when I ate it
Won’t do that again
Sure wish I had been a
Ve-ge-ta-ri-an!

THE EAGLE’S PRICE: A Fable

One day the small animals sent emissaries to the eagle.

“The snake has been terrifying us all,” they said (from a safe distance away). “He comes without warning, steals our young, and eats them. We lose ten percent of them a year to him. We live in constant fear, never knowing when he might strike again. We believe that you could rid us of this menace.”

“And so I shall,” said the eagle. “But you do realize there will be a price to be paid…?”

“We don’t care,” said the small animals. “We must be rid of this threat, so we can live normal lives.”

So the eagle found the snake, and they fought a tremendous fight, which the eagle won. The small animals came out to cheer him (from a safe distance away).

“Thank you for your appreciation,” said the eagle, his beak still bloody. “Now let’s talk about the price.

“I will require fifteen percent of your offspring each year. Decide among yourselves how that will be done, but deliver them to me without fail, on a regular schedule. Do this, and I will always keep the snakes away.”

The small animals were astonished. “How is this any improvement from before?” they asked, incredulously.

“Simple,” replied the eagle. “You will no longer need to live in fear of the unexpected.”

The moral is: Predators are predators – but some are more systematic than others.

What to do with those wornout shoes

Just a reminder: send your old/useless/wornout/decrepit shoes (sandals, flipflops, boots, whatever, dead footwear of all kinds) to George W Bush Foundation, PO Box 600610, Dallas TX 75206. (If they’re still wearable, of course, donate ‘em to a local charity instead.)

Thanksgiving Haiku

Load the dishwasher

quick – before the tryptophan

nails us to the couch

The Peace and Justice Files: 9/12 to G-20 to…

Whenever I hear someone, whether on the right or left, say, “We have to overthrow the government!” I have to ask: just which “government” are you talking about, anyway?

There are, after all, several “governments” that exert some kind of control over our lives. Imagine, if you will, a diagram of three circles. One is what we might call “the nominal government”: our elected and appointed officials and the bureaucrats they serve—I mean, that serve them—at all levels, from the local community to the country as a whole. This is the kind of thing most people are referring to, of course, when they talk about “overthrowing” government. (Usually, it’s the Federal government they’re talking about, but given recent events in Pennsylvania, New York and California, that might start changing.)

But there is also the “government” of the ruling classes—the business managers and executives who tell us how to behave and what kinds of things we can do while we are at work (which takes up a huge percentage of our waking hours). Their decisions control many parts of our economic lives—the kinds of products that are available, our workplace conditions and the day-to-day look and feel of our society—to an even greater extent than government. Their reach also transcends mere national borders.

Finally, there are what I call the “institutions of influence”—which include the media, the various parts of the educational system and organized religion. These not only strive to shape our behavior, they determine the categories and concepts—indeed, the very words—that we use to reason, feel and communicate.

These circles, of course, overlap, and the boundaries between them are semi-permeable membranes. People cross over from one to the other on a regular basis, and each one exerts varying degrees of influence on the others. Maintaining a healthy balance among them is critical to keeping a well functioning democracy.

The important thing to realize is that each one of us is, to a greater or lesser extent, subject to all three. Talk of “freedom” that focuses only on lessening the impact of one of them on our lives does little to actually make us “more free.” Indeed, it may enable the others to exert even more power.

So, for example, the folks at the September 12 “Tea Party” marches and rallies in DC and elsewhere had a great deal to say about the “nominal government” on the Federal level, but not so much regarding the executives and corporations whose malfeasance led us into our present economic difficulties, and who continue to skew the political process for their own benefit. They criticized some parts of the media, while appearing quite willing to accept uncritically the pronouncements of other parts of that same media establishment.

And I have to wonder why those folks, who are supposedly deeply concerned about any kind of “one-world government,” weren’t anywhere to be seen on the streets of Pittsburgh during the recent G-20 conference there. International financial institutions like the WTO and IMF, after all, can already trump national sovereignty in the interest of corporate profits.

Populist movements like the Tea Partiers can bring about positive social change, or they can be led by demagogues to become unwitting shock troopers for the powerful. If they are brave enough to look deeply, question all the “governments” that seek to control them and resist the temptations of easy targets, they might really help the expansion of freedom in the world. If not, they will find themselves the worst kind of slaves—slaves that don’t even know which “government” actually enslaves them.

Cindy, Sarah, Hillary, and Michelle are having lunch…

didn’t want this one to get lost in the dustbin of history:

Cindy, Sarah, Hillary, and Michelle are having lunch.

Cindy says, “Well, I don’t tell many people this, but as a result of all his suffering, my husband can now heal the sick with a touch of his hand.”

Hillary says, “How interesting! My husband has been working on global poverty issues so much, he can now feed a multitude with a few loaves and fishes.”

Michelle says, “That’s wonderful! You know that commercial that the Republicans ran with Barack parting the Red Sea? Well, we couldn’t help but laugh when we saw it – Barack has overcome so many obstacles that he really can part bodies of water with a wave of his hand, we didn’t think anyone else knew!”

After a slight pause, Sarah says, “So? My daughter had an Immaculate Conception!”