Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Hard times for the American Republic?
In Democracy in America (1835, 1840) Alexis de Toqueville wrote that 'The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.' To me, his prescient analysis seems to be on the mark except that we are now being bribed not with our own money but, even more insidiously, with the money of our grandchildren. We don't need an 'economic stimulus' based on inter-generational theft. If our grand American experiment is to flourish we need a fundamental rethinking of the nature and purpose of economic activity (see e.g., Russell Roberts' "Radical Re-Imagining of the Tax System").
The nonsensical belief, championed by the rhetoric and policies of an almost entirely malignant Reagan administration and its ideological successors, that unbridled selfish and greed are somehow good for America has run its inevitable course. Reaganomics has been an abject failure. It is time to move on to something wiser, more humane, more equitable and just. What we need is truly progressive tax policies where the wealthy, who have reaped more than their share of economic benefits, pay more than their share of taxes. As Marx, influenced by Jefferson, succinctly put it, "From each according to ability, to each according to need."
But, the neo-con trickler-downers will certainly splutter, this is a redistribution of wealth! It smacks of socialism! Guess what? We redistribute wealth now but in a reverse-Robin-Hood fashion, with regressive taxes stealing from the poor and giving to the rich in the form of corporate welfare and tax subsidies. Wealth inequalities in the United States continue to increase (see comparative Gini coefficients graphic). The resulting social, health, and enviornmental costs are well documented.
Our current economic situation is not some mere and routine down phase of a benign business cycle. It is a symptom of tragically broken system based on fundamentally flawed premises. There will be no recovery until we align our economic rules with ecological realities. There is no free lunch. We will soon exhaust the fossil fuels that drive our agricultural and economic engines. Human population has reach, and indeed far surpassed, sustainable levels. Put this point somewhat crassly, our prevailing global economic system is relentlessly converting earth's diverse and life sustaining biomass to babies. Why? Simply because a growing global population serves the short-term self-interest of those with the most by assuring a ready supply cheap labor and an expanding market for 'cheap-but-profitable plastic crap that no one needs.'
Labels: Introspection, Politics
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Why blog?
This morning I set out to take down this blog since I seldom write here anyway. As I began that process, for some reason I became increasingly reluctant and eventually decided to put those termination plans on hold for the time being. Now I am not sure why. What is it that I want this blog to be anyway?
When perusing other ostensibly "successful" blogs on related topics and from different perspectives (e.g., Pharyngula, Crooked Timber, Evangelical Outpost, Re Rerum Natura) I am struck by two things in particular. First, and most positively, the authors are prolific and usually concise writers -- I read those blogs because I generally learn something. Second, and more negatively, each seems wrapped in its own oddly inbred and parochial air of confident certainty -- a rather perverse self-congratulatory insularity that is reflected especially in the smug tones of many comments.
I am not a prolific writer. Words come slowly and cautiously, each fraught with its own history of shifting meaning and its implicit connotations that vary among potential readers. In any case, I am neither capable of nor interested in out-Pharynguling Pharyngula (or out-evangelizing EO). What I am interested in is exploring the origins and functions of diverse and more or less isolated communities of discourse. In particular, I am interested in furthering a legitimate dialog between science and religion(s), most broadly construed.
Establishing such a dialog is difficult. For example, I was recently invited to participate in a broadcast conversation about evolution and religion on a local Christian radio station. Against my initial (better) judgment, I agreed and was put in contact with Cornelius Hunter who was to be my dialog partner. Hunter is an affiliate of the Discovery Institute and, not surprisingly, it soon became apparent that his sole purpose was to establish a sense of controversy where none exists. End of dialog (more on this to follow in a subsequent post).
My purpose in this blog is blur boundaries among communities of discourse in the interest of our common humanity and to explore a natural history of religions -- their diverse origins and functions (for better and for worse), their common and unique premises, and their roots in human affect and cognition. As William James (quoted this recent and very interesting NY Times article) put it, “All of our raptures and our drynesses, our longings and pantings, our questions and beliefs . . . are equally organically founded.” The dialog I long to pursue here is one grounded in naturalism but one that also recognizes and respects the cultural functions of religious faith(s). Refugees from islands of isolated certainty are especially welcome to participate in this dialog. /dps
When perusing other ostensibly "successful" blogs on related topics and from different perspectives (e.g., Pharyngula, Crooked Timber, Evangelical Outpost, Re Rerum Natura) I am struck by two things in particular. First, and most positively, the authors are prolific and usually concise writers -- I read those blogs because I generally learn something. Second, and more negatively, each seems wrapped in its own oddly inbred and parochial air of confident certainty -- a rather perverse self-congratulatory insularity that is reflected especially in the smug tones of many comments.
I am not a prolific writer. Words come slowly and cautiously, each fraught with its own history of shifting meaning and its implicit connotations that vary among potential readers. In any case, I am neither capable of nor interested in out-Pharynguling Pharyngula (or out-evangelizing EO). What I am interested in is exploring the origins and functions of diverse and more or less isolated communities of discourse. In particular, I am interested in furthering a legitimate dialog between science and religion(s), most broadly construed.
Establishing such a dialog is difficult. For example, I was recently invited to participate in a broadcast conversation about evolution and religion on a local Christian radio station. Against my initial (better) judgment, I agreed and was put in contact with Cornelius Hunter who was to be my dialog partner. Hunter is an affiliate of the Discovery Institute and, not surprisingly, it soon became apparent that his sole purpose was to establish a sense of controversy where none exists. End of dialog (more on this to follow in a subsequent post).
My purpose in this blog is blur boundaries among communities of discourse in the interest of our common humanity and to explore a natural history of religions -- their diverse origins and functions (for better and for worse), their common and unique premises, and their roots in human affect and cognition. As William James (quoted this recent and very interesting NY Times article) put it, “All of our raptures and our drynesses, our longings and pantings, our questions and beliefs . . . are equally organically founded.” The dialog I long to pursue here is one grounded in naturalism but one that also recognizes and respects the cultural functions of religious faith(s). Refugees from islands of isolated certainty are especially welcome to participate in this dialog. /dps
Labels: Introspection
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]