and
"He who has eyes, let him see". But what should "She" do?
and
"Why Didn't I Win", by Elizabeth Warren (2020)
and "The True Role Of a Third Party"
America is losing its middle class (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/business/economy/middle-class-united-states-europe-pew.html).
But even more
importantly,
America is losing a middle ground.
For example, study
shows that the number of the Republicans or the Democrats who did not care if
their children would marry someone from the opposite party fell from about 70 %
in 1958 to about 45 % in 2016; on the contrary, the percentage of people who
say they want their children to marry someone from the same party grew from
about 30 % to about 60 % (https://www.voanews.com/a/mixed-political-marriages-an-issue-on-rise/3705468.html).
This is just one of
the indicators which show that the political dialog has gradually changed to
intercultural loathing.
When we see on TV
people chanting a “work together” mantra: “Politicians in Washington must stop
its petty fighting and start working together for the benefit of the whole
Country” – we see people who live in a dream, who do not know the reality,
sometimes because they do not want to know it.
For the last twenty
years the ideological, cultural, and even emotional divide between the two
major parties has only grown.
What would be the
reason for them to suddenly forget all the differences and start working
together?
None.
Such a reason
doesn’t exist.
A politician changes his or her way of acting only when he or she feels that his or her personal
political existence is at risk.
That risk does not
come any more from the opposite party; for the majority of elected officials
the biggest challenge comes from the same party.
Hence,
If we want to force the Democrats and the Republicans
to work together,
we have to create a political force strong enough to make them to fear it.
That political force
should not base its actions on ideological dogmas (what the Republicans and the
Democrats already do).
The new – the
third one – political force has to act based on a reason and a common sense.
It does not have to
be a party. In fact, it should be a movement open to everyone who accepts the
common goals and principles of the movement.
Those common goals
and principles of the movement should yet be developed, but some of them can
already be set right now.
#1: “Americans first, profits second.”
Trickle-down
economics is bull$#it (don't listen to me, listen to the Republicans: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article154691724.html).
No businessman would
have ever thought: “Hmm, I got 56 million dollars, now I can stop making money
for myself. From now on, everything I make I will give to the government to be
distributed among the citizens”.
At the best, a
businessman would think: “Hmm, I got so much money, now I can start thinking
about carving my name on the human history stone. I’m going to establish a
charity (also helps to write off some taxes)”.
If one does not
listen what the Washington Republicans say, but watches what
the Washington Republicans do, one sees that the Republicans
build their politics on the assumption that all
people are lazy and stupid (except them, of course, and the Lords of
the Money who pay them to do what they do).
Since all people are
intrinsically lazy, the only way to make them work is using “a carrot and a
stick”.
Since all people are
stupid, they need a Leader who will tell them what to do and how to do it. And
for that, the Leader can take and have whatever he wants, and it is the Leader
who decides what he gives to all those lazy stupid people who he leads to their
bright future.
Every registered Republican voter needs to take a look
in a mirror and say: “I’m a stupid lazy person, I need
a leader who will tell me what to do, and who will decide what I can have”.
Of course, no
Republican would do that. Instead, a Republican voter says: “I’m for economic
freedom, I’m for business entrepreneurship, I’m for independent people who are
doers and creators – so, give me my highly paid job, and secure my economic
well-being”.
The last sentence,
despite its internal contradiction, includes the seeds of wisdom.
Saying that ALL
people have to be entrepreneurs is just wrong. It is a huge exaggeration of the
fact that in realty only about 10 % of the population run some kind of an
enterprise (https://www.inc.com/leigh-buchanan/us-entrepreneurship-reaches-record-highs.html;
or http://www.asianentrepreneur.org/how-many-people-in-the-world-are-really-entrepreneurs/).
Entrepreneurs
represent a very important part of a society; they are responsible for the
change (hopefully to the better, a.k.a. progress). But it does not make them
any better than the rest of the people. The remaining 90 % of the population is
at least equally important; those are the people who let (or don’t let)
entrepreneurs make the changes they want to make.
Eliminate all the
entrepreneurs, and the society will run into a stagnation (until new
entrepreneurs will be born), but it will survive.
Eliminate all the
regular folks, and the society will cease to exists (contradictory to the book
of a Russian born writer Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosendbuam, also known as Ayn Rand, who wrote “Atlas Shrugged” - a beloved fantasy of every conservative, a
fine book, but still is a fantasy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand).
A normally
functioning society needs a certain number of entrepreneurs, but they just
can’t form the bulk of the society. To make a society stable, to keep it away
from chaos and anarchy, the bulk of a society has to be built from steady
functioning individuals.
Checks and balances
are important not just in politics; they are also important in economy.
Everyone who is not
an entrepreneur needs to ask himself or herself a question: “I am not an
entrepreneur. Does it make me less important
individual?”
If you say “Yes” –
congratulations, the Republicans brainwashed you well.
If you say “No” –
congratulations, you have a potential to change the American political
landscape.
If you said “No”,
follow up by saying “I am an individual who lets our leaders to lead until they keep their
end of our social bargain. I am ready to work hard. I will learn what I
need. I will do what I have to do. In return, I need to have a stable income
letting me and my family to live well above a surviving limit.”
The social bargain
between those people who make the society stable (90 % of the population, let’s
call them “doers”), and those people who make the society move (10% of the
population, let’s call them “movers”) should be very simple:
- first, the “doers”
get the resources sufficient for them to live well above a surviving limit;
- then, the “movers”
can have the rest of the wealth.
This is what
“Americans first, profits second” approach means.
It requires a
two-step wealth distribution system.
Step one: the wealth
created in the society is divided between the “doers” and the “movers”.
Step two: the rest
of the wealth is divided between the “movers”.
The rules for wealth
distribution have to be constantly assessed and accordingly adjusted.
The human history
has known and knows many different systems of wealth distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth),
and many examples of a transition from one system to another (https://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-where-the-wealth-gap-leads).
It is evident, that
the current system of distribution of wealth in America does not work for the
benefits of many Americans, and needs to be adjusted (https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality).
The Republican party
does everything it can to fight any adjustments to the current wealth
distribution system, which could decrease that part of the social wealth which
goes to already rich people. The most common tactics are lying and scearing.
For example, they try to scare "doers" by lying to them that if the
"movers" will not get all they money they want, they will not create
good jobs for "doers. "Job creators" (this is how the
Republicans call "movers") need to take as much money as they want!
Only then they will be able to dispense some of that money to the working
folks.
When I hear this
argument, my first intention is to ask a question - should we really call
people who closed
more than sixty thousand factories "job creators?" I don't think
so (unless, of course, we count jobs they have created in China).
Then I ponder, what
would really happen if "movers" would get say 5 % less than they
planned? Would they quit their job? Would they move to a different country?
Well, maybe they would. But would it destroy America? I don't think so.
I remember a colonel
told me once that in the army everyone waits when a general would die, because
in that case everyone below him would move one step up on the career ladder. He
probably was joking. But the truth is, if our current moguls get upset with us
- people - we should start looking for better moguls, for the ones who will not
be so easily upset when workers start demanding to keep his end of the social
bargain. And I am pretty sure, there is a long line of the potential moguls,
who would work for the less. If our current "movers" try to replace
some "doers" with the ones who would do the same for less money, we -
"doers" should start doing the same, we should start looking for
"movers" who would do the same for less money.
The
connection between tax cuts for the rich and job creation may
have even worked in the past, but has been broken for at least twenty years.
Slowly but surely the Wall Street moguls had imprinted in the brains of all
CEOs that there is only one criterion of the quality of their work as a CEO,
and that criterion is the price of their company stock;
everything else is irrelevant. The result is that all
CEOs are squeezing the last penny from everything they can. All Republican's
tax plans are completely in the line drawn by the Wall Street. i.e. squeezing
"doers" in the favor of "movers" (hoping to get some of it,
too).
The Democratic party
(except its radical Sandersian wing) also does not want to make any visible
changes to the current system.
The radical wing of
the Democratic party does not have a solid strategy which implementation would
lead to the changes in the current wealth distribution system (“be active” is
not really a strategy: http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/10/spectre.html;
this link has links to more posts on the matter).
That is why without
a strong third political force one cannot expect any soon any serious social
and economic changes.
#2: “Reason first, dogmas second”.
Whatever words we
hear from around, from radio or from TV, those are just words. They are not
given to us, humans, by an existential force. They are invented by other
humans, and as such they are relative and challengeable.
Everything we hear/read/think/say/write is
challengeable. That means, every single idea, rule, view, opinion we used to take just as "because" is
challengeable.
The words we hear
may sound demeaning or uplifting, familiar or ridiculous, boring or exciting.
We need to learn how to get through the emotional reaction on what we hear, and
get to the meaning of it.
First, we need to
understand what people are trying to tell us, and then to compare it with our
own views on what we count as right or wrong, what we want to achieve or avoid.
Of course, we also
need to be able to be articulate our thoughts about what we count as right or wrong, and
what we want to achieve or avoid.
The best way to challenge any well established rules, ideas, views is to start asking questions.
For example, if "corporations are people", shouldn't it also mean that "people are corporations", hence also can declare a bankruptcy to protect their assets against creditors when they cannot pay back?
Or, if "corporations are people", shouldn't it mean that ALL corporations - i.e. non-people money holders - should pay taxes? Why shouldn't churches and non-profits pay taxes even when they have hundreds of millions of dollars in their volts, and the budget has a huge hole?
The best way to challenge any well established rules, ideas, views is to start asking questions.
For example, if "corporations are people", shouldn't it also mean that "people are corporations", hence also can declare a bankruptcy to protect their assets against creditors when they cannot pay back?
Or, if "corporations are people", shouldn't it mean that ALL corporations - i.e. non-people money holders - should pay taxes? Why shouldn't churches and non-profits pay taxes even when they have hundreds of millions of dollars in their volts, and the budget has a huge hole?
When we start rethinking our own views and rules, what helps to avoid chaos in our thoughts is to establish those fundamental principles which govern all our actions.
For me, the most importation rules and views are imprinted and implied in #1 principle: “Americans first, profits second”.
For me, the most importation rules and views are imprinted and implied in #1 principle: “Americans first, profits second”.
As an example of
this approach, let’s enter the debate about the federal budget and the tax
code.
The federal budget
is in trouble; it has a big deficit, which is growing due to healthcare and
entitlement spending (in part).
The Republicans want
to cut the funds for the healthcare and entitlement programs.
The Democrats want
to increase taxation on the rich.
“Each action has an
equally strong but opposite reaction” (in politics physics works, too), hence,
a stalemate.
The reason says,
that this is a case when people need to start searching for a third path.
And the third path
exists.
The third path always exists; people just have to wish to
start the search for it.
My suggestion is to move all the
healthcare and entitlement related spending outside of the budget.
In that case there
will be no problem to discuss (well, tax code still will have lots of loopholes
to be fixed, but that requires a different conversation).
I do not suggest to
eliminate healthcare and entitlement programs.
Of course, we have
to keep them and make them effective and broadly accessible.
Of course, we will
need money to pay for them.
But those money
should not be regulated by the congressional or White House budgetary committee
(or whatever committee regulates the budget).
Instead, the
Congress needs to establish two more “federal reserves”: a “healthcare federal
reserve”, and an “entitlement federal reserve”.
Each “reserve” will
be run by the board of independent appointees.
Each year each board
will be calculating the amount of funds needed to pay for the related spending.
Then, that amount
will be distributed among “income holders” (individuals or
establishments/corporations) accordingly to the equation the board will come up
with.
Each “income holder”
will have to send a specific amount of money directly to each “reserve”.
That individual
amount of money, each “income holder” will have to send to each “reserve”, will
depend on the total amount of funds the reserve will need to accumulate on an
annual basis.
Hence, every year
that amount of money may be different, depending on the needs of the
“reserves”.
It cannot and will
not be called a “tax”; it will be a “fee” every “income holder” will need to
pay.
Imagine you run a
big company, and you have to pay healthcare cost for your employees, and it is
huge. Maybe you will begin to reaching out to insurers and hospitals and start
pushing them to drop the cost down?
Imagine you run a
big company, and you pay your employees so little, that they have to apply for
federal help. Maybe you will begin to think about raising their wages?
Imagine you run a
big company, and you have to pay a big “fee” to the “entitlement federal
reserve” because many people across the Country live of unemployment benefits.
Maybe you will begin to think about bringing businesses to economically
depressed areas, or about helping people to get education sufficient to get a
nicely paid position?
It you are a
Democrat or a Republican deeply rooted in the dogmas of your party, you will
not even try to ponder a possibility of such “reserves” – “it’s never gonna
work; “that’s just bull$#t”.
That is why only
people who reason first and keep their doctrines in a reality check can find
the solutions to drastically unordinary problems of our time.
As conservatives,
those people always need to know where the money will be coming from.
As liberals, those
people always need to fight for preservation of the democratic freedoms.
That is why I would
call such people “Conservative Liberals” (not the other way around, because for
me freedoms are above money; in that money is just one of the instruments for
preserving and supporting freedoms).
Recent “Star Wars”
trailer brought to us a Porg – “an adorable new Star Wars creature”.
No one really knows
what it is, but everyone already loves it.
My hope is that very
soon Conservative Liberals will become “political Porgs”, and then a political
force.
P.S. A reader may say:
"Valentin, all your explanations are limited, they do not include many
important aspects". That is absolutely correct! But that
is how a reason works.
To
understand a complicated phenomenon we always start from the simplest model
-
as long as it grasps the essential features of the phenomenon.
Then we build on it, making it more and more accurate, by making it more and more complicated. To discuss all the aspects of the past, current, and future American politics one post would never be enough; that would require a book (but some other aspects of "what happened" and "what needs to be done" have been discussed in previous posts of this blog - see the links at http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/10/spectre.html).
Then we build on it, making it more and more accurate, by making it more and more complicated. To discuss all the aspects of the past, current, and future American politics one post would never be enough; that would require a book (but some other aspects of "what happened" and "what needs to be done" have been discussed in previous posts of this blog - see the links at http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/10/spectre.html).
P.P.S. The
comments I often get on Facebook tell me that the Democratic party is the one
which has passed health care reform, advocates raising the minimum wage,
defends Medicare and Medicaid, worker safety, etc. I assume, comments like that
mean to defend the Democratic party from my criticism.
To avoid a lengthy
discussion (which 9 times out of 10 does not help anyone), I usually try to
forward attention to facts. One important fact is that the Democrats has lost
the support of many people in the Country (i.e. they literally lost
governorships, and legislations in many states); http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/14/the-2016-election-turned-more-state-legi.
Why did it happen?
A reason tells us
that we can blame (a) the Republicans; (b) the Democrats, or (c) the people –
there is nothing else!
Blaming people is counter constructive (plus, it does not explain why did they make the switch).
Blaming people is counter constructive (plus, it does not explain why did they make the switch).
The Democrats always
blame the Republicans for many bad things those did.
And that is exactly
why I blame the Democrats for their losses.
The Democrats never
look inward; they always look outward searching for excuses. And that is why
many people turned away from them (among other reasons). People do not like
someone who always accuses others in wrongdoing, but never accepts mistakes
done by him. That’s just a human psychology. As I see it, the Republicans have
better consultants in human psychology than the Democrats do (President Trump
is a living proof of this).
For a long time, many
authors have been criticizing the two-party political system. However, only now
we see conditions for the third – possibly strong – political force to arise.
And the reason for that may happen is NOT the fact that many previously
enrolled people go unenrolled. The reason is that inside both major parties we
see a growing divide. That may lead to formation of a large number of people
who would like to keep being enrolled, but do not want to stay neither with
the Republicans nor with the Democrats.
Currently, progressives of all sort are busy with fashioning a big fiery GALA (http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/11/3dforcedown.html).
At the same time Regressive Republicans developed a network of disinformation: http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/11/disinformation.html.
Who is a real revolutionary here?
At the same time Regressive Republicans developed a network of disinformation: http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/11/disinformation.html.
Who is a real revolutionary here?
The
list of previous political posts.
(click here for a single pdf file with the most of the political post listed below)
The Manifesto of The 3d Force Movement
Join The Campaign!
The Manifesto of The 3d Force Movement
Join The Campaign!
a Short Letter to Jon
Ossoff (the principles for moving the progressive agenda ahead)
And this link
http://www.gomars.xyz/op.html
leads to even more post on the matter:
No comments:
Post a Comment