I’m just about to bury myself in editing again but I could not resist posting this Youtube video first.
My thanks to Candy Korman for bringing this to my attention. Please share this video clip with as many people as you can. It’s not often we get the chance to change history before it happens.
I am the kind of person who always has to know why things are the way they are so my interests range from genetics and biology to politics and what makes people tick.
For fun I play online mmorpgs, read, listen to a music, dance when I get the chance and landscape my rather large block.
Work is writing. When a story I am working on is going well I'm on cloud nine. On bad days I go out and dig big holes...
View all posts by acflory
I wasn’t offended, but I did want to clarify. Unfortunately, Romney is playing somewhat to the Religious Right, because they’re part of the Republican base, but that has more to do with politics than conviction. Not satisfactory, but an unfortunate necessity in American politics. (I’m not condoning it, justifying it, or approving of it, just saying it like it is.)
In its ideal, the LDS church strives to be lovingly devout and consistent with scripture. For example, gay marriage is not something the church approves of, but it does not preach hate nor does it seek to exclude gay members. (Individual members and the church as a whole are, of course, two different things). We have an interesting history of empowerment and intolerance, like most religions. For me, personally, I identify with the truth of the scripture, not the politics of the church–though, obviously, I feel the need to ensure that those politics (for good and for bad) are portrayed accurately.
President Obama is a man of great intelligence and character, but his integrity has cracked under the pressure of American politics. And that’s part of the problem. He, like you, is blaming Congress and the particularly rough Congress he had to work with. But that’s an excuse. It really is. President Clinton had a rough Congress, too, but he accomplished a whole lot more than President Obama, because he led Congress in the directions he wanted them to go. President Obama is a good man, but a bad president. President Clinton is a bad man, but was a good president.
There are times to dig your heels in and fight and there are times to “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” President Obama’s timing in this respect was off. Had he been more econoically moderate and more socially liberal, he would have been a resounding success. Instead, he chose to be socially moderate and economically liberal up until these last six months.
The US is a mess. I agree 100%. Our Congress is in the pocket of lobbyists. Corporate lobbyists are only one example, and really not the worst of it. The Religious Right and the Liberal Left have their own set of lobbyists that are pulling this country apart. And we have a taxation system that is a total, incomprehensible mess. Though, it’s not, as you say, skewed toward the “rich.” It’s skewed toward the well-connected, whcih includes more rich than poor, but not all the rich or exclusively the rich. It’s skewed to promote different agendas (both conservative and liberal). There’s a lot of people who want to clean it up and make it straightfoward, but the lobbyists and politicians are united against that idea, because it’s one of the things they can do to promote their agendas.
Your comparison is accurate then. President Obama is not a good politician. And it’s not just that he was pushing too hard–it’s that he was pushing too hard on the wrong things. We EXPECTED him to push hard on social issues and Congress was wholly prepared to cave on many of these issues that got him elected. Obama had the power and position to finally clean up the immigration issue. Congress would have grumbled, complained, and criticized, but they would have followed his leadership. Instead, he chose to expend all that power and position on a health care bill that the majority of Americans don’t want. Obama had the power and position to tackle at least some of the way racism lingers in our judicial system. Congress would have criticized and tried to tweak it to their advantage, but they wouldn’t have DARED impede him. Instead, he chose to expend all that power and position on stimulus projects that furthered his agenda instead of the economy. Congress fought as hard as it did and changed as much as it did two years later, because Obama did the unexpected. He fought the wrong battles. And the Democrat base stopped fighting with him, because he wasn’t fighting for the things that got him elected. And the Republican base gained momentum, because Obama was fighting for things they were passionate about. And the moderate and independent voters turned against him, because he was making their lives harder.
Unbridled capitalism is dangerous. It’s dangerous in a different way, but it’s definitely dangerous. But the US doesn’t have “unbridled capitalism,” at least not at home, because we already have tons of regulations to keep capitalists in check. The problem, as we and the world are discovering, is that regulations tend to dampen economic progress without really achieving the end-goal. Dumping more regulations and more paperwork on people (which is what Obama did) doesn’t solve the problem. What needs to happen is re-thinking how those regulations work and either completely change the model (which we’re not ready for, because we haven’t developed a better model) or work within the model.
Capitalism, communism, and socialism are improvements on everything that came before. Some day, some brilliant person will look at these models in a way that sets off a light bulb and that person will come up with a totally new model that works even better. That’s how progess works.
Until then, you have to work with what you’ve got. The Western world has been trying to merge capitalism, communism, and socialism–taking the best of all three. But it doesn’t work. Yet, that’s exactly what President Obama is trying to do.
Instead, you need to work within the model you have. All the components for fairness is inherent in the capitalist model IF all the costs can be fiscally accounted for. For example, pollution is a cost that businesses don’t really have to pay for–society pays for those costs. The attempts to make businesses pay for those costs have been spotty at best, but they work when they are implemented successfully. If we did that on scale, then environmental regulations would be all but unnecessary, because the costs would be prohibitive for irresponsible environmental behavior. It would be painful, but it would work if it were implemented well. The same is true for labor and other issues.
The problem is that the US isn’t ready to act on any of that, especially not during an economic upheaval. The worst problem is that there are very few politicians who want to stake their political success on it.
And in conclusion: Dislike Romney as much as you want. That doesn’t offend me. Dislike the Religious Right as much as you want. I happen to agree with you there. But, yes, LDS is not Religious Right. I don’t know if it’s made it over seas, but the Religious Right were adamantly opposed to Romney, because he was LDS. Similar politics and a mutual distrust of Obama won them over, sort of. In short, they hate “us” just a little less than they hate Obama’s supporters. It’s ugly business either way.
And, yes, this whole business is a mess. That’s why I got out of politics. The American people are too easily swayed by punchy one-liners to see the big picture and the need for radical (productive) change. What people overseas don’t tend to realize is that this change, when it finally happens, is not going to be the direction that any other country has yet gone. The US will never successfully blend capitalism and socialism. We don’t have the culture required to make it work. But we do have an innovative spirit, and when things get painful enough and people start waking up, we will come up with something radically new that will combine our ideals (freedom and opportunity) with our reality (productivity and entrepreneurship). But it won’t come in the next few years. Neither Obama nor Romney have that kind of vision.
God I love these kinds of discussions! I’m going to answer your comment by starting with a digression. I saw communism first hand when I visited relatives in Hungary during the early 1970’s. It didn’t work because even the theory is based on economics instead of psychology. Humans can be altruistic, when it suits them, but by and large most humans are concerned with their own survival and the survival of those they love. Simple fact. So few would work /hard/ for the benefit of unknown others. And that’s not even taking into account the corruption amongst those in positions of power [also caused by basic human traits].
In Hungary back then, what did work was very small scale capitalism – i.e. artisans and craftsmen creating things to sell and keeping most of the profits. None of them had the economic clout to undermine their competitors so competition was based on the perceived and real value of what they were selling.
Fast forward the concept of capitalism to multinational corporations and you have all the worst aspects of capitalism without any real competition to keep the greed in check. There is no level playing field and value becomes almost meangingless. The carmaker GM had no need to listen to market trends and to innovate and to provide value for money because they had few real competitors. Even when people started buying better made, more economical foreign made cars they refused to change. And then taxpayers had to bail them out because too many jobs were on the line.
Sadly, capitalism almost requires the creation of these behemoths but in doing so it undermines the concept of competition without which nothing else works.
I appreciate what you say about the US culture being unsuited to the capitalism/socialism model. But that model does work elsewhere, as in Australia for example. Our culture is very different though. We expect all aspects of society to contribute to what we call a ‘fair go’ for all. People can be as individualistic as they please but it has to be within that framework.
Sadly, I also have to agree with you on your assessment that real, important change, is still many years away. So far away that we can’t even imagine what form it will take.
I sometimes daydream of a digital form of democracy where individuals vote not for representatives but on issues. Even in my daydreams though I can’t quite picture how the whole thing would work because there are negatives with everything, even democracy. Majority rule is not always right. Sometimes we need someone with a real vision to kick our butts and make us do the ‘right’ thing instead of the thing that will benefit us the most.
-shrug- I’ll be 60 in January next year. I’d love to believe that I’ll live to see a new golden age emerge from all this mess. I’m not holding my breath.
I’m very much enjoying this discussion! (I just sent an e-mail of the juxtaposition to this conversation, and if you take a look you’ll see just how refreshing this is!)
The closest I ever came to communism was in stories I heard and things I read. In one book, sadly I forget which, Robert Heinlein discussed his trip to Russia–imagine that mind combined with that experience and you know it’s going to be a mind-blowing look at what was going on! I also had a great-aunt who did a lot of traveling. I remember her visiting and I remember listening to her for hours, and running for glasses of water or cups of tea to keep her going, about her travels. This included a trip to Russia and a few other places that were struggling with the transformation from communism to capitalism (which, unfortunately, doesn’t do anything to mitigate the corruption). So, I can certainly appreciate what you’re saying. Nationalism is a strong motivator for many, but not enough when survival is at stake and certainly not enough for those who are skimming the cream from the public croft.
I wholly agree with your comments on multinational corporations. Google is an unfortunate example. They started with such high ideals. And they meant it. They really did. Then, the got bigger. The bigger they got, the more invasive and controlling they got. And they spread. And if collaborating with the Chinese government was what it took to tap into the explosive Chinese market, then that’s what they would do. And they did. The more separated a company is from its customers and its workers, the less it cares about their welfare, the less of a “soul” it has, the less it lives up to any sort of moral or ethical code beyond the bottom line.
That’s why, despite having the skill to do copywriting services for big businesses, I refuse. I could make a lot more money that way, at least I could if the economy was a bit stronger, but I would have to write things I really don’t believe in order to do it. I “could,” but not and be who I am.
I know the model works elsewhere. I’m less familiar with Australia’s economy, but I am familiar with both Canada’s and the UK’s and both blend capitalism and socialism with varying degrees of success. The difference isn’t so much believing that everyone should have a “fair go,” but in what we’re willing to sacrifice to make it happen.
Socialism erodes productivity. That’s a fact, and at least as far as my studies have gone, nobody has thought of a way around it. The extent to which productivity erodes is dependent on cultural and psychological factors–the psychological factors were considered a constant in the model that I saw and cultural factors were considered a variable.
The more perceived variance in the population, the more productivity fell. While all Western nations have variance, there is more of a perception of similarity in some countries over others. France, for example, is shocked by the young Middle Eastern men who come into their country and yet cling to their heritage. For the US, that’s status quo and happens with immigrants from all over and throughout time. Some of those “heritages” have been incorporated to the mainstream culture, but a lot of people still identify in some sense with a country of origin (Ireland, German, and Italy are examples) even though their family moved to the US generations ago. When you add the variance among races and their different histories, then add the variance among new immigrants and their cultures, and then add the variance among regions and those differences, and then add the variance among states and those differences, and then add the variance of rural versus suburb versus city versus inner city and all those differences…what you get is a HUGE amount of variance.
One thing that Australia, Canada, and the US have in common, in comparison to Europe, is the tendency to have states or provinces that are bigger than some European countries. What it is to go to a different country in Europe is what it is to go to a different state here, especially in the Midwest. Except, of course, for the need for a passport. I don’t even have a passport. I never have, because I have never needed one. In Europe, it is, from what I understand, virtually unheard of for someone with my level of education to have never traveled outside their own country–yet, in the US, it’s still fairly common.
There were more explanations in the model, but I don’t remember them all–the issue of variance was the most pronounced reason for the failure of socialist practices in the US. And what makes those effects even more significant is that productivity is an important cultural belief in the US. US business measure productivity levels constantly. Employees pride themselves on high productivity levels. Unions reinforce the emphasis on productivity. So, an economic model that would have such a drastic effect on something we value so strongly is going to be rejected, and it’s going to be rejected with passion and ferocity.
And any politician who tries to implement such a model is going to find him or herself facing people like The Tea Party.
When I said (or implied, I don’t remember which) that I was against socialism, I didn’t mean that I’m against it as a concept or even in practice elsewhere. It has its advantages and its disadvantages–it’s not perfect–but it’s not something that is so fundamentally flawed that it simply can’t work (i.e., communism). I am, however, against it for the US, because I understand (more or less) my fellow countrymen and I understand the side-effects of socialism. It won’t work here. It’s not the solution for us. And it’s wrong to force a country like the US to be like somewhere else. I have great respect for other countries and other cultures because of our differences, not because I think we should all become more alike.
I am a compassionate, caring person. There are a LOT of Americans like me. While it’s not true of all of us, most of us do care about our fellow human beings, both in our country and outside of our country.
Unfortunately, we’re also a very powerful nation and a relatively young nation, and we have a history of abusing our power and have not yet learned how to use it effectively and fairly. While this country is full of compassionate, caring people, it is also full of bullies and there is overlap among the two sets–which is hard to understand and yet is my everyday reality. As a nation, we are a bully. We bully other countries. Our companies bully consumers and workers in other countries.
If I could magically fix it, I would. I’m not proud of this heritage. I don’t like this heritage. But it is my heritage. I’d rather acknowledge this truth and work to change it than become an expat and try to live somewhere more “civilized.”
Besides, the truth–the sad, unfortunate truth–is that in some very real ways this country is more “socially evolved” and civilized than many of our peers. I could move to Australia, but my children could not. My family is not welcome in your country, because my children are autistic. I could move to Canada, but my children could not. My family is not welcome in Canada, because my children are autistic. I haven’t heard of any similar injunctions from Britain or Ireland (the only other two countries I’d even want to move to), but I know both countries have become increasingly less friendly to people with disabilities the longer their economic struggles go on.
That is a price of socialism, too. People who will never be able to “pull their weight” aren’t wanted by the people who can, and the people who can will always have more power than the people who can’t.
As an autism advocate, I converse with people all over the world (as long as they speak English), and while we have a long way to go in the US before I won’t have to fight for the rights and respect my children deserve, every other country I’ve come in contact with has further to go. And that’s terribly, terribly sad.
I can’t speak about much that you’ve written because, although I have been to the US, it was only for 4 days and that isn’t even long enough to get to know a few people from one city, much less a country as huge as the US. But I can say I’m ashamed that ‘we’ have that policy of exclusion. I didn’t know we excluded people on that basis and I’m rather shocked. We have, or at least we had [and I hope we still have] a policy of family reunions where someone from another country who emigrates to Australia, becomes a citizen, etc, can bring other members of their family over to live here. In your case though you can’t leave your kids behind while you come here to make a life for yourself. 😦
I really wish that things could be different because I think you’d like it here. -hugs-
I was surprised when I discovered those policies, too. Both Australia and Canada have made news by denying visas (I think that’s the right term) to allow people who moved for work to bring autistic children with them. The explanation in the news story was because of the fiscal cost of insuring those children, but it’s a matter of prejudice whatever the reasoning.
I don’t hold it against either country, of course, but use it as fuel to change people’s minds regarding what it means to be autistic.
I hope you do – ALL of you. 🙂 The policy still stinks though because we have lots of autistic children of our own so what difference would a few more make? -sigh-
OK I’m from a different generation than most of you so though I thought the video was good I cringed every time he swore, I cringed even more when he swore while the little girl was there and cringed so much I almost fit in a carrier bag when the little girl swore at the end. I’m sure it would have been just as effective without that kind of language.
Now having used it, I hope at least the message proves effectve before the US becomes a Mormon Country.
I don’t like swearing much either but… this video wasn’t aimed at people like us. That’s why I think it is so very effective. We’re taken aback and think about it. Younger people just smile and go ‘right on’. Or whatever the current phrase is. 🙂 Maybe it’s ‘Word’? lol
Both “right on” and “word” were from my generation, and I’m pretty sure they haven’t come back ’round again.
As an American voter, the problem I have with this video is that it embraces and idolizes the degradation of ethical values and directs that message to children. (The theme of the video mirrors “The Night Before Christmas,” as well as the more obvious.) That the video is very liberally biased doesn’t bother me so much as the insinuation that the positions espoused in the video are based on facts, when it’s mostly spin.
Unfortunately, this is very much what American politics amounts to nowadays.
It’s interesting that you should perceive a Mormon president as a threat. A belief in religious freedom is a tenet of the Latter-Day Saint (LDS or Mormon) faith, which isn’t explicit in most religions. Whereas President Obama has already infringed on the religious freedoms of people in this country, contrary to our Constitution, Gov. Romney is the candidate least likely to do so.
Sorry Stephanie. I’m not against Romney because he’s a Mormon, I’m against him because he was a bully in his youth, and if the dog on the car roof story is true, then he has continued to be a bully whenever his victim can’t fight back. That trait in a potential president is very scary to many of us in the rest of the world. As for Obama infringing on religious rights, he did not say that nuns should be given contraception or whatever it was. A public institution that also happens to be religious has civic obligations. I went to a convent school run by mostly nuns. That did not mean we were exempt from sex education!
The reply was directed at Lord Prosser’s comment. I didn’t think you were intending to be anti-Mormon.
I do worry about Romney’s history of bullying, and I certainly appreciate the implications of that to other nations. But I also think he would make a more effective president.
As for Obama, the example you’re citing is one that made big news, but it isn’t the only example or the most destructive to religious freedom–the primary thing with the contraceptive example is that, by doing this, Obama broke a promise.
President Obama has done a very good job of subtly eroding basic freedoms in this country, including religious freedoms. That’s part of the reason why messages like those contained in this video are “necessary.” When Obama ran for office for the first time, he talked a great game, made a lot of promises, and has accomplished very little. He and his supporters HAVE to attack Romney, because he has done too little good to defend himself effectively. He’s failed as a president and the only chance he has is by claiming that Romney would be worse.
-sigh- The weird thing is that the rest of us think Obama has done a pretty good job in the circumstances and the thing he’s hated for the most – Obamacare – is something almost every other advanced country takes for granted. As for religious freedoms, where else in the world can religion dictate what is taught in schools? Even in my Catholic school the nuns weren’t allowed to even hint that Genesis was ‘more true’ or ‘as true’ as natural selection.
None of us are anti-US but we are shocked at the direction things are going over there. For us, the only reason Obama has ‘failed’ is because he hasn’t been able to make people do the right thing instead of the ideological thing.
Apologies again Stephanie but as outsiders we see things very differently.
As for Obama doing a pretty good job, here’s the thing: When Obama was elected (which was during the recession), my family was doing better financially. We were poor, but we weren’t struggling nearly so much to meet basic needs.
In that time, not only has the recession officially ended, but I’ve gotten a college degree (which is supposed to make me more employable) and I’m almost finished with a Master’s degree. I’ve also started a business and it was profitable within the first year (which is hard to do with any business). Still, our costs of living (not the cost of living for the rich, but the cost of living for people who want a place to live, heat, gas, food, and clothing, and the occasional fun thing) have gone up much faster than I’ve been able to increase my income.
And there are a lot of people like me. I’m not EVEN unemployed. Those who are struggle much worse than we do.
For me, it’s not about Obamacare. For me, it’s about his mismanagement of the economy. (Admittedly, there’s a relatively tiny facet of Obamacare that is part and parcel to that, but it’s not about Obamacare perse. I can’t really say much about Obamacare. My family gets medical coverage through government programs. My mom is uninsured. My brother is only recently insured, because he went back to school. If Obamacare had been done more like Canada’s program (which I’m familiar with), then it’d be a great thing…but it wasn’t.) It’s about his pushing a theoretical economic agenda that relies on WEALTH in a time when the wealth is falling instead of rising. It’s about having the education necessary to understand his economic policies, but having it be useless to maintain let alone improve my family’s quality of life.
The thing that makes it really interesting, however, is the fact that (often for the worst, since “we” take more than our fair share of that world economy) the fate of the US economy has a huge impact on the world economy. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but what Obama has been doing hasn’t just hurt people in the US, it’s hurt people all over the world. Yet, he’s the good guy?
BTW, the religion dictating stuff in schools is limited to a very few states (I only know of one, but there might be more trying to follow suit) and that has to do with state vs. federal powers, which is an important part of US history. If Obama could stop it, he would. Heck, if I could stop it, I would! (As a LDS, people who want to force their religious views into the school is a threat to my religious freedom. We are still a very small religious minority and it was only recently that Missouri (a state) publicly apologized for their “shoot on sight” laws that literally empowered people to shoot Mormons on sight. In a way, a Mormon president would be almost as big, but not quite, an accomplishment as a black president.)
Believe me, I’m shocked at the way things are going over here, too. Partisan politics is an ugly, ugly thing and, no matter who you root for, partisan politics hurts everyone. I lean toward the conservative (fiscally) and toward the liberal (socially), so I’m never going to be happy with any party. But, when President Obama first campaigned, he promised not to be a partisan politician–he broke that promise in the first month. The success of the Tea Party, as unfortunate as that is, is a direct reaction to the way President Obama handled himself and tried to bully Congress. Crazy people like that would NEVER have been elected if the people who voted for them didn’t feel threatened.
I do know you see things differently. And while the way we see things is different, I see things differently, too, which is why I got out of politics. I’d much rather discuss politics with you, then with most of my fellow citizens who seem beyond reason at this point.
Ungh…first and foremost I apologize if my comments about Romney being a Mormon were offensive. 😦 I’m an atheist but ‘relatively’ tolerant of religion. I guess I lumped LDS in with the powerful religious Right. I should have checked facts a whole lot better. My fury with religion relates to the religious Right and the impact that sector is having on both science and the rise of the hate culture, especially towards young gay people. I actually do know there’s a difference between being devout and being religious zealots. Sloppy thinking on my part. 😦
Re Obama. After 8? years of George Dubya, I think a lot of us in the rest of the world were beginning to panic about the calibre of person sitting in the Oval Office. Obama promised us hope too – hope that the US would become a worthy world leader again. None of us expected that Obama would be able to follow through on a lot of his ambitious plans but we thought, ‘He’s very intelligent, he sounds as if he has integrity, he could really make a difference, turn things around.’ Then he started his first term with the GFC, the worst possible baptism by fire any world leader could suffer. Plus he had 2 wars bleeding the economy dry, plus he had a congress that run by corporate lobbyists, plus the taxation system was and is skewed in favour of the rich, plus he was inexperienced. And that’s just the stuff that the rest of the world knows about. His biggest negative though was the very popularity that brought him the presidency. Everyone expected him to be the Black Messiah. But he couldn’t work the miracle of the loaves and fishes so now his own people are doubly disappointed with him. The truth, as we see it, is that the US was in such a huge mess that NO new president could have stopped the pain. But somehow has to be blamed and as you say, the buck stops… at the White House.
Something similar happened to our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. He got Australia through the GFC with flying colours and he was just as popular as Obama. But he wasn’t a good ‘politician’ and his own party shafted him /because/ he was pushing too hard to get things done and they were scared they’d lose the next election.
I know that our political systems are quite different but humanity stays the same, no matter what and it’s the worst, ugliest, most selfish side of humanity that we’re all seeing now, especially in the West. No one wants to admit that unbridled Capitalism is just as dangerous as communism or any other unchecked ‘ism’. At the moment, Capitalism is eating the US alive. But maybe that’s a debate for another day.
Apologies once again for linking my dislike of Romney and the religious Right with LDS. -hugs-
Meeka's Mind 
October 22nd, 2012 at 5:41 am
I wasn’t offended, but I did want to clarify. Unfortunately, Romney is playing somewhat to the Religious Right, because they’re part of the Republican base, but that has more to do with politics than conviction. Not satisfactory, but an unfortunate necessity in American politics. (I’m not condoning it, justifying it, or approving of it, just saying it like it is.)
In its ideal, the LDS church strives to be lovingly devout and consistent with scripture. For example, gay marriage is not something the church approves of, but it does not preach hate nor does it seek to exclude gay members. (Individual members and the church as a whole are, of course, two different things). We have an interesting history of empowerment and intolerance, like most religions. For me, personally, I identify with the truth of the scripture, not the politics of the church–though, obviously, I feel the need to ensure that those politics (for good and for bad) are portrayed accurately.
President Obama is a man of great intelligence and character, but his integrity has cracked under the pressure of American politics. And that’s part of the problem. He, like you, is blaming Congress and the particularly rough Congress he had to work with. But that’s an excuse. It really is. President Clinton had a rough Congress, too, but he accomplished a whole lot more than President Obama, because he led Congress in the directions he wanted them to go. President Obama is a good man, but a bad president. President Clinton is a bad man, but was a good president.
There are times to dig your heels in and fight and there are times to “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” President Obama’s timing in this respect was off. Had he been more econoically moderate and more socially liberal, he would have been a resounding success. Instead, he chose to be socially moderate and economically liberal up until these last six months.
The US is a mess. I agree 100%. Our Congress is in the pocket of lobbyists. Corporate lobbyists are only one example, and really not the worst of it. The Religious Right and the Liberal Left have their own set of lobbyists that are pulling this country apart. And we have a taxation system that is a total, incomprehensible mess. Though, it’s not, as you say, skewed toward the “rich.” It’s skewed toward the well-connected, whcih includes more rich than poor, but not all the rich or exclusively the rich. It’s skewed to promote different agendas (both conservative and liberal). There’s a lot of people who want to clean it up and make it straightfoward, but the lobbyists and politicians are united against that idea, because it’s one of the things they can do to promote their agendas.
Your comparison is accurate then. President Obama is not a good politician. And it’s not just that he was pushing too hard–it’s that he was pushing too hard on the wrong things. We EXPECTED him to push hard on social issues and Congress was wholly prepared to cave on many of these issues that got him elected. Obama had the power and position to finally clean up the immigration issue. Congress would have grumbled, complained, and criticized, but they would have followed his leadership. Instead, he chose to expend all that power and position on a health care bill that the majority of Americans don’t want. Obama had the power and position to tackle at least some of the way racism lingers in our judicial system. Congress would have criticized and tried to tweak it to their advantage, but they wouldn’t have DARED impede him. Instead, he chose to expend all that power and position on stimulus projects that furthered his agenda instead of the economy. Congress fought as hard as it did and changed as much as it did two years later, because Obama did the unexpected. He fought the wrong battles. And the Democrat base stopped fighting with him, because he wasn’t fighting for the things that got him elected. And the Republican base gained momentum, because Obama was fighting for things they were passionate about. And the moderate and independent voters turned against him, because he was making their lives harder.
Unbridled capitalism is dangerous. It’s dangerous in a different way, but it’s definitely dangerous. But the US doesn’t have “unbridled capitalism,” at least not at home, because we already have tons of regulations to keep capitalists in check. The problem, as we and the world are discovering, is that regulations tend to dampen economic progress without really achieving the end-goal. Dumping more regulations and more paperwork on people (which is what Obama did) doesn’t solve the problem. What needs to happen is re-thinking how those regulations work and either completely change the model (which we’re not ready for, because we haven’t developed a better model) or work within the model.
Capitalism, communism, and socialism are improvements on everything that came before. Some day, some brilliant person will look at these models in a way that sets off a light bulb and that person will come up with a totally new model that works even better. That’s how progess works.
Until then, you have to work with what you’ve got. The Western world has been trying to merge capitalism, communism, and socialism–taking the best of all three. But it doesn’t work. Yet, that’s exactly what President Obama is trying to do.
Instead, you need to work within the model you have. All the components for fairness is inherent in the capitalist model IF all the costs can be fiscally accounted for. For example, pollution is a cost that businesses don’t really have to pay for–society pays for those costs. The attempts to make businesses pay for those costs have been spotty at best, but they work when they are implemented successfully. If we did that on scale, then environmental regulations would be all but unnecessary, because the costs would be prohibitive for irresponsible environmental behavior. It would be painful, but it would work if it were implemented well. The same is true for labor and other issues.
The problem is that the US isn’t ready to act on any of that, especially not during an economic upheaval. The worst problem is that there are very few politicians who want to stake their political success on it.
And in conclusion: Dislike Romney as much as you want. That doesn’t offend me. Dislike the Religious Right as much as you want. I happen to agree with you there. But, yes, LDS is not Religious Right. I don’t know if it’s made it over seas, but the Religious Right were adamantly opposed to Romney, because he was LDS. Similar politics and a mutual distrust of Obama won them over, sort of. In short, they hate “us” just a little less than they hate Obama’s supporters. It’s ugly business either way.
And, yes, this whole business is a mess. That’s why I got out of politics. The American people are too easily swayed by punchy one-liners to see the big picture and the need for radical (productive) change. What people overseas don’t tend to realize is that this change, when it finally happens, is not going to be the direction that any other country has yet gone. The US will never successfully blend capitalism and socialism. We don’t have the culture required to make it work. But we do have an innovative spirit, and when things get painful enough and people start waking up, we will come up with something radically new that will combine our ideals (freedom and opportunity) with our reality (productivity and entrepreneurship). But it won’t come in the next few years. Neither Obama nor Romney have that kind of vision.
LikeLike
October 22nd, 2012 at 1:02 pm
God I love these kinds of discussions! I’m going to answer your comment by starting with a digression. I saw communism first hand when I visited relatives in Hungary during the early 1970’s. It didn’t work because even the theory is based on economics instead of psychology. Humans can be altruistic, when it suits them, but by and large most humans are concerned with their own survival and the survival of those they love. Simple fact. So few would work /hard/ for the benefit of unknown others. And that’s not even taking into account the corruption amongst those in positions of power [also caused by basic human traits].
In Hungary back then, what did work was very small scale capitalism – i.e. artisans and craftsmen creating things to sell and keeping most of the profits. None of them had the economic clout to undermine their competitors so competition was based on the perceived and real value of what they were selling.
Fast forward the concept of capitalism to multinational corporations and you have all the worst aspects of capitalism without any real competition to keep the greed in check. There is no level playing field and value becomes almost meangingless. The carmaker GM had no need to listen to market trends and to innovate and to provide value for money because they had few real competitors. Even when people started buying better made, more economical foreign made cars they refused to change. And then taxpayers had to bail them out because too many jobs were on the line.
Sadly, capitalism almost requires the creation of these behemoths but in doing so it undermines the concept of competition without which nothing else works.
I appreciate what you say about the US culture being unsuited to the capitalism/socialism model. But that model does work elsewhere, as in Australia for example. Our culture is very different though. We expect all aspects of society to contribute to what we call a ‘fair go’ for all. People can be as individualistic as they please but it has to be within that framework.
Sadly, I also have to agree with you on your assessment that real, important change, is still many years away. So far away that we can’t even imagine what form it will take.
I sometimes daydream of a digital form of democracy where individuals vote not for representatives but on issues. Even in my daydreams though I can’t quite picture how the whole thing would work because there are negatives with everything, even democracy. Majority rule is not always right. Sometimes we need someone with a real vision to kick our butts and make us do the ‘right’ thing instead of the thing that will benefit us the most.
-shrug- I’ll be 60 in January next year. I’d love to believe that I’ll live to see a new golden age emerge from all this mess. I’m not holding my breath.
LikeLike
October 22nd, 2012 at 7:30 pm
I’m very much enjoying this discussion! (I just sent an e-mail of the juxtaposition to this conversation, and if you take a look you’ll see just how refreshing this is!)
The closest I ever came to communism was in stories I heard and things I read. In one book, sadly I forget which, Robert Heinlein discussed his trip to Russia–imagine that mind combined with that experience and you know it’s going to be a mind-blowing look at what was going on! I also had a great-aunt who did a lot of traveling. I remember her visiting and I remember listening to her for hours, and running for glasses of water or cups of tea to keep her going, about her travels. This included a trip to Russia and a few other places that were struggling with the transformation from communism to capitalism (which, unfortunately, doesn’t do anything to mitigate the corruption). So, I can certainly appreciate what you’re saying. Nationalism is a strong motivator for many, but not enough when survival is at stake and certainly not enough for those who are skimming the cream from the public croft.
I wholly agree with your comments on multinational corporations. Google is an unfortunate example. They started with such high ideals. And they meant it. They really did. Then, the got bigger. The bigger they got, the more invasive and controlling they got. And they spread. And if collaborating with the Chinese government was what it took to tap into the explosive Chinese market, then that’s what they would do. And they did. The more separated a company is from its customers and its workers, the less it cares about their welfare, the less of a “soul” it has, the less it lives up to any sort of moral or ethical code beyond the bottom line.
That’s why, despite having the skill to do copywriting services for big businesses, I refuse. I could make a lot more money that way, at least I could if the economy was a bit stronger, but I would have to write things I really don’t believe in order to do it. I “could,” but not and be who I am.
I know the model works elsewhere. I’m less familiar with Australia’s economy, but I am familiar with both Canada’s and the UK’s and both blend capitalism and socialism with varying degrees of success. The difference isn’t so much believing that everyone should have a “fair go,” but in what we’re willing to sacrifice to make it happen.
Socialism erodes productivity. That’s a fact, and at least as far as my studies have gone, nobody has thought of a way around it. The extent to which productivity erodes is dependent on cultural and psychological factors–the psychological factors were considered a constant in the model that I saw and cultural factors were considered a variable.
The more perceived variance in the population, the more productivity fell. While all Western nations have variance, there is more of a perception of similarity in some countries over others. France, for example, is shocked by the young Middle Eastern men who come into their country and yet cling to their heritage. For the US, that’s status quo and happens with immigrants from all over and throughout time. Some of those “heritages” have been incorporated to the mainstream culture, but a lot of people still identify in some sense with a country of origin (Ireland, German, and Italy are examples) even though their family moved to the US generations ago. When you add the variance among races and their different histories, then add the variance among new immigrants and their cultures, and then add the variance among regions and those differences, and then add the variance among states and those differences, and then add the variance of rural versus suburb versus city versus inner city and all those differences…what you get is a HUGE amount of variance.
One thing that Australia, Canada, and the US have in common, in comparison to Europe, is the tendency to have states or provinces that are bigger than some European countries. What it is to go to a different country in Europe is what it is to go to a different state here, especially in the Midwest. Except, of course, for the need for a passport. I don’t even have a passport. I never have, because I have never needed one. In Europe, it is, from what I understand, virtually unheard of for someone with my level of education to have never traveled outside their own country–yet, in the US, it’s still fairly common.
There were more explanations in the model, but I don’t remember them all–the issue of variance was the most pronounced reason for the failure of socialist practices in the US. And what makes those effects even more significant is that productivity is an important cultural belief in the US. US business measure productivity levels constantly. Employees pride themselves on high productivity levels. Unions reinforce the emphasis on productivity. So, an economic model that would have such a drastic effect on something we value so strongly is going to be rejected, and it’s going to be rejected with passion and ferocity.
And any politician who tries to implement such a model is going to find him or herself facing people like The Tea Party.
When I said (or implied, I don’t remember which) that I was against socialism, I didn’t mean that I’m against it as a concept or even in practice elsewhere. It has its advantages and its disadvantages–it’s not perfect–but it’s not something that is so fundamentally flawed that it simply can’t work (i.e., communism). I am, however, against it for the US, because I understand (more or less) my fellow countrymen and I understand the side-effects of socialism. It won’t work here. It’s not the solution for us. And it’s wrong to force a country like the US to be like somewhere else. I have great respect for other countries and other cultures because of our differences, not because I think we should all become more alike.
I am a compassionate, caring person. There are a LOT of Americans like me. While it’s not true of all of us, most of us do care about our fellow human beings, both in our country and outside of our country.
Unfortunately, we’re also a very powerful nation and a relatively young nation, and we have a history of abusing our power and have not yet learned how to use it effectively and fairly. While this country is full of compassionate, caring people, it is also full of bullies and there is overlap among the two sets–which is hard to understand and yet is my everyday reality. As a nation, we are a bully. We bully other countries. Our companies bully consumers and workers in other countries.
If I could magically fix it, I would. I’m not proud of this heritage. I don’t like this heritage. But it is my heritage. I’d rather acknowledge this truth and work to change it than become an expat and try to live somewhere more “civilized.”
Besides, the truth–the sad, unfortunate truth–is that in some very real ways this country is more “socially evolved” and civilized than many of our peers. I could move to Australia, but my children could not. My family is not welcome in your country, because my children are autistic. I could move to Canada, but my children could not. My family is not welcome in Canada, because my children are autistic. I haven’t heard of any similar injunctions from Britain or Ireland (the only other two countries I’d even want to move to), but I know both countries have become increasingly less friendly to people with disabilities the longer their economic struggles go on.
That is a price of socialism, too. People who will never be able to “pull their weight” aren’t wanted by the people who can, and the people who can will always have more power than the people who can’t.
As an autism advocate, I converse with people all over the world (as long as they speak English), and while we have a long way to go in the US before I won’t have to fight for the rights and respect my children deserve, every other country I’ve come in contact with has further to go. And that’s terribly, terribly sad.
LikeLike
October 22nd, 2012 at 8:33 pm
I can’t speak about much that you’ve written because, although I have been to the US, it was only for 4 days and that isn’t even long enough to get to know a few people from one city, much less a country as huge as the US. But I can say I’m ashamed that ‘we’ have that policy of exclusion. I didn’t know we excluded people on that basis and I’m rather shocked. We have, or at least we had [and I hope we still have] a policy of family reunions where someone from another country who emigrates to Australia, becomes a citizen, etc, can bring other members of their family over to live here. In your case though you can’t leave your kids behind while you come here to make a life for yourself. 😦
I really wish that things could be different because I think you’d like it here. -hugs-
LikeLike
October 23rd, 2012 at 6:08 pm
I was surprised when I discovered those policies, too. Both Australia and Canada have made news by denying visas (I think that’s the right term) to allow people who moved for work to bring autistic children with them. The explanation in the news story was because of the fiscal cost of insuring those children, but it’s a matter of prejudice whatever the reasoning.
I don’t hold it against either country, of course, but use it as fuel to change people’s minds regarding what it means to be autistic.
I still hope to visit someday!
LikeLike
October 23rd, 2012 at 6:55 pm
I hope you do – ALL of you. 🙂 The policy still stinks though because we have lots of autistic children of our own so what difference would a few more make? -sigh-
LikeLike
October 27th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
🙂 Someday we will! All of us!
LikeLike
October 27th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Just let me know and I’ll put the kettle on for a cuppa!
LikeLike
November 2nd, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Sounds great! 🙂
LikeLike
September 29th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
OK I’m from a different generation than most of you so though I thought the video was good I cringed every time he swore, I cringed even more when he swore while the little girl was there and cringed so much I almost fit in a carrier bag when the little girl swore at the end. I’m sure it would have been just as effective without that kind of language.
Now having used it, I hope at least the message proves effectve before the US becomes a Mormon Country.
LikeLike
September 29th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
I don’t like swearing much either but… this video wasn’t aimed at people like us. That’s why I think it is so very effective. We’re taken aback and think about it. Younger people just smile and go ‘right on’. Or whatever the current phrase is. 🙂 Maybe it’s ‘Word’? lol
LikeLike
October 8th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Both “right on” and “word” were from my generation, and I’m pretty sure they haven’t come back ’round again.
As an American voter, the problem I have with this video is that it embraces and idolizes the degradation of ethical values and directs that message to children. (The theme of the video mirrors “The Night Before Christmas,” as well as the more obvious.) That the video is very liberally biased doesn’t bother me so much as the insinuation that the positions espoused in the video are based on facts, when it’s mostly spin.
Unfortunately, this is very much what American politics amounts to nowadays.
LikeLike
October 8th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Aaaah, lol, you are much younger than me 😀 As a certified dinosaur I’ll stay away from slang from now on!
LikeLike
October 12th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
I’ll be turning 33 next week, so I really am ancient–just ask my kids. 🙂
LikeLike
October 12th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
-cough- 33 vs 59? No contest. :p
LikeLike
October 8th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
It’s interesting that you should perceive a Mormon president as a threat. A belief in religious freedom is a tenet of the Latter-Day Saint (LDS or Mormon) faith, which isn’t explicit in most religions. Whereas President Obama has already infringed on the religious freedoms of people in this country, contrary to our Constitution, Gov. Romney is the candidate least likely to do so.
LikeLike
October 8th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Sorry Stephanie. I’m not against Romney because he’s a Mormon, I’m against him because he was a bully in his youth, and if the dog on the car roof story is true, then he has continued to be a bully whenever his victim can’t fight back. That trait in a potential president is very scary to many of us in the rest of the world. As for Obama infringing on religious rights, he did not say that nuns should be given contraception or whatever it was. A public institution that also happens to be religious has civic obligations. I went to a convent school run by mostly nuns. That did not mean we were exempt from sex education!
LikeLike
October 12th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
The reply was directed at Lord Prosser’s comment. I didn’t think you were intending to be anti-Mormon.
I do worry about Romney’s history of bullying, and I certainly appreciate the implications of that to other nations. But I also think he would make a more effective president.
As for Obama, the example you’re citing is one that made big news, but it isn’t the only example or the most destructive to religious freedom–the primary thing with the contraceptive example is that, by doing this, Obama broke a promise.
President Obama has done a very good job of subtly eroding basic freedoms in this country, including religious freedoms. That’s part of the reason why messages like those contained in this video are “necessary.” When Obama ran for office for the first time, he talked a great game, made a lot of promises, and has accomplished very little. He and his supporters HAVE to attack Romney, because he has done too little good to defend himself effectively. He’s failed as a president and the only chance he has is by claiming that Romney would be worse.
LikeLike
October 12th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
-sigh- The weird thing is that the rest of us think Obama has done a pretty good job in the circumstances and the thing he’s hated for the most – Obamacare – is something almost every other advanced country takes for granted. As for religious freedoms, where else in the world can religion dictate what is taught in schools? Even in my Catholic school the nuns weren’t allowed to even hint that Genesis was ‘more true’ or ‘as true’ as natural selection.
None of us are anti-US but we are shocked at the direction things are going over there. For us, the only reason Obama has ‘failed’ is because he hasn’t been able to make people do the right thing instead of the ideological thing.
Apologies again Stephanie but as outsiders we see things very differently.
LikeLike
October 20th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
As for Obama doing a pretty good job, here’s the thing: When Obama was elected (which was during the recession), my family was doing better financially. We were poor, but we weren’t struggling nearly so much to meet basic needs.
In that time, not only has the recession officially ended, but I’ve gotten a college degree (which is supposed to make me more employable) and I’m almost finished with a Master’s degree. I’ve also started a business and it was profitable within the first year (which is hard to do with any business). Still, our costs of living (not the cost of living for the rich, but the cost of living for people who want a place to live, heat, gas, food, and clothing, and the occasional fun thing) have gone up much faster than I’ve been able to increase my income.
And there are a lot of people like me. I’m not EVEN unemployed. Those who are struggle much worse than we do.
For me, it’s not about Obamacare. For me, it’s about his mismanagement of the economy. (Admittedly, there’s a relatively tiny facet of Obamacare that is part and parcel to that, but it’s not about Obamacare perse. I can’t really say much about Obamacare. My family gets medical coverage through government programs. My mom is uninsured. My brother is only recently insured, because he went back to school. If Obamacare had been done more like Canada’s program (which I’m familiar with), then it’d be a great thing…but it wasn’t.) It’s about his pushing a theoretical economic agenda that relies on WEALTH in a time when the wealth is falling instead of rising. It’s about having the education necessary to understand his economic policies, but having it be useless to maintain let alone improve my family’s quality of life.
The thing that makes it really interesting, however, is the fact that (often for the worst, since “we” take more than our fair share of that world economy) the fate of the US economy has a huge impact on the world economy. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but what Obama has been doing hasn’t just hurt people in the US, it’s hurt people all over the world. Yet, he’s the good guy?
BTW, the religion dictating stuff in schools is limited to a very few states (I only know of one, but there might be more trying to follow suit) and that has to do with state vs. federal powers, which is an important part of US history. If Obama could stop it, he would. Heck, if I could stop it, I would! (As a LDS, people who want to force their religious views into the school is a threat to my religious freedom. We are still a very small religious minority and it was only recently that Missouri (a state) publicly apologized for their “shoot on sight” laws that literally empowered people to shoot Mormons on sight. In a way, a Mormon president would be almost as big, but not quite, an accomplishment as a black president.)
Believe me, I’m shocked at the way things are going over here, too. Partisan politics is an ugly, ugly thing and, no matter who you root for, partisan politics hurts everyone. I lean toward the conservative (fiscally) and toward the liberal (socially), so I’m never going to be happy with any party. But, when President Obama first campaigned, he promised not to be a partisan politician–he broke that promise in the first month. The success of the Tea Party, as unfortunate as that is, is a direct reaction to the way President Obama handled himself and tried to bully Congress. Crazy people like that would NEVER have been elected if the people who voted for them didn’t feel threatened.
I do know you see things differently. And while the way we see things is different, I see things differently, too, which is why I got out of politics. I’d much rather discuss politics with you, then with most of my fellow citizens who seem beyond reason at this point.
LikeLike
October 21st, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Ungh…first and foremost I apologize if my comments about Romney being a Mormon were offensive. 😦 I’m an atheist but ‘relatively’ tolerant of religion. I guess I lumped LDS in with the powerful religious Right. I should have checked facts a whole lot better. My fury with religion relates to the religious Right and the impact that sector is having on both science and the rise of the hate culture, especially towards young gay people. I actually do know there’s a difference between being devout and being religious zealots. Sloppy thinking on my part. 😦
Re Obama. After 8? years of George Dubya, I think a lot of us in the rest of the world were beginning to panic about the calibre of person sitting in the Oval Office. Obama promised us hope too – hope that the US would become a worthy world leader again. None of us expected that Obama would be able to follow through on a lot of his ambitious plans but we thought, ‘He’s very intelligent, he sounds as if he has integrity, he could really make a difference, turn things around.’ Then he started his first term with the GFC, the worst possible baptism by fire any world leader could suffer. Plus he had 2 wars bleeding the economy dry, plus he had a congress that run by corporate lobbyists, plus the taxation system was and is skewed in favour of the rich, plus he was inexperienced. And that’s just the stuff that the rest of the world knows about. His biggest negative though was the very popularity that brought him the presidency. Everyone expected him to be the Black Messiah. But he couldn’t work the miracle of the loaves and fishes so now his own people are doubly disappointed with him. The truth, as we see it, is that the US was in such a huge mess that NO new president could have stopped the pain. But somehow has to be blamed and as you say, the buck stops… at the White House.
Something similar happened to our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. He got Australia through the GFC with flying colours and he was just as popular as Obama. But he wasn’t a good ‘politician’ and his own party shafted him /because/ he was pushing too hard to get things done and they were scared they’d lose the next election.
I know that our political systems are quite different but humanity stays the same, no matter what and it’s the worst, ugliest, most selfish side of humanity that we’re all seeing now, especially in the West. No one wants to admit that unbridled Capitalism is just as dangerous as communism or any other unchecked ‘ism’. At the moment, Capitalism is eating the US alive. But maybe that’s a debate for another day.
Apologies once again for linking my dislike of Romney and the religious Right with LDS. -hugs-
LikeLike