A while ago, a buddy of mine sent a few of this friends (author included) a link to this article by Mort Zuckerman about the decline of leadership in America. It pondered the question of why America is failing to produce decent political leaders despite the vast intellectual tallents of her citizens. I replied with my own worthless 2 cents and asked another buddy (henceforth referred to as "The Rev") what he thought about the topic.
His response was pretty deep and thought provoking so I decided to document it below.
==============================================================
Ardi,
My thoughts are:
1. We have no great leaders today because corporations and special interest groups have bought and sold essentially every politician in Congress, and of any stature in the executive branch. It's not that politicians are less idealistic today than 100 or 200 years ago, it's that corporations and special interest groups are now extremely efficient and very competitive about buying off any available figure in power. The only difference is that 50 or 100 or 200 years ago, there weren't enough corporations and special interest groups around with enough "soft money" to buy off anyone with power. If you are head of the FDA one year, you are on the Board of Pfizer the next. If you are Deputy Secretary of Defense one year, you are on the Board of Boeing the next. That is how things are done in Washington and absent laws that prevent these conflicts of interest this will only intensify. Because the people who make laws to prevent these sort o f conflicts of interest are the ones who benefit by these arrangements, they have no incentives to enact such laws.
2. "Democracy, liberty and freedom." First off, we're not a democracy and never have been. A democracy means a government run by all voting age citizens--participating and making important decisions. The closest, and probably only time, the planet came close to a democracy was fifth-century B.C. Athens when 10% of the adults participated in a "democracy". Technically speaking, our government is an aristocratic (or plutocratic) republic. (note: aristocratic means government by the best or elite, not government by nobility; plutocratic means government by the rich). We're a bit like ancient Rome with TV. Maybe this isn't a bad thing, because as Plato and Edmund Burke both famously pointed out, letting a bunch of uneducated, illogical, easily swayed mobs decide how to run the country might not be the best idea, c.f. The Jerry Springer Show. Even one of the great champions of modern d emocratic ideals, Winston Churchill, said, "Democracy is the worst possible form of government known to man--except for all the others." "Liberty" is a nice catchphrase as well, but "liberty" to do what? Uncoupled from responsibility it means a license to cause whatever harm you like. Ditto for "freedom".
Now in saying this, I'm not bashing America. Our constitution is still a model for the world, and I don't believe any country, in any age, has ever premised its foundation on a plan as fair and comprehensive as ours. But...
3. ...when we talk about "American values", I don't think this has much meaning. It's like saying we have "an awesome vibe" or "great feelings" or "something terrific". "American values" is not a tangible and measurable thing nor does it refer to something tangible and measurable. It's very easy for a politician or partisan pundit or journalist to bandy about the phrase "American values" without ever saying anything of substance. I don't think anyone can make a good argument though that the roughly 10,000 Iraqi civilians that we have killed due to "collateral damage" is a good way to export "American values."
What we ought to be exporting instead is our legal system and our economic system. While free market capitalism has its own shortcomings and inequities, its a hell of a lot better than living in a country with no political rights, no jobs, and a lack of basic necessities.
Of course, exporting our legal system and economic system to other countries--which would improve the lives of the people there--and give them a taste of why Americans think and act in certian ways, i.e. imparting our "values"--does not give us special access to a country's resources, which leads me to...
4. Fact: The value of Dick Cheney's stock options in Halliburton have increased between $10 and $20 million since 2003 as a direct result of the Iraq War. Fact: Cheney proposed invading Iraq the night of the 9/11 attacks. Fact: All CIA intelligence presented to the President supporting or not supporting a war in Iraq was ordered in 2002 to be vetted through the Office of the Vice President first, a role the Vice President had never been involved in during the previous 200+ years of U.S. History. Fact: Halliburton was awarded contracts to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq without having to submit to the standard bidding process. Fact: Halliburton has overbilled the US government and American taxpayers to the tune of over $10 million since 2003. Fact: Halliburton was recently awarded an expanded (again, no bid contract) despite this fraud. Fact: On Spetmeber 2 3, 2003, Cheney said on NBC TV's Meet The Press, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years." Fact: At the time he said this, he had stock options in Halliburton worth $8 million.
Are we really in Iraq in order to export "American values"? I don't think so. Where can you find the startling "secret" facts listed above? The 9/11 Commission Report and various reports from the Government Accounting Office. Are most Americans completely asleep at the switch? Yes.
5. Am I surprised most American are totally asleep at the switch? No. In the past ten years, the FCC has done away with conflict of interest regulations that for decades maintained a somehwat independent news media in this country. This was done under the leadership of FCC Chairman Michael Powell. Perphaps you've heard of his father?--guy by the name of Colin. Instead of hundreds of competing news sources in this country--which we had growing up in the 70's and 80's, we now have a situation where 90% of TV, film and radio and 50% of newspapers are controlled by six large media conglomerates. Of these six large conglomerates, the CEO's of three have created and funded right-wing think tanks. One of these parent corporations also happens to be one of the military's largest suppliers--GE/Westinghouse.
6. So yeah, you can probably gather I am gravely disappointed with US foreign policy over the past several years as well as with rampant corruption in our government, and I think most journalists write what their bosses tell them to write or go hungry. However, the fault probably does not lie entirely with government officials. Plato said in The Republic that there can be no just political order without just citizens. Yet, today citizens of liberal democracies worldwide are much more concerned with how their government functions than the private vices of the citizens within them. Likewise, modern citizens are much more comfortable talking about rights than duties. Put another way, one might say that we are much more concerned with the rights of people, than the capacities of the people with those rights. So when we talk about "American values" it is probably worth questioning what that phrase means. Does it mean the political rights enshrined in our Constitution or does it mean the collective ethical strength (or weakness) of the nation as a whole. Quite simply, are we as ethically honest and willing to sacrifice for the common good as we were 30 or 60 or 90 years ago? If the answer is "no", then we have to collectively question how we can, as a nation, export American notions of fundamental political rights when we have shrugged off the duties to our neighbors and community that accompany those rights. For example, we hold dear the notion of freedom of speech, but 30 or 60 or 90 years ago, almost no one would have driven down the street with a car stereo cranked up wailing, "F*** tha' Police!" Today, most people shrug and say that this is protected speech, and like it or not, we should be tolerant of it even if we don't like it. 30 or 60 or 90 years ago, however, the debate would have instead centered not on rights, but on duties...is it responsible to drive down the street doing this? Answer=no--it' s loud and offensive to others who live around you and thus you shouldn't do it, even if you have a right to. Our culture has shifted from one of a balance between rights and duties to one of a bold assertion of rights. So, when people around the world question "American values" perhaps their criticisms are not entirely without merit. If we are talking about exporting our values, then aren't we talking about exporting the whole package, not just the best parts?
7. About 50 years ago our country went down a dangerous path (the Red Scare), so did a country in central Europe about 70 years ago, and so has our country today. In each case, a country was stirred to action by fear of pollution by degenerates from both inside and outside the country, in each case the people were given a message of apocalyptic transformation of their supposedly endangered nation through military action and national solidarity and through leadership that was authoritative and unchallengeable. In each case, rights were taken away from the people and the country was steered down a path that benefitted those in power rather than the people. These regimes occurred not because people didn't think, but precisely because people did think, albeit in an environment that was poisoned by the wrong ideas, ideas that may not have even impacted much of the population on a conscious level initially.
It's part of our human tribal instinct to retreat in situations of fear and seek the protection of those with power, even if that means giving up much that is precious to us to those who wield power. Of course, the sharing of power, and the maintenance of basic human rights is what our Constitution was supposed to establish and protect. Here's to hoping that it still serves that need...
This journalist can talk all he wants about liberty, freedom, equality, and the rule of law but those terms don't mean jack unless they actually describe conditions that exist in our country and are reflected in our behavior towards the rest of the world. And when a journalist writing in 2006, places Washington and Lincoln on a pedestal above current leaders he needs to go back and do a little reading on history. Washington was a staunch loyalist who only flipped sides when the British refused him a commission as a regimental commander in the British Army. In 1776, the year we signed the Declaration of Independence, he kicked all blacks out of the Continental Army and sent them back to slave holders. He was a second-rate general and he almost lost the war in 1776-77 due to his poor strategies. These are not facts they like to stress in the history books. Lincoln came round to the emancipation proclamation o nly after four years of war and only when it became strategically convenient. Before that, the War had been a conflict between northern industrial interests and southern agricultural interests.
(P.S. One thing the author has half correct. We are the most generous country on Earth. We have given literally trillions of dollars in foreign aid over the last few decades. What most people don't realize however, is that the majority of this aid has been in the form of discounted arms sales. Maybe I'm cycnical, but perhaps this isn't the "gift to the world" we want to be our legacy.)
No comments:
Post a Comment