Solution Politics–Issue 2: Corporations
As I continue my series on solutions rather than partisanship, I want to tackle the issue of corporate America.
Vanity Fair recently published an article, indicating that 1% of Americans control 40% of wealth. While I am no Marxist, this drastic imbalance only promotes increased imbalance, contrary to the predicted results of the Reaganomic ”trickle down” model. Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski touched on this on Monday, by presenting Daniel Costello’s op-ed from the New York Times. Simply put, the recession is over for the corporations, yet we still are suffering joblessness. According to Reaganomics, if corporations are doing well, they should be hiring. But they simply aren’t.
And that is because of a inherit flaw in the structure of a corporation. Again, I believe in markets, but I cannot see how completely free ones are sustainable. Corporate leaders do not answer to their workers. They answer to their shareholders, and more directly, those important shareholders who make up the board. There is ZERO motivation to hire when hiring is not necessary, because the accountability is centered around profits.
What is so surprising is that this is a problem that Theodore Roosevelt, the great progressive trust-buster, began to tackle over a hundred years ago. Why have we forgotten the great destruction wrought at the hands of 19th century monopolies?
Furthermore, the American model of society is based around a balance of accountability relationships. Our government is so resilient because of its built on accountability. Does no one remember learning checks and balances from Schoolhouse Rock? We should be applying the same balance to our economy.
That is the essential failure of both Karl Marx and Adam Smith. They assume that individuals, left to their own devices, will seek balance in the economy through some latent altruism. They don’t, they need pressure from some sort of external source to ensure that justice is put before profits. Unions, left unchecked, will naturally move towards Marxism. Corporate executives will swing towards laissez faire capitalism. Both polarities fail.
That should be the central concern of government, serving as the needed force of accountability, making sure that justice is ensured.
(It should be noted that I do not see economic equality as the mark of justice, just the freedom to achieve equality. There will always be those who choose poverty. If the system is just, then only those choosing poverty will be poor. I will unpack that more when I discuss welfare later.)
What if God’s Administration were in Power?
Originally I was going to title this post “Why I cannot be a Republican.” After reading Drew’s latest post, I realized that perhaps we shouldn’t politicize solutions, but rather have political solutions. And that got me to thinking. I was going to argue that I couldn’t be a Republican because of all the grandstanding about the budget, and the fact that their budget priorities are horrendous, in my humble view.
But I suppose I then realized that I could probably make similar argues – albeit about different subjects – concerning Democrats, or really about any group in American politics. I decided then to step back and ask a different type of question: what if God ran the U.S.? What would our nation look like?
Before you turn me off, just think for a minute. I’ve heard this asked before, and normally Christians who do so come up with things about sexual purity, the abolition of abortion, and other social programs conservative Christians have favored since the 80′s.
But since I’ve been deep into the theology of the book of Revelation, I think we should ask a prior question if we really want to judge this from what we think might be God’s perspective. The question is this: given that God has already inaugurated his kingdom on earth in the form of Jesus and his ministry, what would be the priorities of God’s administration on the topic that are now heatedly in the balance, like the budget, the military, etc?
I think once you start asking this question, you start realizing that the spectrum of right and left as we’ve understood it in this country really have little to do with God’s administration.
As an initial thought, let me just say that it is important to remember that the climax of the gospel presentations (and indeed of Revelation) is “king of the Jews” nailed upon a cross. So as I begin thinking about this for myself, let me just point out that kingdom and cross are the place to begin.
So, what do you think God’s administration would look like?
New Series: Solution Politics, not Political Solutions [the way I see it]
I’ve decided after an extended absence for the Salon, to unveil a new series (with a currently undetermined number of installments). Instead of dwelling on current events with a myopic scope, I want to focus on big ideas that are relevent but not necessarily topical. I’ve entitled the series, Solution Politics, not Political Solutions to emphasize a theme of using politics to solve real problems, instead of the current modus operandi of tailoring solutions so as to make them politically advantageous. So bear with me and my inevitable arrogance, as this is simply the way I see it. Disagreement is always welcome (and probably preferred).
Issue 1: Partisan coalitions are destroying government effectiveness
Alright, so this isn’t a ground breaking thought. Countless pundits decry the profound voice of special interests in government. The problem is, as politically active units, each individual voter is rapidly becoming a special interest. We all hold a trump card, the particular issue that determines who we vote for. For some of us it is abortion rights or abortion opposition. Perhaps it is size of government or the military spending. Regardless of the issue, for most Americans, there is one particular political issue that is held so dearly that it determines voting patterns and thus has a profound influence on party platforms.
In Europe and other parliamentary systems, voters align with parties based on their favorite issue and parties then forge coalitions after voting has taken place in order to create a functioning majority rule. In this nation however, the two parties must form these coalitions prior to an election so as to gather their 50.1% of the vote on election day.
People seem to hold this belief that the Republican party equals conservatism and always has, just as the Democratic party has always been a bastion of liberalism. However, these party alignments are the result of coalition building in an attempt to piece together demographics in order to get achieve the magic majority. I am not judging this particular force, and there have been many times when it has proven an advantage. (The Democratic resurgence in response to the Great Depression, for example.) However, right now it has become a stumbling block in the path of real solutions to American problems of governance.
There are a number of financially unsustainable systems in place in the United States. However, because of the relative balance between the parties among the totality of the American electorate, neither party is willing to alienate any particular portion of their base coalition. In the issue of welfare reform, there is little space for the Clinton versus Moynihan style discussion of the mid-90s lest Democrats lose their invaluable support in the impoverished inner-cities. Thus welfare is once again stuck in its relative ineffectiveness. (I will discuss welfare further in a future issue.) Similarly, the bloated defense budget is untouchable, not because doing so might diminish America’s ability to defend herself, (many military leaders, including chairman of the JCS, Admiral Mike Mullen, have testified that there are plenty of ways to trim the budget) but simply because doing so would put into motion a shift in the coalition balance. The Defense budget thus serves as a form of mutually assured destruction in the stand-off between both parties. Thus, another needed repair to the American system is left undone by the political necessity of maintaining coalitions.
In future issues, I will expand on certain potential solutions for various issues in American society. Maybe it was a mistake however to open with such doom-saying however, since as I see it, current partisan methodology will likely prevent any real solution from becoming legislation anyways.
Heavy Rotation! [April 4th Edition]
Many apologies for my extended absence. Life got crazy on me and I haven’t had the time to really sit down and collect thoughts. I have a couple political seeds germinating in my brain, but for now I will simply present my current Heavy Rotation! lineup
Panda Bear – Tomboy
Anyone who knows me knows I have a strong affinity for all things Animal Collective. The swirling sampled psychedelia and the slowly drifting melodies get me every time. Panda Bear certainly has not disappointed here. While Person Pitch excelled in texture painting, it sometimes left the listener without a memorable melodic hook. Tomboy continues to develop Pitch’s chillwave fuzz but adds a more concrete songwriting technique, making the former more structured than the hypnotic latter.
tUnE-yArDs – w h o k i l l
Sometimes an artist works within an established genre and excels through the strength of his or her songwriting. However, there is the rare artist whose brain brings together a unique collection of experiences and spits out something wonderfully new. Merrill Garbus, aka tUnE-yArDs, is that type of artist. A ukulist who has spent time in East Africa and happens to be gifted with powerful alto pipes, her music is an amalgamation of who she simply is, and it is stunning. Cut-and-paste rhythms, dense multi-instrumental layering, and manic song structures all leave you with the same sense of awe at one person’s left-field creativity that you felt the first time you heard Dirty Projectors.
Lykke Li – Wounded Rhymes
The artistic music world continues to be committed to the seemingly impossible mission of pop-music reclamation. Wounded Rhymes is another wonderful example of the mission’s against-the-odds success. The Swedish songstress is a rogue scientist, altering formulas and bucking traditionally held pop assumptions in the pursuit of her creations. The result: wonderful, danceable and memorable tunes that are completely devoid of the processed flavors of Clear Channel pop-radio.
King Hearings on “radicalization of Muslims in America.”
The hearings begun by Republican Peter King have, not surprisingly, polarized the debate on homeland security. Leftists are calling foul, drawing comparisons to McCarthy’s Commie witch hunts. The problem with branding the hearings prior to the event is that what made the McCarthy hearings so reprehensible was the way they were conducted. It was, as described, a witch hunt based on shoddy evidence and with purely self-serving political aims.
Now, to be fair to critics of Rep. King, his résumé looks quite similar to McCarthy’s when one substitutes communist for radicalized Muslim. Which begs the question, if American security is the primary concern of these hearings, wouldn’t it have been wiser to appoint someone else to lead them? Of course, considering King’s constituency, there is a huge amount of political capital to be gained from appearing hard on terrorism.
In the end, appearing hard on terrorism may be the hearings’ great failure. Just as it is reasonable for Americans to be concerned about the radicalization of Christianity and how it increases the likelihood of domestic terrorism, it is reasonable to investigate any religious sub-group that promotes terrorism. The truth is, radical Christians who use the Bible to justify violence of any kind are an insult to my faith. I will do anything to foil Christians who distort my faith for violent or destructive ends.
The problem is, if I am addressed and treated as a radical first because of my faith, and a citizen only after I have proven my “loyalty,” I will inevitably become far less likely to cooperate. And that’s where these hearing become problematic. If American-Muslims are treated as suspicious first, then as citizens only after proving themselves, we lose a invaluable resource. Just as a sane Christian cannot tolerate violence against abortion clinics or homosexuals, a sane Muslim cannot abide terrorism. (Now may be a good time to point out the unavoidable irony, as Rep. King has historically supported a terrorist organization with strong ties to a particular brand of Christianity.) However, if these hearings take on the face of a witch hunt, we may actually weaken our national security. The fact is, most “homegrown” Muslim terrorists have been foiled by concerned Muslims (see Liz Halloran’s article or Jonathan Alter’s )
In the end, it is too early to judge the hearings, as we are yet to see exactly how Rep. King will conduct himself. The truth is, terrorism is a concern, and there are Islamist groups who seek to terrorize the United States. The test for King or any other group looking to improve American security is whether it can effectively isolate these groups while working to ensure that American-Muslim allies (the vast majority of Muslims) not only cooperate, but do so because they feel that their rights as American’s are being attacked by terrorists and not the United States government.
1 comment