tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398881790561472372023-11-16T05:57:44.276-05:00The End of the American CenturyDavid S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-31412797003318510512022-07-09T12:20:00.003-04:002022-07-09T12:26:47.042-04:00Trump used to read Hitler's speeches<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;">I was startled to learn in an essay in the </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;">Indianapolis Recorder </i><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;">(7/1) that Trump used to read Hitler's speeches, apparently impressed by his use of propaganda. The essay, by Dr. E Faye Williams, entitled "A clear and present danger" worries about "a fascistic takeover" of the US. For the Hitler reference, she cites a 1990 </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;">Vanity Fair</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;"> article in which Ivana Trump says that her husband occasionally read from a book of Hitler's collected speeches called "My New Order." I tracked down the article, "After the Gold Rush," (it's on the Vanity Fair site), and sure enough!</span></span></span></div><div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">I've always worried that Trump displayed many of the characteristics of both Hitler and Mussolini--ethnic nationalism, white supremacy, violence, "the big lie," and hositility to "foreigners." </div></div><div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">Furthermore, the January 6 assault on the Capitol bore striking resemblences both to Mussolini's 1922 "March on Rome" and Hitler's 1923 "Beer Hall Putsch" (which was partly modeled on and inspired by Mussolini's march.) In the former, Mussolini used fascist armed squads (known as Blackshirts) to march on the capital, intimidating the government sufficiently that they handed power over to Mussolini. Hitler's putsch was an attempt to seize power in Bavaria, using his own armed goons (Stormtroopers), after which he planned to march on Berlin. Hitler's attempt failed, he was convicted of high treason, and spent 8 months in jail. Afterwards, he decided that instead of a violent overthrow of the Weimar Republic, he would manipulate the political system to achieve power--which he finally did in 1933.</div></div><div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">The parallels to January 6 are scary.</div></div><div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">Dr. Williams frets too about Trump following these patterns "If the functions of our government can be distorted to reflect the will of a malignant minority rather than the will of the majority."</div></div>David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-91055292134688812612020-01-03T14:41:00.000-05:002020-01-10T11:31:38.226-05:00Positives from the Past Decade?Steve Chapman, a columnist for the <i>Chicago Tribune</i>, cited my book in a 12/27 column entitled "<a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/steve-chapman/ct-column-decade-2010s-good-things-chapman-20191227-umy45xwi5fel7eagkremqg266y-story.html">Remember the good things that happened in America in the past decade.</a>" He used a quotation from <i>The End of the American Century</i>, published in 2009, to compare the end of the present decade to the end of the previous one.<br />
<br />
He recognizes the many problems we still face, not least of them due to the "poisonous presidency" of Donald Trump, but points to the many good things that have happened in the ten years since my book was published. Among these are the continued growth of the U.S. economy; the scaling back of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; the expansion of LGBTQ rights; and the Obama accomplishments on childhood immigrants; health care; and torture.<br />
<br />
What most resonates in Chapman's argument, though, is this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 18px;">Trump has done immeasurable harm on all sorts of matters. But he has also created a powerful backlash that has manifested itself in annual women’s marches, renewed awareness of the persistence of racism, and public support for modest gun regulations, climate change legislation, immigration reform, the Affordable Care Act — and </span><a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-us-house-trump-impeachment-vote-20191218-bevq3wzbtbeipiemx54kwylfgi-story.html" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #004e87; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; line-height: 18px;" target="_blank">his impeachment</a><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 18px;">.</span></span></blockquote>
Ironically, then, the main contribution of the Trump presidency to this past decade is to generate resistance to the very awfulness of it. This upsurge in political involvement is indeed a positive development, especially if it can persist through the removal of this insidious president.<br />
<br />
But this positive growth of political participation is offset by Trump's persistent efforts to undermine democratic institutions and procedures. He has pushed to restrict the franchise in many states; manipulated and threatened our independent judiciary and legal processes; badgered and threatened his political opponents; eviscerated the governmental institutions that might provide a check on his abuse of power; and has solicited foreign interference in the U.S. electoral process. He expresses admiration for foreign dictators as brutal and ruthless as those we have fought against in the past.<br />
<br />
In chapter 5 of my book ("Ailing of American Democracy"), I document the increasing apathy, indifference and political ignorance of the American electorate, and the growing influence of money in politics. I raise the possibility of the U.S. "becoming like our enemies." Trump is leading us in that direction.<br />
<br />
While I appreciate Chapman's efforts to see the bright side of the last ten years, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate just how much Trump has revived the downward spiral of the U.S. that I documented in <i>The End of the American Century</i>. Middle class wages have barely budged since the 1970s. Inequality, already high ten years ago, has rocketed upward since then. We have not yet solved the problems of expensive health care and violent crime--both unique to the U.S. among developed countries. Our educational system is among the worst among rich countries. No president, even George W. Bush, has undermined science as much as the current one, even as the existential threat of climate change becomes more obvious by the day. Global opinion of the U.S. is even lower than it was under Bush, which then was at a postwar nadir. And no president in history has so deliberately attempted to hollow out our governmental institutions and undermine our democratic principles and processes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-49456498611546070422018-07-30T16:21:00.000-04:002018-07-30T16:21:26.251-04:00Letter to Trump Supporters, Reconsidered. Better to mobilize the non-votersI composed the open letter (below) a few weeks ago, and sent it to my daughters--both smart, professional mothers and admirably part of the #MeToo Movement. Both thought it would not have much impact on actual Trump supporters, and instead suggested reaching out to the far more numerous NON-voters. One sent me this pie-chart, which is both funny and sad:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-EXvVl5K5P2uXETpaP4gwyO4NiOJ0Fg62-NIJc5is2jf2ZfHHDEf1RfodYSzqVbdB6HUy7tqpOkR24J5BZPV6wkXQGPxf8lTuYiMOVSDu66vVjK1Pr_7KUv4t0wjNLxosTRBuRLWcX5M/s1600/pie+chart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="432" data-original-width="432" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-EXvVl5K5P2uXETpaP4gwyO4NiOJ0Fg62-NIJc5is2jf2ZfHHDEf1RfodYSzqVbdB6HUy7tqpOkR24J5BZPV6wkXQGPxf8lTuYiMOVSDu66vVjK1Pr_7KUv4t0wjNLxosTRBuRLWcX5M/s200/pie+chart.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In my state of Indiana, only<span style="color: red;"> 28%</span> of the eligible population voted in the 2014 midterm elections--the lowest turnout of any of the 50 states! So I agree: no use trying to win over the Trump supporters, who seem unmovable. Rather, get out the vote among non-voters, and especially young people, women, and minorities.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Below is the unsent letter.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
----------------------------------</div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #212121; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Dear Fellow Americans, who
support Donald <span id="0.9880280405079505" name="searchHitInReadingPane"><span class="highlight"><span style="background: #FFEE94;">Trump</span></span></span>,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; min-height: 13.1px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #212121; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">You and I
probably have little in common, except for our love for country. I expect
you feel neglected, marginalized, fearsome. I do not feel any of those
sentiments, though I understand them. I am a retired professor, and I am
comfortable, secure, safe, and happy among my family and friends. You
probably worry about your future, your job, your retirement, your kid’s
future. I don’t worry about those things so much for my family, but I do
about yours.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; min-height: 13.1px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #212121; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What we do <i>not </i>have in common is our support for
Donald <span id="0.880971508231229" name="searchHitInReadingPane"><span class="highlight"><span style="background: #FFEE94;">Trump</span></span></span>.
I understand, to an extent, why you voted for him and support him still.
He railed against the political and economic elites, and you supported him in
that. I shared those sentiments too. The rich are too rich, and they have
rigged the system for themselves. Government is dominated by special
interests, with unprecedented numbers of lobbies in Washington, and practically
unlimited flow of funds from special interests to politicians.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; min-height: 13.1px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #212121; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">But <span id="0.6488993468117796" name="searchHitInReadingPane"><span class="highlight"><span style="background: #FFEE94;">Trump</span></span></span> is not the one to
solve these problems. Indeed, he is a manifestation of them: a
billionaire who has made his money by gaming the system, intimidating his
lessers (as he sees them), and feathering his own nest. Never in his
life before the presidency did he promote the public good or support those less
advantaged than he is. His only charitable foundation was meant mostly as
a tax dodge, and did almost nothing to support any deserving group or
organization.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; min-height: 13.1px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #212121; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Most of our
politicians and public officials have at least some measure of concern for the
public good, and almost all of them exhibit some public virtues. <span id="0.8901088406605306" name="searchHitInReadingPane"><span class="highlight"><span style="background: #FFEE94;">Trump</span></span></span> has none. It
is hard to come up with a single human or American virtue that he
exhibits. He is vane, egocentric, rude, abusive, unfaithful. He is
a bully, an adulterer, an atheist. He demeans women, minorities, the poor
and the weak. He insults our friends and allies, and praises dictators and
demagogues. He belittles education, science, nature. He even seems
dismissive of democracy and the rule of law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; min-height: 13.1px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #212121; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">We need
someone who will transform the system, both domestic and international, and
make it more responsive to ordinary people. But <span id="0.35549973318057804" name="searchHitInReadingPane"><span class="highlight"><span style="background: #FFEE94;">Trump</span></span></span> is
not the one to do this. Indeed, he is a huge threat to the gains this
country has already made on behalf of ordinary citizens, including especially
working men and women.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; min-height: 13.1px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #212121; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nothing
much gets done in a society without power. The great idea of democracy is
that it vests power in the people. But there are many competing sources
of power in society. For a long time, in human history, it was the church
or monarchies that exercised such power. Since the 18th century, the
major sources of power have been governments and corporations.
Governments controlled by the people—democracies—are meant to be the main
repository of power and the main counterbalance to corporate power. If
democratic governments are weakened, corporations become more powerful.
And corporations are subject to no democratic control apart from government.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; min-height: 13.1px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #212121; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So, when
Donald <span id="0.35717739043767605" name="searchHitInReadingPane"><span class="highlight"><span style="background: #FFEE94;">Trump</span></span></span> aims
to eviscerate government, he is weakening democracy—the power of the
people. Weakening democratic government strengthens corporate
power. This is a tremendous advantage to people like Donald <span id="0.8831033843649136" name="searchHitInReadingPane"><span class="highlight"><span style="background: #FFEE94;">Trump</span></span></span>. It doesn’t much
help people like you and me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; min-height: 13.1px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #212121; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The answer
is not to weaken government, but to make it more democratic, and more
responsive. It is true, and eminently demonstrable, that American
society has recently become more unequal and less democratic. The answer
is not Donald<span id="0.29942586567026797" name="searchHitInReadingPane"> <span class="highlight"><span style="background: #FFEE94;">Trump</span></span></span>,
but a reinvigoration of true American values—of freedom, equality, fairness, community,
respect and genuine representative government.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-51019167854066964882018-04-08T22:29:00.002-04:002018-04-08T22:29:39.377-04:00When Madeleine Albright says fascism is a threat in the U.S., we should listenFormer Secretary of State Madeleine Albright published this article in today's New York Times:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/opinion/sunday/trump-fascism-madeleine-albright.html">Fascism on the March</a><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Among her quotes from this article:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
"fascism...poses a more serious threat now that at any time since the end of World War II"</div>
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px;">
"the possibility that fascism will be accorded a fresh chance to strut around the world stage is enhanced by the volatile presidency of Donald Trump."</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Trump's "words are so often at odds with the truth that they can appear ignorant, yet are in fact calculated to exacerbate religious, social and racial divisions."</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Me: this is the stuff of 1930s fascism. When Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany, his associates thought they could control and limit him. They were wrong then. Are we facing the same situation now?</div>
</div>
David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-2419655453048208202017-03-20T10:49:00.000-04:002017-03-20T10:49:13.546-04:00The Real Mexico
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
I was sitting in
the back of Santa Lucia church, in M<span style="margin: 0px;">é</span>rida,
Mexico, waiting for the mass to finish so I could meet my wife and head to a
nice brunch at La Chaya Maya.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The
priest, vested in green, wandered down the aisle, came up to great me, and
asked where I was from. After a few pleasantries he asked “so what about this
Trump?”<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>I expressed my dismay and
embarrassment about this president who has spoken so crudely and rudely about
Mexicans.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>“But it is the interaction of
ordinary people that is most important,” responded the padre, and he gave me a
reassuring pat on the arm.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
We were in M<span style="margin: 0px;">é</span>rida for the month of
January, missing the grey chill of Indiana’s winter but also the inauguration,
the women’s march, and the steady stream of stupefying comments and actions by
the new American president. Not surprisingly, all of this attracted much
attention in Mexico, both in the mass media and in the streets.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This was particularly the case with Trump’s
very undiplomatic phone call with the Mexican president, Enrique Pe<span style="margin: 0px;">ñ</span>a Nieto (when he
threatened—or joked?—that the U.S. might have to send troops to Mexico to deal
with the “bad hombres” there); the President’s continuing demands that Mexico
should pay for the wall; his threat to dismantle the North American Free Trade
Agreement; and his ban on refugees.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
Of course, none of
this went down well with Mexicans.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The
press was full of articles dismissing or ridiculing the President and his
policies.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Pe<span style="margin: 0px;">ñ</span>a Nieto, who’s own approval ratings in Mexico are
only at about twenty percent, saw a surge in his popularity after he cancelled
his visit to Washington and spoke up for Mexico’s “dignity” and “sovereignty.” In
M<span style="margin: 0px;">é</span>rida, where we
had seen weekly protest marches against the recent increase in gasoline prices,
now the marches often included anti-Trump banners and speeches as well.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
My wife and I
worried a bit that some of this anti-U.S. sentiment would spill over onto us,
but it did not in the least.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Mexicans
always treated us with kindness and respect and, with the exception of the
priest, did not even raise the issue of Trump unless we did first.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Even then, they were uniformly restrained in
their criticism, at least with us, reflecting a kind of politeness and civility
that has been entirely missing in the rhetoric of our new president.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>At one point, when I was waiting in a bus station,
and Trump appeared on the television there, bombastic as usual, I rolled my
eyes in embarrassment.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>A Mexican man
sitting nearby exchanged glances; I said “lo siento” (I’m sorry).<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>“No se preocupe,” he responded—don’t worry. I
wonder how Americans would have responded to Mexicans if their president were
publicly insulting and threatening the U.S.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
During the
campaign, candidate Trump castigated Mexicans for being “rapists” and
criminals, though he conceded that “some” might be good people. <span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Indeed, in the hateful and fearful climate of
the U.S. this year, more than one person expressed concern about our safety in
travelling to Mexico.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>But our experience
in M<span style="margin: 0px;">é</span>rida (with
over one million residents) was a city that was peaceful and “tranquil” (a word
often used by locals) and even joyful.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>On Sunday mornings, the city center is closed off to traffic, so people
can bicycle and skate in a circular route.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Whole families rent bikes and pedal around for hours.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In the evening, with the main streets still
closed, restaurants move their tables out into the streets, street musicians
play, and bands play in the public squares and parks while people (including a
lot of old folks) dance on stages set up for the purpose.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>People interact with each other, in
community, in ways that seem to have disappeared in most of the U.S.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
As to the
violence:<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>there was not a single
homicide in M<span style="margin: 0px;">é</span>rida
during January, while in our hometown of Indianapolis, every few days there was
a report of yet another murder.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We both
felt safer in M<span style="margin: 0px;">é</span>rida
at night than we would in Indianapolis. Statistical comparisons (e.g. the web
site Numbeo), bear this out: overall crime rates in Indianapolis are “high” and
those in M<span style="margin: 0px;">é</span>rida
“very low.”</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
Mexico is our
neighbor, and one of this country’s oldest and closest friends.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>After China and Canada, it is our largest
trade partner. <span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Over 30 million Hispanics
of Mexican origin live in the U.S.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Some
25 million Americans visit Mexico each year and about a million live
there.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Mexican immigrants to the U.S.
have contributed enormously to our economy and our culture.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The U.S. should embrace this relationship and
foster it.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>At the moment, Washington,
and especially our President, is poisoning it.</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-48335663626924503032017-03-20T10:47:00.000-04:002017-03-20T10:47:00.803-04:00Hidden Figures, Blind Bias
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px;">
After seeing the film “Hidden
Figures,” my 9-year-old granddaughter Katie sent me an enthusiastic voice message,
and then asked me a question that took me aback: “Did you ever see a Colored
water fountain?” </div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>I grew up in Virginia in the 1950s, so
intellectually I know there were segregated water fountains in those days.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>But I could not actually remember seeing one.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>How could this be?<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>I think the answer is that such things were
such a normal part of the environment in the segregated south that they weren’t
considered anything special.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Segregation, racism, bigotry and bias were the norm, and one doesn’t
take much notice of things that are normal and routine.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>About
10 years ago, another film sparked a similar epiphany in me. “Remember the
Titans” (2000) recounts the true story of an African-American football coach trying
to integrate the team at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria Virginia in
1971.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Watching this film, I was stunned
and incredulous. <span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>I graduated from McLean
High School, just a few miles from Alexandria, in 1965.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Wasn’t McLean High School integrated by then,
I asked myself?<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>After all, I started high school seven years <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">after </i>the landmark 1954 Supreme Court
decision (Brown vs. Board of Education) that required the desegregation of
public schools in the United States.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>I
knew all this intellectually.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>As a
professor of political science, I knew my constitutional history.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>While
watching “Remember the Titans,” I racked my brain trying to think of
African-Americans who must have been my high school classmates.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>I couldn’t think of one.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>I called my sister, who graduated from the
same high school four years later.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>She
thought there might have been one or two African-Americans when she was there.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We finally resorted to our accumulated high
school yearbooks, scanning for darker faces.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>I didn’t find a single one in any of my four yearbooks.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>My sister finally found one, a girl, in
hers.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>It
finally occurred to me, 35 years after the fact, that I had attended an
all-white, segregated high school.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>But I
had not realized it at the time.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>White
was normal, so what was there to notice?<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Segregation and racism was the norm, and therefore unexceptional and
unmemorable.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In
the aftermath of this stunning revelation, I began to read about the history of
school desegregation, and learned about the campaign of “massive resistance” to
the Brown vs. Board decision that was led by U.S. Senator Harry Byrd of
Virginia. <span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The state, and most of the
schools in the state, simply refused to implement federal law, and this went on
in some school districts for more than a decade after the Brown decision. <span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This controversy had apparently been swirling
around me when I was in high school, but I was oblivious to it.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Too many other things going on in the world
and my life:<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>the Vietnam war, pimples,
the Kennedy assassination, all-state marching band, the Cuban Missile Crisis,
junior prom.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The
philosopher Hannah Arendt coined the phrase “the banality of evil” in a 1963 book
about <span style="color: #222222; line-height: 200%; margin: 0px;">Adolph
Eichmann, a top administrator of the Nazi death camps.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The phrase captures how easy it is for evil
to become routine, even banal.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The
Holocaust may have been one of the most extreme and horrific examples of this,
but we have seen it in this country too with the massacres of Native Americans;
the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II; the Jim Crow laws and
segregation in the south; and with continuing manifestations of bigotry,
racism, and intolerance, even coming from our top political leaders. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: #222222; line-height: 200%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Perhaps the teenage me could be forgiven for
not noticing the evil of segregation, and the underlying racism and prejudice,
in my own environment.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>As adults, we
have no such excuse.</span></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-74191059083732906212017-02-28T16:40:00.000-05:002017-02-28T16:40:04.457-05:00Good Riddance to the American CenturyMy book “The End of the American Century” appeared in
2009.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>There I argued that the
combination of domestic decline and global change had put an end to the era of
U.S. global dominance, and that American citizens would have to come to terms
with a flattening standard of living and reduced global influence.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This was not necessarily a bad thing, either
for the United States or for the rest of the world. <br />
I finished writing the book during 2008, just as Barack
Obama was mounting his stunning rise to the presidency.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>For the paperbound edition of the book, which
appeared just after the election, I added an epilogue called “Reality and Hope
in the Obama Era,” where I offered some hope that the new president could
temper some of the problems I had raised.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>But I also cautioned that America’s problems (for example with education,
violence, debt, inequality) were so deep-seated, and the global changes so
persistent (e.g. globalization of production, rise of new powers, climate
change) that his options would be limited.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
President Obama, I believe, recognized all of these problems,
and tried his best to redress or adapt to them. He rescued an economy in
freefall; got us moving on climate change; passed milestone legislation on
health care; and restored America’s battered international reputation, winning
the Nobel Peace Prize in the process.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>He
was on track in adapting to the end of the American Century. </div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Now we have a President who is intent on returning to that
era of American superiority and dominance.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Indeed, Trump rode to power by demagoguing many of the issues of U.S.
decline that I had documented in my book: the stagnating incomes of the middle
class; the decline of manufacturing; the continuing prevalence of violence;
declining trust and confidence in government; the high cost of medical care;
and infrastructure decay.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span> </div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Trump knew which buttons to push, but he had no idea how to
deal with any of these problems.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>He
promised to “make America great again” without having any notion of what that
might entail.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>His vision was to go
backwards, not forward.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In a world so
rapidly changing, this is no solution at all.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>America needs to adapt to change—embrace it, even—and not reject it, as
Trump seems to want to do.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>His
presidency is a dead end. </div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Any progress this country made during the Obama years is
quickly being rolled back and reversed in the first months of the Trump
presidency.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The most pressing and
damaging problems I discussed—debt, inequality, and climate change—are all
likely to worsen under a Trump administration. </div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
We can not go back to the American Century (which really
lasted only about half a century anyway), nor should we.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>That era was bred of specific historical,
economic and international circumstances.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>We are in a different era now, both domestically and
internationally.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The U.S. can not and
should not dominate the world as we once did.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>To think and act otherwise is to court disaster in a globalized and
interdependent world.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We should bid
adieu to the American Century, and move forward.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-78957451198780635892016-11-18T20:46:00.001-05:002016-11-18T20:46:41.181-05:00Seven Reasons Not To Despair (too much) about a Trump Presidency<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1. The institution
shapes the person. The Presidency is,
literally, an awesome institution, as is the White House. It will shape and temper Trump, as we saw
already with his deferential and respectful meeting with the President there.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2. Governing, unlike
running a business, requires compromise.
Truman famously said of Eisenhower winning the presidency: "he'll
sit here, and He'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike--it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating." The same will be true for Trump, a business
executive who, to say the least, is not experienced at compromise.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
3. Bureaucracies,
made up mostly of career civil servants, are slow-moving things, and can often
stymie chief executives. Even during the
Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK complained about how slowly things moved in the State
and Defense Departments. It will be
difficult for Trump to do much of anything quickly.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
4. The Presidency is
a tough job and a lot of work.
Presidents are presented with thick daily briefing binders every
day. Trump does not like to read.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
5. Besides all of
these other annoyances, Trump is likely to be bedeviled by numerous legal
issues, unlike any past President. There
are some 75 lawsuits pending against him right now, and he has been involved in
some 3500 over the course of his career.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
6. Trump has already
achieved his principal goal--which was simply to win. He has never in his life ever exhibited any
interest in helping other people:
indeed, he did not contribute any of his own money even to his own
charitable foundation, which was used mostly as a tax dodge. So what more does he have to prove, now that
he has won the biggest prize in the world?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
7. Managing the
Presidency will be frustrating for Trump, a man who is impetuous,
temperamental, imperious, and self centered.
My guess is that he will not last four years in the White House. Either he will resign in frustration, turn
over the management of the Presidency to Mike Pence, or be impeached.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
So take heart, Democrats!
Maybe all is not lost!</div>
David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-28666242638281327402016-09-10T11:55:00.000-04:002016-09-10T11:55:15.557-04:00The Age of UncertaintyThese are unsettling times.
Lately we have been witness to a continuing carnival of a presidential
election, a series of horrific terrorist attacks and massacres both here and
abroad, plus the British Brexit vote. People here, and in other countries, are
unsettled and uncertain. Indeed, the
world is unsettled and uncertain. In
this country, the appeal of Donald Trump is baffling in many ways, but it is
also understandable, given the wrenching changes underway in people's lives,
and in the world, and the fear and uncertainty that this occasions. This kind
of disruption, fear and uncertainty often leads people to seek simple
solutions, scapegoats and demagogues.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The reasons behind all this uncertainty are the large-scale
shifts in the world, and in the U.S. role in the world. I call these "systemic changes" and
I want to focus on the two most important ones: first, the decline of the United States as the
single dominant and determining global power; and second, the rise of
transnational forces and threats that diminish the autonomy and power of ALL
nation states, including the U.S. We are
no longer in control of events, either in our own back yard, or on the global
stage, and this is discomfiting. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First let me address the issue of the change of the U.S.
role in the world. Eight years ago, I
wrote a book called "The End of the American Century" which addressed
this phenomenon. "The American
Century," basically the second half of the 20th century was one of
unprecedented global dominance by a single country, the United States. This was evident in almost every sphere:
politics, economics, the military, ideology, and culture. The Soviet Union, our only real rival during
that time, was strong militarily but not in any other respect. Its standard of living by most measures was
about a tenth of that in the U.S., something I can attest to from living in
that country briefly in the 1970s</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even in the long course of history, it is rare to find
countries or empires that so dominated the world: one thinks only of the Roman
Empire or, maybe, the British Empire.
But all empires fade eventually.
Italy and Britain may be very pleasant places to live (and visit!) right
now, but they are not the dominant powers they once were. Something similar is happening to the United
States. This is not necessarily a bad
thing, but it contributes to uncertainty.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For the U.S., it is not so much that we have suffered
absolute decline, but rather have declined relative to other forces and
countries. The U.S still has the
strongest military, the biggest economy, and the most durable and resilient
political system. But we no longer
dominate the world as we did during the American Century. China, for example, has experienced fabulous
economic growth in recent decades, and is increasingly asserting itself on the
global stage. Europe, by combining, sort
of, into the European Union has created an economic powerhouse, larger than the
American one. Neither China nor the EU
is much of a military power just yet, but increasingly it seems that military
power is not as useful and determinate as it once was. Plus, as I will discuss below, there are transnational forces that also cut
into America's ability to shape the world.
So for Americans used to being #1, this relative decline can be
unsettling, and speaks to the appeal of Trump's "America First"
slogan.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So the relative decline of the U.S. in the global arena is
the first major dimension of systemic change.
The other is the rise of transnationalism. By transnational, I mean problems, forces, movements
or institutions that transcend national boundaries, making them difficult for
national governments to deal with. These are proliferating in the modern world,
but I will highlight those that have contributed especially to this age of
uncertainty: globalization of the
economy; terrorism; and climate change.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Perhaps none of these merit my attention, since they've been
so much in the news, and in the current electoral campaign. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders
complained about the maverick status of multinational corporations. As transnational institutions, these can
easily shift operations from one country to another in search of cheaper labor
or supplies, while remaining relatively immune from the regulations or taxation
of government in any particular country.
Of course, a globalized economy does have its benefits, in terms of more
efficient production and cheaper and more abundant consumer goods. But it also hurts those workers who get left
behind. This is particularly true in
manufacturing, which has faced a double whammy of automation and globalization,
causing jobs in manufacturing to plunge from 28% of all jobs in 1970 to less
than 10% today. The problem is not going
to go away. The shrinking of
manufacturing employment is global--not just in the U.S.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Globalization, automation and the decline of manufacturing
have contributed to a stagnation of real earnings in the U.S. For the average American family, household
income is $4,000 less than it was 15 years ago.
Meanwhile economic inequality has grown much worse, with the top 1
percent of American households taking in more than half of the recent gains in
income growth. Income and wealth inequality in the United States is now the
highest it has been since before the Great Depression of the 1930s, as Bernie
Sanders kept reminding us during his own run for the presidency. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This issue is particularly egregious at the very top of the
income scale. In the 1950s, big-company
CEOs earned about fifty times the pay of an average worker. Even then, that ratio was very high compared
to other countries. But since then, CEO
pay in the U.S. has skyrocketed compared to average salaries. By 1990, average CEO pay was 100 times the
average worker's salary. By 2000, it was
more than 500 times. In Germany, that
ratio was only 11 to 1; and in the United Kingdom, 25 to 1.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So it is not surprising that so many people are fearful and
angry. Even though the economy is
growing, they are being left behind. The
dislocations caused by globalization though, can only be addressed by
collective action, and that requires action by government, and cooperation
among national governments. A weak and
ineffective government is no match for the power of large multinational
corporations.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Terrorism is another transnational force that has frightened
and destabilized us. It often seems that
governments are helpless in the face of this enemy, which is not located in any
one region, supported by any particular country, or subject to any conventional
norms of morality. Social media,
another transnational force, facilitates the organization, recruitment and
concealment of terrorist groups. Against
transnational terrorists, particularly the fundamentalist brand, deterrence and
threats are useless, and even conventional military force is only haphazardly
effective. America's vaunted military,
the most awesome in the history of the world, is not by itself able to
eliminate transnational terrorism. This
too causes fear and uncertainty, and a sense of powerlessness. But, like the forces of globalization, the
solution requires global action and cooperation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Climate change, another transnational phenomenon, is even
more threatening and dangerous than globalization and terrorism, though more
baffling because of its inherent invisibility.
Even though the evidence for climate change is overwhelming and
irrefutable, most people don't actually see it or experience it. So they are open to the blandishments of
politicians and the fossil fuel industry who prey on their ignorance and fears
in claiming it does not exist. And this contributes
to our national sense of unease and uncertainty, since we are not sure what to
believe and whom to trust. Climate
change, however, is literally a life-and-death issue that requires strong
government action, national sacrifice and global cooperation. All of these are difficult to imagine in the
current political climate in the United States.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These transnational phenomena--globalization, terrorism and
climate change-- all threaten the American way of life, and they are devilishly
resistant to resolution in the way we have solved problems in the past. Throwing money at them won't work. Military power is either irrelevant or
ineffectual. Things have changed since
The American Century when our country was, it seemed, both dominant and in
control of our fate. In both the
domestic sphere and the international one, things are not like they used to
be. Thus appear opportunistic
politicians who promise to roll back the clock, or to "make America great
again."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, America's greatness was never achieved by going
back to the past, but rather by finding solutions to new problems, while
holding fast to the values that unite us.
These include industry, innovation and individualism, but also
compassion, tolerance, and civility. The
U.S. has survived through civil war, world wars, depressions, civil unrest and
terrorism. And we remain the world's
oldest and most successful democracy; even if we do not brandish the power and
influence we had during the Cold War years. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But we have created a kind of paradox of political life: at
a time when we are in desperate need of effective government to address
important domestic and international issues, government is increasingly unable
to act. Democratic government is not often consensual, but it does, by its very
nature, require compromise. But in
American politics, we have one candidate calling for a "political
revolution" and another, a billionaire cloaked as a populist, calling for
a return to the past and playing on people's fears, angers, and prejudice. The polarization of American politics has
made compromise almost unattainable, and in the process has practically
paralyzed the operations of government.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, this simply adds to people's frustration with
politics and government, which accounts for polls showing record low levels of
trust in the federal government. This is
not a happy situation for a system of government that is supposed to be based
on popular will. And it contributes to
the turmoil, alienation, and uncertainty.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Keeping this democracy alive is, in my mind, the single
biggest challenge we face at the moment and the key to addressing the systemic
transformations we are facing. In the
current political environment, the bedrock principles of democracy--compromise,
tolerance, participation, inclusion--are under threat. There is a disturbing growth of
authoritarianism in American political culture, with 44% of non-college grads
(in 2011) approving of "having a strong leader who doesn't have to bother
with Congress or elections."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The growing authoritarianism in the U.S. may be disturbing,
but it is not terribly surprising. Times
of systemic change, fear and uncertainty, especially combined with economic
downturn, often foster the emergence of demagogic politicians, and even
dictators. It is also understandable why
so many Americans are lashing out at the whole system, given the vast gulf
between rich and poor, the continuing pernicious impact of money in politics,
and the seeming paralysis of government.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The solution is not to reject the system, but to improve
it. As Winston Churchill famously
quipped: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the
others." And democracy is uniquely
suited to dealing with problems that are so complex and disruptive, because it
demands participation, inclusion, compromise, respect for minorities, and due
process. The problems we are facing are
unprecedented, in my view, and signal a systemic shift in U.S. politics and
international relations. The U.S. will
not be "great" in the way we were before, but it remains the most
important and admired country in the world, and it's involvement in global
politics is indispensible.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(Based on a talk I gave at a Kiwanis Club 8/30/16)</div>
David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-81152808444852251962012-09-27T10:26:00.001-04:002012-11-03T07:31:28.456-04:00Economic Inequality Put an End to the American CenturyThe biggest impediment to U.S recovery is economic inequality. This is the central argument in my article "The U.S. No Longer Makes the Grade: Economic Inequality Put an End to the 'American Century"" in the <i>Phi Kappa Phi Forum<i>,</i></i> vol. 92, No. 3. This article is available at Butler's "Digital Commons" site by clicking<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_mason/54/"> here.</a> The footnotes for the article are temporarily available at the <i>Forum's </i>website at <a href="http://phikappaphi.org/forum/fall2012/mason/index.html">this link</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.phikappaphi.org/forum/fall2012/mason/index.html"></a>.<br />
<br />
Correction: There is an important typo on page 7, column 1, 2nd paragraph. The sentence there should read as follows:<br />
<br />
"A recent global study by the International Monetary Fund, for example, found that countries with strong economic growth tended to have greater income <b>equality </b>than those with weak growth...."<br />
<br />
Comments and (civil!) discourse on this piece are welcome.David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-91059925526803903152012-04-14T16:33:00.003-04:002012-04-14T16:47:55.052-04:00The Startling Growth of Inequality<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj93wohLcDu-g2Q-gc2tGaexbevFfmvjLgCU1VD_nX60BThMGIZdHkTOquKnrlBy3jsvhoK7D8FDe5EkGQoSsyeiilHAAHqMh56nwIu293-vJdYHNEddqqJ0AuAZFz7f3MI9Q8IYb_i-rs/s1600/26rattner-graphic-popup.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 152px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj93wohLcDu-g2Q-gc2tGaexbevFfmvjLgCU1VD_nX60BThMGIZdHkTOquKnrlBy3jsvhoK7D8FDe5EkGQoSsyeiilHAAHqMh56nwIu293-vJdYHNEddqqJ0AuAZFz7f3MI9Q8IYb_i-rs/s200/26rattner-graphic-popup.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5731359395136975410" /></a><br />In <span style="font-style:italic;">The End of the American Century</span>, first published in 2008, I called attention to the disturbing growth of economic inequality in the U.S., to levels (even then) unprecedented since the Great Depression of the 1920s. But since 2008, in the midst of the "Great Recession," the situation has gotten even worse. A recent (3/25) <span style="font-style:italic;">New York Times</span> op-ed by Steven Rattner, "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html?scp=1&sq=the%20rich%20get%20even%20richer&st=cse">The Rich Get Even Richer</a>," notes that in 2010 (during the supposed economic recovery), <span style="font-weight:bold;">"the top 1 percent took in 93 percent of the additional income"</span> generated that year. A graphic linked to that article on line shows the pattern.<br /><br />In a forthcoming article I have written which reflects on the themes of <span style="font-style:italic;">The End of the American Century,</span> four years on, I contend that the unprecedented growth of economic inequality in the U.S. is the single biggest issue preventing the recovery of the United States--and in many ways the root cause of the many problems facing the U.S. in these difficult times.David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-58310304627729059452011-10-24T11:33:00.006-04:002011-10-24T11:54:38.549-04:00"Occupy Wall Street" Interpreted for ChinaToday's issue of <span style="font-style:italic;">Wen Hui Daily</span> in Shanghai includes a long interview with me on the Occupy Wall Street movement. The editors approached me on this topic because of the Chinese publication of my book <span style="font-style:italic;">The End of the American Century</span>. The interview is interesting as much for the nature of their questions as for my own responses (though the latter did tie in very closely to important themes in my book). <br /><br />Almost all of my responses seem to have been translated verbatim. However, the editors did exclude two items:<br /><br />1) My reference (in answer "A3") to the 1980 Solidarity movement and the overthrow of the communist government in Poland.<br /><br />2) The last question (16) and answer, which addressed Obama's commitment to social justice and a reference to Martin Luther King's statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”<br /><br />A link to the original Chinese publication is <a href="http://wenhui.news365.com.cn/ftl/201110/t20111024_3162842.htm">here</a>.<br /><br /> My original English language responses to their questions appears below.<br /><br />--------------------------------<br /><br />Q1:The Occupy Wall Street movement is an event of global political life and social life. How to define this campaign? Is it a carnival, as Zizek worried about? or a media show? or a social movement to fight against financial oligopolies and to protest injustice? <br /><br />A1. Occupy Wall Street is difficult to define because at this stage it is so amorphous, decentralized, and unfocussed. I would say it is an incipient social movement that captures a widespread sentiment in the United States against inequality and corporate greed, excess and corruption. Like many social movements, it has started out small, but has grown quickly, in terms of number, diversity of participants, and geographic scope. What started in New York has now spread to many US cities, and even to other countries.<br /><br />But it would be a mistake to view these protests as a major political force, at least at this point. The protestors in New York number only about 1000 on any given day. On most days the Wall Street protests do not even make the front page of the daily newspaper in my city of Indianapolis. <br /><br />You asked about Slavoj Zizek—the Slovenian Marxist philosopher who joined the protesters this week. But he is almost completely unknown in the United States, except perhaps by a relatively few intellectuals. His appearance at the Wall Street protests was not mentioned in most American news reports. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I do believe that Occupy Wall Street is potentially very important in the U.S. It is focusing attention on inequality—a problem that has gotten very little attention in this country, but is, in my mind, at the heart of the serious economic, social and political problems the U.S. is now encountering. Wealth and income inequality in the U.S. are at the highest levels in 70 years—since the Great Depression—and are higher than in any other industrialized democratic state.<br /><br />Q2. Some people think that liberalism in the pursuit of efficiency and profit has dominated the world for more than half a century, and the hands of the history should go to the side of fairness and justice. Do you agree with this? Will this movement really bring new social imagination to the world? <br /><br />A2. I agree that neo-liberalism has dominated the world for more than half a century, but this is because the United States has been the dominant global power in that period, and the U.S. has demonstrated, exhibited and promoted this model of economic and political development. And it cannot be denied that the American model of capitalism and democracy has been both broadly appealing around the world, and highly successful in many parts of it. The fifty years following World War II were ones of unprecedented growth in global wealth and welfare—much of that fueled by the astounding growth of the economy, consumption, and prosperity in the United States.<br /><br />But there was a dark underside to that economic growth, which became increasingly evident and problematic in the 1970s, and has accelerated since then. Increasing prosperity in the United States camouflaged a widening rich-poor gap in this country, and globally. Excessive consumption led to a proliferation of debt, both by governments and households. In the pursuit of profits and consumer goods, we increasingly neglected social goods: education, health care, infrastructure, and the environment. All of these are in serious difficulties now.<br /><br />So in a sense, it is now time to right the balance, and to put more emphasis on fairness, justice and equality. These have always been central to the American ideal, and the American Dream, but have taken a back seat in recent years. I believe this is one of the principal concerns animating the Occupy Wall Street Movement.<br /><br />Q3. We noticed that many people compare this movement to the events of 1968. But obviously, the Occupy Wall Street movement lacks clear leadership, lacks clear political pursuit, and also lacks a schedule, and a particular solution. Will all of these weaken its real strength?<br /><br />A3. There are some similarities of the current movement with those of 1968 which, like the Wall Street protest, began mostly with young people. Comparisons could also be made to the recent Tahrir Square protests in Egypt; civil rights protests in the American South in the 1950s and 1960s; and the “velvet revolutions” in Eastern Europe in 1989. I think there are also intriguing similarities to the 1980 strikes in Poland, which quickly mushroomed into the “Solidarity” movement which came to topple the communist government in that country in 1989. (One of my own research specialties is Poland, where I spent much time in the 1980s).<br /><br />It is true that the lack of leadership, focus and specific demands of the Wall Street movement diminishes its potential impact and power. Maybe these will cause it to collapse. But many of these other social movements mentioned above were also essentially leaderless, at least at first. The demands of some of them—including the student movements of the 1960s, and the Tahrir Square demonstrations—were quite diffuse and general. But all of those earlier movements, like this one, touched a nerve in the broader society, and in the end made significant, even revolutionary, changes in society.<br /><br />Q4. The two political parties hold different attitudes towards the movement. On the Democratic side many people have shown understanding and sympathy towards the movement. The Republicans are opposite, saying the demonstration was "a battle with the wrong goal". So will these different attitudes lead the protests to be used by different political forces in different ways? <br /><br />A4. It is true that the Wall Street Movement has been embraced by most Democratic politicians and pundits, and rejected or ridiculed by most Republican ones. However, I do believe the Occupy Wall Street movement has the potential to attract supporters across the political spectrum, from left to right. Let me offer two explanations for this reasoning.<br /><br />First, public opinion surveys show a substantial majority of Americans have a favorable view of the Wall Street protests. A Time Magazine poll this week shows 54% viewing the protests favorably, and only 23% unfavorably. In contrast, only 27% still have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement. Another poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal found that 37% of the respondents “tend to support” the Wall Street movement, while only 18% “tend to oppose” it. As I mentioned earlier, I think the Wall Street movement has touched a nerve in American society, and therefore has the potential to become much bigger.<br /><br />Second, I would argue that there is actually a good deal of common ground and overlap between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. While they are rooted in different segments of the population, and have different agendas, both movements are populist and anti-establishment, and both are reacting against the concentration and abuse of power, and the perceived neglect of average Americans. While I am sure many Tea Partiers are skeptical, and even hostile, toward the “hippies” protesting on Wall Street, I suspect that many of them would agree with the Wall Street Occupation complaints about government policies that favor the rich, the government’s bank bailouts, and the influence of money in the political system.<br /><br />Q5. Protesting the greedy of Wall Street appears to be the most direct appeal of this campaign. But wasn't it Wall Street financial innovations that brought the United States to gain the leading position in nearly 20 years of global technological and financial competition? <br /><br />A5. In my view, “financial innovation” contributed almost nothing to the growth of the U.S. economy in recent years. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The awe-inspiring postwar growth of the American economy, and of U.S. global power and influence, was rooted in a combination of explosive manufacturing growth, technological innovation, rapid growth in the standard of living and consumption, rapid increases in productivity, and the expansion of global trade. Banks and financial institutions were important tools in all of this, but it was their security and stability that was most important for these developments, rather than any financial innovations.<br /><br />Indeed, the rapid growth of the financial services sector of the American economy in the last twenty years is a principal cause of our current economic crisis, and of America’s domestic and international decline. Over the last two decades, manufacturing has steadily declined as a share of the American economy, while financial services have steadily increased. But financial services, per se, contribute almost nothing to the economy. They just move money around. They are based on, and primarily depend on, the accumulation of debt. Banks and mortgage companies encouraged American consumers to take out loans, even when it was unwise for them to do so, because those institutions made money on such transactions. <br /><br />In 2008, it suddenly became clear that this large sector of our economy was essentially a hollow shell. But because it was so large, the biggest financial institutions—like AIG, Citigroup, and Bank of America—could not be allowed to fail, for fear that the whole economy would collapse. Thus the government bailouts. <br /><br />Yet now, just a few years later, many of these institutions are thriving again, and their CEOs are receiving compensation packages worth tens of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, unemployment remains mired at 9%, and the average worker in the U.S. is earning no more, in real [i.e. adjusted for inflation] terms, than he or she was twenty years ago. <br /><br />This is one of the main grievances of the Wall Street Occupiers. Indeed, it angers most Americans. <br /><br />Q6. After the outbreak of financial crisis, the appeal to reform the financial industry is very high, Obama also argued for increased financial control to win the election, but after he came into power why is it so hard for him to put into practice the regulation of the financial industry? <br /><br />A6. President Obama did manage to steer through Congress a major reform of the financial regulatory system, the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” in the summer of 2010. This act included the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which eliminates many of the worst practices of banks and credit card companies, which had helped drive so many consumers into debt. The Dodd-Frank bill was passed when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Since the 2010 Congressional elections, which gave the Republicans control of the House of Representatives, any new initiatives in this direction have been defeated by Republicans, who oppose almost any efforts to strengthen the role of government.<br /><br />Q7. The financial system has become the solid structure of modern society. Many economists think the campaign should not alter this basic framework. Is it because of this that global politicians and thinkers have not been able to put forward an effective alternative when confronting the real world? <br /><br />A7. As I mentioned before, I disagree with this characterization of the financial system being the core of the modern economy. Banks and financial institutions are an essential tool for the development of modern economies. But their primary role is to provide stability and security so economic transactions and trade can operate smoothly. <br /><br />The problem is that the financial services sector became a major independent actor in generating wealth based on moving money around, often through complex and obtuse financial instruments like hedge funds and credit default swaps. Many financial institutions became so wrapped up in this money-making sideshow that they undermined their primary purpose of providing stability and security to consumers, investors, producers, and governments.<br /> <br />Q8. People may feel that the government has been hijacked by entrenched politicians and financial oligarchs and increasingly polarized by the two parties. Even President Obama has said that he would rather the country lose than his rivals win [sic?]. For this, will the "occupation Wall Street" movement become helpless in facing this "institutional predicament"? <br /><br />A8. It is true that money plays a huge and detrimental role in the American political system. Lobbies and moneyed interests play a disproportionate role in elections and policy-making, to the detriment of ordinary citizens. This is one of the complaints of Occupy Wall Street—though it is also of concern to populists on the right, like the Tea Party.<br /><br />The polarization of politics, and the unwillingness of politicians to compromise, is also hurting the country, and inhibiting efforts to deal with the huge problems we are confronting. I think, though, that the poisoned political atmosphere, as well as the emergence of radical populist movements on both the right and the left, are a predictable response to the protracted economic crisis that we find ourselves in. People’s jobs, homes, standard of living, and economic security are all in jeopardy, and this causes fear and anxiety. Normal politics, and political compromise, are hard to come by in such an atmosphere.<br /><br />Q9. In the end of the American century, you said, "American exceptionalism" makes Americans believe that poverty and wealth are due to the individual’s faults or achievements, and has nothing to do with the system. Will the campaign lead people’s thinking to the level of the system?<br /><br />A9. In a big international public opinion survey that I directed some years ago, we found that Americans, more than any other country that we sampled, were more likely to believe that an individual’s wealth or poverty was due largely to his/her own talents or work, rather than to the economic or social system. Americans tend to believe that if a person works hard, he or she will succeed, and that anyone can become rich and successful, even those from disadvantaged backgrounds.<br /><br />But in fact, there is less social and economic mobility in the U.S. than there was a generation ago. Increases in poverty and inequality over the last several decades are both a cause and a result of this. Children in poor neighborhoods (especially in cities) often go to poor schools, and are more likely to be exposed to drugs and violence. This poses enormous obstacles to achieving a good education, which is essential for success in the work force. <br /><br />As I mentioned before, I think the major accomplishment of the Occupy Wall Street movement, so far, has been to focus attention on and raise awareness of the issues of economic and social inequality in the United States. As people confront this issue, they will begin to learn more about the systemic aspects of inequality. Mainstream news sources like Time Magazine and The New York Times are increasingly addressing issues of poverty, wealth and inequality. At least in part this is a response to the Occupy Wall Street movement. <br /><br />Q10. Many young people participate in the "occupation" movement, and US young people have always been defined by their "generation:" the youth after the first world war was called the "lost generation;" and after the second world war was called the collapse generation. Will this one be called the awakening generation because of the "occupation" movement ? <br /><br />A10. While the Wall Street movement began mostly with young people, it has now spread and grown and become more diverse. The issues that they raise affect almost everyone: witness the growing popularity of the slogan “We are the 99%.” So I do not think that this is primarily a generational revolution, like the ones of 1968. In the U.S. the richest 1% receive about 20% of the country’s income, and control about a third of its wealth--more than the amount possessed by the "bottom" 90% of the population.<br /><br />Q11. The new media, which takes Wall Street financial innovation as its driving force to develop, such as FACEBOOK, TWITTER, has played an important role in the campaign,. Is this a great irony? <br /><br />A11. I do not see it so much as an irony, as a function of modern society. Social movements and revolutions have speeded up, like everything else in modern life. Social media and electronic communications facilitated this in Tunisia and Cairo, and are doing so now in the U.S. and elsewhere. <br /><br />Q12. the participants of this movement also wrote many slogan in Chinese. Is this behavior art of consumerism, or does it show that China provides some dimensions of their thinking? <br /><br />A12. There are many signs, posters and slogans carried by the protesters, and a very few of these are in Chinese, which has received much coverage in the Chinese media. But I do not think that there is much, if any, Chinese connection<br /><br />Q13. Winter is coming, so what do you see as the outcome of this movement? What’s the best situation or the worst case outcome?<br /><br />A13. Bad weather is likely to put a damper on the movement, or at least the most visible manifestation of it—the actual “occupation” of Liberty Square in New York City. But we have already seen the expansion of the movement to many other cities and countries, so it seems to me that the movement has gained some traction, and I doubt that it will disappear anytime soon. If it is to develop as a true social movement, it will need some organizational structure to carry it over. This will be one of the early tests of its staying power. There were some indications of this potential this weekend, when it was reported that Occupy Wall Street has collected some $300,000 through fundraising.<br /><br />Q14. In "The End of the American Century, you expressed some pessimism about the future of the US. But we also see that American technology, military and finance are still in leading positions globally. For example, the annual global university rankings show that American universities still leads the way in the world. This is one important symbol showing continuing US competitive advantage in comprehensive national strength. So is the view, perhaps, not so pessimistic? <br /><br />A14. In my book, I argued that the United States has lost its leading or dominant position in almost every area: social, economic, political and international. I present data showing this decline, both compared to our own past, and compared to other countries. I argued that the exploding growth of debt was particularly problematic for the United States, and that the country was destined for a sustained and deep economic downturn. It will no longer be the dominant economic, military and global power that it was in the fifty years following World War II.<br /><br />At the same time, this does not mean that the U.S. is disappearing as a rich and powerful country. Even if we returned to the standard of living we had in the 1970s, we would still be one of the most prosperous nations on earth. The U.S. model of democracy, and its ideals of liberty, equality and justice, have sustained the country through many crises, and remain a source of inspiration for people all over the globe.<br /><br />What this means for the U.S., in my view, is that the country will have to adjust to a different global environment—one requiring cooperation rather than dominance—and to an era of reduced growth, reduced spending, and reduced expectations. This is a psychological adjustment, more than anything else, but for that reason all the more difficult to achieve! So far, we have not met that challenge very well.<br /><br />Q15. You would be on the left flank of United States intellectuals. Be are intellectuals like you the majority or minority in mainstream American society? <br /><br />A15. The sorts of things I write and say—in particular the notion that the U.S. is no longer #1 in many areas, is threatening to many people. Americans are generally optimistic, proud, and upbeat, and they do not like to hear, and often refuse to hear, messages that are less positive. But I think more and more “intellectuals” are beginning to recognize that the U.S. is in serious trouble, and this is trickling out to the general public. Occupy Wall Street is one manifestation of this.<br /><br />Q16. Could you introduce an international justice plan under your leadership?<br /><br />A16. It would be nice, but I am not in a position to do so! I believe that the election of Barack Obama was the best we could do in striving to achieve more justice, both domestic and international. Unfortunately, he was elected in the midst of an economic crisis that will not soon disappear. But I often take heart from the frequently repeated words of Martin Luther King: “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-91225695946841101342011-04-16T17:41:00.003-04:002011-04-16T17:54:04.757-04:00Cluster Bombs Used by Libya--and by the U.S.<em>The New York Times </em>has a front-page story today on how "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/world/africa/16libya.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=cluster%20bombs&st=cse">Qaddafi is using cluster bombs in civilian areas."</a> This is an atrocity and a tragedy, of course, but it is difficult for the U.S. to raise much of a fuss about it, because U.S. armed forces have also used cluster bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. There is an international treaty--the Convention on Cluster Munitions--that bans the stockpiling and use of such weapons, but the U.S. is one of the few countries that has not signed the treaty. Fifty-six countries have ratified the Convention, and another 52 have signed but not yet ratified it. Among those that have <strong>not</strong> signed it are Israel, Pakistan, Libya....and the United States.<br /><br />Chapter 6 of <em>The End of the American Century</em>, on "Abandoning International Order," documents the refusal of the U.S. government to sign dozens of international treaties and conventions that almost every other country in the world has adopted. It is this unilateralism and exceptionalism that has withered America's stature and moral authority in the world, and is one of the factors that makes it difficult for the U.S. to resume the leadership it held for so long in the postwar period.David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-70569598531174508332011-03-23T11:16:00.013-04:002011-03-23T11:59:42.297-04:00Zakaria on American Decline<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiiyHwoN_O5H-4509xo5c3QhMD9dJM4ZCu9Gvm-G8fq1QDA9bcmiJjYGc048-ksc4OI_ynoL4lzQEktVxdHW3eSyn_5mQ7UNWR7zj469GQJTDF4xWqyPSS8OhuFqPx3tha7F71xv0WgX8/s1600/shattering+flag+from+time.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 130px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiiyHwoN_O5H-4509xo5c3QhMD9dJM4ZCu9Gvm-G8fq1QDA9bcmiJjYGc048-ksc4OI_ynoL4lzQEktVxdHW3eSyn_5mQ7UNWR7zj469GQJTDF4xWqyPSS8OhuFqPx3tha7F71xv0WgX8/s200/shattering+flag+from+time.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5587300431109810594" /></a><br />The cover of <span style="font-style:italic;">Time </span>magazine's March 14 issue features a piece by Fareed Zakaria, entitled "Yes, America Is In Decline." The inside story carries a less emphatic title: "<a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056610,00.html">Are America's Best Days Behind Us</a>?" The article demonstrates how far Zakaria has come since his book (<span style="font-style:italic;">The Post American World)</span> and mine (<span style="font-style:italic;">The End of the American Century)</span> were first published in 2008. At that time, Zakaria viewed global changes as mostly coming from "The Rise of the Rest" rather than American decline. My book focussed on domestic American decline as the root of the problem, in combination with the rise of other global powers. I pointed out our differences at the time in a posting here on "<a href="http://endoftheamericancentury.blogspot.com/2008/10/zakarias-optimism.html">Zakaria's Optimism</a>."<br /><br />Zakaria's story is accompanied by a graphic design (by Joe Magee) depicting the US flag falling apart--remarkably similar, I must say, to the cover design of my own book, with the U.S. flag in a vortex.<br /><br />One can hardly call Zakaria's latest essay optimistic. That issue of <span style="font-style:italic;">Time</span> presents a host of statistics and rankings, showing how poorly the US fares compared to both our past, and to other countries. The US ranks #10 in the world on the "Prosperity Index." We rank 6th in higher education enrollment; 11th in R&D spending; 27th in life expectancy; 31st in "Adequate food and shelter;" and 84th in the world on the domestic savings rate. (My book showed that, even in 2008, the US was falling behind on all of these measures).<br /><br />Zakaria finds it especially unsettling that "Americans seem unable to grasp the magnitude of the challenges that face us. Despite the hyped talk of China's rise, most Americans operate on the assumption that the U.S. is still No. 1."<br /><br />He concludes with the observation that we have to recognize our problems before we can adequately address them. <blockquote>"For most of our history, we have become rich while remaining restless. Rather than resting on our laurels, we have feared getting fat and lazy. And that has been our greatest strength. In the past, worrying about decline has helped us avert that very condition. Let's hope it does so today."</blockquote> This was the same overall message of my book.<br /><br />The same issue of <span style="font-style:italic;">Time</span> also includes a counterpoint article called "<a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056582,00.html">Don't Bet Against the United States."</a>David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-3711997164404115202011-03-06T22:40:00.003-05:002011-03-06T22:47:51.785-05:00What is the most beautiful music in YOUR country?As a pleasant diversion from the travails of The End of the American Century, I have created a new blog "<a href="http://theworldsmostbeautifulmusic.blogspot.com/">The World's Most Beautiful Music</a>" to debate and discuss this question: what is the most beautiful piece of symphonic music ever created in each country of the world? We've started out with the United States (Gershwin, Copland or Barber?), China, Zimbabwe and--the toughest one of all--Germany (Beethoven, Bach, Haydn, Wagner...or Mozart [is he German?]). Join the conversation, offer your suggestions, and vote!David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-62716051500571172382010-12-01T13:01:00.006-05:002010-12-01T13:17:14.713-05:00Der Spiegel on "A Superpower in Decline"Sometimes the most clear-eyed analysis of the United States comes from outside the country, and this may be especially true in these times when so many Americans are frightened and angry about the way things are going. Germany's weekly newsmagazine <span style="font-style:italic;">Der Spiegel</span> has published a long and thoughtful piece about the United States, entitled "<a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,726447-3,00.html">A Superpower in Decline: Is the American Dream Over?</a>" which reflects and updates many of the themes I raised in <span style="font-style:italic;">The End of the American Century</span>. <br /><br />For those who would dismiss <span style="font-style:italic;">Spiegel</span>'s analysis as biased, left-wing, or "socialist," I should point out that the magazine is generally considered to have a conservative (and capitalist!) slant. It is enlightening, and a little sobering, to read an intelligent analysis of our problems from outside the cauldron of contemporary U.S. politics.<br /><br />Below are a few excerpts from the <span style="font-style:italic;">Spiegel</span> article, though I would encourage everyone to read the whole thing.<br /><br />• America has long been a country of limitless possibility. But the dream has now become a nightmare for many. The US is now realizing just how fragile its success has become -- and how bitter its reality. Should the superpower not find a way out of crisis, it could spell trouble ahead for the global economy.<br /><br />• Americans have lived beyond their means for decades. It was a culture long defined by a mantra of entitlement, one that promised opportunities for all while ignoring the risks.<br /><br />• The country is reacting strangely irrationally to the loss of its importance -- it is a reaction characterized primarily by rage. Significant portions of America simply want to return to a supposedly idyllic past.<br /><br />• The rich keep getting richer, with the top 0.1 percent of income earners making more money than the 120 million people at the bottom of the income scale.<br /><br />• Since the beginning of the millennium, no new jobs are being created on balance, because the US economy has undergone structural change. Companies are dominated by investors interested only in the kinds of quick and large profits that can be achieved by reducing the workforce.<br /><br />• In 1978, the average income for men in the United States was $45,879. In 2007, it was $45,113, adjusted for inflation.<br /><br />• How strong is the cement holding together a society that manically declares any social thinking to be socialist?<br /><br />• The United States of 2010 is a country that has become paralyzed and inhibited by allowing itself to be distracted by things that are, in reality, not a threat: homosexuality, Mexicans, Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, health care reform and Obama.David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-19108008705785427022010-08-24T16:19:00.005-04:002010-08-24T16:32:37.931-04:00Can US Education Be Fixed?The following is an email I received from Lloyd Eskildson, about the failures of US education, especially in comparison with other wealthy countries.<br />..........<br />Your book is 'spot on' as the British would say, except for one aspect - needing more money for education. What is needed instead is much greater respect for education and increased parental/pupil motivation. Unfortunately, the resulting potential job attractiveness (also a motivator) would largely be negated by the much lower wage rates in Asia; at least this would cure the functional illiteracy issue. Though I have never taken an 'education course' nor do I have an education degree, I have had a strong interest in education for 30+ years, and have served as consultant to and Chief Deputy at the Maricopa County School Supt. Office. Following are some comments I made regarding a January, 2010 "U.S. News/World Report" that was trying to be optimistic.<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------<br />The bulk of this issue focuses on efforts to improve U.S. education. Contents include part of President Obama's plan (encouraging a longer school day and school year), D.C. schools' efforts to abandon teacher tenure and implement merit pay, New Orleans becoming the only major city with a majority of pupils in charter schools, and a major 'No Child Left Behind' (NCLB) mistake (allowing states to choose their own standards, invariably low). The issue also highlights the provocative question, "Will School Reform Fail?" on its front cover.<br /><br />The answer, unfortunately, is "Yes - just like all the prior school reform efforts." But first, some background, starting with good news. 1)The "U.S. News and World Report" does not mention increased funding as a need. This follows decades of an emphasis on steadily increased inflation-adjusted funding/pupil (up about 250% in 30 years), with very little if anything to show in the way of improved pupil outcomes - especially at the high-school graduate level. Unfortunately, we have wasted trillions of dollars getting to this point, and continue doing so. 2)President Obama's efforts to extend the school day and year are on the right track. The late Professor Harold Stevenson (Univ. of Michigan) spent years researching differences between U.S. schools and those in China, Japan, and Taiwan. Each of the three nations spends a much smaller proportion of GDP on education, while their upper-level pupils consistently outscore ours. Stevenson found that Asian pupils spent almost 50% more time/week in class and had a school year about one-third longer. (Many Asian pupils also enroll in additional week-end and evening private schooling.) Similarly, years ago I found that the highest-scoring Arizona 3rd-grade readers were consistently located in the same small, farming community - the 'secret' was their teacher spent much more time on reading than others; unfortunately, this effort was not sustained in higher grades and the higher achievement faded as the pupils aged. Regardless, when Professor Stevenson presented his findings at a symposium that I helped organize, educators in attendance downplayed, belittled, and ignored his findings. 3)Studies have repeatedly found that high goals lead to higher achievement - in all areas of life. Hopefully, the NCLB mistake of allowing educators to assign themselves self-defeating low-goals (avoid accountability), will be quickly corrected now that it has been recognized.<br /><br />Now, the relatively bad news. 1)U.S. educators are not likely to extend the school day and school year to come close to matching the efforts of pupils in the Far East - despite President Obama's imprimatur. 2)Education vouchers, school choice, and charter schools are major components of current reform efforts. All are based on the belief that schools competing for pupils will outperform those that do not. Makes sense, and there is some encouraging evidence. However, Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) reported (6/15/09) that, 'in the aggregate, students in charter schools (are) not faring as well as students in traditional public schools.' Readers might be tempted to dismiss this finding as economic heresy; however, it is actually an invaluable piece of evidence. 2)The late Professor James Coleman (Univ. of Chicago) conducted one of the largest education studies in history, involving over 150,000 pupils, and intended to demonstrate that minority pupils were short-changed. Instead, Coleman found there was more variation in pupil achievement within schools than between schools - ergo, differences between U.S. schools were not the main key to success! Coleman's findings were derived from sophisticated statistical analysis. However, this major finding has been obvious for decades -sizable and sustained differences in pupil achievement exist between various ethnic and socio-economic groups. Instead of recognizing, celebrating (where appropriate), and acting upon those differences, we pretend they don't exist. When I went to school it was no secret that pupils of Asian and Jewish heritage performed, on average, much better than the rest of us. The rest of us survived a lack of special attention and got over it. Similarly, it's obvious today that minorities, in general, do much worse than most - in both dropout rates and academic achievement. How is this caused by, or to be cured by, the schools?<br /><br />Coleman's finding is consistent with CREDOs. What's more, both findings are consistent with another of Stevenson's - that Asian parents (and pupils) were much more concerned about and involved with their children's' schooling than their American counterparts. Seemingly, American educators have been inadvertently functioning as education's worst enemies - constantly emphasizing the need for more money and new programs has implicitly downplayed the key role of parental and pupil motivation. Asian societies maximize those motivations through high-stakes college entrance examinations; conversely, the U.S. further reduces these motivations by trying to make it easier for graduates to attend college (already 67%, though about one-half drop out - up from one-fifth in the 1960s) through greater funding for aid and scholarships.<br /><br />Finally, the really bad news. Education reform has been tried and failed for more decades than even I can recall. We've lurched back and forth from group instruction to individualized instruction, team-teaching to individual teacher teaching, bilingual instruction to English immersion, large schools to small schools, special education to mainstreaming, norm-referenced to criterion-referenced testing, New Math to higher-order thinking to rote drills, ability grouping to not, raising standards to building self-esteem through lower standards, more homework to less, reading instruction via phonics vs. whole language, cultural literacy to multiculturalism to values-free education, peer tutoring to teaching assistants, teacher-directed vs. child-centered, site-based management vs. leadership accountability, public school assignments by residence to open enrollment, vouchers, and charter schools, basic schools vs. 'regular' schools, etc. En route, we've also added kindergarten and pre-school (some areas), teacher professionalization, computers and the Internet, rebuilt and upgraded facilities, reduced class size, added specialists and supervisors, driven out competitive games in P.E., increased time-on-task (until we forgot about it), added compensatory education (Title I), Head Start, and gifted education, increased teacher pay to where it exceeds that of most private school teachers, raised additional monies through special tax programs, bake sales, book sales, and carnivals, and even mentioned parental involvement from time to time.<br /><br />For what? Dropout rates, and achievement levels for those graduating are about where they were years ago. Its been like Lucie, Charlie Brown, and the football - over and over. The really good news is that Stevenson also found that U.S. children began school with higher achievement levels than their Far East competitors. We've had great educators - Jaime Escalante (Los Angeles), Marva Collins (Chicago), Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin (KIPP), Seymour Fliegel (Harlem), almost all those who taught at my high school (Wheaton High - '59), as well as innumerable successors today. But they can't do it on their own. We just need to forget about education fads, face reality, and demand more - starting with ourselves.<br /><br />---------------------------<br />My (DSM) response to this was as follows:<br /><br />Thanks so much for this thoughtful essay. I agree with most of what you say, and especially your focus on the problem of parental involvement (or lack thereof) and student motivation. In my mind, though, the main reason for this in the US, compared to the other countries you mention, is simply the much higher incidence of poverty in this country. Poverty creates so many obstacles to effective education that no "fix" of the educational system is likely to work--as you point out.David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-65492527438394755142010-03-01T10:58:00.007-05:002010-03-01T11:27:01.595-05:00Without Reform, Health Care Costs Will Skyrocket<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSegvZwbNURCDruH6hBoMu-Dd5xmatU-lsTZ497C0ZPnZEVywAyhQ593STJf-K0snRE-HifsQac0P1bXX9OCzqxzdmCJ1lCpqb6lfz5glK0mdjx2xVX4hkq9GG9g7I_3ckFQjDk_OPiqs/s1600-h/health+care+costs+nyt+2-28-10.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 190px; height: 126px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSegvZwbNURCDruH6hBoMu-Dd5xmatU-lsTZ497C0ZPnZEVywAyhQ593STJf-K0snRE-HifsQac0P1bXX9OCzqxzdmCJ1lCpqb6lfz5glK0mdjx2xVX4hkq9GG9g7I_3ckFQjDk_OPiqs/s400/health+care+costs+nyt+2-28-10.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5443701060956224674" /></a><br />Rising health care costs will overwhelm the American economy and the American consumer, without an overhaul of the system. This is the conclusion of most health policy analysts, as well as a new study by the Commonwealth Fund, as reported in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28abelson.html?scp=1&sq=The%20cost%20of%20doing%20nothing&st=cse">"The Cost of Doing Nothing"</a> in the<span style="font-style:italic;"> New York Times</span> last Sunday.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Health policy analysts and economists of nearly every ideological persuasion" agree that "the unrelenting rise in medical costs is likely to wreak havoc within the system and beyond it, and pretty much everyone will be affected, directly or indirectly,"</span> says the <span style="font-style:italic;">Times</span>.<br /><br />Karen Davis of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care research group, contends that things will hardly stay the same if we do nothing: "<span style="font-weight:bold;">in fact, what we will have is a substantial deterioration of what we have."</span><br /><br />The Fund analyzed the potential cost savings of<span style="font-style:italic;"> past</span> proposals on health care reform, and concluded that all of them would have resulted in a much lighter burden on the economy than we now pay. Health care now absorbs about 18% of GDP in the US--far higher than any other country in the world. (The figure is about half that in other industrialized countries). If the Clinton health care reform had been implemented, according the Fund's analysis, health care would absorb only 14% of GDP. If earlier plans by Carter and Nixon had been, the figure would be about 11%. (See the chart at the NYT site, and above).<br /><br />The Fund study also estimated that the typical price of health insurance for a family is likely to double in the next decade, from about $13,000 a year, to $24,000. Health insurance premiums as a percentage of median family incomes grew from 11% in 1999 to 18% in 2007, and are expected to grow to 24% by 2020.<br /><br />These kinds of costs will further erode economic growth in the United States; they will impede U.S. global competitiveness; and they will bankrupt American families and the U.S. government.<br /><br />The perilous state of the American health care system is one of the key components of the decline of the U.S., both domestically and internationally, and urgently needs correction. One only wishes the members of Congress could put aside narrow self-interest and petty politics, and seriously confront the issue.<br /><br />For more on the U.S. health care system, see my earlier post "U<a href="http://endoftheamericancentury.blogspot.com/2009/09/us-health-care-compares-badly-to-others.html">.S. Health Care Compares Badly to Others</a>" or click on the "Health Care" label on the right side of the page.David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-9409858084475050062010-01-26T14:02:00.005-05:002010-01-26T14:16:47.925-05:00Student Debt: A Growing Crisis<strong>Caleb Hamman</strong><br /><a href="mailto:chamman@butler.edu"><strong>chamman@butler.edu</strong></a><br /><br />Lately, with health care reform taking Washington’s center stage and Supreme Court cases and special elections filling the remainder, efforts to combat what is too often perceived as a “smaller issue” have gone widely overlooked. I am referring to the issue of student debt—one that, if left unchecked, will prove to be a potent driver of US decline.<br /><br />The most recent action to address the issue is <a href="http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/07/student-aid-and-fiscal-respons.shtml">H.R. 3221</a>, or the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. The legislation would attempt to mitigate student’s exploding debt levels by reducing the role of private companies in servicing government loans. This would allow the government to cut back on subsidies to private firms and to give the resulting funds back to students, primarily in the form of Pell Grants to those from low income households.<br /><br />The House passed H.R. 3221 last September, and the Senate is expected to take up companion legislation soon. Considering the current state of student borrowing, they should avoid delay.<br /><br /><a href="http://projectonstudentdebt.org/files/pub/classof2008.pdf">According to the Project on Student Debt</a>, nearly two-thirds of American students graduating from four-year colleges are indebted. For those who owe, the average amount exceeds $23,000. To put things in perspective, only 58 percent of American students were indebted upon graduation in 1996, and, on average, they owed only $13,200. (Note that all figures in this post are in current dollars.)<br /><br />The historical trend is less than comforting. In 2008,<a href="http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/print/NCPPHEMUNationalRpt.pdf"> The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education </a>(NCPPHE) found that the price of college tuition had increased by 439 percent since the 1980s, tripling the rise of family income over the same period and even surpassing the much maligned growth of health care expenses.<br /><br />This explosion of student debt bodes ill for the United States, obviously because it jeopardizes American accessibility to higher education.<br /><br />Students can only borrow so much—there will inevitably be a breaking point. Indeed, the NCPPHE’s study finds that “the continuation of trends of the last quarter century would place higher education beyond the reach of most Americans and would greatly exacerbate the debt burdens of those who do enroll.”<br /><br />If large numbers of Americans become excluded from higher education, a multitude of problems are sure to follow.<br /><br />From the callous perspective of economics, exclusion promises a poorly trained workforce, a risk for American competitiveness abroad.<br /><br />From the perspective of politics, uneducated citizens threaten to summon the plagues of the Bush administration: susceptibleness to propaganda, disregard for global warming—all of the problems outlined by Dr. Mason in chapter four of <em>The End of the American Century</em>.<br /><br />And, not least in importance, from the human perspective, an inaccessible system of higher education constitutes a certain path to lives of lessened potential for finding fulfillment and beauty.<br /><br />Tragically, these are merely problems faced by those who are excluded from higher education.<br /><br />Those actually able to attend colleges and universities face another set of obstacles. Not the least of these is the increasing likelihood of graduating with a mountain of debt, thus aggravating the already considerably problem of a heavily indebted citizenry, a topic discussed by Dr. Mason in his analysis of economic decline.<br /><br />Stepping back, the growing necessity for student borrowing in the United States can be viewed as part of larger inequality trends. As shown in <em>The End of the American Century</em>, the United States has become exceptional among wealthy states in its high levels of economic inequality and in its relative failure to implement policies that would rectify the situation. If college continues to become increasingly unaffordable, education threatens to become a privilege afforded only to the wealthy. Not only will this provide a tragic demarcation of class along lines of knowledge (similar to an equally tragic demarcation of class along lines of health); rather, an exclusive system of education will also assist in keeping poor people poor and in keeping wealthy people wealthy. In other words, higher education will not simply distinguish class structures—it will help solidify them.<br /><br />These are just a few of many reasons demanding student debt be brought under control.<br /><br />Current proposals for reform should be passed and signed as soon as possible. And if we are serious about fixing this mess, we cannot stop there.Caleb Hammanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559719182839648475noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-14535677128106751942010-01-21T13:20:00.003-05:002010-01-21T13:25:26.097-05:00Has the Supreme Court Legitimized Armed Insurrection?The scary idea of insurrectionism may have been given a boost by the Supreme Court, according to a new and disturbing book by Joshua Horwitz and Casey Anderson, entitled <span style="font-style:italic;">Guns, Democracy and the Insurrectionist Idea</span>, published by the University of Michigan Press. They argue that in the landmark <span style="font-style:italic;">Heller v. D.C</span>. case of 2008, the majority ruling went far beyond the individual gun rights argument and opened the door to the (previously radical fringe) “insurrectionist” argument that citizens have a right to arm themselves to counter government tyranny. The authors make a strong case that this has potential to undermine Constitutional government, the rule of law, and democracy itself.<br /><br />I raised similar concerns in chapter 3 of <span style="font-style:italic;">The End of the American Century</span>, on the “Torn Social Fabric,” one important component of which was the huge number of violent crimes in the U.S., and the concomitant prevalence of some 200 million privately owned firearms. There, I raised particular concern about the minority of gun owners who believe that gun ownership provides an extra check on the government itself. As I wrote there ( p. 58):<br /><br />“They see the Second Amendment to the Constitution as an implicit right of armed Americans to forcibly overthrow the federal government if they view it as tyrannical. It is hard to imagine any constitutional document, especially one with so many democratic checks and balances built into it, providing for its own violent overthrow. But many Americans seem to believe this—yet another reason why the United States is increasingly seen around the world as swimming against the tide of modern civilization.”<br /><br />Horwitz and Anderson note that when they began writing their book several years ago, this insurrectionist idea was considered marginal, radical, and probably even treasonous. (Article III of the Constitution, in fact, considers levying war against the United States to be treason.) But the Supreme Court’s ruling in the D.C. case has given the insurrectionist idea more stature and respectability, and brought it into the mainstream. Horwitz and Anderson believe that this is a very dangerous precedent, potentially giving cover to those who would forcefully overthrow the U.S. government.<br /><br />I share their concerns, and believe these concerns have become even more germane in the polarized and radicalized atmosphere of the last few years. Fox News stirs up hatred of the government, and calls into question its very legitimacy. The election of Barack Obama, ironically, has emboldened racists and bigots of all stripes, and led to a huge spike in the number of threats of violence against the President and the government itself. <br /><br />In their conclusion, Horwitz and Anderson urge that “the Insurrectionist idea should be vigorously challenged by citizens in the court of public opinion and now, after Heller, in courts of law as well.” Among their recommendations for action is “occupying the common ground” with the majority of gun owners who are <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> Insurrectionists. In my mind, this solution is part of a broader need in the United States—for Americans to find the middle ground, and to isolate and marginalize those who preach hate, violence and intolerance.David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-59973493947456607562010-01-13T13:21:00.004-05:002010-01-13T13:29:38.537-05:00Jon Stewart Gives John Yoo a Free PassJon Stewart hosted John Yoo on "The Daily Show" this week, and essentially gave the guy a free pass.<br /><br />As Deputy Assistant Attorney General in 2003, John Yoo was the author of the infamous "torture memo" which argued that torture was allowable if the physical pain was anything less than "death, organ failure, or the permanent impairment of a significant bodily function." This memo, signed by Yoo, is available at the website of the ACLU at <a href="http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/safefree/yoo_army_torture_memo.pdf">this link</a>. In a debate in 2006 with Notre Dame professor Doug Cassell, Yoo apparently justified even the torture of children, in this exchange:<br /> <br /><blockquote>Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?<br />Yoo: No treaty.<br />Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.<br />Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.</blockquote><br /> <br />Torture is explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions; the 1984 Convention Against Torture; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights; and the American Convention on Human Rights. Most scholars also believe torture violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.”<br /> <br />Jon didn't raise any of these issues with Yoo.<br /> <br />Last spring week, a Spanish court opened a criminal investigation against Bush administration officials, including John Yoo,for violating international law in providing the legal framework for the U.S. government’s use of torture. (See my <a href="http://endoftheamericancentury.blogspot.com/2009/04/spanish-court-questions-us-use-of.html">previous post</a> on this). <br /> <br />By almost any measure, the decisions of Yoo and his superiors were legally incompetent. At the very least, their recommendations, and the decisions taken by President Bush, were violations of international law. They come close to crimes against humanity. They should be brought to account in this country, under American law. But Yoo, far from facing indictments in the U.S. continues to teach at one of the most prestigious law schools in the U.S., and continues to find a hearing for his views in the pages of the <span style="font-style:italic;">New York Times</span> and the <span style="font-style:italic;">Wall Street Journal</span>. <br /> <br />Shameful. <br /> <br />And we expect more from Jon Stewart!David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-83743969380784144162010-01-08T15:04:00.003-05:002010-01-08T15:12:49.084-05:00Cutting Education Budgets Further Weakens the U.S.Indiana, like most states, is facing a budget crisis, and Governor Mitch Daniels (President Bush’s former Budget Director) recently proposed cutting $300 million from K-12 education budgets—3.5% of the total. This came on the heels of some searing stories in the <span style="font-style:italic;">Indianapolis Star </span>about the dismal state of public schools in the city.<br /><br />The Governor argued that he “had no choice.” But I am always wary when someone makes that assertion. We always have choices. The issue is priorities, not a lack of choice. Indiana had no difficulty, for example, raising $720 million to build a new professional football stadium.<br /><br />Money alone will not solve the problems of public education in Indiana, or in the U.S. But inadequate funding is one of the problems, and budget cuts will simply exacerbate those problems. One reason that the U.S. is falling behind globally in education, and why Indiana is lagging nationally, is because of low levels of funding for education. According to U.N. figures, the U.S. ranks 45th among the countries of the world in public spending on education, as a proportion of the economy. Among the 50 states Indiana ranks #33 in per capita expenses for K-12 education (U.S. Census Bureau data).<br /><br />It should be no wonder, then, that our schools perform so poorly compared to others, both globally and nationally. The high school graduation rate in Indiana is 73%, placing us in the bottom half of the 50 states. Even worse, Indianapolis ranks dead last among the nation’s 50 largest cities in high school graduation rates<br /><br />Our spending on education is low, in large part because our state revenues are low. While there has been a big hullabaloo about property taxes in the state, they are overall low compared to other states. As a proportion of household income, they rank 34th among the 50 states. Indiana’s income tax rate is also low, especially given the “flat” rate of 3.4%. Most states have “bracketed” tax rates (as for federal income taxes), which require wealthy people to pay a higher rate than poor people. Almost all such states have top brackets above 5% of income. <br /><br />So we are getting what we pay for. We have low taxes, low funding for public education, and poor schools. One choice—a necessary one in my view—is to raise taxes, especially on those who can most afford it, and begin providing funding that the schools deserve. We have choices.David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-84332781868727613712009-12-20T14:18:00.004-05:002009-12-20T14:34:55.683-05:00U.S. #1 in Cumulative Carbon EmissionsThis is why the developing countries are unhappy about U.S. insistence that they cut THEIR carbon emissions!.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjikVYdT9sr4_HZGg7MNvbGVjCW95Gdozh7L4BtSOm3aZ_Q2OA1_103vNR3B89Y02E61EGz0wQ3EtBQ6ysncR2dp_S77hgfxs7OhyAdZAv6VuPf0QF4Qc9DMTWa4pg-VUe56LDK80L10aU/s1600-h/cumulative+co2+emissions.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 390px; height: 271px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjikVYdT9sr4_HZGg7MNvbGVjCW95Gdozh7L4BtSOm3aZ_Q2OA1_103vNR3B89Y02E61EGz0wQ3EtBQ6ysncR2dp_S77hgfxs7OhyAdZAv6VuPf0QF4Qc9DMTWa4pg-VUe56LDK80L10aU/s400/cumulative+co2+emissions.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417400136420345714" /></a><br /><br />See scientist James Hansen's Newsweek article on "<a href="">Power Failure: Politicians Are Fiddling While the Planet Burns</a>" where he writes that "Planet earth is in imminent peril." We now have evidence, he continues "that continued exploitation of all fossil fuels on Earth threatens not only the other millions of species on the planet but also the survival of humanity itself--and the timetable is shorter than we thought."<br /><br />While Hansen supported the election of Barack Obama, he now believes that in terms of climate change, "President Obama does not get it" and that he and his advisers have caved to pressure from monied interests.<br /><br />"Civil resistance may be our best hope," he concludes.David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-65623807964582713052009-12-13T12:25:00.003-05:002009-12-13T12:37:15.528-05:00The 21st Century, Multipolarity, and EducationThe following email from Gaston Younger provides an interesting perspective on America's global reputation, the rise of other powers (especially in Asia) and the poor state of U.S. public education. As you will see from his emails, Younger lived in both Vietnam and France before coming to the U.S., where he served 20 years with the U.S. Army.<br />----------------<br /><blockquote>I just read you book "The end of the American century" and find it very fascinating but yet a gloomy, unpleasant realistic outcome for our country if our elected public officials do not take into consideration the serious situations (financial, economic & educational) facing the US.<br /><br />I was born in French Indochina & I can attest to the facts on my vacation trip to Vietnam and the surrounding countries of the former French colonial empire that China has replaced both France & the US as the preeminent global power in that part of the world. We should all welcome the new era of multipolar world; however American citizens should definitely demand from their government on both local & federal levels to invest more financial resources in public education if we are to compete successfully with the new rising powers; S Korea, India, China, Brazil. <br /><br />After the disastrous eight years of the Bush regime & a total lock on power by a fanatical, right wing Taliban GOP controlled US Congress from 1994 until 2006, our country image abroad has dramatically deteriorated. It is incumbent upon informed citizens to urge their elected public officials to take implement immediate actions in the areas of k12 public education & environmental friendly green energy if we are to pull our country out of this economic fiasco.<br /></blockquote><br />........................<br />After receiving this email, I responded to Gaston, asking him about his own background, and this is his reply:<br /><br /><blockquote>I was born in Vietnam from a mixed French-Vietnamese ancestry, left Vietnam in '67 for France where I continued my studies & came to the States in '73. I graduated from high school in New Orleans & joined the US Army for the next 20 years as a linguist (French & Arabic). I was stationed mostly throughout the Middle East, did couple tours on the DMZ in Korea & one tour in Germany. I was selected by the Army to attend DLI(Defense Language Institute) where I graduated top 5% in my Arabic class.<br /><br />I was fortunate to have a throughout French education in my childhood in Indochina. The French educational system is second to none in Western Europe. It emphasizes primarily on the rich tradition of French literature. All kids memorize at an early age "les fables de La Fontaine"by Jean de La Fontaine, the classical works by Victor Hugo, Moliere, Guy De Maupassant, Honore de Balzac, Emile Zola, Albert Camus, Anatole France, Gustave Flaubert.<br /><br />Thinking about Vietnam in the 20th century, I am saddened by the critical mistakes made by the French government in 1945, when it refused to recognize Ho Chi Minh declaration of independence; however France recognized Laos independence four years after the end of WW2. Did you know Ho Chi Minh actually admired the US? It is unfortunate the cold war allowed many demagogues particularly US Senator Joe McCarthy and many more in the Truman & Eisenhower administrations to demonize Ho Chi Minh & portrayed him a a Soviet stooge or harboring pro-Chinese sentiment while Vietnam has deep mistrust of its northern neighbors for thousand years & lets not forget it was the same Ho Chi Minh who organized the guerrilla warfare against the imperial Japanese Army occupying French Indochina while working closely with the OSS.<br />Like many Vietnamese, I have a deep admiration for French culture, literature, cuisine, music.<br /><br />I share many of your political ideas. I worked in 2004 for John Kerry but I was disheartened by the election results, I still could not understand the reasons 58 million Americans voted for a demagogue from the red state of Texas considering his shady personal character & many policies implemented by his administration will definitely affect our country for years to come. I wore the Army uniform for 20 years with pride, but the prisoner sexual abuse at Abu Graibh made me sick to my stomach & soiled our country image throughout the world, I will never forgive this rogue Bush regime for destroying our military, ruined our country image abroad.<br /><br />The midterm election in 2006 & President Obama successful election in 2008 finally gave us some hope to turn this country around, although it may be a little bit too late. The damage (fiscal policy mismanagement, unilateral foreign policy) has been done.<br /></blockquote>David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839888179056147237.post-51082887673895438552009-12-10T12:01:00.005-05:002009-12-10T12:25:19.662-05:00Obama's Peace Prize, and U.S. Power, as Seen From IndiaThe Nobel Committee's selection of President Obama for the Peace Prize is a recognition of the reality that U.S. power rests "not in its weapons or in its armies, but in the syncretic values of the American people." This is the view of India's M.D. Nalapat, a Professor of Geopolitics at Manipal University. Professor Nalapat's essay, <a href="http://www.chinausfriendship.com/article1.asp?mn=188">"Peace, Not War, the Best Strategy"</a> appears on the webpage of the <a href="http://www.chinausfriendship.com/index.asp">China-U.S. Friendship Exchange</a> as part of a <a href="http://www.chinausfriendship.com/article1.asp?mn=190">dialogue</a> on the themes of my book on <span style="font-style:italic;">The End of the American Century</span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.chinausfriendship.com/article1.asp?mn=194">This response</a> to Nalapat's essay appears on that same site this month.<br /><br />It is both enlightening and refreshing to hear about the U.S. role in the world from a thoughtful critic outside the U.S., like India's Professor M.D. Nalapat. He points to the past tendency of the U.S. to rely on ''military and economic muscle to seek 'compromises' that are in fact surrenders by the other side.'' I believe those views are widespread in the world, though quite different from the way most Americans perceive their role in the world. It is difficult for Americans to hear the voices and opinions of others, because we are so used to thinking of ourselves as the world's best, and the most admirable. Kishore Mahbubani, the author of <span style="font-style:italic;">The New Asian Hemisphere</span>, thinks Americans are blind to their own shortcomings, and basically unable ''to listen to other voices on the planet.'' In an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, this is one big factor in America's declining global power, influence, and effectiveness.<br /> <br />Mr. Nalapat views the great strength of the U.S. resting in its ''syncretic values'' and its openness to innovation and immigration. Indeed, I would agree that immigration, and the power of assimilation and adaptation, have been an important element of this country's history and development. Immigrants have provided both an energetic workforce and a vital source of creativity, innovation, and invention. The election of Barack Obama, an African-American with a multi-ethnic heritage, seems a confirmation of this admirable national trait.<br /> <br />However, this American advantage may also be eroding, and even becoming problematic. In the U.S. now, there is growing anti-immigrant sentiment, and one would expect this to increase as the economic downturn continues to bite. While the United States has (almost) always welcomed others to our shores, we have not usually treated them very well once they get here. Hispanics and other minorities, for example, experience much higher levels of poverty and unemployment than Whites, and are much more likely to be stuck with poor schools and inadequate health care.<br /> <br />The U.S. is still a global leader in science, technology and innovation, but even in these areas, the country is losing some of its edge. Over the last two decades, the U.S. has steadily lost its overwhelming global dominance in the production of both patents and scientific journal articles. The decline of American schools has taken a toll on science education, too, with American students often coming in dead last on international tests and competitions in science and math. China produces four times as many engineers as the United States. As other countries like China and India gear up technologically, it seems likely that talented and creative people are more likely to stay at home, or return home after taking some education in the United States. <br /> <br />Of course the U.S. remains a major global player in science, technology and innovation. But its ''American Century'' dominance in this area, as in so many others, is on the wane in the face of both domestic decline and the ''rise of the rest.'' Similar to Joseph Nye's emphasis on culture, Madhav Nalapat stresses the ''arts and sciences'' as a powerful tool for the U.S., especially in its interaction with China. And this is where I most differ with Dr. Nalapat. While culture and scientific exchanges are important, they can not substitute for the much more overwhelming influence of trade and economics. This is where China (and the EU, and India) are really gaining, and where the U.S. is particularly vulnerable. It is the growing economic might and confidence of these powers, and others that will most challenge the dominance of the United States.David S. Masonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559711180879974644noreply@blogger.com2