Monday, December 27, 2010

States' Rights

 Our newly-elected governor of Maine, Paul LePage, promises to protect states’ rights and get the federal government out of regulating how the state spends the federal money collected from its taxpayers and given back to the state in the form of social welfare and health care reimbursements, social security and veterans’ benefits, defense contracts, educational and infrastructure grants grants (Maine Sunday Telegram 12-05-2010).   Across the nation, the mantra of states’ rights echoes from the right which won landside victories in the recent election.  

I get mad at government, too.  Beginning with family, that primal dispenser of civilization’s control, and fanning out to community institutions—church, school, town, state, nation—I get mad at them all at times.  That is Sigmund Freud's point in Civilization and its Discontents.  The great impediment to human happiness is the control exercised by civilization over individual action, desires, and impulses.  He doesn't see a solution to the problem, and neither do I.  But does state government do a better job of providing for the people’s interests and individual happiness than the federal government?  There appears to be plenty of blame to go all around in our history. 

From Columbus onward Native Americans were viewed as an inferior race but good for work.  When they resisted attempts to enslave them, the federal government made war on them, attempted to get them out of the way, made promises via treaties which were not kept, forced the removal of children from their homes to boarding schools where they attempted to educate their culture out of them, squeezed them on to reservations, forced thousands on a long-distance trek in the dead of winter from the East Coast all the way to Oklahoma along the infamous Trail of Tears. 

The states have an even sorrier record with their legal practice of racism.  The secession of the south that led to civil war was a states’-rights issue.  It took federal intervention to abolish slavery.  And it took more federal intervention and over 100 years to abolish the subsequent segregation (Jim Crow) laws that continued to oppress Afro–Americans. See 

We still live with the unhappy hangover of legally sanctioned racism and sexism by both Federal and State Government.  The recent DREAM Act proposed by Congress would have provided a path to citizenship for children of immigrants, most of them Latinos, who have lived here most of their lives if they go to college or join the military.  It failed to pass.  Women did not have a legal right to vote until well into the 20th century.  And, first proposed in 1923 and passed through Congress in 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment for women has still not been ratified by the needed 2/3 majority of the states to become law. 

When it comes to social justice issues, neither states nor feds by themselves have a great record.  But they can be and have been influenced by grass-roots movements that led to the major advances in civil rights legislation of the 20th Century.  It takes great numbers of morally committed and passionate individuals and leaders to make such advances.  And it requires continuous vigilance and struggle against the forces of greed and power lust that strive to dominate governments.

Judging by the rhetoric from tea partiers and others on the far right responsible for President Obama’s shellacking, I suspect that those currently seeking to take back states’ rights from federal control, including our governor-elect Paul LePage, are driven by forces of greed and power and not by a moral commitment to seek equality and justice for all.   They are opposed to the DREAM Act, opposed to gay rights, opposed to meaningful health-care reform that might reduce profits of insurance companies, opposed to spending and taxing priorities that seek opportunity and justice for all that includes poor, differently abled, disenfranchised.  Do I sound here like an advocate for someone you know, or should know:  “the poor,” “the meek,” “the persecuted,” the peacemakers?”  I hope so.  I’m not trying to be original.

For better or worse, until something better comes along, we need government.  Rather than fighting over turf, I would like to see better cooperation between states and feds and much more public dialogue about the morality of governmental attitudes and actions on all levels.  I would like to see a “trickle-down” theory of morality put into practice, one that promotes peace, justice, and equality for all.

© Alice Bolstridge, 12-27-10

Saturday, December 11, 2010

The Tax-Cut Deal

Last night on C-Span, I caught the last hour or so of Senator Bernie Sanders’ courageous speech/filibuster opposing President Obama’s tax-cut deal.  Courageous because, as far as I could tell, he was alone among his colleagues in the senate willing to speak out at such length (8 ½ hours) with such vigor and candor, and because he was willing to raise the important moral issue of corporate greed in America and condemn it.    There wasn’t any significant coverage of this action on the News Hour that followed his speech.  In Washington Week in Review, Gwen Eiffel mentioned it as though it were a mere oddity, and it received little comment from the program participants.  In both of these PBS programs, there appeared to be unanimous agreement that the deal was done, at least in the senate.  Perhaps after a weekend of thought, there may be more support for Sanders by Monday?

Another kind of courage is shown by Clarence Jones, who believed heartily in Barack Obama, the presidential candidate.  He is now advocating tough love for our president: “the template of the 1968 challenge to the reelection of President Lyndon Johnson [of running a different Democratic candidate] now must be thoughtfully considered for Obama in 2012 ( December 5).  From my experience at attempting tough love with important others in my life, I suspect he must be heartbroken with disappointment to have reached this point of attempted intervention.

This morning, President Clinton, coming directly from a meeting with President Obama, spoke to the press from the White House defending the tax-cut deal and “principled compromise.”  I first heard him as saying “principle compromise,” and even after seeing “principled” in writing, I think principle is what he described.  The principle of justice and equality for all is being grossly compromised:  nothing is provided in the deal to curb the greed of millionaires and billionaires, reduce the deficit, or provide significant relief for the lower middle class and poor who are struggling to meet basic needs. 

I regularly see loved ones engaged in this struggle.  A family of four earns its income with a sole-proprietorship trucking business.  Their income has declined over $20,000 in the last couple of years down to about $47,000 because of problems in the economy:  higher fuel prices, not as much work, more difficulty borrowing money (Bank bail outs were supposed to ensure this kind of borrowing.), and higher interest rates resulting in frequent breakdowns of old equipment.  Health insurance premiums are so high they can only afford a $15,000-deductible policy, so they must struggle to pay all of their health costs out of their own pocket.  The children both have learning disabilities, and the family continuously struggles with the school which can’t find the resources to provide an adequate and appropriate education.  A worker was laid off in late 2009 and collected unemployment for nearly a year.  He is now struggling to support himself with part time work and no health insurance or other benefits of full time employment.  A man with a serious and chronic mental illness recently had his food stamps (EBT card) reduced by $40 a month.  He runs out of food and has to depend on handouts from family who are themselves struggling with reduced financial circumstances.  Even though the cost of living has increased with everything from groceries to health care, those living on a fixed income have had no cost of living adjustment for 2 years. 
This scenario is playing out for millions of families across the nation.  But according to David Kocieniewski, “the only groups likely to face a tax increase [with the tax-cut deal] are those near the bottom of the income scale — individuals who make less than $20,000 and families with earnings below $40,000”  (   The US Census report finds that “44 million, or one in seven residents” fall at or below the poverty line defined in 2009 at $22,050 annually for a family of 4, and that doesn’t count the numbers who have moved in with family or found other ways to survive their bad luck (  I haven’t been able to find recent numbers of those families living below $40,000 but in 2007, that number was 90 million ( suggesting that the number now is likely over 100 million.
With those kinds of numbers, what kind of priorities allow this to happen, and what kind of culture thinks of it as only?  Only those already struggling will face a tax increase and be required to sacrifice even further than they already have?!  And for what?  Not for a deficit reduction which this deal will not do.  Not for job creation; it’s hard to see how one job will be created by this deal.  A “principled compromise”?   What are the principles demonstrated by it?
© Alice Bolstridge,  12-11-10

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The Liberal Drift of History

Just before the elections, an email friend wrote:  It would be wonderful to get the country back from government.”    In his campaign, Howard Dean used the slogan “Take back America.”  What do people mean by such slogans?  And why do they work, or are perceived to work, in political campaigns?  Superficially, I suspect the tea partiers and republicans mean, Take the government back from the democrats.  I suspect Dean meant, Take America back from the Republicans.   But that’s not what they say, so there must be something emotionally deeper, likely down in the brain’s unconscious amygdala, motivating both the utterances and public response to them.

I wanted Dean to mean, Take America’s government away from the greedy, earth-and-spirit destroying rich whose driving motive is obscene profit.  I am mad as hell at the influences in government that protect the rich and their profits at the expense of basic economic needs of the middle class and poor and at the expense of the environment—the earth, our home.  In such a climate “free-market” seems a travesty of the promises in our constitution. 

A member of the middle class, I watch the value of my meager life savings dwindle as a result of free-market greed.  My yearly retirement income equals about 12% of the $250,000 income per year suggested as the cut-off point for extending tax cuts, and my working income as a teacher never exceeded 15% of it.  All together, my assets, which include my home, add up to much less than $250,000.  Fortunately, I am healthy without any chronic diseases requiring major monthly expenses, but still my Medicare deductibles and co-pays shave away from my savings once or twice a year.  72 years old, I fear my own descent into poverty as well as that of my children and grandchildren, a descent into the kind of poverty I knew as a child growing up.   There were times then when the lack of money to buy a bag of flour would reduce my mother to tears.  Rage and fear about this kind of thing drive my response to so many of the political campaign tactics and slogans.

Paradoxically, my present financial situation is so much better than it was for most of my working life when I earned annually less than 8% of $250,000.  Then, I was mostly broke at the end of each pay period, had no savings, was often making monthly payments on a car or minimum payments on bank loans or credit card debt, and rented my home.  Yet I felt lucky then to have all my basic needs for shelter, food, clean water, warmth during our long cold winters in Northern Maine, and health insurance, with even enough for a car payment and a movie or dinner out occasionally.  What more do any of us need?  And even as I child I never felt hungry.  When there was no bread, there were always potatoes my father grew and shelves of canned food in the cellar, deer and partridge in the woods, fish in the river, and in the summer a garden of fresh vegetables and plentiful wild edibles, all of this within walking distance.     

My fears about poverty are irrational.  Yet now, making and having more money, I feel less secure than I did then.   Being more secure, I put distance between myself and basic needs.  I feel anxious about preserving and extending my small wealth, which makes me feel that I understand the passions that drive the rich.  Once we get even a small way beyond meeting our essential needs, if we are not careful and self reflective enough, money becomes more important than any other consideration, and because the rich can buy power and influence politics and policies, their anxieties become public anxieties, infecting even the poor.  By policy and legislation, we are squandering our public wealth and resources in the name of “security,” raging with suspicion against our neighbors, and struggling to destroy phantom fears.       

My personal experience is but a microcosmic example.  I don’t believe my response is very different from most voters of the right or of the left.  We all fear losing our assets and what we believe to be our financial security, we all rage against the powers we believe to be responsible, and we all vote out of our anxieties.  I asked my friend what he meant by his use of the slogan, “get the country back from government.”   He didn’t talk about his personal situation nor his amygdaline responses, but what he did talk about does not seem so very different from my concerns.  He talked about government spending, corruption, national debt, and what they have done to social security.  I also am concerned about these issues.  The important differences between us are not the issues but rather conflicting beliefs about who is responsible for our distress and what to do about it.  He blames government.  But as a representative republic whose citizens vote democratically for those who make up government, government is us, people like him and me who choose to vote.  Or is it? 

Corporations are now permitted by Supreme Court decision to increase their influence- buying without limit by virtue of having the same constitutional rights to free expression as individuals.  Poor individuals have no means to buy such influence and thus do not have opportunity equal to the rich.  This feeds my fire to take America back from the greedy rich.  Back to what?  To the practice of the promises of the constitution?  The original constitution was written by rich male landowners and excluded women, slaves, Native Americans and other minorities, and the multitude of wage workers too poor to own land.  The framers excluded far more of the country’s residents than they included. But the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights promised equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all and inspired struggles to achieve the promises and possibilities that continue to this day. 

Progress proceeds painful step by painful step.  I wouldn’t mind taking the government back to the soothing tone of Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chats of the early 40s and his efforts to achieve social justice and save the poor from disaster.  Or how about taking America back to Republican values of the 50s such as President Eisenhower who said “Peace is the climate of freedom,” and warned us about the growth of a military-industrial complex, and initiated important civil rights legislation; and values such as Margaret Chase-Smith’s courageous stand against McCarthy’s fear-mongering attacks on communism.  I would like to regain the best of the 60s spirit of optimism, possibility, commitment, and freedom I felt often during that Aquarian age.  When President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” I was 21 years old, witnessing my first presidential campaign as a voting adult, and casting it for all the democrats on the ballot against prevailing values of my right wing family of origin because he meant to me greater progress toward freedom and justice for all.   I am not a fan of either Reagan or George W. Bush.  I believe Reagan’s practice of trickle-down economics and deregulation began processes that eventually led to financial debacles that Bush’s presidency harvested, but even Reagan managed to accomplish some important peace initiatives with Gorbachev.  I believe Bush should have been impeached for dragging us into our current wars,  But in using Condaleeza Rice as secretary of State, he helped to champion equal opportunity for all, and now we have our first self-identified black President. 

The right, in spite of itself, moves with the “liberal drift of history” that I can witness in my own lifetime, moves in spite of aggressive reactionary fights to slow the drift or halt it, in spite of the evidence of this recent election that we are increasingly governed by forces of buying and spending that value profit for the rich over the promises made by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.  There is no rational or ethical reason to deny that promise.  We are all racial, religious, and ethnic mongrels.  Furthermore, we are all cousins going back to a single evolutionary Lucy.  We are all in the same DNA family.  In my late middle age, a maternal aunt “confessed” to me—her blue-eyed, blonde-haired, pale-skinned niece— that her paternal grandmother was Native American.  Suddenly, I understood where my brown-eyed, tan-skinned brother and cousins came from.   This aunt herself had a set of fraternal twins: one dark, one fair.  And I understood, too, how shame of such an ancestry prevented me from knowing any of my grandfather’s relatives or knowing anything about them until it became, via that liberal drift of history, not only acceptable, but also a source of pride to claim our complete heritage. 

We live now in a global culture that demands we find a way to peacefully resolve our conflicts with one another if we are to have a future at all.   Going back to the past for a visit is instructive and useful, but we cannot live there.  History moves only forward.  And so I want to nudge that erratic liberal drift into the future, resist the forces that would make “liberal” (or “conservative” either for that matter) a dirty word.  I have joined in the fray of local politics, marched in rallies for health care, and committed to teach a class in writing about issues of peace and justice.  I make phone calls, write letters, and start this blog.  I mean to influence in whatever small way I can the people and policies that govern us and to exercise regularly my resolve to help improve health for all people, creatures, earth, air, and water.  As the documents of both democracy and republicanism promise, I will claim some ownership in the government that maddens me.  I invite you to join me if you aren’t already there, and if you are ahead of me, please help me find the way. 

© 2010 by Alice Bolstridge.  All rights reserved.
Some related links: