How and Where it Starts…
Howard Zinn says real change will come when people take direct action… A terrific interview with Howard Zinn- an American historian, political scientist, social critic, activist and playwright. He is best known as author of the best-seller 'A People's History of the United States'.
The signs are beginning to show themselves. It appears that West Hartford has woken up as described in this article- Mayor's Plea To The Board Of Education And The Community
Update: Norwalk is waking up too- Wilms Gets It With Call For BOE To Trim Budget
Update: The scramble begins early this year- School Budgets Statewide Preparing For Cuts
The revolution has begun, unfortunately out of necessity…like the Mayor, I say whatever it takes.
The signs are beginning to show themselves. It appears that West Hartford has woken up as described in this article- Mayor's Plea To The Board Of Education And The Community
Update: Norwalk is waking up too- Wilms Gets It With Call For BOE To Trim Budget
Update: The scramble begins early this year- School Budgets Statewide Preparing For Cuts
The revolution has begun, unfortunately out of necessity…like the Mayor, I say whatever it takes.
Interesting interview with Howard Zinn. He seems to support the need for civil disobedience as a means of creating marxist-like change that is pivoted from an angry proletariat. I have some concerns about this. While it may have been pivotal in the 1930's, my fear today is that his call for such left wing action "in order to transform the Democratic party" would simply mimic the Rodney King riots in L.A. What I think needs to happen is transformation of the Republican party which will rightly represent those who work and play by the rules. A party with strong libertarian values that rewards merit, endorses individual responsibility, maintain frugal economic policies, strengthen our borders, and decreases the size and waste in government. It is my fear that the kind of transformation Zinn calls for in the Democratic party will result in just the opposite: Huge government spending and expansion of entitlements and a socialistic nordic system of economics in order to appease the angry masses rather than to do the right thing. Just a thought. I know little about Howard Zinn and his politics.
Ted, you have an interesting take on this and I certainly respect your view of the "right thing", however, it appears to me that the transformation of the Republican Party that you dream of is a lot further away than the potential transformation of an Obama presidency that seems fairly certain at this point. Considering the recent events of essentially nationalizing the banks and the myriad of subsidies to public companies and entire industries for that matter beacuse of market mistakes, miscalcualations or special interests; these events belie the potential utopian vision that you hold for the Republican Party in the foreseeable future. It is hard to imagine based on where we've been with the Bush administration in that we already have the huge government spending that you speak of, like never before. For me it is a question of who the beneficiaries of this massive spending are. Clearly, the deregulation mantra is a thing of the past for good reason and we are headed for larger government either way. The masses are "angry" as you say and rightly so because they have been left behind in the march of greed we witness every day and then the “bailouts” are foisted on whom? You, me, and our kids- while the executives ride off into the sunset, pockets full. A failing to be blamed on basic human nature that cannot be changed or lack of rules and enforcement?
My view on this, taking into consideration some other reading on Mr. Zinn that I have done, is that he is a proponent of action and transparency, and is, in his own words skeptical of all government, which I see as healthy and necessary.
As it was pivotal in the 1930’s it is going to be just as pivotal in the coming years as I believe that we do not yet know the depth of the current financial situation (expecting more shoes to drop) and other gargantuan issues facing the human race on this planet that can only be solved by a call to action from the masses.
I will leave you with two quotes by Mr. Zinn that resonate with me both globally and locally- “Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.” & “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
I like what you have to say. I do not know enough about Howard Zinn to draw a fair opinion on him or his politics. However, his call for civil disobedience in order to create change is a risky one.
Now I appreciate the fact that bold movements by society or by governments can create pivotal change and certainly there is a strong argument in support for needing change now. However, the type of change we need depends on who you listen to.
For example, I agree that the Bush adminstration has wronged us by expanding the role of the federal government and spending excessively. My belief is that we need a small federal government, a stronger role for state government, and that spending needs to be scrutinized. But there are others who believe just the opposite. They believe that the role of the federal government needs to expand even more. They believe that now is not the time for cutting deficits, but for expanding government entitlement programs and spending initiatives. 2008 Nobel prize winning economist and author of The Conscience of a Liberal, has spewed these beliefs all over the NY Times Editorial page.
So the argument for change is a good one in this election year and certainly one that both candidates have jumped onto the bandwagon for. However, while the average American may desire change, I wonder if they truly understand what they are looking for.
So for Zinn to simply convey a need for civil disobedience in order to promote "change" is a risky one because it assumes that those demonstrating civil disobedience understand the stakes involved and the consequences of such change. I'm not confident that this is true. Further, even assuming that they do, is civil disobedience the right means for creating change?
To answer this question one might look back in history. Victor Hugo does so and speaks of such civil unrest as being dangerous. Let me quote from him because I cannot do better. (From Les Mis.1862)
"robbery and plunder, elevated to a protest against property and labor, appropriated certain elementary, specious, and false ideas, seemingly just, absurd in reality, wrapped themselves in these ideas, somehow disappeared in them, took an abstract name, and passed into the state of theory. Whenever a thing of this sort occurs, it is serious. Suffering engenders wrath, and while the prosperous classes blind themselves, the hatred of the unfortunate classes lights its torch at some morose or ill-formed mind dreaming in a corner, and begins to examine society. Examiniation by hatred, a terrible thing. Those frighful commotions, formerly called Jacqyeries, in comparison to political agitations, are not merely a struggle of the opressed against and opressor, but the revolt of discomfort against well being. Then everything collapses."
This is my fear with Zinn's words: that hatred and anger will force its wrath against goodness and prosperity all in the name of blind change.
Well Tax, you are right, it depends on who you are listening to. I do not believe that Zinn is promoting "robbery and plunder...", I also don't hear any "hatred" in his words. You have taken his/my position to an extreme.
In my view, indignation that causes a social movement for change is far less dangerous to the well being of the country overall than the continued complacency of letting the ruling class run wild that we continue to experience. Their priorities continue to be highly suspect as evidenced by the many recent articles regarding the lobbying for a piece of the $700 billion. As of yesterday, not one dollar has yet passed, however, TARP itself is being skewed by these people into something that it was not intended to be...where are the lobbyists for our interests in this? There aren't any. We need to be our own is the message.
All of this and more influences my opinion that we had better get off our collective asses and protect our interests going forward before being left further behind. If we continue as before as Zinn says and things continue to break down, your fears may very well have some basis in fact.
Trust and integrity need to be restored in the dealings of our government at every level. It is not blind change that I am speaking of. Have you spoken to any of your representatives lately? Are they listening and acting? I already know the answer. We're eating cake.
We the people need to be heard in a meaningful way. There's only one way to make that happen- organization. We have the numbers, my fear is we don't have the will, that to me is far more scary.
Tax, I think you need to go and look up "civil disobedience." The operative word here is CIVIL. As in Martin Luther King's marches and demonstrations of Civil disobedience. We have the RIGHT to unite and demonstrate our dismay with government...it's our duty, it's about our CIVIL RIGHTS.
Maybe I am taking this to an extreme, but my point is we shouldn't create a movement of change that is based in class warfare and human envy. Hugo is right, this is dangerous. I fear Howard Zinn's statements would create such a scenario....especially if he has liberal underpinnings. I believe that change must occur from the opposite end of the political spectrum in order to protect what's good in our country from the spectre socialism that relies on class division.
I was saddend by the poor turnout at the state rep. debate held at the Academy this past Thursday.
Don't you think that it's already class warfare??? The opposite end of the political spectrum had its chance and is going to need a long time to regroup. As much as the "socialist" left wing scares you, the "crazy base" right wing scares me. So, what to do, sit around and pray that something changes? I don't think so...
As far as the poor turnout at the debate, that is unfortunate. The reason may be the two lackluster candidates running...a status quo hider and a blindly ambitious liar, so not really a surprise. Where are energetic leaders with ideas and integrity? I would love to see evidence that these attributes aren't mutually exclusive.
I think that the current problems are more a factor of greed than of class warfare, but class warfare is now being used as a political manipulator to place blame and shift political opinion. This concerns me because the people who fall for this crap are the ones who want something for nothing, fail to take responsibility for their mistakes (what didn't they understand about "adjustable mortgage"), and blame others for there misgivings....all at my tax dollar expense.
I watched the 2nd district congressional debate between Courtney, Sullivan, and the eerily Nader-like green party candidate. Excellent debate. Courtney and Sullivan were very good. But one point caught my attention. Courtney supported court re-evaluation of property value and mortgage principal as well as offer a 3% interest rate to those people forclosing in order to keep them in their houses. He argued that this would maintain the home values of surrounding houses.
Sean Sullivan's response was great: "I've been working hard my whole life, saving my money, living within my means, making my mortgage payments...why can't my home value and mortgage rate be adjusted the same way? Its simply not fair and this creates a system that rewards greed and irresponsibility." Don't quote me exactly on what he said, but you get the gist of it.
Sullivan won my vote for that comment.
So again, it comes down to this. I recognize that change can be a good thing, advocate for people playing a part in change, but am skeptical about people wanting change in government because they want government to meet all of their needs that they cannot. I am in favor of change that prevents government from exploiting people for greedy personal gain or preventing clearly transparent and accountable government practices. I know we can agree on that one.
Absolutely we can agree on that one. Are the banks/Wall Street not getting something for nothing on your tax dollar as the consolidation picks up and they sit on (or buy bonds with) the cash that they were supposed to begin lending? How many times do we need to see that trickle down doesn't work?
I didn't get a chance to listen to this particular debate. (It was on the screen with the sound off), I'll have to get it online. I did happen to catch the third party debate between Nader and the Constitution Party candidate. They sounded an awful lot like you and I. Coincidentally, the comments in the clip from Zinn were the topics of a couple of questions...I invite you to catch that one- it was interesting, as is debating with you...it's a start.
I am opposed to corporate welfare, but I do believe that trickle down does work better for the middle class than trickle up. Of course corporate greed and irresponsibility is the limiting factor. Greenspan made a statement this week saying that he was wrong in believing that banks would not allow this to happen. It is quite amazing that they did, isn't it?
If you are in fact opposed to corporate welfare, then you have a lot of work to do as this is where MOST of the welfare exists today. You and I part ways on the direction of the trickle...the analogy that comes to mind is this- if the masses are are the engine of the economy and are starved for fuel because the fuel filter is clogged, do you bypass the filter or siphon off the gas for a different vehicle? I think this leads to another entirely different conversation regarding how the consumption model must change for our long term survival...I'll save that one for now.
If you are actually a believer in free market non-regulation, shouldn't we just end all of the corporate welfare and let the chips fall where they may? Let the weak fail and the strong survive the same way you seem to feel about those individuals in need? The problem with that is all of the interconnectivity that most overlook- just like an interesting story I just heard on CNBC- "One forclosure in a neighborhood directly affects 20 other homeowners" with value loss, etc.
I don't know if "amazing" is the word I would use. While they were lining their pockets like never before with unprecidented leverage factors, I think the drunkeness fed on itself until the blackout came. Upon awakening with the hangover, the arrogance factor resumed with the first bloody mary of the morning after in that they assumed (correctly) that they were too big to let fail and they would get bailed. And I am sure we haven't seen all of it yet.
I've just listened to Obama and McCain's closing argument speeches and it is not a wonder to me why the polls are where they are. Obama's message is that of pulling together for the common good and McCain's is that of fear. Empty rhetoric? Possibly, but we are in fact all in this together as much as some would like to think otherwise, which brings us around to the point of the article- our involvement cannot end at the voting booth- that's just the beginning.
A NY Times editorial that illustrates my point-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/opinion/29wed1.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
While I am opposed to corporate welfare and do believe in survival of the fittest, I do recognize that in exchange for corporate welfare, at the very least, the solvency it provides allows for continuation of jobs and taxes in exchange (trickle down).
But what does exhorbitant social welfare (trickle up) provide for society...a passive class of people? Sure safety nets are good things as I believe a society that is merciful and kind brings hope and progress to its most unfortunate, but social welfare that becomes a generational way of life is not something a progressive society should allow...but it has. Social welfare programs and redistribution of wealth creates a society that punishes the hardworking, rewards laziness, and provides a disincentive to succeed. Most harmful is the dependency it creates particularly effecting the most vulnerable.
So what exactly does collectivism, or should I say, "pulling together for the common good" do for the economy? I want to know because as far as I'm concerned, I have been "pulling together for the common good" for the last twenty five years by working, paying taxes, playing by the rules, raising decent future taxpayers. What else does Obama want from me? What do i get in return? I'm particularly interested in the answers to these questions because next in line after the forclosed mortgages is the billions of dollars in credit card debt that we may be asked to pay off? Do we have an obligation to payoff credit card debt as well? Where does it end? When is social welfare and collectivism enough?
This is why Obama's tax package is so absurd. Giving tax breaks to 90% of the people when only 40% pay taxes is essentially a free government handout...thanks to the taxpayers of this country. But what do we get in return? What will those who do not pay taxes give back to society with their $600 rebate? Will they create jobs with it? Will they help repay the credit card debt or foreclosed mortgages? Will they send a big thank you card to the taxpayers?
You say Obama's message calls for all of us to pull together for the common good, but what does that mean exactly? He's very vague about this. Me paying more taxes so someone else who doesn't pay taxes gets something for free without having to earn it? Collectivism is a very nice thing to talk about at election time because it wins the hearts of those who don't or won't use there brains and expect government to solve all of their problems. But what collectivism actually does is counter to the American way. It promotes an entitlement mentality and laziness. So if you ask me, Obama's words, while they sound nice, are the empty ones, and McCain's words are absolutely right, we should be very afraid if the Democrats take the Presidency and the congress.
Tax, I am tiring of this ideological fight that you insist on when the issue of the article was to point out that unless people are motivated to fight for change nothing will. So, a few questions for you:
If you happened to watch the Obama/Clinton address last night, it was specifically addressed that no one is talking about a government that will solve everyone’s problems; couple this with the polls that indicate that the feeling of the country is that we are on the wrong track – 89% (CBS/NY Times poll 10/13) - I think this puts you in the minority in a big way if in fact you are promoting the Bush/McCain status quo rhetoric- talk about empty.
My observation of Obama’s message as opposed to McCain’s is that it is uplifting, not oppressive and based in continued fear mongering, which I for one am EXTREMELY TIRED OF. As Zinn said, there will be no fundamental change in an Obama presidency unless WE make it happen- the same holds true for your candidate. So, what exactly are you prepared to do about it? I am afraid of nothing except the possibility of continuing on as before and of course the possibility of that horrendous woman being Commander in Chief.
Zinn is correct. We need to fight for change and I agree with the polls that we are on the wrong track, but, which track we choose depends on what side of the we are on to begin with.
So going back to my first statement, we need to make sure it is the right kind of change and we need to make sure that those fighting for it are doing so for the right reasons.
These concerns led to this ideological discussion because it is ideology that will drive this change.
However, one ideology calls for civil disobedience that is based in human envy, lack of personal accountability,and governement dependency, the other ideology is based in fiscal common sense and a self-reliance that wants to just be left alone by government.
For me, Obama represents the wrong kind of change. His policies are masked in airy superficial rhetoric which fools those who fail to seek deeper answers. What we should be questioning is his voting record, his statements that call for redistribution of wealth, his taxation of businesses, his call for exhorbitant spending, but instead, the only argument that I am hearing is that he is "uplifting" and that McCain is "fear mongering".
Don't get me wrong, I am not a McCain lover either. He does nothing to inspire me or uplift me, but that is not what I am seeking now. For me, he is just the lesser of the two evils.
I don't see it as a being on a "side". I absolutely agree that " we need to make sure it is the right kind of change and we need to make sure that those fighting for it are doing so for the right reasons."
I also don't see this as completely black and white as you do with regard to the generalizations you have made about ideologies- "left alone by government"- yes, but not at the price of abdication of responsibilities to all citizens and the country in favor of the few as we have witnessed.
My "lesser of two evils" is just different than yours. However it turns out, either will need guidance to govern responsibly. That goes double at the state and local levels as we see the same arrogance of the 'deciders' all around us.
It's time that we as citizens step up to our responsibilities and demand the accountability we desrve and not take the pablum they like to feed us for the answer.
This article should give you some hope-
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?tag=3.5721%3Ficx_id=D9450KS80
Excellent article...Go Blue Dogs!!
You are right, I have made casual generalizations. Not fair. My apologies.
Thank you. I have enjoyed this conversation.
As did I. Thank you.