|
I was driving from Shreveport to Mobile. It was a long drive, and because of my arthritis I made many stretch stops.
Around Jackson I turned on the radio. And, after a scan, I found Rush Limbaugh. I had not listened to Rush in years; not since my days of carpooling with a conservative friend who controlled the radio every other day. I don't think of myself as liberal, conservative, vegan or anything else. I always wish our president well. On some issue I might be considered conservative, some liberal, others radical. Basically, I am an advocate of a peaceful revolutionary. I consider myself rather unique in that I don't hate anyone. I dislike a few, and ignore many; but I just don't have the energy to hate. Like the name under which I have chose to write, I look for honest people. Finding none of these, I look for good people. And the few I have found I admire. I do not admire Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is smart and good at what he does. He guides his flock away from cooperation with others, and toward separation. His flock are like fans of a boxer. "Hey! Did you see Rush hit that pinko with an uppercut?" "Rush really clocked that liberal!" This kind of identification, separation and hero worship keeps us from progress. The way I see it Rush has a job. His job is to unite those of great wealth--to white, undereducated, fundamentalist Christian, poor-to-middle class and the racists. Alone, none of these groups have the numbers to govern. United, they sometimes do. Because these groups have absolutely nothing in common, it takes the likes of Rush Limbaugh to weld these people together. To gain power for the economic elite, the likes of Rush use emotionally charged "wedge issues" to gain the vote and support of people who will not benefit at all from the power given to the elite. Abortion, prayer in schools, the Pledge, The Ten Commandments..., the elite will use any issue that will get the votes needed to gain power. It is the job of Rush (and other talking heads) to get Joe and Joan Six Pack all excited about these wedge issues. But what do the average Americans who fall for this BS gain from this power? Is it a true coalition in which both partners benefit? Let's take George Bush as an example. He was on the right side of all these wedge issues. But what did he do? 1. For education, Bush gave us unfunded mandates. 2. He cut taxes primarily for the rich. 3. He got us into wars that benefited investors and large corporations. 4. How did the oil companies do under Bush? 5. How many American jobs were exported to other countries under Bush? 6. He added $4 trillion to our national debt, the largest increase ever. 7. He ended overtime pay for millions of Americans... And the list goes on. The economic elite benefited under Bush. Did the gullible who supported Bush because of wedge issues benefit? No, not at all. The proof is in the pudding. The economic elite take advantage of the gullible by having talking heads, like Rush, dwell upon emotional wedge issues to get the vote of the gullible. The elite even joke about using these poor suckers. In his role as coalition maker, Rush classically conditions certain words and terms to negativity. Today he was telling the faithful that "socialism doesn't work." And the only example I heard him mention was the former Soviet Union. If you choose your examples carefully and examine them with selectivity, you can make a case for many things "not working." For example, American style democracy. Almost all of our members of congress are owned by the big money contributed to elect them. They can't get anything done without the convolutions of side-stepping the toes and filling the pockets of their money masters. And Rush says we are capitalistic. Does capitalism include voiding market forces via bribes and political contributions? Is being too big to fail a "free market" thing? Capitalism: Enron, Bank Of America, GM, Chrysler, Bear Sterns, Countrywide, AIG...? It would be easy to say that "capitalism doesn't work." But we can't say this because we are not a capitalistic state. I'm not sure there are any real states with a capitalistic economic system. By whatever index is used, we rank about 15th in standard of living. Those nations above us are socialistic, having tax rates of about 50% or more. Are these people ready to revolt against confiscatory taxation? Are they unhappy about having to be their "brother's keeper?" Are they immoral people who soak their rich to support the unproductive? No, it seems that these are moral states composed of a large number of individuals who possess the traits of honesty, compassion, charity, empathy, fairness, caring, altruism, and forgiveness. With a net of social security, you would think there would be a large number of deadbeats who simply live off of the state. But in fact, these countries have low rates of unemployment. And you might think that on their jobs they would do sloppy, careless work, because after all, they get to keep less than half of their wages. But just the opposite is true. Despite the obvious success of socialism, we consider the very word a profanity. But even if the word had not been conditioned with negativity, a socialist system like the ones employed by the nations above us in living standards would not work here. We are just too greedy and our morality is just not up to this type of cooperative living. When Rush says "socialism doesn't work," he would be correct if he changed it to "socialism would not work here." And you would think that these socialist states would be very religious and that the force of God motivates them to love their fellow man and participate in this high level of sharing and cooperation. But this does not appear to be the case. Although they behave in a Christian manner, membership in organized religion is far below what we have here in America. And if they were upset that the government takes half or more of their income, why don't they immigrate to the USA. After all, many of these are physicians, mathematicians, engineers, and the like. Professions like these are welcome here; but this isn't happening. Are we just a bunch of criminal, greedy, immoral psychopaths, or have we been conditioned to think we are the best and that our system is the best, and so believing, don't even consider some avenues which just might make us better people and a better nation? People like Rush, with his fans eagerly awaiting his next punch--his next knockout, are so conditioned against the tools of progress that they consider these tools sinful. It is much like the attitude of southerners toward slavery before the Civil War. They were so conditioned to think that slavery was right, that they were willing to die for slavery despite the fact that most did not benefit from it. The talking heads have even perverted Christianity. A religion that commands us to love our enemies, love our neighbor, ask forgiveness and forgive now sees our needy neighbors as "deadbeats," unworthy of our "hard earned money." I think this can be found in John Wayne 3:16. The key to improving life in the USA is education. The more our people know, the less likely they are we to fall in love with demigods like Rush. The more we know, the more likely we are to elect and monitor good leaders. The more we know, the more likely we are to select programs that work for our people. The more we know the better is the chance that we will peacefully revolt to clean up our government. And lastly, the more we know, the greater the likelihood we will seek out and adopt the traits for successful living. But there are those who benefit from a poorly educated populace. And the way things look now it seems that we "can't get there from here." But we can get there if we can light a fire under just a few energetic, verbal, concerned, loving people. If we really cared about humanity and the world in which we live, we would look for ways to live together in a manner which promotes longevity for our species and for our planet. If we are to survive on a long-term basis, it is likely we will do so by forming some kind of world government. A good place to start might be with a common language. Maybe the various languages could contribute 5-10 words each year to be learned in all schools. Or, maybe the wealthy of the world can unite to kill off everyone else, so that the world will be safe for them. Maybe talking heads can get the white, undereducated, fundamentalist Christian, poor-to-middle class to kill of all the others in sects. Then all the rich would have to do would be to kill them off. They could do this by having the talking head convince them that vaccinations are the tool of the devil. Wouldn't that make an interesting movie? Say jalapeno! I was thinking about why a group of about 14 or so socialist countries are ahead of us in standard of living. We are the richest country in the world, and generally the rich live better than the poor. But not so here. I don't think it matters much the type of economic system used by a nation. What matters is having a population that is homogeneous, and moral, with a moral government. This mix will be successful no matter which of economic system is employed. Although human nature is as it is, these 14 or so countries seem to have homogeneity, good morality, and moral leadership. And if you are going to tax people 50+% of their income, you had better provide good services and you better not use that tax money in any unwise or wasteful manner. From what I understand, in these countries it is a personal and social disgrace to steal from the people, or to misuse the people's money. This is why these countries are ranked above us in standard of living. Despite our wealth, we lack at least one of the three components for quality living. While we have been exalted for being a "melting pot," it seems that our differences don't always blend so easily. Some matters of heritage and prejudice have made us volatile spirits that evaporate and drift, (in like kind), away from the melting pot only to condense into the same neighborhood. I would like to say that within the confines of the puddles there is peace. But that not how it is. So homogeneity, morality and moral leadership are not characteristic of America today. Education is the only fix.
|