My Directorial Debut

Not much time for blogging lately...but I am still synthesizing! This video is my somewhat creative attempt to help my kids avoid plagiarism.

Don't Give Me Liberty. It's Better if I Have to Take It.

Libertarians have always struck me as really smart, but not very wise individuals. They are passionate and know a lot of stuff, but I wouldn't trust them to manage my stock portfolio or raise my kids if you know what I mean. They can go on for hours rationalizing their argument for the removal of government, but be startlingly unaware of the thousand ways that could go horribly wrong. Ultimately it still seems a fool's gamble that leaves too much to chance, as though simply destroying government (at least most of it) would automatically "restore" American society to a utopian state and wash away all the problems that government (along with sundry other institutions) has created. Deplorable dog-eat-dog anarchy seems to me a likely result, which is why people like me still cling to the Leviathan I suppose. I realize this is a highly over-simplified and poorly thought-out characterization and I'm sure I need to read dozens of important books about the subject before I say another word...but ignorance has never stopped me in the past.

Besides, as of today I have now read one book by a Libertarian (I had to skim much of it because I hate accruing overdue library book fines.) and I admit that I ran across some refreshing and relevant ideas in Charles Murray's latest book, Coming Apart. It is a thoughtful book about the decay American social fabric and I recommend it to anyone. One passage I found most intriguing was his speculation about what happens to people if they are kept too "safe." He basically argues that when we are protected from failure life becomes hollow and it is impossible for us to achieve genuine self-respect, meaningful relationships, and self-actualization because it becomes too easy to abdicate responsibility. Here is the beginning of the passage...

"People need self-respect, but self-respect must be earned - it cannot be self-respect if it’s not earned - and the only way to earn anything is to achieve it in the face of the possibility of failing."

Although this is true on an individual level I think it is true collectively as well and I have often thought that this is why many of America's efforts at democracy building have not been as successful as we hoped. Self-determination like self-respect has to be fought for and won. I am not one who has a problem with us ever intervening in other places, but I think we have consistently failed to consider how each citizen of that country engages with the overall narrative of their country and how people derive self-respect from it. For example, we as Americans identify ourselves with the plucky individuals who overthrew British rule and established a unique political and social culture that changed the world. I think this narrative is the subconscious source of much of our self-confidence, all the way from streetwise hustlers to elitist academic liberals. It's no good for us to think Iraqis or Afghans will embrace democracy as a gift bequeathed from someone else. We need to recognize their need to establish their own nationalistic narrative of self-respect. Coddling and attempting to mold someone into exactly what you want them to be is morally suspect, intuitively idiotic, and fraught with danger. Why would it be any different for a nation?

But this book was really more about American society. As a libertarian Murray thinks that slashing the size of government will solve many of our social ills. The main reason that I usually oppose the weakening of our government is that I am afraid it is the only viable counterweight to a competitive corporate culture which is successful largely because it fails to consider the external costs or future consequences of its actions. I know that government is complicit in the survival of this corporate culture but government has also been (think Progressive Era) successful at ameliorating its rapacious impulses in the past. But maybe it won't work this time. Maybe a libertarian would be right to say that removing government is actually the only way to defeat the current incarnation of this persistent corporate malady. Perhaps too much government has taken away our self-respect and we are losing connection with our own unique narrative. Instead of letting the government fight our battles against corporate America, perhaps we the people have to reclaim the responsibility to stand up for ourselves and defend our own future. Perhaps our older brother has been protecting us (not very well) from middle school bullies too long and if he moved on to high school we would discover that we actually have the self-respect and gumption to fight back against impossible odds. Perhaps if we realized that the buck stopped with us, and perhaps only then, we could write or rewrite our American narrative of self-respect with a renewed emphasis on civic engagement, community building, and the willingness to take responsibility for what we buy. What do you think? Wanna be a libertarian?

Warding Off Political Apathy - Part 2

I guess we're going to have to do more than just vote.

Since the last post I read Lawrence Lessig's new book, Republic, Lost and really liked it. He argues that in the U.S. a virulent new incarnation of an old political disease is threatening our republic. Politicians have recently become unprecedentedly dependent on campaign contributions. Like really unprecedentedly. They also need to spend so much time raising money that they are unprecedentedly ignorant about policy issues. Lobbyists (often politicians who have "graduated" from Congress) step in to solve both of these problems by financing and educating them on behalf of wealthy rent-seeking interests. We the people are left out in the cold.

Oregon's 1st district just chose the poison on the right
...or should I say "left." ugh!

Most of us know this, or at least sense that something like it must be true, and we tune the politics out. But we the people must overcome our cynicism (however justifiable) about federal politics if we want to prevent our government from leading us off a cliff. Simply casting our ballots is no longer enough. Both parties will continue to disappoint us. The financial power of special interests controls too much of the system. The only useful tool that we the people have left is engaged citizenship. That's the first reason why the ward system of voting discussed in my last post would be beneficial.

We can do this too, but with air conditioning and deodorant!

Reason number 1 - It will encourage citizenship. You and I still may not care about every issue, but for the issues we do care about, ward voting would be feasible to sway a large voting bloc to our way of thinking. Don't you think that would make political dialog seem worth the effort? We could meet and discuss policy and ideas with the people in our ward. Delegations could go to other wards to spread ideas and promote productive debate at a grassroots level. That sounds an awful like what those wig-wearing colonial agitators were doing in the 1780s, doesn't it? Old George and the boys didn't crowd into stuffy Independence Hall to create a set of laws so that the rest of us would never have to. They saw dynamic participation in lawmaking as the quintessential civic virtue, the only alternative to subjugation to the establishment. So a ward system would draw each and every citizen back to the founding principals of our democracy. Political virtues like conciliation, compromise, respectful dialog, empathy, deliberation, or initiative might be sorely lacking in our country now because so few of us have to actually use them.

Do not fear the ward. We're not talking about mental
hospitals or Mormon assemblies. A ward is also just "an
electoral district or unit of local government."

Also, in states that allow direct democracy (initiatives, recalls, and referendums) wards could introduce legislation or work with representatives to develop it more thoughtfully. In Oregon, a ward system would have helped us to avoid the Measure 37 debacle. Measure 37 was a citizen initiative (these usually bypass professional lawmakers) and a foolish and damaging over-correction to our admittedly stringent land-use policies. It reminded us of the benefits of a rigorous and synergistic legislative process. (Professional lawmakers are not useless!) Not only would a ward system have developed a more sensible measure, but less impulsive ward-bred voters would never have voted for it.

Reason number 2 - A ward system would reduce the influence of moneyed interests. By magnifying the effect of informed citizenship, fewer people will be swayed by fear mongering, shallow campaign slogans, and spurious arguments that corporations, unions, and wealthy ideologues use so effectively now. Measure 37 appealed to us because it purported to protect individual rights, but the people who were truly in a position to benefit were large-scale developers. These moneyed interests will at least have to make better arguments that appeal to a broader range of people if they are to successfully sway whole groups of citizen-voters.

To flex our political muscles we have to build some!

"But wait," you say, "This sounds like a lot of work." True, there will potentially be more effort involved. Some of us will undoubtedly continue to "phone it in" and engage very little in the process. Sometimes our life circumstances will even require it. That's OK. Those votes will count just as much as anyone else's within a ward, but for those ward-members who have the time and inclination they can profitably put in a lot more effort to influencing the voters in their ward. This may sound scary if you would rather stay at home and not be involved, but remember that your ward's vote still "only" counts for 1000 votes. Even if some whackjob liberal down the street from you is putting in WORK at your ward he will still only have a relatively small influence.

A lone sheep is a dead sheep.
Let's put our heads together!

And that's exactly the point. The people who will really lose are those associated with the big money that is running politics right now. It won't be feasible for them to "infiltrate" each of the 2000-plus wards that would be set up in Oregon in order to influence elections. They are happy to profit from the current system where citizenship is diffuse and money can be poured into your TV screen with great effect. But if you can easily go down to your ward to hear different points of view on a particular issue you are much less likely to default into thinking about issues in the simplistic ways that the super PACs define them. So right now you can influence politics inordinately if you have money, but in a ward system you will be able to influence politics inordinately with your sweat. That seems much more American, don't you think?

It doesn't have to be this way.

Reason number 3 - It will bring our country together politically. Politics is not considered good dinner conversation, but don't you think grown-ups should learn how to talk productively about sensitive issues? I bet we would see that although "tea partiers" and "occupiers" certainly have their differences, they have much more in common than we have been led to believe. In fact, in a ward democracy these movements probably wouldn't exist because the underlying issues would already have been addressed. We should view these movements as symptoms of our society's political dysfunction, rather than viable cures. I'm sure there will be some irritating ideologues in every ward (occasionally I'll probably be one of them), but I imagine a lot more people from the "busy majority" will be represented. In addition, these wards could foster much needed social cohesion at a local level. Rather than driving across town to commiserate with people who think exactly like we do in our clubs, activist groups, and churches, we will learn to relate, really relate, with our neighbors again. We will be able to see that the vast majority of pro-lifers or pro-choicers are rational, lovable people who grasp the thorniness of such issues much better than we would think. On most of these controversial issues we only ever listen to the radically cocksure minority. Then we hastily demonize entire thought categories because of their most vocal representatives. This silly ignorance is best diffused by providing people with the opportunity to confront the "demons" in all of their complexity.

Reason number 4 - Honesty would be better rewarded among those who hope to be leaders. Right now we the people are looking for a political savior. Our desperation is growing palpable and our ears are itching to hear the bold and sweeping promises of someone supremely confident and ostensibly competent who is faster than a speeding earmark, more powerful than a filibuster, and able to leap tall corporations in a single bound. We flit around from charismatic figure to charismatic figure hoping to be swept off our feet by another Abraham Lincoln. (Happy 203rd bro!) But as anyone on the dating scene will tell you, brash confidence looks attractive at first but usually veils a lack of substance. While we are obsessing over the latest Mr. "Political" Universe, all of the more contemplative and reflective (though less telegenic and self-assured) candidates realize that it makes more sense for them to just stay home. And when the veil is lifted we will once again find ourselves on our backs looking up at Lucy, duped again.

Warding Off Political Apathy - Part 1

Would you like to recreate this scene in your neighborhood?

In this election cycle Republicans have to be more conscientious than ever about saying that they will reduce the "size" of government. They might even have to mean it. I heard Mr. Gingrich make such a promise a few primaries ago in Johnston, Iowa. In exchange for reduced government however, he asked something of us: increased citizenship. Whether or not you think government needs to be downsized, most of us can probably agree that citizenship has waned substantially in our country and may be at an all time low. It's hard to imagine how JFK could tell us just 50 years ago not to ask what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country. Does that sentiment even make sense to us anymore? Our country should be able to take care of itself right?

Is my ballot in there anywhere?

My own lack of engaged citizenship has disturbed me for a long time. The primary problem is motivation. I feel incredibly distant from government power and my vote seems like little more than a token. It is discouraging to think how much hard work would be required to fully grasp the complexity of the many political challenges we face and then watch that hard work swallowed up by giant bins full of other ballots cast by people who think that political discernment is absorbed passively from cable news shows.

I guess he ran for NASCAR president too.

Maybe the enormous population growth in our society has alienated us from our government in ways we need to counteract. Consider the following: John Quincy Adams won* the 1824 presidential election with 113,122 votes. John McCain lost the 2008 election because he only got 60,000,000 votes. For every American that successfully elected JQA there were 530 who couldn't quite get it done for McCain 184 years later. It is astounding to think how small our electorate was in the good old days. There were fewer votes cast in that election than there are voting-age citizens in Multnomah County today! Back then, it seems to me, our efforts to understand the issues would really have paid off. Discussing and debating issues with those around us could really have an influence on an election, even at a national level. Now it just seems like an exercise in futility or pedantry depending on who you are talking with. People who "know" about politics these days are probably much more likely to be lunatic ideologues rather than the conscientious, wise, humble, and creative citizens we need.

So here's my plan to fix all that.

Ready?

It's simple:

Give up your vote. Rather than voting individually we can unite together and vote collectively. We would divide our country into equal sized wards of say 1000 people. These wards would have regular meetings, discussions, and rules of order. Each ward could cast one vote on any issues that we vote on currently: ballot measures, representatives, bonds, levies, as well as mayors, governors, and presidents.

 Who has time to fill out ballots? Can't I just "phone it in"
like I do for DWTS? Text "citizenship is dead" to
20500 to vote for Barack or Sara

This might sound like a radical, anti-democratic ploy by a half-baked, half-educated half-wit. Well…I’ll only deny the first bit of that…because really this is not such a radical idea. These wards would be democratic, so I’m not really asking you to give up your vote. In fact, I hope to amplify it. This is a tactic that states have been using for a long time. For example, in Oregon we expressed a slight preference for Obama in the last election, but we gave him all of our electoral votes so that we could maximize our influence on a federal level. At this point, state populations have grown so large that it would be helpful for us to have more manageable civic units so that politics could be thought of as a social enterprise again rather than a smattering of inchoate private preferences that we’d better not discuss with the in-laws. Take another look at the School of Athens painting by Rafael and imagine they are discussing political issues. It seems like truly democratic people shouldn't just be driving to the library twice a year to drop off their ballot, but should be lounging in some public square now and then to discuss their ideas with friends, acquaintances, and even strangers.

If you don't like my plan then Socrates
thinks you're an idiot.

When I think of the democracies I would most like to have been a part of I think of small polities where political discourse is not limited to a handful of demagogues, talking heads, and television pundits, but truly involves everyone. Perhaps this has never existed in the way that I idealize it, but I think it is much more likely to have existed in smaller sociopolitical assemblages like ancient Athens, some Native American tribes, the Republic of Venice, or a Swiss forest canton. In these smaller civic units I think it must have been much harder to disengage from politics. I believe that a ward system would draw us out from our private delusions and force us to expose them and refine them. Just like a flabby stomach, we are much more likely to tone up our political thinking if we know someone is going to be checking it out. Let's dare to make this "res publica" a truly public thing again. And while we're on word derivations, let me remind you that the word “idiotes” in Greek was originally the word for a private person, someone who didn’t participate in public life.

Anyway, I decided to break this post up. In the second half I will enumerate more specifically what I believe to be the benefits of this "ward system" of democracy...or maybe if I could just find some people to talk to about politics I could stop blogging entirely.

We the Consumers

If the financial stakes are really being raised in the political sphere as high as I indicated in my last post then I would like to predict at least one high profile assassination in the U.S. in the next three years.

Secondly, I would like to remind you that I promised to unveil an idea for a new form of democracy in the blog post after this one. That is still my plan. Be prepared. It will take the world by storm.

If you have one of these you are an active voter.

Now to the topic at hand: just wages. In my last post I explored money in politics, which I find vaguely frustrating since I can't do much about it. So now I want to think about the money in my wallet. The value of our political vote may be on the wane, marginalized by the rising influence of corporate cash, but our economic vote (how we spend our money) is as important as ever. Not only does it exert economic influence on the companies we are buying from, but it also has a moral component that influences our very character.

There is a good chance that you have eaten chocolate from
cocoa grown by these kids at this gunpoint. 69% of the
world's cocoa is grown in West Africa.

Unfortunately, the moral implications of our spending are often obscured by the increasingly impersonal relationship between us and the people we buy things from. This makes economic justice in the modern world bedevilingly complex. My argument here is that we are hurting not only others but even ourselves when we fail to strive for a better understanding of what our spending means. Ignorance is no excuse, but it is the only one we have. Consider the following passage from the Bible. 

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you." - James 5:1-6

This passage is basically saying that living large while taking advantage of other people is not only wrong, but will hurt you. With all the talk about fields, harvesters, and moth-eaten garments the passage might not seem very relevant to my highly sophisticated readership, but I think it is extremely important that we consider this passage in a modern context. So, if they aren't out your back door, then where are your fields? And if they aren't in your backyard, then who are your harvesters?

Sure, it looks like easy living now, but you should have seen
this guy an hour ago in the milking parlor.

In the time Jesus' brother wrote these words there would have been lots of people who were proprietors of some sort. Some of them were so rich that they didn't have to work their own fields. They were lucky enough to escape the curse of Adam. "Cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken." With the exception of one good friend (shout out to Rohne's Long Island Dairy!) I don't know anyone who works their fields for a living. There are also very few of you who win your bread by "the sweat of your face" like Dirk does. I've seen him. It's not pretty. For the rest of us who have escaped this part of Adam's curse we need to look elsewhere to make sure that we are paying the mowers and harvesters of our food (and the producers of all the other products we consume) appropriately and that their cries of injustice will not ascend to the Lord's aural cavity.

Rather than the occasional wealthy landowner of biblical times, there are whole nations of wealthy individuals now who live with luxuries that our ancient forebears could never have dreamed of. If you are reading this you are one of them. Additionally, our world economy is structured so that we don't ever have to look the exploited people in the face. They are separated from us by oceans and centuries. They might be harvesting our 30-cent bananas right now in Ecuador or suffering from our depletion of resources one hundred years from now.

You are what you eat. Feedlot beef for feedlot people?

But it is not just they who pay a price. Those of us living in luxury risk being fattened in the day of slaughter by ignoring what luxury, self-indulgence, and self-obsession do to our souls. As James says earlier, friendship with the world is enmity with God. To follow Christ you have to "deny yourself" because you will either find your comfort ultimately in this world's pleasures or in Christ. No one can serve two masters. For me one of the saddest and most troubling passages in the Bible is Luke 16, which ends with a rich man in hell being told, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. Woe to us if we love our good things too much and do not count them as rubbish, in order that we may gain Christ.

Now I am not suggesting that we all should become Amish and categorically reject modern luxuries. I don't think the Bible goes quite that far. I'm not suggesting that income inequality should somehow be abolished. I'm not even suggesting that you should grow some of your own food in a garden if you aren't into that kind of thing. But I am saying that we need to think very carefully about what we buy and who is getting paid to produce it. If comparing prices is more important to us than comparing ethics then we are serving the wrong master.

Consider Tillamook Cheese. I don't like everything about Tillamook, but there are good reasons to believe that buying more expensive Tillamook products is morally superior to giving any more of your money to Kraft Foods. I realize that this is a bold and controversial statement, but consider the following. Tillamook is cooperatively owned (so my buddy Dirk is part owner). The cows are largely grass fed. Farms are "family" sized and thus the land is less vulnerable to the shortcuts of agribusiness. Farm laborers are valued and well paid. Finally, for those of us in the Pacific Northwest Tillamook is local so that shipping and refrigeration externalities are minimized. I realize that deciding which cheese is most ethically produced is a complex and somewhat subjective issue. You may not think that Tillamook is all I have made it out to be, but I hope you will accept the principle nonetheless. If it is a more ethically produced product, then you have some explaining to do if you are unwilling to pay more for it.

From latinorebels.com

If you were lucky enough to escape the working-your-own-land-for-your-own-food part of Adam's curse, then someone is probably suffering the curse for you. It might be exploited children on a cocoa farm in West Africa. It might be your great-grandchildren who will have to pay the external costs (low crop yield and thus higher food prices) incurred by our decision to drain the Ogallala aquifer and deplete our soil and water quality through over-fertilization. It might be small farmers who have been driven out of business because of policies, regulations, and manipulation that favors the big moneyed interests that produce the cheapest products.

So, I think we need to adopt a new attitude when we go to the grocery store. I admit that it is difficult to do and we won't be able to figure it all out right away, but let's walk the aisles thinking about fairness, sustainability, and if you believe in him, God. Remember that when we buy it we are complicit in whatever circumstances brings the food to the supermarket shelves. It may sound like a duty you will be shackled with, but I really believe this will set us free. We will be free from obsession with cheap food and good deals. We will be free to pay what our food is really worth. Our relationship with our food will be the slow, deliberate, lingering enjoyment of a man with his wife rather than the obsessive, lustful, exploitative fix a man gets from his mistress. As the Bible says elsewhere, he who loves his wife loves himself.

Love your food!