On the Failure of voters to Care about Themselves

There was a segment on Jon Stuart’s Daily show recently. To view the segment, the mariner provides a link: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-23-2013/gun-control—political-suicide

The subject presumably is about gun control but the back story is really about the character of elected officials. The segment compares the character of legislative members in Australia with the character of U.S. legislators. One is forced to think about the denigration of our American legislators. The segment, reported by John Oliver, asks the priorities of a legislator in Australia:

1. Pass legislation that benefits the citizens and improves society.

2. Hope the legislator’s decisions are liked enough to reelect the legislator (the Australian legislator voted for a gun ban bill that cost him reelection. He knew the vote would end his career because he was from the most conservative district in Australia).

John Oliver asked the same question to the chief aide to Senator Harry Reid:

1. Get reelected.

2. Pass legislation (prompted by Oliver – the aide stopped after the first one).

Elected officials in government are there because the electorate put them there. Enough of us voted for each money grubber to allow him to get into office and set up a system that makes it unlikely anyone can defeat him in future elections so he can get rich from favors and lobbyist contributions without being accountable to the wellbeing of his constituency. No intention to exclude female legislators. We did that with our votes. Each of us is accountable for the deplorable state of our government – federal, state and local.

Why do we do this? We are quick to dump a legislator who has an affair that has little if anything to do with the wellbeing of the constituency but willing to reelect legislators who have shown no diligence to what would benefit individual citizens over what a lobbyist prefers and will get because he slips cash into the legislator’s pocket.

We are quick to elect any one issue candidate because he touts one issue that is popular but does not publically represent the rest of his social philosophy – which may be disastrous. And it seems we are influenced by negative political ads. The mariner knows this much: When a candidate starts talking about his opponent, he has stopped talking about his own intentions. When the crap starts flying, this is a sign that the candidate has inadequacies and would rather point out the other candidate’s inadequacies. And we buy this stuff!?

The John Oliver segment uses gun control lobbyists as an example of undue influence but this observation from dockside is about us – not the gun lobby. We put these jerks in office.  Why? How? What made us do that? What can help the individual voter make better voting decisions that will benefit their own life and society?

The mariner doesn’t know the answer but this failure of the American citizen to assure a healthy society needs to be investigated and fixed before anyone can hope for better government. I wonder what the effect would be if a candidate could raise campaign money only within his district? Just musing – such a bill will never pass. The electorate has to clean out the legislatures first.

 

A new culture for economy – what’s next? Redux

What follows is the very first post to The Blog of the Ancient Mariner. It was posted on April 5, 2013 at 2:AM. He could write the same post today. These thoughts seem more urgent, more dire than when this post was published.

The topic is what next? It’s mostly about us – the masses, the common citizens, the disenfranchised, the young who have no yardstick for the future because there is no means by which to measure the future; the jobless who have lost pride and station in life because automation and the global economy have dropped them by the wayside, the seniors who are hale, hearty, living extended lives but are pushed aside and left with little purpose. Wrapping all these demographics into a bundle, what is their purpose? What binds them? What makes them equal and whole individuals? What is the common social fabric?

The mariner is reminded of the Vietnamese immigration after the Viet Nam War. That was a set of people with no extra resources; all they had was hard work and imagination. Many had higher education, even postgraduate degrees that were of little use in the in the United States. The Vietnamese took labor jobs, families helped families, somehow saved a significant percentage of income, opened small, low overhead businesses like dry cleaning, beauty parlors, finger nail shops and small soup kitchens. Now, their children are going to college or growing the businesses of their parents.

What is the next purpose for the American masses? There must be one; there must be a value that is created by many millions of living people; There must be a unity – that is a natural law inherent in the homo sapiens species. The new hardship is that no one will invent it for us or do it for us; we have to invent it and do it ourselves.

The future is still in darkness but a light, a very, very, very faint light is sitting in the corner. It is, for want of a word unknown at this time, ‘sharing’. Sharing can be a purpose. Sharing can be an economy. Sharing has growth potential. Ah, but the light is so faint. What will common sharing look like? Can it draw from wasteful economies that no longer serve the masses efficiently? Can it invent new businesses – profitable businesses – that are based on sharing? Can local government become a protector of a sharing culture?  Does sharing mean we, the masses, must share ourselves in some way for the common good? The US citizen may be better off than the Vietnamese immigrant but the creativity they have for generating a small economy under the larger profit-intensive US economy seems a good model.

Can those who know share knowledge with those who don’t know without the overhead of educational corporations? Leading edge electronics and upstart businesses have no correlation to formal education. The same can be said for liberal arts, religion, and equal distribution of resources like food, water, manufactured goods – all of which possess extreme inefficiencies and waste when delivering a profit-only product.

Dare we dream that the cultural mandate for hoarding profit be converted to a cultural mandate for sharing profit? There are fragile signs: Habitat for Humanity; zero balance loans to indigent women in Africa; Americorps and the international version Peace Corps; Salman Khan (www.khanacademy.org), Project Hope, the floating hospital, even the woman interviewed on CBS News who shares her sofa by leasing it overnight. All are based on sharing – surviving off the excesses of the profit-only model. Remember Victory Gardens?

The mariner has a friend in Maryland who owns a 40 foot boat. He uses it occasionally but is concerned about the overhead. As a model for profit by sharing, he could lease the boat well below the rate of a profit-only charter service and still make enough to maintain the boat, keep a few dollars and share the rest of the income with another ‘share’ business that may provide a few jobs. The light is still too faint to imagine what an entire culture of sharing will look like but this seems a good example: use what you have to generate income.

The common citizens will have the burden of finding a way to survive financially. Giant corporations are just getting started as a global market emerges. The mariner suspects there will be economic room beneath the global markets. Twenty years ago an American steel manufacturer stayed in business by making specialty steel – something large volume steel corporations that moved overseas couldn’t afford to sustain. Genuinely organic farming still defies the ‘legislatively defined’ organic products produced by large scale producers. Organic growing is time and labor intensive – something that doesn’t fit the profit-only model.

Detroit, Michigan is about to go bankrupt. Population has dropped by a third and there are no jobs. A few years ago, the City had to come up with something to provide food for vast neighborhoods that had no grocery stores. Detroit leveraged the many vacant blocks by turning them into gardens and small livestock operations (sheep, goats). It is a fine effort but doesn’t generate the taxes the missing profit-only corporations provided before they left Detroit. Nevertheless, many common citizens have something to eat that otherwise would have nothing.

The profit-only culture has become so excessive that it can be undercut and still deliver services and provide jobs that profit-only business cannot afford. In Colorado, a one owner bakery thrives near a Dunkin Donuts shop.

For the conservatives among the readers, sharing is not socialism, it is personal profit by sharing what one can invest of his or her own resources; for the liberals, it is not communal living, it is profit through sharing outward – not dividing inward. The Vietnamese immigrants didn’t care what they were called; They were in the business of surviving.

Ancient Mariner