On the Bases for Morality

In his speech to the students and faculty of Liberty University, Bernie Sanders continued his education of the American public mind. Bernie sought to find common ground with his audience through a shared concern for morality. If you recall, Jerry Falwell the founder and president of Liberty University , created his following under the rubric of the Moral Majority.

Bernie argued that justice is a fundamental moral concern rooted in the Golden Rule expressed in the Bible (Mathew 7.12) as  “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”       Issues such as the extreme wealth gap between the rich and the poor and the mass incarceration of young black men, are obvious examples of this moral injunction. Yet they are disregarded in favor of abortion and gay marriage as primary moral concerns.

I suggest that the reason for this is the difference in the foundations for morality. Morality founded on fictions such as those in religions founded on creation stories with their all-knowing and all-powerful god have no anchor in reality and can, therefore, become as fanciful as the human  imagination can make them. When those fancies are believed and motivate humans to behave in accordance with them, all hell can, and sometimes does, break loose. Moral issues founded on the human condition, such as Bernie’s concerns, are by that very fact more amenable to rational resolution than those founded on the arbitrariness of human fancy.

I believe Bernie knew what he was doing in his lecture to the students and faculty of Liberty University, namely, evidencing the difference in moral bases and helping those with a moral sentiment founded on the human condition to realize the difference. That he succeeded in some measure is evidenced by a post in Daily Kos by a student who heard Bernie’s speech and was impressed by it. It is not uncommon for young Americans to become religious as a vehicle for dealing with their moral concerns about the world. When those concerns are brought to religion they are often transfigured into the dogma of the religion. American society offers very little, other than religion, in which the burgeoning moral sentiment of the young can find expression. The sterility of our polical process does not solicit the moral engagement of the young. Bernie is changing some of that.

Once again, in my judgement Bernie was teaching people. A President of Bernie’s caliber would be a rare, if not unique, occurrence in American political leadership.

Bob Newhard 

Overpopulation and the Cheapening of Human Life

The consequences of overpopulation are many, ranging from wars for diminishing resources to environmental depredation. One consequence that is seldom discussed and represents a direct contradiction of the tenants of major religions, which declare their concern for human life, is the cheapening of human life and the consequences of that fact. For example the Christian Bible tells the faithful to be fruitful and multiply. This dictum springs from a tribal concern to maintain and increase its population as a protection against tribal extinction and a tool for tribal domination.

We ooh and ahh over a newborn infant.  We manufacture plastic fetuses for young girls to cherish as a doll. We denounce abortion as murdering a fetus and oppose anti-abortion forces in terms of a woman’s right to govern her own body, but not as a threat to the infant’s future.

Perhaps the most impressive demonstration of overpopulation’s cheapening of human life and its consequences is to be seen in what happens when human populations are suddenly underpopulated.

In the latter part of the 14^th century and the early part of the 15^th century Europe was ravaged by the Black Plague. It lost about an estimated 45 to 50% of Europe’s population. As a result the value of labor rose astronomically. This led to greatly increased job opportunities and labor mobility. In consequence serfdom began to disappear, primogeniture of inheritance diminished and according to Branko Milanovica”s article titled Can Black Death Explain the Industrial Revolution?, it even played a significant role in the development  of the Industrial Revolution In England some 400 years later. In brief, scarcity, as it so frequently does, breeds value.

But how does this play out in the 21^st century?

·      War – Life is cheap, especially that of the young who have accumulated no wealth or status. Notice the prevalence of conflict in Africa. In addition to its current overpopulation it is projected to provide the majority of the population increase in the 21^st century.

A scholarly paper I read a number of years ago found that the U.S. military devoted more recruiting resources to the Southern states because recruitment was more successful. In this country, as in the rest of the world, poverty produces soldiers.

·      Destruction of democracy

Overpopulation by cheapening human life increases poverty. The split between the haves and have nots grows wider and wider thus destroying the equality of power that democracy requires. We have seen this happening in the United States. The cheap labor of Asia destroyed jobs in this country and forced workers to accept considerably more menial jobs at lower wages. This has contributed strongly to the migration of increasing wealth to the economic elite, thus destroying our democracy by turning it into an oligarchy of wealth. The lesson many Americans have to learn here is that democracy is absolutely dependent upon an equality of wealth and to the extent this is not the case democracy is imperiled and begins to lose its hold on the body politic. All the rhetoric about voting is just that- rhetoric. We see the results daily in our national and local politics.

·      Job loss

We hear it from all points of the political spectrum because it is having such a serious impact on so many Americans. As population increases and the cost of labor continues to decline, the loss rate will increase until humanity rethinks the “job.”

The basic function of the job in a democracy is to distribute society’s gross domestic product among the populace. As jobs are imperiled by overpopulation, automation, longer work lives, etc., the job increasingly fails in its role of distributing the gross domestic product to a society’s citizens. Eventually, if the human forebrain continues to devise labor saving devices, we will have to develop a method other than the job to distribute society’s productivity. Some of you may remember the feather-bedding of railroad firemen as diesel engines replaced coal-fired steam engines. For a while firemen remained on diesel-drawn trains where they did nothing. Technology has been a major driver in producing unemployment and its attendant miseries. It has allowed corporations to export jobs and robotize our own manufacturing plants and commercial activity. Some thoughtful investigators, such as Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, fear that computer technology will eventually replace us unless we are very careful in how, or whether, we implement this technology.

In sum, all those anti-abortion, anti-birth control forces have a lot to answer for. Every little girl taught to carry a fetus doll, faces a world of over population and increasingly a distraught life. The emotion of joy at a child’s birth must be  tempered by human reason if our species is to protect and restore planet Earth, our only home. Let us not cheapen human life, let us value it, but understand that said values are totally dependent upon limiting the number of humans on our planet.

Bob Newhard

Learning from Bernie

When Bernie Sanders circulated his petition, I believe it was in 2011, asking people whose opinion he valued whether he should run for President of the United States, he sought the opinion of thinking, concerned people such as David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World. David said “Yes, we need you.” Unlike most candidates Bernie was seeking knowledge not money. 

Another lesson Bernie has for Progressives is to seek knowledge of the human condition and of the potential for improving it. Bernie has, for example, declared that he would value Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz as members of his administration. For Bernie, thinking and a fundamental concern for human welfare matter. With this kind of focus Bernie invites people to be participants, not merely supporters.

Bernie has shown us how to deal with distractions, important though they may be. After the Black Lives Matter people interrupted and stopped his speech he met with them, presented his proposals for addressing racism, which met with their approval, but did so in the context of his overriding economic message.

After the disruption some pundits voiced their belief the Bernie’s campaign was finished because of this racial issue. However, he has continued to draw large crowds and now has overtaken Clinton in New Hampshire and Iowa. I believe we have seen something of the depth of Bernie’s understanding and commitment in this episode. The lesson Progressives should learn is, when dealing with distraction learn, but keep your focus on the fundamental issues.

One of the largest lessons to be learned from Bernie is his deliberate choice to go South, not just in pursuit of additional voters, but to demonstrate to the Democratic Party and progressives that their practice of writing off the South as a lost cause, of which I have been guilty, is wrong and flies in the face of the unification this country so badly needs. By demonstrating  the economic plight Wall Street has placed so many ordinary Americans in, Bernie has shown that economic issues can surmount racial divisions. That he was able to draw thousands in Louisiana evidences the viability of the 50-state political funding emphasis that Howard Dean and Bernie have both pushed. The 50-state policy says, in effect, that all Democrats count when it comes to the use of party campaign funding.

Dean was promptly removed from head of the DNC when Obama was elected and replaced by Rahm Emanuel who strenuously opposed the 50-state idea. Emanuel  eventually went on to become mayor of Chicago and push privatization of the Chicago public school system.

Underneath all of this Bernie is teaching Americans that politics must focus on people and their wellbeing, not on money and the well-being of the rich, both corporate and personal. Maybe we can stop teaching our children that seeking one’s fortune is not a suitable goal in life for a citizen of democracy and that wealth is the enemy of democracy.

Bob Newhard

Understanding Bernie

Bernie and Noam Chomsky are long time friends. Bernie, in the 1980s and then mayor of Burlington Vermont, invited Noam to give a talk on American intervention in Nicaragua.

Recently Chomsky was asked by the Guardian what he thought Bernie’s chances of winning the election were and what Bernie would face in Washington if elected. The following is a quote from Noam’s response.

"I'm glad that Sanders is running. A good way to bring important ideas and facts to people. His candidacy might also press the Dems a little in a progressive direction. In our system of bought elections he has scarcely a chance of getting beyond the primaries, and even if by some miracle he were elected he wouldn't be able to do anything, lacking any congressional representatives, governors, etc. As far as I can see he's a thorn in the side of the Clinton machine, which is not a bad thing."

When I read this from Bernie’s friend and a thoughtful and knowledgeable political analyst, I tasked myself with trying to further understand Bernie and what he had in mind should he win.

Bernie Sanders is no fly-by- night. He knows America has to radically change its economic system and its social services. He has studied the Scandinavian system. He knows this has to be done with people not money.

Thom Hartmann has expressed his view that Bernie can productively govern through an effective use of the bully pulpit. He has shown a remarkable ability to communicate with Americans from all regions of the country. Hartmann also notes that Bernie would have the Congressional Progressive Caucus to work with. Considering the media onslaught that the “billionaire class” would bring to bear against him, he will need the millions of people he has called for. We should not forget that J. P. Morgan, et. al., sought to stage a coup against FDR.

Thom Hartmann has published an article titled Bernie Sanders could be the Next FDR. This, to me, indicates that Hartmann may be underestimating Bernie, which, parenthetically, Bernie has warned the media not to do. FDR came by much of his progressivism after he became president. Bernie would bring decades of progressive and socialist thought and action to the presidency. That office would reflect a depth of concern and understanding it has never seen before.

Finally, under Bernie, the United States could lead a global change in world government. Bernie’s support for the Greek revolution evidences his concern to rid the planet of financial corporations that make money off of money and contribute nothing to a genuine economy of products and services, then use this massive phantom wealth to control the global economy. This must be done to heal the planet from the ravages of a money-based economy, end massive human misery and death and bring our human numbers and level of consumption to a sustainable level. Bernie, unlike other candidates wants  humanity to succeed and will challenge those self-centered  maniacs who think otherwise.

Sanity must reign. Let us all help Bernie bring it to pass.

Bob Newhard

On Bernie, Foreign Policy and Integrity

I had read several comments by writers about Bernie Sanders’ failure or reluctance to present his foreign policy should he be elected. If true, I could understand such reluctance, especially this early in his campaign.

The functions of foreign policy are so varied, so multipurposed and so remote from the understanding of ordinary people that it can easily become the playground of those who seek to deceive and distract. Bernie is trying to build a common concern and understanding of the major reasons this society has failed and is failing the American people.

That said, I asked myself what might be some of the features of his presumed policy.

One writer who tried to do this decided to review Bernie’s extensive voting record in Congress. He found, for example, that Bernie had voted against every war except one. But these votes were in response to proposals by others and could not be expected to represent Bernie’s own developed thinking.

Knowing that Bernie’s political and social thinking was largely based on the experience of social democrats in Europe, especially in Scandinavia, I decided to look at their foreign policies. One feature stood out, that of peace and the promotion of peace. Indeed, Sweden’s foreign policy expresses that country’s desire to play the role of disinterested facilitator for countries faced with the prospect of war. An especial area of interest is Africa where the world’s major countries are vying for African land and resources.

Sweden has excellent credibility for playing the role of peace facilitator. It has had no war since 1864. All through World War II, in the midst of conflict all around it, it was able to maintain its neutrality. The closest it came to war during that period was when the Nazi regime demanded that Sweden allow them to move troops from Norway to Finland to fight the Russians. The pressure from the Germans became so intense that the Swedes set about arming their nation. The Nazis apparently decided the risk of ocean transport of troops in the Baltic Sea was, after all, preferable to an additional war.

At about this time in my research and in the current election campaign the controversy over the Iran nuclear deal broke out. Obama was trying desperately to find the support he needed in the Senate. Chuck Schumer, the presumed leader of the Democrats once Harry Reid retires in January 2016, declared his opposition to the agreement, whose major opponent was Israel and their immense lobby in Congress.

When Obama contacted Bernie on what his vote would be, Bernie asked some questions and then said he would support the deal the administration had negotiated.

Here were two Jews faced with an issue of war and peace revolving around nuclear warfare. Schumer gave as his primary objection the fact that the agreement would only last for ten years. Even on this basis was not 10 years of peace better than 10 years of almost certain warfare?

If one takes note of the fact that Bernie was raised a devout Jew, going to Hebrew school in the afternoon after public school, and that his father’s family was exterminated in a Nazi concentration camp, whereas I could find no such background for Schumer, Bernie’s integrity and commitment to peace versus the slaughter and suffering of war comes shining through. His commitment to mankind’s wellbeing is greater than that to the special interest of his birth culture. It is this way of thinking and fundamental valuing of humanity as a whole that our times and the future so badly need.

His sterling behavior in this matter reminded me of the behavior of the socialist party in Europe prior to World War I. The socialists sought to prevent the war by calling a general strike that would prevent mobilization and munitions manufacture. It failed because in the end the allegiance to country was greater than that to socialist principle. Not so with Bernie Sanders.

We have a candidate with a long-established concern for humanity’s welfare, an effective politician, a teacher of the populace and a realist who believes we the people can reclaim our democracy. The rarity of this circumstance should prompt all persons concerned for a better world and the survival of our species, to vigorously support him.

Bob Newhard

The Social Value of Diversity

One of the things that has long intrigued me is how unique cities arise when surrounded by a plethora of others opposed to its culture. How, for instance, did a democratic Athens arise when surrounded by arbitrary empires and militaristic city states. This time it was the anomaly of Austin, Texas in a state dominated by Southern values derived ultimately from slavery and racism.

Austin is the home of Jim Hightower, and until she died it was the home of Molly Ivins. James Galbraith teaches at the Austin campus of the University of Texas. In short, it has been home to more progressivism than many Northern cities. Granted, Austin is a university town and the State capital. One might expect a higher level of intellectualism than the rest of Texas. However, the University of Texas has 9 campuses, e.g. Dallas, San Antonio, which do not exhibit the level of progressivism that Austin does.

While Austin is the state capital, the legislature, which Molly called the “lege,” provided a constant target for Molly’s wit with its follies, ignorance and corruption.

In a Texas born of the desire for another slave state, whose legislature still regards a woman’s body as governable by the state, Austin progressivism is indeed an anomaly.

Not to mention Governor Rick Perry brandishing his sixguns in public.

 

I found a website (Google Why did Austin become so different from the rest of Texas?)  where a number of citizens were voicing their views on how Austin liberalism came to be. Prominent among the reasons was the accumulation of diverse human beings gathering over time for a variety   of reasons. This reminded me of philosopher Morris Cohen’s view that the unusual vigor of New York City was due primarily to its ethnic mix.

Reflections of this sort led me to see diversity as more than just the tolerance that is often used to defend it. Diversity creates social conditions that many people find attractive, if not essential to the freedom they require.

Why is it that creative and intellectual vigor have always been associated with cities? Is it not the freedom to be oneself, born of the absence of a stifling monoculture?

Diversity is thus as essential a condition for civilization as it is for ecological survival. Let us stop the dangerous nonsense epitomized by the burgeoning practice of building fences around our nations and deal with the real problems--overpopulation and overconsumption.

Bob NAewhard 

When Corporations Rule Greece

This week had been one denouement or disaster after another for Greece and those like myself who saw in the Greek resistance to the demands of the Troika the beginnings of a renaissance of people-founded governance.

Then came the removal of Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis from the negotiations  by President Alexis Tsipras, but I kept the faith that Alexis was trying very hard to find a way to keep Greece in the EU while getting bailout terms that would give the Greek economy a chance to recover.

Next I read an article by John Pilger, the Australian writer and documentary film maker, in which he declared that Alexis Tsipras and his group were conducting a large scale betrayal of the Greek people. I have a high regard for Pilger and found his article quite disturbing. (The article is titled The problem of Greece is not only a tragedy. It is a lie and can be found at http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-problem-of-greece-is-not-only-a-tragedy-it-is-a-lie.)

 

 While he offered little direct evidence for his assertion he did notice that Alexis and the leadership came from wealthy families and were highly educated. He noted that Alexis kept saying he was trying to get “the best deal” for the people of Greece despite the fact that those people had resoundingly declared in a referendum that they wanted no deal.

Then we began to see some of the details of the deal that Alexis and the Parliament had signed off on. Aside from substantial reduction in previously reduced pensions and other public assistance, which could easily be reversed by later governments, there were the demands to privatize major government facilities such as airports and seaports. Such privatizing is a hallmark of corporate takeover of government.

Finally, came the announced purge of leftists from the Syriza government by President Alexis Tsipras. This confirmed what John Pilger had seen. In short, the takeover of the Greek government by the left was not the beginning of a long overdue change in the global economy that had elicited the support of so many, including the people of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland. It was instead, a large scale kabuki dance led by the major financial institutions of Europe and perhaps America. As ex Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis has said of the deal, “Greece was subject to a programme that will "go down in history as the greatest disaster of macroeconomic management ever".

It is, to my mind, yet unclear how this will all play out. The people of Greece may rise up and throw the betrayers out. Yanis has been very vocal in his criticism of the deal which has such long term pain and suffering for the Greek people written into it as well as a pronounced loss of self-governance to the corporate powers of Europe.

The world needed a resolute rejection of the deal offered by the Troika to give the people heart to continue and intensify the struggle for democracy. Hopefully we can still find it, perhaps in a Bernie Sanders presidency.

Bob Newhard