Philosphical

The Fierce Urgency of Now

~ Michael ~ 2 Comments

I saw Lincoln over the holidays. Then recently I heard some clips of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. I was struck by the largeness, the monumental, historical proportions of the issues they faced. In his speech, King referred to “the fierce urgency of now.” It’s easy to see how fiercely urgent that “now” was.

martin-luther-king2The rhetoric of the issues soars naturally. The imagery and metaphors stir the soul; shivers traverse the spine. The right of humans to be free! The abomination of one human “owning” another human! The equal humanity of mankind, regardless of skin color! Now THAT is something worth fighting for! If blood must be spilled, let it only be spilled for causes so grand and glorious!

And then there are today’s issues. The most pressing: the federal debt and deficit. The fierce urgency of now? It’s more like the tepid urgency of 10 years from now. Ho hum. Booooooring. qoijasrtudkajdaoivmiop. Sorry, I just fell asleep and my head hit the keyboard. I think I broke the delete key.

Let’s do a compare and contrast of speeches then and a hypothetical parallel speech now:

MLK: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!”

ME: “I have a dream that my yet unborn great great grandchildren will one day live in a nation where government revenues will equal or exceed government expenditures. I have a dream today!”

Lincoln: “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.”

ME: “Now we are engaged in a sequestration argument, testing whether this nation, or any nation, so indebted and so over-commited, can long endure. We are met in a great smoke-filled back room of that argument. We have come to dedicate a portion of that room, as a final resting place for the expensive oil-on-canvas portraits of those who here gave their political careers in exchange for multimillion dollar lobbying jobs requiring little actual work that this nation might live. It is altogether inconsequential that we should do this.”

Chills, anyone? Yeah, me neither.

So let’s just admit and agree that one of the greatest debates of our time stirs the souls of only a few CPAs and nerd economists. But does that mean it is less important? Is now less fiercely urgent than 1863 or 1963?

Shivering spines (or lack thereof) notwithstanding, I contend that now is fiercely urgent. I contend that the urgency of now measures up to any time in American history. The stakes of the budget debate are not simply about money, or mere debits and credits. The stakes are the survival of the nation. The stakes are the free market economy that has fueled the unprecedented prosperity we enjoy. It will not collapse today or this year. It will probably not happen on Obama’s watch. But our trajectory is toward bankruptcy and economic collapse. We ignore this boring problem at our own peril.

Understanding these issues takes time, and may even mean (gasp!) turning off the TV to read something pretty wonkish about what is really going on with the budget. It’s not as simple as “Cut spending! Cut taxes!” and then everything’s fine. Neither is it as simple as “Tax the rich!” and then everything’s fine. It’s not nearly as exciting as some of the other big issues, including gun control. It’s difficult to think about it in concrete, tangible terms. But it’s fiercely important. We’ll be talking about it in some more wonkish ways right here on this blog (while trying to keep it semi-light and get an occasional chuckle if we can).

If you’re comfortable leaving these problems to Obama, Boehner, and Reid, don’t worry about it. We’ll let you know how it goes.

If, however, you understand that those empty suits lack the vision and courage to fix the mess, then begin now arming yourselves with an understanding of the budget, the deficit, the debt, the structure of government spending, and proposals to place us on the path to claw out of deficit, and then out of debt. I will endeavor to provide some analysis on this blog, and to do so in a way that is at least semi-non-wonkish (that’s a word, right?). I encourage you to check back and participate in the discussion, here and elsewhere. Our politicians will only begin to fix this when we intelligently demand it. We must lead them.

Finally, do not be fooled: Republicans are not prepared to lead us out of this mess.

Saddle up, folks. We’ve got to fix this. It’s fiercely urgent, and it’s now.

The Real Reason for the 2nd Amendment

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment

If you pay attention to the debate over gun control for more than about 45 seconds, you’ll hear all kinds of rights that the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect. The right to self defense. The right to hunt. A “well regulated militia.” The right to be free from tyranny. Historically, I believe that it’s fairly obvious that the predominant motivation behind passage of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the rights of the people to defend themselves against tyranny. But I believe the deeper reason that the public insisted upon the right to keep and bear arms when the Constitution was first ratified was that the people understood the importance of a diffusion of power.

Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_StatesConsider the structure of the government established by the Constitution. Three branches of government. One branch (legislative) was divided into two parts. Neither chamber can pass a law without a majority of the other. Even then, the President (executive branch) can shoot it down with a veto. But it doesn’t end there: the legislature can shoot down the shoot down with a 2/3 majority.

But neither the legislature nor the President was empowered to interpret the laws they passed and signed. That was given to the courts (judicial branch).

Consider further the legislative branch. The nation as a whole cannot elect any member of the House or Senate. For the House, not even a single state can, as a whole, elect a member of the House (except in those states having such small populations that they only get one House member).

The judiciary, intended to be the weakest branch, was guaranteed life appointments without any pay decreases simply to prevent the other branches from abusing their power by threatening judges.

And even the federal government established by the Constitution shared power with the States.

It’s like the Framers went around saying, “A wee bit of power here. A wee bit of power there. One more wee bit over there. Nope, that’s too much. Give me 1/2 of that back…” (I think that’s probably how Madison and Jefferson talked.) Every decision seems based on the premise that power must be diffused and not consolidated.

And that’s all in the body of the Constitution–not the amendments. When the general public saw how the new government would be structured, they demanded the Bill of Rights (admittedly, I’m abbreviating the history here). They wanted these 10 amendments because the body of the original Constitution did not sufficiently prohibit the exercise of certain powers. If you look at most of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, they are mostly statements of things that the federal government can NOT do. The whole Constitution, and the story of how it came to be the preeminent law of the land, is obsessed with the diffusion of power.

Power corrupts. No one is immune. Not Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, Bush, or Obama. At the time of the original ratification of the Constitution, the people recognized the value in giving some power to a centralized government. But the 2nd Amendment is their way of saying, “Be careful with that power, Jack, ’cause I got a gun with some power, too.”

Thomas Jefferson famously said, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing…” Reading this statement in its context (a letter to Madison, with the conspicuous omission of any use of the phrase “wee bit”), Jefferson even advocated that unsuccessful rebels should be punished mildly, “as not to discourage them too much.”

So, what is the 2nd Amendment really about? It’s about the diffusion of power. Reserving the power to the people to defend themselves against a government that falls prey to the corruption of power.

Of course, while we aren’t using our guns to fight tyranny, we can be busy hunting and defending ourselves from crooks.

A final point: I am not advocating violent rebellion, even against the obvious corruption in our government (and I’m not just saying that to avoid the wrath of Janet Napolitano). The problem–which should be painfully obvious to anyone but Piers Morgan–is that if we surrender our guns while we don’t see the need to resort to violent rebellion, it’s unlikely that a future tyrant will respond favorably to, “Excuse me, Mr. Tyrant, may I, umm, please have my gun back? I, umm, well, I’m not sure how to say this. [nervous laugh] Um, well, I guess I need to ummm [clear throat], well, okay, I guess I should just say it: [long pause for courage] I need to shoot you.”

A final point (sorry, I typed this in pen, so I can’t just erase the prior “final point”): one of the terrible things we are witnessing now is the consolidation of vast power in non-governmental places, i.e., corporations. I’m not a vicious anti-corporation zealot. Not all corporations are evil (actually, no corporation is evil. Some people who run corporations are evil). But some of them have acquired such massive power that they could not help but to be corrupted. Corporate powers and governmental powers (both parties) often forge unholy alliances. If that’s not power run amok, for which we all need some capacity to enforce our own rights, I don’t know what is.

Tell me where I’m wrong. Seriously, I mean that. Talk to me.

What’s a Free Radical?

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment

Not too far from my hometown of Austin, TX, runs the Guadalupe River.  Lots of people love to go on a hot summer day (we have a few of those down here almost every year), jump on some inner tubes and float down the river.  It’s a lovely, lazy time.  It’s great recreation.  The beauty of tubing down the Guadalupe is that it requires nothing.  You just hop in and wherever the river flows, you go.  It works because everybody knows where the river flows.  When you’re ready, you steer over towards shore and get out of the river.

It’s easy.

But what if it’s a metaphor for life?  What if you live a go-with-the-flow life?  Where does the flow go?  Who decides where it goes?

“Go with the flow” is our national attitude.  We used to hear, “If it feels good, do it.”  Now the unspoken command is, “If it’s easy, do it.”

What’s easy?  American Idol and X Factor are easy.  Even the History Channel is easy.  Eating cheap processed food is easy.  Unquestioning acceptance of our chosen media outlet’s political views is easy.  Hours upon hours on Facebook and web surfing are easy.  Staying up late (usually eating the aforementioned cheap processed food and/or watching TV) and living in the fog of fatigue is easy.  Gossip is easy.  Telling Republicans that Democrats are lazy bums who hate God and rich people is easy.  Telling Democrats that Republicans are Bible-thumping homophobic racists who want to control women’s bodies is easy.

I see the rewards of easy and they’re pitiful.  Depressing.  Count me out.

Whatever the opposite of a go-with-the-flow mentality is–I want that.  I want to be a Free Radical.  I’ve called this blog “Free. Radical. Thinking.”  Here’s what I mean by “Free Radical.”  There are four things that make a Free Radical:

  1. A Free Radical won’t be controlled by outside influences.  We are so bombarded by marketing messages and various propaganda that sometimes we are completely oblivious to it.  But marketers are brilliant. They know exactly what buttons to push to manipulate us to do what they want.  But first, they must have our attention.  Deny access to your attention.  Focus on things that are productive, fulfilling, and lead to the joy and prosperity you desire.  Determine where you want your life to go, make a plan to get there, and execute the plan.  Practice self control.  If you want to be free, you’ve got to be a bit radical.
  2. A Free Radical does not want to be normal.  As Dave Ramsey says, normal is broke.  He’s talking finances, but it applies to just about every aspect of life.  Normal is not just broke, it’s also fat and out of shape.  It’s intellectually lazy and profoundly uncurious.  Normal goes with the flow and gets whatever bitter dish is being served by those who need sheeple to spend money.  Count me out of “normal.”
  3. A Free Radical will accept ridicule for living a counter-cultural lifestyle.  This is essential if you eschew normal.  Watching almost no TV will get a lot of blank stares and funny looks (and to be fair, a few, “Wow, that’s great” comments, too).  Refusing to eat in slavish compliance with the government-issued Food Pyramid will get you some raised eyebrows.  Voicing thoughts contrary to the party line will get derisive scoffs.  Doing anything that isn’t “normal” will spawn pressures to get back in compliance.  Too bad.  I’ve seen normal.  Count me out.  Did I mention that already?
  4. A Free Radical is disciplined.  Try 1-3 without discipline.  You’ll be done in about 5 minutes.

Of course, I could not write and publish these things if I have not mastered them.  Thank you so much for noticing!  (Umm, how do you make the written word unmistakably sarcastic?)

I aspire to be a Free Radical.

What attributes am I missing?

Talk to me.