Hard to Believe that Congress could Blow a Chance!

It is almost axiomatic to say that Congress is a dysfunctional mess. There seems to be a sense that they can achieve nothing worth while. And then, hope seemed to rise from the dust. There seemingly was a chance for major legislation addressing immigration reform. And, there were reports that there may be another opportunity to address gun control.

And, then, reports started to emerge that the immigration bill may be in trouble. And with that, all hope for any meaningful legislation during this session of congress would dwindle even further.

The congressional malaise is so depressing. I feel so badly for President Obama who must be frustrated beyond any reasonable measure and also has to depress an implosion of the Middle East where there are no clear options. All those who write on foreign affairs are splintered from major intervention, without knowing its effects, to those advocating measured responses based on an assessment that there is no reasonable option available. Based on our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is difficult to form any positive scenario resulting from our intervention. In fact, apart from the invasions of small nations, e.g., Grendada, we have had no major military outcomes since WWII. Nothing has worked out "right". I now, with others,  advocate for minimal military intervention, with major diplomatic effort building coalitions advocating for genuine tolerance of differences among the various religious groups.

Security versus Invasion of Privacy

Snowden's revelation about NSA's data collection has resulted in a plethora of responses, including a surprising concurrence between liberals and conservatives on both sides of issue, viz., those who support such efforts to enhance our security and those who consider the present efforts as a massive intrusion of personal privacy.

I side with those who advocate efforts to provide security WITH safeguards for our personal liberty and I don't think that swe have such protections now.

From my perspective, the basic problem is a lack of transparency, an issue that I have focused on many times. Transparency spares the government many problems, not the least of which is that there would be no whistle blowing since everything would be out in the open. If we knew that the government was conducting specific surveillance and the program had gone through public review through an open court, there could be no need to be concerned.

Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law Professor who wrote a great book on the threats to our democratic government that I raved about, was interviewed by Bill Moyers this week. His long standing interest in ensuring that our personal privacy is protected dates back to 2000 when he published Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. His point, which I agree with, is that surveillance measures are appropriate to protect our security but the technology itself has to be coded so that no one person, e.g., Snowden, could take advantage of anyone personal privacy which is essential to our constitutional privileges.

There is a way to protect ourselves as well as our privacy. We have to do it and Congress has the ability to enable legislation to do it, if they so want to. And that is the problem. Congress only listens to the special interests and that is the problem. There is so much money involved in the surveillance mechanisms, e.g., contracts with Booz and Allen, that our personal interests become secondary.

Work: Necessary for Economic Reasons and More

It is always comforting when I read an article that resembles what I have previously expressed. Megan McArdle is an educated economist who makes her living by writing. Her most recent column about work could have been penned by myself.

Her point, albeit without any more of a solution that I proposed, i.e., none, is that the future for full employment looks dismal. She foresees numbers of people being unemployed essentially for life. Regardless of what economic supports society designs for such people, she is concerned about their well being in general. In short, jobs are a source of vitality of personal growth, human interchange, stimulation, and at least occasionally, fun. What will happen to people who have no hope for work because there is nothing that can qualify for or, if qualified, do not meet criteria.

When I read End of Work many years ago, I thought that the author was onto an inevitable outcome of our societies march into complex technology. Even with relatively few working, the author could foresee all sorts of positive outcomes with increased leisure for most, e.g., volunteerism, increased attention to the arts, etc. At the time (1995), Jeremy Rifkin's vision seemed plausible. Now, I am concerned that so many people have not evolved into a state where there they can utilize leisure creatively as a steady state of existence.

Both McArdle and I share no answer to the problem. "Make Work" society will not work for most. Even we direct resources to address our infrastructure needs, only relatively strong, physically fit people could be utilized. Make Work, as in the days of the CCC, will neither be productive nor ego-enhancing.

Our best thinkers have many problems to address. A future without full employment as a "normal" state has to be analyzed until we develop scenarios that feasibly could work.

When a "Good Idea" looks Bad!

It was not until I read Walter Mead's take on David Brooks' column that I recognized how a good idea can take a turn out bad.

When I first read Brooks' column, I was not too impressed. While I thought that he was reflecting a truth that the loss of religious practice in this country has had a negative effect on one's status in life, I interpreted it as an explanation of how we have changed. And surely, the loss of adherence to religions has had an effect on society. In the past, a past that I can identify with, one's status as a believer and a practicing one at that, was more important than one's economic status. One could feel good about life because the important element was in tack, viz., one's standing with God. In fact, it bonded us with all believers regardless of their economic status. There was an aspect of togetherness that bonded people in spite of their relative wealth. Brooks somewhat laments that relying, as we today, more on our economic status leaves us more alone. The measure of oneself seems today to rely almost totally on our economic success and this success has become increasingly more difficult to achieve. As I mentioned, my initial reading of the column was interpreted as interesting but somewhat irrelevant since we are not going to see a revival of religious identity in the near future, if ever.

I had to take a second look at Brooks' column when Walter Mead drew the conclusion that he hoped more people would realize the need to promote religious identity. Walter Mead is a conservative, but I read his blog regularly because he is very, very intelligent and even if I disagree, his arguments are very thought provoking and I realize that he may be right and I, wrong!

In short, Walter Mead wants us to see the benefit of attending church and identifying with religious truths since it promotes "togetherness". We may be economic aliens, but we can be brothers and sisters in the religious family.

I agree with both Brooks and Mead that adherence to religions promoted solidarity and I agree with both that solidarity is needed. I have lamented the loss of the value of the common good and religions often promote this value.

However to promote adherence to religion, independent of its own merits, is a fallacy. I want people to promote the common good, but I can see no reason to promote religions that I have concluded are inherently divisive and hateful. One can look back at much good that our religious identity provided, but we have to recall the bigotry it also promoted.

I have no answer to the problem of how we can now promote the common good. We are, in fact, living in the world where 1% have the most and the rest struggle, especially those with 50% or less of the wealth. I hope that the constant effort of many organizations and interest groups promoting a just society will eventually be convincing enough to sway those with wealth that it is in their self-interest, if not for a more noble motive of the common good, to ensure that all have enough to become active consumers, as Nick Hanauer clearly explains.

Individualism versus the Common Good

Reading David Brooks’ column on our society’s bent toward increased individualism, rather than good of all, was most thought provoking. I believe that he has an important perspective on the trend that started with increased technology that enabled communication without being present to the other person.

I clearly recognize the problem in myself. Before the availability of personal computers and the subsequent technology noted in smart phones, there were only two ways to communicate with another person: in person or by old fashioned land phone. Growing up in days long gone, neighborhoods in urban areas were bonded together because people walked more often (we never had an auto in our family until I was a sophomore in high school). When my mother died suddenly when my sister and I were young, neighbors only slightly known to us before, came to offer their help. One provided after school care for my sister and gave her supper for many years. Another family often gave me supper occasionally and took me on their summer vacation, luxuries at the time.

There were some wealthy people in Brockton, but most were wage earners, happy with Roosevelt’s legacy of supporting a middle class. Those wealthier were not isolated and surely were not proportionately as rich as the 1% is today. When I graduated from high school (1955), everyone felt positive about the future whether they planned on higher education or not.  There was a feeling that we were about to share a future that was similar but better than our parents had.

Since 1970’s, the trend has been increased wealth to a few with the remaining noting a decrease in income and total wealth. With unions disbanded, fewer could bargain and negotiate terms of employment.

What was strange is that the erosion of the middle class has occurred with few protests. Even Occupy Wall Street eventually fizzled out. Often I have written about the economic divide that has left more and more less wealthy with prospects of economic security in their older years less possible.

Whenever I have written or discussed the matter, it has been in the context of the loss of the value of the common good. What has seemed so clear to me, seemingly forever, is that everyone, including the rich, does better when everyone is secure with sufficient wealth. Providing assistance to others, whether in our nation or internationally, is good for others, but it is also good for us as individuals. It is in our self-interest that others are doing reasonably well. Social unrest and other civil or criminal matters rise when there is a threat to one’s well being. It just seems to be common sense to protect the common good since each of us is technically part of the whole.

At any rate, the loss of valuing the common good appears evident. David Brooks zeros in on the possible reason why the common good is no longer a vital ingredient in our public or political discourse. We have become more invested in ourselves as individuals because of the technology that allows constant awareness of others without being personally involved. There is no investment of our humanity is our joining the community fostered by media.

Sitting where I am makes this assertion real. I love Facebook, I love internet, I love knowing what others are doing and thinking. Yet, I never have to leave my chair! I am angry at the immobilization of Congress resulting from special interests and extreme ideology. But, I am not organizing protests. I am not joining protests. I write to the President, knowing full well that my message, at best, represents a click in the database of inquiries that make virtually no impact in reality. I may still support programs and policies that will benefit the common good, but my support is virtually meaningless. Unless people are mobilized to alter the parameters of the discussion, change does not occur.

When I focus on the unemployment issues, I cannot see how we will have “full employment”. Our GNP increases with increased productivity since fewer people are needed to do the work. Technology, including now robots, is transforming the work places of many, including those often thought to be immune from the invasion of computers. When startup companies are initiated, they most often envision growth without many employees. Needed expertise is contracted out rather than add personal. GM made news that they were bringing back manufacturing of small vehicles to the United States. This was made possible because the robots reduced the need of humans! Manufacturing without humans is competitive with China!

Modern communication enables us to focus on ourselves as individuals. The notion of the common good seems foreign to many. Surely, it is not evident in public policy. As long as our world is personally satisfying, it seems that we can forget the needs of others. The technology is not going away. In fact, it will become easier and easier with time to stay involved with others without expending personal effort and resources. If I recall that the personal computer became available to me as a VA employee in the early in 1970’s, I realize how far we have come in 40+ years and progress advances, according to Moore’s Law, every 18 months.

There is nothing promising about the future with less meaningful work for most in a world where people care less for others in need.

Life's Journey can be Unexpected but Great!

Last evening served to highlight the differences among peoples’ life journeys. The ordination class of 1963 was coming together to celebrate the 50^th anniversary of a special day. There were 21 men present; others either could not come (some through death) or did not want to come. There was a mix of people. Most were those who spent their lives as priests. There were, however, seven of us who left the priesthood at some point.

Conversations between those who remained priests and those who left were cordial, if somewhat disjointed. It was hard to quickly relate to one another.

For me and others who married, the experience of marriage, children and grandchildren differed radically from those who remained in the priesthood. Our lives become somewhat normalized, i.e., we were like most people. In contrast, priests ordained in 1963 generally lived with multiple priests in a parish and enjoyed high regard within the community. Today’s situation is different. Priests are essentially alone and are often a source of chagrin, not necessarily personally, but as a member of a collective body festered with allegations of sexual abuse. There was a feeling of relief that I did not remain.

When the opportunity was present for each person to share a few words of his life’s present circumstances, the dichotomy was more evident.  And so it should be, given the differences in life circumstances.

From a more personal perspective, I was aware that my life trajectory was dramatic. Recalling my commitment to the priesthood 50 years ago, I have gone from not only a person with a recognized religious identity to becoming essentially a living contradiction to everything I was.

Rather than a personal God, identified as three persons, now my God is an unknown force somehow sustaining an ever-expanding universe, larger than ever known to humans. Then, I was a person who considered my identity as a Christian as a remarkable gift, even made more special for being a Catholic. Now, rather than seeing these signs of uniqueness as special, they are sources of division. As a religion, Christianity (and, so Catholicism) enjoys the same distinction as other religions as the basis of bigotry, hatred, division, and, unfortunately at times, death.

It amazes me that my life has traversed such a journey. Every step was incremental. Never did I think that I would end up where I did, albeit the story is yet unfinished. When I think of all that I have read or known, people do not often change such basic core beliefs as radically as I have. For those who share a similar story, and there was at least one present, it all seems so normal. There was no trauma prompting transitions from one stage to another. It was like opening a book with several chapters, each subsequent one prepared by the evolution of the previous. What would have seemed incredible at one moment becomes self-evident at another.

Through it all, my life has been essentially stable, measured by family life and work. Married now 44 years with three adult and successful children and 6 grandchildren, I marvel at the normalness of my life.  It is only in this most sacred portion of my humanity that answers to the core questions of life and death that prompts much, if not all, of religions to surface, that I see the huge change that occurred incrementally but steadily over these 44 years.

I am a fortunate person to have left the past and walked into the future with a sense that nothing could have been worse than to remain indebted to a commitment initiated in a twisted moment in time.