My friend JJ and I talked about our general political principles, which we already knew to be different. The point wasn’t to convince each other of our positions but simply to have a conversation. This exchange took place on Facebook, obviously, and I want to archive it here for future fun.
————
Shashi Thandra To summarize: The US has massive budget deficits; manufacturing and other production has declined substantially; American labor can’t compete with global labor’s wage rate or expertise; teachers are glorified babysitters. There might be a link between these things.
David Daratony Class warfare. I waited to chime in on this issue. The Right claims it’s propaganda from the Left — which is propaganda from the Right. Every night on FOX you see the Upper Classes, those representing the wealthiest Americans attack teachers and other working middle class folks. Here in Michigan, the Republican legislature wants to lift tax breaks for the middle class and tax retired folks pensions in order to give tax breaks to businesses. This doesn’t create jobs. As we see on Wall Street, these tax breaks for business skim off the bottom to give to the top. All this while middle classes defend their very livelihoods, social mobility, and most importantly civil rights. Hesitate to call them rights, but it’s most commonly understood in these terms.
Obviously, tax code is spurring on the battle of the classes.
The key to this, as you mention manufacturing, is what kind of economy we would want in order to ameliorate all the problems you already mention. If we work with the environment instead of against it, we would not only create new sectors for job growth but grow existing sectors, which are trying to establish themselves in energy.
J.j. Lourentzos America’s inability to compete with global labor’s wage rate has nothing to do with tax breaks for the wealthy. In fact, that comes from a liberal program mandating minimum wage that, while it definitely helps keep the American standard of living high, also prevents manufacturing companies from competing. In fact, it could be argued that the tax breaks for big businesses are an example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Shashi Thandra DD: I agree with you on the new directions necessary for growth, economic and otherwise.
JJ: You’re right to say that labor wage rate has nothing to do with tax breaks for the wealthy, which is why I didn’t say that. However, minimum wage and other things inhibiting competition have little to do with “liberalism” in any historical sense but everything to do with collective protests, strikes and bloodletting to earn some basic rights; the same things that found democratic republics freeing themselves from colonialism.
What I don’t understand about the fiscal conservative position is this: If the basic principle is free-market capitalism, then why lament the loss of American jobs? It’s just the free market operating right? Or, if you want to conserve American jobs then the (Federal or local) state must interfere in market mechanisms (tariffs etc)?
I know I’m simplifying the issues but I’m sincerely curious to know how one makes sense of what strikes me as antithetical commitments.
J.j. Lourentzos Minimum wage is a good thing, but it’s not a basic right. However, if you’re looking for a reason why U.S. labor cannot compete with the world for wages, then look no further than the wages the U.S. worker demands. Dont’ mistake that for anything resembling a value judgment. You asked, I answered.
Why does the fiscally conservative position have to be so jingoistic? If I’m not lamenting the loss of jobs, I’m not a good American, right? So my choice is to be a hypocrite or an asshole here? Ok, I choose asshole.
Shashi Thandra I wasn’t trying to create a lame trap question and I agree with you that the choice isn’t merely between being a hypocrite or an asshole. And I certainly don’t think that being fiscally conservative means that you don’t lament job loss or are a bad American. However, I am interested in how one makes sense of these contradictions and am always amazed by smart people coming to such different conclusions. Thankfully, there’s a chance for conversation.
Yes, the current US worker demands wages higher than his counterparts elsewhere in the world. But those demands grew slowly and over a long period. That is simply to say that they are constantly changing in relation to what can or should be gotten. Wages aren’t “value judgements” but always less than what the final product can be sold for, i.e. must always leave room for profit; obvious perhaps, but worth saying. In the search for continual profit, companies have historically and will continually look for cheaper labor.
The need for cheap labor, though, produces all sorts of grotesque institutions; imperial wars, colonialism, slavery, apartheid and even genocides. These seem too steep a price to pay, and a price paid by a global majority, to enrich a minority. Too many countries and their empires have engaged these practices historically, and continue to do so now, that I’m not a fan of capitalism as a good way of organizing human beings or the resources they use.
(a bit foggy from a party yesterday)
J.j. Lourentzos I would like to know the system apart from capitalism that you would prefer to see implemented and what protections against a man’s natural tendency to use an opportunity presented to further his own station at the expense of others you might consider to prevent that system from rotting inside-out.
The ideas about searching for ideal renewable (non-destructive) forces for food, energy, water, etc. is a great one. Finding those perfect means would (hopefully) lead to an end to a root cause of these grotesque institutions: the competition for limited resources. Until then, there has to be a system in place which does more to promote the search for those ideals than hinder that. While I definitely think that there are people in power under capitalist systems who greedily would not want to see this Utopian ideal come to pass, I can’t see a better and more realistic system which would help cultivate these advances.
Shashi Thandra I have no system to propose but am confident another will emerge. History proves again and agin that things change drastically so that what counts as common sense in one era is insane in another. The idea of T.I.N.A—Thatcher’s famous claim that There Is No Alternative—repeats again and again even when the Feudal system reigned. That too was the inherent condition of men and, for centuries, nothing could be done against it.
Debates on human nature have a long history and the Hobbesian vision of humans as inherently brutish needed a strong monarchy to control it. John Locke thought differently, tried to avoid questions of human nature and proposed a different way of thinking the individual in relation to government, one that aught to be overthrown if it doesn’t align with the people’s best interests; this, of course, leads to Jefferson’s famously plagiarized line declaring “self-evident” truths and the call to revolution against an exploitative empire.
Resources are indeed limited but it’s worth asking what resources count as valuable at any given point. Lithium reserves, for instance, wouldn’t mean squat during WWII but are worth a lot for battery makers now.
Anyway, I appreciate the replies. Maybe we could talk about a concrete case—tax policy, foreign policy etc—where we can bring our differences to bear.
J.j. Lourentzos The concept of T.I.N.A. is why I was careful to include the words “until then”. Change is the only constant in human evolution.
How about instead of getting too specific, we discuss four words in the constitution: What does “Promote the general welfare” mean to you?
Shashi Thandra Great question JJ.
I’m not a big fan of that phrase because the words ‘promote’ and ‘welfare’ obfuscate the stakes and means more than they help. I much prefer the still imperfect but stronger phrasing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, endorsed as an international standard. That document charges nation-states with ‘guaranteeing inherent human rights.’ Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the chief drafters and the American delegation played a major rule, instituting the “domestic jurisdiction” clause that insured nations couldn’t interfere in the business of other states. This because Jim Crow America didn’t want the Soviets or Chinese charging them with flagrant human rights violations.
The point: “promote” doesn’t do the work of “guarantee” and “welfare” isn’t nearly as specific as a enumerated “human rights.”
But “general” is an interesting case. For years, I thought of “general,” or the academic term “universal,” to mean all of humanity. That is insufficient now. I’m convinced that we need paradigms that, at minimum, link human, animal and environmental rights/questions together. If that seems utopic/idealistic/insane, it is also immediately necessary and the way businesses already think. Indeed, these are inextricable issues, so that even if one’s caring is limited to a small minority of humans it would still require considering human-animal-plant relations if that minority wants to survive for more than one generation. Like Rolex, one needs a 500 year plan.
To return to the constitution: The corollary to your question asks who or what institution is in charge of promoting the general welfare. Since the adoption of the Westphalain system, and reinforced in the UDHR, sovereign nation-states are charged with this task. I think this needs reconsidering too. It’s not that nation-states are inherently evil or anything; amazingly, we are able to care and fight for hundreds of millions of anonymous strangers—patriotism. But they also limit that caring in weird ways that, historically and currently, create a lot of violence. I’m not entirely sure why one set of anonymous strangers are worth dying for and another deserve killing.
Damn, that was long winded. Basically, the phrase you asked about doesn’t mean much to me because it’s limited to institutions and paradigms that need reevaluation.
J.j. Lourentzos Great answer. See, I wouldn’t say our differences are as extreme as the polarizing words “liberal” and “conservative” tend to elicit in people.
Although, as a socially liberal and fiscally conservative American, I do have to say that I feel like an unwanted child without a home in today’s political and social landscape.
Shashi Thandra You are indeed unwanted. A smart person with nuanced politics isn’t fit for a Fox-Msnbc world.
This was a fun exchange JJ. Would you mind if I archived it on my blog? I’d hate to lose this in the FB void.
J.j. Lourentzos I wouldn’t mind at all. I enjoyed this too. Thank you.
ourtropes liked this
shashithandra posted this
