This is about Moral Leadership in the United States and the World. To start off with, perhaps I should define what "moral" means, in my view of the term. In my mind, moral does not mean religious, though many people seem to think that it does. I see morality as differentiating between right and wrong---I see morality as doing what is right and just and compassionate---as acting in a fashion that is respectful and loving of your fellow human beings and of the earth as a whole, and, naturally, not taking unnecessary action to harm your fellows and the earth---as demonstrating the common human decency which unites us all but which we often forget unites us. Acting upon these basic principles and ideas is, in my view, the definition of moral leadership. There is nothing religious about these ideas, unless religiosity is the same as humanity, and the human race and religion are not synonymous (the ideas within the Bible and other documents, it seems to me, however heretical this may be, are simply expressions of humanity).
So, now that I have informed you of my view of moral leadership, I suppose that the next thing to do is examine whether the United States's leadership has been consistently moral during the 20th and 21st centuries, the modern era. I am personally inclined to the opinion that morality has not been the primary concern of most leaders. I will provide some examples. During the years 1959 to 1975, fifty-eight thousand American soldiers were killed, over three hundred thousand were wounded, and millions of south-east Asian civilians were killed in the Vietnam War, a war that was sustained by lies and deceptions from American leaders. During the 1990's, five hundred thousand children died in Iraq for lack of adequate medical care, due to sanctions by the U.S. Government. During the years 2003 to 2008, over four thousand American soldiers--young men and women--have died in the Iraq War, as have tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, as the result of a purposeful deception by American leaders. And the United States is now also under criticism for the Iraqi displacement crisis: millions of Iraqis, over three million, have fled the country since the March 2003 United States invasion--a deplorable state of affairs. There have obviously been a number of leaders in recent history who have disregarded the restraints of conscience.
Recalling these historical and current events, it occurs to me that politics is an occupation where little to nothing is framed in moral terms, and yet it is the occupation which most requires morality, and deeply-heartfelt compassion, towards our fellow human beings. It is the occupation in which you have the most responsibility, in which the most lives are placed in your hands. Unfortunately, as Mao Tse-tung observed, "Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed." Harming your fellow human beings, especially unnecessarily, in warfare and other avenues, seems to me to be the height of immorality in leadership.
Perhaps, we as a country should ask ourselves a few questions regarding this current Iraq War and displacement crisis (though the questions could be just as applicable in other eras of United States history), using advanced interrogation techniques if necessary. We should ask: should we treat our fellow human beings better than this? Should we cause such upheaval and shatter so many lives? I suppose that what we should be asking ourselves, in moral terms, is if, as a country and as a people, we have the right to inflict such pain and suffering upon another people of another country? In my personal opinion, I answer with a resounding NO. I don't believe that we have the right to do these things--rather, I think that we have the responsibility, as the foremost superpower of the world, to refrain from abusing our power by attacking poorer countries than ours. The most powerful country is the one that should govern itself with the most wisdom and restraint, because it has the potential to inflict the most damage upon the earth. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." In my judgement, that statement, made decades ago, rings true to this day.
I have defined what my idea of moral leadership is, and I have provided examples of leadership which has not been particularly moral during the modern era. What to do now? Well, naturally, I would like to provide my ideas on why leaders are so often tempted to immorality---and I would like to express my ideas on the age-old question of whether humankind is inherently good or inherently evil.
You often hear the argument about whether humankind is inherently good, and moral, or inherently evil. Naturally, when I hear an argument, I can't help but join in and provide my two cents, whether they are two wheat pennies from the 1800's or two old beaten up pennies from the year 2006. As an argumentative creature of the highest order, I feel inclined to assert my belief that, when a person is born, they have a natural tendency towards one side of the spectrum (of good and evil) or the other, but human beings do have both good and bad in them, and their conditions in life, and living in general, determines how exactly these tendencies develop---or if they do. Morality or immorality is not inherent in us--we all are split, we all have to choose according to our own developed characters. Though we may lean greatly towards one or the other, we will always, for the entirety of our lives, have some of both good and evil in us. It seems to me that humanity, fallible and wonderful, is what is truly inherent in us all.
And I am afraid that the leaders of humanity are no exception to this rule (of course; rulers are no less human than the ruled). But, for the leaders, an extra factor is added to how they slide along the good-evil spectrum, a factor which most people living daily life do not have or choose to take part in: power. Leaders of the human race, with great corrupting power in their hands, are very often tempted to the immoral side of themselves. They are tempted to embark upon unjust wars to increase their own power, and other such acts. To resist this, a leader must have extraordinary character, or have constant oversight to ensure that they do not abuse their powers---in many cases, such as initiating an unjust war or secretly torturing people, power abuse can be quite immoral. Leaders who are not provided with oversight very often succumb to their temptations. Power corrupts the fallible human being. The act of having abusable power adds another dimension to the human mind, a dimension in which human morality, and human conscience, is challenged.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
The National Initiative for Democracy
The National Initiative for Democracy was first proposed by Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel, who served in the Senate from 1969 to 1981 and who later ran for the 2008 presidential nominations of the Democratic and Libertarian parties. I first learned of the National Initiative for Democracy during Gravel’s 2008 presidential campaign. This proposal will, in short, empower the American people as lawmakers in partnership with their elected officials, to make laws on all of the issues that affect their lives. The power to make laws will be provided through a national referendum system, the kind of initiative that is currently used statewide in 24 states and which has been used successfully in the country of Switzerland for centuries. I believe that this proposal is necessary in the United States in order to shift power back to American people from who has it now, political and financial elites and their moneyed special interests. I believe that this proposal is necessary to create a more egalitarian and democratic form of government, in which every single citizen in the United States has power in deciding the issues that affect their lives.
Let’s examine a quote from Cicero, the great Roman orator and statesman, “Freedom is participation in power.” Ralph Nader, when I went to an event of his in July 2008, said that he had been to many dictatorships in his life, and that they have nearly as much personal freedom as a democracy—you can live where you want, marry who you would like to, eat what you like, go fishing if you want to—your daily, personal events are not under government scrutiny. What is the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy? Why, in a democracy, you can exercise civic engagement and act freely in the realm of politics—in a dictatorship, you cannot. The real freedom, that differentiates free countries from others, is participation in civics. Participation in power, Nader noted, is the real freedom. If freedom is participation in power, then that leads to the logic that, if you don’t participate in power, then you don’t have any freedom. What is the central power of government in the United States? Some people believe that the exercise of power is when you go to the polls to vote for one candidate or the other on Election Day, but it seems to me that, really, what you are doing is giving your power away to corrupt elected officials who make many promises but keep few of them. The central power of government is not voting—it is law-making—those who make the laws have power over all aspects of the country and system—even over those sacred voters who go to vote on election day—the law-makers can determine where, how, or if you vote. In order to have real participation in the power of government, and some control over their government and lives, the people must exercise the power to make laws, the central power of government.
These laws would be made on a majoritarian basis. Some people have qualms about this because it sounds like a tyranny of the majority over the minority. But, I assure you, there are safeguards to prevent this from being the case. First of all, the people make the laws in partnership with their elected officials—these national ballots initiatives will simply be a fourth, stabilizing leg on the currently three-legged stool. The Supreme Court can check the laws of the people, and declare them unconstitutional if they appear to be unconstitutional and detrimental to the rights of the minority. The minority of the population is still provided with protection. Secondly, it is important to note that, if you aren’t ruled by the majority, then you are ruled by the minority. There is no in-between. Right now, the United States is being ruled by a rich minority that does things that are in their own self-interest, and in the self-interest of other moneyed entities such as corporations. Political elites and financial elites are often the same people, because of how intricately politics and wealth are intertwined. Everyone knows what a corrupting effect that money and special interests have upon our representatives in Washington; this influence, it seems to me, has directed our representatives away from representing their constituents and towards representing the major entities that donate to their campaigns. Is it better for the majority to be governed by the minority, or is it better for the majority to be governed by the majority? It seems to me that, especially considering the vast corruption of modern politics, that it would be better for the majority, rather than the rich and corrupt minority, to govern itself. Those who are affected by the laws should be the ones who make the laws—the people should, by way of the National Initiative, be able to make policy on all of the issues that affect their lives—that power should not be relegated to a minority corrupted by money and power.
Efforts are currently being made to enact the National Initiative for Democracy, this historic proposal to allow the people to have the right to make laws in partnership with their elected officials and change the paradigm of human governance. There is a website for the National Initiative, ni4d.org, where you can vote for its enactment. In order to be enacted, it must receive an affirmative vote of over half of the actively voting population—in other words, over half the number of people who voted in the last presidential election—in other words, the National Initiative requires about sixty million affirmative votes. For those of you wondering whether this process is legal or constitutional, it is founded on the legal basis of the “First Principles”—affirming the constituent sovereign's right and the legislative power of the People to create or alter governments, constitutions, charters, and laws—these principles were what allowed the Founding Fathers to colonize America, declare our independence from Great Britain, and write the Constitution in the first place. I urge you, fellow citizens of the United States, to go the National Initiative’s website, ni4d.org, to explore further the great proposal of the National Initiative for Democracy, and I urge you, my fellow citizens, to vote for the National Initiative. Claim your right as a free citizen of the United States to participate in power.
http://ni4d.org/
Let’s examine a quote from Cicero, the great Roman orator and statesman, “Freedom is participation in power.” Ralph Nader, when I went to an event of his in July 2008, said that he had been to many dictatorships in his life, and that they have nearly as much personal freedom as a democracy—you can live where you want, marry who you would like to, eat what you like, go fishing if you want to—your daily, personal events are not under government scrutiny. What is the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy? Why, in a democracy, you can exercise civic engagement and act freely in the realm of politics—in a dictatorship, you cannot. The real freedom, that differentiates free countries from others, is participation in civics. Participation in power, Nader noted, is the real freedom. If freedom is participation in power, then that leads to the logic that, if you don’t participate in power, then you don’t have any freedom. What is the central power of government in the United States? Some people believe that the exercise of power is when you go to the polls to vote for one candidate or the other on Election Day, but it seems to me that, really, what you are doing is giving your power away to corrupt elected officials who make many promises but keep few of them. The central power of government is not voting—it is law-making—those who make the laws have power over all aspects of the country and system—even over those sacred voters who go to vote on election day—the law-makers can determine where, how, or if you vote. In order to have real participation in the power of government, and some control over their government and lives, the people must exercise the power to make laws, the central power of government.
These laws would be made on a majoritarian basis. Some people have qualms about this because it sounds like a tyranny of the majority over the minority. But, I assure you, there are safeguards to prevent this from being the case. First of all, the people make the laws in partnership with their elected officials—these national ballots initiatives will simply be a fourth, stabilizing leg on the currently three-legged stool. The Supreme Court can check the laws of the people, and declare them unconstitutional if they appear to be unconstitutional and detrimental to the rights of the minority. The minority of the population is still provided with protection. Secondly, it is important to note that, if you aren’t ruled by the majority, then you are ruled by the minority. There is no in-between. Right now, the United States is being ruled by a rich minority that does things that are in their own self-interest, and in the self-interest of other moneyed entities such as corporations. Political elites and financial elites are often the same people, because of how intricately politics and wealth are intertwined. Everyone knows what a corrupting effect that money and special interests have upon our representatives in Washington; this influence, it seems to me, has directed our representatives away from representing their constituents and towards representing the major entities that donate to their campaigns. Is it better for the majority to be governed by the minority, or is it better for the majority to be governed by the majority? It seems to me that, especially considering the vast corruption of modern politics, that it would be better for the majority, rather than the rich and corrupt minority, to govern itself. Those who are affected by the laws should be the ones who make the laws—the people should, by way of the National Initiative, be able to make policy on all of the issues that affect their lives—that power should not be relegated to a minority corrupted by money and power.
Efforts are currently being made to enact the National Initiative for Democracy, this historic proposal to allow the people to have the right to make laws in partnership with their elected officials and change the paradigm of human governance. There is a website for the National Initiative, ni4d.org, where you can vote for its enactment. In order to be enacted, it must receive an affirmative vote of over half of the actively voting population—in other words, over half the number of people who voted in the last presidential election—in other words, the National Initiative requires about sixty million affirmative votes. For those of you wondering whether this process is legal or constitutional, it is founded on the legal basis of the “First Principles”—affirming the constituent sovereign's right and the legislative power of the People to create or alter governments, constitutions, charters, and laws—these principles were what allowed the Founding Fathers to colonize America, declare our independence from Great Britain, and write the Constitution in the first place. I urge you, fellow citizens of the United States, to go the National Initiative’s website, ni4d.org, to explore further the great proposal of the National Initiative for Democracy, and I urge you, my fellow citizens, to vote for the National Initiative. Claim your right as a free citizen of the United States to participate in power.
http://ni4d.org/
Monday, October 6, 2008
We have committed a historic blunder
Can you imagine how different our country's history would be today if, in 1932, instead of creating public works programs and other policies to help the working citizen, Franklin D. Roosevelt simply gave billions of dollars to banks and corporations in a massive government bail-out? This past week, our country has committed a great historic blunder. The U.S. Congress has passed, and President Bush has signed, a $700 billion bail-out bill for failing corporations on Wall Street. We have, unlike Franklin Roosevelt decades ago, addressed the symptoms of the economic problems rather than the causes. The problems did not start with Wall Street and then trickle down; the problems began on Main Street, with people losing their jobs and being unable to pay their mortgages and other bills, and then spread to Wall Street. This bail-out bill will solve nothing because it does not address the causes of the problems. This bail-out bill will not patch the gaping hole in our Ship of Economy which is causing it to fill up with water and sink. This bail-out bill is not right, because it protects corporations from the consequences of their corrupt and reckless practices while neglecting the struggling average American. And what is not right shall never be advantageous, for, as Cicero wrote, "Advantage can never conflict with right. That is why Socrates, as the tradition goes, used to curse men who had first begun to differentiate between these two things which nature had made inseparable---everything which is morally right is advantageous, and there can be no advantage in anything that is not right." Right and advantage are one and inseparable, now and forever.
Despite this, leaders in Congress and in the White House, including the two major-party presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, passed and signed the bail-out bill this past Friday. The fools in Washington have bumbled things up again. That day, I spoke to my grandmother, who asked me what I thought would happen now that this bail-out bill had been passed. I said, "I think that things will get temporarily better, and then much worse, because we haven't addressed the causes of the economic problems. We need to address high jobless rates (currently 6.1%, the highest in over a decade); the inability of people to pay their mortgages, to pay their other bills, to make a half-decent living in this country and be able to have a house and other economic opportunities." My grandmother said, "I think that you might be right." However, apparently, things shan't even get better before they get worse. They are getting worse already. The DOW plunged over 300 points today, putting the DOW below 10,000 points for the first time since 2004. Most everything in the Stock Market was heavily in the red. But there is no FDR in sight this time. There is no great leadership present to direct us along a better and alternative way. All leaders and prospective leaders have fallen right into line to sing along to bail-out tune, save for a few truly principled and good individuals such as Representative Dennis Kucinich.
I have to tell you, I think that every bit of this current economic situation is just utter insanity. Having a debt-based economy brought it and our country down, and so, naturally, the way to solve that would be to accumlate more government debt by way of bail-outs. The more money we print to fund the bail-outs, the further the American dollar will be de-valued, and, the more money that we borrow from China to fund these bail-outs, the more destruction that a debt-based economy will wreak upon our society. Were the people who voted for the bail-out bill even thinking and aware when they enunciated the word, "Yea!" Perhaps they were thinking, "Yea! I get another term in office, because now my corporate interests will be appeased because of this $700 billion bail-out, and the people in my congressional district will be appeased because of the $150 billion of added ear-marks just for them!" I have to be honest with you, this is just killing me, and not in a funny way like a good joke would. This is as serious as a 76-year-old man having to go back to work after his second heart attack because he needs the health insurance from the company. And this is personal---I know that man, and there are noble others like him. Where are the people who are supposed to help him? Well, apparently, they're all busy shoving money down the throats of their corporate sponsors with this $700 billion bail-out. It is truly sickening.
Instead of creating public works programs, establishing a single-payer healthcare system, creating a prescription drug benefit that pays for the prescriptions of all seniors, instituting a living wage and Fair Trade policies to protect the worker (the fundamental element of our economy), and re-evaluting our debt-based financial system, all we are doing is bailing out big corporations to save them from the consequences of their reckless practices while totally neglecting Main Street and the causes of the problems, and we expect these actions to prevent an economic crisis! Can you imagine, can you just imagine, how different and more terrible our country's history would be if all FDR had done was exactly what we are doing now?
Despite this, leaders in Congress and in the White House, including the two major-party presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, passed and signed the bail-out bill this past Friday. The fools in Washington have bumbled things up again. That day, I spoke to my grandmother, who asked me what I thought would happen now that this bail-out bill had been passed. I said, "I think that things will get temporarily better, and then much worse, because we haven't addressed the causes of the economic problems. We need to address high jobless rates (currently 6.1%, the highest in over a decade); the inability of people to pay their mortgages, to pay their other bills, to make a half-decent living in this country and be able to have a house and other economic opportunities." My grandmother said, "I think that you might be right." However, apparently, things shan't even get better before they get worse. They are getting worse already. The DOW plunged over 300 points today, putting the DOW below 10,000 points for the first time since 2004. Most everything in the Stock Market was heavily in the red. But there is no FDR in sight this time. There is no great leadership present to direct us along a better and alternative way. All leaders and prospective leaders have fallen right into line to sing along to bail-out tune, save for a few truly principled and good individuals such as Representative Dennis Kucinich.
I have to tell you, I think that every bit of this current economic situation is just utter insanity. Having a debt-based economy brought it and our country down, and so, naturally, the way to solve that would be to accumlate more government debt by way of bail-outs. The more money we print to fund the bail-outs, the further the American dollar will be de-valued, and, the more money that we borrow from China to fund these bail-outs, the more destruction that a debt-based economy will wreak upon our society. Were the people who voted for the bail-out bill even thinking and aware when they enunciated the word, "Yea!" Perhaps they were thinking, "Yea! I get another term in office, because now my corporate interests will be appeased because of this $700 billion bail-out, and the people in my congressional district will be appeased because of the $150 billion of added ear-marks just for them!" I have to be honest with you, this is just killing me, and not in a funny way like a good joke would. This is as serious as a 76-year-old man having to go back to work after his second heart attack because he needs the health insurance from the company. And this is personal---I know that man, and there are noble others like him. Where are the people who are supposed to help him? Well, apparently, they're all busy shoving money down the throats of their corporate sponsors with this $700 billion bail-out. It is truly sickening.
Instead of creating public works programs, establishing a single-payer healthcare system, creating a prescription drug benefit that pays for the prescriptions of all seniors, instituting a living wage and Fair Trade policies to protect the worker (the fundamental element of our economy), and re-evaluting our debt-based financial system, all we are doing is bailing out big corporations to save them from the consequences of their reckless practices while totally neglecting Main Street and the causes of the problems, and we expect these actions to prevent an economic crisis! Can you imagine, can you just imagine, how different and more terrible our country's history would be if all FDR had done was exactly what we are doing now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)