"Socialism" Vs. Progressive Taxation.

In my earlier post about "Joe the Plumber", I wrote about how his elevation (by the McCain campaign and the Right Wing media) to the status of "middle class everyman" obscured the very real arguments being made about taxation in America. Apparently the majority of Americans are secretly seething about Obama's proposal to suspend the Bush tax cuts to the very wealthy. We are supposed to believe that 95% of America thinks that the richest 5% is overburdened by progressive taxation. Evidently no one realizes that we have reached the point where the interest on our national debt is approaching the amount we spend on our federal budget. How we are supposed to finance the government is increasingly an underexamined question.

We are in the midst of a financial crisis that is about to hit the American middle class with the force of a category 5 hurricane, and the GOP and its cronies have been trying to make the "socialist" brand stick to Barack Obama and his fiscal and domestic policy platform. I think that (once again) it's time to get our definitions straight. "Socialism" is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Progressive taxation obviously doesn't fall within the parameters of the definition. But this is what the extreme Right is referring to when it talks about its opponent's "socialist" policies.

Republicans would have you believe that the core principal of Socialism is income redistribution- "Take from the haves to give to the have nots." Not only is this crudely simplistic, but it is a Cold War-based lie that's been repeated since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Perhaps that's why the GOP is running on an anti-intellectual and anti-academic platform- because careful analysis exposes their argument for what it is. The US has been traditionally referred to as a "Capitalist" country. It is therefore illuminating that the vast majority of American economists (81%) support progressive taxation (SOURCE) and Obama's policy positions (SOURCE). But why should you bother listening to the experts when you have "your own" strong opinions?

What does a study of history tell us? If you are dead-set in changing the definition of the word "socialism" to include progressive taxation, then you have to accept that the USA has been socialist since 1862, when the first progressive income tax was passed in this nation (SOURCE). It is therefore an AMERICAN VALUE that has carried us through the years and helped us become a superpower. If you are against this tax policy, the case can be made that you are ANTI-AMERICAN. Naturally a "free market" idealogue is going to attempt to fight this conclusion using any means necessary. But the reality is that their alternative is a fantasy- "free markets" have never existed anywhere except in theory. It's a grand "utopian" fairy tale that wealthy people (and sycophants) have used to put the masses to sleep.

You often hear the "free market" dictum that “wealth creates wealth”. It’s not that there’s no merit to this argument. That’s why I don’t necessarily support “socialism”. But on the other hand, entrenched wealth creates obstacles to competition and innovation. The ideas that make men wealthy eventually become outdated with the changes in the environment. Yet wealthy men often have little incentive to adapt to those changes, because they risk losing their competitive advantage. They are more motivated to protect their wealth artificially by working to maintain the status quo. They have the resources to set the conditions to attain that end. Progressive taxation works against that stagnation.

Thomas Jefferson said, “"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I’m not in favor of class warfare or anarchic revolution. I believe in incremental social change. By shifting the tax burden on to the wealthy, you free up the middle class to provide new ideas to adapt to a changing society (and to put their own money behind these ideas)- something that the entrenched wealth of the upper classes has proved itself incapable of. Entrenched wealth stifles innovation and competition the same way ruling classes have in so-called "socialist" nations. Progressive taxation doesn't "punish" achievement. That's a ridiculous notion. It fosters enhanced economic class mobility, which is crucially necessary in encouraging the adaptation necessary over the long run.

What is a "Progressive" ?

I suspect that many people who characterize themselves as 'liberals' tend to have a more positive sense of humanity than others. Perhaps they believe that there is an innate sense of good in most people that will surely come out if it can only be nurtured. That's why they are always proposing legislation based in a deep compassion for the disadvantaged. Hungry people should be fed. Ignorant folks should be educated. The sick should be healed. If nothing else, it's a tremendously noble perspective. Life is not only about personal prosperity, but also about the well-being of the least among us. To suggest that one should only act to advance his/her own self-interest is anathema to liberals.

I'll confess to having the tiniest bit of vulnerability to this way of thinking. It's like the merest hint of conscience gnawing away at me from the back of my brain. I don't feel it in my heart or in my stomach. But I am aware of its existence. Truth be told I actively submerge it in day-to-day life, and it's not that difficult to do. When a stranger asks me for something, it's not hard for me to blow them off and justify the snub in one manner or another. When I was in college I was a bit of a 'bleeding heart' for a month or two, and I felt taken advantage of pretty regularly by the manipulative and duplicitous. So I don't lose very much sleep over denying beggars in the street. I don't actively contemplate the diseased and the weary.

It's true. No matter what some may think, I am assuredly not a 'liberal'. I'm pro death-penalty and against a welfare system that encourages its recipients to procreate. I'm ok with gun ownership and private property. However, don't insult me by calling me a 'Conservative'. In this day and age, there's not a lot worse you can say to me. As far as I'm concerned, that whole lot is exceedingly selfish, reactionary, and close-minded. They want to legislate morality, yet they refuse to assume personal responsibility for the problems of society. They fight abortion and birth control, yet have no plan to counter overpopulation. They stumble about, puking out phrases like "laissez faire capitalism" and "free markets", as if they were vital components of a new American religion. Quite simply I am sickened by all of that nonsense.

Where does this leave me? If I'm not 'red' or 'blue', then what exactly am I? Despite the inherent problems with the phraseology, I guess I'd have to classify myself as a "progressive". And I hate that word almost as much as the other labels. I reject the fundamental notion of 'progress'. Many of the things classified under this banner have been manifestly bad for life on Earth. Suburban developments, agribusiness, SUV's, expansion, sprawl, aggressive militarism, rampant consumerism, working overtime, corporate welfare, etc.- I question the classification of these 'advancements'. It's a tricky notion to precisely describe my politics. When I call myself a "progressive", I'm speaking in the old sense of the word.

Progressives reject ideology and dogma. They recognize these forces as antithetical to civil discourse. They solve problems by studying the environment in which they occur, identifying root causes, and attempting to develop plans to correct their root causes. This isn't a theoretical approach to society. It's essentially pragmatic. Progressive priorities include minimizing government corruption, regulating corporations, protecting the environment, and improving health care and education. This means that, while I don't want to see the government spending inefficiently, I do not bitch about having to pay my taxes. I recognize myself as an individual, as a member of the human race, and as a partner in the stewardship of the planet. Finding the balance between these affiliations is often difficult, but it's ultimately necessary.

A Question of Priorities.

It's easy to believe that if you always hang out with "like-minded" people, then you'll never have anything to argue about. There was a time when I thought everyone had basically the same core values, and I always wondered what type of folks represented the political opposition. It was hard for me to fathom that others couldn't see the basic logic in my positions. Wasn't it absolutely clear what the nation needed? How could there be so many voters that chose George W. Bush in 2000? I was absolutely convinced that his support base was a sham. I couldn't see how there were more than a handful of citizens that agreed with his rhetoric. In retrospect it's difficult to reconcile those naive assumptions with the state of the country today. Obviously there are plenty that listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, and take their word as the gospel truth. It's not simply satire.

Despite those realizations, I have re-discovered how idealistic I still am. I had until very recently the mistaken impression that most liberals and progressives were basically the same in their opinions. The fact of the matter is that this is not at all true. Individuals arrive at personal conclusions regarding society along a diverse range of paths. Just because someone's ultimate preferences are aligned with yours does not mean that you think alike. There are some that allow their emotions, intuition, and concepts (like "compassion" and "humanity") to guide their vision. Others come to their worldview by honest attempts at rational and "objective" logic. While there may be a lot of overlap of intentions and end results, the core divergence of personal viewpoints can often be obscured. This suspicion of mine was reinforced the other night in a conversation with a friend.

We were discussing the field of 2008 presidential candidates, and we began to debate priorities. It was through the various assessments of the candidates that we discovered what each other really valued as most important. Her big concern for this race is healthcare. Above and beyond any other issue, she believes that "universal healthcare" needs to be implemented. Now... I want to be absolutely clear that I agree that the current system needs to be examined and re-roganized. It's a core value for me as well. I certainly can't find any reason why we shouldn't make the good health of all Americans a fundamental right. I'm willing to contribute more taxes toward this end. But this would never be the single issue that makes or breaks my support for a presidential nominee. As far as I'm concerned we have much greater challenges to confront first.

To me the overriding concerns for the coming century include the condition of the biosystem (i.e. global climate change, deforestation, decreasing biodiversity, etc.) and the need to address the current energy paradigm. I believe that every single social problem will be ameliorated (to some extent) by finding solutions to these problems. Whether or not you buy the arguments evoked by the concept of "solar carrying capacity", I think it's impossible not to concede the negative impact humanity has had on the earth. I am not arguing that we shouldn't try to improve the way we manage and distribute energy and food. But I am saying that unless we address the fundamental causes of the current situation... we are doomed.

Quite aside from grassroots efforts to change things on a localized level, we have relied on fossil fuels to sustain larger than healthy-sized human populations in areas of the world that simply cannot sustain them. This capability is coming to an end. I'm not predicting when we will run out of these resources- but rather insisting that it is inevitably going to happen. To my mind it is simple negligence that prevents us from doing something about it right now. How can one prioritize concern about the health of individual populations over the health of the environment that all life relies on? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Until we figure out how to decrease the damage caused by our own over-development- all else is merely distraction. I'd love to see a strategy that incorporates "humanity" and "compassion" in order to minimize human suffering. But one way or another we are going to have to live through the consequences of what we have already wrought. Whether or not we can all afford Viagra is beside the point.

Politics as Entertainment.

As you might already know from reading this blog, I often ask myself why it is impossible for me to find any talk radio that hasn't been hijacked by conservative wingnuts. Is it simply because all the liberals and progressives are out whoopin' it up and getting laid? Or are they too busy listening to public radio? Why is it that the only enjoyment a non-Republican can get on the AM band is a somewhat masochistic exposure to the massive blunders of these pundits? I know that there is plenty of left-leaning commentary online, but not all of the potential audience for that is tech savvy. Believe it or not folks would rather be entertained than deal with all the issues in a substantial way. Why does the right have the monopoly on amusement-driven political analysis?

OK.. ok... there is Comedy Central with Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. But that doesn't make up for the 24-7 laugh-fest that is Fox News. I feel shortchanged and (like I said) my sense of loss is heightened whenever I'm in my car. I can choose national media featuring Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, etc, or I can localize my listening with Fred Honsberger, Kevin Miller or Jim Quinn. There's not a single moderate voice available, let alone a liberal. I remember being promised a dose of Air America, but the closest we get is WPTT 1360 AM, which mixes in Alan Colmes and Thom Hartmann with the usual conservative subjects. Plus their signal is so damned weak that I can only get it from certain high-altitude spots on a cloudless day. It's simply not an option on my long commute.

Sure... I could buy Sirius radio or some other pay-to-play service. But the AM and FM bands are free. Why does the extreme right-wing dominate the airwaves? Perhaps because it is corporately funded with advertising. Still I believe that there is a market demographic that is not being served in our area. Either way, it would behoove the Democratic Party to invest more money into radio. Because when the shit hits the fan, people turn on their radio. If all they can access if Republican propaganda, then the battle for the minds of the citizens is over. When I can't get home to my computer to find out the truth, I have to rely on right-wing radio for information. I am at a loss.

In the meantime I have discovered YouTube. For years I have screamed responses at my car radio (in complete futility) because I knew that the lies being presented would remain unchallenged by logic or reason. These shows aren't about debate- they are about programming. But now I can catch the highlights, just by typing the name of my "favorite" blowhard into the search window. I realize now that there is plenty of documentation of these folks sabotaging themselves, or otherwise being savaged by the few intelligent guests that they bring on their shows. Partially the problem has been one of style. Many progressives are too serious, and lack humor or stage presence. No matter what else you think about the crew that currently occupies the mediasphere, you have to concede that the most successful among them are competent attack dogs. And you have to ask yourself why the other side hasn't bred some of their own.

Almost without exception the celebrities that have fought the good fight on the left have been former comedians. Al Franken, Bill Maher, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, David Cross, Stewart and Colbert... those are the guys challenging what has become the conventional perspective. One might guess that is because comedy is the only thing that can defuse the invective of the right. Even Howard Stern and David Letterman (neither of whom could ever be accused of catering to a "liberal" audience) have been more effective than the commentators the left-leaning establishment has produced. Watch this video to see how easily the latter dispatches O'Reilly. He says the exact things I've been wanting to say for years. If progressives (or even Democrats) ever want to popularize their agenda, they better start taking notes.

Keith Olbermann does a great job.

Here's another guy (Ellis Henican) I just found out about who's a pretty good role model.

The Formation of a Political Worldview.

It's surprising just how much the heavy, sticky heat oppresses whatever vitality I might usually have. I usually don't get too hung up on weather conditions, but for some reason this summer has seemed especially brutal so far. Ach, maybe it's because I didn't go to the beach this year? Anyway I came very close to sleeping through my weekly drawing session. For a few months now it's been necessary to show up a half-hour early just to get a decent spot to draw from. But even though I had a very late start, I decided to go over just to see if I'd be motivated to make the best of the situation. I ended up simply sitting on the concrete steps outside, talking to a few of the regulars.

One of my drawing buddies has two adult children, and she was telling us about her son. Without getting into specifics, what particularly interested me about her story is the fact that her boy is the first member of her family to become a Republican. I've always been fascinated by cases where an individual deviated significantly on the political spectrum from his/her immediate family. Perhaps this is the case because I am alone in my family in being political progressive. My folks and my brother are (or were until rather recently) quite conservative. My dad was even a young Republican during the late 60's. I did have a set of (maternal) grandparents who were old school union Democrats. But truthfully I can't remember a whole lot of political discussion around my house when I was growing up. It just wasn't that kind of family. There was a lot of talk about sports and television. No one was particularly heavy-handed about their beliefs- at least not enough that I can remember anybody having an overt influence on my thinking. I don't remember caring much one way or another.

If I did receive a political education at all, it was through the public schools. I realize that most people that hear that statement immediately draw assumptions about what it means. Today in Pittsburgh that likely suggests "liberal propaganda". I don't know whether that is, or is not, the case. But in my birthplace, it meant something altogether different. There was a lot of reactionary thinking in the town where I grew up. The demographic was shifting rapidly, and traditional authority figures were generally pretty upset by it. So there seemed to be very few "progressive" teachers in the school system. I remember my 7th grade teacher complaining about the pressure he experienced as a young man to register as a Democrat. Of course when he was in his youth, that meant something entirely different than it does today.

Notably I had a history teacher in eleventh grade that many in the community viewed as a Communist. The reality was that he wasn't buying the party line on the Soviet Union. In the 80's it was extremely popular to villify the Russians, and see them as the incarnation of absolute evil. Mr. F. questioned that line of thinking, and tried to give us another perspective. He taught us to examine our prejudices to see how they formed our opinions. I know for a fact that he got into trouble with parents and administration over that. I remember being pretty skeptical about what he was telling us, but I'm sure there were seeds planted during that time that would bloom later in my life. Still I would have been mortified if anybody would have taken me for anything other than a Republican. When I was a kid I never questioned that affiliation.

But when I came to Pittsburgh for college, everything changed quickly. The 'Burgh is a solidly blue town, with a lot of working class attitude. I deliberately chose a university in a place where I would know nobody, because I believed I needed to reform my whole identity. I chose people to hang out with that were radically different from any I had ever known. I got involved in activities I would never have anticipated. And I changed quite rapidly. A lot of my political views were challenged during the first Gulf War. That conflict opened up parts of me I had never examined very closely. The discussions I had with my peers led to an evolution of my worldview. Perhaps it's true that I was merely reacting against things I disliked about my previous home, but many of the new habits and beliefs I adopted have stuck with me to this day. I almost can't imagine the person I was at age eighteen. I know my family had some difficulty adjusting to the "new" me, but eventually we worked through a lot of the resulting issues. Now there's another sea change in society, and I can relate to a lot of the confusion and cynicism spreading throughout the nation. I've been through it already.