“What doesn’t kill you makes you stranger”-- the Joker in The Dark Knight.
The Dark Knight could be seen as a description of our present national circumstance. If so, the Joker, Karl Rove, has turned Harvey Dent, John McCain, the would-be hero into “Two-Face.” In the campaign, as in the film, a new dilemma appears at every turn. And, throughout, each impossible choice is complicated by deception, where nothing is what it seems. Rove, the master of “dazzle camouflage” (developed by the navy not to conceal but to confuse by providing too much irrelevant and contradictory information) has found in Sarah Palin the most dazzling camouflage of all. Sarah Palin is an environmentalist who supports shooting bears and wolves from planes and helicopters, a feminist who has allowed herself to be described as “a hot chick,” a reformer who works hand-in-glove with the oil interests she claims to control, a former Miss Wasilla, nearly Miss Alaska, who may become Miss America, giving the same kinds of soft answers to hard questions that any aspiring Miss America might be expected to give. Knowing that time is running out and that Americans have already allowed themselves to go beyond the boundaries of conventional thinking in turning to the likes of Barack Obama, Rove knows these adventurous thinkers are ready to cross any line, especially one that keeps them right where they have always been. In a great moment of confusion, people might actually think Palin is as viable a choice as Obama.
If Obama were to take on the role of the Dark Knight in this scenario, he would have to step outside that box of conventional thinking in which this Joker, Rove, traps his victims. Obama should practice jujitsu, using the energy of his opponent to throw that opponent off balance, I suggest that Obama steal Palin’s chief source of energy and popularity: the Trust of the Alaskan people--otherwise known as the Permanent Fund Dividend. Last month, from this fund, Palin sent out checks for $3269 to all of Alaska’s residents. No wonder they are happy with their governor! Though Palin seemed, at the Republican Convention, to be taking credit for this aspect of Alaska’s economy, credit actually goes to those who wrote the Alaskan State Constitution, stating, “The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.” Credit also goes to the Alaskan voters, who, in November of 1976, passed a constitutional amendment that created the Alaska Permanent Fund. Here it is: “Sect. 2. Article IX, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended by addition a new section to read: Section 15. ALASKA PERMANENT FUND. At least twenty-five percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received by the state shall be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which shall be used only for those income producing investments specifically designated by law as eligible for permanent fund investments. All income from the permanent fund shall be deposited in the General Fund unless otherwise provided by law.” This means that some moneys are invested in projects that should benefit the state (and raise dividends for a future when Alaska’s resources might be depleted) and others are distributed to those Alaskans who have a full year of residency or more.
The Alaska Permanent Fund is based on the old notion of The Commons. Peter Barnes, in his book Capitalism 3.0, describes our common wealth as our shared inheritance, which “includes air and water, habitats and ecosystems, languages and cultures, science and technologies, social and political systems, and quite a bit more” (p 66). It is the land that we lease to energy companies. It is the sky that we allow industries to pollute. It includes the airwaves to which we give access to various media outlets. It is a potential source of revenue for the American people. It is also the tool for raising revenues that could provide the funds needed to stimulate investment in public works programs to solarize communities and to repair America’s infrastructure. It could provide seed funds for National Service. And, it could provide checks to each resident of our country to offset the rising costs of energy as we transition into something other than a carbon-fuel-based economy.
George Lakoff, in his book The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain, explains the natural appeal of Peter Barnes’ notion of a Sky Trust. While Democrats and Republicans debate whether to pass a carbon tax or a plan for cap and trade (neither of which would engage the imaginations of the American people), Lakoff says that Barnes’ ideas hit us where we live. We own the sky above our heads and the air that fills it. Up to now, industry has been poisoning our air without paying us due compensation. Rather than allow industries to cap and trade, Barnes suggests they be required to buy permits that would allow only so much pollution. Each year, the amount of pollution allowed would be cut 2% and the price of the permits would increase. This would give every resident of the United States $1,000 to be distributed through a Sky Trust. At the Democratic Convention, I ran this idea past Sir Nicholas Stern, the British economist who wrote the Stern Report on global warming. Stern, in speaking before the Democratic Roundtable on Energy and Climate Change, claimed that, in the next 40 years, we must cut back carbon emissions by 80%. That equals the 2% cutback that Barnes would enforce through permits. Sir Nicholas approved of this idea, and suggested that some funds be set aside for research and development and for other projects that would have long-ranged benefits for the American people. Getting Americans to buy into the notion that we must redesign our energy future has been our biggest problem. Sir Nicholas agreed that checks sent to each American would, finally, get the buy-in needed to pass legislation to change how we use and develop energy technology in our future.
A trust is sacrosanct. Like Social Security, it is to provide for the people, for their future, and is not to be tampered with by politicians. Rather, it could be a component of a hybrid economy, one in which the government provides the spark to ignite projects fueled by many sources. Presently, unions and retirement funds cannot invest in public work projects and clean energy projects because, given our election process, we have no guarantee that anything started will continue beyond two years. But, if a trust could provide ongoing funding to support programs established to provide National Service that would include on-the-job training for solarizing communities and retrofitting our nation, unions and retirement funds could be invested to help get the job done.
For Obama, the added political beauty of such an idea is that it is borrowed from Sarah Palin’s playbook, yet it is a tune that beyond the range of Palin and McCain. If Obama is to beat that Joker, Karl Rove, he must take risks but have plenty of tricks up his sleeve. The best trick, when playing with the Joker, is being honest. Telling Americans that we own our country and have the right to set its rules is a good place to start.
Alaskan Permanent Fund Dividend history:
http://www.apfc.org/home/Content/reportspublications/tp5-2.cfm
Stern Report:
Fellow Campaigners,
As you probably know, Barack and the Democratic Party have opened up the process for creating planks for this year’s Democratic Platform. We are being encouraged to meet with others to formulate what we would like to see included. Before holding my own neighborhood meeting, I would like your input. You many send it to me personally at logicconex@roadrunner.com or reply through the listserv if you think it better to share your thoughts with the general group.
Many groups on <my.barackobama.com> are dedicated to drug law reform with a primary emphasis on decriminalizing marijuana. This may be a freedom of choice issue, either in the context of recreational or medical use, or it may be an issue of discrimination, disenfranchising, or alienating, certain groups and dividing Americans against each other with yet another social issue. But, seen on a global scale, our framing drug use as a criminal issue has even more devastating consequences in terms of our War on Drugs. Here, it has provided an excuse for training the police in different countries to attack peasant farmers, keeping them poor and disenfranchised. Just as criminalizing drug use and drug production has allowed our government, under different administrations, to exercise control over our population, it has allowed these administrations to exercise similar control internationally, supporting oppressive governments in the name of protecting our citizens against the scourge of drug use.
The irony is that by criminalizing the production of drugs, our country has enriched pharmaceutical companies (ridding them of unwanted competition) and has forced peasant farmers to ally themselves with criminal groups in order to eke out a decent living and receive the protection they need to maintain their farms. A further irony is that the profits from the sale of their crops has helped finance both the CIA and, now, the Taliban and, possibly, Al-Qaeda.
Fortunately, as medical research has provided justification for applying a medical model for the use of marijuana, it allows us to question our policy of propping up dictatorships and friendly governments who seek funds to help us conduct our supposed War on Drugs.
People in the Obama campaign who are savvy about such matters can help others in the Democratic Party understand the importance of reframing this issue in their national platform. All we have to do is put together planks calling for a reform of our drug laws. I am interested in what you have to say on this issue and what information you might have to share as a group gathers together in Santa Monica tomorrow to form a plank calling for such reform. If you are close enough to attend, please let me know of your interest. In the meantime, you may want to read the article below that appeared over a year ago about how this issue has affected the war in Afghanistan.
We have little time to act. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Gregg Heacock
Legalize It
Why destroy poppies—and afghan farmers—when the world needs legal opiates?
By Johann Hari
Jamilla Niazi is a 40-year-old woman with a freckly face and high cheek-bones. When she arrives in a refugee camp in Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, to speak to me via webcam, her features are hidden behind the blue burqua she is forced to wear in the scorching summer swelter. She peels back the gauze and smiles. She doesn’t do this much any more – not since the death threats began to come every night, pledging to burn her in acid. Jamilla has, the authors rage, committed an offence against the immutable moral laws of Afghanistan: she is the head-teacher of a school for girls.
“The Taliban have come back. They control this area now,” the aid worker from the Senlis Council who is with her tells me.
The night before we speak, they burned down a school in nearby Nabili, and they have announced they are coming for Jamilla next. Jamilla grew up in a country where 40 percent of women had jobs – better than some Western countries at that time – but when the Taliban took over in 1996, she was ordered to go home and live the rest of her life in Purdah. The sound of women laughing was declared an offence, punishable by whipping. Females accused of adultery, lesbianism or reading a book other than the Koran were shot in Kabul sports stadium before a howling male mob.
But Jamilla could not accept being reduced to the status of a piece of soft furnishing: she set up a secret school for girls in her home, where she continued to teach them to read and write. Even so, “when I was shut at home and not allowed to go out, it was like being in jail,” she says now. “For six years I was sick in my head. Now my head is hurting again. I am frightened because we are going back to that time.”
She did not think it would be like this. “I was so happy to see the foreigners [in 2001], we all cried with joy to see the Taliban leave,” she explains. “All the women were happy and most of the men too. But now we are not happy.” When the Taliban reformed and began to psychologically dominate her hometown of Lashkagar once more, Jamilla began to worry her school would be attacked. The Afghan President Hamid Karzai admitted this May that over 200 girls’ schools have been destroyed by the Taliban, almost certainly an underestimate. Teachers have been gunned down in front of their pupils, and there was even a landmine placed in a playground.
When the death-threats began, she approached the nearby British military base for protection. Since the Western rhetoric at the time of the invasion was all about how we were committed to women like Jamilla, she assumed her school would be offered immediate protection. The individual British soldiers were very sympathetic – but explained, “We’re not in that business.” Their orders do not include directly protecting female civilians and girls’ schools from Talibanist slaughter. Sorry.
The day I spoke to her, Jamilla had finally decided to go into hiding. I ask her if I should change her name in this article to protect her from further threats. “No,” she says. “Use my name.” She does not want the Taliban to take even that away from her.
Just five years after all the lush promises, how did Afghanistan end up like this? The Senlis Council, an invaluable independent think tank, has over fifty researchers living among ordinary Afghans, and in their exhaustive new report ‘The Return of the Taliban’ they give us the answer. The determination of the Bush administration to fight a ‘war on drugs’ in Afghanistan has guaranteed we will lose the war against the Taliban.
Over the past five years, with British and American military support, a sinister corporation called DynCorps has been going to the fields of the poorest farmers in Afghanistan and systematically destroying them. This is because they are growing opium poppies, used to make heroin that is freely bought on the streets of the West. Emmanuel Reinert, the Executive Director of the Senlis Council, explains, “The Taliban revival is directly, intimately related to the crop eradication program. It could not have happened if the US was not aggressively destroying crops. It is the single biggest reason Afghans turned against the foreigners.”
How would we react if we were already starving – a quarter of all Afghan children die before their fifth birthday – and a foreign army declared its intention to wipe out 70 percent of our economy? Reinert adds, “If you look at where the Americans have carried out the forced eradication programs, it’s where people cannot feed their families. That’s where the Taliban is opportunistically gaining support.” People whose crops are being trashed will support anyone who rallies to defend them – even this monstrous Islamist Khmer Rouge who have swiftly seized on the heroin eradication programs along with the evidence of US torture camps, not least Guantanamo Bay, to show “the West is waging war on Islam”.
If this aggressive counter-narcotics strategy is not drastically altered, Reinert says, “in the next six months the legitimacy of the Kabul government will totally collapse, all the cities of the South will fall to the Taliban, and they will mount an assault on Kabul.”
In the long-term, there is only one solution: bring the massive global drugs trade into the legal economy, so countries like Afghanistan and Colombia can finally reclaim their territory from hellish groups who build armies with the profits from the drugs trade. But that is clearly a goal that requires vast political change within the country currently driving global prohibition, the United States. So the Senlis Council has come up with a sensible short-term solution that might – just might – claw Afghanistan back from tipping into Talibanism once more.
It is simple: instead of destroying Afghanistan’s opium crop, our governments should allow people to buy it. This doesn’t require legalization. There is currently a massive worldwide shortage of legal opiate-based painkillers: in cancer care in developed countries alone, there is a need for 55 metric tons more every year. Why not license Afghanistan’s farmers to meet this massive legal demand? There is a precedent. When Turkey’s southern opiate farmers stubbornly refused to trash their own livelihoods in the early 1970s, the US eventually gave up and allowed them to participate in the legal trade. Isn’t Afghanistan as important as Turkey?
Jamilla knows what will happen if our government does not radically revise its route through Afghanistan in this way. In a low, sad voice, she says, “My school will be destroyed forever.” She pauses. “All women love their freedom. Who wants to be a prisoner and to be illiterate? Not Afghan women… You promised you would not let this happen to us again. You promised.”
I have had the good fortune to hear from many people whose lives have been tremendously affected by the campaign. Dale Lockwood sent me the following piece that speaks with simple eloquence about how far we have fallen from where we were before Bush came into office. I pass it onto you in hopes that it will inspire you during this last week of Democratic National Platform meetings to do what you can to turn our country toward the direction you think it ought to go.
This Sunday, July 27th, from 10 to 4, I will be hosting a meeting for people able to come to Santa Monica to work on planks related to education, health care, the environment, and reforming our drug policies. People are welcome to bring ideas related to other planks they would like to be considered by those attending. I am at 1528 Yale Street #4. We will be meeting in the courtyard, the back garden, at the dining table, in the living room as we divide into smaller groups, work on particular planks, and come back together to review, reconsider, and revise what we have done. Please let me know whether you plan to come so that we can communicate prior to the meeting. When people are properly prepared, these meetings can be quite productive. I expect we will get much accomplished.
When you read Dale's story, you will see how writing can raise us above that fear which eats our souls. Phoning, tabling, registering, canvassing all advance a campaign, and they must be done. But, writing planks that will help develop a Democratic National Platform that has traction, that speaks to our particular concerns rather than gloss over them with platitudes--this is an opportunity for us to connect with our neighbors in a most meaningful exchange of ideas, ideas strong enough to put our country on the right track. If you wish to exercise the courage of your convictions, I hope you will sign up to help write this platform. I am sure you will be proud that you did.
Thank you for your support. And, if you are as impressed with Dale's piece as I am, I hope you will pass it onto others.
Best regards,
My mother received a donation request from Barack Obama’s campaign last week. I sent $100 in her name because she had expressed approval of his candidacy early on. She liked what he said and how he said it. Her eyes were too feeble to read much of his books, but she was impressed by what she saw and heard of him on TV. Unfortunately, she died last November. She was 92 years old.
She was born in 1915, in Ohio, before women had the right to vote for President or hold public office. She could talk about crank telephones, Model T’s and the novelty of powered flight. She remembered horses and goats, victory gardens and Harry Truman. She would call a $100 donation today a “small fortune", since she remembered working for $5 a week when she was a young lady.
The summer before she died, one of my sisters and I tried to work out a way for her to fly to visit her latest great-grandchildren in Texas, whom she had never seen. She and my dad (who died in 2002 at 88) raised four kids starting in 1942. They survived the Depression and WWII, the threat of nuclear holocaust, race riots and political distress. They saw men walk on the Moon. They were lucky to travel extensively in retirement, seeing most of the U.S. and even visiting England once. But as they aged, their kids and grandkids scattered around the country to New York, California, Texas, Colorado, and Montana. Great-grandchildren were born in places that fragile old folks had a hard time getting to. Travel became difficult for her.
We soon found out just how difficult it had become.
In calling to arrange a flight, we were assured that, due to new travel restrictions, if my mother couldn’t show a proper State-issued ID, she probably wouldn’t be allowed to board an airplane. She hadn’t had a driver’s license for years. Her passport expired in ’88. This had not been a problem before.
When we looked into getting a photo ID in Colorado, where we live, newly established rules required sound, separate proof of citizenship. We didn’t have a birth certificate from 1915 because (according to family legend, at least) it was lost in a courthouse fire back in the day when such an event wasn’t uncommon. We had a baptismal certificate from 1924 (not acceptable); a census document from 1930 with her full name, age and parent’s names (no longer acceptable); high school graduation certificate, 1933 (no good); marriage certificate, 1938 (nope); her Social Security card from when the program was first created (nix). If we could get her to an Ohio probate court with these documents, we were told, and she signed a notarized affidavit, the Bureau of Vital Statistics could be persuaded to issue a replacement birth certificate.
Catch 22. Welcome to the post 9/11 world…
The irony of it! A 92-year-old member of the “Greatest Generation” couldn’t prove to the government’s satisfaction that she “had the right to be in the United States”!? (The actual words of one State office staffer, expressed with genuine sympathy.) Repeated trips to the DMV with these original documents would not move the rules.
The impression I came away with, rightly or wrongly, was that we weren’t just protecting America from terrorists. We were protecting ourselves from possible blame for failure. The rules would not bend for what I considered a clear case of injustice.
We contacted Congressmen, the Governor’s office, Ombudsmen, and they tried to be helpful. We started making progress. In fact, the rules were eased in August, not from our efforts alone, of course, but from other complaints, and we thought we had a chance. But it was too late. Her final decline began.As it happened, we had walked into an administrative donut hole. Our luck was such that an old woman who had lived through a momentous period of history in America was denied what amounted to her dying wish. We were defeated.
Welcome to America Afraid…
The lesson I take from this is that we are not living up to our claim to be “the land of the free, and the home of the brave”. We stand in fear of the nihilists who would just as soon see this old woman die in a fiery blast for the sake of some political grievance. We tremble at the thought of being blamed for failure to avert the next attack of a vile, unscrupulous enemy. After winning a long struggle against an ideology that promoted atheism as the cure for human misery, we now battle an ideology from the other extreme of theistic certainty, certain that the dominance of their theology would put humanity on the path of righteousness, at the expense of personal liberty.
We were struck dumb with fear when the towers collapsed.
But if we live in fear, we lose some of our dreams. We’re defeated in the pursuit of some of our wishes. In my mother’s case, a final wish.
What price do we pay for living in fear?
What cost for the semblance of security?
It’s time to add one word to the Pledge of Allegiance between “God” and “Indivisible”. As we inserted “Under God” as a slap to the Marxist theories of how men and women should live, we should slap the theocrats that want to dictate whether, and how, we worship.
The word is “Unafraid”.
If this “small fortune” donated to Obama’s campaign in her memory does anything to help him dispel the cloud of fear hanging over this country, I’m sure she would consider it well spent.
As you probably know, Barack and the Democratic Party have opened up the process for creating planks for this year’s Democratic Platform. We are being encouraged to meet with others to formulate what we would like to see included. Before holding my own neighborhood meeting, I would like your input. You many send it to me personally at logicconex@roadrunner.com or reply through the listserv if you think it better to share your thoughts with the general group, possibly providing an incentive for professionals to hold such meetings with their peers, or “neighbors” at the worksite.
Those of us who have taught English as a Second Language or have been involved in bilingual education know what a low priority our English Language Learners are in this culture. Many families come to the United States with high hopes. Their children are eager to learn. But, instead of building upon their competency, we are focused solely on what they do not know. Even when instruction is given in the home language, it is to transition these students to English.
As an English instructor, I know how important it is for these and all other students to become fluent and literate in English. But, I also know that English language skills are increased when students are also engaged in the serious study of another language. Barack has spoken of the importance of American students becoming literate in at least two languages. In our global economy, our nation is benefited.
But, instead of building the self-esteem of our students who have a first language other than English, we diminish their skills in their first language to increase their skills in their second. The result is that students backslide. Many revert to behavior more suited to much younger students. They fool around, misbehave, get in trouble, question the value of their education, and acquire classroom habits that mask their deficiencies and prevent them from learning at a satisfying pace. The politics around immigration and bilingual education have only made matters worse.
I believe this Democratic Platform offers us an opportunity to affirm the importance of advancing literacy skills for second-language students in their home language as well as in English. We know that native English speakers need instruction in English to read and write well. It follows that speakers of other languages need similar instruction in their own language if they are to maintain it and develop their strength in using it well. This would strengthen their connection to their families, to their heritage, and to others who are trying to become fluent and literate in their language. It would give them status. Language instruction is too important and fundamental to be used as a political football masking racist attitudes and anger fueled by economic fears.
The Democratic Party has asked for our participation in putting together planks that will appeal to and serve the needs of the general public. I am interested in what you have to say on this issue. I want to avoid the divisive rhetoric of the past. While I think it is useful and important to support efforts to make all students literate in two languages, I do not want to let that generalized position to hide the importance of supporting our English Language Learners in becoming more literate in the language of their home and community.
We who are creating planks for the platform have little time to act. Because of the importance of getting this right, I am asking to hear your suggestions as to how to word such a plank. When I meet with others in my larger neighborhood to focus on this plank, I want to be clear in my thinking so we get the job done in the limited time that we have. I am grateful to you who are willing to share your concerns and your suggestions so groups can create planks that are solid and strong. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
We can see that the Obama Health Care Plan is transitional. Under Obama’s plan, people can switch from their present plan to one a low-cost government plan. But, what will it cover? What options will we have?
My wife has been a nurse-midwife with Kaiser for over 20 years. Midwifery seems an option worth having. Would home births be covered? Will we be able to choose our own therapist, or counselor? Will people be confined to traditional Western-practices? Freedom of choice seems important. But, it can be controversial.
What are we willing to pay for life-support? Should hospice be actively encouraged?Tracking patients electronically raises privacy issues. It is important that we understand how that information can be restricted so that only those who establish a need-to-know can have access.Freeing up procedures and protocols could provide medical care in outlying areas where people find it difficult to receive care. How might that be done?
Americans want a plan they can envision—one that offers what people need and want.The Democratic Party has asked for our participation in putting together planks that will appeal to and serve the needs of the general public.
I am interested in what you have to say on the issues I have raised and on others that concern you.We have little time to act. I do not want to act in a vacuum. I am grateful to you who are willing to be involved in shaping the plan that will change how we offer health care in America. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Dear Friends,
Gregg's recent posting which mentions George Lakoff has prompted me to forward the following.
The organization, Democracy for America (DFA), is presenting a live teleconference/radio blog on Thursday, July 17th, at 2:30pm Pacific time, through its DFA Night School. This free course is entitled The Political Mind with George Lakoff.
I've already signed up to attend, and I hope fellow Obama supporters will join me/us, as well.
This and other DFA trainings can also be received as podcasts from iTunes.
To register for the live Lakoff training and/or to receive the iTunes podcast(s), just click on:< /span>http://democracyforamerica.com/nightschool
All the best,
Linda Sternhill Davis< /p>
http://democracyforamerica.com/nightschool
DFA Night School - The Political Mind w/ George Lakoff
Tiger got to hunt,
Bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder, “Why, why, why?”
Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.
Poem by Bokonon
from Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut
Bokonon, the spiritual voice behind Vonnegut’s first great novel, says it is our nature to question, yet accept. The positions we take often mask the vulnerability we feel. That vulnerability is all too apparent on-line as we who have been part of the Obama campaign throughout the primary season try to sort ourselves out during this summer of change. As Obama addresses the concerns of the broad constituency of the American people, we struggle with the changes occurring in our campaign.
Ironically, as we question Obama’s vote on FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, he is handing us an opportunity to lead the party ourselves. We are being offered the opportunity and challenge to meet with our constituents to form the planks of the Democratic Platform. For those among us who think that Obama has recently been “doing it wrong,” this is our opportunity to do it right. For those who see Obama’s choices as an effort to be more inclusive by reaching out to a larger constituency, this is our opportunity to bring more people to the table. In either case, we must learn how to frame issues so that those who might see things differently see them our way.
It is as though we have been invited to sit at that table of brotherhood set for us 45 years ago by Dr. King. Though, ostensibly, we come to join hands, we most likely will come to this party wearing masks—masks that assert our certainty and hide our doubts. Unfortunately, the masks will not only prevent us from talking openly with each other, but they will also keep us from seeing the vulnerable human features of our companions. It is important that we all lower our masks so we can see each other clearly, for, as linguist and cognitive researcher George Lakoff says, this will engage our mirror neurons, creating empathy that can bring us together.
In his new book The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain [for his views on Obama’s shift, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-mind-and-the-obama-ma_b_111105.html?view=print], Professor Lakoff explains how our minds and nervous systems work. Most of our thinking is unconscious, reflexive, beyond our control. Our conscious minds are reflective but seldom engaged. Perception of “color and shape are registered in different parts of the brain,” but what fires together wires together, so that messages moving upstream toward the brain are integrated “at convergent zones via neural binding” (p 25). All of this is as unconscious as the brain controlling our heartbeat. Repeated actions create dramatic event structures that “are carried out by brain circuitry.” This “dramatic structure circuitry” seems most likely to be in the forebrain where it is joined by two “emotional pathways” from the limbic system: “one for positive emotions (happiness, satisfaction)—the dopamine circuit—and one for negative emotions (fear, anxiety, and anger)—the norepinephrine circuit” (p 27-28). Thus our unconscious narrative with its attendant emotional structure becomes a frame. “Frames are structures we think with” (p 22). This thinking is tied to action through “mirror neuron circuits” that “fire when we either perform a given action or see someone else perform the same action.” These circuits are connected like a two-lane highway to “the so-called super-mirror neurons in the prefrontal cortex, which modulate the activation of the mirror neurons, apparently to either enhance or limit their capacity for empathy” (p 39). Thus, we are predisposed to accept progressive thought and the politics of empathy.
Even so, we hesitate before lowering the mask. Our neural narratives are grounded in the process of growing up. Trust is framed by physical metaphors developed through experience. As we learned to walk, we risked hurting ourselves. We fell with each step, only to catch ourselves with our advancing foot. Then we would risk again, fall again, and catch ourselves again. Because our steps were uncertain, we felt safer holding onto furniture or the hand of someone who cared about what happened to us.
Trust, like love, is also tied to an investment metaphor. Again, as children, we take what we have as given. Much time passes before we question it. It takes an imagination to speculate on the outcomes of actions that might change our circumstance. Though we might yearn to become what we think we truly are, we are afraid to let go of the positions we hold. Thus, we tend to keep our mask in place, even as we avow “Change You Can Count On.”
Like it or not, we are all invested in the Old Politics. It has been a given, like the air we breathe. It is the politics of the closed doors and the smoke-filled rooms. It is the politics of any hierarchy, where bosses hold power by excluding anyone who might have a different point of view. Obama claims to be a leader, not a boss. He promises to shift from the politics of exclusion to the politics of inclusion. This is a pluralistic politics that is criteria-based. As with the offer to allow us to create the planks for the Democratic platform, all people will be welcomed to the table.
Let’s look at the creation of an energy policy to see what that means. Sitting at the table would be companies that represent the interests of oil, coal, and nuclear fuels along side representatives of companies representing solar, wind, and geothermal approaches. Given criteria for cleanliness, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, low environmental-impact, and reliability, some groups’ proposals will be more attractive than others. No one is excluded; therefore, no one can complain as long as the rules for decision-making are honorable and clear. If we who have supported Obama have a problem with this model, imagine how difficult it will be to convince others that Obama would represent us all.
We have to be willing to develop our understanding of this new model of government. Presently, we have as much difficulty accepting it as those we must persuade to vote for Obama. Both groups might react positively to the billboard of an African-American woman, standing by her stove, saying, “My kitchen, my rules!” But, when facing polluters, both groups are not ready to embrace the notion, “Our country, our rules!” The reason is that the word “our” implies common ownership by a people united as one. Our states might be united as one nation, thanks to the Civil War. But, it will take an Obama presidency to unite us as one people. That is where we are headed if we stay on course.
But, George Lakoff argues, we don’t need to wait for an election to unite us. We can learn, right now, to use language that frames arguments so that others will feel included. Here are statements from his book that should resonate:
Obviously, in this time of change, we must take the risk to change ourselves. If we are going to move forward, we must ground ourselves with one leg while falling and catching ourselves with the other. We must learn to trust ourselves to move forward. We who are invested in a future that is better than our past must act as if we can be the leaders we want Obama to be.
Looking at the current stand-off between “Yes, We Can!” and “Yes, We Will!” and considering the difference between “Vote for Change We Can Believe In” and “Standing Up for Jobs and Standing Up for You,” we see a movement based on belief opposed by a campaign founded on action. Let me offer the slogan--“Working Together to Change America”—to show how the Obama campaign would get us from here to there. In the contrast to Hillary providing “Solutions for America” where her gifts for the people could be found last Christmas already wrapped under Hillary’s tree, Barack’s message has always been inclusive. After years of being divided from one another, citizens are finally considering the notion of working together for a change—something we seem not to have done since Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
As we shift from belief to action, we need to consider how to initiate change. Rather than focus on long-ranged goals, we need to focus on the process that will get us where we want to go. Steps within that process provide the specifics that pundits and the public have sought from Obama. Let me share some specifics that seem, to me, safe to introduce into the campaign. These specifics are based on the belief that our national security depends upon our internal strength. That strength depends upon our working together to change America.
The first specific is the creation of National Service, whose mission is to “Retrofit America and Benefit the World.” This involves fighting Global Warming with “Cool Projects” like solarizing cities and towns. It includes military service for those so inclined and offers rewards for such service. It supports repairing our infrastructure and rebuilding areas, including the city of New Orleans, and it provides entry-level training for those needing employment. It also provides people (many of whom are at the point of retirement and are worried about making ends meet or wish to do more than enjoy an extended “Happy Hour”) with the opportunity to work as Ambassadors of Good Will, providing health and educational services throughout the U.S. and around the world.
These projects increase production, put money into the hands of workers, train people who might have marginal skills, purchase American goods, and provide services needed by the general public at more affordable prices. Each dollar put into circulation through public works has a greater effect upon our economy than six dollars given in rebates and tax breaks.
Tied to these projects is the belief that we should control our own destiny. We must take control of our towns through public franchise. Cities (and nations) have the right to regulate businesses that operate within their boundaries. Too often, we have been afraid to exact from businesses a fair price for their being allowed to make a profit from us. Civil Rights legislation was based on the idea that businesses had an obligation to serve all the people of the community. Zoning restrictions and other regulations can be imposed to guarantee that businesses are fair. Such contracts can insist that a certain percentage of workers hired for public works contracts be from the city or county where they are employed. Businesses can be asked to guarantee that they will remunerate the community if they decide to close down or go elsewhere. Those businesses could buy insurance to guarantee their ability to do that should they fall on hard times. Corporations can be forced to pay taxes if they choose to operate within our borders. Anything less compromises our sovereignty. Our national security demands that we protect ourselves.
As we look at immigration and the concerns raised about sovereignty and protecting ourselves, let us not disrespect people who have chosen to live and work here. One way to show that respect is to promote Heritage Language studies within our schools. This is not bilingual education. Rather, it is recognizing that teaching reading and writing—whether it be in English, Spanish, Mandarin, or Farsee—is the only way to guarantee that children will be literate and able to use that language well when dealing in our global economy. Heritage Language programs build self-respect. They also provide an opportunity for native English speakers to immerse themselves in a foreign language, getting help from peers who already speak that language. By working together in this way to change America, we strengthen ourselves within the global economy.
The first area where specifics have been called for is the Obama Health Plan. The specific that sparks the imagination the most is “choice.” Some people want midwifery care. Some want chiropractic. Many want counseling and the ability to choose their own counselor. Hospice care with time-off for relatives to see their family members through to a more comfortable end is a needed alternative to being strapped to machines and invading by tubes. By increasing our health care options, we enrich the entire health care industry. To make this work most effectively, our first step must be transitional. A mandatory program closes all deals and provides no option for growth or change. The costs could be so high that drug manufacturers and insurance companies would never feel the competition. Obama's program would consider research to evaluate what is truly safe and cost-effective. As well, it would consider what procedures and protocols could bring medical care to isolated groups now not easily served.
The truth is that America's best defense is to increase our internal strength. What is homeland security without universal health care, without a working infrastructure, without mutual respect, and without controlling our own destiny? It is time to become united and whole. To do that, we must work together.
I have read the reports on your tax returns with great interest. Though some would claim that your wealth belies your connection with America’s Middle Class, you can point out that you have merely provided a model for solving their problems. Truly, responsible middle-class Americans must provide for their families as you and Bill have done. Declaring oneself a business is the first step to take when writing off expenses. But, what you have shown us is that, by declaring yourself a non-profit, you can contribute your profits and taxable earnings to yourself until you decide how to use it. You are the model for post-modern fiscal integrity. By reworking the system, we can all have something to hold onto as our economy goes down the tube. Then, with this money we have sheltered from the economic storm, we, like you and Bill, may serve as ambassadors of hope, traveling to benighted countries or to our own beleaguered areas and supporting local economies with our largess. Saving trifles, we bear treasures. Thanks to you, we are learning to serve ourselves so that we might be more giving.
So, I encourage you to continue your run for the presidency, unabated by others’ efforts to paint you as deceptive. Stick to your beliefs that the only way you can turn this system around is to reach out to your opponents—in this case, the health insurance industry and drug companies—grab what you can so that you might cut a deal they might find acceptable. Remember, you are the one person able to provide Americans with solutions to their problems: Elect you, and their problems are solved. Or so it would seem.
In truth, I encourage you for selfish reasons. Your staying in this race urges ever more people to register so their state and territory has its chance to change history. Your candidacy compels them to vote, thus building the Democratic Party in strength and numbers. In the end, you will lose, but the party will win because of you. Your nobility and fortitude will be honored for your loss makes everyone win, even you.
Wise to the ways of the world, you, too, must realize you have everything to gain by losing the nomination. If you have any doubts, look again at your tax returns. Bill’s income as president was a mere six figures--$358,000—a year. A year after leaving office, he earned $16 million as a speaker and writer. In this last year, together, you have reached $20.4 million. Why give that up just to shatter the glass ceiling around the White House? Imagine the mess you’d have to clean up once people see how little you accomplish. By supporting Obama at the convention, the hope you have built up will remain untarnished by regret.
By acceding to Obama at that time, you can work out a deal to be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services. Not only would you be in a position to get credit for bringing universal health care to our nation, but an Obama victory would free you from any obligation you may have to create a mandatory plan with premiums high enough to keep drug companies and the insurance industry competitive. With Obama in office, all bets are off! Unencumbered, you can finally come through on your promise to America. This is a perfect lose-win situation that will make you history!
Respectfully yours,
People complaining about the length of the primary season, said one NPR reporter, are like children in the back seat asking, “Aren’t we in Denver, yet?” I remember that my mother used to turn around to me and my three siblings at such moments and suggest playing, “Riddlely-riddlely-riddlely-ree, I see something you can’t see.” So, let me propose a game for those who need a break from calling voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Oregon, West Virginia, and North Carolina.
But, before I describe the game, let me say something positive about the journey that we are on. Our caucus group just had a going-away party for one of our members who will be working (and paid!) to help run the Oregon campaign. At this party, another member said she had been working a caucus in East Texas, where the regular Democrats (read, “Clinton-machine”), tried to start the voting early. As she brought in more and more African-American voters, these good ol’ boys declared, “We don’t do things like that in Texas!” Because of her efforts, Obama won that particular caucus and most others. Despite all of Clinton’s statements that Obama had a special advantage in states where there were caucuses, the truth is that his people had an uphill battle in each and every state. And this battle continues at county and state levels as delegates credentials are challenged and debated. This is an arduous process—one where the Clintons would seem to have a natural advantage—but Obama seems to be coming out ahead each and every time. What we have here is a cleansing of the system. As we go from state to state, we are placing our own people in positions of power, and we are activating the electorate. More than that, we are seeing that the Obama team has come through on its promise to match our efforts with their own. The longer this has gone on, the better our candidate has done, meeting challenges now that vet him, showing how he deals with crisis, facing issues honestly and providing the leadership needed for us to see that these issues belong to all of us. The point is that the person driving this car and those in the front seat helping with directions, checking road conditions, and watching out for possible accidents are doing a good job.
So, here is the game I propose for us would-be back-seat drivers. Let’s select Obama’s administration. I think most of us are past considering Hillary for V.P. When I think of the “Dream Team,” I am thinking of the whole group of people who will be heading our government—something like picking the players for the Super Bowl. Now, you may want to point out that I am getting a little ahead of myself here. After all, administrations officials are picked after the election, not before. But, remember, we are dealing with the first post-modern candidate, one who has been re-inventing the process of politics. Why should the electorate have to wait before finding out they have a John Ashcroft, an Earl Butz, or a James Watt in key positions? I think we could relax a lot more if we knew who these players were going to be.
Okay, so where should I start? (This is something like the count-down for Miss America: Whoever is named here would not serve as the Vice-President.) For Secretary of State, I would select Joe Biden. He spoke with more candor and experience than most of the other Democrats who put themselves forward for the top office. Attorney General could easily go to John Edwards. He wants to attack the corporations that don’t pay taxes and, then, screw over the little people. Go get ‘em! Shouldn’t Al Gore be Secretary of Energy? I don’t think anyone would dispute that. Dipping down a bit, not in terms of personalities but in terms of jobs, Dennis Kucinich would make an excellent head of the Federal Communications Commission. He has already had to battle them on enough equal time issues that we know he will stand up for Freedom of Speech in America.
Those are the easy ones. That doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have better suggestions than mine, but the ones coming up seem more likely to be up for grabs. Though it is easy to see Chris Dodd in this administration, he seems so suited to many positions it is hard to settle on one he fits the best. Still, the more he talkes, the more I see he has the credentials to be Secretary of the Treasury. But, he could easily be the Secretary of Education or the Drug Czar, given his position on decriminalizing drugs. As for Secretary of Defense, Wesley Clark could certainly fill the bill. I wonder whether the Secretary of Commerce could be handled with grace by an ideologue like Ron Paul. Certainly, a coalition government ought to be open to including such a person where he might best serve.
I leave it to others to tell me who should head the Interior (maybe Huckabee?), Labor, Transportation, Veterans Affairs (maybe Jack Murtha?), and Homeland Security. The question remains, what to do with Hillary? Left in the Senate, she could give Barack more problems than Edward Kennedy gave Jimmy Carter. Her only advantage as V.P. is that she knows the White House better than anyone has since Dick Cheney, but I don’t think I would want her a heartbeat away from the Presidency. No, Barack should let her head up Health and Human Services. She would be in charge of instituting universal public health—but only under the firm guidance of Obama and the criteria he sets for that program. In other words, this would not be a mandatory program that could charge so much that insurance companies and drug companies would never feel the pinch. She would have to accept paying the price for doing it right, but this would earn her a place in the history books. Besides making Hillary history, Barack could appoint Bill as Ambassador to the United Nations. It is a perfect role for him. He can stay in his apartment--and travel the world!
Before we get to V.P., there is one other position—one that may need to be created, though it could be a division of Homeland Security dealing with border issues: I see a position for John McCain in this administration (although it could not be announced until after the election is over). He could work alongside Bill Richardson to improve our relations with our neighbors to the south while continuing to protect our borders and provide for a pathway to citizenship for those who choose to live here.
Now, I know some of you in the back seat are getting cranky. You are worried that John McCain will get an advantage on Barack if he is not selected long before the convention takes place. But who needs to watch another coronation? Won’t people be more likely to watch if this contest goes on to the very end? Isn’t that the democratic way? Here is where Barack could pull the surprise that would astound the nation and make the Republican Party wonder why they never saw it coming. He could select Chuck Hagel, former-Republican-Senator, as his running mate. They have worked together on the Global Poverty Act. Hagel has been the chief draft consideration for the third-party movement Unity08. He has just put out a book, America: Our Next Chapter; Tough Questions, Straight Answers. He has already declared that Obama could unite our nation. And, he looks presidential because he is.
Okay, I have taken my turn at this game. It is still a long ride ahead. I pass my turn onto the next willing player: “Riddlely-riddlely-riddlely-ree, do you see something I don’t see?”
Given the events of this last week, we need, this Easter Sunday, to commit ourselves Rebirth--a spiritual rebirth of this nation. Not only has Barack laid down a challenge to travel the high road, but his detractors and other distractors have challenged us to do the same. We need to take American's most segregated hour and convert it to our most integrated hour. Fortunately or unfortunately, that is not so far to go, given how integrated we are any other day of the week. I am talking about churches in the African-American community opening their doors to the larger community around them. Now, I know those doors are already open. But, it is like political parties that say they have sent out flyers to the African-American community to get people to come to their meeting but hardly anybody came. There needs to be a conscious, overt effort to bring people into the church. Unless this happens, Reverend Jeremiah Wright will be cast as a hateful man, not representative of the African-American community or representative of only those whose hearts carry so many grievances they make the cross look light in comparison.
Barack's words raised a thorny issue that has popped some "white balloons" so filled with hot air that it seemed a firestorm of hate might blow us off our feet. Here's what Pat Buchanan had to say:
"Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.
"Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.
"This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
"First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
"Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
"Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services,
"Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
"Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks - with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.
"Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
"We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?"
Unless I have forgotten how to read, I think he is telling "black folks" that they should be grateful that "white Americans" brought them here as slaves. Because this is the land of the free, naturally, we freed them. As a Christian nation, we saved a lot of money on missionaries by bringing 600,000 over here to convert to our religion so we could grow a community of 40 million church-goin' folks. And, then, we have had to support these lazy people with untold trillions of dollars (almost as much as we have spent on the war to liberate those lazy Iraqis) through welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing--besides offering soup kitchens, day care, and nursing homes for blacks. And all that has come with this is a bunch of NWAs singing gangsta rap, showing, if nothing else, that they lack the attitude of gratitude.
Tom Sullivan of Fox Radio put it this way: "Let me put it to you a different way. What if Barack Obama is not -- does not win the Democratic nomination, or he does win it, and loses in the presidential race against John McCain? Is black America going to throw their hands up and say, 'Man, you know, I thought we were getting somewhere in this country, but this is just a bunch of racial bigots in this country and they still hate blacks and, I mean, if Barack Obama can't get elected, then we're never gonna have anybody that's a black that's gonna be elected president.' And will there be riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes."
Rush Limbaugh took a different tack, accusing Obama of hating on his own white grandmother Madelyn Dunham, even though Barack made clear in his speech that she”loves me as much as she loves anything in this world.” Instead, Rush Limbaugh would have it that Barack "has thrown his white grandmother under the bus, and then, yesterday [March 20], drove the bus backwards and ran over her, where he threw her under the bus, by calling her a typical white woman." He added: "It is clear that Senator Obama has disowned his white half, that he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side." We get racists projecting their own racism on those whose progress they would impede--Limbaugh attacking Obama for "opening these race wounds like this, taking us back 30, 40 years, making it look like no progress has been made."
What bothers me is that so few voices on the other side have spoken so loudly as those racists who have disguised themselves as legitimate radio commentators. I fear that people will be attracted to crackers if the party they attend sets out nothing more substantial to feed their souls. I think it is time for African-American Churches to speak out, to create an Ecumenical Hour, to actively invite "white folks" and others to attend their churches. This could be organized through working with sister churches, through such organizations as the National Council of Christians and Jews, or by students reaching out to friends of other races, asking them over to their church and, perhaps, invite them into their homes afterwards.
Given how few white people have crossed the threshold into black homes (the number could not be much greater than that of black people who have crossed the threshold into white homes), it would not take much to convert our most segregated hour into a time of our greatest integration. This act would not be to support Obama. It would be to accept the challenge--a challenge laid out by Buchanan, Sullivan, Limbaugh, and others. Our nation needs the healing that a warm, cordial summer might offer.
If this makes sense, we need to carry this message to those who can take action, for this is the time that tries the souls of good men and women like ourselves. We are at a time of crisis. We know that the actions I suggest here will not solve the problem of racism, but they will address it. I know that many would like to travel a different road, one that seems to lead more directly to the White House, a path less thorny than this one. But this path must be taken as well.
Please get back to me on this. There is much to do if we are going to realize our dreams. This is our time. This is our campaign. This is our movement into a future that holds the best for us all. We cannot hold back. We must act now!
With respect for all and malice toward none,
Friends of the Campaign,
I am bothered when I hear people say that Obama and Hillary hold similar positions. This suggests that their proposals do not need to be carefully examined. I see huge differences, especially in their health plans.
Obama's Health Care Plan is based on competition and freedom of choice. At the center his plan are elements designed to protect patients and providers by lowering costs, increasing options, and maintaining his standards for care and delivery of services.
Obama’s National Health Insurance Exchange would create rules and standards for participating plans to make them more affordable and accessible. This Exchange would allow "any American . . . the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or purchase an approved private plan" with "income-based . . . subsidies . . . for people and families who need it." People also have the option of keeping plans they already have. His plan also would protect doctors from overpriced malpractice insurance. Competition and standards built into this system will encourage a greater range of services at lower costs.
Obama’s plan includes an independent institute that would guide reviews and research of comparative effectiveness of various practices and approaches to health care. Again, this would promote options. As well, his plan would promote new models to improve patient safety and strengthen patient-doctor relationships.
Hillary's health care plan is mandated. While she claims that means everyone is covered, it actually locks down the program possibly limiting competition and freedom of choice. If the government program lacks an incentive for lowering costs, insurance companies and drug companies could keep their prices high. Like monopolies both public and private, the benefits of Hillary’s mandated program may be compromised by those delivering goods and services. Hillary’s plan lacks the flexibility and the checks and balances built into Obama’s program. As such, it lacks the accountability required to be successful.
Obama has the superior plan.
Respectfully,
