Friday, October 26, 2012

What Makes So Many Seemingly Vote Against Self-Interest


What Makes So Many Seemingly Vote Against Self-Interest

I write this as a response to a friend, who asked me what I thought was behind so many people’s seeming willingness to vote for Mitt Romney, despite the fact that for a significant majority of the folks in this country a vote for Romney, is a vote against their self-interest.

If I am correct and Romney wins this election, Romney will be in the position to shape this country for generations to come. He will appoint judges; change laws; regulate the personal and private lives of women, who make up more than half the country; and he will make it virtually impossible for social justice, e.g. universal access to healthcare, equal pay, gender equality, for a very long time. 

Plato’s Republic, his most influential work, was written approximately 2,400 years ago; it is a dramatic dialogue about the nature of justice in the ideal city-state.

It is not the intention of this piece to discuss Plato’s philosophical views, but given his influence on Western thought, there are some important lessons to be considered. Through this dialogue Plato offers a conception of the ideal city-state; an Aristocracy. There are 3 castes of citizens. It is ruled by the wise, protected by the guardians, enabling its citizens in the merchant class to flourish. When these three castes of citizens are in harmony the state flourishes. If this ideal state starts to deteriorate, the ruling class starts to lust for power and its government will learn to value power. He calls this new form of government a Timocracy. A Timocracy degenerates into an Oligarchy where power rests in the hands of a few. 
 
Romney and his billionaire CEO friends have a vision for our country, which is Plutocratic, a more sinister form of Oligarchy. Romney has been, rhetorically, accused of being a plutocrat, an individual who represents the values of corporate greed, a corollary of which is power. Oligarchies may be a less virulent; monarchies for example are oligarchies, but the royals may be benign. Romney's policies advocate for a Plutocracy, a more dangerous form of private hegemony, which is the desire to control the social, ideological, and economic influences of our society. The actual consequence of a Romney administration will be that wealth, power, and opportunity get concentrated and benefit only a very few.

Romney does not care about the plight of most Americans; his 47% comments spoke to that. But, what about those he believes he can reach, those that might vote for him? Greed and religion disguised as a challenge to the loss of freedom have become his appeal. Romney demagogues the idea of social justice. Freedom is the most important value, best expressed as access to free markets through the accumulation of wealth. He feigns outrage against President Obama because Obama dares to suggest that a just society should be structured so as to balance freedom with a system of social justice, e.g., universal healthcare, unemployment support, gender equality, pay equality, reproductive rights, and education support. Romney’s demagoguery of Obama’s ideas furthers belligerence and disrespect rather than communication, resulting in his followers forgoing the recognition that they may be voting against their own best interests.

Romney’s support comes from four sources. While my discussion presents each source as distinct, there is nothing that prevents membership in multiple sources. In fact, their success in getting Romney elected depends, at least, on cooperation, but I also hope to expose some of Romney’s duplicity. 

The first group are religious zealots, ideologues like Akin, Fisher, Perkins, Robertson, et al…by offering these zealots a small but disproportionately large piece of the pie...these evangelical leaders mobilize their audiences/legions into believing that God comes before Country, isolating and turning evangelicals against more secular ideas for policy. They create a kind of destructive intra-national crusade, where their God sanctified ends, justify all means. This uncontrolled and irrational piety favors Romney, who has strong religious views of himself; destined to be president. The significance is that despite his poorly veiled avarice and that of his plutocratic allies, these legions of believers have threatened to vote for him, against their own interests 

Part of Romney’s support comes from more secular folks, some intellectuals; more successful oligarchs motivated by greed because they see themselves in a more advantageous position by which they can advantage themselves. Their allegiance is typically to the Republican party because they believe that their best interests are served by its support. In other words, they buy the party platform for more freedom in the form of lower taxes and less government regulation; more for themselves. These folks are not necessarily plutocrats, and while they may understand Romney's vision, they are not critical of it nor fearful because they have access to sufficient resources to live benign and relatively good lives; but they show duplicity by their banality. 

And, there are his billionaire CEO plutocratic supporters who envision themselves as needing control over the social, ideological, and economic influences of our society. They are bold and upfront and challenge the president’s vision as an attack on their freedom. They see social programs, not as safety nets for those with less opportunity, but as programs for a valueless segment of society. Their ideology is simple; they have an obsession with acquiring a monopoly on resources and power and they wish to be completely unregulated in their attempt to acquire it. 

A corollary of this is Romney, et al also recognize that this election may represent the last chance they will have to shape the institutions in this Country. As the demographics in the Nation change, these plutocrats fear a multi-generational loss of power and influence, a consequence of which Progressive principles of justice will be incorporated into our political system and institutions, and their taxes will go up.

Finally, there are Republican members of The United States Congress, who have made a concerted effort to be as obstructionist as possible in an effort to ensure the failure of the President. In my next piece, I will discuss this in more detail because there is more onerous ‘stuff’ going than I have time for here and stuff not immediately relevant to the question at issue.

As I mentioned earlier, what is really happening is that a plutocratic few, Romney among them, recognize the demographics in this country are changing. The US population is increasingly more diverse and the emerging minorities will soon be in the majority. These plutocrats know that this new force in politics does not favor Republican policy, and consequently, they feel threatened. They masquerade as freedom fighters, encouraging Americans to fight for their lost freedom. This misdirected outrage shows its ugly head in the form of tactics such as voter disenfranchisement; as an appeal to the greed of benign oligarchs, the funding of secret pacts to lie in order to undermine President Obama’s credibility, and an appeal to the Fundamentalist zealots and their minions that the current administration's policies are taking away freedom of religion. These legions of God fearing believers vote against their own best interests by voting against principles of justice, which would support and benefit them as well as the Americans they blame for their plight, forgetting that many are part of Romney's 47%.

History has taught us that no civilization has lasted more than a relatively short period of time, despite the sometimes arrogance of self-perception by humans. I am sure the ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, Alexander, the Romans, the Ottomans, to name a few, sat around the table discussing the fact that their societies were the be-all and end-all of human civilization; only to be wrong.

The question is: Who are we? Plato warns us that if citizens feel, or more importantly, are disenfranchised, politically, socially, and economically, the next stop is Tyranny; then welcome to the history books U.S.A.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

"Riches Beyond the Dreams of Avarice"

dba Mathematics

For months, there has been much said about the Romney campaign’s creative mathematics regarding its tax plan. The veracity of it was questioned by other Republicans during the Republican primary debates, but the subject of its creative inaccuracy was brought to the forefront by President Clinton, in his terrific speech at the Democratic National Convention last month that become known as…”It’s Arithmetic.”

The recent headlines made by Republican leaning CEO’s threatening the jobs of their employees if President Obama is reelected have made me think about the arithmetic involved in their less than veiled threats. What
these CEO’s all have in common besides their hatred for the President is that they are billionaires. But: What is a billionaire? It’s a term that we unreflectively think of as people having “riches beyond the dreams of avarice.” This expression is a well-known line in Star Trek IV from Dr. McCoy but it is actually attributed to the 18th Century poet and essayist Samuel Johnson.

It is a wonderful quote; poetic in its flow: But what does it mean to say a person has “riches beyond the dreams of avarice.” Well, avarice according to Webster means an “insatiable desire for wealth or greed,” it means a desire for riches beyond the dreams for greed (italics are mine).

So these billionaires threatening their employees, poetically, do so because they have an insatiable desire for wealth beyond their dreams for greed. But, again what does this mean mathematically?

Again, according to our friend Webster, a billion is equivalent to 1,000 million; that is, a billion dollars is a million dollars 1,000 times over and some of these guys on my list below have 20 or more billions. In fact, according to Forbes* the following individuals are worth approximately: 
 *Charles Koch                 $31 Billion    or        31,000 Millions                    
*David Koch                   $31 Billion     or       31,000 Millions
*Sheldon Adelson            $20 Billion    or        21,000 Millions                    
  David Siegel**                 $1 Billion    or          1,000 Millions
Arthur Allen**                   $1 Billion    or           1,000 Millions
Robert E Murray**            $1 Billion    or          1,000 Millions
** Siegel, Allen, and Murray have been referred to in the headlines recently as billionaires, though I have been unable to confirm their personal net worth; I assumed $1 Billion.

Now, I do not believe that it is hyperbole to suggest that having the sums of money these people have been reported to be worth, is to claim they are “rich beyond the dreams of avarice,” but let’s do some math. President Obama wishes to raise the tax on all individuals earning over $250,000/year by 3%. Now, I have no knowledge of their yearly earnings. But, I think it is fair to assume that given their personal net worth, their yearly earnings by itself would make most anyone “rich beyond the dreams of avarice.” And, I think it is also fair to say that a 3% tax increase in their yearly personal earnings would have no effect on their wealth or standing.

Yet they threaten to fire employees because of what they claim will be the ‘effect’ of the reelection of the President on them and/or their companies. I would suggest it is not the effect but the 'affect'...the need to feed the greed. In fact, between the 6 of them, they could make 85,000 people millionaires and still remain 'rich beyond the dreams of avarice'.

As I just suggested, these billionaires have made headlines recently by publicly threatening that the reelection of President Obama could cause significant layoffs at their companies with the exception of Sheldon Adelson, who is just trying to buy the election for Romney. Adelson has been the largest donor to the Republican cause and I guess cannot threaten his employees because most are overseas. 

If I might add, the Walton Family, with a combined net worth according to Forbes in excess of $100 Billion or 100,000 Millions, refuse to pay a living wage to many of their employees and minimal, if any, benefits.

A former professor of mine, a secular Conservative for whom I have great respect, once said to me "that it is a silly way of living to aim at amassing vastly more money than one would possibly need but a lot of people live silly lives." I cannot fathom the need to dream about being greedy beyond the realm of greed and it is surely, silly, even so, I somehow do not believe the election of President Obama for a second term will have any affect on their sleeping patterns. If Romney, however, is elected it will surely both effect and affect ours.