As Romney begins his pivot, he and President Obama are highlighting their competing visions for growing prosperity and riches: One, building from the bottom up; the other, trickling from the top down. The data show that Obama's argument is more correct, but don't look for any bipartisan compromise towards creating a sane fiscal policy. Nor, for that matter, towards progress on any other major issues. That's because Republicans advocate increasingly extreme and reactionary policies that would create suffering for large segments of society. They're also resuscitating social issues from decades ago.
These have dangerous consequences. You can't help wondering what's driving their positions with such zeal. There are many sources, but a major one is psychological, and it has three strands. All culminate in policies that pervert what politicians like to call The American Dream -- that all members of society can build a successful and fulfilling life. That dream has become pointed towards the few who can become rich, at the expense of the many. Let's look at the three psychological strands that underlie that twist:
Little Boys Play-Acting As Grown-Ups
The younger Republicans often sound like little boys making demands and arguments that they imagine big, grown-up men do and say when they have power, like 'I will have my way, and you must obey me.' Interestingly, most are baby boomers now in their midlife years. Perhaps this reflects a cultural theme that's worth of exploring. But their posturing appears to reflect a twisted sense of what it means to be an adult man, who, in reality, must engage with collaboratively to achieve anything. A recent collection of essays, Global Masculinities and Manhood portrays views of manhood within different cultures and the forms it can take.
Different Mentalities Of Liberals And Conservatives
A recent Washington Post article by Chris Mooney cites research that liberals and conservatives have different ways of thinking. They differ on a number of cognitive traits: Liberals consistently score higher on openness to experience -- wanting to try new things and new ideas. Conservatives, in contrast, tend to be less open -- less exploratory, less in need of change. They enjoy greater order and structure, and they seek more closure around issues than do liberals. Such differences explain some reasons why each orientation perceives problems and their solutions.
Becoming Rich In America
Both Obama's and Romney's parties tacitly embrace Ronald Reagan's statement that the American dream means "... an America in which people can get rich." Of course, becoming rich is always a goal for some people. But policies now seem aimed at benefiting those already there or close to it. Obama highlights that, though arguing for a middle class push. He says, "I want folks to get rich in this country. I think it's wonderful when people are successful." But, he argues, "In this country, prosperity has never trickled down from the wealthy few. Prosperity has always come from the bottom up, from a strong and growing middle class."
In contrast, Romney claims that the best path to riches is to help businesses become more successful, through easing regulations and lowering taxes. And that ... we need to build successful businesses of every kind imaginable. Both Obama and Romney seem to emphasize the importance of having a path towards becoming rich; it's just that their paths differ: Obama supports the rise of the middle class towards greater riches, while Romney supports enabling people at the top to prosper more.
In terms of broad social impact, Obama's strategy is more supported by the data. Obama cites the fact that our "... share of our national income going to the top one percent has climbed to levels we haven't seen since the 1920s." He adds that the richest people in the country are also paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years.
Growing disparity is a reality. It's creating more problems, as a Washington Post analysis recently documented. The Republican position embraces that disparity for the benefit of the richest segments of society. Analysis of the Ryan budget proposal shows it would support the rich at the expense of the poor by, for example, slashing food stamps and contributing to more poverty. That prompted the Catholic Bishops to lambaste it for hurting the poor.
And adding to the retro-Republican positions now in ascendance, are Congressman Allen West and Fox pundit Bill O'Reilly accusing members of Congress and other public figures of being "Communists" -- odd in this second decade of the 21st Century.
Nevertheless, the Democrats shy away from arguing for a strong government role in serving and supporting the greater good, for all of society. They appear reluctant to argue that the push towards exclusionary self-interest is occurring at the very time when we need policies and actions that promote opportunity for all segments of society. That's the opposite of extreme self-interest -- becoming rich and amassing power for oneself, to the exclusion of others. Nothing comes from nothing. Success always depends on the help and support of others, whatever your situation. The Ayn Rand fables, enamored by some on the right, are delusion, not reality.
Of course, the globalized world and its insecurities generate understandable fears of loss, confusion, and insecurity. Some, more prone to conservative orientation -- and if driven by insecurity about their standing in the world, or simply too selfish to share resources with those less fortunate -- will congeal around reactionary policies, seeking self-protection.
And that connects with the still-dominant view of a successful life mostly defined by financial and self-interested criteria -- consuming and possessing for oneself. And yet, each person's success and well-being today depends on helping others, especially in the context of economic fluctuations, threats from failed states, and the increasing consequences of climate change.
The upshot is that security, success and well-being require strengthening communal values and behavior; working towards goals that benefit all. Acting on self-interest alone, is a non-sustainable way of life. Interestingly, Edward O. Wilson's new book, The Social Conquest of Earth, cites evidence that collaboration within groups enabled survival and evolution. Similarly, new research finds that collaboration and cooperation spurred the growth of intelligence and brain.
In Obama's 2011 SOTU speech, he emphasized that the world has changed significantly -- that it requires all of us to work towards common goals. But the Democrats seem reluctant to emphasize that now; yet supporting each other isn't just a value shared by religious traditions. It's part of our evolutionary heritage -- and research shows that you can increase your capacity for empathy and compassion. It's "hard-wired."
As many progressive business leaders already know, that's also good for the bottom line. Among the most prominent is the billionaire Richard Branson, who argues that a business with a social conscience will have more motivated employees, save resources, drive higher profits, and be more satisfying than even the material wealth it creates.
We're not isolated entities on a planet that exists for our personal benefit, alone. We all need and depend on each other. President Obama would do well to show aggressive leadership towards pushing that vision. It's the American Dream, after all.
Douglas LaBier, Ph.D., a business psychologist and psychotherapist, is director of the Center for Progressive Development in Washington, D.C. You may contact him at dlabier@CenterProgressive.org. To learn more about him, click here.
Follow Douglas LaBier on Twitter: www.twitter.com/douglaslabier
Marian Wright Edelman: Working Hard to Get Back on Track
Billy Shore: Real SNAP Stories
Yujhan Claros: Of Catholics, Capitalism, and American Conservatism
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
However, increasing business and superpacs are drowning out the voice of the people - and through the marketing of half truths and lies via vehicles like Rush and Fox I worry their voice will never really be heard from again.
Working together is key to human prosperity. The scale of human cooperation is one defining differences between humans and other species.
RECIPROCITY
The ability to work together began at the family unit, working together promoted survival of our genes. It then expanded to reciprocity relationships between distantly related individuals. The key to reciprocity is to escape the prisoner’s dilemma. At its simplest: Individuals are better off accepting favors but cheating and avoid returning them. Our ancestors did favors for people that they knew well and interacted with frequently.
The frequent interaction allowed people to avoid the free rider problem. People stop doing favors for those that will not return them.
TRADE & MARKETS
Trade allowed people to cooperate with distant individuals. It allowed people acting in their own self interest to work together to create better lives than only working within groups small enough to allow reciprocity.
WARNING: DO NOT MIX
Reciprocity (altruism) cannot be applied consistently with strangers to build a better world. Free riders proliferate and the system self-destructs. Similarly introducing markets and money into personal relationships based on reciprocity destroys them. Imagine applying a dollar value to everything that each individual contributes to a relationship and exchanging money on that basis. The relationship would be destroyed.
Continued…
CHARITY
Charity seems to violate the “do not mix” rule. It involves altruistic acts between strangers. Charity is a one sided venture. The one giving gains status or personal satisfaction from the transaction, but the two parties are not working together to create something greater than each alone could achieve. Add politics/government force to the mix and the incentives to free ride will expand to a point that prosperity is destroyed.
Reciprocity and Trade/Exchange applied in their correct social spheres has allowed developed societies to escape the grinding poverty experienced by our ancestors. Used inappropriately and society is destroyed.
And how exactly does one propose to make opportunity equal? I can understand that certain superficial factors, such as race and gender alone can dealt with, but one cannot assume that we are all equal in ability because we simply aren't. Some people will naturally have more opportunities than others. How do people propose to level the playing field?
Evolution is progressive. It favors the flexible and those more easily able to cope with change.
Conservatives will die out over the course of this century and be left behind in the trash basket of history.
Regarding evolution, it is not a force unto itself, you're putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Evolution is a response to changes in circumstance that forces one to adjust. I'm not certain, on a political scale, what would force people to chance their political views and thier values in such a way that their perspectives will cease to exist. As for as evolution leveling the playing field, I'm not even sure what that even means.
I do believe that these non-cooperative memes will result in their hosts dying off, and they'll probably take me with them. Or at least my savings and well-being and that of my children. Heck, it appears that even China is better at capitalism than our new Ayn Rand model is.
But I am not 'wealthy' by any measure. I save what I can and worry it won't be enough for retirement/medical needs. My car is 11 years old (but thanks to routine maintenance and a fair amount of luck) I am not looking at replacing it any time soon.
This country was founded on the principle that we each have rights - to 'live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' We need to stop equating the happiness with financial remuneration. If reality TV has proven anything - a questionable statement - it has demonstrated that people with money are not intrinsically happier than the rest of us. They just have more 'stuff.'
Right Wing = I am independent and I have mine soscrewyou.
Human life on this planet would not survive if conservative ideology were to be followed to its logical conclusion. So, one way or another, conservatives will die out like the dinosaurs.
Evolution, life and reality are progressive.
Most Americans don't need to be billionaires. Don't need to own 10 homes across the country. Don't need Swiss bank accounts like Mitt Romney.
The problem with this country right now is greed of the few has gone too far. These absurdly few rich Americans seem to believe they are entitled to ungodly wealth - begotten on the backs of hard working Americans, while at the same time - ordinary Americans are not even entitled to decent affordable medical care, decent quality education for their children, and a home to live in - which used to be within reach of the majority of Americans.
And the big lie being used right now is that we as a nation can't afford Universal medical care. Or we can't afford to build better schools for our children. Yet we have been able to afford 2+ billion a week on foreign wars abroad - and 50% of our federal budget goes to the military-industrial-complex. And we can afford to give trillion dollar tax breaks to corporate America and the absurdly rich.
Which methods meet with your approval, jamenta, and which do not?
"We're not isolated entities on a planet that exists for our personal benefit, alone. We all need and depend on each other. President Obama would do well to show aggressive leadership towards pushing that vision. It's the American Dream, after all."
Our interconnection is revealing itself in the global economic situation. Each country is intertwined with all the others to such a degree it is impossible to separate. If one country sinks, it will bring down the others. The economy cannot be artificially sustained or revived anymore its just another tug on the thread of an overcomplicated and interconnected ball of yarn. We cannot rely on economic growth in a world where the average person cannot afford to buy luxuries. Its a catch 22.
At the end of the day, 'in a world where we all need each other and depend on each other', but where economic growth is no longer a viable option, what is the new vision, the new American Dream? Could it be a life worth living, where people become mutually responsible toward one another and the planet and live life in harmony with each other and nature? Would that be a common goal worth working toward? Could this be the vision where Obama needs to show aggressive leadership?
Then what of the excess, that which is beyond their need for survival. Who is to determine that level which one needs to survive? Would such be downgraded from human rights considerations then, to be distributed to those below the survival limit? If so, the why would anyone produce more then what they need to survive? Should society force them into doing so for the greater good?
My husband is a commercial fisherman. He runs a boat and fishes for salmon and halibut. One of his goals is profit. Another is keeping the ecosystem healthy so that he will have fish in future years. He also is ready to help anyone, even a competitor, who gets into a dangerous situation because people can be killed on the sea. What I took from the author is that we need to acknowledge that we as people have many goals and while profit is one, it is not the only one.
Ordinary American workers haven't had a "real" pay raise since the 1970s, while the top 1% wealthy have nearly tripled their incomes since then.
Without enough DEMAND - our American economy will die a slow and painful death. And eventually there will be social upheaval due to the gross wealth inequalities - that the right-wing in this country is turning a blind eye too.