I am impressed by the fact that there seem to be a huge number of people out there in our state of Michigan (members of both parties) who are not very well educated, and who think of "government" as something quite other than and quite apart from themselves. Consequently, their basic stance is that the smaller the amount of taxes they pay the more they personally take home and the less they have to "bother" with the government.
It's as if they're saying "starve the greedy bums and they'll go away." What they just don't understand is that the government is all of us; we all have a responsibility to the communities in which we live to share the cost of the very necessary services we organize on our own behalf. And I think it's simply because nobody they respect and trust has ever told them any different,
I used to be one of these kinds of people, when I was in my 20s and 30s. I had a family of 5 kids, three from another marriage, and 2 of my own. On a fundraiser's salary with the Salvation Army it was devilishly hard to make ends meet. It was even harder to think of possibly helping myself and my family "move up" to a better level of lifestyle. That was, of course, the general impulse of the time -- get a life together that was measurably better than whatever your father and mother had enjoyed.
During those years, thinking about taxes was like thinking of how to avoid a plague; I did not think of how every cent of the taxes I paid was coming back to me and my family in terms of protection, rules and regulations that provide safety and comfort, conveniences, services, or some other beneficial way. "The government" was just another complication in my life that detracted measurably from that life I was struggling to make.
Yes, I had my Civics Course in high school. But the problem with that course was that while they told us what the government was organizationally and how it worked, they didn't emphasize a most critical point: that our government is all of us together organizing a) to provide a regulatory environment that keeps us from stepping on each others' toes, and b) to provide services that we all need and use daily. I just never "got it" for a long time. It wasn't until I got a lot closer to municipal government through a Michigan Municipal League project I was involved in that I finally began to see things in a different light.
So I'm thinking that what we need to do is embark not so much on a propaganda campaign relative to taxes or relative to specific issues that force us to raise taxes for programs we desperately need to function, but on educating people, helping folks out there throughout our state and nation, who don't have anything in the way of an education, to learn how THEY ARE the local government and the state government and the federal government. We need a method of helping them, as adults, now out of school, to identify themselves as part of a community, like they can feel part of a church group, or a community group, or even the gang of guys at the local bar.
It's not that most people don't have some sort of community roots, it's that they somehow have missed the message that they ARE their government and that whatever is their fair share needs to be paid in order for them to live as decently as we all do in this country. And that there are both protections and advantages as well as responsibilities in this. That's probably where our lack of allowing education to have a high priority for our state has doomed us to have to maintain government in the face of such incredibly isolationist and provincial attitudes about the individual's and the community's responsibility.
I will admit that there may well be the occasional folks who just say "me first and the hell with the other guy" or who say "I'll give as little as I can so I can get more services for free than the next guy." Just your basic "free-riders." But I think this kind of intentionality and meanness about it all is pretty rare.
So maybe what we need to do is produce a video that does a persuasive and compelling bit of this educating; something that would help people identify personally with their government as a piece of themselves that they need to
take care of.
Anybody interested in that? That's the sort of thing I do pretty well. And I wouldn't mind lending a hand with this sort of effort. Though I would need some help in doing it. Then we could take such a thing and put it all over FaceBook and YouTube and MySpace etc. and link it in to Twitter and make tweets out of it, etc. And the video would tell the story in a fresh, compelling, believable way that government is us all, organizing to do what serves our needs.
One more thought, and then I'll quit: I believe we need today a careful balance between the community and the individual. Our system, which combines capitalism and democracy in very unique ways, is very much based, in this country, on a high level of advocacy for the individual's rights. And justly so, given where we came from. But it's not all a one-way deal.
We need also, however, to be protective of the community's well-being and we together need to be insisting on and educating people in their responsibility, or their need to act responsibly toward the communities in which they find themselves. Not IMPOSING it from outside, but educating and motivating people ABOUT it. So they can modify their stereotypes and their behavior and become responsibile members of the community.
Throughout history we can see instances where individuals fight their way to the top or are born at the top of the heap and rule others: (monarchy, and feudal estates right down to democracy in America with the tycoons and the poverty-stricken struggling in competition as we worked hard to evolve a middle class larger and more powerful and economically self-sufficient than both.
Then we have various instances of where the community or the nation is considered foremost. which would take us from socialism and communism, even some forms of fascism, down to democracy in Japan as it is practiced today, with a strong emphasis on the community in the midst of a democratic form of government.
But somehow I think we need to get that mix of co-responsibility back and forth between individuals and community ironed out and expressed a little more evenly.
Democracy and capitalism together is our system; sure, but it can be improved with some careful consideration for both individuals and the communities in which they find themselves. I guess I'm just an old "tax and regulate Democrat" at heart. Sure I want my rights as an individual protected, absolutely. But I am also needed as a responsible and responsive member of the community group in which I live, do business and function.
James Madison, in the Federal papers dealt with "factions" as groups of people who gathered together to exploit their own views or actions to the exclusion of, and perhaps to the detriment of, others. So our founding fathers framed a constitution that allowed us to continually re-invent ways of dealing with such people, according to the times in which we have lived.
But what the founding fathers did not address as helpfully is the way in which communities do have both a moral and a practical claim on individuals, just as individuals must work out their claims on the communities in which they live. It's a two-way street that Americans have had relatively little opportunity to practice, in my way of thinking. I believe it's a fragile balance, too. Too much emphasis on either one can complex problems; and that has happened at various junctures in our history as a nation.
I've been re-reading Richard Hofstadter's "The Era of Reform," (1870 to 1920) and it seems that this period of history presaged our own era. Populists and Progressives, working out the relationships between individuals and community, trying to wrest justice for individuals from the community. But not necessarily giving attention on the individual's responsibility back to the community as a place from whose decisions we all do benefit.
It's as if our whole history is the expression of fear that community (the municipality, the state, the nation) would take over and squash the individual -- which, of course is the anxiety from which our system was birthed, and the basis out of which we so denigrated the socialist and communist experiments of the early 20th century.
And under these regimes, "The State," (we always seem to talk in this kind of discussion of "governments" rather than seeing communities of which individuals are a part) operating as monarchies and oligarchies or in totalitarian systems, has attempted to act on behalf of the people (the community) with disastrous effect.
But have we really worked out the best way to do democracy and capitalism together? I think here's a wrinkle here that needs a further bit of ironing. Mostly it needs educating and motivation. We need to keep working on this issue of the individual and the community. Each has responsibilities to the other, some of which seem to have gone unrecognized. Each need certain rights and freedoms. It's a balance we need to strive for.
Showing posts with label Voluntary Sector and Public Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voluntary Sector and Public Policy. Show all posts
Friday, June 26, 2009
We're "Free," But From What?
In this country we have a long, proud and loud history of "freedom." Freedom from tyranny, principally. The tyranny of monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, despotism totalitarianism and fascism. Freedom from government that oppresses the individual either politically or economically. Freedom for the individual to do whatever he/she wants to do. Along with that we have, over the last two hundred fifty years, developed the set of rights which we are willing to accord to the individual. And we protect these rights militantly and vociferously. We have also developed the symbols, the institutions, the infrastructure to reinforce that belief in the rights of the individual. So, in this respect we are "free."
But we still have further to go in the journey of our development as human creatures. For example, we must get ourselves to the point where we are free of the tyranny of employers and the work place; the work place must become more humane, and more in concert with our environment, so that productivity and sustainability don't fight each other at the cost of our planet, human lives or personal integrity.
We need also to get ourselves free from the effects of our ignorance, our fears and anxieties, our stereotypes -- the stuff that's in our (individual and free) heads. This is the stuff that keeps us from making the decisions that will help us most.
Right now, the thing we need most, the thing we need that will do us the most good, especially in Michigan but also generally across the nation, is education. Yet ignorance, fear, greed, anxiety, stereotypes all are forcing people in legislatures and in the hustings to relegate education not to the top of the priority list but somewhere down at the bottom of the list.
That's hurting us. That keeps us robbing the future and calling it "gross domestic product." (from Paul Hawken in his Commencement address at Portland U.) Lack of a state and national highest priority emphasis on education keeps us from advancing because it robs us of the creativity we need to come up with solutions to our problems that we desperately need; but, instead, we keep trying the tired old solutions over and over again. Just trim the budget, cut the budget, one more time.
So we argue in our Michigan legislature about a few hundred million dollars in a pie that is getting smaller and smaller the longer we refuse to deal with Michigan's corrections system and health care. And the longer we refuse to raise the taxes we need so desperately to upgrade the level of education for our people so we can make something of our society in the new "Age of the Unthinkable.". (See Joshua Ramos' new book by that title.)
In the words of Arthur Miller, the playwright, in his book "Chinese Encounters" which he co-authored with his wife Inge Morath, the photographer at the end of the 1970s, this is "the paradox of human need bound to the human resistance to change." That's quite a phrase, isn't it? Even though we need greatly increased education so desperately, yet we resist the changes necessary to make that happen. We argue about which dollars we're going to cut from the budget instead of building the budget we need and then selling it to the people of the state as their bounden duty and responsibility to do it.
But we still have further to go in the journey of our development as human creatures. For example, we must get ourselves to the point where we are free of the tyranny of employers and the work place; the work place must become more humane, and more in concert with our environment, so that productivity and sustainability don't fight each other at the cost of our planet, human lives or personal integrity.
We need also to get ourselves free from the effects of our ignorance, our fears and anxieties, our stereotypes -- the stuff that's in our (individual and free) heads. This is the stuff that keeps us from making the decisions that will help us most.
Right now, the thing we need most, the thing we need that will do us the most good, especially in Michigan but also generally across the nation, is education. Yet ignorance, fear, greed, anxiety, stereotypes all are forcing people in legislatures and in the hustings to relegate education not to the top of the priority list but somewhere down at the bottom of the list.
That's hurting us. That keeps us robbing the future and calling it "gross domestic product." (from Paul Hawken in his Commencement address at Portland U.) Lack of a state and national highest priority emphasis on education keeps us from advancing because it robs us of the creativity we need to come up with solutions to our problems that we desperately need; but, instead, we keep trying the tired old solutions over and over again. Just trim the budget, cut the budget, one more time.
So we argue in our Michigan legislature about a few hundred million dollars in a pie that is getting smaller and smaller the longer we refuse to deal with Michigan's corrections system and health care. And the longer we refuse to raise the taxes we need so desperately to upgrade the level of education for our people so we can make something of our society in the new "Age of the Unthinkable.". (See Joshua Ramos' new book by that title.)
In the words of Arthur Miller, the playwright, in his book "Chinese Encounters" which he co-authored with his wife Inge Morath, the photographer at the end of the 1970s, this is "the paradox of human need bound to the human resistance to change." That's quite a phrase, isn't it? Even though we need greatly increased education so desperately, yet we resist the changes necessary to make that happen. We argue about which dollars we're going to cut from the budget instead of building the budget we need and then selling it to the people of the state as their bounden duty and responsibility to do it.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Getting Some Good done for Society
My thought today is that there are two ways to get some good done for society: We can either let the greed and egos of the business sector get us into such a terrible fix that we then need the governments around the world to bail out both the businesses and the rest of us, or we can bring our nonprofit organizations to the public policy table and let that set of values, history and expertise have a prominent role in setting the national political agenda.
Obviously the political parties aren't capable of doing society good unless they face a dire emergency. Here we are, having let the greed and speed of the financial community get the entire world into an economic depression, just so we can get some road and bridge construction, and some attention and serious money put behind the emphasis on a "green" environment and on our contry's education system. What's wrong with these values? Do we have to let ourselves come this close to total economic disaster in order to get some good done in society?
In other words, the banks and brokers, the short-sellers, the insurance companies and the runners of hedge funds are now responsible for getting us highway repairs, returning our focus on education and to such matters as the global warming effect? Well, thank you very much... I think.
All that greed and ego brought on a worldwide depression, and so now governments around the world are massing billions and trillions of dollars to get us back where we belong -- to a stable and preferably democratic economy. Is this the only set of solutions we can create? Is this the only way we can force political attention and focus financial resources on our basic infrastructure, our education and other values the help society and move it forward? Is it impossible for us, as Americans, or as world citizens, to do this voluntarily? What's wrong with this values picture?
Shame on us, as human beings! for letting greed and our warlike nature get us so far from caring for and maintaining the society in which we live, and from putting into place and maintaining the systems and the knowledge that we so urgently need and use daily. Surely there must be a better way?
Well, I'm here to say that there is a better way. In fact, there's a whole sector out here that the politicians and business tycoons are deliberatly and consistently ignoring. They call us the "nonprofit" sector, because they don't know how to think about us; they can't imagine that people would actually benefit by giving away the commodities of time and money just in order to do society some good. It's apparently beyond their imagination!
But, here we are. The Voluntary Sector. The Commons. We represent all that we have and hold together as members of the human community. In the U.S. alone, we have more than two hundred years worth of experience bringing a whole variety of good things to our society. We represent about 12% of the nation's GDP and employ about 12 million people in our charities. Around the world, the voluntary sector is growing as well. People in all countries, under a whole variety of political conditions, find it efficacious and rewarding to give themselves to others in ways that positively impact society.
And you know what we get out of it? We get internal satisfaction, meaning for our lives, the thanks and approbation of our peers, and a sense of real and significant achievement. These are the rewards of the voluntary sector. These are the rewards that build human beings in the best possible ways. It's not how much "stuff" you have or how much of the world's resources you amass for youself as protection against having to be in the "great antheap" of humanity and suffer what we all suffer. IT's doing things for other people. Because when we do that, we, too, are benefitted. All that profit doesn't mean a thing; when it all comes right down to it satisfaction is obtained by giving one's self away to others. That's how human beings are hard-wired. If you don't believe that, thsn look at the discoveries that are being made regularly these days in neuroscience and biochemistry. We're learning academically what the sages of old have told us for thousands of years: it's not how much gold you have, but how much you give away that brings satisfaction and contentment.
So what is this that we of the voluntary sector can't be invited to sit at the public policy table with the politicos and the entrenched money interests and try to help focus away from greed and ego and get on with life that brings benefits rather than recession to our people? It doesn't make any sense that business lobbyists get their way with congress while our representatives systematically exclude the voluntary sector from participation in setting the nation's policy agenda. Neither does it make sense that we should sideline the processes that make society better in favor of making a few individuals wealthy beyond all imagination. What kind of goal for society is that? Our values as a society are really screwed up if that's all the better we can do.
For a start, why don't we think about the fact that there are some things that don't belong to just whoever happens to have the capital to bring them to market. There are some parts of our society that belong to all of us. They should be treated differently than gadgets and widgets because we all have a stake in them, we all need them for survival in the twenty-first century. These constitute The Commons -- that which we all hold together. Business, and the markets, should not be the ones that determine how The Commons is run. There should be no profit in it at all. Elements of The Commons should not be run and governed by the profit motive. That which we all hold in common should be run by our "nonprofits" or the voluntary sector in partnership with government.
What are we talking about? Our air, our water, public transportation (rail, auto and air travel), food, shelter, education, health care. These are needed by every one of us for llfe, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They should not be treated as commodities, but should be made available to all. Business interests should not be allowed to foul the air and water, or ration our knowledge and education system, or our system of health care, on the basis of who can pay the most. Business, especially the insurance companies, should be driven from the health care system completely. Housing and food should not be run by the markets without significant regularion, strenuous oversight and public ownership.
In their place, the voluntary sector should be employed to provide these elements of The Commons to everyone in the society, under conditions that do not make anybody in the society poor or wealthy. It is the independent sector that has the history, the set of values, the experience to deal with The Commons. We need to find a way to de-couple government and business, and then bring forth a new partnership between government and the voluntary sector.
Look at the similarity in values. The values that are incumbent on government and those of the voluntary sector are so much more aligned than the values of government and those of business, markets or profit. If we created a firm and stable partnership between the independent sector and government, we might actually develop a society that is kind to its citizens, provides a safe, secure, stable environment in which to bring up our families, raise and educate our children and find meaningful life's work. There are ways to do this, and we need to get out of old, outmoded ways of thinking, put business in its proper place so society can prosper.
More in the next post on how we can do this.
Obviously the political parties aren't capable of doing society good unless they face a dire emergency. Here we are, having let the greed and speed of the financial community get the entire world into an economic depression, just so we can get some road and bridge construction, and some attention and serious money put behind the emphasis on a "green" environment and on our contry's education system. What's wrong with these values? Do we have to let ourselves come this close to total economic disaster in order to get some good done in society?
In other words, the banks and brokers, the short-sellers, the insurance companies and the runners of hedge funds are now responsible for getting us highway repairs, returning our focus on education and to such matters as the global warming effect? Well, thank you very much... I think.
All that greed and ego brought on a worldwide depression, and so now governments around the world are massing billions and trillions of dollars to get us back where we belong -- to a stable and preferably democratic economy. Is this the only set of solutions we can create? Is this the only way we can force political attention and focus financial resources on our basic infrastructure, our education and other values the help society and move it forward? Is it impossible for us, as Americans, or as world citizens, to do this voluntarily? What's wrong with this values picture?
Shame on us, as human beings! for letting greed and our warlike nature get us so far from caring for and maintaining the society in which we live, and from putting into place and maintaining the systems and the knowledge that we so urgently need and use daily. Surely there must be a better way?
Well, I'm here to say that there is a better way. In fact, there's a whole sector out here that the politicians and business tycoons are deliberatly and consistently ignoring. They call us the "nonprofit" sector, because they don't know how to think about us; they can't imagine that people would actually benefit by giving away the commodities of time and money just in order to do society some good. It's apparently beyond their imagination!
But, here we are. The Voluntary Sector. The Commons. We represent all that we have and hold together as members of the human community. In the U.S. alone, we have more than two hundred years worth of experience bringing a whole variety of good things to our society. We represent about 12% of the nation's GDP and employ about 12 million people in our charities. Around the world, the voluntary sector is growing as well. People in all countries, under a whole variety of political conditions, find it efficacious and rewarding to give themselves to others in ways that positively impact society.
And you know what we get out of it? We get internal satisfaction, meaning for our lives, the thanks and approbation of our peers, and a sense of real and significant achievement. These are the rewards of the voluntary sector. These are the rewards that build human beings in the best possible ways. It's not how much "stuff" you have or how much of the world's resources you amass for youself as protection against having to be in the "great antheap" of humanity and suffer what we all suffer. IT's doing things for other people. Because when we do that, we, too, are benefitted. All that profit doesn't mean a thing; when it all comes right down to it satisfaction is obtained by giving one's self away to others. That's how human beings are hard-wired. If you don't believe that, thsn look at the discoveries that are being made regularly these days in neuroscience and biochemistry. We're learning academically what the sages of old have told us for thousands of years: it's not how much gold you have, but how much you give away that brings satisfaction and contentment.
So what is this that we of the voluntary sector can't be invited to sit at the public policy table with the politicos and the entrenched money interests and try to help focus away from greed and ego and get on with life that brings benefits rather than recession to our people? It doesn't make any sense that business lobbyists get their way with congress while our representatives systematically exclude the voluntary sector from participation in setting the nation's policy agenda. Neither does it make sense that we should sideline the processes that make society better in favor of making a few individuals wealthy beyond all imagination. What kind of goal for society is that? Our values as a society are really screwed up if that's all the better we can do.
For a start, why don't we think about the fact that there are some things that don't belong to just whoever happens to have the capital to bring them to market. There are some parts of our society that belong to all of us. They should be treated differently than gadgets and widgets because we all have a stake in them, we all need them for survival in the twenty-first century. These constitute The Commons -- that which we all hold together. Business, and the markets, should not be the ones that determine how The Commons is run. There should be no profit in it at all. Elements of The Commons should not be run and governed by the profit motive. That which we all hold in common should be run by our "nonprofits" or the voluntary sector in partnership with government.
What are we talking about? Our air, our water, public transportation (rail, auto and air travel), food, shelter, education, health care. These are needed by every one of us for llfe, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They should not be treated as commodities, but should be made available to all. Business interests should not be allowed to foul the air and water, or ration our knowledge and education system, or our system of health care, on the basis of who can pay the most. Business, especially the insurance companies, should be driven from the health care system completely. Housing and food should not be run by the markets without significant regularion, strenuous oversight and public ownership.
In their place, the voluntary sector should be employed to provide these elements of The Commons to everyone in the society, under conditions that do not make anybody in the society poor or wealthy. It is the independent sector that has the history, the set of values, the experience to deal with The Commons. We need to find a way to de-couple government and business, and then bring forth a new partnership between government and the voluntary sector.
Look at the similarity in values. The values that are incumbent on government and those of the voluntary sector are so much more aligned than the values of government and those of business, markets or profit. If we created a firm and stable partnership between the independent sector and government, we might actually develop a society that is kind to its citizens, provides a safe, secure, stable environment in which to bring up our families, raise and educate our children and find meaningful life's work. There are ways to do this, and we need to get out of old, outmoded ways of thinking, put business in its proper place so society can prosper.
More in the next post on how we can do this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
