It seems as though when the concept of inequality is discussed people on both sides of the political aisle immediately assume we are talking about equal outcomes, or lack of equal outcomes. We start the debate around the wrong topic, and therefore rather than solutions for how to address inequity, we squabble about the concept. Because we aren't able to reframe this conversation, we - on the right and left - talk about the unfairness of inequality: either the horrible conditions of poverty or the concept of redistribution of resources and class warfare.
Ultimately of course, we need more equal outcomes, but we can't start the conversation there. America isn't about equal outcomes, it is about equal opportunity. Reducing inequality will never happen by investing money on the back end and hoping that whatever program - food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, etc - will give their recipients a drastically higher quality of life. These programs are helpful, but they don't elevate people out of poverty, and they never will.
But if we invest in equal opportunities we can make a huge difference in creating equal outcomes. There will never be 100% equal outcomes, but we can certainly help reduce inequality by reducing the opportunity gap that is at the foundation of life outcomes.
There is no shortage of programs from which to pick that we should be investing in and strengthening: public education and universal access to public pre-kindergarten first and foremost. Job training programs and stronger community colleges and technical schools are important as well. We must make sure people have access to healthcare and the means to pay for it. If we empower people by investing in them and then step aside, we will free them up to make the decisions that are best for them. Our investment in equal opportunity - the foundation upon which our country is built - will reap more equal outcomes.
We should never strive for preordained equal outcomes. It is unfeasible, and in fact, some inequality is good. It drives the system. But good inequality is not extreme, and it does not mean there needs to be a large semi-permanent underclass. Strong social safety nets should be in place to help our neediest citizens, but there should be fewer needy citizens. We can make that a reality if we give people opportunities earlier in life and support in tough times, not by sending them meager checks each month.
As President Obama pointed out this week, extreme inequality is a problem. It is a moral problem, an economic problem, a social problem, and a political problem. People lose faith in systems in which they are not stakeholders. The promise of our system is a chance for everyone, and we haven't been delivering on that promise. Poverty is a moral blight, but it also rends the social fabric and sense of unity we need for our country to function. The fewer invested stakeholders, the less investment and effort, the more unrest and frustration. This cycle exacerbates other problems, and if we follow this road long enough we run into our friend Karl Marx. Let's not take that road.
The next time the President addresses inequality, I hope he talks about how we can really fix it, not with the same old battles, programs, and talking points both political parties awkwardly throw around because they lack fresh ideas, but with a concerted effort to empower Americans and let us continue to unleash our creativity and talents to make things better.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Justice and the Law
In the aftermath of George Zimmerman's acquittal, I've found myself in conversations about how the law isn't always synonymous with justice. Given that Trayvon Martin's murderer just walked away free - not to mention countless other examples - this is undeniably true. It is also undeniably tragic. After all if the laws don't give us a sense of justice, why do we have them?
The notion of justice existed before the idea of laws. Sadly, but not surprisingly, for much of history, justice was more synonymous with retribution than with law, and even many of the first laws were dictated to give the state - rather than individuals - the right to exact justice. These more primitive social contracts monopolized power in the hands of the state which meted out justice for the people (fairly or not) while also using the laws to maintain power.
Some societies still operate under the eye-for-an-eye notion of justice, and other societies still have a more antiquated form of justice, but slowly over the course of history we have improved the social contract. In our society - which after the verdict in the Zimmerman case, we should absolutely NOT consider the apex of political evolution if anyone was silly enough to believe that anyhow - we have the ability to petition the state for redress of our own grievances, and our social contract places no man (or woman) above the law. The rule of law is paramount if we are to remain a stable, unified society, but what happens when the laws are horrible and fail to provide justice?
That George Zimmerman walked seems to have been the right call legally - though had I been a juror we'd have either ended up a hung jury or the man would be in prison today - but you are living in a different universe if you don't believe George Zimmerman is morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin. The law failed. It's that simple. And this is a problem, because laws - like money - are only as good as our faith in them. When we start to see and believe we don't have a stake in our society, it starts to unravel and ultimately ceases to be a society.
There are of course many examples of this, but perhaps the most pertinent is that of America itself, formerly a group of colonies whose inhabitants found the laws of their government unjust. No taxation without representation. If that's unjust - and I certainly think it is - is it not far more unjust for a murder to walk free? So what should we do? The founding fathers were pretty explicit:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Now I don't propose a revolution, but we need some serious reevaluations of some of the laws in this country. We probably won't ever get it perfect, but the outcome of this trial makes it clear we aren't even close. We should strive for our laws to provide justice as often as possible, and when they don't there is room for them on the ash heap. Not all that long ago - and in some places still - Trayvon Martin's family would respond to this tragedy by killing a member of the Zimmerman clan or at least stealing their cattle. That's not the society I want to live in. Violence begets violence. Justice should prevent it.
Justice may not always be synonymous with the law, but when it isn't we have a moral obligation to rectify the law. If not, we may as well submit to anarchy. They just came out with some movie about that recently, it's called "The Purge," I wonder what that looks like...
The notion of justice existed before the idea of laws. Sadly, but not surprisingly, for much of history, justice was more synonymous with retribution than with law, and even many of the first laws were dictated to give the state - rather than individuals - the right to exact justice. These more primitive social contracts monopolized power in the hands of the state which meted out justice for the people (fairly or not) while also using the laws to maintain power.
Some societies still operate under the eye-for-an-eye notion of justice, and other societies still have a more antiquated form of justice, but slowly over the course of history we have improved the social contract. In our society - which after the verdict in the Zimmerman case, we should absolutely NOT consider the apex of political evolution if anyone was silly enough to believe that anyhow - we have the ability to petition the state for redress of our own grievances, and our social contract places no man (or woman) above the law. The rule of law is paramount if we are to remain a stable, unified society, but what happens when the laws are horrible and fail to provide justice?
That George Zimmerman walked seems to have been the right call legally - though had I been a juror we'd have either ended up a hung jury or the man would be in prison today - but you are living in a different universe if you don't believe George Zimmerman is morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin. The law failed. It's that simple. And this is a problem, because laws - like money - are only as good as our faith in them. When we start to see and believe we don't have a stake in our society, it starts to unravel and ultimately ceases to be a society.
There are of course many examples of this, but perhaps the most pertinent is that of America itself, formerly a group of colonies whose inhabitants found the laws of their government unjust. No taxation without representation. If that's unjust - and I certainly think it is - is it not far more unjust for a murder to walk free? So what should we do? The founding fathers were pretty explicit:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Now I don't propose a revolution, but we need some serious reevaluations of some of the laws in this country. We probably won't ever get it perfect, but the outcome of this trial makes it clear we aren't even close. We should strive for our laws to provide justice as often as possible, and when they don't there is room for them on the ash heap. Not all that long ago - and in some places still - Trayvon Martin's family would respond to this tragedy by killing a member of the Zimmerman clan or at least stealing their cattle. That's not the society I want to live in. Violence begets violence. Justice should prevent it.
Justice may not always be synonymous with the law, but when it isn't we have a moral obligation to rectify the law. If not, we may as well submit to anarchy. They just came out with some movie about that recently, it's called "The Purge," I wonder what that looks like...
Sunday, July 14, 2013
What Innocence Means
Let's get this out of the way: I think the jury was right to acquit Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder charges. There is reasonable doubt in my mind as to who attacked whom the night Trayvon Martin was murdered.
The rest of what went down at this trial is both a legal and a moral travesty. George Zimmerman should absolutely have been found guilty of manslaughter, and his legal innocence sets a terrible precedent for the way we behave ourselves. His moral innocence is not in question, he is unequivocally responsible for the murder of Trayvon Martin.
Let's start with the facts of which we are 100% certain. Trayvon Martin was staying at his father's house in the neighborhood where he was shot. He was a guest with every right to be there. He is "guilty" of the following: walking in the rain; wearing a hoodie; talking on his cellphone; and possession of Skittles. If those are crimes, then America really is on the path to becoming an authoritarian state.
Here's what we know happened next, Zimmerman profiled Martin (racially or otherwise) and stalked him. Then it get's fuzzy. According to Zimmerman, Martin disappeared. Zimmerman exited his car and was then jumped by Martin who assaulted him to such a degree that he feared for his life, drew his weapon, and shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self defense. According to Martin ____________.
There is reasonable doubt in my mind as to who instigated the altercation between the two men. I'm willing to accept that Trayvon may have thrown the first punch although it is far from certain, but here is what I know with 100% certainty, and here is why George Zimmerman should have been found guilty of manslaughter: no one is in a position to throw a punch if George Zimmerman does not profile and stalk Trayvon Martin. End of story. Do I think Zimmerman planned on or wanted to kill Trayvon Martin? Absolutely not, but that doesn't change the fact that he did kill Trayvon Martin, and he did it because he profiled a young man whose most egregious offense was...?
What George Zimmerman's legal innocence means is that we as a society accept the use of violent force based on unfounded and unwarranted stereotyping and profiling. Is it really acceptable for us to find someone suspicious based on circumstance and then use deadly force to subdue that person? Accepting Zimmerman's innocence means you think the answer is yes. That's not the society we should be striving for, it's the one we should be running from. Stereotypes do not justify murder.
The law on the books in Florida created a loophole through which George Zimmerman's "innocence" could fit, but his actions lead us towards an embrace of violent action based on narrow-minded profiling. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Certainly the case for George Zimmerman, but Trayvon Martin didn't get a trial, he got a bullet, and he got it because George Zimmerman thought he was suspicious walking in the rain. That's no basis for arrest, let alone murder, but by letting Zimmerman walk, we send the opposite message. That's what his innocence means. We should all hang our heads in shame.
The rest of what went down at this trial is both a legal and a moral travesty. George Zimmerman should absolutely have been found guilty of manslaughter, and his legal innocence sets a terrible precedent for the way we behave ourselves. His moral innocence is not in question, he is unequivocally responsible for the murder of Trayvon Martin.
Let's start with the facts of which we are 100% certain. Trayvon Martin was staying at his father's house in the neighborhood where he was shot. He was a guest with every right to be there. He is "guilty" of the following: walking in the rain; wearing a hoodie; talking on his cellphone; and possession of Skittles. If those are crimes, then America really is on the path to becoming an authoritarian state.
Here's what we know happened next, Zimmerman profiled Martin (racially or otherwise) and stalked him. Then it get's fuzzy. According to Zimmerman, Martin disappeared. Zimmerman exited his car and was then jumped by Martin who assaulted him to such a degree that he feared for his life, drew his weapon, and shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self defense. According to Martin ____________.
There is reasonable doubt in my mind as to who instigated the altercation between the two men. I'm willing to accept that Trayvon may have thrown the first punch although it is far from certain, but here is what I know with 100% certainty, and here is why George Zimmerman should have been found guilty of manslaughter: no one is in a position to throw a punch if George Zimmerman does not profile and stalk Trayvon Martin. End of story. Do I think Zimmerman planned on or wanted to kill Trayvon Martin? Absolutely not, but that doesn't change the fact that he did kill Trayvon Martin, and he did it because he profiled a young man whose most egregious offense was...?
What George Zimmerman's legal innocence means is that we as a society accept the use of violent force based on unfounded and unwarranted stereotyping and profiling. Is it really acceptable for us to find someone suspicious based on circumstance and then use deadly force to subdue that person? Accepting Zimmerman's innocence means you think the answer is yes. That's not the society we should be striving for, it's the one we should be running from. Stereotypes do not justify murder.
The law on the books in Florida created a loophole through which George Zimmerman's "innocence" could fit, but his actions lead us towards an embrace of violent action based on narrow-minded profiling. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Certainly the case for George Zimmerman, but Trayvon Martin didn't get a trial, he got a bullet, and he got it because George Zimmerman thought he was suspicious walking in the rain. That's no basis for arrest, let alone murder, but by letting Zimmerman walk, we send the opposite message. That's what his innocence means. We should all hang our heads in shame.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Filibusted
Filibusters are important. Most recently, we this on display in Texas when state Senator Wendy Davis stood on her feet for 12 hours to decry and deny passage of a strict anti-abortion bill. The filibuster not only gives politicians the opportunity to make a principled moral stand, it can postpone or prevent the passage of harmful legislation.
The flip side to this, of course, is that the filibuster can also postpone or prevent the passage of necessary legislation. Sadly, given the inane state of American politics, it has become an easy way for both parties to ignore the hardships and realities of governing and cower behind ideology. In most instances, Wendy Davis being an exception, filibusters no longer even require a speaker! One party or the other can just threaten to filibuster and unless there are 60 people willing to vote otherwise, no one even has to exert themselves to prevent the review, let alone the passage, of legislation. The filibuster has become problematic to say the least.
In the last few years, there has been talk among Democrats of amending the filibuster rules to prevent Republicans from preventing them from doing anything, which is exactly what Republicans have been doing. Rewind to the early 2000s and it was the Republican majority threatening to change filibuster rules to the chagrin of Democrats who overused the tactic.
The current mess around the filibuster doesn't even involve legislation, it involves cabinet appointments - and also some judicial appointments, but Democrats are leaving those alone for now. Republicans have filibustered a number of the president's appointments, so he installed them while Congress was in recess, effectively bypassing the Senate that wouldn't even review their candidacies. Republicans are outraged and accuse the president of bypassing the legislative branch. Democrats are outraged and say the president has the right to nominate cabinet ministers so the executive branch can function. Both arguments carry some validity, but - surprise! - only one political party has given up on governing. The president's second term is more than half a year old and he still hasn't been able to fill his cabinet positions...
I don't support eliminating the filibuster, but I do support functional government. Perhaps the rules need to be amended somewhat; you know, maybe a tool to prevent legislation from being passed by allowing someone to rant against it actually needs a speaker for example. Perhaps 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster is too many in an age when it seems as though individual politicians have largely lost the ability to think for themselves and rarely dare to break rank with their party and give compromise a shot. Whatever the solution we need one, because we cannot stop protecting the rights of the opposition party to voice its opinions, but we also can't allow them to prevent the forward progress voted for by the majority of Americans. I hope the Senate can find a way to get the president's candidates confirmed rather than attempting to change the filibuster, but if this is what the modern filibuster looks like, we need to do something.
The flip side to this, of course, is that the filibuster can also postpone or prevent the passage of necessary legislation. Sadly, given the inane state of American politics, it has become an easy way for both parties to ignore the hardships and realities of governing and cower behind ideology. In most instances, Wendy Davis being an exception, filibusters no longer even require a speaker! One party or the other can just threaten to filibuster and unless there are 60 people willing to vote otherwise, no one even has to exert themselves to prevent the review, let alone the passage, of legislation. The filibuster has become problematic to say the least.
In the last few years, there has been talk among Democrats of amending the filibuster rules to prevent Republicans from preventing them from doing anything, which is exactly what Republicans have been doing. Rewind to the early 2000s and it was the Republican majority threatening to change filibuster rules to the chagrin of Democrats who overused the tactic.
The current mess around the filibuster doesn't even involve legislation, it involves cabinet appointments - and also some judicial appointments, but Democrats are leaving those alone for now. Republicans have filibustered a number of the president's appointments, so he installed them while Congress was in recess, effectively bypassing the Senate that wouldn't even review their candidacies. Republicans are outraged and accuse the president of bypassing the legislative branch. Democrats are outraged and say the president has the right to nominate cabinet ministers so the executive branch can function. Both arguments carry some validity, but - surprise! - only one political party has given up on governing. The president's second term is more than half a year old and he still hasn't been able to fill his cabinet positions...
I don't support eliminating the filibuster, but I do support functional government. Perhaps the rules need to be amended somewhat; you know, maybe a tool to prevent legislation from being passed by allowing someone to rant against it actually needs a speaker for example. Perhaps 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster is too many in an age when it seems as though individual politicians have largely lost the ability to think for themselves and rarely dare to break rank with their party and give compromise a shot. Whatever the solution we need one, because we cannot stop protecting the rights of the opposition party to voice its opinions, but we also can't allow them to prevent the forward progress voted for by the majority of Americans. I hope the Senate can find a way to get the president's candidates confirmed rather than attempting to change the filibuster, but if this is what the modern filibuster looks like, we need to do something.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Why We Celebrate
I meant to write this post yesterday, but I was too busy enjoying America's birthday, which of course meant good food, sunshine, fireworks, and perhaps an a beer or four. But it wouldn't have been a complete day without a conversation with a good and intelligent friend about the nature of the holiday, one that made me reflect profoundly on why we celebrate.
My friend rightly pointed out that while we celebrate independence, we just saw the Voting Rights Act struck down, and we continue to live in a country in which many are treated unequally and unfairly for too many reasons. We love the idea of freedom, and on the 4th of July we celebrate the freedom that was declared but still being won on that day in 1776, but today through various means and for various reasons we still deny that freedom to some. We are a nation founded on the idea of freedom but still overcoming a history and a legacy of fighting for true equality.
But the 4th of July isn't about denying the past, it's about imagining the future. And the only way we will create a better future is to have the mindset of 80's rock megaband TimBuk 3, "the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."
Like Americans of many political stripes I believe the founders would be horrified by the state of our nation; I think we have gotten away from their values. At the time they framed our country, the men who wrote the Constitution were the most forward thinking people on the planet. They weren't perfect, they left us problems to be solved, but they were (literally) revolutionary. Today we too often become shackled by their legacy rather than empowered by it. We get tied to past problems and don't look forward. Snippets of our past and ongoing struggles are painful reminders of what's wrong, but in the context of the American narrative they represent hurdles on a road leading in the right direction.
We have to believe this if we are going to make our world better and solve the problems we face. The 4th of July reminds us that we are all in this together as Americans. We look different, speak different, act different, but we all want the same thing: an equal opportunity, a real chance. Even as our nation's demographics shift, we are all held together by a belief in what makes us the same, not what makes us different. The 4th of July is a holiday for all of us as Americans and for the brighter future we want. That is why we celebrate.
My friend rightly pointed out that while we celebrate independence, we just saw the Voting Rights Act struck down, and we continue to live in a country in which many are treated unequally and unfairly for too many reasons. We love the idea of freedom, and on the 4th of July we celebrate the freedom that was declared but still being won on that day in 1776, but today through various means and for various reasons we still deny that freedom to some. We are a nation founded on the idea of freedom but still overcoming a history and a legacy of fighting for true equality.
But the 4th of July isn't about denying the past, it's about imagining the future. And the only way we will create a better future is to have the mindset of 80's rock megaband TimBuk 3, "the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."
Like Americans of many political stripes I believe the founders would be horrified by the state of our nation; I think we have gotten away from their values. At the time they framed our country, the men who wrote the Constitution were the most forward thinking people on the planet. They weren't perfect, they left us problems to be solved, but they were (literally) revolutionary. Today we too often become shackled by their legacy rather than empowered by it. We get tied to past problems and don't look forward. Snippets of our past and ongoing struggles are painful reminders of what's wrong, but in the context of the American narrative they represent hurdles on a road leading in the right direction.
We have to believe this if we are going to make our world better and solve the problems we face. The 4th of July reminds us that we are all in this together as Americans. We look different, speak different, act different, but we all want the same thing: an equal opportunity, a real chance. Even as our nation's demographics shift, we are all held together by a belief in what makes us the same, not what makes us different. The 4th of July is a holiday for all of us as Americans and for the brighter future we want. That is why we celebrate.
Monday, July 1, 2013
What's in a Choice?
America is not, but was designed to be, a country of equal opportunity. All (wo)men are created equal, even if we do not all end up that way. Lost in the conversation about the various forms of inequality and discrimination that exist is the fact that while we cannot ensure that everyone ends up on equal footing, we must strive to give everyone the same opportunity.
This ideology underpins the entire American system. It applies to all facets of our lives, even though we have done a woeful job of making sure we are actually giving everyone an equal shot. Though I could take this conversation a number of directions, today I want to talk about choice as it applies to the one thing we should have the most control over, our minds and bodies.
I'm talking today about a woman's right to choose, or her lack thereof, about what she can and should do with her body. I am not a woman. I will never have to make a decision about an abortion, but I cannot fathom a "free" country, in which 50% of the population is denied the opportunity to decide what should happen to their bodies. Forget freedom from being spied upon by the government, forget the freedom to choose which school to attend or which job to pursue or who to date, in the America that some seek to forge, we would deny half the population the right to decide what to do with their bodies.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think we should be encouraging abortions, and I certainly don't think we should be allowing them when they are medically unsafe or after a certain point. For example, I am fine with a ban on partial birth abortions. But to deny a woman the right to choose what to do with her body strikes me as the ultimate infringement on civil liberties. If we really want to cut down on abortions - and I think we should try to discourage abortion - then we should do it by empowering people, not by limiting them. I think that MORE access to Planned Parenthood clinics would help reduce abortion. After all, aren't unplanned pregnancies more likely to result in abortions than planned pregnancies? Shouldn't we be encouraging contraception, safe and smart sex, and access to healthcare as a means to avoid unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions? Doesn't that make sense?
I recently had a conversation with a female friend and a very intelligent one at that, and she made the point that when talking about being pro-life, the one person EVERYONE can agree is alive is a to-be mother. We can debate when a life begins, but I think we all agree that a mother is certainly alive. Isn't it her right as an American citizen, as a human being, to be able to decide what to do with her body? Is not the choice, whether it be abstinence or sexual activity, hers to make?
I think limiting abortions should be a policy initiative, I just think it should be one we pursue through empowerment, not by mandating the choices a woman can or cannot make with her body. After all, what's left of the freedom we think we hold so dear if we're not even willing to allow a woman to have the freedom of choice to determine what she is allowed to do with her body? What's in a choice? How about the foundation upon which our whole country rests, the belief that we are all created equal, and that when we are empowered and allowed to make the decisions we believe are best for us, then we can make a better country and a better world.
This ideology underpins the entire American system. It applies to all facets of our lives, even though we have done a woeful job of making sure we are actually giving everyone an equal shot. Though I could take this conversation a number of directions, today I want to talk about choice as it applies to the one thing we should have the most control over, our minds and bodies.
I'm talking today about a woman's right to choose, or her lack thereof, about what she can and should do with her body. I am not a woman. I will never have to make a decision about an abortion, but I cannot fathom a "free" country, in which 50% of the population is denied the opportunity to decide what should happen to their bodies. Forget freedom from being spied upon by the government, forget the freedom to choose which school to attend or which job to pursue or who to date, in the America that some seek to forge, we would deny half the population the right to decide what to do with their bodies.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think we should be encouraging abortions, and I certainly don't think we should be allowing them when they are medically unsafe or after a certain point. For example, I am fine with a ban on partial birth abortions. But to deny a woman the right to choose what to do with her body strikes me as the ultimate infringement on civil liberties. If we really want to cut down on abortions - and I think we should try to discourage abortion - then we should do it by empowering people, not by limiting them. I think that MORE access to Planned Parenthood clinics would help reduce abortion. After all, aren't unplanned pregnancies more likely to result in abortions than planned pregnancies? Shouldn't we be encouraging contraception, safe and smart sex, and access to healthcare as a means to avoid unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions? Doesn't that make sense?
I recently had a conversation with a female friend and a very intelligent one at that, and she made the point that when talking about being pro-life, the one person EVERYONE can agree is alive is a to-be mother. We can debate when a life begins, but I think we all agree that a mother is certainly alive. Isn't it her right as an American citizen, as a human being, to be able to decide what to do with her body? Is not the choice, whether it be abstinence or sexual activity, hers to make?
I think limiting abortions should be a policy initiative, I just think it should be one we pursue through empowerment, not by mandating the choices a woman can or cannot make with her body. After all, what's left of the freedom we think we hold so dear if we're not even willing to allow a woman to have the freedom of choice to determine what she is allowed to do with her body? What's in a choice? How about the foundation upon which our whole country rests, the belief that we are all created equal, and that when we are empowered and allowed to make the decisions we believe are best for us, then we can make a better country and a better world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)