California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Can a Puma Be Raised to Prefer Plant Based Meat?

by John Lawrence

Actually, this is a good question. If meat eaters could be trained to eat plant based meat, they would no longer be predators. If lions can lie down with lambs, then maybe there is even hope for the human race. In fact some animals that would attack each other in the wild, when raised together as babies, become the best of friends. Anthony, the lion, was brought to “Keepers of the Wild” animal sanctuary as a sick cub after being auctioned off in Virginia, and Riley, the coyote, was rescued by Arizona game and fish. Both were just over one month old when they met. Coyotes and lions are social animals, and Riley and Anthony grew quite fond of one another almost immediately. So they grew up, not to eat each other, but to be friends. Does this portend some hope for the human race? If babies of all races, religions and nationalities grew up together, maybe they would continue to have mutually constructive relationships as adults. Perhaps this would be a way that world peace could be attained. No more predator and prey relationships. No more friend and enemy relationships. It's worth a try. It would be a great sociological experiment, and there is nothing weird about it. It would only entail play dates for children of all races, nationalities and religions as they grew up. As they grew older, they would grow into an age appropriate understanding of their friends' backgrounds. If animals can form these kind of relationships, probably so could humans.

After photographer Isobel Springett, took in an abandoned fawn, it was almost immediately adopted by Springett’s Great Dane, Kate. Pip clearly feels very strongly for her canine caretaker, and even though Pip joined a herd, she still finds time to spend with Kate. Perhaps animals can lead the way. Perhaps they can be the prime movers towards a more mutually beneficial society. Perhaps there would no more be predators and prey. What would this portend for the human race? One thing it portends is that, in order to end war and conflict, everyone would have to be adequately fed with a plant based diet. As long as some people have nothing and others have seemingly everything, there will always be war as the underdogs try to redress the balance. If everyone is relatively well off, the incentive for altering the status quo by violence and force is greatly diminished.

In a hidden realm at the end of the world, amidst the massive ice mountains of Chile’s Torres del Paine National Park, condors soar, colorful caracaras keep a sharp eye out for prey and vivid pink flamingos make a theatrical appearance. This kingdom is the stronghold of the puma, a large mountain lion that hunts for guanacos – cousins of llamas – as they roam from the valleys to the hillsides. Follow the fate of Solitaria, a female puma in her prime. The mother of four cubs, she hunts and teaches her young how to live in this extraordinary landscape. Narrated by Uma Thurman. This is a beautiful story about a successful huntress who is so tender and loving with her four kittens, but is relentless when it comes to the life and death struggle with guanacos. The guanacos must be eternally vigilant for any sign that there might be a puma lurking and stalking them. It's an athletic contest that occurs on a daily basis. Both kinds of animals must use their entire skill set to stay alive and to eat. Guanacos eat a plant based diet, and pumas eat guanacos. Could pumas raised from babyhood with baby guanacos grow up to see each other as friends instead of as rivals and enemies? Could pumas be trained to a plant based diet? The implications for human survival and the survival of the human species might be significant.

Off the Top of My Head

Donald Trump: The Dominator

by John Lawrence

Just as George W Bush characterized himself as 'the Decider', Donald Bush might well characterize himself as The Dominator. He dominates the other candidates or would be candidates in the Republican party. They are all afraid to criticize him. In the 2016 debates Jeb Bush, a decent guy, was destroyed by him.

“Jeb is having some kind of a breakdown,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. ​”He’s an embarrassment to his family. He has to bring his mother out and walk his mother around at 90 years old. I think it’s a very sad situation that’s taking place.”

“Frankly, he’s a stiff,” Trump said. “He’s not a guy who can be president. He doesn’t have what it takes to be president.”

Ron DeSantis is walking on egg shells and is hesitant even to declare his candidacy. The Republican base, many of whom have a military background, want a Dominator as their candidate. That is indeed the military tradition. Recruits are dominated by their drill sergeant who gets in their face and barks orders. Ironic then that, although Trump never served in the military, he exemplifies the military mind set. Most active duty military as well as most people in the military industrial complex vote Republican because Republicans. especially Donald Trump, exemplify their values. These are the same values that are part and parcel of the animal world where the dominant male gets to mate with all the females. So Trump characterizes himself as so dominant that he can act like a dominant male and grab 'em by the pussy or shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Just as other species do, a certain percentage of the Republican base respects and admires a Dominator like Trump. When Trump says this kind of domination has been going on for "millions of years, unfortunately or fortunately," he is referring to the fact that this kind of behavior is the norm in the animal world, and we humans are, after all, not really all that different.

The Denominators of history are of course Fascists. In 1922 Benito Mussolini led a coalition of fascist leaders to Rome and forced the king to yield the government. Mussolini was appointed prime minister. By 1925 he had dismantled Italy's democratic government and, acting as a dictator, declared himself Il Duce ("The Leader"). Hitler dominated the tired old men of the Weimar Republic who were cajoled into appointing him Chancellor. Fascism is a top down political structure similar to the military's top down rank structure. No wonder then that Republican voters, many of whom have a military background, are quite comfortable with a top down structure of political dominance with Trump at the apex. No wonder that Trump is leading all the polls even though he is under several criminal indictments. Friedrich Nietsche was the philosopher of fascism, one who argued for a repudiation of Christian values to be replaced with the values of domination. "A good war hallowith every cause". Just as the dominant male in the animal kingdom passes on his superior DNA to his harem of females, Fascist values insist that dominant men are the ones to eugenically pass on superioor genes to their offspring, and they should be valued and looked up to. All other men should be submissive to them. There is no separation form the animal world. Homo Sapiens represents a continuation of the values that assert that the best and strongest genes of the Dominators should take priority.

Trump's followers in fact give him a pass on Christian values for the very reason that, as Nietzsche asserts, Christian values are the values of the weak. The values of the strong and vital are the values of top down authoritarianism for which the strong man or the dominator should rule the day. As Trump said, this has been going on for millions of years, fortunately or unfortunately. This gives a pass to misogyny as Nietzsche also stated, "The family is the smallest unit of domination." The father is dominant; the wife and children should be submissive. The ethos of dominance and submission should prevail. Christian morals, the morals of tolerance and equality, according to Nietsche, are the exact opposite of the morals that lead to the betterment of the species. Let the cream rise to the top, and, unfortunately or fortunately, the weak must inevitably fall by the wayside. "Devil take the hindermost" is an imprecation that everyone should look after their own interests, leaving those who cannot cope to whatever fate befalls them. The leader of the most dominant nation on the face of the earth should be the most dominant male, ^i.e. Donald Trump, the Dominator. Utter selfishness should prevail. Cooperation is a feminine value. Love is a feminine value. Getting along is a feminine value. Diplomacy is a feminine value. Male dominance is what the US populace wants in a leader.

Off the Top of My Head

Social Responsibility Was Not Written into the Constitution

by John Lawrence

The French demanded Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite in their revolutionary Constitution. Fraternite, social responsibility, was left out of the American Constitution. So now there are people who feel no social responsibility to get a vaccination so that they won't spread COVID to others, let alone protect themselves. A pandemic requires social cohesion, something that is unheard of in American society. Americans are extremely selfish and self-centered, something encouraged and exemplified by Republican Presidents like Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush and also by Ayn Rand and her advocates like Republican leader Paul Ryan and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. Greenspan, who served 4 terms as Federal Reserve Chairman, was a devoted Ayn Rand fan. He even took a six foot high floral arrangement shaped as a dollar sign to her funeral.  Rand’s conception was to create an individualist morality. Rand took traditional Christian morality, which said it was good to act in the interest of others—not in your own selfish interest—and she flipped that. She said selfishness is a virtue, and the goal of life is to grow and develop as an individual, and that a moral social system supports the rights of the individual above all. One of her books was called "The Virtue of Selfishness."

Service to our fellow man has been redefined in military terms. You serve American society by joining the military and killing other people who are not Americans. There is no conception of serving American society by joining the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps or doing anything that helps the weakest and most vulnerable among us let alone to plant trees or do anything to forestall climate change and benefit the environment. This culture of militarism, as the only way to exhibit patriotism, is what led to the January 6th insurrection. Militarism promotes the waving of flags and jingoism of "we're number one." Not only is there no conception of service to our fellow Americans, there is no conception of service to our fellow man. There is only pride in domination over those who are not American and people who are suspect of being weak or not American like Barack Obama, for instance. Dominance and selfishness are considered to be paramount virtues. Ask Donald Trump. Being number 2 or 3 or whatever is seen as being weak. Being a loser is weakness personified.

Long before Ayn Rand developed her ideas, Friedrich Nietsche set out more or less the same philosophy. His was about "the emergence of the superman." Nietzsche’s idea of the superman and its religious implications, was an attack upon and a rejection of Christian religion. His attack on religious moral ideals, using the concept of the superman, sought to strip humanity/man of his religious nature. Nietzsche’s superman represents the highest principle of the development of humanity and the affirmation of man’s full potentialities. He posits the superman as a critique on Christian religion and the crisis of modernity. This is because, according to him, the Christian morality stifles the development, freedom and creativity of humanity/man, as well as making him dependent on faith. Consequently, he advocates for the total rejection and abolition of the Christian moral ideals in order to make way for the freedom of humanity/man and consequently the emergence of super-humanity. Both Hitler and Donald Trump (an Ayn Rand superfan) represented the superman that both Nietsche and Ayn Rand argued was the highest form of humanity. The January 6 insurrection illustrated how far some will go to place their superman in power. The antivaxxers represent how far some will go to maintain that they have no responsibility to their fellow man, only to themselves.

 

Off the Top of My Head

In America the Majority Rules and Devil Take the Hindmost

by John Lawrence

This is a partial rebuttal of Frank Thomas' article today. I agree with Frank totally, but I'm going to act as devil's advocate. Articles have been written about how 40% of Americans couldn't afford a $400. emergency without borrowing the money or selling something. I hasten to point out that that statistic implies that 60% of Americans could afford a $400. emergency and 60% represents a majority of Americans. America is a democracy not by, of and for the people as Frank says, but a majority in the sense that the majority rules and the winners take all. It doesn't matter that 40% don't have a roof over their heads or can't put food on the table if it comes to that. If 60% are relatively well off, Trump will win the next election.

Data from Mastercard SpendingPulse shows that U.S. retail sales grew by 3.4% this holiday season, with online shopping rising by 18.8% over 2018. If there is such great inequality in the US with the implication being that Americans are faring so poorly, how do you account for this? How come year upon year Americans are spending more money on Christmas? Somebody must have money to spend, and, since the US' GDP is 70% based on consumer spending, well, it seems that the majority of Americans has the money to spend. Sure not everyone is well off. 500,000 people are homeless, but Republicans don't care about a minority of people who can't share in the American dream. As long as 60% can, that represents a majority, and in American politics the majority rules.

This is what Democrats don't get. Americans don't care how wealthy Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are. They don't care that 3 Americans own as much wealth as the bottom half of Americans. They only care that the top half plus one (a majority) has the money to spend to live a decent consumer oriented life filled with the latest techno gadgets and other goodies. Do Americans care that some Americans go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills? No, as long as they, the majority, don't have any such problems. If they come down with some horrible illness that bankrupts them, then all of a sudden they will care, but, until they do, they will be happily in the majority of Trump voters who think America is doing just fine.

However, there are a few choke points at which the majority of Americans will join the minority demanding change. The main two are the stock market and a major war. Roughly one half of Americans are invested in the stock market through their 401k plans. This means that their wealth and future wealth is dependent on the stock market. Steve Vernon, a researcher at the Stanford Center on Longevity, points out in a 2018 report: “This survey shows that roughly half of households have access to a work-based plan — and so that half is more likely to be ‘the haves’ and the people who don’t have a work-based plan are more likely to be ‘the have nots.’” Exactly. Half of Americans, a veritable majority, have done very well as the stock market has exploded going from 10, 428 in 2009 to 28, 538 in 2019. That represents a pretty good accumulation of wealth for a majority of Americans. Not as much as Jeff Bezos has, to be sure, but better perhaps than their parents had.

So.... what if the stock market crashed as it did in 2008 and as it has done many times before. All of a sudden the majority of Americans are affected by one sudden cataclysmic event. A major war could have the same effect, and with a nutcase at the helm, it's not a foregone conclusion that a major war won't happen, and, as Trump says, "It will be over very quickly." Maybe so, but that would probably facilitate a major upheaval of the global monetary system and a crash in the stock market. The global monetary system is already under much stress as sanctions have been used to weaponize the dollar. Dedollarization proceeds at a great pace, and at some point, this will crack the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Then all bets are off for increased Christmas sales.

There are other potential choke points that are on the horizon as well. Student loan debt is now at $1.5 trillion. This mainly affects young people as does the global warming problem. If enough young people see their future as excluding them from the American Dream, they will eventually rebel en masse as young people are rebelling all over the world. But so far the number of Americans affected by climate change - those who have lost their homes to wildfires or floods or seen their insurance coverage skyrocket or be denied altogether -  are very much in the minority. And student loan debt is being borne very stoically ... so far.

America is a majoritarian society. That's what Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren don't get. It is also a "devil take the hindmost" society. According to Grammarist: "Devil take the hindmost is a phrase that describes a situation in which someone thinks only of himself and his own interests, leaving others to deal with their own fates. Hindmost is an adjective that describes the person who is the furthest from the front or the one who is in the back of a line or group. The idea behind the meaning of the saying devil take the hindmost is of a group of people being pursued by the devil. The people who take care of themselves and run away with no thought about the others who may be slower or lagging behind, will be safe. It is believed that devil take the hindmost was a popular proverb during the 1500s."

This is a perfect description of American culture. Far from "we are all in this together" as Frank suggests we should be, Americans are all out for themselves, and, as long, as the majority are buying more and more Christmas gifts, year upon year, the majority of Americans will have a surfeit of stuff and they won't care how rich the wealthy get compared to themselves nor will they care how many suffer from homelessness or go bankrupt from medical bills.

Off the Top of My Head

Did Homo Sapiens Wipe Out the Neanderthals?

by John Lawrence, October 13, 2019

We will never know for sure. But Neanderthals flourished in Europe and Asia for about 360,000 years - from  circa 400,000 until 40,000 years ago. Modern humans spread across Europe about 40,000 years ago. What a coincidence that the Neanderthals disappeared from Europe at about the same time that modern humans, homo sapiens, entered Europe.Since our species, homo sapiens, is known for its predilection for war and genocide, it's likely that modern humans committed species-cide on the Neandethals. Genocide comes from the Greek word, genos, meaning "race, kind". There have certainly been many examples historically of genocide, Hitler's attempted elimination of the Jews being the most well known example. But there have been others. In the past 150 years, tens of millions of men, women and children have lost their lives in genocide or mass atrocities. Millions have been tortured, raped or forced from their homes.

The Turko-Mongol conqueror Tamerlane was known for his extreme brutality and his conquests were accompanied by genocidal massacres. William Rubinstein wrote: "In Assyria (1393–4)—Tamerlane ...  killed all the Christians he could find, including everyone in the, then, Christian city of Tikrit, thus virtually destroying Assyrian Church of the East. Impartially, however, Tamerlane also slaughtered Shi'ite Muslims, Jews and heathens." Christianity in Mesopotamia was hitherto largely confined to those Assyrian communities in the north who had survived the massacres. Tamerlane also conducted large-scale massacres of Georgian and Armenian Christians, as well as of Arabs, Persians and Turks.

From the earliest years of colonialism, conquistadores like Vasco Núñez de Balboa would brazenly advocate genocide against the native population. In the 1700s, British militia like William Trent and Simeon Ecuyer gave smallpox-exposed blankets to Native American emissaries as gifts at Fort Pitt, "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians", in one of the most famously documented cases of germ warfare. While it is uncertain how successful such attempts were against the target population, historians have noted that, "history records numerous instances of the French, the Spanish, the British, and later on the American, using smallpox as an ignoble means to an end. For smallpox was more feared by the Indian than the bullet: he could be exterminated and subjugated more easily and quickly by the death-bringing virus than by the weapons of the white man."

From 1885 to 1908, the Congo Free State in central Africa was privately controlled by Leopold II of Belgium, who extracted a fortune from the land by the use of forced labor of natives. Under his regime, there were 2 to 15 million deaths among the Congolese people.

Beginning in 1915, ethnic Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire were rounded up, deported and executed on orders of the government. The combination of massacres, forced deportation marches and deaths due to disease in concentration camps is estimated to have killed more than 1 million ethnic Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks between 1915 and 1923.

In the four years after the Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia in 1975, between 1.7 and 2 million Cambodians died in the Khmer Rouge’s "Killing Fields."

In 1994 in Rwanda approximately 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu moderates were slaughtered in a carefully organized program of genocide over 100 days, making history as the quickest killing spree the world has ever seen.

In 1992 the Serbs targeted Bosniak and Croatian civilians in areas under their control in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. The war in Bosnia claimed the lives of an estimated 100,000 people.

There are many other examples so the probability is that modern humans exterminated the "subhuman species" of Neanderthals when they entered Europe about 40,000 years ago.

According to Canadian scholar Adam Jones, if a dominant group of people has little in common with a marginalized group of people, it is easy for the dominant group to define the other as subhuman. In the eyes of homo sapiens the Neanderthals were probably seen as subhuman because they actually were subhuman or at least extrahuman, other than human. Hypotheses which suggest that genocidal violence may have caused the extinction of the Neanderthals have been offered by several authors, including Jared Diamond and Ronald Wright. However, several scholars have formed alternative theories as to why the Neanderthals died off, which means there is no clear consensus as to what caused their extinction within the scientific community.

At the present time Homo Sapiens is in the process of wiping out every species on earth including itself because of its addiction to fossil fuels and the resultant global warming that is producing. Oh well, it's been a noble experiment in part.

Off the Top of My Head

The Balanced Society: A Capitalist/Socialist Hybrid

by John Lawrence, March 2018

Frank Thomas had an excellent piece yesterday in which he wrote about the European societies as being hybrids of capitalism and socialism in which they are continually trying to adjust the balance to get it just right so that the societies serve the people and not just the rich or not just the poor or not just the corporate lobbyists. I commented that these societies are reflective of human individuals most of whom are not completely selfish nor are they completely altruistic. Most individuals are a combination of both. So a society which reflects individual character but not extreme character types is probably the best fit for the majority of the population.

Communism expected individuals to be extremely altruistic in that everyone was expected to be completely unselfish and work for the betterment of all with no individual property. Free market capitalism caters to those individuals who are extremely selfish and don't want their tax dollars going to help any other individuals. They want to keep everything for themselves rather than to put anything towards the betterment of society in general or helping poor people. The US is an example of free market capitalism, at least that's what the party in power, the Republicans, are trying to create going forward. If they had their way, there would be no social welfare programs and every function of society would be privatized. Everything would have to be paid for by individuals and, if they couldn't pay, they would have to go without. This is Social Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, the opposite of which is Social Democracy, a capitalist/socialist hybrid.

The European societies are generous when it comes to free health care, free education and spending for public infrastructure available to all. At the same time, they encourage everyone to work and contribute to society. Entrepreneurialism is encouraged and even supported. In Sweden, if you can't find a job, the government will help you find one. They keep a database of available jobs for the whole country. They will support you until you can get started in a new job which they've helped you find.

As Frank Thomas reported, Netherlands Is In Top 5 Most Competitive World Economies.  Four out of Five of the top competitive societies are European ahead of the US which is number seven. And by any measure Europeans seem to be happiest compared to other societies.

In the US social security and medicare are the main social programs which are a legacy of the period when the US society cared more about people in general and not just feathering the nests of the rich and giving them huge tax breaks. Ayn Rand, the philosopher, represents the extremely selfish individual and the kind of society in which extremely selfish individuals flourish. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is a follower of Ayn Rand as was Treasury Secretary Milton Friedman. Many Republicans subscribe to her theory of life and society.

As I wrote previously:

In a National Geographic survey, Denmark ranked as the world's happiest country. It's a combination of several factors including the feeling that their country cares for them. They can never sink too low because their country will always help them if they are willing to help themselves. They can truly pursue their passion in life because they are set free from worrying about the need to just survive. They have free health care, free education up to and including the university level and parental leave at full pay for a year after every child is born. This can be shared between the two parents including gay and lesbian parents.

Off the Top of My Head

Republican Philosophy: Self Selection for Removal from the Planet

by John Lawrence, February 26, 2018

While Hitler earmarked a particular ethnic group as well as the mentally defective for removal from the planet, the Republican or conservative philosophy lets people self select for removal. That's what the opioid crisis is all about. Republicans are followers of Ayn Rand and Herman Spencer. It's 'survival of the fittest' and devil take the hindermost. As Nixon stated, people should be treated with 'benign neglect.' Hitler treated then with 'malign neglect.' Republicans are equal opportunity employers. They go along with self selected removal from the planet without regard to religion, race, ethnic group or national origin.

As Neitsche and Ayn Rand believed, there would be the 'emergence of the superman.' That was what society should be all about according to them. We have seen the emergence of a superman class lately: billionaires. The economic divide grows greater on a daily basis. The homeless are treated with benign neglect until public health issues force society to do something because unsanitary conditions are impacting the rest of us.

The philosophy of a 'preferential option for the poor' has totally gone by the way side as a 'survival of the fittest' philosophy has become mainstream. Christ's teaching of 'blessed are the meek' has been replaced with 'blessed are the powerful and successful.' Christianity has morphed so that having wealth is an indication of God's favor. Being poor is an indication of lack of moral fiber. The rich, the smart, the beautiful, the ambitious are to be encouraged. Those having merit are to be encouraged. Those lacking merit - the low IQ, the ugly, the weak - are encouraged to self select to leave the planet. Republicans will help them along by encouraging corporations to manufacture the means for their own self removal.

In Germany corporations manufactured the gas that killed people in gas chambers. Here corporations manufacture opioids that are freely available for those who want to remove themselves from the planet. There is only limited space on the planet so the human race will only improve itself if the meritorious survive while those lacking merit self select for removal. Again self selection for removal is open to all on an equal basis without regard to race, religion, ethinic group or national origin.

The Republican National Convention: Where Social Darwinism Meets Theocracy

by Joseph A Palermo

from Huffington Post, 8/26/2012

At the 1988 Republican National Convention, Vice President George H.W. Bush talked about a "kinder and gentler" America. Four years later Patrick Buchanan scared the hell out of the country by declaring a "culture war." In 2000 George W. Bush gave us "compassionate conservatism." The Bush stratagems were cunning responses to focus groups and public opinion polls that show beating up on the poor and the weakest among us can make people feel uncomfortable. In 2012 we can expect more culture war rhetoric, but it will be clouded by the soothing sounds of reasonableness and moderation.

The trick thus far for the Romney-Ryan ticket has been to pretend to want to "save" Medicare even while putting forth Ryan's "voucher" plan that would end Medicare, not only "as we know it," but end Medicare period. The lies and distortions about their schemes for privatizing Medicare (which have been swirling around Republican circles for decades) are the 2012 election's equivalent of "kinder and gentler" and "compassionate conservatism": empty slogans designed to beguile voters.

What we'll hear all week at the RNC are expressions of an ideological witch's brew, a fusion of Ayn Rand's Social Darwinism with the Reverend Jerry Falwell's vision of an American Theocracy. Rand glorified sociopaths. Falwell believed the Bible foretold a nuclear Armageddon. They've got no choice but to pander to their Christian evangelical base as well as to their corporate overlords; a bone goes to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council while a juicier chunk of meat will go to the Koch brothers.

The Romney-Ryan Republicans are giving us Rand's Social Darwinist economic prescriptions, which hold that if an individual lacks the wherewithal to thrive in a "free" capitalist society that person deserves to die in a gutter somewhere, merged with Falwell's social diktats banning abortion (even in cases of rape and incest), gay bashing, a militarized foreign policy, and a continuation of the "War on Drugs."

If they advocated only the Randian side of the equation there at least would be no restrictions on abortion, gays could go their merry way, and everybody could smoke weed. Things like school prayer, the 10 Commandments in public buildings, abstinence-only sex "education" would be laughed out of court. Conversely, if they gave us a truly "Christian" set of governing principles, (as opposed to the Falwell strain), omitting the Randian Social Darwinism, we'd at least get a government that cared a little bit about the poor, took care of the weak, and might not be so quick to go to war.

As it stands, we get the Social Darwinism without the libertarianism, and the religious strictures on individual behavior without the compassion for the poor and the valuing of peace. In other words, we get the worst of both ideologies.

This epistemological schizophrenia is secular yet religious, amoral yet moralizing.

And lo and behold! The Republicans' idée fixe just happens to serve perfectly the interests of the ruling corporate elite in American society! It's a menu of ideas that give the 1 percent everything it wants. (The Supreme Court's ruling that money equals speech and corporations deserve stronger Constitutional safeguards than people codify this worldview.)

It's as though with every minute of right-wing talk radio, every 24-hour news cycle at Fox, and every spittle of words strung together by Romney, Huckabee, Priebus, Ryan, and the rest of them at the convention, they have set out to prove to the world that power equals knowledge, and the ideas that are the most widely disseminated in any society are those that best serve the narrow class interests of its ruling elite.

It's kind of funny that a tropical storm is heading toward Tampa right when the GOP is kicking off its lovefest. Since about 1900 the American people have looked to the federal government for help when their locales are hit with natural disasters -- you know, the government we're all supposed to despise.

The Choice in 2012: Social Darwinism or a Decent Society

by Robert Reich

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

The returns aren’t all in yet on today’s Republican primaries but President Obama didn’t wait. He kicked off his 2012 campaign against Mitt Romney with a hard-hitting speech centered on the House Republicans’ budget plan – which Romney has enthusiastically endorsed.

That plan, by the way, is the most radical reverse-Robin Hood proposal propounded by any political party in modern America. It would save millionaires at least $150,000 a year in taxes while gutting Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, transportation, child nutrition, college aid, and almost everything else average and lower-income Americans depend on.

Here’s what the President had to say about it:

Disguised as a deficit reduction… it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism.

We are likely to hear a lot more about social Darwinism in the months ahead. It was the conservative creed during the late 19^th century – legitimizing a politics in which the lackeys of robber barons deposited sacks of money on legislators’ desks, and justifying an economy in which sweat shops were common, urban slums festered, and a significant portion of America was impoverished.

Social Darwinism encapsulated the idea of survival of the fittest (a phrase Charles Darwin never actually used) as applied to societies as a whole. Its chief apostle in America was Yale Professor William Graham Sumner.

Here’s what Sumner had to say in his social-Darwinian classic “What Social Classes Owe to Each Other” (1883):

Let it be understood that we cannot go outside of this alternative: Liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.

Could there be a better summary of what today’s regressive Republicans believe?

The Republican’s Social-Darwinist Budget Plan

by Robert Reich

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

In announcing the Republicans’ new budget and tax plan Tuesday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said “We are sharpening the contrast between the path that we’re proposing and the path of debt and decline the president has placed us upon.”

Ryan is right about sharpening the contrast. But the plan doesn’t do much to reduce the debt. Even by its own estimate the deficit would drop to $166 billion in 2018 and then begin growing again.

The real contrast is over what the plan does for the rich and what it does to everyone else. It reduces the top individual and corporate tax rates to 25 percent. This would give the wealthiest Americans an average tax cut of at least $150,000 a year.

The money would come out of programs for the elderly, lower-middle families, and the poor.

Seniors would get subsidies to buy private health insurance or Medicare – but the subsidies would be capped. So as medical costs increased, seniors would fall further and further behind.

Other cuts would come out of food stamps, Pell grants to offset the college tuition of kids from poor families, and scores of other programs that now help middle-income and the poor.

The plan also calls for repealing Obama’s health-care overhaul, thereby eliminating healthcare for 30 million Americans and allowing insurers to discriminate against (and drop from coverage) people with pre-existing conditions.

The plan would carve an additional $19 billion out of next year’s “discretionary” spending over and above what Democrats agreed to last year. Needless to say, discretionary spending includes most of programs for lower-income families.

Not surprisingly, the Pentagon would be spared.

So what’s the guiding principle here? Pure social Darwinism. Reward the rich and cut off the help to anyone who needs it.

Ryan says too many Americans rely on government benefits. “We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency.”

Well, I have news for Paul Ryan. Almost 23 million able-bodied people still can’t find work. They’re not being lulled into dependency. They and their families could use some help. Even if the economy continues to generate new jobs at the rate it’s been going the last three months, we wouldn’t see normal rates of unemployment until 2017.

And most Americans who do have jobs continue to lose ground. New research by professors EmmanualSaez and Thomas Pikkety show that the average adjusted gross income of the bottom 90 percent was $29,840 in 2010 — down $127 from 2009 and down $4,842 from 2000 — and just slightly higher than it was forty-six years ago in 1966 (all figures adjusted for inflation).

They could use better schools, access to higher education, lower-cost health care, improved public transportation, and lots of other things Ryan and his colleagues are intent on removing.

Meanwhile, America’s rich continue to grow richer — and many of them (and their heirs) are being lulled into lives whose hardest task is summoning the help.

Anyone who thought the Great Recession might reduce America’s wild lurch toward wild inequality should think again. The most recent data show that just 15,600 super-rich households – the top 1 tenth of 1 percent – pocketed 37 percent of all the economic gains in 2010. The rest of the gains went to others in the top 10 percent.

Republican Social Darwinists are determined that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 be made permanent. Those cuts saved the richest 1 percent of taxpayers (roughly 1.4 million people) more money on their taxes last year than the rest of America’s 141 million taxpayers received in total income.

Thank you, House Republicans, for “sharpening the contrast” between your radical Social Darwinism and those of us who still cling to the belief that the most fortunate have a responsibility to the rest.

What the World Needs Now? - More Cooperation or More Competition?

by John Lawrence

When I was a graduate student at UCSD in the midst of the anti-war movement, protesting the war in Vietnam, I went to the library and pondered what would make the world a better place, what could I do to contribute something that might make war less likely and peace time activity more likely. I concluded that more cooperation was needed. More ways to resolve conflicts big and small. For example, democratic voting systems resolve conflicts in such a way that solutions are found that are acceptable to all parties for the most part. I took it for granted that institutions that provided for more cooperation and less competition were more desirable. I thought that this was what the Enlightenment was all about. My heroes were the Enlightenment superstars: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire, John Locke.

As I sat there and went through the stacks, I discovered another field and another set of superstars. Social choice has a long history going back to the French Enlightenment philosophers, the Marquis de Condorcet and Jean-Charles de Borda, and even further back than that. One of the 19th century superstars in this field was none other than the Rev. C. L. Dodgson otherwise known as Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland. These guys came up with voting systems which are essential to democracy and are essential to the whole notion of cooperation and conflict resolution. The most recent work in this field was by Kenneth Arrow who published a book Social Choice and Individual Values in the 1950s which attempted to generalize conflict resolution in society in both the political and economic spheres. Arrow concluded that this was impossible and came up with his famous Impossibility Theorem which was a generalization using sophisticated mathematics of the paradox of voting that was known to Condorcet hundreds of years ago. Therefore, Arrow concluded democracy was impossible and any economic system other than capitalism was impossible too. Hmmm, I thought, this is obviously a cop-out because some political and economic systems are more desirable than others and Arrow has done nothing except to throw cold water on any framework that could consider these. I took it as my self-assigned task to prove that Arrow was wrong, that social choice is possible. My work can be found on the website Social Choice and Beyond.

My latest work is "Politonomics: A Meta-Theory Encompassing Political and Economic Decision Making." This is from the Abstract:

In “Social Choice and Individual Values,” Kenneth Arrow said , “In a capitalist democracy there are essentially two methods by which social choices can be made: voting, typically used to make ‘political’ decisions, and the market mechanism, typically used to make ‘economic’ decisions.” This paper resolves that dichotomy by developing a meta-theory from which can be derived methods for both political and economic decision making. This theory overcomes Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem in which he postulates that social choice is impossible and compensates for strategic voting, an undesirable aspect of decision making according to Gibbard and Satterthwaite. Thus the politonomics meta-theory spawns both political and economic systems which are indeed possible and which cannot be gamed. In a typical voting system the outcome of an election among several candidates results in one realized outcome – the winner of the election - which applies to all voters. In a typical economic system, a consumer may choose among a variety of possible baskets of consumer items and work programs with the result that multiple realized outcomes are possible with a unique or quasi-unique outcome for each worker/consumer. As the number of possible realized outcomes of a political-economic decision making process increases, the process becomes more economic and less political in nature and vice versa. We show that as the number of possible realized outcomes increases, voter/consumer/worker satisfaction or utility increases both individually and collectively.

I never considered, as I sat there pondering, that there would be people who would argue that what the world needed was not more cooperation but more competition, but, as I sit here today, I realize that the whole conservative right wing is in favor of just that. They want not more cooperation in either the political or economic realm but more competition believing that only winners should prevail and human progress is only possible when you give free reign to those among us who are the most talented, intelligent and ambitious. They believe that competition will result in the strongest among us winning just as Nietzsche believed that a good war hallows every cause. Their ethic is that the naturally gifted elite should prevail, and they are not concerned about what happens to the rest of us or of who is trampled in the process. This is also the philosophy of Ayn Rand as espoused in her novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

The debate today about increasing inequality in the world has to do with the prevalent conservative belief that only the strong should survive and be promoted and that freedom should preclude equality as a value. The rich should get more tax breaks because they are the true instigators of human progress and should be catered to at every turn. Perhaps a few crumbs will trickle down to the rest of us. This kind of thinking is counter to the Enlightenment and is fast returning us to a neo-Dark Age. No more is human progress to be measured in reduction of poverty and extension of basic services like health care to everyone. It is to be measured in terms of the great advances to human civilization like iPads, iPods and iPhones. People who are capable of coming up with these advances should be cut every break and none of the billions of dollars they make should be transferred by government to the least of these among us like the homeless, the poverty-stricken and the destitute because, well, they are the least among us, not the best among us who should be given every break.

Nevertheless, I remain in the camp of those who think that more cooperation in the political and economic spheres will do more for human progress than more competititon. I also have spent about 40 years in my spare time trying to prove that Arrow was wrong, that social choice is not impossible and that democracy in both the political and economic spheres is not only possible but desirable. This has a lot to do with voting systems, democratic institutions and constitutions but also with cooperative economic systems in which freedom is seen not as the freedom to make money at other people's expense (the losers in the competitive struggle) but the freedom to work as much or as little as one chooses and in accordance with one's preferences as much as possible. Freedom from work is for many people just as desirable a goal as the freedom to make billions of dollars, and wealthy people who don't have to work would be the first to tell you that. Economic democracy in my view is more desirable than cutthroat capitalism, and can be practiced not only at the national level, but at the enterprise level in the form of co-ops like the Mondragon Corporation.

Marx's famous definition of the "good society" was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This of course was perverted in defining communism as a society where all the wealth created by those who had a lot of talent and ability as well as a strong work ethic combined with those who had not so much in those categories would be thrown into a pot and then divided up in equal portions and handed out by the government. Such need not be the case in achieving the "good society." The "needs" part is pretty basic and could probably be accomplished with abouit 10% of the wealth that exists in the world today. Most people can provide for their own needs - no transfer necessary. There are some who cannot and to transfer a small part of the wealth of the wealthy to provide for their basic needs seems to me to be no more than humane. That still leaves the vast amount of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. In other words if you total up how much it would cost to provide for all the basic needs of everyone in the world and tote up how much wealth there exists in the world, it would take a fraction of all that wealth to provide the basic needs for everyone who cannot provide for their basic needs themselves who turn out to be mainly children, seniors and handicapped (whether physically or mentally) people.

A recent documentary by German TV station Deutsche Welle pointed out that half the world's production of food is wasted because super markets only want perfect vegetables and ones with slight blemishes are thrown out even though they are perfectly edible. Shelves need to be fully stocked with bread right up till closing hours even though any bread left over at the end of day will be thrown out as "day old." All the food that is thrown out by advanced nations is enough to feed all the world's hungry three times over although no governments or other institutions, much less the supermarkets themselves, seem to be interested in organizing that effort. This is what I mean by the fact that the basic needs of all the world's people could be satisfied without subtracting much if anything from the world's wealthy although a lot of them would admit they do not need incomes of millions of dollars a day like the Fortune 400 billionaires have.

Another documentary noted that Finnish school children have the highest test scores in the world despite the fact that they have one of the world's shortest school days with 15 minutes intermissions between classes during which time they are encouraged to go outdoors and play. All grades have large amounts of music, art and self-defined projects. They don't teach to the test. They are concerned with the development of each student as an overall human being not just as some super competitive cog in a nationally competitive machine. The Chinese on the other hand have the opposite approach demanding that children learn by rote methods and extra hours in school and at study. The Finnish schools are all public and everyone is accepted into every class. There are no advanced classes or tracking of students into lesser classes if they are not among the elite intellectually. Everyone is thrown in together; yet they have the best outcomes of any country in the world on standardized international tests. Egalitariansim seems to gain the best results.

An egalitarian ethic in which the concern is for the development of the whole human being rather than a promotion of just those who have superior abilities in accordance with a competitive ethic seems to me to be the most humanitarian way to treat both children and adults. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights already provides for most of the "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" ethic. It calls for free health care which most advanced socierties, with the exception of the United States, already provide. It calls for free education and other public institutions and covers most basic human needs including food and shelter.

Here are Articles 25 and 26:

Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

• (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
• (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
• (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

All the basic needs of everyone on the planet could be provided for without subtracting much of the wealth of the rich since most people can provide for at least their basic needs without any transfer of wealth whatsover being necessary. Interestingly, the US among other nations does provide food security for the poor through its food stamps program. And of course seniors are provided for through Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, programs which conservative free marketers are anxious to change or eliminate.

I am with the Enlightenment thinkers especially the English utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who thought about the happiness of society as a whole and concluded that everyone counted, not only the ones with exceptional talent, ability and other admirable qualities. A society should be judged by how it treats "the least of these my brethren" which is the core and essence of Jesus' teachings but, sad to say, not the core and essence of Christianity as it exists in the world today. Perhaps we should start thinking about an alternative constitution for the US which has the world's oldest constitution (236 years old!) while being the world's youngest advanced nation. Other societies including most European societies while being older than the US have newer constitutions. As far-sighted as the Founding Fathers were, a new and updated constitution incorporating not only political but also economic rights along the lines of the UN Declaration of Human Rights would do much to right the wrongs and shortcomings of present day America and the world.

The Rebirth of Social Darwinism

by Robert Reich

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

What kind of society, exactly, do modern Republicans want? I’ve been listening to Republican candidates in an effort to discern an overall philosophy, a broadly-shared vision, an ideal picture of America.

They say they want a smaller government but that can’t be it. Most seek a larger national defense and more muscular homeland security. Almost all want to widen the government’s powers of search and surveillance inside the United States – eradicating possible terrorists, expunging undocumented immigrants, “securing” the nation’s borders. They want stiffer criminal sentences, including broader application of the death penalty. Many also want government to intrude on the most intimate aspects of private life.

They call themselves conservatives but that’s not it, either. They don’t want to conserve what we now have. They’d rather take the country backwards – before the 1960s and 1970s, and the Environmental Protection Act, Medicare, and Medicaid; before the New Deal, and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the forty-hour workweek, laws against child labor, and official recognition of trade unions; even before the Progressive Era, and the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve.

They’re not conservatives. They’re regressives. And the America they seek is the one we had in the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century.

It was an era when the nation was mesmerized by the doctrine of free enterprise, but few Americans actually enjoyed much freedom. Robber barons like the financier Jay Gould, the railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, controlled much of American industry; the gap between rich and poor had turned into a chasm; urban slums festered; children worked long hours in factories; women couldn’t vote and black Americans were subject to Jim Crow; and the lackeys of rich literally deposited sacks of money on desks of pliant legislators.

Most tellingly, it was a time when the ideas of William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, dominated American social thought. Sumner brought Charles Darwin to America and twisted him into a theory to fit the times.

Few Americans living today have read any of Sumner’s writings but they had an electrifying effect on America during the last three decades of the 19^th century.

To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive – and through this struggle societies became stronger over time. A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need because that would interfere with natural selection.

Listen to today’s Republican debates and you hear a continuous regurgitation of Sumner. “Civilization has a simple choice,” Sumner wrote in the 1880s. It’s either “liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest,” or “not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”

Sound familiar?

Newt Gingrich not only echoes Sumner’s thoughts but mimics Sumner’s reputed arrogance. Gingrich says we must reward “entrepreneurs” (by which he means anyone who has made a pile of money) and warns us not to “coddle” people in need. He calls laws against child labor “truly stupid,” and says poor kids should serve as janitors in their schools. He opposes extending unemployment insurance because, he says,  ”I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing.”

Sumner, likewise, warned against handouts to people he termed “negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent.”

Mitt Romney doesn’t want the government to do much of anything about unemployment. And he’s dead set against raising taxes on millionaires, relying on the standard Republican rationale millionaires create jobs.

Here’s Sumner, more than a century ago: “Millionaires are the product of natural selection, acting on the whole body of men to pick out those who can meet the requirement of certain work to be done… It is because they are thus selected that wealth aggregates under their hands – both their own and that intrusted to them … They may fairly be regarded as the naturally selected agents of society.” Although they live in luxury, “the bargain is a good one for society.”

Other Republican hopefuls also fit Sumner’s mold. Ron Paul, who favors repeal of Obama’s healthcare plan, was asked at a Republican debate in September what medical response he’d recommend if a young man who had decided not to buy health insurance were to go into a coma. Paul’s response: “That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks.” The Republican crowd cheered.

In other words, if the young man died for lack of health insurance, he was responsible. Survival of the fittest.

Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest.” It was, he insisted “the working out of a law of nature and of God.”

Social Darwinism also undermined all efforts at the time to build a nation of broadly-based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn’t do much of anything.

Not until the twentieth century did America reject Social Darwinism. We created the large middle class that became the core of our economy and democracy. We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward through no fault of their own. We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed. We taxed the rich and invested in public goods – public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health – that made us all better off.

In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on his or her own in a competitive contest for survival.

But make no mistake: If one of the current crop of Republican hopefuls becomes president, and if regressive Republicans take over the House or Senate, or both, Social Darwinism is back.