Tag Archives: change

our moral dilemmas

Last night I was discussing (read: venting) my view on American politics in light of all the crises and recession and lack of change and etcetera. It’s easy, I think, to blame Congress for their refusal to make progress, for refusing to come to a resolution, for no jobs, for no hope, etc. (And it’s way fun to blame Obama, too.) But the fact is that Congress actually does tend to reflect the American people. If for no other reason than sheer selfishness. Congressmen and women know that they have to vote a certain way on issues in order to get themselves re-elected, and for better or for worse (for worse, really, if you must know) they tend to do just that. Gone are the days, if they ever existed, of voting for a person who would lead you. Now you vote for a person who will do what you want them to.

Since that’s the case, Congress isn’t entirely to blame for the lack of compromise and progress we’re currently witnessing (I’ll come back to this). The fact is, a lot of Americans don’t want to compromise. Sure, there are still some people who want compromise (me, me! pick me!), but that number is shrinking. Ahh! Remember the good ol’ days, back in 2007 and 2008 when Americans were tired of bipartisanship? Remember how we all cried for unity and handshakes across the aisle?

Well, those days are gone. Somewhere along the way, lines were clearly drawn. On the surface it seems like these lines are about things like taxes, debt, jobs, immigration, healthcare, and so on. But the problem is, they aren’t. As much as the rhetoric would have you believe the issues are political, the fact is, they’re moral, they’re value-based. And there are two camps now and a gulf of hostility between them.

So went the discussion last night. Imagine my delight, then, to find a section of David Brooks’s article today that echoed my sentiments. (Let me just be really honest—I love love love it when I find out that Brooks and I are thinking along the same lines. Not only does it make me feel smart; it makes me feel right. What’s not to love?)

Many issues that were once concrete and practical are distorted because they have become symbolic and spiritual. Tax policy isn’t just about how to raise revenue anymore. Liberals see it as a way to punish the greedy and redress the iniquities of capitalism. Conservatives see tax increases as an assault on the enterprising class perpetrated by arrogant central planners. A tax rate could be seen as just a number signifying an expense, but now it’s a marker in a culture war.

Gun policy isn’t about what specific weaponry should be in private hands. It’s seen as an assault on or defense of the whole rural lifestyle, so to compromise on any front is to court dishonor.

President Obama’s Green Tech initiative has become a policy disaster — not only at Solyndra but at one program after another — because its champions ignored basic practical considerations. They were befogged by their own visions of purity and virtue.

Maybe it’s part of living in a postmaterialist economy, but nearly every practical question becomes a values question. You get politicians and commentators whose views are entirely predictable because they don’t care about the specifics of any particular issue. They just care about the status war against their social enemies and the way each issue functions as a symbol in that great fight… David Brooks, “The Thing Itself,” nytimes.com, Oct. 14, 2011

So you gotta ask, how did we get from the cries for unity in 2007 to the irreconcilability that characterizes us today? I blame healthcare—not the thing itself, but the issue. If the White House was as devoted to uniting Americans as it claimed to be, then tackling healthcare was the worst possible way to go. It was one of the things that divided us so strongly, and it’s the kind of issue that becomes a value issue far, far too quickly.

Heels started digging in. Enter the Tea Party.

And then there is no turning back.

The Tea Party is extreme, and so the left wing’s response is equally stinging. Derision, scorn, disdain. Moderates scramble for cover, but the lines are drawn.

There is no crossing these kinds of lines. Issues can be compromised, sure. But Americans are not the kind of people who compromise values. We’re the kind of people who get on a ship and move to a new continent when we find our morals under attack. Then when that doesn’t go as planned, we go to war with the world’s imperial power so we can start a brand new country. Suffice it to say, we’ve never been the kind of people to set aside our values—and I’m not saying we should be. But we do need to find a way to look at the issues without taking them quite so personally. Somehow, in the midst of everything, it became too ad hominem, and now we’re at odds with one another. It’s not about issues, it’s about rich people vs. poor people, religious vs. non-religious, humane liberals vs. cruel conservatives, responsible conservatives vs. liberals with a misplaced sense of entitlement.

I’m reminded of a conversation from The West Wing between Sam Seaborne (Democrat) and Ainsley Hayes (Southern Republican):

Sam: I am so off-the-charts tired of the gun lobby tossing around words like ‘personal freedom’ and no one calling ‘em on it. It’s not about personal freedom, and it certainly has nothing to do with public safety. It’s just that some people like guns.

Ainsley: Yes, they do. But you know what’s more insidious than that? Your gun control position doesn’t have anything to do with public safety, and it’s certainly not about personal freedom. It’s about you don’t like people who do like guns. You don’t like the people. Think about that, the next time you make a joke about the South. The West Wing, “In This White House”

So who is to blame? Well, I’m certainly not thrilled with the way the American people have gone for each others’ throats. And the White House could have played its cards better. But mostly, I’m unimpressed with Congress. I guess I do blame them a lot, after all is said and done. We vote our Congressmen and women in, and we tell them not to back down. Only the other side voted their people in and told them the same thing. So nobody moves, and nobody blinks. And 1 in 9 people don’t have jobs. The American people have a right to object, protest, and lobby against or for anything they want. You have a right to go at it with members of the other party. Knock yourselves out, Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street. I mean it. But when the discord becomes so vast that there is actual widespread suffering, then a nation needs some real leaders to step forward—real leaders, not just followers who happen to be in office.

Bank of ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

A few weeks ago when Bank of America announced it was laying off 30,000 more employees, I was thoroughly outraged. As if the banks hadn’t already done enough to “help” our economy, as if we hadn’t given them generous bailouts, and as if they weren’t back in the business of making profits (Bank of America had a $2 billion profit in the first quarter of 2011. That’s billion with a B. A B and NINE zeroes). I was pretty mad. I thought about switching over to a different bank…but I never got around to it.

Then when Bank of America announced it was going to start charging the $5 debit card fee, my fury rose to a whole new level.

Before I release my ire, let me acknowledge some background facts. These new fees are in response to the Dodd-Frank Reform Act, and specifically, to the Durbin amendment in said act. (This really is worth reading up on; I most highly recommend these first three articles: here is a .senate.gov pdf summary of the act, here is wikipedia link for the act, and here is a nerdwallet.com article that explains the amendment. If you have extra time/interest, here is an interesting Forbes commentary on the amendment. If yours truly was more financially-minded, I might be able to explain it all to you. I’m sorry I cannot. Also, if all of this is brand new news to you, here’s a CNN article detailing the debaucle.)

Banks are claiming that they need the fee increase to cover fraud protection, but from what I can tell they make enough in profits ($2 billion in the first quarter of 2011, although, granted, that was down from $3.2 billion profit in 2010 4Q. Cry me a river.) to cover the $.05/transaction that fraud protection costs (the nerdwallet.com article above spells this out pretty well). I have to say I’m a little skeptical of the whole “we can’t afford this” cry coming up from the banks. I mean, I love a profit as much as the next capitalist girl. You won’t see me sitting out at Wall Street protesting…whatever it is they are protesting. I really have no problem with for-profit industry. In fact, I like for-profits more than not-fors lately (although, in the interest of full disclosure, I work for a not-for). Profits means investment, and investment means J O B S. Furthermore, a profit-driven country is MUCH more reliable than a community-driven one (cf. socialism, communism, disorder, and despair) in the long-run. Ok, sorry, this is not supposed to be a political rant. I’ll move on.

The point is, the new fees make me mad. And I was trying to decide whether or not I should take action, whether I should switch back to my smaller credit union (who has assured me they aren’t charging fees; small banks are less affected by the new laws, if at all) when I saw this commercial online.

I know it’s about ATM fees, not the monthly fee, and I have no idea what Ally’s game is…This isn’t a post about Ally. This is a post about not accepting it. This ad made me realize how much we DO accept it. I know we all realize that banks are hugely unjust, unreasonable, and manipulative. And I know we all hate it. Big banks have sort of become the antithesis to everything I support about America. They have profit, but without putting it back into the nation. They conned people with all those fraudulent mortgages (I don’t understand all that well enough to really rant), and they laid off people after posting a $2 billion profit. Really?

Bank of America has struck out twice in the recent days (the lay-offs and then the fees); maybe it’s time I strike them out. Maybe what our too-big-to-fail banking system needs most is….to be smaller. In the early 1900s there were lots of anti-trust laws, and monopolies were gradually stripped down. But maybe today what is needed isn’t so much legal action, maybe it’s more independent action. I’m a Republican, which means I don’t always think the government’s intervention is what’s required. I think that the power to fix this kind of thing lies with the people themselves. What if we were a nation of people who, sick of the too-big-to-fails, moved to smaller banks and credit unions (I’m a huge advocate of credit unions), leaving behind the gigantic, looming banks with greedy beady eyes and grabby (sic) hands. Too much drama? Okie :) But you get my point. It bears consideration.

Maybe it’s time I stop just accepting things I really don’t agree with. Maybe it’s time I put my money where my mouth is.

precis #31

today is the last day i will ever be thirty, and i have mixed feelings about that; perhaps that is all there is to say.

starting over: a choose your own adventure story

what if you had the opportunity to start over? to go somewhere completely new, where people didn’t know you, where you didn’t have a history you were stuck in or baggage you had to publicly carry? would you do it? do you believe it can be done? can we ever really start over completely?

i’m having to figure out what my next step will be now (see previous post for details), and i used to have a lot of ideas about what i wanted, where i wanted to go, what to do, etc. but now i feel like my biggest thought is to go somewhere where i can start over…

how many roads

i know it must seem like i’m always moving, and if i tell you i’m thinking about moving again, you’re probably going to be like uhh didn’t you just get to California?

you wouldn’t be wrong, per se. but for various reasons i need to consider what my next step will be. i committed to work on the project i’m currently working on for one year, and that will end over the summer. i have the option of staying on board with that; i also have the option of finding another job and still volunteering for this project for a few hours a week (working remotely) if i want; i also have the option of dropping off from the project altogether. the last option is unlikely. i DO enjoy being a part of the project; i don’t enjoy southern california. and by that i mean i really dislike it. (as a note: southern california is something of a hometown to me, so i feel like its my right to dislike it. but when other people deprecate it, i am the first to jump down their throats. so be warned :D). anyway, i came here as a stopping-over place, intending to sort of “get my life together” while i had the chance. i’m not sure i’ve done that, but well, we can’t all be #winning.

what to do, where to go?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers