When I moved back to America after being away for an extended period I discovered there was a word that couldn't be said. A friend of mine was telling me a racist story about how she had seen one man call another man "The 'N' word." "You mean nigger?" I asked. She acquiesced with a nod.
I have mixed feelings about making a word unspeakable --much like Harry Potter's nemesis, the One Who Can't Be Named-- but I must admit that I never liked the word much and I won't really miss it. Besides, I get to hear it over and over again in the streets since it's now the young black equivalent of 'dude'.
But I noticed there is another word that has become almost unpronounceable in America today: socialism. It's nearly taboo. It's okay to use it as an insult as in an email I saw go by recently in which Obama was described as a "socialist Muslim". Even folks on the left in America talk about socialists as if they were all extreme radicals who can't be taken seriously. So let's just call it the "S word" and not ruffle any feathers.
This notion is funny to me since most of my friends in France and throughout Europe are members of a socialist party. My old friends Marcia and Fabrice, both high-level advertising execs with two cars, a large flat in Paris overflowing with contemporary art, a weekend home in Champagne and a summer home in Morocco: both socialists.
Or Pierre, a self made multi-millionaire business consultant to large euro-corporations with a chateau in Bordeaux and a house in Saint Martin. Also a socialist (but more of the ecological leaning).
And then there's Martine, a free-lance copywriter mom who scratches out marketing documents and web copy for most of France's Forbes 100. Dyed in the wool socialist.
So what makes these otherwise pro-business folks belong to the Socialist Party and vote socialist in elections? My guess is the common denominator is they believe that the role of government is to offer humane services to its citizens, such as health care, a quality education, childcare and social services for the poor and the marginalized (which, by the way, have a direct impact on lowering crime rates). And they are perfectly willing to have part of their income be taxed every month to pay for these services. In France the individual income tax rates vary from 10% to 48%, in the US they are 15% to 35%.
What amazes me about the die-hard, turbo-capitalists that the US pumps out is that they are actually fond of socialism when it suits them.
Take for instance the many wealthy Americans who own summer houses in France or a flat in Paris (ask Mr Forbes about that). At fancy cocktail parties, one can hear them comment on how beautiful the public parks are, how clean and safe the streets, how nice it is to have decent on-time trains. The notion that we could have all those things in the US, arguably the wealthiest country in the world, never seems to cross their mind.
Closer to home there are Reaganomics fans like George Bush II who after what is considered one of the most tragic moments in modern American history, decided to nationalize airport security. Isn't he one of the defend-til-you-die folks behind the idea that anything government does is wastefully done? The same George Bush who increased steel tariffs to save jobs in the Rust Belt?
Can you say "market intervention"?
The US hypocritically screams at the Europeans for unashamedly subsidizing EADS, maker of Airbus, yet finds all kinds of ways to slip money to Boeing and friends. People I know at Boeing say they consider themselves civil servants. And when Airbus recently won a huge contract in a competitive bid against Boeing, Washington insiders yelled foul play long enough to have the contract renegotiated. Agriculture, cruise ships, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, KBR, Halliburton, tax loopholes for corporations and the list goes on.
The recent $700 billion gesture of kindness that the US government is considering making to the finance industry (after Fannie and Freddie, AIG, etc) isn't socialism of course. Nationalizing banks is what socialists do, just ask our neighbor Hugo. Real, balls-out capitalists stand by the power of the market at all costs and... may the best man win. This is just a 're-adjustment'.
My guess is there are several reasons why it is nearly impossible to take all these subsidies and funnel them into programs that might bring America better schools, cleaner parks, free higher education and health care for all.
1 - The pull yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps blind idealism that says we can all become a rags to riches entrepreneur if we just keep trying hard enough (A shame-based approach which also enhances disdain for poor people).
2 - The fact that non-rich people rarely get elected to national office (Imagine that in many countries there are actually teachers, postal carriers and farmers getting elected to parliaments).
3 - Rich people want to be able to choose where their social giving goes and don't want their money being mixed with everyone else's. (Plus it allows them to have a wing of a hospital with their name on it.)
4 - In America, 'poor' is often a code word for people of color and deep rooted racism keeps the white middle class majority from wanting to help them.
I contend that, with our capacity for innovation, pragmatism and entrepreneurship we could create the most exciting social programs in the world to give our kids quality education, to create outstanding public transportation, to invent new forms of health care delivery. If we wanted to, we could do an American version of socialism without all of the old communist-infused baggage that many European countries lug around: inflexible labor unions, grandfathered civil servant positions, entrenched us-and-them mentalities.
We would just have to call it something other than socialism.
September 21, 2008
An American Addiction: ahh the rush of it all!!!
Reading about Palin made me want to share some of my recent thoughts about the upcoming elections. I am aware that I stand to the left of most of America - and apparently most of California since we elected Arnold.
Twice!
I get tired of living in the minority and am shocked at some of the dog eat dog policies that come out of administrations that the majority elect. But being in the minority sometimes is part of democracy.
Even though I legally can live abroad - I choose not to leave the country. I think the main reason I stay here is that I feel like I am in the midst of a giant social experiment. I feel like we as a people are constantly trying to figure out who we are and how we want to be together -- usually in very bold, creative ways.
I've often entertained the idea that if only we had a leader who would take the time to explain complex concepts to mainstream America, rather than spouting ad slogans at them, that the majority would understand they are being economically shafted by the right and vote for the left.
I thought I saw that person in Obama.
For a long time I didn't understand why people watch Judge Judy or Springer - how they got pleasure out of seeing someone berate someone else willingly on TV.
I understood why gay men would walk around like uber-Hulks after decades of oppression but didn't really understand why when I went to Disneyland I saw legions of straight men dressed like tatooed soldiers and driving Hummers.
I didn't understand why in 20 years living in France I never got physically attacked by another person and within the first three months of living back in the US I was called a "Faggot" by a stranger in the street and had a gun held to my head by another - in a tony white neighborhood!
Today my theory is that we, as a people, are really addicted to drama, to adrenaline, to the rush. We love it when the stakes are high. We sell blockbuster killer movies, Grand Theft Auto software and amusement park thrill rides to the entire world. In this addiction there is a salient need for immediacy and little room for thought.
Our foreign policy has been one of "cleaning up the mess" - the Marines, the SWAT team, the COPS Show of the world. We're the bold ones who step in when every other country is sitting around talking policy.
The fact this this approach often serves our expansionist economic and political needs is no secret.
We do have incredibly innovative non-profits doing really interesting work around the world but they rarely make the news. And our government investment in international aid is peanuts compared to many European countries.
In this Pull-yourself-up by-the-bootstraps nation it would stand to reason that most folks in America thus equate "talking policy" to being wimpy, to not being strong. A "war hero"
trumps a university professor. A millionaire wins out over a community organizer ("Just what the hell is that anyway, Myrna?"). A feisty soccer mom with a forked tongue and a rags to riches frontiersman facade wins out over a college educated wonk.
The same goes for"wimpy" instutions: a national health care system that might lose money or public transportation that might need subsidies every year is a proof of failure. But bailing out the oh-so-ballsy mortgage companies is just a tweak in a strong economic policy!
Finally - destructive acts and words are far more stimulating to us than those that build consensus. We did a fair job taking out Hussein but aren't very good at keeping our A.D.D.-riddled national attention on nation-building. We get a much bigger rush out of zinger insults than we do out of interesting conversation - to such a point that our talking heads even cross ethical lines from time to time (Right Mr Imus?). Our prime time focus is on voting people off the island. What kind of reality show would actually show people working together?
There have been some really interesting articles about the construction of heterosexual masculine identity in America and mostly about how it's focused on "Not being a fag". But interestingly studies show straight guys aren't just defending against appearing attracted to the same sex - they are defending against any kind of behavior that may be perceived as soft, gentle, caring or emotional.
And these same guys are running many American institutions: shut down turbo-thugs with suits.
I remember years ago talking with NGO friends who had just spent all day at a UN-sponsored negotiation table in Geneva to bring AIDS meds to Africa. The big player at the table was the US which had recently earmarked a new budget for this. My buddies from all over the world told me of the meager gains they had made in the negotiation. When I asked why, they responded: "Because the Americans are sharks! They're very cunning and they run their administration like a corporation."
It seems to me that we are really at a moment in our history when we get to choose a different way of being in the world. I'm not sure that the majority of Americans are ready for such a big change - I'm not sure anymore if Obama is ready to personify that change.
I yearn for a president who has the balls to say "I don't know", "Let's do the long difficult alliance-building work rather than the rushing in", "Let's turn half of our military into the peace corps - and then send them to the 20% of America who lives below the poverty level."
I'm hoping Obama is that man.
Twice!
I get tired of living in the minority and am shocked at some of the dog eat dog policies that come out of administrations that the majority elect. But being in the minority sometimes is part of democracy.
Even though I legally can live abroad - I choose not to leave the country. I think the main reason I stay here is that I feel like I am in the midst of a giant social experiment. I feel like we as a people are constantly trying to figure out who we are and how we want to be together -- usually in very bold, creative ways.
I've often entertained the idea that if only we had a leader who would take the time to explain complex concepts to mainstream America, rather than spouting ad slogans at them, that the majority would understand they are being economically shafted by the right and vote for the left.
I thought I saw that person in Obama.
For a long time I didn't understand why people watch Judge Judy or Springer - how they got pleasure out of seeing someone berate someone else willingly on TV.
I understood why gay men would walk around like uber-Hulks after decades of oppression but didn't really understand why when I went to Disneyland I saw legions of straight men dressed like tatooed soldiers and driving Hummers.
I didn't understand why in 20 years living in France I never got physically attacked by another person and within the first three months of living back in the US I was called a "Faggot" by a stranger in the street and had a gun held to my head by another - in a tony white neighborhood!
Today my theory is that we, as a people, are really addicted to drama, to adrenaline, to the rush. We love it when the stakes are high. We sell blockbuster killer movies, Grand Theft Auto software and amusement park thrill rides to the entire world. In this addiction there is a salient need for immediacy and little room for thought.
Our foreign policy has been one of "cleaning up the mess" - the Marines, the SWAT team, the COPS Show of the world. We're the bold ones who step in when every other country is sitting around talking policy.
The fact this this approach often serves our expansionist economic and political needs is no secret.
We do have incredibly innovative non-profits doing really interesting work around the world but they rarely make the news. And our government investment in international aid is peanuts compared to many European countries.
In this Pull-yourself-up by-the-bootstraps nation it would stand to reason that most folks in America thus equate "talking policy" to being wimpy, to not being strong. A "war hero"
trumps a university professor. A millionaire wins out over a community organizer ("Just what the hell is that anyway, Myrna?"). A feisty soccer mom with a forked tongue and a rags to riches frontiersman facade wins out over a college educated wonk.
The same goes for"wimpy" instutions: a national health care system that might lose money or public transportation that might need subsidies every year is a proof of failure. But bailing out the oh-so-ballsy mortgage companies is just a tweak in a strong economic policy!
Finally - destructive acts and words are far more stimulating to us than those that build consensus. We did a fair job taking out Hussein but aren't very good at keeping our A.D.D.-riddled national attention on nation-building. We get a much bigger rush out of zinger insults than we do out of interesting conversation - to such a point that our talking heads even cross ethical lines from time to time (Right Mr Imus?). Our prime time focus is on voting people off the island. What kind of reality show would actually show people working together?
There have been some really interesting articles about the construction of heterosexual masculine identity in America and mostly about how it's focused on "Not being a fag". But interestingly studies show straight guys aren't just defending against appearing attracted to the same sex - they are defending against any kind of behavior that may be perceived as soft, gentle, caring or emotional.
And these same guys are running many American institutions: shut down turbo-thugs with suits.
I remember years ago talking with NGO friends who had just spent all day at a UN-sponsored negotiation table in Geneva to bring AIDS meds to Africa. The big player at the table was the US which had recently earmarked a new budget for this. My buddies from all over the world told me of the meager gains they had made in the negotiation. When I asked why, they responded: "Because the Americans are sharks! They're very cunning and they run their administration like a corporation."
It seems to me that we are really at a moment in our history when we get to choose a different way of being in the world. I'm not sure that the majority of Americans are ready for such a big change - I'm not sure anymore if Obama is ready to personify that change.
I yearn for a president who has the balls to say "I don't know", "Let's do the long difficult alliance-building work rather than the rushing in", "Let's turn half of our military into the peace corps - and then send them to the 20% of America who lives below the poverty level."
I'm hoping Obama is that man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)