[Dialogue] Howard Zinn's alternative

Sat Oct 4 15:22:59 EDT 2008

This goes right along with what Tom Friedman says in his book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded,"  page 192.
Friedman is not talking about financial institutions, or maybe he is, when he says, "without the ethic of conservation -- a deeply ingrained habit of always looking to minimize our impact on the natural world -- the availability of abundant, clean, reliable, cheap electrons would turn into a license to rape our natural world. If energy is abundant, clean, reliable and cheap, then why not buy a Hummer and run it through the rain Forest?

     An ethic of conservation, explains Michael J. Sandel, a political philosopher at Harvard, would embrace several norms, beginning with "a sense of responsibility, a sense of responsibility, a sense of stewardship, for the natural world."  An ethic of conservation, said Sandel, "is an ethic of restraint that says we have a responsibility to preserve the earth's resources and natural wonders in and of them-
selves,"  because they constitute the very web of life on which all living creatures on this planet depend.
     But, in addition to a sense of stewardship toward the natural world, an ethic of conservation also has to include a spirit of trusteeship, argued Sandel.  "Stewardship involves responsibility for the natural world.  It is born of wonder and awe for the diversity of life and the majesty of nature. Trusteeship involves responsibility for future generations, for those who will inhibit this place after our time.  It is a form of solidarity with our children and grandchildren," said Sandel.  "An ethic of conservation requires both stewardship and trusteeship -- habits of restraint that express respect for the earth that we inhabit, and respect for future generations."

     We are now in a new ERA.  We are in an era in which we hope that all our actions, including our economics, will help to preserve the planet we live in.  I, for one, am chagrined that our financial institutions have chosen to run their Hummer through our Rain Forest.

Carl Larsen  

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: R Williams 
  To: Colleague Dialogue 
  Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 7:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Howard Zinn's alternative

        What caught my attention in this article was Zinn's first two paragraphs.  Wasn't it Joyce Carol Oates who said something like, "What appears to be a breaking down of civilization may be the breaking up of old forms by life itself."  If 9/11 was the crowning event of the breaking down of the political, and the current financial crisis the event signaling the breaking down of the economic (without overstating America's importance, both are global events), what shall we anticipate in the cultural dimension--or has perhaps the breaking down of the cultural precipitated the other two?

        Those suffering from chronic addiction experience that things rarely turn around until rock bottom is reached.  People of faith know that death always precedes resurrection.  The question for those who see the breaking up of old forms as the necessary harbinger of the new creation is--what is the vision of the resurrection for the 21st century, and what must be done to participate in that emerging reality?

        Randy

        --- On Thu, 10/2/08, KroegerD at aol.com <KroegerD at aol.com> wrote:

          From: KroegerD at aol.com <KroegerD at aol.com>
          Subject: [Dialogue] Howard Zinn's alternative
          To: rabbilerner at tikkun.org, nspmn at googlegroups.com, Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
          Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 8:01 PM

          From Empire to Democracy
          Let's not waste $700bn on a bail-out, but use 'big government' for what it's best at – shaping a society that is fair and peaceable
          by Howard Zinn

          This current financial crisis is a major way-station on the way to the collapse of the American empire. The first important sign was 9/11, with the most heavily-armed nation in the world shown to be vulnerable to a handful of hijackers.
          And now, another sign: both major parties rushing to get an agreement to spend $700bn of taxpayers' money to pour down the drain of huge financial institutions which are notable for two characteristics: incompetence and greed.
          There is a much better solution to the current financial crisis. But it requires discarding what has been conventional "wisdom" for too long: that government intervention in the economy ("big government") must be avoided like the plague, because the "free market" will guide the economy towards growth and justice.
          Let's face a historical truth: we have never had a "free market", we have always had government intervention in the economy, and indeed that intervention has been welcomed by the captains of finance and industry. They had no quarrel with "big government" when it served their needs.
          It started way back, when the founding fathers met in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the constitution. The first big bail-out was the decision of the new government to redeem for full value the almost worthless bonds held by speculators. And this role of big government, supporting the interests of the business classes, continued all through the nation's history.
          The rationale for taking $700bn from the taxpayers to subsidise huge financial institutions is that somehow that wealth will trickle down to the people who need it. This has never worked.
          The alternative is simple and powerful. Take that huge sum of money and give it directly to the people who need it. Let the government declare a moratorium on foreclosures and give aid to homeowners to help them pay off their mortgages. Create a federal jobs programme to guarantee work to people who want and need jobs and for whom "the free market" has not come through.
          We have a historic and successful precedent. Roosevelt's New Deal put millions of people to work, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, and, defying the cries of "socialism", established social security. That can be carried further, with "health security" - free health care - for all.
          All that will take more than $700bn. But the money is there. In the $600bn for the military budget, once we decide we will no longer be a war-making nation. And in the swollen bank accounts of the super-rich, by taxing vigorously both their income and their wealth.
          When the cry goes up, whether from Republicans or Democrats, that this must not be done because it is "big government", the citizenry should just laugh. And then agitate and organise on behalf of what the Declaration of Independence promised: that it is the responsibility of government to ensure the equal right of all to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
          Only such a bold approach can save the nation - not as an empire, but as a democracy.
          © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Dialogue mailing list
  Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
  http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20081004/195e4b42/attachment.html>