Showing posts with label noblesse oblige. Show all posts
Showing posts with label noblesse oblige. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Little Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye

One of the benefits of living in an ultra-swank building in one of those cities where developers spent the last five years thinking, "What will attract these young hipsters to our condos?" is that you can watch CNN (does this reveal my city or what?) while waiting for the elevator and can even program your key fob so the TV inside the elevator switches to a channel of your choice.

But imagine my dismay when my daily dose of CNN informs me that my darling, my golden boy, nay, my man has decided to drop out of the Presidential race. Oh, little Johnny. With your John Ritter-style good looks (before he got all pudge), your charming smile, your gold Dodge Grand Caravan, your brilliant and humble wife, you were my last great hope for this country.

*Tear*

It's not every day that someone who occupies a position of privilege actually takes the time to think about the people who really make this country, its economy, and the great machine of capitalism tick. A political platform, certainly, but also an understanding of the types of programs and policies we really need to sustain our labor force. And by sustain, I'm not talking about keeping the workers alive. What I mean, instead, is that these people deserve respect, dignity, and access to health care, jobs, and education--all of these things that so many of us (including me) enjoy uncritically.

When I was holed up in my Ivy League tower, drinking my education through a funnel (that's a joke, Mom), I really didn't think much about how and why I got there. Yes, I knew that my immigrant parents took a great risk, came to America and worked very hard. Yes, I knew that I had worked hard enough to get into college. But I never thought about why people didn't get college educations, didn't have health care, didn't have jobs.

These are things that became urgently important to me, particularly when I began to work in education, saw and heard about what can happen in classrooms, and read more about the state of the public education in the United States, Every Child Left Behind, and everything by Jay Matthews (for what that's worth). Later, when I went to graduate school and took a course on pedagogy, I read Paulo Freire's Literacy and, later, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. While Brazilian adult education might not seem germane to the problems ongoing in the United States today, Freire had his finger on the pulse of the ideological state apparatus:

Dehumanization, which marks not only those whose humanity has been stolen, but also (though in a different way) those who have stolen it, is a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully human. This distortion occurs within history; but it is not an historical vocation. Indeed, to admit of dehumanization as an historical vocation would lead either to cynicism or total despair. The struggle for humanization, for the emancipation of labor, for the overcoming of alienation, for the affirmation of men and women as persons would be meaningless. This struggle is possible only because dehumanization, although a concrete historical fact, is not a given destiny but the result of an unjust order that engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed.

John Edwards showed a commitment to the enterprise of being human instead of a commitment to corporations more interested in the enterprise of dehumanization. He realized that those of us who have the means can be noblesse oblige, in the true sense of the word--nobility obliges, with great privilege comes great responsibility. Critics derided Edwards for that soundbite we've all heard: his father was a mill worker as was his grandfather before him. But even though Edwards--a first-generation college student--got the education his father and grandfather never could have and earned amounts of money of which his forefathers only could have dreamed, he remembered where he came from. He remembered the people he came from.

For a brief moment, I had great hope that we might have a leader who was willing to put his money where his mouth was, cared about invisible labor and exploited workers, and demonstrated a commitment to the sort of progressive populism that we so desperately need to make the world a better place. Perhaps you're thinking, "Oh, that'll never happen" and, believe me, I've heard it before. But John Edwards believed that it could happen and offered us a politics of hope.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Recession Roundup: Stupid Economic Simulus


Word out on the street is that Bush is pushing a $145 billion economic stimulus package designed to prevent us from entering a recession. (N.B. Can we stop pretending we're not in a recession already?)

This package includes up to $800 in tax relief for income tax payers, which will be accomplished without repealing Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

Explain me this: Given our current deficit, how is this a good plan? I will remind you that the US National Debt clock currently reads:

$ 9 , 1 9 0 , 1 4 6 , 3 0 8 , 1 4 4 . 5 0 .

But where will this money come from? Will we just tack it onto our deficit? We're certainly not getting it from the wealthy--those very people who have benefited from Bush's presidency and who, in truth, bear partial responsibility for the state of the economy at the moment. Had they said, "You know? We should do our part and be taxed fairly," I don't think we'd be in as dire a situation as we are right now. (Given Bush's stupidity, no doubt we'd still be SOL but not to the tune of nearly $9.2 trillion.)

And what about the people who don't pay income tax? There's something like 50 million Americans who don't pay income tax because they do not make enough money to have to pay! They could certainly use $800 more than I could. In fact, mark my words, if I receive an $800 check from the U.S. Treasury, I will find a family who doesn't pay income tax, and I will GIVE them my check. I mean it. I know it's not going to solve the world's problems, but I'll do it for the principle. Don't these people deserve some relief, seeing as they're the people with the *real* problems: the ones who can't afford to put a tank of gas in their cars (if they even own one), the ones who can't afford the rising cost of food staples, the ones who don't have job security because they work in construction and will be the first to be laid off, the ones who have to choose between buying their children a winter coat and paying for the gas bills that heat their homes. Why should a family of four making between $25K and $40K not receive tax relief while I would?

If you have a chance to call up your Senators or Representatives about this, please do. Tell them that you support a stimulus package that looks after non-income-tax-paying individuals. These are the people being hit hardest by the recession that we are currently in. These are the individuals who have the most to lose when money is cut from social programs to pay for my $800. And if you are fortunate enough to receive a relief check, give it to someone who really needs it. While stimulating the economy, you will also be helping out someone who really needs it. Because, face it, you probably don't.