Since I have no wish to write about emotionally heavy-duty shit today, and because I live in one of the reddest of the Red States, and because I have a talent for drawing a pretty diverse crowd into my life, I’m going to explain where I’m at when it comes to politics. If nothing else, it should save me some time in the long run.
Potential clients and employers who stumble into this piece should consider, before forming any opinions, that I leave my affiliations at the door when I clock in. If I’m taking your money, I’m not about to subvert anything that matters to you, period, end of sentence, line, paragraph, story.
As is natural, my policy leanings are in no small part a product of my upbringing. Dad was a journalist and, until two months ago, a tenured American History professor at a well-regarded branch of the CSU System. His forebears were Mennonites before they were Lutherans. As for Mom’s family, the better part of my examples come from my grandparents. My grandfather was himself a career educator and both of my grandparents have long been enthusiastic believers in the messages of the (unaffirmed) Lady of Međugorje, which are generally thought to pick up where the Messages of Fátima left off.
Add to these influences the fact that two of my grandparents were small business owners; after Mom’s little sister started high school Grandma took it upon herself to spend twenty years selling needlework supplies, and Grandpa Bill (Dad’s dad) was a job printer. Dad attempted his own small business when I was in grade school; both of my stepparents and all four of my great-grandfathers all signed their own paychecks at one time or another (in all but my stepmom’s case, through practically their entire careers).
When you add up those influences, the result is a belief that government is meant for the benefit of all people as a counterweight to the commercial advantage that corporations and industry advocacy groups gain from economies of scale. As much to the point, I’m mildly hostile toward large corporations.
That by itself is enough to explain why I identify as a Yellow Dog Democrat… to the extent that such a label amounts to anything substantive these days. From this desk, it looks like it’s been several generations since the Republican Party has even pretended to give a dam about the well-being of small-business-people.
Rejection for the sake of social justice
For me, the real clincher is the issue of social justice. I identify as Catholic, even though I am enthusiastically lapsed… but it’s impossible for me to ignore the gravity lent to social justice by the Gospels. When I look at the contemporary political landscape, however, I see on the Right an unholy alliance of Big Business, crypto-racists, crypto-Objectivists, and the fanatically pious. I see hostility toward the unemployed. I see the scions of High Finance pulling every trick they can to evade responsibility for pulling apart the beams of the fractional-reserve system.
The Left, meanwhile, appears to be running for cover; their adversaries have shouted down, stalled, and intimidated at every turn. I’m reminded of something Dad pointed out to me a few months ago: that if the Left attempted the sort of leadership and framing practiced by the Right, they’d be accused of fascism or at least authoritarianism.
Thus my positions are those of rejection: I reject the belief that the entitlement of the individual person in all things beyond basic human rights, whether private or corporate, takes precedence over that of the community. I reject supply-side economics. I emphatically reject the notion that conspicuous wealth is a realization of the “American Dream.”
Reminisces of telling words
When the subject of politics comes up, I’m inevitably reminded of my most recent visit to my grandmother in Seaside, made immediately before I moved to Lawrence. Before I came out, she stocked up on groceries, among them Oreo cookies that I tend to wolf down during movies w
All three pieces are a kick. Reading them in rapid succession, as I did yesterday afternoon, is a kick in the guts. The article about jobs-in-general particularly evoked from me a visceral response.
Rich get richer, poor get poorer
The sense of entitlement to profit that I raised a few days ago is evident in every talk about compensation I’ve heard about, or participated in, in the past several years. It seems to me like the vast majority want labor for the cheapest they can possibly obtain, while remaining content to throw handfuls of money at senior management and holders of equity — even ones who, as it turns out, contribute little or nothing.
It always seems like the same old story: hire somebody with the basic minimum of proven ability in order to get away with paying them as little as possible, train them up to the minimum needed by the organization, fire the ones who don’t take comfortably to that scheme at the instant they’re identified, and work the others to the bone until they burn out.
I believe that on some level, most people recognize that this is going on. However, I struggle to understand why. It seems axiomatic to me that people who feel valued will work harder, yet the trend moves toward every possible effort to remind people that they’re replaceable and ought to get the best out of things while they can.
Compassion vs. sociopathy
The only fact that adequately explains this prevailing state of affairs is broad, unwitting subscription to the system cobbled together from the amoral rants of a mildly nutty Russian emigré. On balance that would not be so bad, except that like that ethos’ nemeses — Communism and Christianity — “Objectivism” works a hell of a lot better in theory than in practice.
I see two deep flaws with this ethos, deepening my my confusion. First, we can’t all be Howard Roark; lots of us lack the temperament requisite to that outcome. As much to the point, if we all could have and act upon that power, civilization as we know it would rapidly descend into barbarism. One man’s clear thinker is another’s cold-hearted sonofabitch, and the latter type is awfully good at inducing conflict.
Second, human beings possess and act upon compassion compulsively; the ones who habitually refuse or fail to do so are (rightly) called sociopaths. We all recognize that the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and communities tend to raise the minimum when given the chance. Cutting loose that weak link instead… goes a bit far.
Meritocracy
The happy finish of the labor market’s neo-Nietzchean race to the botom can be found in two virtues that are compatible with all of the belief systems in play: honesty and fidelity.
As it stands, the realities of social (im-) mobility leave some with first-class tickets, and consign the rest to steerage barring both outstanding luck and superlative effort. Furthermore, there are no guarantees that anyone who manages to climb their way out of steerage won’t be shoved back down by some vindictive asshole.
Rewarding honesty and fidelity in the workplace — and penalizing those who lie, cheat, and habitually cover their asses — would go a long way toward making the labor market a better place for everybody.
We have the technological capacity to discover and promote out of steerage quickly the ones who’ve earned it, as a matter of course. We can do the reverse for those who feel most inclined to rest on their laurels. Why don’t we?