Political change

My sister, Christie, living in New Zealand asks “In my whole lifetime and I am fairly sure in your whole lifetime, no change has been made. We are doomed to a mediocre world when we could have so much more. Why can’t we live in a perfect world?”
Dear Chris, There has been a lot of change during my lifetime. I was born at the end of the great depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt was president. He had instituted many programs to bring the country out of the depression and regulations to keep it from happening again. The 1950s was a decade of good times as depicted in television shows like Father Knows Best, Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It to Beaver—the good old days when one wage-earner could support a family. Interestingly, and I think it is related, income of more than $1.3 million was taxed at over 90%. In other words, someone earning $2.3 million only got to keep less than $100,000 of that last million. What would be the incentive to make more than $1.3 million if you could only keep $100,000? This question is usually asked with the assumption the high wage-earners are those who create wealth by creating more businesses, more employment etc. That’s not the way it actually works, however, as we see today in the multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses of CEOs of individual companies.
Let’s look at a very public business owning a sports franchise like the New York Yankees. The owners of sports teams don’t go out and create new teams. They may build a new stadium (or get the local government to build one for them) but the business is largely the expenses of paying team members, paying the people who sell hot dogs and the like. The income side is from ticket sales, sale of broadcast rights and advertising. If the owner had to pay really high taxes on really high income thus taking away his incentive to make gross amounts of money; he would have no incentive to keep salaries low either to players or other workers, no incentive to raise ticket prices. In fact the tax would have the exact opposite effect. Why raise ticket prices and why not pay higher wages and bonuses? Star athletes would have little incentive to hold out for an outrageous salary making it likely the other athletes on the team would get higher salaries. Now we have more people with a high enough wage to support a family. Isn’t that what family values are all about?
The change from the 50s has been gradual, wealthy people exerting more and more influence on politicians. I remember when Congress removed restrictions on banks allowing them to get into all sorts of other businesses; just one of many changes from the regulations that FDR put in place to keep the country from going into another depression. Reagan did the major drop in taxes for the rich which has created the super-rich who can exert even more influence on our political system.
You want a change away from rule by the greedy? It will come. It will get worse before it gets better but it will come.

I’m reading The Story of Civilization by Will and Arial Durant, 11 volumes averaging about 1,000 pages each. I read the last two first Rousseau and Revolution and The Age of Napoleon before beginning at the beginning. I’m about to finish volume IV now, six down and five to go. I admit to being proud of my accomplishment but it is not a chore. I’m having trouble putting them down (I’m also having trouble holding them up as they are heavy.) Every large society has gone through changes from caring about the people to focus on wealth and the power of the wealthy over the rest of society. Greed is really interesting, much like a disease. People who have it can’t get enough. They think that more—more money, more power, more things—will bring happiness yet when they get more they think they are happy yet a hunger for more persists. Rather than consider the possibility that the more they have been chasing is like the donkey chasing the carrot suspended in front of him on a stick tied to his back, they keep chasing the carrot rather than looking around to see if perhaps there is something other than money and power that would bring them contentment.
Obama did bring change. He brought us back from the brink of a depression. The loudest voices are those of the greedy who override voices of reason. Change takes time. We are a society of the instant—no patience, no foresight.
As for a perfect world, it may exist right now waiting for us to perceive it. Would a video game be perfect if everything went along easily? Would chess be fun is the opponent always made the moves you wanted? Perhaps all we need to live in a perfect world is the ability to accept this world as it is and play the game it presents to the best of our ability without unrealistic expectations.

Two worlds

The questions I explore here will be answered from the belief that love is the only thing that can truly save the world—both worlds. Two worlds, you ask? Yes.

The world we first think of is what we know of the world, the physical planet, space in the earth’s atmosphere, the political and belief oriented spheres we live in. In this world we may be thinking that it needs to be saved from environmental degradation, from terrorists, from economic collapse, from poverty or immigrants or killer bees. How can love save this world? The short answer is that it will take a long time, longer than anyone alive today will live to see but that shouldn’t be a reason to ignore the potential.

The second world is one that can be saved within your lifetime. It is the world that is very close to you. It is what you see and hear and feel and taste—the world of your senses. It is your world. There may not even be another world. You may be the only person in existence. You are certainly the only person experiencing your world. Even if you and I stood next to each other we would be in different worlds. Consider us standing side by side looking at a cylindrical oatmeal box a couple of feet away. We do not see the same thing.

If we stand side by side and look at something far away, say the moon, don’t we see the same thing then? In the context of the first example, yes, physically what we are looking at is the same but we are using different instruments. Our bodies are genetically different and they have been through different histories. We don’t even know for sure that what we are seeing is the same color as the other person sees through his or her eyes. Whatever it is you see, hear, taste, feel, smell and otherwise perceive it is your world, the world you live in every waking moment.

If you feel hatred for anyone, a relative or neighbor, the President or Osama bin Ladin, I invite you to check out for yourself just how that hatred makes you feel. Let’s say every time you hear President Bush on the radio or television it makes you angry. That can’t feel good. Why not improve your world by simply avoiding listening to him? Just tune out. Don’t listen to the news or anything else where you are likely to hear him. Never mind any arguments you might have that not listening to the President would not be a good idea. We are only talking about your world and you can make your world better by tuning in to your world and taking actions that will improve the way YOU feel. Nobody else. There may not even be anybody else. There is certainly nobody else living in your world.

There is a way to listen to the President (in this example) without getting angry. That is the love part and I’ll be exploring that further in the future.