The right thing to do
What makes me saddest of all things in the world is this: the vast majority of the time the right thing to do morally is the right thing to do in terms of broad self-interest, and yet we don’t believe that and we do the wrong thing, thinking we must, thinking that we’re making the “hard decisions”.
This spans the spectrum of issues. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about foreign affairs, where the money used on Iraq and Afghanistan could have rebuilt America and made it more prosperous. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about health care, where everyone knew that the right thing to do was single payer or some other form of comprehensive healthcare, which would have reduced bankruptcies massively, saved 6% of GDP and massive numbers of lives. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about the financial crisis, where criminally prosecuting those who engaged in fraud (the entire executive class of virtually ever major financial firm) and nationalizing the major banks, wiping out the shareholders and making the bondholders eat their losses was the right thing to do, and didn’t happen. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about drug policy, where the “war on drugs” has accomplished nothing except destabilizing multiple countries and giving the US the largest prison population proportional to population in the entire world and where legalizing marijuana, soft opiates and coca leaves would save billions of dollars, reduce violence, help stabilize Mexico and would help tax receipts. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about food, where we subsidize the most unhealthy foods possible and engage in practices which have reduced the nutritional content of food by 40% in the last half century. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about environmental pollutants, which have contributed to a massive rise in chronic diseases so great it amounts to an epidemic.
And on, and on, and on.
Now the fact is that there is no free lunch. When you spend money on war, you can’t spend it on education or health or crumbling infrasture or civilian technology. When you allow oligopolies to control the marketplace and buy up politicians, the cost of that is a decreased standard of living. When you refuse to deal effective with externalized health pollution, whether from soda pop or carcinogens, you pay for that with the death of people you care for from heart disease, cancer and other illnesses.
The response is “we have to do this to protect ourselves/to make a profit”.
No, you don’t.
America would be more prosperous and just as safe if you didn’t waste trillions on wars and a bloated military whose purpose isn’t to protect you but to beat on foreigners (who is going to invade the US? No one. Next.) You would be happier if you did not allow health pollution because you and your loved ones would be healthier and it’s damn hard to be happy when you or your loved ones get cancer, or diabetes, or asthma and so on. Cheap consumer goods do not make up for it and the costs are so high that it’s questionable that the consumer goods ARE cheap—you’re just paying for them in illness and health care bills.
All of these things are moral wrongs. We know it’s wrong to invade other countries that haven’t attacked us. We know that it’s wrong to put illness inducing substances into the air or food. We know that we shouldn’t subsidize high fructose corn syrup and that if we’re going to subsidize food we should subsidize healthy food. We know that’s immoral, yet we do it anyway.
One of the great ironies of human society is that we create it ourselves, but as individuals and even groups we feel powerless to control what we created. We forged our own chains, and can’t get out of them.
But the first step to freeing ourselves from our chains is to stop telling ourselves that the moral thing to do isn’t the right thing to do in practical terms. The right thing to do… is the right thing to do. When we refuse to do the right thing, instead we impoverish ourselves and our loved ones, we make ourselves sick and we kill ourselves. When we do horrible things to other people, we make them hate us, and then they try and do horrible things to us.
Doing the wrong thing, the immoral thing, is almost never the practical thing if you care about the well-being of yourself, your children, your friends and your family. It always blows back. If you’re lucky, you may die before the cost comes to bear, but that’s only if you’re lucky, and in the American context, if you aren’t dead yet, you probably aren’t going to get lucky.
So do the right thing. Not just because it is the right thing morally, but because it’s the right thing to do for you and your loved ones in a very practical way.
I agree, but the power is not presently in my or your hands. It is not in my neighbor's hands. It is and was not in my parents' hands.
It is in the hands of deeply entrenched corporate and military interests within Washington D.C. They make the decisions, they pull the strings, and, ultimately, we bear the burdens.
Instead of self-flagellation, why not promote organization? Use your C&L column to "rally the troops" and promote protests and mass demonstrations from across the country. We can whine and moan and point fingers, or we can pool our collective resources, get out from behind our computer screens, and get active.
Presently, we are powerless. Votes mean very little. We need boots on the ground. Thousands of them. Tens of thousands of them. Hundreds of thousands of them. Millions of them.
Let's work toward that end.
And that is to create a new political party in this country that will destroy the corporate Republican and Democratic parties for good.
It can be done. It must be done.
We need a new party that will draw ordinary Americans who want the federal government to be fiscally conservative (Republicans without the wacky far right wing pathos) and all the disaffected Democrats who realize that the Democratic Party has become hopelessly corrupted by their ties to corporate America. BOTH parties have become hopeless corporate whores who serve Wall Street and we need to create a new party that will truly honor the Constitution, the rule of law and the average American Joe and Jane on Main Street.
We can create all the "movements" we like, organize all the demonstrations we can dream of, make cool placards and sing Kumbaya til the cows come home and it will change NOTHING. We will just continue to be ignored.
The force of law is all we have left and that comes with hard core political organizing and a revolution at the ballot box.
By now most Americans realize that the Democratic and Republican parties truly do need to go the way of the Dodo bird. They are useful now only to their rich masters and they have both become hopeless corrupted and untrustworthy. Talk to practically any ordinary person you meet and they will agree and will ultimately say, "What are we supposed to do? Those are the only two parties in the game!" We need to create a new party to challenge them.
We need a new party with a viable platform that serves ordinary Americans and it ain't gonna happen by having another useless demonstration.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Yes, a new party is one option. However, I think our present system of governance is antiquated and desperately in need of fundamental reform and revision. The Founding Fathers established an incredibly well-functioning system of governance that has weathered innumerable storms over the past 200+ years. But they lived in a completely different world. In their day, it simply was not possible to see/her/communicate instantly with anyone in the world with a completely portable and wireless device. It also wasn't possible to traverse long distances within a few short minutes or hours. And, more importantly, their world was "globalized" to only a very limited extent.
Our present day and age is extraordinarily different than theirs, and I don't believe our system of governance has kept pace. They didn't have huge, sprawling, almost unchecked multinational corporations. We do. And they are threatening each and every one of our lives and our futures.
I think our system of governance should reflect these realities.
I think you are right JM. It's not the 1880s. There are 7 billion people on the planet and over 300 million in this country. We have had to make many social adjustments and there are more to make if we want to survive. We have the technology to do it.
This is part that the right doesn't see. It's not the people that are the problem it is the system. It's, in a number of ways outdated. It was great in a low population world and wide expanses to tame. It was a great system for that. That is not where we are at today. The ideals of the Constitution are stil largely valid but our economic,social ,foreign policy and natural resource management ideas need an extreme makeover.
Well stated, and I absolutely agree.
Where is Karen? I'm ready to listen...
was intended for Abby, by the way.
...I don't really think that creating a third viable political party is likely to be an adequate solution to the problem. In the short term, perhaps -- with emphasis on the word perhaps -- but sadly, not in the long term because the real enemy is (unfortunately) human nature rather than any particular political system or party. To quote a Polish proverb, "under capitalism, man exploits man -- under socialism, the reverse is true." History has shown time and time again that it usually doesn't take that long for the people who promise change and overthrow the existing government to become just as corrupt and self-serving as the people whom they replaced -- to paraphrase two of my favorite authors, those who are most thirsty for power are probably the last ones who should be allowed to have it.
The inescapable fact is that human beings have always put far greater effort into evolving technologically than we ever have into evolving socially, emotionally, spiritually, or psychologically -- and tragically, the overwhelming majority of human beings (including those who are not struggling simply to survive) are all too often ethically pretentious yet behaviorally amoral, which suggests that they're functioning at a social and/or emotional level not all that far up the developmental ladder from the "Law Of The Jungle". The human capacity for creativity, imagination, and rational thought suggests that we as a species are capable of doing much better than this and could achieve it if more of us were willing to put our egos aside -- but the plain and simple fact is that the vast majority of human beings are not willing to extend themselves that far.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
They are somewhat established, and the unions like them.
Am I the only one who saw the movie "V for Vendetta"? Apparently its a lost POS. Yet so apropos.,"Dont'cha think"?
Ian, this sounds like a longer version of the Golden Rule. I couldn't agree with you more and it's the way I have tried my best to live my adult life. Doing the right thing may be the hardest thing sometimes but it always results in the best rewards for all involved.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
That's not really true. Doing the right thing may result in the optimum overall happiness, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is the best possible outcome for all involved. And that's generally the problem: Five people can share 100 apples among them, getting 20 each, and everybody's happy. But on the other hand, one bigger, meaner, stronger person can barge their way in first and carry away 90 apples, leaving the rest to scramble for the last 10.
The first comment was spot-on; we see that the boots on the ground has worked for the teabaggers. Does anyone really think there was that much outrage over healthcare reform, or was it just a minuscule portion of the electorate that went out, stomped and shouted? And, look who won. We don't have Medicare for all; we barely have reform (and even president Emmanuel had to be forced to get this much).
We managed to get Obama elected, basically through hard work, boots on the ground, and sacrifice. I donated so much during the '08 election that I simply can't afford to donate any more. I counted on doing the right thing and it paying off; instead, I was hoodwinked. All of that work went nowhere, and here we are, barely two years later and on the verge of handing it all back to the republicans.
Tell me how we do the right thing when, after doing it, we get nothing.
I may have figured out why people vote against their own interests. They think they will be rewarded by those in power for doing this. It is what the liberals have been doing, too. How many times must one get kicked in the ass after an election to get the message? With very few exceptions, NO ONE in DC cares what happens to real people. They let us blather on, as we have no choice in anything at all any more.
...on the Koch brothers, the founders of the teabagger movement? They were organizing Freedom Works (and whatever the hell that other dumbass organization of theirs is) long before Obama won the election, knowing that it would be him and not McCain they'd have to sink. And they did it. The "boots on the ground" were planted before Bush ever left office.
The real problem is that Obama sank himself. He didn't even TRY to put an "opposition" agenda into place. He just tried to be Republican lite.
As Howard Dean said back in '03 of John Kerry, if you're Bush-lite, all you're going to get is four more years of Bush.
There is also the "We didn't have the votes, so we didn't even bring it up" response.
Right IS right, and that includes no longer voting for the Party, but voting for the best candidate that represents our values. If the party loses, too bad. It's clearly going to have to get worse before it gets any better, so let's start now.
I agree with you, but I increasingly find that people accept cheap kinds of tough-minded realism, cynicism and corruption as sophisticated, grown-up truths. Often they present their cynicism with a kind of glee, as though they'd finally burst free of the tiresome, antiquated rules imposed on them by The Man. They also believe that the tough, cynical approach is the most profitable one, even in the absence of evidence that it really is, or the presence of evidence that it is not. And they assume that they're in on the con, rather than being the suckers, and often they're not. There are whole categories of con games which involve pretending to cut someone on the profits of crime.
I've talked to many people who constantly do mental backflips to justify the continuation of their selfish unsustainable lifestyles. And while many might agree that "war is not the answer", they totally buy into the "but necessary" argument, probably due to a combination of fear and greed. When it comes to something like healthcare however, increasing accessability and availability of it is a waste of their tax dollars and a form of wealth redistribution (even if they themselves would benefit greatly). Logic simply doesn't come into it.
So in conclusion, I think you're preaching to the choir, and libs are going to have to get things done with very little help form "independents" (the apathetic) and constant resistance from conservatives . . if it's possible.
I really didn't enjoy typing that last bit at all.
liberal v. conservative, rep v. dem, blue v. red are all mere distractions. the real divide is between the uber-rich and the rest of us.
everything you listed (war, health care, pollution, etc.), as things stand now, benefit the rich and powerful. through their funding of think tanks, bankrolling of politicians, and media ownership they are able to confuse, distract and provide enough opiate that the masses can barely see past their burning flags, "ground zero mosques" and gay marriage to see those that are really profiting from the status quo.
doing the "right thing" comes at a price to the ruling elite, and thus is dangerous, irresponsible, anti-american, unchristian, and downright stinky--so say those that are rolling in dough now.
quotation about rich people, camels, and the eye of a needle. But it also seems just like the religious propaganda put out to keep poor people from rising up against their oppressors by telling them their rewards would be in the afterlife. If they can baffle you with bullshit until you're dead, then you will produce for them without hurting them or their children. I have an idea for estate taxes. When a wealthy person dies, all of their money is to be confiscated and used to benefit the entire population of the world. Everyone must start from scratch. We will take care of all the needy and sick, and each individual is free to make as much money, on their own, as they possibly can. When they die, it goes bank into humanity's pool. Not only does organized religion cause hatred, so does nationalism. Enough.
I did a double-take upon starting to read this post. I had to look to see if I'd accidentally logged into Firedoglake. Welcome,Ian. Good post!
I thought I was at OpEd News or Informationclearinghouse or Commondreams....
It's refreshing to have a thread like this....
Thanks Ian.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
but as the comments indicate, it is seemingly now solely and uniquely about money. They NEED our recurring billing. Without it, their house of cards cannot stand. Look at everything you have that is recurring billing and STOP.
Even the twice-monthly SSA payments they have to get their grubbys on, cuz their sh*t is broke, worthless, a hoax, a ruse, we've been bamboozeled, led astray. And this Administration aint doing us any favors, no single payer, bullsh*t excuses why not, and now with the help of Alan Simpson, an abjectly rude boor of a man, the administration is knee deep in complicity.
i like the dudes idea about galvanizing hundreds of thousands of people to go to state capitols WEEK after WEEK, or better yet, let's set a date
THE GREAT SHRUG
where EVERYONE takes ALL THEIR MONEY out of banks all at once.
Is it still legal to type these words? Me'thinks NOT.
F*ck 'em.
your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny
Who is "we" ?
It ain't me!
The people who make all the greedy decisions you list are the very people who benefit from them.
And it ain't me.
And they DO benefit from those greedy decisions.
Of course they all say they want a "better America" .. but they mean "for themselves."
They certainly don't mean me .. or you.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
...I think whether your statement is true or not depends on exactly how you define "broad self-interest". For the most part, I'm inclined to agree with you that doing the ethical thing is often the best thing in the long run -- but I can think of a great many people who wouldn't agree with you, because the ethical thing to do is quite often not the easiest or most expedient thing in the short term. I blame a lot of this on the current state of our culture with its pervasive emphasis on immediate gratification and conspicuous material consumption, which encourages a spirit of greed and self-absorption. I have no objections to people wanting a good lifestyle because a certain degree of self-interest is not only healthy but indeed necessary -- however, even many of the most positive and beneficial things in life can become corrupted and have a negative impact when taken to an extreme. Especially for people who claim to hold Christian beliefs (particularly since Christianity requires its devotees to be mindful of others and emphasizes the importance of being "in the world but not of the world"), the single-minded emphasis on short-term self-interest and material gain to the exclusion of all else including the larger community is taking a good principle way too far.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
A few minutes feeling pious and off you go again.
Though I'm not sure who "we" is, I admire your sincerity and opinion(s). One should ask why we have bases scattered throughout the world to protect us, is it to protect our oil interest(s), our like minded friends... ?
This nation, predominately a christian nation for what it's worth; founded in part on the desire for religious liberty, has over time, woven itself into our political system in ways that are self-evident. A very strong bond seem to have taken place in the early 50's, one that will be nearly imposable to reverse. The folks that truly yearn for religious liberty will eventually see, that it's primarily because of religion's partnership with our federal and state agencies that we're encased in such dilemmas. When "we" have a few people who truly believe everything is God's Will... much mischief is bound to happen.
If your curious and or open to plausible theories, watch this dramatic clip made by an associates of The Family. Then listen to the earnest appeal of Frank Schaeffer who has great insight into what is taking place(Though I'm sure many will consider him a back-slider), but may not of been aware of what "The Family" has in mind. The Family seem to be applying a game plan that has worked very well in the past to reach their objective, it's kinda like a trickle down concept sorta. I think a reasonable person might see a relationship with the way things are going?... Divide and Conquer: Cell Churches and Hijacks
PS. The NY cab-driver who got sliced up the other-day by a drunk inter-faith individual... ;-/
Study the symptoms not the virus...
the reason people of other countries of the social-democratic ilk are enjoying better, healthier, less-stressful lifestyles is because these countries tend to ultimately do the "right" thing. The "people" seem to be ultimately in charge. Religion is also playing an increasingly smaller role in everyday life. I watch the Xtian hucksters with their miracle oils and prosperity hankies milking the sheeple and I despair.
I believe your opinion to be fairly accurate and can understand your concern for over-generalization. It fits well with a book I'm reading among many others on the issues...
Our only difference seems to be of the opinion... "The "people" seem to be ultimately in charge.". The reason I say that is I don't think you're implying... "These People" whom are directly supported by... "These people". (Founded in London in 1951)...In 1943 the proposed constitution and doctrinal statement were amended and adopted,,,, Like the race-card, they play the God-card and even though the two together have a history... for them it's "All-
Good-God. We have bases around the world defending their ideologies and a lot of people getting wealthy and killed, whom are and aren't on the same page... wait until at&t tells them about this, I'm not a enemy combatant... I have rights you know? . ;-)Study the symptoms not the virus...
While it conducts no public fundraising, the Fellowship Foundation has reported significant anonymous donations that are made each year:
• 2001: over $10.3 million
• 2002: over $10.8 million
• 2003: over $11.4 million
• 2004: over $12.1 million
• 2005: over $14.7 million
• 2006: over $13.4 million
The Fellowship also has reported plus membership fees of at least $1.1 million in 2002, 2003 and 2004.
World Vision How would you feel about your tax dollars being used by a company that discriminates on religious grounds? From a religious liberty perspective it reminds me of a couple anomalies. 1) Liberty for me but not for thee... 2) And this guy, whom felt it was unfair to support a faith while his was discriminated likewise.
World Vision is identified as a sister organization in the Fellowship Foundation’s IRS Form 990 for 2001.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Me, me, me, me, meeeeeee!
We're not going to get very far if you keep injecting logic into the conversation!
"It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies." -- William O. Douglas
Let's get this world and society straightened out. It very will indeed be our fate.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
--Richard M. Nixon
God, which ones would those be?
The whole reason we turned to a system of prescription control of medications, rather than availability on demand, was the widespread abuse of the soft opiates available at the time. The problem that motivated the change wasn't addiction, which only a relatively small minority are prone to, and which wasn't clearly recognized as a separate form of abuse until some time later.
The problem was that the opiates are "good for what ails you", no matter what that might be. As the processes for turning poppies into laudanum and other preparations became industrialized, the prices came way down. Everyone could afford the stuff, and everyone has something that ails them, hell, many things that ail them. Laudanum was starting to be used as cure-all by growing numbers, causing large numbers of people to have one or more of the often serious side effects of this wondrous cure-all, and causing a lot of masking of symptoms that people should have been paying attention to and not just burying under pain-killers. The opiates are such effective pain-relievers, for all sorts of pain, that even in people who aren't prone to real addiction, there are serious problems of keeping control, as they are drawn to self-medicate with the stuff for an ever-increasing set of the pains, physical and psychic, that ail them.
The opiates are nasty stuff, to be resorted to only as a last resort, when nothing else will do, even when under physician supervision. Even under physician supervision, we see all sorts of problems of control, and that even in people who clearly fall well short of true addiction criteria. Opening these drugs up to on-demand availability would be a recipe for disaster. Self-medication with this panacea is inherently uncontrollable.
If by "hard" opiates, you mean those that you can't take by mouth, heroin and others opiates that require the IV route, they are actually the safest to de-control, make available on-demand. The needle is a barrier that only the addict will scramble over, and addicts are few, and more cost-effectively dealt with by treatment, not law enforcement control measures. Anyone willing to use needles to administer their drug of choice is motivated enough to get around law enforcement anyway, so that control strategy is inherently not very good for addiction. But it's great for people who are just looking for a cure for what ails them.
I would agree with many items on the list of simple things that we simply should do. But de-listing "soft" opiates ain't one of them. Not every question that looks simple really is.
We can make laws to prevent abuse of the people and do the "right thing" for a majority of the people; but there is no power to stop greed. It's no longer enough to be "rich"; now you have to be "SUPER RICH". When you reach the point when all you want is "more", doing the right thing is overshadowed, nay, smothered by "what's in it for me",
When people finally realize that money is only a tool to help us and those around us, instead of an obsession - than we will do the right thing. It has been said that money and power are like sea water: the more you drink of it, the more you want!
I agree we need a new party, one who is like a good father - taking care of his charges, doing the best for them and preparing a financially secure future for them. But the only thing we seem to get is the wicked stepmother.
I don't mean that this protector of us should give us everything we want, lest people who read it think I'm asking for a free lunch. NO! Tanstaatfl! A good protector makes his charges work for their rewards, and shows them how to be just in sharing with those less fortunate. The protector shows them how to take care of themselves and help others along the way.
When we learn this as a nation, then we will do the right things....
Nice of you to stop in and offer your opinion... though it seems to have a theocratic tone to it?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Comments are closed on this entry