|
THE 2008 ELECTION The aftermath |
|
ELECTION 2008 WHY I AM
NOT HAPPY WITH THE OUTCOME Intellectuals
are keys to the troubles By Ivan
W. Parkins First: I
have long thought that a President who was black could help unite the nation. Second: I
cannot be happy with President-elect Obama, because the political exposure
and performance that he has demonstrated are mostly opposite to what I
believe is needed. Our
economy is in trouble, and because it is so large a part of the World’s
economy, the World is in economic trouble. People, I think, who are much like
Obama—no, not blacks—dynamic, well schooled, ambitious, and socially
conscious intellectuals are keys to that trouble. The
critical division in America, and perhaps in the Western World, is more an
intellectual division than one of either race or wealth. That is not to deny that divisions of the
latter types exist. But, the
fundamental problem is how we regard capitalism. And, having once been mainly a critic of
capitalism, I am now mainly a supporter of it.
Unfortunately, too many people on both sides of this division have
permitted the issue to become one of quasi-religious
orthodoxy. Some favor almost no
government regulation, while others strive to apply regulation of
capitalistic markets to accomplish ill-considered, but emotionally
attractive, goals. The
clash has become central to our politics largely because of the huge growth
and extension of our education and information systems. Whereas those were once largely subordinates
to, if not supporters of, capitalism; they have now become self-consciously
independent and aggressive in trying to displace the industrial/financial
sector as the primary political force in American society.
That would be less of a problem if our system of government had a
greater capacity for identifying and serving a majority of Americans, and
were less responsive to the demands of particularly well-organized and aggressive
minorities. In
short, I think that the present economic crisis is equally a political
crisis. If I am wrong about
President-elect Obama, and he proves capable of moving us towards solutions
to both, he could rank with Washington and Lincoln as architects of
America. |
|
FREEDOM’S CHOICES By Ivan W. Parkins We,
and all of mankind, face an especially complex, and potentially fruitful,
problem. It is how much freedom? And especially, what freedoms for whom?
Individuals are not, never were, and can be only briefly (as they die
off), totally free. Especially as our
numbers have grown, we have compromised individual freedoms socially to
enhance freedoms from natural hazards.
That, for the most part, has been a gain rather than a loss. Our remoter ancestors were far less free
than we are. But, that was not due
primarily to social rules or to other humans.
The first hominids faced natural hazards, as does every sparse and, in
some respects weak, species. By joint
efforts, and particularly by the cultivating and sharing of our unique mental
and communication capacities, we have become dominant among the World’s
creatures. The price of that is, and
will continue to be, some restrictions of individual freedoms in the interest
of communal security against outside hazards that can easily crush
individuals. The
principal is a simple one. Its
specific applications are increasingly numerous and complex. The survival and
advance of mankind has been, and can be, long lasting and grand. The survival of most individuals can be
made more likely and more self-satisfying, but, only as individuals
participate within a larger social context. We
have some choices as to what that context will be. I.W.Parkins, 11/08 |
|
MARXISM By Ivan W. Parkins One
of the ironies of Marxism is that its greatest successes have not occurred
where Marx expected them, i.e. among the laboring classes of industrially
advanced nations. Marxism’s greatest
appeal has been to intellectuals, an elite element of society. A
partial clarification of that mystery is offered by Erich Fromm in BEYOND THE
CHAINS OF ILLUSION. Marx denounced the
indoctrination of people living under capitalism with beliefs and customs
that uphold capitalism. To free
themselves intellectually and morally, they must renounce capitalism. Those who cannot do that can not be
intellectually or morally free. It’s
an easy formula for claiming to achieve intellectual and moral superiority
among those who choose to take it. Too
bad that no other vast and complex society has thus far existed with less
restrictive indoctrination and belief system than the major capitalist
societies of today. Marxist attempts
have been extremely inclined to indoctrination.
But, don’t give me Thomas Jefferson’s least government idea. Even he related it to societies of yeoman
farmers. Today, our huge and fertile
nation has an average of less than eight acres for each of its more than 302
million people. And, a lot of those
acres would make very poor homesteads. |
|
THE NATURE OF MAN By Ivan W. Parkins Column, 08/ 11/71, Mt. Pleasant Daily
Times-News The
mission of Apollo 15 and those which preceded it ought to be regarded as a
major triumph of man, and of our society.
Unfortunately, it will be put down in some quarters as a mere
technological achievement.
Literary-intellectuals, those whose primary interests lie in the
humane rather than the scientific-technological aspects of culture, are
inclined to belittle the achievements of science. They claim for themselves the guardianship
of our humanity and charge scientists and technicians with materialism. Actually, it is the literary-intellectuals
who fail to appreciate man.
There are two sides to the nature of man, and both must be held in
perspective if human nature is to be appreciated. As compared to other animals, man is an
individualist. He is able to do things
which no other animal, or man, had done before. His imagination and creative capacity help
to make him unique. But individual
achievements are only one side of humanity.
The other side is a social one.
Individual members of some other species live in close cooperation
with one another, but the modes of their cooperation are relatively few and
the limits fixed. Man, however, has a
proven capacity to cooperate with his fellows in varied and changing ways. Man
is superior in his individuality. He
is also superior in his social capacity.
He is unique because he combines so much of both individual and social
potentials. How best to develop the
two capabilities is the problem of culture.
Perhaps the greatest significance of the moon exploration is that it
demonstrates the most intricate and successful combination of individual and
cooperative efforts which man has yet achieved. Some years ago one of the astronauts
remarked that, as he was being blasted into space, he realized that his life
was dependent upon a long list of low bidders. That remark was more profound than he may
have intended. Quite apart from
anything discovered about the solar system and the spin-off benefits of our
new technology, the space program has been a grand triumph of our capacity to
unite vast numbers of individuals from different professions and skills into
one coordinated effort. The
inclination of the more literary types of intellectuals to belittle the space
program stems largely from their own failure to appreciate the cooperative
aspect of man’s nature. Under the
pretext of a deep concern for humanity, many of them have cultivated an
obsession with individualism. They
define humanity in terms of individual creativity, and define creativity as
rejection of traditional modes of co-operation. Many of those who can see little which is
exciting or valuable in exploration of the moon hail the spread of
pornography, protest , and pot. Their
professed belief in individualism reduces to little more than a
rationalization of antisocial attitudes.
The triviality and petulance of so many literary-intellectuals does
not imply that humane studies should be neglected. Man himself, his values, his emotions, and
his aspirations are at least as challenging to study as biology and the
physical environment. Human individuality is no less important than man’s
capacity for co-operative achievement.
Efforts to comprehend and develop our humanity deserve a high priority
among the claims upon our brains and our other resources. The
problem—and it may explain much of our contemporary confusion—is that many of
the people whose social function it is to help us in understanding ourselves
refuse to accept our technological and democratic society. In such a society literary-intellectuals
tend to lose their identity as an elite.
It is a selfish, rather than a sympathetic, alienation which impels
such people to attack technology (openly and directly) and democracy
(covertly and indirectly).
Perhaps the greatest service of the space program to American society
has been the repeated demonstrations that man (our own society) is capable
today of achievements which only a generation ago were mere figments of
imagination. It is not our
technological and democratic society, or the men who build and identify with
it, which diminish human nature; it is the literary-intellectuals. They attempt to excuse their acts of
disloyalty to the society by claiming a more general loyalty to man. In fact, their most serious offense is
their betrayal of man. |
|
FREE MARKETS By Ivan
W. Parkins The following are brief adaptations from
columns that I did in the local BUYER’S GUIDE during 1980. A
simplified, money, value system and free market exchange are much of what
makes capitalism function. How
is it that hundreds of millions of people can each contribute his own kind of
work and each receive numerous products of his own choosing? The substitution of more complex, word based, value systems,
i.e. regulations, greatly complicates and almost invariably delays,
exchanges.
Authors of THE FEDERALIST, more than two centuries ago were well aware
of the danger:
Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any manner
affecting
the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest
for those who
watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared
not by themselves,
but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens.
According to an article in FORTUNE, 8/14/78, Congress tried to prove
that point. In that earlier oil crisis
it enacted a subsidy to help small refiners.
The subsidy was so generous that new small refineries were created,
not to refine oil (they were too inefficient) but to profit from the
subsidy. Does that sound like ethanol to
you? If
that is not convincing, consider the effects upon poor Africans and some
others of our banning DDT. Malaria, a
major plague to humans throughout history, had been declining rapidly. With the ban, malaria returned in millions
of cases and an estimated million deaths per year. No doubt DDT had been over-used, but that
gross regulation will likely be recorded as one of the largest and most
lethal “crimes” of our age.
Regulation should be undertaken only with great caution. |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2009, All articles, text, web pages property of
Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material
requires permission of the author
and can be obtained by contacting,
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
Page 19 |
