Despite the newness of the calendar year, some old stories still are dominating the headlines. That includes the never ending tug of war as a new date for the fiscal cliff looms. The agreement reached just around the last hours of 2012, and the first hours of 2013, really did not have any far, wide reaching ramifications. All it did, in effect, was push the problem off until a later date. That seems to be what this government does best. But then again, they represent us because we collectively elected them in, right? So, we are at least partially responsible, and moreover, perhaps they are like that precisely because we are like that, and they are merely a reflection of us and what we value. If the best that we see from them, if their version of eleventh hour heroics amount to virtually meaningless compromises that hold no water and have no staying power, then is that really different from our own situation, our own lives?
As you may recall, there was a lot of talk a few years ago about wealth built on a bubble, and what might happen when that bubble burst. This was during the housing crisis, when the irresponsibility of the huge banks was dominating the headlines, and when the economy really was in the tank. Remember that? I think it's important to point out at this point that nothing has really changed (here in the United States, as well as in the European Union). The banks are still making irresponsible decisions behind the scenes, and still practicing policies that far too many of us would agree is sickeningly irresponsible. But that's only because we let them.
Perhaps, as an example, we can look to Iceland, a nation that I try and watch every opportunity that I get.
Iceland really is a fascinating country. The vast majority of it is uninhabitable, and the population that it does have is small (the population is not much bigger than that of, say Newark, New Jersey). It is a land of immense beauty, yet it has few to no significant number of trees, let alone forests, because they have all been stripped over the course of the centuries in which this country was inhabited. People had to keep warm somehow, I guess. What they do have is an incredible, and seemingly exotic, landscape. They have volcanoes, which we obviously heard about not too long ago, when air traffic between Europe and North America was interrupted as a result. They also have tap water that comes directly from the source, which is to say, unfiltered. That's how clear their water is. For that matter, the hot water that they get from their sink is also unfiltered. It is from the natural springs that the nation has quite a few of. Despite it's name, the temperature here is not nearly as cold as one might think. It does not go far below zero degrees celcius (32 degrees fahrenheit) during their winters. But it remains dark for most of the days, with the shortest day having less than five hours of total daylight. All that said, their summers are quite cool, with their warmest temperatures usually being around 15 degrees celcius (59 degrees fahrenheit). Like most lands in the far, far north (like Scandinavia, which Iceland is generally seen as being part of, or like northern Russia/Siberia, northern Canada, or Alaska), the summer daylight stretches on endlessly. It can rightfully be considered the land of the midnight sun. Now, I don't know about you, but when I hear about a place like that, it is naturally fascinating, and there is a desire to learn more about it.
All of that alone is pretty fascinating, and usually, you do not hear all that much about it. But here is something else that you hear little to nothing about: Iceland had a revolution of the people after their nation saw a banking scandal bring the nation to it's knees, and compromise it. The situation was not radically different from that seen by the United States and the European Union, only perhaps a bit more severe. That said, the response to it was simply unbelievable, and something that we could perhaps take lessons from. They had a revolution, completely peaceful, and brought in an entirely new government. This government, and the people they represented, were not going to be content with a slap on the wrist approach, like we tend to be here in the States, or as also seems to be common practice in Europe. No, here, the responsible for the economic disaster were held accountable, and the government pursued justice. Many of those who were responsible were tried and convicted, and are presently doing time n jail. Now, that it justice. When you hurt that many people because of your unbound greed, jail is where you belong. It's hard to imagine such a solution in the United States or Europe. But then again, that's because that is precisely what it can be called: a solution. They recognized that there was a huge problem that needed fixing, and they went ahead and fixed it. No eleventh hour compromises to postpone serious debate. No last minute rush of some enormous bill (like, say, the PATRIOT Act, among others) that forces their legislative body to act and pretend like they are doing something productive while also acting responsibly. No political gimmickry, really, of any sort. At least, nothing so outright, the it dominates the news. Ah! What a refreshing thought, right?
But, to many skeptics (or disillusioned optimists, among whom I count myself) in places like where we live automatically think: "Sounds great, but it could never happen here." That is, perhaps, because we are to big and powerful for our own good, and I think this is particularly true in the case of the United States, where Americans, consciously or not, tend to be infatuated with the notion of just how big and powerful the country is. Even if they do not get to see the benefits of all that power and wealth personally, perhaps they do receive some sort of sick gratification of being part of the nation that has so much power and wealth. It's enough just to fool yourself into thinking that you are a part of it, and that the rest of the world is looking at you with envy. It's a point of pride thing, and really, it is that mentality that has prevented any real and lasting, meaningful change to give power to the people, rather than to "big government" or, increasingly more common, to huge private corporations and banksters. After all, calls for smaller government really can be translated to meaning, de facto, more corporate power with less government "intrusion" (that is to say, regulations intended to protect the little people like us from the sway of the increasingly huge power and privilege that these private corporations enjoy with almost complete impunity. Of course, that power comes from us, the little guys. And if we so chose, we could pull the plug on all that power. Yet, we never do. Why is that? Many will debate that. Personally, I think it's because of this perception of being a part of something huge. Yes, I know from a lifetime of experience that many Americans are arrogant with this power, imagined as it might be, that they have just because they happen to be Americans. Knowing that the United States is the world's leading superpower is seen as a privilege, and even if it does not concretely improve the standard of living in their own lives, they take some strange satisfaction in being a part of all that, anyway. Pretty weird, and I for one do not completely understand (let alone sympathize), but there it is.
Just my personal take on it. So, perhaps you're like me, or perhaps you are not, but whenever I hear breaking news about some last minute deal that was reached, I tend to be skeptical. Was this last minute deal there all along, some kind of political gimmickry, the ace in their sleeves that they whipped out only at the last moment, showing all of their hands? Again, all it does is push the problem off until a later date - in this case, March. Yeah, March. Doesn't sound so far away, does it? That's because it's not. So, call me skeptical (and I think a more appropriate way of describing me would be as a disillusioned optimist), but when I hear about such things, the word to describe such a deal seems not so much "important", as "impotent". This will not give birth to some meaningful dialogue, or to some all-encompassing solution that would make many happy and, yes, surely, would leave some unhappy. This is what we here in the United States used to have, when colonists stood up against the leading power in the world at the time, and established a new and young republic. That is what we had when both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (bitter political adversaries, mind you) fought what they saw as an already large and growing, corrupt banking system that threatened the nation (literally). Andrew Jackson, for all of his faults, tried to take on the banks, as well, and reeled n their power, seeing through the facade, as he tried to empower the average American man with more power in his own life. Lincoln went to great pains to give the common man more power in this democratic experiment as well, and was the sitting President throughout the bloody Civil War. Theodore Roosevelt tried to do empower the American people as well, and was seen as a huge threat to the powers that be of the time. Finally, and especially, there was Franklin Roosevelt, who came into the Presidency with the country facing it's gravest situation since at least the days of the Civil War, during the Great Depression, and with another epic war in Europe that would surely drag America in looming on the horizon, seemingly inevitable. Yet, he boldly instituted new policies, collectively referred to as the "New Deal" to help the nation get up off of it's knees. The war also came, and it was probably bigger than most people imagined it could be (and involved more of the world than the so-called "Great War" had). That war changed the maps permanently, and very quickly. But Roosevelt proved a solid leader through and through, and the nation was undeniably better and stronger at the end of his Presidency than they were when he was first elected into office.
Some other leaders since (such as Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson) also tried to safeguard those policies and practices that had benefitted the American people as a whole. In the case of all of them, but particularly with Johnson, there was even an active pursuit of extending the benefits of being an American to those who had not gotten the opportunity to enjoy it beforehand, even if this came at great political cost.
Now, that's what I call leadership. But we have not had such a leader now in a very long time.
What we have now, whether we want to admit it or not, is mediocrity. People that are not concerned about the future beyond the next election cycle. Self-serving politicians that are so ambitious and greedy, that they are figuratively willing to make a deal with the devil to either obtain power, or keep themselves in power. Corporations have not had to do much more than sponsor candidates to promote their vested interests to gain incredible power and influence in this nation, in effect. That has been to the detriment of us all.
But I maintain that the problem is mostly with us, that we created it. So, we are effectively the agents of our own problems, and continue practices and lifestyles that are detrimental to our own well being. Until that changes, the world, and it's headlines, will remain the same. We are not Iceland, unfortunately. Mostly, because we feel that we are too big and powerful. Stripped of that vanity, look at how far Iceland has gone to remedy their ailments.
Are we ever going to get their? Maybe. But I will venture forth to say this will not happen until we lose a lot more, and until our real, sober, and longterm self-interest outweighs the vanity that presently skews our perceptions of the world and our place it it. In other words, it won't happen until things get much worse, and that is not a promising sign. I hope I'm wrong. But perhaps you should ask yourself if I am, if my disillusioned optimism (or perhaps by now, it falls more rightly into outright skepticism) really has gone too far, and if all I see now are the negatives. I think that we, as a global culture, as a society, as particularly here in the United States as a nation, have gone too far with our pride to feel we can turn back now. It will not be until the full weight of our own irresponsible lifestyles falls on us (or rather, on future generations) that we will finally recognize the error of our ways. By then, will it be too late?
That's yet another scary thought, or question. Too bad we don't have the kind of leaders with the courage to actually even attempt to answer it. Too bad that we ourselves, collectively, seem to lack the courage to even ask it, let alone the convictions to do something about it. The fault is not so much with the corrupt leaders that we unfailingly give power to, as much as it is in ourselves. We are the ones that have failed.
Until we take an honest and objective look at ourselves and recognize that fact, things will never change, and the same old same old cycle will continue like it always seems to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment